HomeMy WebLinkAboutReel 34 (1/24/1972 - 10/30/72)COI~ICIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, January 24, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Huilding, Monday, January 24, 1972, at 2 p,m.. the
regular meeting hour, uith Mayor Roy L, Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David
, Hampton W. Thomas, James O. Trout. Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L.
Webber .................................
i ABSENT: None ............... O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager; Mr. Byron £o Hamer,
~Assistant City Manager; Mr. A. H. Gibson. City Auditor; and Mr. James N. Kincanon.
City Attorney.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened mith a prayer by Mayor Roy L. Mebber.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting on Monday,'December
! 20, 1971, havin9 been furnished each member of Council. on motion of Mr. Trout,
seconded
by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof mas dispensed
ilwith and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS L~ON PUBLIC MATTERS:
PLANNING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday. Jan-
iluary 24, 1972, on the question of amendin9 and reordaining Chapter 2.1. Land
ilSubdivision Regulations, Title XVI. Plnnnin9 and Subdivisions. of The Code of the
ilCity of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, by the addition of a new sentence to subsection
!(a) of Sec. 2. of said chapter and title, providing that the agent responsible
!for the administration and enforcement of said land subdivision regulations
may waive, upon application made and for good cause shomn, not more than one
!percentum of the minimum requirements of said regulations relating to tbe area Of
!lots and street frontage, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
~report recommending that the request be granted:
~January 20. 1972
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 January 19, 1972.
Mr. Benjamin Jones. Assistant City Attorney, made a presen-
tation to the Planning Commission noting that this amendment is
a direct result of the Hodges petition and gives the Sub-division
Agent the power to waiver by not more than 1% tbe minimum re~uire-
sent relating to area and street frontages for lan~ located in the
Cit~.
The Planning Commission members generally concurred that the
amendment mould provide some needed flexibility to the Subdivision
Ordinance and to the Subdivision Agent. and would serve to alleviate
some of the hardship problems resulting in situations mhere the
petitioner does not quite meet the area and frontage requirements
as stated in the Subdivision Ordinance,
Accordingly. motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely.
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by L. M.
Creed h. Lemon, Jr**
Chairman"
t Mr, Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
!Planning Commission and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~200S2) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordainJn~ Chapter 2.1, Land Sub-
division Regulations, Title XY1 Planning and Subdivisions. of the Code of the City
of Roanoke, 195b, as amended, by the addition of a neu sentence to subsection (a)
of Sec. 2, of said chapter and title, providing that the agent responsible for the
administration and enforcement of said land subdivision regulations may waive, upon
application made and for 9god cause shown, not more than one percentum of the
,~inimom requirements of said regulations relatin9 to the area of lets and street
~frontage; and providin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, ~ee Ordinance Oook ~J. 36, page 1~3.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Nheeler and Mayor
,Webber ........................ 7.
NAYS: None ......... O.
CITY GOVERNMENT: Mr. William R. Poff, President of The International
iRunicipal Cooperation Committee of Roanoke, Virginia, Incorporated, appeared be-
i~£ore Council and presented gifts given to the City of Roanoke from the City of
!iNonju, Korea, under the Sister City Program in observance of Roanoke Day which
{was held on November 20, 1971, and requested that a committee be appointed to study
?the feasibility of establishing an appropriate location in the City of Roanoke
imhere these gifts might be displayed.
i In this connection, Dr. Young U. Klm, a former resident of Nonju, Korea,
appeared before Council and presented a Korean screen which mas purchased by his
l~tfe and is to be given to the ladies o~ the City of Roanoke.
Mayor Webber expressed appreciation to Mr. Poff and Mr. Klm for their
most generous gifts to the City of Roanoke.
Mr. Garland moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the pro-
per measure of appreciation for said gifts presented to the City of Roanoke by the
l!City of Nonju under the Sister City Program and that Mayor #ebber be requested to
appoint a committee to consider nod make recommendations regarding the establish-
ment of un appropriate location in the City of Roanoke for the permanent display
of gifts presented to the, City of Roanoke from the City of Wonju, Korea. under
the Sister City Program, The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously
ihdopted,
Mayor Webber advised that he would appoint said committee at the next
iregulaF meeting of the body on Monday. January 31. 1972.
TAXES-DOGS: Mr. Ronnie K. Williams appeared before Council and presented
ia petition ligned by ten citizens requesting that Council amend Ordinance
!19749 to provide reasonable fees for the purchase of a kennel license.
After a discussion of the request, Mr. LJsk moved that Ordinance No.
19749 be referred to the City Manager for review and report back to Council
:accordingly and that consideration also be given to the lJcensin9 of cats. The
'motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Telegrams from Mr. and Mrs. William P. milts.
Mr. and Mrs. Norman S. Strickland. Mr. and Mrs. Trace Jefferson. Mr. Charles T.
Jefferson, Dr. and Mrs. George H. Mall. Miss Faa O. Christianson, Miss Delores
iGell, Miss Nancy Coffey, ~r. and ~rs. C. M. Dickenson. Mrs. Reba T. Ihomasson,
Mr. and Mrs. Paul Y. Childress, Jr.. Mrs. J. H. Sumpter, Jr.. Mr. James E.
O'Conner and Mr and Mrs. Earl W~ Tare expressing their opposition to the hiring
~of a local man to manager the Roanci~Civic Center and expressing support of the
recommendation of the City Manager for the position of Civic Center Director. were
before Council.
In this connection, communications from Colonel D. Donald Klous, Mr. A.
,McBradley, II1, Mr. W. W. Bush, Mr. Paul N. Caldmell, Mr. and Mrs. David S. Grubbs,
Dr. Robert F. Bondurant, Mr. and Mrs. H. S. Saunders0 Miss Arnella Saunders,
?Mr. Edwin L. Sounders. Miss Mary F. Runyon, and the Southeast Civic Leaoue express-
fling the opinion that the Civic Center should be managed by qualified and experienced
personnel, not local personalities, and that the decision of a Civic Center
!Director should be left entirely up to the City Manager, were also before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that the telegrams and communications be received and
ifiled. Tho motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
With reference to the matter. Mr. Thomas presented the following
communication reviewing what he believes are pertinent facts regarding the Roanoke
Civic Center and th~ hiring of a Civic Center Manager:
"MR. MAYOR and MEMBERS OF COUNCIL January 24, 1972
Much has been said about the appointment ol a Civic Center
Manager during the past ten days. For an accurate and concise
account Of the events that have transpired to date iff this matter,
I refer all concerned to Councilman Garland*s letter of January 19th
mhich was published verbatim in the local newspaper nn~ appears
on Conncil°s agenda today. I endorse this letter and commend
Councilman Garland for the accuracy and clarity reflected in
this letter.
It is significant that this Council mill address itself today
to the sppointmeut of a Civic Center Manager st a time when public
nominations have not been made by the City Mnnsger and specific
individuals are not involved. Therefore, me should be able to
£-oceed fa open session with nuwfnatJons publicly made by tbs
City Manager nnd the viems of Council publicly made known in
response thereto insofar as Councll*s confirmation or denial of
confirmation may be concerned.
It is particularly slgnifJcatn - although it is somembat
disappointing that the necessity exists that it.be mentioned at
all - to tahe cognizance of the mate-up of this Conncil insofar
as the Civic Center way be concerned. Every nember of this
Council has publicly supported and actively morked for every pahse
of the development of the Civic Center. In many instances the
members of this Council worked for the Civic Center long before
their entrance into politics during the period spousing the past
15 years.
I submit that it is grossly unfair to infer tbat ~is Council,
as a whole or as individuals, has ever regarded the Civic Center
as a 'toy', In fact, Council*s action and demeanor over the past
years would indicate quite to the contrary,
Moreover, I submit that it is grossly unfair to infer that
all of the mounting financial and administrative ills of the Civic
Center will be cored by.filling the now vacant Civic Center
Maflager*s position. The Council keows this alone will mot solve
the problem, The City Manager knows this alone will not solve the
problem, The people of tbs City of Roanoke should be made abundant-
ly aware that this alone will not solve the problem.
Tbecitizens have expressed concern that Council and the City
Manager ~ove forward in concerted effort to correct the problems
.of the Civic Center; but it would be wrong to assume that the
people have called for the most popular solution or the solution
of least resistance, ! feel the citizens want action and results
based upon facts and not emotion or supposition,
In my opinion, tbs question before this Council today is two-
fold:
(Il Rho iS going to run the Civic Center and thereby set the
policies and procedures for its operation? and
(2) ~ho is going to be hired to manage the Civic Center
within the framework of those policies and procedures?
Mr. Mayor - I want now to review what I believe are pertinent
facts regarding the Civic Center and the hiring of a manager, I
shall try to adhere as closely as possible to the theme of my
remarks at the last Executive Committee meeting.
(1) Accounting - The accounting procedures employed for
the Civic Center leave much to be desired. They are the
sole responsibility of Council and the Auditor and need
(al Council by Resolution directed the Auditor over a
year ago - and purposely prior to the opening of the
for the Civic Center. This has not been done, To
trying to correct it; but nevertheless the fact remains it
cerpts from the General Fund for a monthly P fi L
there is m monthly Balance Sheet for the Civic Center,
(b) Revenues for the Civic Center are underestimated
request revenues mere increased approximately ~500,000.
Today we have u monthly P ~ L Statement indicating that
for the 6 months ending December 31st the Civic Center bas
operated at u loss of $622,000, I submit this Is not an
uceurnte financial picture of the Civic Center und the
Auditor should tahe immediate steps to comply with
Councll*s directive of over a year age.
(2) Persnnnel -
(a) Manager - Post Is now vacant. This Council indicated
its millingness to cooperate mlth the City Manager mhen
it hired Mr. Howard Radford - u professional manager -
18 months in advance - ut a salary of approximately
$18,000.
(b) Assistant Manager - Post is nm vacant. Council has
never been officially informed that this post has been
vacant for several months. Clearly it*s the City Manager's
responsibility to fill the post, but I submit Council and
the public are entitled to be informed as to these matters.
(3) Civic Center Advisory Commisslo~ - Approximately tmo
months ago, Mr. John Kelley came to Council - as chairman
of the CCAC - with much reluctance to request Couocll*s help
on 29 matters which were mostly administrative in nature and
needed immediate a~tention. This mas not a matter of 'Free
Tickets - or 'No Free Tickets'. I choose to think that these
matters are of the utmost importance. It was referred to the
City Manager for action and me have yet to receive a status
report on this - other then a brief communication that the
Manager met with the Committee on one occasion.
Additionally, the Council has.yet to clarify the future role
of the CCAC. Hopefully the appointment of two Councilmen to
the Commission will be of assistance in this matter.
I submit that all of these matters - and more - must be con-
sidered by Council orior to or concurrently With the decision to
fill the vacancy. These matters were unanswered when the last
Executive Session was held - they remain unanswered today - and
must be answered at once if the City Manager is to interview
effectively - if the Council is to be expected to confirm the
appointment with a sense of public security - or for that matter
if the man hired is to be expected to stay in Roanoke at all.
These were my reasons in Executive Session - these are my
reasons today - for finding merit in the appointment of a local
man until we chart a course of future direction for the Civic
Center.
Now to answer three public questions put forth by the media:
(1) Mhv did Hnm~t Thomas switch his ~osition nu the Civic
Center Rannner from that put forth in ooDosina the filling
the Auditor*s nositton recently?
Answer: Hampt Thomas has not changed his position iu the
slightest: In fact, it was because of the Civic Center - to
a large extent - that Hamp Thomas thought Council should
thoroughly review the Auditor*s office prior to the appoint-
ment of a successor. Moreover, Mr. Gibson was Assistant
Auditor and Hamp Thomas pleaded to let him stay during the
interim as Acting Auditor until Council could review the
matter and make an appointment of its own choosing.
Hamp Thomas said then - and Hampt Thomas says now - it is
inconceivable that the City of Roanoke should attempt to hire u
department head on a long-range basis unless and until it has
established firm policies and controls over the operation. This
is true whether me are talking about the Auditor*s office where
Council has the sole responsibility or the Civic Center where
the City Manager and the Council jointly share the responsibility.
(a) Why Horace Fitznatrjck?
Aoswer: Mr. Fitzpatrick sas an applicant. All of the 20
applicants mere purported by the City Manager to have been
screened by the personnel manager, Mr. Douald Graham, and
were presented to the Council as applicants worthy of con-
sideration in varying degrees.
Mr. Fltaputrich is u9 logger nn applicsnt.
Mr. Rex Mitchell, mbo is currently serving ns Acting Director
of the Civic. Center, is on applicant. Hopefully, the City
Manager mould concur in permitting Mc. Mitchell to remain us
Acting Director. ut least until such time ns Council and the
City Manager can effectively address themselves to the matters
detailed above which in my opinion take precedence over the
employment of e Manager on a long-term basis.
(3} Mhy does Couneil fight Julian HIrs~?
Answer: I submit unrestricted exchange of ~pinion was the
intent of.the concept of *nomination and confirmation* and is
the proper may the matter should be handled. It is important
to note that as Mr. Garland points out Jn his letter, it was
the City Manager tbnt asked for the Executive sessions on
January 10 and 13 and not the Council. In fact. it is the
City Manager who has asked for an Executive session on the
agenda today on what the *informed sources* of the newsmedJa
report Is to again discuss the matter of the appointment
of n Civic Center Manager. This poses the question that the
Council asked on Monday, January loth in Executive session
at the v~Tv outseT, Council requested Mr. Hirst to outline
Council's vole in the appointment of a Civic Center Manager
to which, after referring to the Code, he stated *In my
opinion, Council definitely has a voting role in this matter*.
If such is the case and the City Manager is not to influence
Council or be influenced by Council then why were Executive
sessions called for in the first place, and why do we have
one on the agenda today.
If I. as a member of this Council, am expected to vote upon
any matter then I reserve the right to vote as I see fit based
upon my reasons and my analysis of the situation. It may not be
a popular decision but it will be my decision. The statute does
not - nor should it ever - require blind acquiescence on the part
of either the City Manager or Council.
Mr. Mayor - I apologize for the length of this statement;
however, 1 purposely malted to state all of the foregoing in
the joint presence of my colleagues on Council and the City
Manager.
Sincerely,
S/ Hampton W. Thomas
Hampton M. Thomas, Member
Roanoke City Council"
Mr. Trout moved that the statement presented by Mr. T~omas be received
and filed, The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
i PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JAIL MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: A communicatim from Judge Ernest M. Ballon requesting that Council advise
the Hustings Court by not later than February lO, 1972, what provision it is makingi
lot will make. to provide adequate, secure and sufficient courthouse, court facilit-i
lies, clerk*s office and related facilities for the City of Roanoke, was before
Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
*was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: Council having requested
that the City Manager meet with the judges of the courts not of record to reyiew
architectural and engineering diagrams relating to the relocation of said courts
before said diagrams are presented to Council. a communication from Judge L. L.
Eoontz, Jr** advising that the City Manager met with him and explained in detail
the proposed plans for the relocation of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
into the former Reid and Cutshsll Building and that he approves of the plans as
presented to him by the City Manager on January 13, 1972, was before Council.
Mr, Trout moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
mas seconded by Hr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
PLANNING-HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A communication from the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Mousing Authority, transmitting a proposed Ordinance
authorizing the execution of a Cooperation Agreement between the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Dousing Authority and the City of Roanoke, advising that this
~Ordinance is necessary to carry into effect the *Redevelopment Plan, GaJnsboro
iNeighborhood Development Program, Program No. VA. A-6#, approved by Council on
i January 10, 1972, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the communication from the City
of Roanoke Redevelopment and Dousing Authority and offered the following emergency
Ordinance:
(~20053) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and directing the Mayor of the City
of Roanoke and the City Clerk, for and on behalf of the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
to enter into and executean Agreement with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment
!iand Dousing Authority carrying into effect the Redevelopment Plan for the City
!of Roanoke designated "Redevelopment Plan. Gainsboro Neighborhood Development
Progrnm, Program No. VA. A-6"; and providing for un emergency.
(For full test of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 195.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. Yhe motion mas seconded
!by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
! AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thc, mas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
!Rebber ....................... ?.
i NAYS: None ......... O.
i TAXES: Mr. A. Au Akers. Chairman, Joint Committee, AARP ~ ARRE, and
Mr. B. B, Harden appeared before Council and presented a communication referring
lite a communication written by Mr. Akers in late December. 1971, mhich suggested
ilthat Council, in effect, freeze taxes of home owners mbo qualify in certain criteria.
at what they were in 1970. and exempt certain low income home owners from paying
itaxes on their homes altogether, and transmitted copy of an opinion from the Attorue
General on the above suggestion and strongly urged that Council take action on this
:~matter as soon as possible.
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that Council should give these people
,~an answer as to whether they will get the tax relief they are seeking and that the
'matter should not. be delayed any further.
After n discussion of the request. Mr. Thomss moved that the communica-
tion be referred to the City Attorney to review the opinion of the Attorney General
and to the City Auditor to reviem the monies involved end report back to Council,
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout end unaefaoasly adopted.
MUNICIPAL HU1LOING-CAP1TAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: A communication from
the Youth Services Personnel Committee stating that they would like to go on recordi
as supporting immediate action to Improve the Juvenile Court facilities and
requesting that Council take prompt action in securing decent and adequate facili-
ties for the juvenile system, wes before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motien was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
HARSACE REMOVAL-AIRPORT: Copy of a communication from Mr. P. A. Stevens,
Jr., addressed to the Roanoke County H nard of Supervisors. in connection with the
establishment of a landfill in the north clear zone at Roanoke guuicipal (Woodrum)
Airport, mas before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to the Landfill
Committee for its information in connection with its study of the matter. The
motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from the Reverend Charles G. Fuller. Pastor,
First Baptist Church, requesting that the Zoning Ordinance be amended so as to
authorize the Board of Zonin9 Appeals to issue special permits for the operation
of day care centers and kindergartens in C-4 districts, was before Council.
Or. Taylor moved that the request he referred to the City Planning Con-
mission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The notion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-REGISTRAR: Council having concurred in a recommendation of the
Personnel Hoard that Council consider the upgrading of the General Registrar to
Range 19. Step 5. effective July 1, lgYO, and to Step H, effective July 1, 1971,
!mith appropriate remunerations Of salary and related benefits to the computed and
paid to the Registrar, the City Manager submitted the following report both for the
record and to clarify the background in connection with thin matter:
"Roanoke, Virginia
January 24, lg?2
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to the report to you from the Personnel
Hoard last week concerniug the Registrar°s salary and the res.-
lution or ordinsnce to be on your. agenda at this meeting.
This is not to prolong the matter or to seek denial of salary
benefits to uny employee of the City, in fact to the contrary,
but I would like to note one point both for the record and to
c~rl(y the backg'round. X make referenceto my letter to the
Chairman of the Electoral Hoard, which was sent Conncil,
As I read the letter recommendation of the Hoard, it mould
provide an additional step, or 5~, to the Registrar as of July 1,
1970, the 1970-71 budget year, and, ut this tine, retroactive pay
to accomplish that.
The significance of the retroactive action is that for the
1970-71 fiscal year a limit was directed of u maximum of S~ salary
increase to all employees, with certain established exceptions not
herein applicable. The limit mas included to apply to personnel
moving from Range to Range. A number of personnel situations and
issues developed in this but we did hold to the 5~. It was this
that was e~ually applied tothe Registrar and there were no.
instructions to the contrary, The proposed retroactive action
would make the Registrar ~ special exemption at 10%,
As stated I merely wish to insert this as repetitious
explanation.
Respectfully submitted,
5/ Julian Fo Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
· City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report Of the City Manager be received and
filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas then offered the folloming emergency Ordinance appropriating
$490.00 to Personal Services under Section mH50 "Electoral Hoard," of the 1971-72
budget, tO provide funds to raise the Registrar to Group 19. Step 6, effective
(~20054) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordnin Section nH5, "Electornl
Board," of. the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full te?t of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page lga.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. LJsk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
:Webber .?.
NAYS: ~one O.
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted a 17 page written report with regard to the
~iproposed plan for municipal facilities, accompanied by a report prepared by Sowers,
Rodes ~ Whitescarver, Consulting Engineers. with regard to the cost estimates for
alterations to the old Reid and Cutshall Building.
iI In this connection. Mr. John Markley, Architect. representing Sowers, :
i~Rodes ~ Mhitescarver, Consulting Engineers, appeared before Council and explained
icertain aspects of their report.
Mayor Webber pointed out that this is a very involved matter that could
l!involve u great deal of time and questions and asked if Council mould prefer to have
ia special meeting to discuss the report of the City Manager.
Mr. Thomas moved that Mayor Jabber be requested to call a special meetin0
of Council to review the proposed plan for the municipal facilities. The motion
mas seconded by Jr. Trout and unomimously adopted.
BuILDINGS-PLUMBERS-ELECTRICAL INSPECTORS: The City Manager submitted a
written report in connection with the proposed revision of the Plumbing Code and
the Electrical Code, transmitting comparative information prepared by the Commiss~
er of Buildings for the information of Council and the public as to the fee
schedule.
Mr. LJsh moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
MARKET: The City Manager submitted a written report in conoection wJtb
vacant display cases and refrigerated storage boxes located in the City Market,
recommending that Council amend the City Code to revise the rental rate
vacant display cases to $30,00 per month and that since the tenants are expending
their own fonds to operate the refrigeration, that the Code he revised to
authorize a SO-day termination notice on the part of the city ia lieu of the
8-hour termination notice presently specified by the Code.
Mr, Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n20055) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordainin9 Sec. 3.1. Renta! of
enuiDmeflt in vacant ?tall~, of Chapter 2, Market Rcqvlations* of Title IX,
Public Markets. of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1q56. as amended, providing
for an emergency~ and providing for the effective date of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 3b, page 199.)
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
~A~S: None ........ O.
SIREETS AND ALLEYS-STATE BIGa~AYS: The City Manager submitted a written
report advising that there are three parcels of land owned and needed by the
iCity of Roanoke for the construction of the Southwest Expressway, that these
iparcels are 084, 086 and 087 situated at the intersection of Maple Avenue and
i Franklin Road, S. N., recommending that Council direct the City Attorney to pre-
ipare the appropriate measure that would dedicate these three parcels of land for
public use as street right of way and that in this way they would be available to
!the Department of Highways for construction use.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
!ithat the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~20056) AN ORDINANCE dedicating for public street purposes and uses
certain property owned by the City, necessary for the construction of the Southwest
Expressway (OS Route 220).
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke is the fee simple owner of certain parcels
of land situate in the City of Roanoh~ within the proposed right-of-way of the
Southwest Expressway, said parcels being needed rot the construction or said
Expressway, the needed parcels being designated us Parcels 084, 086 and 087 on
Sheet No. 11 of the plans for State Highway Project No. 6220-128-104. PE-IOI, C-501
0599-128-101, AW-201; and in order to carry out the plans for said project the
Council now desires to dedicate and set aside the hereinafter described parcels
of land for public street purposes.
TBEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
there be and is hereby dedicated for public street purposes, as a part of the
Southwest Expressway (US Route 220}. the following described parcels of land
situate in the City of Roanoke. viz,:
(1)
Parcel OH6 as shown on Sheet No. II of the plans
for Project 6220-12fl-104, PE-IOI, C-501; 0599-
128-101, AN-201; siad parcel being the residue of
Lot 21, Block S of the Official Survey of the City
of Roanoke, Southwest 4. acquired by the City of
Roanoke from Katy R, Bowman, unmarried, by deed
dated April 11, 1936, of record in the Clerk*s
Office of the Bustings Court of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, in Deed Book 612o at page 278; said parcel
being designated as Official No, 1031224, on the Tax
Appraisal Rap of the City of Roanokel and
(2)
Parcel 084 as shown on Sheet No. 11 of the plans
for Project 6220-128-104, PE-IOI, C-501; 0599-
128-101, R#-201; said parcel bain9 the easterly
residue of Lots I and 2 of the original map of the
Maple Avenue Addition acquired by the City of
Roanoke from G. R. Hash and Lillian Hash by deed
dated April 6, 1936, of record in the Clerk's
Office of the Bustings Court of the City of Roanoke
in Deed Book 612, page 284; and
(3)
Parcel 087 as shown on Sheet No. 11 of the plans
for Project 6220-12H-104, PE-IOI, C-501; 0599-
128-101, R~-201; said parcel being a portion of
the right-of-way in Franklin Road. S. R** and the
westerly residue of Lots 1 and 2 of the original map
of the Maple Avenue Addition, the latter having been
acquired by the City of Roanoke from G. R. Hash and
Lilliam Hash, by deed dated April 6, 1936, of record
in the Clerk's Office of the Hustings Court of the
City of Roanoke in Deed Book 612. page 284.
BE .XT FURTHER ORDAINED that. the City Clerk cause an attested copy of
this ordinance to be admitted to record in the Cletk*s Office of the Bustings
Court of the City of Roanoke and, f~rther, to transmit to the Department of High-
~ways of the Commonwealth of Virginia another attested copy hereof.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Measra. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ..........................?.
NAYS: None
SALE OF PROPERTY-STATE H1GHMAYS: TheCity Manager submitted a written
report advising that the Virginia Department of Highways has offered to purchase
from the City of Roanoke a parcel of land located along Orange Avenue from the
southmest inter,action of Orange Avenue and Courtland Road. said land being needed
for the construction of U. S. Route 460. for the sum of $35.593.OO and recommending
authoriaatioa o[ this conveyance.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the follo~ing Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(a2OO57) AN ORDINANCE authorizin9 and directing the City's sale and
conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia of a parcel of land containing Ia.lin
square feet. more or less. and a temporary construction easement on land adjacent
thereto, situate at the southwest corner of Orange Avenue. N. M.. and Coastland
Avenue. N. i.. being northerly portions of Official Nos. 3020372 and 3024006.
upon certain terms and conditions.
WHEREAS. the City is the owner of the parcel of land hereinafter des-
cribed which, being held as surplus property and not needed for public purposes.
was the subject of an offer to purchase made by the State HJghNay Department; and
WHEREAS. the City Manager has reported to the Council and has recommend-
ed that said offer, being equivalent to the apprised value of said parcel of land.
should be accepted and that conveyance of the title to said property and to a
temporary construction easement on land adjacent thereto, to the offeror be
authorized and directed on the terms hereinafter set forth.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
the sale and conveyance of the followin9 described parcel of land situate in
the City of Roaeoke,~z:
BEING a parcel of land containin9 approximately
10.110 square feet. and lying adjacent to the
present south line of Orange Avenue, N. M.. at
its intersection with the present west line of
Coastland Avenue. N. ~. saidlO.110 square foot
'parcel of land being designated as Parcel
on Sheet 5 of the plans for State Highway Project
0460-128-102. RW-202. a copy of which said plans
and said sheet are of record in State Highmay Plat
Rook in the Clerk's Office of the Ilustings Court of
the City of Roanoke.
TOGETHER N1TH the right and easement to use such
additional areas as are shown on said plans for
cut and/or fill slopes required for the proper
construction and maintenance of the work. said
additional areas containing approximately 6.904
square feet; and
BEING a portion of the land acquired by the City
of Roanoke from the City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority by deed dated Oecember 29.
1967. of record in the aforesaid Clerk*s Office.
in Deed Book 1231, at page 290;
to the Commonwealth of Virginia. for and in consideration of $36o593,00, cash,
be, and 'is hereby authorized end approved, subject to the terms and conditions
herein provided, and the City Clerk shall so notify said offeror by transmittal
Of nn attested copy of this ordinance,
DE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Mayor be, and he 'Is hereby authorized
and empowered, for and on behalf of the City, to execute to the aforesaid
purchaser a deed of conveyance drawn by the City Attorney conveying to said
purchaser the fee simple title to the aforesaid parcel, ns well ns a temporary
construction easement on land adjacent thereto, such deed to' contain the City's
!General Warranty of title, and Modern English covenants on behalf of the City.
!and the City Cloth be, and Is hereby authorized and directed to affix to the
! aforesaid deed of conveyance the City*s corporate seal and to attest the same,
!both said officials to thereafter acknowledge their signatures as provided by law.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
ii AYES: Messrs. Garland, LEak, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................
NAYS: None ........ O.
COUNCIL-CITY MANAGER-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a
written report requestin9 the opportunity of informally conferring with tho
members of Council on a personnel matter.
Mr. Trout raised the question as to whether or not the personnel matter
consisted of the naming of the Civic Center Director.
The City Manager replied that the personnel matter consisted of two
different items and }hat the Civic Center Director position was one of them.
ii Mr. Trout expressed the opinion that he was not willing to attend an
Executive Session concerning the naming of a Civic Center Director but that he
would hear the other personnel matter referred to by the City Manager.
Mr. Thomas then moved that Council grant an Executive Session on the
ilpersonnel matter which does n~ involve the naming of a new Civic Center Director.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout.
Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that Council is making a grave mistake
!iby not allowing the Cit~ Manager to hn~e an Executive Session with the members
~of Council.
Mr. Garland expresed the opinion that he does not know how Council will
![get information from the City Manager if it does not allow him Executive Sessions.
Dr. Taylor expressed the opinion that he is unwilling to deny the City
~IManager the right of an Executive Session with Council and that there are some
!ithings that must be discussed in Executive Session before they are publicly dis-
13:
Mr. Lisk ~ea offered · substitute motio· that the City Man·get be allowed
the Executive Sessio· #ith ·o restrictio·s. The motion was secooded by Dr. Taylor
· nd adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor sod Mayor Mehher ..............4.
NAYS: Messrs. Thomas, Trout, and Mheeler ........................ 3.
GARBAGE REMOVAL-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Attor·ey submitted · written
report advisi·g that the Supreme Court of the U·ited States on Jo·usry 17, 1972.
de·led Floyd Brown*s petitio· for · writ of certiorari addressed to said Court
in the case of Floyd P. Brow·, Jr. v. Julia· F. Hirst, i·dividually and as City
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be recieved and filed. The motio· was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and u·a·lmously adopted.
REHIS'IRAR-ELECTIONS: The Assista·t City Attor·ey and the Chairma· of
the Electoral Hoard submitted the folio·lng iDiOt report tra·smitting an
Ordi·ance amending Title IV, Chapter 2. Secs. 40 and 49 (a). uhich will accurately
set out and describe the prese·t boa·dories of the Grandin Court a·d Ftshburn
Park Voting Preci·cts:
*January 24. 1972
The Ho·orable Mayor and Members
of Roa·oke City Co··cil
Ron·oke. Virginia
In rece·t preparation of aa ordi·a·ce by which the old voting
place in Fjshburn Park Precinct was changed to a better
tio·, it camm to o·r ·ttentio· that certain minor errors of
descriptio· are contained in the sectio·s of the City Code
which define the boundaries of the grandin Court and Fishburn
Park Precincts, the lines of which adjoi· each other.
Discussing the matter with the Chairman of the Electoral Hoard,
it Was agreed that Sec. 40 and 49 (a) of Chapter 2, Title IV,
of the City Code should be amended so as to accurately set out
and describe the present boundaries of each of said voting
precincts.
Accord~91y. there has bee· prepared and is tra·smitted here-
with for Council's recommended adoption a form of ordina·ce
which would correctly reflect the descriptio·s of the said
precincts* boundaries.
Approved: Respectfully submitted.
Si Andrew H. Thomvson S/ H. Ben Jo·es, Jr.
Chairman of the Electoral B. Hen Jo·es, Jr.,
Board of the City of Roan~e Assistant City Attorney"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council co·cur in the report of the Assistant City
Attor·ey and the Chairma· of the Electroal Board and offered the following emer-
(z2OOSB) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sec. 40. *Grandin Court
Precinct* and Sec. 49 (a) 'Fishburn Park Preci·ct* of Chapter 2. 'Precincts and
tVoting Places' of Title IV *Elections' of the Code of the City of Roanoke 1·56
(For full text of Ordina·ce, see Ordina·ce Book Ho. 36, page 200.)
Mr. Llsh moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr, Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Hessrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .........................
NAYS: None ...........O,
SALE OF PROPERTy-STREETS AND ALLEYS: The Assistant City Attorney sub-
mitted the folloming report transmitting an Ordinance by mhich the City of Roanoke
Mould acquire, for a nominal consideration of five dollars, a five foot strip
Of land on CarvJn Street, N. E.o containing approximately 1,225 square feet.
necessary to provide for future street midening:
"January 24, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On December 13, 1971. the City Planning Commission approved
the subdivision of 1.305 acres of land on the northwest corner
of Vinton Mill Road, N. E., and Carvin Street. N. E., into
two standard lots. Yhe Planning Commission suggested, as is
the customary practice in situations where land adjoins streets
of substandard width, that the owner make available to the City
such land as is necessary to partially widen the street to
staedard width. In this instance, as the approved subdivision
comprised only two lots, the requirement of recording a subdivis-
ion plat was waived by the Planning Commission.
The emmet has prepared and tendered to the City a deed by mhlch
would be conveyed to the City 5 feet of land on the northwest
side of Carvin Street. N. E.. mhich conveyance would represent
that owner*s portion of the land necessary to make Ca~vin Street
of standard width, it being intended that five feet of land on
the opposite side of said street be similarly acquired at some
later time.
I have prepared and transmit herewith for Council's adoption
an ordinance by mhich the City would acquire for a nominal
consideration of five dollars, the abovementioned strip of
land containing approximately 1,225 square feet, necessary to
provide for such future street widening.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Edward A. Natt
Edward Ao Natt.
Assistant City Attorney"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the report of the Assistant City
!!Attorney and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(~20059) A~ ORDINANCE authorizing and providing ~r the acquisition of a
ilstrip of land, five feet in width, extending approximately 225 feet in o south-
iwesterly direction along Carvin Street, N. E., from the inter'section of the west
Ilium of Vinton Mill Road and the north line of Carvin Street, N. E., upon certain
t!terms and conditions, for street purposes; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 36, page 201.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iby Mr. Lish and adopted by the follo~ng vote:
AYES: Nensrs. Cnrlamd. Lish. Taylor, Thouns.'Trout,'Nheeler'nnd Nayor
Nebbe~ -?,
NAYS: None .............O.
AUDITS; The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the City of
Roanoke for the month of Oecember.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The notion mos
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City Auditor submitted a
!~onthly statement of expenditures for public melfare for the month ended December
!~i. 19yi.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion nas
seconded by Mr. Garland and nnanimously adopted.
ZONING~ Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation a request of the Church of God, that property
located on the westerly side of Uompton Street, south of Nobele Avenue, N. E..
idescribed as Lots 15. 17 and ID, Uloch 3. Oakland Map. Official Tax Nos. 3110217,
13110210 and 3110219, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District. to RG-I,
;General Residential District, the City Planning Commission submitted a mritten
report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing be held on the request for rezoning
at 2 p.m., Tuesday, February 22, 1072. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
iLots 11. 12, 13, 14 and 15 and the rear or southerly portion of Lot 15, Block D.
iOfficial Tax Nos. 2740302, 2740303. 2740313, 2740314, 2740315 and 2740316. be
!rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District. to RG-1. General Residential District
the City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that the
Mr. Trout moved that n public hearing be held on the request for rezoning;i
at 2 p.m.. Tuesday, February 22, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Link and
unanimously adopted.
t ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
Istudy. report and recommendation a request of Mr. J. M. Inge, III, Stanford GInge,
~Incorporated. and Mr. C. F. Kefauver, that property located on the easterly side
IofNinth Street, S. E., south of Noodrom
Avenue,
described
Lots
I-S.
inclusive,
IBlock 5, Official Tax Nos. 4141BOl- 4141805, inclusive, be rezoned from RD,
IDuplex Residential District. to C-2, Ueneral Commercial District. the Ctty Planning
Hr. Trout moved that a public hearing be held on the request for rezoning~
at 2 p,m., TuesdaY, February 22, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council baying referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mrs. Grace ¥. Densmore, that
properties bounded on the north by Wyoming Avenue, on the east by Westside Boulevard,
ion the south by Kentucky Avenue and on the west by Gilbert Road. described ns Lots
t7, e, 9, 10, 17, lB. 19 and 20, Section 3, Map of Washington Club Land Company, and
iaclosed extending between Gilbert Road'and Westside
alley
Boulevard,
described
~Official Tax Nos. 2670307. 2670308, 2670309, 2670310, 267031?, 2670318. 2670319
iund 2070320, be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RG-2.
llGeneral Residential District, the City Planning Commission submitted a written
report recommending that the request be denied.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. Frank K. Saunders, Attorney,
irepresenting Mrs. Grace W. Densmore, requesting that a public hearing be held on
~the request for reaching, was before C~uncil,
Mr. Garland moved that a public hearing be held on the request for reach-
ing at 2 p,m., Tuesday, February 22, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk
land unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning Commis-
ision for study, report and recommendation the request of the East Gate Church of
!the Nazarene that a certain alley 12 feet wide running from Kessler Road to East
Gate Avenue between 20th Street to 21st Street, N. E.. between Kessler Road and
iEast Cate Avenue. being all of the alleys shown in Dlock 7 of the Map of East Gate
iAddition, be vacated, discontinued and closed, the City Planning Commission sub-
~mitted a written report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing be held on the request to vacate,
!!discontinue and close the alleys at 2:00, Tuesday, February 22. 1972. The motion
!iwas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council haydn9 referred to the City Planning Commission for
~istudy, report and recommendation the request of Mr. Joseph Grig9s, III, that 10.74
of land located on Green Road, N. E., described as Official Tax Nos. 3250801
ii325080d, be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District, to RG-I, General Resi-
dential, the City Planning Commission submitted u mritten report recommending that
tthe request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing be held on the request for rezoning
flat 2 p.m., Tuesday, February 22, 1972. 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:
B~OGET-PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES-A~OlYOR: Council having directed the
City Attoruey. to prepsre the proper messure o~eedlng Ordinsnce No. 19752, ~e~latlng
to certain unclassified officials and employees of the city. by providing for n
change in the name of the City Auditor designated therein and for the annual
compensation of that officer, and by providir~ for certain assistant auditors in
the office of the City Auditor and for their compensation, he presented same;
uhereupon. Mr. Thomas offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20060) AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 19752. heretofore adopted
June 28. lg?l. relating to certain unclassified officials ~ed ~mployees of the
City. by providing for a change in the name of the City Auditor designated ~herein
and for the annual compensation of that officer, and by preY!ding for certain
assistant auditors in the office of the City Auditor. and their compensation; and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book rio. 36, page 202.)
Rr. Thomas ~oved the adoption of t~e Ordinance. ~he motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the roller, lng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lash. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Nheeler and Mayor
Nebber ........................ 7.
NAYS: None ....... O.
~r. Garland offered the fo]lo~ing emergency Ordinnnce amending and
reordainJng Sec. 4. Assistant and clerical help, of Chapter ~, City Auditor, Title
II. of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1~5~. os amended. ~elating to the appoint-
ment of assistant auditors an:~ clerical help in t~e office cf the City Auditor:
(~20051) AN ORDI~ANCE a~ending and reordaining Sec. 4. Assistant and
clerical halo, of Chapter 6. The City Auditor,. Title II, of The Code of the City
of Roanoke, 195~, as amended, relating ~ the appointment of assistant auditors
and clerical help in the office of the City Auditor; and providing for an emer-
gency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 203.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoptim of the Ordinance. The motion ~as seconded
by Mr. Yhomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lash. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Nheeler and Mayor
i Nebber --T.
NAYS: None ........O.
Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance decreasing the
Personal Services account of the City Auditor by $1.520.00:
(~20052) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~10, 'City Auditor,"~
:of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 204.l
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ..........L- .............. 7. :
NAYS: None .............O.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having directed the City Attorney to pre-:
pare the proper measure authorizing and inviting a comprehensive study for the
purpose of determining an appropriate location for a unit of the State Science
iMuseum Systeno he presented same; mhereupon, Dr. Taylor offered the follomin9
Resolution:
(#20063) A RESOLtFflON authorizing and inviting the making of a compre-
!henslve study for the purpose of determining an appropriate location in the City
of Roanoke for a unit of the State Science Museum System.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 36, page 204.)
Dr. Taylor 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. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................ 7.
NAYS: None .............O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
BUDGET-REAL ESTATE ASSESSOR: Mr. Trout offered the following e~ergency
Ordinance appropriating $G25.00 to Personal Services under Section =7, "Assessment
of Real Estate,' of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for an increase in the
salary of the Assessor of Real Estate to $15,000.00 per year:
(320064) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~7, "Assessment
of Real Estate," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 205.)
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.
Mr. Trout then offered the following emergency Ordinance amending OrdinanCe
No. 19752 fixing the annual compensation of certain unclassified officials and
employees of the city. by changing the rate of annual compensation provided for thel
Real Estate Assessor:
(=20065) AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 19752, heretofore adopted
on June 2fl. 1971, fixing the annual compensation of certain unclassified officials
end employees of the City, by changing the rate of annual compensation provided
for the City°s real estate assessor; providing for the effective date of this
ordinance; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 20&.)
Mr. Tront moved tbs adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Lis~ and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor, Thomas, Trout,. ~Ae~ler and #ayor
· ebber .... ~ .............................
NAYS: None ..................O.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The City Clerk reported that Dr. James H. Fagan and
#r. Andrem H. Thompson hare qualified as members of the Mental Health Services
Board for terms of three years each endln~ December 31, 1974.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Nebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING.
tionday, January 31, 1972o
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, January 31, 1972, at 2 pom., the regular
meeting hour, Iwith Mayor Roy L, Nebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A, Garland, David K. Lisko Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton ti. Thomas. James O. Trout, Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L.
~ tiebber 7
~ ABSENT: ~/one ............................... O.
i OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr, Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. Byron E, Daner,
!Assistant City Manager; Mr. M. Ro Lavinder0 Assistant City Auditor; and Mr. James
N. Miecnnon, City Attorney.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened mith a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor,
Member of Roanoke City Council,
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Tuesday,
December 20, 1971, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
Trout, seconded by Mr. LJsk and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minute~ approved as recorded.
BEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
COUNCIL-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: Pursuant to notice of advertisement 'for ~
bids on providing and installing in the Council Chamber a complete microphone and
multiple distribution and recording system, said proposals to be received by the
City Clerk until 2 p.m., Monday. January 31, 1972, and to be opened at that hour
ibefore Council, Mayor tiebber asked if anyone had any questions about the advertise-
!meet and no representative present raising any question, the Mayor instructed the
ilCity Clerk to proceed with the opening of the bids; whereupon, the City Clerk
~opened and read the following bids:
Templeton-¥est. Incorporated -
Lee Hartman ~ Sons, Inc.
Jack L. Hartman G Company,
Incorporated -
Pronosa! ~1 Alternate ~l Provosal n2
$5.190.00 $5.505.00 $2.400.00
5,595.00 b.180.O0 2.9q0.00
(Ampex AHA)
1,995.00
(Tape-Athon)
6,550.00 775.00 2,750.00
Mr. Trout moved that the bids be referred to a committee to be appointed
by the Mayor for tabulation, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
!seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Rebber appointed Ressrs. Byron E. lianer, Chairman, Alfred T.
'~Beckley, ~/illiam F. Clark and Ho Do Thompson as members of the committee.
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR-PLUMBERS-BUILDINGS: Council baying set n public
besting for 2 p.m., #ondny, Jsnusr! 31, 1972, on the question of snending the
Electrical Code and the Plumbing Code of the City of Roanoke, the matter was befor.
the body.
In ~h~s connection, NF. Jack B. Coulter, Attorney. representing the
Roanoke Chapter of the National Electrical Contractors. appeared before Council
and advised, that bis clients uere not aware of any proposed changes In the Electri-
cal Code until a few days ego when they sss the notice of public hearing In the
newspaper, that the electrical contractors are not opposed to any revisions in the
code, that the Electrical Code needs updating and modernizing, however, there are
four areas that they take exception and requested that the public hearing he
continued for approximately one month in order for. his clients to have various
questions answered.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of Hr. Coulter that
ithe public hearing be continued until 2 p.m., Monday. February 26. 1972. in order
Slur the City Manager and the City Attorney to meet With Mr. Coulter and his clients~
land any other groups affected by said amendments. The motion was seconded by Mr,
Trout and unanimously adopted.
TRAFFIC-STATE HIGHMAYS: Council having concurred in a report of the Ci~
iPlanntn9 Commission in connection with the request of Mrs. L. D. Brugh for a certain!
amendment to the Arterial Highway Plan, excluding therefrom the proposed
straightening of Forest Hill Avenue, recommending that Council grant this request
to amend the 19HO ilJghuay Plan by providing that the present alignment of Forest
Hill Avenue be maintained. Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt, Attorney, representing Mrs.
Drugh, appeared before Council and requested adoption of a Resolution approving andi!
adopting a certain revision and amendment Of a portion of the Major Arterial High-
way Plan for the City of Roanoke, dated December. 1963, which would carry out the
request of Mrs. Bru§h.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of Mr. Osterhoudt
and offered the following Resolution:
(#20065) A RESOLUTION approving and adopting a certain revision and
amendment of a portion of the Major Arterial Highway Plan for the City of Roanoke,
dated December, 1963.
(For fell text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page 208.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was secondedI
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the follqwiug vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carlaud, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Webber .... 7.
NAYS: None. O.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requentin9 that $4,000.00 be appropriated to 'Schools ~ Instructional Supplies,'
of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds to buy supplies for the individual schools
to purchase from the School Board at a saving of approximately twenty per cen~ of
the cost if these supplies mere purchased by the individual.schools and that the
)ortion of the funds spent will be matched by revenue from supply sales to the
schools, was before Council.
There appearing to be some questions with regard to the appropriation, Rr~
ILisk moved that action on the request be deferred until the next regular meeting
Council on MondaY, February 7, 1972, in order for representatives of the Roanoke
ICity School Board to appear before Coancilto ansmer certain questions pertaining
to said appropriation. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously
i~adopted.
BUDUET-SCHOOLS: A communucation from the Roanoke City Schgol Board,
frequenting that $4,982.62 be appropriated to Section al2000. *Schools - Cafeteria
;Zquipment,' of the 1971-72 budget, advising that this amount bas been received
ifrom the United States Department of Agriculture and deposited mith the City
tYreasurer and an appropriation for this amount is necessary in order for the School
;Hoard to use these funds to replace cafeteria equipment, was before Council.
~ ·
i Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
iSchool Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20067) AN. ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~12000/64, "Schools-
lilnstructtonal Equipment," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 209.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
ilby Mr. Nheeler and adopted by the follc~ lng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Webbex
NAYS: None '-0.
BUDGET-CLER~ OF THE COURTS: A communication from Mr. Malker R. Carter,
Jr., Clerk of the Courts, requestin9 that $1,870.60 be appropriated to ~Clerk of
Courts,' of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for payment of the Dictaphone
Corporation for recording equipment used by the Hustings Court. advising that at
such time as sufficient funds are available in their recordin9 account, a special
fund provided by statute, the above amount mill be reimbursed to the City of
Roanoke, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of Mr. Carter and
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(a20068) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordnin Section n25, "Clerk of
Courts." of the 1971-72_Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for'an ~mergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Nook No* 3~ page 209.)
Mr. Tho~es ~oved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion uss seconded
by Nr, LIs~ and ideated ~ tke fallomfng Vote:
A¥£S: Hesse's, ~:a~lsnd. Llsk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Nheeler and Mayor
Yebbor ............. ~ ............?.
NAYS: N~e ............... -0.
IIOUSING-$LU~ CLE&EANCE: A communication from Mr. Russell R. Henley,
iExec.stire Director, City of aoanoke Redevel~pgent an~ Housing Authority, uith
reRard to moving costs for nny business ~r non-profl~ organization in the Domntoun
East Re~gerelopment Preject, Pro~c~ ~-42, was before Council.
Mr. l.isg ~oved that thc ~atter be referred to a coma;tree to be appointed
by the RaTor for study, report and ~ecomm~ndution to Council. The motion was
Iseconded by Mr. Thomas and un~ni~ously ndopte~.
Mayor Webber appointed gess~s. Julian F. l~!~st. James N, Kinca~o~ and
!A. N. Gibson ~s members of the ¢o~mittee.
ZONING: A communication from ~r. R. L. Ooode. req~esti~g that property
~located ic the vicinity of Panorama Avenue, N. ~.. *~scribed as Lots l-O,
i2-H. ~-E, I-F and 6, O~icia! T~x Nos. 2740305, 2740311, ~740312, ~740305, 2740304
and 27403~1, Pamorsms Heights, he roached fFo~ ~. Duplex Residen~Jal District,
itc £G-i. ~euera! Residential District, ~as he~sre G~uncil.
mas sccondcd by Dr. Taylor an~ ~nanimously adopted.
ZONING: A commun!c~ti~*u from Mr. J. Gl~nwood StrickIeF. Attorney, repre-
iseating ~. Meldon Hale, tra~iu~ as Hale Real Estate Agency, and Rebecca Y. Hale,
requesting that 1~ acres of land,more or les~, near the lntersectio~ of Cove Road
and Hershberger Ro*~, N. ~.. described as Official Tax Nos. 2460117, 2460141,
24SO14~ and the southerly portion of 24~0111, be rezoued from RS-3, Single-Family
IResidential District. to RG-I, General Residential District. ~as before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request for rezonJng he referred to the City
iPiauuing C~mmission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
~as seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
~TREETS AND ALLEYS: A petition from Mr. David C. Iljortzberg, Attorney,
representing th~ James E, Long Construction Company, Incorporated, requesting that
ithatportion of ~a~ton Street, N. E** lying betmeen the
northerIy
line
Eastern
iArenue, N.E., and the southerly line of n ten foot alley lyinR betMeen Eastern
lhefore Council.
Mr, Mheeler offered the following Resolution appointing viewers in
connection mlth vacating, discontinuing end closing the street:
(u20069) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointment of five viewers
in connection with the spplication of Jsmes B. Long Construction Company, Inc., to
permanently vacate, discontinue and close that certain portion of [alton Street.
N. E.. lying between the northerly line of Eastern Avenue. N. E** amd the southerly!
line of a 10 foot alley lying between Eastern Avenue, N, E., and Nallace Avenue,
N. E., in the City of Roanoke, Viroinia.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, page 21o.)
Er. ~heeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas second-
!ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
~' AYES: Messrs. Uarland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
i Mebber ..........................
NAYS: None ............ O.
Mr. Garland then moved that the request for vacating, discontinuing
iand closing the street 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:
BUD6ET-AIRPOBT: The City Munager submitted a written report recommend-
!ing that $50.00 be transferred from Operuting Supplies ~ Materials to Operation
!and Construction Equipment - New and that $50.00 be transferred from Operating
i! upplies and Materials to Other Equipment - Replacement under Section g65,
"Airport," of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds to cover the cost for change
of model and price on electrical instruments that have increased in cost since
!:the budget preparation one year ago and to replace a dumaged domestic type vacuum
cleaner.
Dr. Taylor moved thut Council concur in the recommendation of the City
liManager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20070) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #65, "Airport,"
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 212.)
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
Mebbez ~-7.
NAYS: None ....... O.
BUDGET-SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written
report recommending that $52.000.00 be transferred from Operating Supplies and
Materials under Section ugO. "Sewage Treatment Fund," to Extra Help and Utilities
under Section ago, "Sewage Treatment Fund** of the 1971-72 Somoge Treatment Fund
Appropriation Ordinance, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the follnming emergency Ordinance:
(n2OOTl) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #gO,"Seuage
Treatment Fund,' of the 1971-72 Sema9e Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance,
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 218.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ....................
NAYS: None .......O.
BUDGET-PLANNING: The City Manager submitted a written report recommend-
~ Jug that $1.000.00 be transferred from Extra Help to Printing and Office Supplies
under Section #63, 'Planning Commission," of the 1971-72 budget.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20072) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #83, "Planning
Commission." of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providin9 for au
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book Nm. 36, page 212.)
Mr. Trout moved the~option 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 ...........O.
BUDGET-PURCHASING AGENT: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $924.00 be appropriated to Extra Help under Section =11, "Purchas
lng Agent," of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds to continue the employment of
iextra clerical help until the return of a regular employee.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
[Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
[!of . (#20073) AN.ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =lin 'Purchasing,'
the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for au emergency;
(For full text off Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook No. 36. page 213.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Nr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Yhomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .... 7.
NAYS: None~----O.
BUDGET-SEMERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: Tl~City Mansger submitted the folloming
report recommending that the City of Roanoke purchase a unit of equipment knomn
as a Line Energizer, at a total cost of $720.00. to be used in sewer line and
manhole locations.
"Roanoke. Virginia
January 31, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Public Works Department advises as follows:
For many years oar Street and Sewer Division has been locating
sewer lines and manholes for new bnildings, proposed right-of-way.
repair work. etc. The method has been to take our existing City
maps and attempt to survey and stake the area that is the proposed
location of the line. Me then dig and in many instances we do not
find the line. Me attempt to visually site manhole to manhole and
diR accordingly. This method in many instances does not accomplish
anything either. Our methods are antiquated.
Me will during a year's period of time locate approximately
twenty or more of these locations that are not readily available.
The expense of looking for these locations will average from $40
to $100 per time.
Recently we have been out on Ivy and Arbutus Street looking
for a main line manhole which is virtually impossible to find.
This liee is needed as it will allow a bnildiag to be built and a
sewer connection. Me have been on Wayne Street off Mllliamson
Road and have dug up most of the street. Me have spent many days
in the southwestern part of the City as did a private contractor
on the same street trying to locate the end of a main line. We
dug up a whole lot on Roanoke Avenue looking for n sewer line that
was 20 feet deep. The most recent incident mas November 10, 1971.
according to our sewer map on Highland Avenue a manhole existed
in a backyard. However. the resident said no when approached about
looking for the line in their backyard where no easement exist.
By using dye and lifting manhole covers, our crew found a manhole
where the dye appeared. End result was that the map was wrong.
We need to find lines and manholes in order to approve questionable
plot plans or make corrections in our own system.
At the present time we have spent approximately $500 looking
for these sewer lines and manholes this year. The attached
brochure is on the pieces of equipment that if used properly can
save us untold amount of time and money. This piece of equipment
is a system similar to that used by the Roanoke Cas Company.
Me would have a traosmitter nod receiver, the transmitter
being inserted into the sewer line and the receiver is on top. Ry
using different transmitters we can find a line from O to SO feet
deep with an accuracy of ~ one inch.
It is recommended that the City purchase a unit of equipment
known as a Line Energizer at a total cost of $?20. Proper budget
forms will be prepared for this equipment item and furnished to the
City Auditor. Funds are available in Account 88 - 365, purchase of
backhoe for sewer and drain construction, and would be available
~or and are recommended to be applied to transfer to cover this unit
of equipment.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendatfm of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n20074) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section aB6. "Sewer and
Brain Construction.o* of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. end providing for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 213.)
Or. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Mbeeler and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .................. 7.
NAYS: None .... O.
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following report
advising that the city has received a request from the staff of the State Mater
Control Board regarding a new test on plant influent and effluent which they
desire that the city perform at tbs Sewage Treatment Plant. that the proposed plantl
expansion will include the process of nitrification and mill require a test for
total kjeldahl nitrogen and recommending that $2.700.00 be appropriated for the
digesting and distilling apparatus necessary to the testing:
*Roanoke. Virginia
January 31. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Oentlemen:
The City has received a request from the staff of the State
Mater Control Board regarding anem test on plant influent and
effluent which they desire that we perform. Proposed plant expan-
sion will include the process of nitrification and will require a
test for total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN). Testing at this time
will provide appropriate corrolation of the influent and effluent
TEN follomiug expansion.
Such a test is not now performed at tbs Roar, s Plant. As a
matter of fact to our knowledge it is not performed in Virginia.
I mould regard it as an unasual testing reqoirment of a plant
of this size; however, the Bo~ d has indicated its mish that it
be installed.
Ne do not possess the instrumentation necessary and investi-
gation indicates that expenditure of approximately $2.700 will be
required for the digesting and distillin9 apparatus necessary to
the testing.
'It is recommended that the above cmount be appropriated to
Account 99 - 395 for the purchase of plant laboratory equipment.
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 offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n20075) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ngO, ~Sewage Treat-
ment Fund." of the 1971-72 Semage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance. and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text.of Ordinance. see Ordinance Hook No. 36. page 214.)
Mr, Thomas 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 Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None ............. O.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted the following report
advising of his appointment of Hr. James K. Campbell as Director of the Roanoke
Civic Center:
"Roanoke. Virginia
January 31, 1972
Ilonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Dy this letter, I advise the City Council of the appointment
of Mr. James K. Campbell as Director of the Roanoke Civic Center.
This appointment, made in accordance with the procedures prescribed
by Sections ? and 21 of the City Charter and Title 8, Chapter 9
of the City Code. is subject to confirmation by the City Council,
The effective date of the assumption of duties would be later
advised to City Council but mill be approximately thirty days follow-
in9 the confirmation. The recommended salary is $1fl.O00 per annum.
Some recitation of the process leading to this appointment is
appropriate. Following announcement of the resignation of the
previous director, from word-of-mouth spread of information, appli-
cations or expressions of interest in the position commenced to be
received. In addition advertisement was made in the recognized
national publication of this profession.
Altogether thirty-eight applications have been received for
the position. In addition, contacts on our own initiative were made
to several perso~ . Geographically. these thirty-eight plus per-
sons were from the City and the immediate area and nationally
extended to the states of Washington. Oregon. Florida, Michigan,
New York and New Jersey. The more concentrated area comprised
Virginia, the Carolinas, Kentucky, West Virginia and Ohio. Further,
.these perso~ included managers of civic centers, auditoriums,
coliseums, exhibition centers; assistant managers of such facilities;
managers or assistant managers of certain related type public or
private facilities; persons in various aspects of the entertainment,
promotion or finance fields and others. Of these numbers a 9romp
was selected, based on available information, as initially
meriting further consideration.
Ten interview procedures were conducted. Those from out of
the City of these ten came to Roanoke and spent at least a day each.
Each was given the opportunity to tour the facility and to inquire.
on the site, into the Center's operation and procedure.
In the review of most of the applications and in the majority
of the interviews, I was pleased to have joining ~e Mr. John
Kelley, Chairman of the Civic Center Advisory Commission as appoint-
ed by the City Council. Mr. Kelley was of considerable assistance
in representing the Commission in evaluatin9 the leadership
qualifications sought in the position.
' It became clear from his credentials and our interview associa-
tion that Wt. Campbell deserved first consideration. Mr. Kelley and
I then visited, over a weekend, New Orleans, where he is situated.
There we met further with him. toured his facility, biked with
his-superior, Rr. Penn, Ranager of the facility, taled with employees
and met and talked with Mrs. Campbell. In addition other contacts
have been mede. The conclusion was that Mr. Campbell well fitted
what are regarded to be the needs and objectives of a Director of
our Center.
One characteristic, out of many, has become apparent in the
course of this search. It was apparent and learned four years ago
when u similar search uss made. It is that this Is a young and
growing field, Most people who are In the business have been In it
a relatively short time, The birth of such facilities on the.
extensive basis now prevalent is of recent emergence. It mill tuke
time for communities to develope within themselves the full scope
of talent considered desirable to the administration of such
facilities. This can und should be. done but time will be necessary
us a part of the process of acquiring a full awareness of the poten-
tial and usefulness of a center facility. No one person, and I repeat
no one, who directs a Center, such as we have here, is going to be
a miracle worker to the extent of acbievJng absolute perfection by
every Center visitor in each and every instance. This slmploy lsn*t
possible, if only from the aspects of public ownership and that there
are too many variables in performance of the purposes and use of
such as the Center. All of this is a part of the process of a
community learning to live with a Civic Center.
In the final analysis, it has been felt that the margin of
decision, in meighing factors of candidates, and possible candidates.
must be given to that person who con provide the fullest background
experience and strongest talents of knomled§e amd familiarity with
operations of a facility as this Civic Center and who can potentially
offer the desired ability to best adapt a Center to the fullest
possible community use, benefit and service.
I submit an attachement which is a resume of Mr. Campbell*s
biography and particular background in this field. Also attached
is some information regarding the Rivergate in New Orleans.
Louisiana, where he has served as Assistant Manager for ~ree years.
I mill not here recount all of this material but just note a
few summary items. He has been associated in the filed of enter-
tainment for approximately 23 years. He has been in the actual
supervision of facilities and their operations lb years. These
periods have included academic and collegiate background which is
considered an asset.
At Ribergate he has been associated mith one of the larger
and finer facilities of its type in the country. He brings also
a convention and trade sham background which is an element sought
here. His local recommendations there are high. Additionally,
at Rivergate, he has served under Mr. Herman Penn who is recognized
as one of the deans in the profession and who authored the book
that is regarded as the authority on the construction and operation
of centers/auditoriums/coliseums.
It is felt that Mr. Campbell will be an asset to Roanoke and
our Civic Center and I recommend confirmation by the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Garland moved that the matter be taken under advisement until Council
has had an opportunity to talk with Mr. Campbell in Executive Session. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Wheeler.,
Mr. Lish offered a substitute motion that Council concur in the appoint-
ment made by the City Manager. The motion was secooded by Dr. Taylor and lost
by the following 'vote:
AYES: Messrs. Lisk and Taylor 2.
NAYS: Messrs. Garland, Thomas, Tro~t, Mheeler and Mayor Webber----5.
The original motion was then adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheelerand Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: Mr. Lisk ~1.
Later during the meeting and after an Executive Session mith the City
Manager and Mr. James K. Campbell. Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the
appointment made by the City Manager of Mr. James K. Campbell as Director of the
Roanoke Civic Center. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the
follomlng vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
~Mebber ............................. ?.
MAYS: Mona ................. O,
I AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a written report
itaking particular recognition of the services of Mr. Rex T. Mitchell, Jr.. who is
~and has been tb~ Acting Director of the Roanoke Civic Center, advising that Mr.
ilMitchell*s supervision and operation of the Civic Center, its activities and its
!personnel has meant much to the facility and ~o the city and has added to his
ipersonal and public stature.
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 of appreciation to Mr. Mitchell. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor
!and unanimously adopted.
ACDITORIUM-COLISEL~I: The City Manager submitted the followinj report
~advising that he met with the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission on December
9, 1971, in response to the various matters brought before Council by the Commission
~on November 22, 1971, transmitting a brief report on the items as they mere con-
ilsidered with the Commission and as they stand at this time and also transmitting
icopy of the original listing of the 27 recommendations made by the Roanoke Civic
Center Advisory Commission to Council in connection with improvements to the
Roanoke Civic Center:
*Roanoke, Virginia
January 31. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
As I have previously reported to the City Council, I met
with the Civic Center Advisory Commission on December g, 1971,
in response to the va ions matters brought before the City
Council by the Commission on November 22, 1971.
Since my report the City Council has twice asked for a
more detailed report back on the subjects involved, including
a request presented at your meeting on January 24. I submit as
f~llows a brief report on the items as they were considered
with the Commission and as they stand at this particular time.
Attached is a copy of the original listing of 27 recommenda-
tions made by the Civic Center Advisory Commission to the Council
This reply, resulting from my meeting with the Commission, refers
to these specific items by numbers.
This would be worked out as to format and contents
between the Commission and the Director of the Center
anticipating that it would be prepared on such regular
basis, as determined, by the staff of the Civic Center.
2. Tho format and contents of t&ln book/et would be
developed by the Connisslon nod the Director.
This'hooklet~ mithln the limits of available funds.
would be developed In fnrmnt and content by. the
Commission and the Director.
4. The ndvantnge of this was ngveed to nnd It mas decided
that this could be in the form of a siqpllfled City
street or highmay map which would be sent with out~
of-town tickets and other promotJonnl material and
mould Include major access routes to the Center and
approaches to the parking lot.
5. The Commission would talk with the Acting Director of
the Center regarding the operation of the box office.
It was noted that revisions in procedure and security
have been made within the past two months in the box
office operation and that this center of activities is
a matter of continuous attention to obtain the most
effective arrangements. It was further anticipated
that this mould be reviewed and observed by the new
director when this individual would come on the
position.
6. The reply is the same as with number 5.
?. The Commission indicated they mould discuss this with
the architects as to need, practicalities of changes
and costs.
8. It was suggested that th~ Commissi6n discuss complaints
that came to its membership or to the attention of its
members at monthly meetings of the Commission. A form
letter would be prepared and sent to complainers
stating that the Commission mould take up their com-
plaint at the next monthlymeettn9 and then a follow-
up letter would be sent stating action taken.
It was agreed that passes would be issued to thefacili-
ties on a yearly basis and the Commission would proceed
to prepare a draft sample for printin9 of pass cards
for 1972. These passes would not provide a designated
seat for activities, would as stated, specify a time
period, would bear a date and number and would be
countersigned by the Director of the Center and the
City Manager. The Commission expressed that these
passes should be available to members of City Council,
the members of the Advisory Commission, the Assistant
City Manager and the City Auditor.
10. The City Manager stated that he was not in a position
to 9ire a yes or no to this proposal as it had been
previously turned down by the City Council. The Commis-
sion proposes to forward a letter to the City Council
recommending house tickets. It was felt that this
matter should be cleared up before a nam director is
assigned to the facility.
11. This was felt tn be up to a new director and was felt · to be highly desirable.
12. It was felt that a conference should be held with the
heads of the news media to determine the procedure
that they might wish to follow in the handling of any
press credentials or pass tickets. The Commission felt
thatit would be desirable to have special parking spaces
for news media representatives who would be of the
mocking press and for authorized vehicles of TV camera
crams. Any arrangement as to the issuance Of press
passes would be the responsibility for dist~ihotion
within the individual units of the media to the heads
of these activities. The Cnmmission expressed a wish
to have additional provisions worked out for the
assistance for out-of-town reporters for particularly
athletic events,
'13. It mas decided to hold this in abeyance to review the
next montbly financial report that mould be prepared
on the Civl~ Center operation. There mas felt to be a
need for a better system of financial reporting mhicb
would reflect in laymans terms the summary expenses and
thc,me of the Center*s operation.
'14. This can be done by signs and the Commission mould
intend to confer mith thenew Director on these arrange-
meats.
15. TMs has been handled.
16. This mould be a matter of a purchase request from the
Center and it is noted that additional containers hare
been pr,tided from time to time since the opening of
the auditorium facility.
17. It was felt that uniforms should be required and inspected
and that this mould be marked out by the nem Director.
1§. The City Ranager advised that this would require an appro-
priation of additional funds by City Council and that
the matter would be reviemed with the architiects who
have done some preliminary work on a plaque in order to
obtain firm prices. A list will also be prepared of
names to 9o on the plaque as suggested by the CommJssio~
19. It is noted that there is a Virginia fin9 thatcon be
flown but apparently there is not a Roanoke flag suitable
for these poles. The Commission will contact a local
flag manufacture to determine mhat the cost would be
to manufacture n flag with the Civic Center emblem on it.
20. A booster or sports club mas considered needed with five
or six people to form a basis of organization. The
Commission will review this with the Director.
21. It was suggested that pr,maters be invited to use the
Civic Center emblem in their advertisin9. The Commis-
sion will ask the advertising clubs in the City for
their evaluations on advertising by the Center.
22. This response and consideration is the sameas Item 20
above.
23. This should be reviewed with ~he Acting Director and
then the Director inasmuch as there are not specified
rates to cover each of the additional charge items
applicable to activities. There are rates but they are
not provided in ordinances officially.
24. Taken under continuing consideration.
25. The recommendation mas that a study be made of the steps
in the auditorium with the possibility of painting their
edges with reflectorized paint. A check also should be
made with the architects as to the lighting on the steps
to see if additional lighting could be provided. The
Commission also suggested a check on sereral seats in
the auditorium mhich were not in satisfactory working
condition.
· 26. An inspection or study would be made of flom of traffic
at the next near full capacity event at the Center along
with the police and other persons mbo would be concerned
with any morhing out of traffic arrangements.
27. To be reviewed with the Acting Director and Center staff.
Tmo other matters were discussed in the meeting. One was
the suggestion by the Commission that a statement of welcome be
made to the audience before the opening of any event to welcome
them to the Center and to the City. This idea mould be a matter of
further study.
The second item dealt with an events sign and this will be a
matter of a separate report to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be taken under advisement. The motion
Was secnnded by Mr, Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM-CITY ERPLOYEES-PAY PLAN: The City Manager
submitted the following report recommending the establishment of the position of
Operations and Raintenance Superintendent. Ranoe 26, Step 6. $1.098.00 per month,
at the Roanoke Civic Center. advising that Jt would be intended tn leave the
iposition of Maintenance Superintendent mithin the budget for the balance of the
!fiscal year although no appointment would be made to It and no funds mould be
:expended from it:
"Roanoke. Virginia
Jnnuary 31, 1972
Honorable Rayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
amendment nhicb would establish in Department Code ??, Civic
Center. ObJect Code lOl, Personnel Services, the position of
Operations nad Raintenance Superintendent in Range 26, Step b,
at $1,098 per month.
There is presently the title position of Maintenance Super-
intendent within this budget at Range 24 mlth the incumbent in
Step 6. It mould be intended to transfer this individual into
the newly designated position effective February 1, 1072. This
would reqaire an additional appropriation of $510 for the balance
of the current fiscal year.
It would be further intended to leave the position of Main-
tenance Superintendent within the budget for the balance of the
would be expended from it.
present time indicate the desirability of making this revision
and it is so recommended. A job classification description is
being prepared and will be submitted to the Personnel Board and
reported to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F, Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=20076) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~77, ~Civic Center,"~
Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
1971-72
Appropriation
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 214.)
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
Webber .-7.
*i NAYS: None -0.
PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES: CounCil, at its meeting on Monday, January 17,
1972, having deferred action on · report of the City Munug~r pertaining to a
· Memorandum of Understanding** in connection with Local Union No. 1261, the City
Manager submitted the following report transmitting another *Memorandum of Under-
standing** lith minor modifications, advising'that he does not feel as ~ matter
of principle that labor union affiliation or participation directly into the pro-
cedures of the government of the City of Roanohe is advantageous and it would be
the overall preference to avoid any such arrangements including this as is sub-
mitted:
"Roanoke, Virginia
January 31, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia-
Gentlemen:
There is rescheduled for your City Council meeting this
date the Memorandum of Understandin9 mhich I had reported back to
Council at your meeting on January 10, 1972. This Memorandum
had been the result, as stated, of a number of conferences with
Mr. R. E. Myers of the Laborers International Union of North
America over a considerable period of time. Since the submitting
of the material to Council me have administratively been consider-
ing the format of how best legally and administratively this type
The result has been a modification of the first paragraph
of the Memorandum of Understanding. I do not believe this modifi-
cation is major but is believed to better organize the handling
in the wording of paragraph ? but which does not change the ~tent
as originally prescribed in the former Memorandum placed before
the City Council. To be in accord with the change in th~ first
paragraph, we have reviesed slightly the ending of the document.
with the thought that perhaps this matter could be held a seek
before City Council to afford us the opportunity to discuss this
with him but was unable to reach him and in viem of the expectation
that be will be anticipating the matter on the Agenda on January
31, I am going ahead and forwarding this report in with the
Mhen I submitted the matter back to Council, as had been re-
my report which unintentionally was omitted perhaps in the feeling
that my position on this matter was generally understood. But by
of principle that labor union affiliation or participation directly
into the procedures of the government of the City of Roanoke is
this can be detailed but such recitation would be restatements of
that already expressed before you gentlemen of the City Council.
The attached Memorandum of Understanding can be handled adminis-
tratively by the City Manager unless the City Council would have
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F.' Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
In this connection, Mr. Robert E. #Term, Consultant, Public Service
Employees Local Union No; 1261, appeared before Council and advised that he Is not
in accord with the revised 'Remorandon of Understanding' and requested that the
'Memorandum of Understanding' which was on the agenda or Council on Monday, Jan-
uary IT, 1972, be approved by Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be referred back to the City Ranager
to confer with Mr. Myers and report to Council at a later date with his
conclusions. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously~adop~ed.
CITY ENGINEER-FUEL: The City Manager submitted the following report
tranfmitting copy of the follomin9 memorandum from Mr. Million F. Clark, Director
iai Public Marks, on the matter of consideration that has been given to experimen-
tation with the passible use of LP gas as a motor fuel and advising that if
Council has no objections to this experimentation he would like to proceed:
~Roanoke, Virginia
January 31, 1972
Honorable Mayor and'City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Ceetlemen:
I attach a copy of a memorandum of December l, 19TI, to me from
Mr. Clark. Director of Public gorks, on 'the matter of consideration
that bas been given over some period of time to the experimentation
with the possible use of LP gas as a motor fuel. It is believed that
Mr. Clark*s memorandum is self explanatory and he can, of course.
elaborate verbally before Council upon this presentation.
'Me have been considering a proposal to experiment with
the use of LP Gas on several vehicles in the City*s fleet.
gore and more communities and other fleet operators
appear to be concluding that this fuel is more economical
and provides for more efficient operation of their equip-
ment.
The benefit of LP Gas as a motor fuel appears to be in its
overall operating cost rather than just the expense of the
fuel itself. While there might be some advantage in bulk
purchase of LP Gas versus normal gasoline, this is not our
principal interest in trying this fu~l. LP Cas is a nearly
total-burning fuel which results in practically no exhaust
emission. In addition to contributing to reduced
pollution, this results in extending life of spark plugs,
fewer oil changes, fewer engine tune ups and overhauls.
Thus the down time on our vehicles should be markedly reduced
and the service life extended.
Mc have received a proposal from the Mu-Air Equipment Cor-
poration, with offices in Roanoke, to convert three vehicles
in the City*s fleet for an experimental period. The con-
version would include the changing of the carburetor and
-installation of a pressurized tank to store the LP Gas on
each vehicle. Three vehicles which me feel mould present
a variety of conditions and thus give fair test would
include a Sanitation Division refuse collection truck,
Street Division 'supervisors pickup truck, and police
cruiser. Chief Hmoper ig in support of this proposed
experiment. The cost to convert these three vehicles is
quoted at $1539.14. At the end of the experiment, or
at any time the 'City wishes to discontinue use of LP Cas,
these vehicles could be reconverted to normal gasoline
operations.
Me believe this experiment warrants consideration and would
like to request approval and appropriation oft he above
mentioned funds for this proposal. The fuel mould be
purchased Out of normal operating accounts and would not
require additional funds. Present arrangements are for
these three vehicles to be fueled at the service facilities
of the local LP Gas distributor, however, if the City deems
desirable, a storage tank and pumping equipment can be
erected at our own garage. Your favorable consideration
and recommendation to City Council mill be appreciated,'
Me would like to proceed mith this testing and are in a~ch a
position as to equipment to be in a position to do so. It would
be proposed to dram funds for the conversion cost, which Mr. Clark
indicates at $1,539.14, from the City Garage Maintenance Account.
This mill deplete our funds in that account by the indicated amount
but it Is anticipated that it will he necessary to return to the
City Council before the end of the year for supplemental funds to
this account irrespective of this particular item.
If the City Council has no objections to this experimentation.
we mould like to proceed.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager.
motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC TELEPIIONE COMPANY: The.City Manager submitted
the following report recommending that Ordinance No. 19946, be revised to permit
the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company to erect a new facing on their build-
ing extending upon but not more than eight inches for the first pin? feet and
tmenty inches above the nine-foot level into the building setback line.on Third
Street, 5.
"Roanoke, Virginia
January 31. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
On Monday, November 22, 1971. representatives of Chesapeake
and Potomac Telephone Company of Virginia appeared before City
Council mith the request that the City permit an encroachment of
not more than eight inches for the first twelve feet in height
and twenty inches over the tm*lye-foot high level of the new
facing on their building located on Third Street, S. M. This
encroachment of the building setback llne is to permit a new fac-
ing material to be installed on the west side of the building.
Further development of the architect*s plans reveals that
Third Street rises from the intersection of Third Street and.
Luck Avenue, S. M., toward the south and it now appears that tb~
term first twelve feet as used in Ordinance No. 19946 would need
to be revised to read the first nine feet. Thus the ordinance
would read as to permit the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Com-
pany to erect a new facing extending upon but not more than eight
inches for the first nine feet and twenty inches above the nine-
foot level into the building setback line on Third Street, S. M.
This nine-foot level would occur approximately 75 feet to the south
of the northern face of the building and would only exist for a
matter of apprqxi~ately 15 feet as the ground would slope towards
each end of the building from this point.
This matter has been checked by the Duilding Commissioner*s
office and as this encroachment is into the setback area which
might someday be a sidewalk area and would not overhang the street
at any point, we would recommend that City Council authorize the
amendment of Ordinance No. 19946 to permit this encroachment.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Nits.
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
The
Hr. Wheele~ moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Cit!
Manager and that the follomlng Ordinance be placed upon its first readino~
(a20077) AN ORDINANCE permitting nn encroachment of not aura than eight
inches for lhe first nine feet and lmenty inches over the nine foot level of a nam
facing on a building over the building setbnch line on Third Street. S. W,o for a
distance of approximately one hundred thirty-five feet, said facing to be erected
Ion the west side of a building located on Official No, 1012501, upon certain terms
iand conditions; and repealing Ordinance No. 19q46, heretofore adopted by the Council
~on November 22. 1971.
WHEREAS, the Council, by Ordinance No. 19946, adopted November 22, 1971,
pursuant to plans presented by the Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company of
IVirgJnia, granted to said company a certain encroachment over the building setback
line on Third Street. S. W.; which said plans have been revised by said company so
~feet and twenty inches over the nine foot level Jato the building Setback line on
Third Street. S, W., Bhich said revisions have made insufficient the provisions of
~OrdJnance No. 19946. heretofore adopted by the Council orantJng an encroachment to
said company; and
applicant as provided herein Bill 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
hHEREAS, pursuant to the authority vested Jn local governing bodies by
SS 15.1-376 of the 1950 Code of Virginia. as amended, this Council is agreeable to
said applicant*s proposal and iS willing to permit the encroachment hereinafter
twenty inches over the nine font level into the building setback line on Third
IStreet, $, N., abutting said applicantts property, upon the terms and conditions
Ihereinafter contajnedo
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke. that
lpermission be. and is hereby granted The Chesapeake and Potomac Telephone Company
Iof Virginia. oBner of the lot described as Official No. IO12501. on ~hich 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 building,
approximately one hundred thirty-five feet in length along Third Street, S.
mhlch said.sen facing ma~ encroach mesterly for a deplh of not more than eight
Inches for 1he first nine feet smd tuna1! inches over thealee foot level of said
cam facing over the building setback line on.the east line of Third Street, S,
abutliug the aforesaid lot, ss the said facing is lndlcaled on a certain shelch
showing the location and height of 1he same, a cop~ of which shetch is on file in
the office of the City Clerk, said new faclno to be properly and safely con-
strncted and maintained at the expense of the aforesaid applicant, or its assigns,
or successors in interest, on permit issued therefor b~ the Building Commissioner
and in accordance with such of the City's building regulations and requirements as
sre applicable thereto and subject, also, to all of the limitations contained in
SS 15.1-376 of the 1950 Code of ¥iroinia, abovementloned; it to be agreed by said
permittee that by making and maintaining such encroachment, said permittee and its
assigns or successors in interest agree to indemnify and save harmless the City of
Roanoke of and from all claims for injuries or damages to persons or property that
may arise bI reason of the encroachment of said facing into the building setback
line on Third Street, S, W.
BE IT FURYIIER ORDAINEO that the provisions of this ordinance shall not
become fully effective until such time as a written permit shall have been issued
by the City's Building Commissioner to the aforesaid applicant, or its duly
authorized contractor or re~resentatlve, and until an attested copy of this ordi-
nance shall have been duly signed, sealed and acknowledged by The Chesapeake and
Potomac Telephone Company of Yirginia, and shall have been admitted to record, at
the cost of said permittee, in the Clerkts Office of the Hustings Court of the
City of Roanoke.
BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that Ordinance No. 1994b, granting said company
an encroachment of not more than eight inches for the first twelve feet and twenty
inches over the twelve foot level on the aforesaid building, be, and the same is
hereby REPEALED.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
EXECUTED and *accepted by the undersigned this -- day of
1972:
THE CHESAPEAK~ AND POTOMAC TELEPHONE
COMPANy OF VIRGINIA
(Title)
ATTEST:
Secretary
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the follouiug vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. task. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ............................. 7,
NAYS: None .............. O.
TAXES-DOGS: Council having referred to the City Manager for revue, and
report Ordinance No. 19T49 relating to the licensiao of dogs end to the possi-
bility of establishing fees for kennel licenses; the City Manager submitted the
following report advising that it would be considered desirable that some consi-
deration be oiven to the special circumstances of dog kennels, that the only may
that this could be done would be to adopt, by emergency Ordinance. the state
scale, that either by amendment of state law as to kennel license fees or further
resieu locally of the entire fee situation for dogs. a better balance could be
achieved before another year as to kennels in relation to the total city license
charge for dogs and that he would like to report at a later date on the licensing
of cats:
"Roanoke. Virginia
January 31. 1972
tlonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
You referred to me at your last meeting the citizen request
that came before you in the matter of kennel licenses for dogs.
When you revised the license ordinance last summer and changed
the fees from $1.00 for male and $3.00 for female to $5.00 for
all dogs. there was omitted a kennel license. This had been
$15.00 for kennels from I to 20 dogs. Last year there were 12
such licenses sold. At the time it was apparently the opinion
that the State Code did not permit the City to issue kennel
licenses uhen the assumption of license fees and policing was
fully assumed by the City as you did last year in the adoption
of your new dog license ordinance.
The State Code is not well written on the subject and is
perhaps open to several interpretations. It would, however.
seem that it is possible for the City at issue kennel licenses
and that statement is believed to be consistent ~ith the most
recent reading by the City Attorney*s office, however would be
subject to any further comments that the City Attorneyts office
might wish to make.
The State Code (29-1§4) establishes State kennel licensing
at $15,00 for I to 20 dogs and $25.00 for 50 dogs. It further
~ould be construed to read that the City cannot exceed that
scale of fees if it provides for kennel licenses.
There appears to be some justification for kennel licenses.
Houever, I think that the State fees are much too low in com-
parison to the $5.00 per dog license tax that the City has. I
am not fully in accord, by personal reaction. :to the across-the-
board $5.00 dog license rate that Nas put into effect last year.
Rosever. it would not seem to be appropriate that any revision
be made in that fee at this time in view of the proximity of
the final payment date and the large number of licenses that
have already been bought.
Accordingly, it would seem to be proper that the $5.00 per
do9 rate stand math any reconsideration of it to occur later
during the preparation of next year*s budget.
It ~ould further be considered desirable that some considera-
tion be given to the special circumstances of dog kennels and the
only roy thee this cmn be done uould be to sdopt by emergency
ordieeece gL this tile the Stele scale. It uould farther be
· sought that either by am eaduent or State leu ns to ~ennel
license fees or further revieu locnll! of the entire roe
situation for dogs thet a better balance could be achieved
before another year as to ~ennels in relation to the total
City license charge for dogs.
The other eleueet siunltaneously referred to me by City
Council concerned the licensing of cats. This becoaes some-
vhst more Involved and I uould respectfully invite the cnn~
slderatioe of Council to alloming a report beck on this con-
meat soue later date. It uould be hoped that other persons
could be brought into study on this perhaps through a composite
committee of representatives of various groups or citizen
Interest.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Ilirst
City Manager#
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance pertaining to fennel licenses:
(=20078) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Sec. 3.1. LicensinG of
dogs; amount of licenseI ~hen license tax payable~ etc. of Chapter 2, Dog~. of
Title XXI, Animals, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1955, as amended, by the
addition to said section of a new paragraph to be numbered (It), prosiding for a
kennel license on dogs; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 350 page 215.)
Mr. LJsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion Has seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, List, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................
NAYS: None ..............O.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS-ADVERTISING: The City Manager s~bm'itt~d a written report
advising that Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, in Blacksburg,
Virginia, is celebrating its centennial this year, that the city has been
approached by the Roanoke Times as to the interest of the cit~ in being repre-
sented in a special section to be published Sunday. March 19. 1q72. through the
purchase of a full page adtertisement, transmitting copy of the advertising fact
sheet and copy of a communication from the News Messenger of Blacksburg whack pro-;!
poses to publish a centennial edition,
Mr. Trout moved that the City Manager be authorized to purchase a full
page advertisement in the Roanoke Times. The motion was seconded by Mr, Thomas
and unanimously adopted.
CITY MANAGER: The City Mansger submitted a written report pointing out
that the selection end appointment of an Assistant City Manager to succeed Mr.
Byron E. Hamer is, of course, with Council, advising that if the personnel Depart-il
ment can be of any assistance to Council in compiling data or information or
conducting any research, it is readily at the service of Council.
Mr. Liok moved thut the report be received god filed and that the
.otter be discussed ie Executive Session. The notion wes seconded by Mr. Trout
god ununimoosly udopted.
CITIZENS° AD¥1SORY COMMITTEE-STATE HIGHRAYS: The City Rsnnger sub-
mitted a uti,tea report ,run.mit,Jug copy.of · cosmneicvtJon .ri,tee by blm to
the Citizens' Advisory Committee pertaining to the status of the Route lis - 116
Project. summarizing the situation based on his mare recent information and en-
deavoring to bring together nil of the parts that make up the total package of
this project.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The ma,ion ,as
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
TAXES: Council having referred to the City Attorney and the City
Auditor for report a communication from Mr. A. A. Akers. Chairman. Joint Com-
mittee. AARP ~ ARRE. referring to a communication written by him in late December.
1971. which suggested that Council. in effect freeze taxes of home garters ,ho
qualify in certain criteria, at what they were in 1970. and exempt lot income home
owners from paying taxes on their homes altogether, transmitting copy of an
opinion from the Attorney General on the above suggestion and strongly urging
Council to take action on this matter as soon as possible, the City Attorney sub-
mitted the following report reviewing the opinion of the Attorney General:
~January 31, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
from Mr. A. A. Akers. Chairman of the Joint Committee of AARP
home owners over the age Of 65. ,ho meet certain other criteria.
at the amount of the taxes assessed on their real estate in 1970.
Attached to the communication was a copy of an opinion of the
Attorney General dated September 20. 1971. addressed to Honorable
William B. Hopkins. a member of the State Senate from this dis-
Section 59-760.1 of the Code of Virginia. 1956. ns amended, reads.
in part. as follo~s:
'(a) The goreroing body of any county, city or
town may. by ordinance, proride for the exemption
from. or deferral of taxation of real estate, or
any portion thereof, a~d upon such conditions god
in such amount as the ordinance may prescribe.
o~ned by. and occupied as the sole duelling of a
per,ga or persons not less than sixty-five years
of age; subject to the following restrictions and -
conditions: . .
This section makes it clear that, ~lthtn the limitations of that
section and Of constitutional requirements, the real estate tax,
or any part of such tax. may be exempted from taxation by the
City; or the payment of the tax. or any portion thereof, may be
deferred in the case of certain persons over age sixty-fire
Secs. 2,(1) end 50 of the City Charter grant to the City the
pouer to raise mosey by taxation but require that the assess-
ment and collection of taxes by in conformity mith the Consti-
tution nod lams or the State and Federal governments,
Section I of Article X of the 1971 Constitution of Virginia
provides, in part. as folloms:
'All taxes shall be levied and collected
under general lams and shall be uniform
upo~ the same class of subjects mithin
the territorial limits of the aathority
levying the tax. .
The requirement of uniformity setout in this section includes
uniformity in the node of assessment as mall aa in the rate of
taxation. All property must, therefore, be assessed on un
equal basis mith no single class of USherS or of property be-
Jug entitled to some benefit out available to others Jo the
same class. It mould seem that the "freezing* as of a given
date of the assessed value of some. but not all. real estate
to mhich the Cityts annual real estate tax rate mould he applied
would violate the uniformity requirement of the Constitution.
above-mentioned.
Section 56-7~0.1 does authorize a city to orant aa exemption of
the veal estate tax or any portion of it. So, it mould appear,
aa mas stated by the Attorney Ceneral. that it would he legally
possible to Oruflt an exemption in the amount by which the tax
due in the current tax year exceeds the tax due in any base year.
This, as proposed by Mr. Akers, would be the tax year 1970.
Such an exemption ~ould be permissible under the provisions of
the Constitution and State lams. provided that the mode of
assessment and the rate of taxation applied to the assessed
value is the same for those property omner$ as for all other
In order to qualify for such exemption the elderly person mould
still need to meet the net north and income requirements set
forth in the local ordinance. Section $9~760.1 provides upper
limits for these requirements but the governing body may specify
lo, er income or net worth figures.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ J. N. Kincanon
James N. Kiflcanon~
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be taken under advisement pending u
report from the City Auditor on the amount of monies involved. The motion mas
seconded by MF~ Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITY ATTORNEY: 7he City Attorney submitted a written report advising
of the resignation of Mr. Robert P. Geary us an Assistant City Attorney, effec-
tive January 28. 1972.
Mr. ~heeler moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
1NTECRATION-SECREOATION: The community Relations Committee submitted
the following report recommendin~ that the position of Community Assistant. which
has been created by Council and the s~lary funded through federal funds, be
reviewed at once by the City Manager and Council with the objective being that the!i
position as outlined be filled at once and the salary of said position be funded
out of the general fund. urging that the matter be referred by Council to the City
Manager mith the request that a report be forthcomin9 back to Council on
February 7, 1972:
"TO: MAYOR end MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL January .31, 1972
RE: COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE
The Community Relations Committee voted at its meetinH held
on Mednesdey, January 26th, to recommend to City Council that the
position at Community Assistant, mbicb hms been created by the
Council and the salary funded through Federal funds, be revlemed
at once by the City Manager and Council math the objective being
that the position OS outlined be tilled ot once end the salary of
said position be funded out of the §enerel fund. It is strongly
suggested by the Community Relations Committee that the Community
Assistant position is necessary.end.Important to the entire com-
munity and is one that should be filled at the earliest possible
date.
It is the feeling of the Committee that the present restric-
tions upon the Federal funds ss it relates to the salary of the
position at the present time unduly hampers qu~ isled applicants
as has been proven over the past ninety (90) days.
The Committee urges that this mstter be referred by City
Council to the City Manager uith the request that a report be
forthcoming back to the Council on February ?, 1972,
S/ llampton.W, Thomas
Hampton W. Thomss, Chairman
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be referred to the City Manager for
study and report to Council by the regular meeting of the body on Monday, February
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ~ONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
I/~RODUC?IO~ AW~ CONSIDERATION O~ ORHINANUES AND RESOLUTIONS:
STATE HIGIt~A¥S: Ordinanoe No. 20056, dedicating for public street pur-
poses and uses certain property owned by the city, necessary for the construction
of the Southwest ~xpressway ~U.·S. Route ~20), hovin~ previously been before Co,n-
cai for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Mr.
Lisk offerin9 the follo~ing for its second reading and final adoption:
(~20056) AN ORDINANCE dedicating for public street purposes and uses
certain property o~ned by the City. necessary for the construction Of the South-
nest Expressway (US Route 220).
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 2~.)
Mr.
Lisk
moyed
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, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .............................. 7.
*NAYS: None ............... O.
STATE HIGHWAYS: Ordinance No. 2005T, authorizing and directing the
city*s sale and conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia Of a parcel of land
containing ID,IlO square feet, more or less, and a temporary construction easement
on land adjacent thereto, situate at the southwest corner of Orange Avenue, N. W.,
and Courtland Avenue, N. M., bela9 northerly portions of Official Tax Nos.
3020372 end 3024006, upon certain terms and conditions, having previously been
before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the
body.
There.appearing to be some question uJth regard tothe amount of money
involved, Mr, Lisk moved that the proposed Ordinance be referred to the City
Manager for clarification with regard to the amount of money involved and report
back to Council. The motion was seconded by Or. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
CITY GOYERNMEI~F: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure.expressing appreciation to the Mayor of the City of RonJu and
its citizens for recent gifts to the City of Roanoke, he presented same: where-
upon, Hr. Link offered the following Resolution:
(#200?9) A RESOLUTION expressing appreciation to the Mayor of the City
of Monju and its citizens for recent gifts to the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 36, Page 216.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrn, Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Wayor
Rubber .............................. ?,
NAYS: None ...............O.
In this connection, Mayor Webber advised that he is appointing Messrs.
Byron E. Hamer. Chairman, William B. Poff and M. D. Pack as members of a committee
to consider and make recommendations regarding the establishment of an appropriateli
place in the City of Roanok~ for the permanent display of gifts presented to the
City of Roanoke from the City of Wonju, Korea. under the Sister City Program.
LEGISLATION-STATE HIGHWAYS: Mr. Wheeler offered the following Resolu-
tion endorsing the 1972-73 street and road improvement program recommended by the
State Bighnay Commission, and also endorsing the proposed incruase of tug cents
per gallon in the motor fuel tax to provide adequate revenue for this program:
(~20080) A RESOLUTION endorsing a lO-year street and road improvement
program for the State, proposed by the Virginia Highway Commission.
IFor full text of Resolution. see Resolution Bunk No. 36, Page 217.1
Mr. Wheeler 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, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ..............................
NAYS: None ...............O.
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTWENT-JAIL-RUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IRPROYERE~FS
PROCRAR: Rayor Mebber advised that Council will neet infornally on Thursday,
February 3. 1972. at 7 p.m., in the Executive Session Conference Room, to study
and revieu modifications to the former Reid and Cutshall Building and other
municipal facilities.
· ROANO[E FINE ARTS CENTER: Mayor ~ebber advi&ing tblt the members of
Council and the cst7 administration have been invited to the installation service
of the Redlterranean Art Collection nt the Roanoke Fine Arts Center at Cherry
Rill on Friday, Februury 4, 1972, at 8 p,m,
COMPLAIntS: .Mr. Laurence lllks, 1623 Dale Avenue, S, E,, appeared
before Council nod complained about the hiring of people residing outside of the
Cfr! of Roanoke to fill various vacancies in cst! government, expressed concern
over the amount of taxes he has to pay because he is a resident of Roanoke City
and expressed the opinion that if the City of Roanoke is 9oJng to be run by the
City Ranager there is no need for the seven members of Council.
SEWERS AND STORR DRAINS: Rt. Rheeler presented a written report
vising that the Fifth Planning District Commission reported at its meeting on
Thursday. January 27, 1972. that the Regional ~ater and Semage Program has been
certified by the State Rater Control Board and forwarded to EPA for approval,
that prior to the meetin9 the five governing bodies met and indicated that long
term sewage contracts could be agreed upon prior to Watch 1, 1972, and advising
that he feels progress has been made and sewage matters uill be resolved in the
near future.
Hr. Wheeler moved that the report.be received and filed. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Rebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
COHNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Mondsy. Februsry 7. 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke wet in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building. Nonday. February ?, 1972. at 2 p.m** the regulnri
meeting hour. with Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David E. Llsh, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton If. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Wheeler and Nayor Roy L.
i Webber .................................... ?.
ABSENT: None ...................O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. Byron E,
Hamer, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Etncanon, City Attorney; and Mr.
A. N. Gibson. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend William
:K. Dean, Chaplain, Veterans Administration Hospital.
MINU~ES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Tuesday.
January 4, 1972, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
:Trout, seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS U~ON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday,
ilFebruary ?. 1972, on the request of Mr. Fred Co Ellis. et ux., and lvanhoe Corpora-
tion. that property described as Lots 2 through parts of lB and 19. inclusive.
Block 9, Lincoln Court, Official Tax Nos. 2041325 - 2041341, inclusive, be rezoned
ifrom 1DM, Industrial Development District, to C-4. Central Business District
Expansion Area, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
#January 6, 1972
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 meetin9 of January 5, 1972.
Mr. Thomas Engleby. attorney for the petitioners, noted the
following in regard to this item:
that he l~as here several weeks ago requesting a BM designa-
tion so he could keep the trail,rs on this parcel. (this
item was denied by the City Planning Commission and sub-
sequently Jwithdrawn by the petitioner).
that Mr. Ellis owns Lots 2-7 and the Ivanhoe Corporation
owns the remainder.
that the petitioner plans to relocate his old inoperative
trailors to a new site.
that the petitioner plans to remove the debris from the area,
thereby, visually improving the urea. In addition, the
petitioner mould mshe any remaining improvements to the
- area such as screening to enhance the character of the area.
Mr. Boynton, Planning Commission member, questioned the
proximity and implications of the Civic Center to this use. Mr.
Eogleby noted that this parcel is'a considerable distance from
the Civic Center, and would not have an adverse effect on the
Civic Center.
The Planning Director noted that the use was not in
consonance with the IBM district which is oriented to light
industrial uses (clean industries) with large expanses of open
space. In addition, he noted that the use was not in heaping
with the intent of the IBM district, which is to insure high
quality industrial uses. Finally, he noted that the C-4 district
should not be permitted to extend beyond Orange Avenue.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John B. Parrott by L.M.
John H. Parrott
Chairman~
Mr. J. Thomas Engleby, Ill, Attorney. representin9 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:
(~20081) AN ORDINANC£ to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 204, Sectional 1966
Zom Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
MHEREAS. application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have Lots 2 through parts of 16 and 19. inclusive, Block 9, Lincoln Court,
Official Tax Nos. 2041325 - 2041341, inclusive, rezoned from IBM, Industrial
Development District to C-4, Central Business District Expansion Area; and
· HEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from 1DM, Industrial Development District, to C-4.
Central Business District, Expansion Area; and
MREREAS, the written notice and the posted sign 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 amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
posted as required and for the time provided by said Section; and
MHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 7th
day of February, 19'72, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the CitI of Roanoke, at
which hearin9 all parties in interest and citizens were given ~n opportunity to be
!heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
MHEREASo this Council, after considering the evidence aa herein provided,!
is of tbe opinion, that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE. BE IT OROAINED b7 the Council of the City of Roanohe that
~Title X¥,Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956,
las amended, relating to Zoning. and Sheet No. 204 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Rap,
City of Roanoke. be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on CarverAvenue in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
Idescribed as Lots 2 through parts of 18 and 19, inclusive, Block 9, Lincoln Court,
!designated on Sheet 204 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke. as
?
'Offlcial Tax Nos. 204132S - 2041341, inclusive, be, and is hereby, changed
!IDM, Industrial Development District, to C-4, Central Husiness District Expansion
iArea, and that Sheet Ne. 204 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, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber ............................
NAYS: None .............O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday.
February 7, 1972. on the request of Messrs. Donal G. Sink, F. Earl Frith and
James D. Fralin that a 2.467 acre parcel of Laud situate On the southeast corner
of the Hershberger Road - Peters Creek Road intersection, described as Official
Tax No. Z770301, be rezoned from C-I. Office and Institutional District, to
General Commercial District, the matter Mas before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
"January 6, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The ~bove cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commissio ~t its regular meeting of January 5, 1972.
Mr. Jack Place, attorney for the petitioners, appeared before
the Planning Commission and noted the following pertaining to this
item:
that the general area is of a commercial nature.
that he does not have a plot plan to present to the
Commission.
The Planning Director noted that the topography of the area
was steep, and, in addition, ingress and egress were critical
elements in this petition. Mr. Place stated that the realized
that the topography presented a real problem.
Mr. Mentworth, Planning Commission member, noted that the
lot was almost all solid rock. Mr. Place noted that only 200
feet on the corner will be used for commercial uses.
The Planning Commission members generally agreed that the
area was of a commercial nature and that. therefore, this use was
in harmony with its surrounding.
Accordingly, motion was made. duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ John N, Parfait by L. #.
John H, Parfait
Chairmanw
Hr. Jack ¥. Place, 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. Uheeler
moved that the following Ordinance he placeO upon its first reading:
(s20082) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 19S6. as amended, and Sheet No. 277. Sectional
[1966 Zone Rap, City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
RHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City ~ Roanoke
to have a 2.467 acre parcel situate on the southeasterly corner of the Hershberger
!Road - Peters Creek Road intersection and designated as Official Tax No. 2770301
rezoned from C-l, Office and Institutional District, to C-2, General Commercial
iDistrict; and,
RHEREAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
!after described land be rezoned from C-l, Office and Institutional District. to
iC-2. General Commercial District; and,
WtlEREAS. the written notice and the posted si9n required to be published
!and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title XV. of The Code of
ithe City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
i, 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.
I?th day of February, 1972, at 2:00 p,m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke,
iat which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity
Ire be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and.
NHEREAS. 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. nnd Sheet No. 277 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map.
~ity of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on the southeasterly corner of the Nershberger Road -
Peters Creek Road intersection described as:
BEGINNING. at an iron stake on the easterlyline of.
Peters Creek Road. N. W. (30 feet from the centerline
of the original road) 303.6 feet northerly from the north
side of an alley; thence with said easterly line of Peters
Creek Road, N. M. 8° 53' E. 195.20 feet to an iron
stake at the beginning of a curve; thence with a line
curving to the right, whose radius is 50.00 feet and
whose chord bearing and distance is N, 51o 53* 30" E.
68.21 feet, an arc distance of 75.06 feet to an Iron
stabs on the southerly right-of-uny line of Hersbberger
Road es established in 1953, 25.00 feet from the center of
said road~ thence math said right-of-uny line S. 65° 06*
E. 423.96 feet to an iron stake corner to the property of
Sanson S. St.Clair; thence leaving Hershberger Road
and with St.Clair*s line S. 2o 21' M. 203.46 feet to a
fence post corner on the line of the property of Robert J.
Derenge; thence with the same N. 89° SI* M., passing an
Iron pipe on line at 213.74 feet, In all a total distance of
347.50 feet to on iron stake; thence N. B8° 37* M. 150.42
feet to the point of Beginning, containing 2.467 acr~ as
shown byplat of survey prepared by David Dick and Uarry A,
Mall, Civil Engineers and Surveyors, dated June lg, 1971;
and,
BEIN6 the sane property conveyed to Donald G. Sink,
E. Earl Frith and James D. Fralin from Thomas L.
Hooker and Virginia M. Hooker. husband and mile. by
deed dated Jnne 29. 19710 of record In the Office of the
Clerk of the Hustin9s Court of the City of Roanoke. and,
ildesignated on Sheet 277 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City of Roanoke, as
i Official Tax No. 2770301, be, and is hereby, changed from C-l, Office and Institu-
tional District, to C=2, Ueneral Commercial District, and that Sheet No. 277 of
the aforesaid nap be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ............................
NAYS: None ...............O. (Mr. Thomas not voting)
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Mr. Claude Harrison, President. Roanoke Engrav-
ing Company, and Mr. Arthur Taubman. Chairman, Advance Stores Company, Incorporated,
appeared before Council and explained their financial difficulties in connection
with relocation expenses approved by. but not paid by. the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority with regard to the Downtown East Redevelopment
Project. Project R-42.
After a discussion of the financial situations described by Mr. Harrison
and Mr. Taubnan, Mr. Lisk moved that the matter be referred to a committee com-
posed of Messrs. Julian F. Hirst, James N. Kincan~n and A. N. Gibson for study,
. report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Th,nas and
unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-CITY CLERK: A communication from the City Clerk requestin9 that
$1,500.00 be appropriated to Extra Help under Section n2, "Clerk," of the 1971-72
i budget, advising that there is an unexpended balance of approximately $2,000.00
in the salary for the vacant position of a Clerk Typist I and that said appropria-
!*ion amounts to a bookkeeping item resulting in a savings of $500.00, was before
~Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the City Clerk
~and offered the foil*ming emergency Ordinance:
(~20093) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section g2. *Clerk.* of
!the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Hook No. 35. page 222.)
Hr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinnnce. The mo~ion was seconded
by hr, Trout nnd adopted by the roll'ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garlnnd, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Nalor
Webber ...................... -~ .... 7.
NAYS: None
flUOGET-S~R00LS:. Council having deferred action on a request of the
Roanoke City School Board that $4,000.00 be appropriated to 'Schools - Instruction-
al Supplies." of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds to buy supplies for the
individual schools to purchase from the School Board at a saving of approximately
itwenty per cent of the cost if these supplies were purchased by the individual
ischools and that the portion of the funds spent will be matched by revenue from
~supply sales to the schools, the matter was again before the body.
In this connection. Mr. Mo D. Pack. Clerk of the Roanoke City School
Board. appeared before Council to answer certain questions raised by the members
!of Council with regard to said appropriation and advised that the School Board
mants to make use of the facilities of the central purchasing office in order to
i§et these supplies at a much lower cost and that the $4,000.00 will go back into
/the General Fund as and when these supplies are sold.
After a discussion of the matter. Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur
'in the request of the Roanoke City School Board and offered the following emergency
Ordinance:
(a200~4) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordatn Section ~2200. "Schools -
Instructional Supplies," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for
inn emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 223.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
!by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs~ Garland, Lish. Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ..........................
NAys: None ............... O.
SALE OF PROPERTY: A communication from Mr. Paul N. Jones. President.
Wen-Don Corpornt'ion. offering to purchase city-owned property which adjoins his
property located ut 101B 4th Street, S. E., for the sum of $2,$00.00, was before
Council.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the offer be referred to a committee composed of
Messrs. David K. ~isk, Chairman, Julian F. Hirst, James N. ~incanou and A. N.
Gibson, for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Garla'nd and unanimously adopted.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: A communication from
Mrs. dames E. Morgan, President. Junior Woman*s Club of Roanoke, Incorporated,
requesting that Council move with all possible haste in renovating the Reid and
Cutshall Building aa a new location for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court,
was before the body.
Mr. Mbeeler moved that the comuunlcation be received and filed, The
motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOYAL: A communication from Mr. J. Thomas Engleby, III,
man of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, expressing the interest of the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in establishing a committee to study the solid
waste disposal problem and to attempt to locate a landfill somewhere in the valley
which mould take care of the valley communities for many years to come, mas
before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to a committee com-
~posed of Ressr$. James O. Trout. Chairman, David K. Lisk and Julian F. Birst for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Garland and unanimously adopted.
ROANOKE CITY ARTS COMMITTEE: A communication from Mrs. J. M. Yeatts,
Acting Director of the Roanoke Fine Arts Center, requesting that Council fill the
Vacant position of Mr. Frank N. Perkinson, Jr** as a member of the Roanoke Arts
Commission, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that Mayor Webber be requested to appoint someone to
fill the vacancy created by Mr. Perkinson. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber advised that he would appoint a member of Council to fill
the vacancy created by the resignation of Mr. Perkinson at the next regular meeting
of the body on Monday, February 14, 1972.
ZONING: A ptitios from Mr. Fielding L. Logan, Jr., Attorney. representing
Mr. J. H. Fralin and Mr. A. Craig Kugel. requesting that property located on
Epperley Avenue. N. W.. described as Lots 19, 20 and 21. Section 1. Map of Epperley
Court. Official Tax Nos. 2160612, 2160613 and 2160614, 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
iPlannin9 Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
!was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. W. Deywood Frails. Attorney, repre-
i!senting Mr. Jimmy C. Prams. requesting that property located on Mindsor Avenue
iS. W., described as, Lot 23A. Block 16~ Map of Raleigh Court Corporation, Official
!:Tax No. 1331605, be rezoned from RO-I, General Residential District, to C-I, Office
~:and Institutional District, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
~Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted,
AUDITORIUM--COLISEUM: Mrs. 2aman K. RcRanamay appeared before Council
and reed a prepared statement recommending that a woman be hired as Assistant
Civic Center Director.
Hr. Thomas moved that the statement bo referred to the City Kaneger for
his information in connection ulth the selection of an Assistant Civic Center
Director. The motion kcs seconded by Mr. Rboeler and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFF!CERS:
BUDGET-PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having
adopted a Resolution amending Resolution No. 17065 establishing certain rules and
regulations relating to the administration of overtime mork 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 makin9 special provision
as to employees in the Civic Center Department, the City Manager submitted the
following report advising that a total of 21 present and past employees are affected
by this Resolution with a total overtime payment, based on the straight time plan
of $9,215.00 and recommending that $9.200.00 be appropriated to Overtime under
Section #?7. "Civic Center," of the 1971-72 budget, to enable these settlements:
"Roanoke. Virginia
February 7. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
.Roanoke, Virginia ' ~
Gentlemen:
$9,215.05.
experience in work scheduling and from more adequate filling of
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(uROOB5) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u77. 'Civic Center,
!~ of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing rot an emergency.
(FOr fall text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page223.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
i by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Mebber ...........................
NAYS: None ............O.
APPOINTMENTS-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a mritten
report recommending the adoption of a Resolution pertaining to the appointment
of ar. James K. Campbell as Director of the Roanoke Civic Center.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
offered the following Resolution:
(~200B6) A RESOLU~FION confirming the City Ranager*s appointment of
James K. Campbell as Director of the City*s Civic Center Department.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 224.)
Mr. Lisk 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, lheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ............ O.
DEPARTNENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City Manager submitted a written
report advising that the 1970 General Assembly instructed the Directors of the
Department of Melfare and Institutions and the Commission for the Visually Handi-
capped to develop and submit in January, 1972. a plan mhich the General Assembly
might consider in any possible program of the state assuming the administration and
full funding of what is generally referred to as public assistance in Virginia.
that a copy of that report has been forwarded to him and further advisin9 that the
.report will be available to any of the members of Council who might misb to read
or look through it.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
isecondnd by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITY MANAUER-INTEURATION-$EUREGATION: Council having referred to the
iCity Manager for Study and report a report of the Community Relations Committee
ir.commending that the position of Community Assistant ~hich has been created by
ilCouncil and the salary funded through federal funds, be reviewed at once by the
ilCity Manager and Council with the objective being that the possition as outlined
be filled at once end the salary of said position be funded out of the Generol
Fund. urging that the matter be referred by Council to the City Manager with the
request that a report be forthcoming back to Council on February 7, 1972, the
City Manager submitted the following report advising that over the past several
weeks applications or expressions of Interest on the part of at least three persons
in this position have been received, that prior tO any recommendation or decision
with regard to a change in funding, he mould like to proceed to further investigate
and interview these individuals to ascertain if there may be an eligible candidate
or candidates among them and that he hopes to make an early reply to Council:
"Roanoke. Virginia
February 7. 1972
Hooorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Geotlemen:
The City Council at your meeting this past Monday, January
31, referred to me for report back at this meeting of the City
Cooncil the letter from the Community Relations Committee request-
ing that the position of Community Assistant be filled at once.
I fully understand the interest and position of the Community
Relations Committee in this matter and concur as to the advisa-
bility of an appointment to the position. I apologize that this
has not been handled at a much earlier date.
The Community Relations Committee further ask consideration
that this position be funded out of the General Fund of the City
rather than mith the allocation made by the Federal government
to the City of full salary funding in that manner.
I am advised that over the past several weeks or more there
has been received applications or expressions of intwist on the
part of at least three persons in this position. Prior to any
recommendation or decision with regard to a change in funding,
I mould like to proceed to further investigate and interview
these individuals to ascertain if there may be an eligible can-
didate or candidates among then. As this is written I am
endeavoring to make contacts with these persons and to set up
interviews and will probably report back to the City Council
hoping that this can he shortly completed and a very early return
report made.
It is hoped that this handling is satisfactory and again
I acknowledge and express my apologies for the delay+
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
JUlian F. Hirst
City Banager*
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND 5~ORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting copy of the following draft of a communication written by him to
ithe State Mater Control Board in connection with the matter that Roanoke County
fproposed last summer of a sewerage holding facility or holding pond adjacent to
IRoanoke River and west of the City of Roanoke:
"State Water Control Board
Commonwealth of Virginia
P. O. Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia 23203
Dnring the summer months of 1971 officials of the County of
of the Ci~ of Roanoke and adjacent to the Roanote River. Geographic-
ally th e facility mould have been situated in the City of Salem
S/ Julian F. HiFst
PLANNING: The City Manager submitted a written report transmitting an
application for Morkable Program Certification or Re-Certification, suggesting
that the membera of Council review said application form and recommending that the
City Attorney prepare n Resolution reflecting the concurrence of Council in the
transmission of this program ~ HUD.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and ~ at the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of
the proper measure, The motion mas seconded by Mr. LIsk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS-PARRS AND plAyGROUNDS: Council having referred to the
Roanoke City School Board for its consideration copy of a Resolution adopted hy
ithe Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County on Tuesday, November 30, 1971,
~respectfully suggesting to the Roanoke City School Board and to the governing
!bodies of the Roanoke Valley local jurisdiction that the Fifth Planning District
!~Conuission he requested to make a preliminary investigation of the feasibility of
constructing o regional planetarium as a separate project or in conjunction with a
branch of the Virginia Science Museum, the City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting a copy of a communication under date of January 25, 1972. by which
the Superintendent of Schools, at the request of the School Board, has transmitted
ilo the Mayor and Members of Council a copy of the educational specifications
land schematic drawings for a'proposed planetarium fqcility and advising that the
ibooklet and drawings are being placed on file #lth the City Clerk.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to 1972-73 budget study.
iThe motion w~ seconded by gr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL-AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted a written report
i~transmittlng copy of an extract of the minutes of the Roanoke County Board of
i Supervisors of January 26, 1972, as to the receipt by the Board of the recommenda-
i tion of the County Planning Commission for the 9ranting to the City of Roanoke of
i the city's application for a special use permit to operate a sanitary landfill
in the north clear zone at Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) Airport.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS-MATER DEPARTMENT: The City Attorney submitted
a written report advising that suit has been brought against the City of Roanoke
in the Circuit Court of Botetourt County, before Judge Earl L. Abbott, by Sharon
Boone and some forty-add owners or tenants of land on Catamba Creek in Uotetourt
County, seeking a permanent injunction against the city from diverting to any non-
riparian use of the waters of Catawba Creek or from diminishing the natural flow
of the creek in connection with the use of the Catawba Creek Diversion Tunnel now
,under construction.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ANNEXATION-CONSOLIDATION: The City Attorney submitted the following re-
port advising Council of the preparation and endorsement of a draft of final order
of annexation to be tendered rot entry in the Circuit Court of Roanoke County:
'February ?, 1972
The Honorable Mayor end Rembers
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I wish to report that on February 3, 1972, counsel for the
City of Roanoke and for the County of Roanoke settled upon
and endorsed a draft of an order such as should, under the
various rulings of the c~urt, be entered as a final order
in the consolidated annexation cases tried in that court
last year. The order must nam be circulated among numerous
counsel for other parties in the cases for similar endorse-
meat and. after so doing, presented to the three Judges of
the unnexation court for entry.
In addition to the procedural rulings contained in the final
order, it provides, generally, for the following:
1. Xt dismisses the City of Roanoke's suit against
Roanoke County for the annexation of any portion
of Roanoke County.
2. It dismisses the eases brought by individual
petitioners for the annexation of the so-called
Corridor area and Glenvar area to the City of
Salem.
3. It orders the annexation to the City of Roanoke
of approximately 0.435 square mile of what has
been referred to as the original [indsor Rills
area, the area ordered annexed consisting of the
Blue Ridge Park for Industry. a major portion of
the Norfolk ~ Restern Railway Company's material
yards ~nd approximately four residential properties.
Approximately 14 persons reside in the annexed area,
four of mhom are school-age and none of whom mere
petitioners for annexation.
d. It orders the annexation to the City of Roanoke
of approximately 2.16 square miles of the so-
called Runicipal Airport area. the area ordered
annexed consisting mainly of the City-owned
airport property but including, also. relatively
snail residential areas 1yin9 to the west of the
airport extending, at places, to Core Road, N. R.
The CrossroadsShsppin9 Center property and all
other portions of the petitioned area lying to the
east of the east boundary line of the City-owned
airport property and east of State Route lib are
excepted from the area ordered annexed to the
City. Approximately 314 persons reside in the
2.16.square mile area ordered annexed, 69 of
whom are of school-age.
5. It orders the immediate provision of full and
complete municipal services to the two areas
ordered annexed, and the construction within five
years of the effective date of annexation, of the
capital improvements proposed for the areas or
set forth as needed in the course of the trial Of
the cases.
6. It orders the City to assume 2.4262 per cent of the
County debt outstanding as of December 31st of the
year in which said annexation becomes effective.
the County debt as of December 31. 1971, being
$26,257,133.05; and orders that. for the purpose
of such assumption, the net County debt be reduced
by such amount as may be assumed or imposed upon
the City of Salem by reason of Salem*s previous
transition to city status. A credit of $1,045.14
to the City is ordered, applicable to the first
annual payment made by the City.
?. It orders the City's payment to the County of the sum
of $127,559 annually, for a period of five years,
(a total of $65?°795), for the County*s prospective
loss of net tax revenues from the annexed areas.
6, It provides that properties in the two annexed areas
of the year of annexation,
9. It orders the City's payment of $7.196 to the
County, for the value of County-owned public
improvements In the annexed areas.
10. It provides for continuance of the County's
education of children In the annexed areas until
the end of the school year next following the
effective date of annexation; and for the CJty*s
reimbursement to the County. at per-pupil cost.
for the County*s cost of such education.
11. It orders the annexation to be effective from and
after midnight on December 31. 1972. and provides
that upon appeal of the order by any party to the
proceedings, theeffectiveness of the order be
suspended until December 313t of the yew of term-
ination of the appeal, unless reversed OF modified
by the Supreme Court of Virginia,
12. It orders the City's payment of costs in the case
brought by the City. in the cases brought by the
Mindsov llJlls petitioners and the Municipal
Airport Area petitioners; the City*s payment to
the County of $5,0§0.45 and to the Town of ¥inton
of $272.50 for their costs incurred in certain data
for the City. as directed by the court; and orders
Salem*s payment of costs in the Corridor Area case
and in the Glenvar Area case.
The order contains the City's exceptions to V3rJou$ rulings of
the court made during the trial of the cases, and to the court's
action in refusing annexation to the City of the entire of the
Mindsor Hills area. the Municipal Airport area and of the other
areas which the City sought to show as being expedient and
necessary for annexation tothe City.
I respectfully request the opportunity of discussi~ in executive
session with the Council and other officials the overall aspects
of the case,
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
James N. Kincanon'
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ANNEXATION-CONSOLIDATION-L£GISLATIOH: The City Attorney submitted the
following report recommending that Council register its opposition to House Hill
257 which would provide that. notwithstanding any other provision of law to the
contrary, the City of Roanoke shall not, for a period of five years from the
effective date of the legislation, institute any suit for the purpose of annexing
any Of the territory adjoining the present corporate limits of the City of Roanoke:!
'February 7, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
Of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I am advised that there has been introduced as House Hill
257, in the General Assembly of Virginia, proposed legislation
that would provide that, notwithstanding any other provision
of lam to the contrary, the City of Ronnohe shall not institute
any suit for the purpose of annexing the shol~ or any portion
of Roanohe County for a period of five years from the effective
date of the Act. I sm advised thatthe bill, as introduced,
would apply solely to the City of Roanoke.
Although I have not as yet obtained a copy of the bill or been
authoritatively advised of Its contents, ! am of opinion.
arrived at through thereported nature of the bill, that it
would amount to unconstitutional legislation, and should be
vigorously opposed in the General Assembly. should opposition
to the bill be necessary before that body and before the House
Committee on Counties. Cities and Towns. before which the bill
in reported to be pending.
Accordingly. I recommend the Council°s adoption of the prepared
resolution which is transmitted herewith and which, opposing
the bill, would call upon the City's delegation to the General
Assembly to seek the defeat of the proposed legislation.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. KJncnnon
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Attorney and offered the following Resolution:
(#20OH?} A RESOLUTION opposing the passage of House Hill 257 by the
General Assembly of Virginia. and calling upon the City's delegation to the
General Assembly to seek the defeat of said Hill.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Hook No. 50, page
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
:lebber ....................... ?.
NAYS: None .............O.
CHARTER-MUNICIPAL COURT-LEGISLATION: The City Attorney nubmitted the
.following report advising that the proposed amendment of certain sections of the
iCity Charter has been introduced in the General Assembly of Virginia as House
iHill 129, that the bill hms been referred to the IIouse Committee on Counties,
~!Secti°n 2H of the City Charter pertaininoto the deputy clerks and clerical
i~ossistants appointed and employed in the Municipal Court:
"February 7, 1972
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Please be advised that the Charter amendments proposed by
the Council's Resolution No. 200OH has been introduced in the
General Assembly of Virginia by certain of the City's repre-
sentatives as House Bill 129, and has been referred to the
Committee on Counties, Cities and Towns in the House of
Delegates.
Since the introduction of the Charter amendment bill, as afore-
third paraoraph of the proposed amendment of Section 2H of the
Charter should be employed, in lieu of the wording contained
in that sectlom aa before the Cannel] nt the time of the adoption
of Resolution No. 20008, aforesaid; nad a.proposed redraft or
section 28 is attached hereto.
The effect of the proposed wording of that paragraph of Section
28 would be to provide for the appointment by the Chief Municipal
Judge of all deputy clerks and clerical assfstanta fa the Municipal
Court and to provide expressly that all such ~ppointments would
be made subJect to the provisions of the Charter and to rules
and regulations contained in ordinances of the City relating
to employment~ in general, of personnel of the City; would ex-
pressly provide that all such deputies and clerical assistants
participate fn the City's Employees* Retirement System and'be
entitled to benefits provided, generally, for employees of the
City; and would add nards expressly authorizing the commitment
to Jail by authorized deputy clerks of persons arrested for or
charged with commission of crime.
The change in wording of the third paragraph of Section
aforesaid, has been settled upon in conference with the Chief
Municipal Judge. the City Manager and the undersigned, whose
approval I am authorized to state to the Council.
Accordingly. Jt is r~co~mended that the City Council, by
adoption of the enclosed resolution, request that the above-
mentioned changes be made in Section 28 of Mouse Bill 129
now pending before the General Assembly.
Respectfully.
S/ J. N. Kincanon
James N. Kincanon"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendution of the City
Attorney and offered the following Resolution:
(#~0088) A RESOLUTION requesting certain changes in the wording of
House Mill 129, pending before the General Assembly of Virginia.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. ab, page 225.)
Mr. Lisk 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, Mhe~ler and Mayor
i Mebber .................... 7.
NAYS: None .....O.
SALE OF PROPERTY-ZONING-STATE MXGHWA¥S-INDUSTRIES: The City Attorney
submitted a written report advising that the city has been granted an option to
purchase a parcel of land containing 1897.S0 square feet. being a portion of
iOfficial lax Mo. 2130417, together with a temporary construction easement over
176 square feet of adjoining land in connection with the Macke Industrial Access
Road Project. advising that the property is presently under a contract of sale.
that both the present owners and the contract purchasers of the land have executed
purchase option agreements indicating their willingness to convey the land to the
city for a total price of $235.00, each party receiving one=half of this sun and
transmitting an Ordinance providing for the exercise of this option.
~r. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n2ooog) AN OROINANCE exercising the right to purchase a parcel of land
containing approximately 0.044 acre, being purr of Official Tax No. 2130417,
in the City of Roanoke. and a temporary construction easement to enter upon un
adjacent I76 square foot parcel, and needed for the City*s Industrial Access Road
Project 9999-120-103, C-502. upon certain terms and provisions; providing for
notice of the CJty*s exercise of written purchase options 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 No. 36. page 226.)
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. Mheeler and Mayor
Nebber ...................... ?.
NAYS: None ....... O.
TAXES: Council having referred to the City Auditor to review the
monies involved in connection with a communication from Mr. i. A. Akers, Chairman,
Joint Committee, AARP ~ ARRE, referring to a communication written by him in late
December, 1971. which suggested that Council. in effect, freeze taxes of home own-
ers who qualify in certain criteria, at what they were in 1970, and exempt certain
low income home owners from payin9 taxes on their homes altogether, the City
Auditor submitted the following report advising that he has been unable to locate
any source of records concerning the income and net worth of persons over 65 on
which a determination of the amount of money involved would he. that before such
a determination can be made. Council will have to prescribe the limitations and
qualifications that it desires for this group and a method will have to be
formulated which will provde this information from the taxpayers who will be
affected:
"February 3, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Gentlemen:
At your meeting of January 24, 1972. yon referred a letter
from Mr. A. A. Akers, Chairman, Joint Chairman, AARP & ARRE, which
suggested the Council freeze tax on homeowners who qualify in
certain criteria at the 1970 Real Estate Tax amount: and exempt
certain low income homeowners altogether. I was requested to
review t~ monies involved, then report back to Council on the
loss of revenue.
I have been unable to locate any source of records concerning
the income and net worth of persons over 65 on which a determination
of the amount of money involved would be. Before such a determina-
tion can be made, the Council will have to prescribe the limitations
and qualifications that it desires for this group, and n method
will have to be formulated which will provide this information
from the taxpayers who will be effected.
It would seem to me that one approach mould be to set u dead-
line to apply for benefits prior to the beginning of the tax year
in which these benefits urn to be granted. The taxpayer would
be contacted by legal notices and through tbe neus media and informed
of this action and the benefits available. After the deadline bas
psat. the Commissioner of Revenue mould then be In a position to
verify this information and apply it to each taxpayer*s situation.
?bus. enabling me to give you a figure which would represent the
tax loss to the City of Roanoke.
This is a very complicated problem, and the foregoing ia the
only method that I bare been able to come up with mhich might
permit a solution to the problem of determining in advance the
revenue loss to the City.
Respectfully submitted.
$/ A. N. Gibson
City Auditor"
Rt. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimously adopted,
In this connection, Mr, Garland presented the following communication
transmitting three recommendations in connection with tax relief for the elderly
and individuals falling within certain income and asset limitations:
"February 3. 1972.
Mayor Roy L. Webber and
Members of Roanoke
City Council.
Gentlemen:
The matter of real estate tax relief for the elderly and indi-
viduals falling within certain income and asset limitations has
- been before the City Council on numerous occasions without any
definite action having been taken, The question has bounced
back between Couflcil*s Tax Study Commission, the City Council,
and the City Auditor and the City Attorney, the latest being
an interpretation as to the legality of the freezing of these taxes,
all of which bas brought ns to the present situation. ! do not
feet that further study and/or deliberation is required and would
hopefully feel that the Council could come to some conclusion.
These citizens deserve an answer and the Council should go on
record whether or not such a decision is favorable to this group
of taxpayers, At least they will know how they stand and caw more
accurately budget for the future, In my opinion further delay
on reaching a decision can only cause more animosity, suspicion,
and a feeling of incompetence towards the Council,
Althouoh I personally feel that real estate tax relief should be
afforded not only on those persons over 65 with limited incomes,
but the young as well, provided the income limitation is met,
however, the law will eot permit as to do this as it was designed
by the General Assembly to accommodate and apply to those persons
over 65 with certain limited incomes as well as assets.
The Council*s inability to arrive at a decision has been certainly
due to the fact that we have been unable to come to a definite con-
. clusion on the exact formula to use, although we have been given
some guidelines by the. General Assembly and have had certain
recommandation~ made to us by the Tax Study Commission.
Therefore, to move this proposition off center,'l will move that
the City Attorney prepare the proper Ordinance effective as of
July 1, 1972~ as folloms:
1, That any person (single, widow or midower) or persons (husband
and wife) whose total annual income is ~1,000,00 a year or
less shall be totally exampt from any real estate tax by the
city,
2. That any person (single, widow or widower) or persons (husband
and wife) whose total annual income is from $1,000.00 to
$2,999.99 shall have one of two alternatives -- a. deferred
payment in lieu of taxes; b. the real estate tax on said pro-
perty will remain forzen at the 1971 level, meaning both
the tax rate as well as the assessed value of the property.
3. That nny person (single, widow or midower) or persons
(husband end wife) whose total annual income is from
$3,000.00 to $5,000.00, the real estate tax on said
property will remain frozen nt the 1971 level, meaning
both the tax rate ns well ns the assessed value.
Of course, in order to qualify for uny one of the'three fore-
going plans that person*s (single, widow or widower) or
persons° (husband and wife) total assets shall not exceed
$20,000.00, but excluding their home.
Mr. Mayor and gentlemen, this recommendation is made with
~he full hnowledge that the city undoubtedly will have to
consider some additional tax source in the coming budget
year; however, enlightened municipalities throughout
Virginia, as well as the nation, have begun to realize the
need for some relief for certain limited income people.
Quite naturally these recommendations will cost the city some
tax dollars but I believe this will be offset and neutralized
by the good will generated by such a move as well as helping
those who need it the most.
Thumbing you for your consideration, I am,
Most Cordially Yours.
S/ Robert A. Garland
Robert A. Garland"
Rt. Garland moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
proper measure effective as of July 1. 1972, providing that any person (single.
widow or widower) or persons (husband and wife) whose total annual income is
$1.000.00 a year or less shall be totally exempt from any real estate tax by
the city; that any person (single. widow or widower) or persons (husband and
wife) whose total annual income is from $1,000.00 to $3,000.00 shall have one of
two alternatives -- a. deferred payment in lieu of taxes, b. the real estate
tax on said property will remain frozen at the 1971 level, meaning both the tax
rate as well as the assessed value of the property; and that any person (single,
widow or widower) or persons (husband and wife) whose total annual income is
from $3.000.00 to $5.000.00, the real estate tax on said property will remain
frozen at the 1971 level, meaning both the tax rate as well as the assessed value.
The motion was seconded by Rt. Lisk.
In this connection, Mr. A. A. Akers, Mr. B. B. Ilarden and Mr. S. R.
Crockett appeared before Council and advised that they are in general accord with
the recommendations made by Mr. Garland.
Mr. Trout offered a substitute motion that the City Auditor make another
attempt to ascertain the amount of monies involved in connection with providing
tax relief for the elderly and report back to Council, that the communication
presented by Mr. Garland be referred to the Joint Committee of the American Associa-
tion of Retired Persons and the Association of Retired Railroad Employees for their
consideration acting as a Committee of the Mhole and that the entire matter of tax
relief for the elderly be referred to 1972-73 budget study. The motion was seconded
~y Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor Webber ......
NAYS: Messrs. Garland and Lisk .................................
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Plnnnlng Commission for
study, report end recommendatio~ n request Of Dr. Junes C. Gurus that property
located Da the west side of Nfdgeffeld Street, N. E., described as Lot 9, Official
Tax No. 3131104, £. J. Parker Nap, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District,
to RG-2, General Residential District, the City Planning Commission submitted
a written report recommending that tbs request be denied.
Mr. Lish moved that the matter be tshen under consideratiSn until the
petitioner decides whether or not he desires a public hearing on the request for
rezonJng. 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. John E. Thornbill, that property
located at the southwest corner of Elm Avenue and Fifth Street, S. #., described
as one half of Lot 11 and ail of Lots 12 and 13, Block 12. Lemis Addition Map,
Official Tax No. 1120813, be rezoned from C-l, Office and Institutional District.
to C-2. General Commercial District, the City Planning Commission submitted a
AYES: Measrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .......................7.
HAYS: Houe ........ O.
STgEETS AHD ALLEYS: Council hariug referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation the request of Hayes, Sesy,
Mattern C Mattern, Architects and Engineers, that that portion of a ten-foot
alley running through Section 6, Exchange Building ~ Investment Company, from
Fourth Street. S. M., to Umlaut Avenue, S. M., more specifically described in a
metes and bounds description, be vacated, discontinued and closed, the City
Planning Commission submitted a u~itten report amending the request with the
petitioner dedicating and constructing a hem 10 foot alley and drivemay along
the westerly side of Lot.q, Block 6, Exchange Bulldin9 and Investment Company
Map, including a triangular turning area on the Southwest corner of Lot B and
the City of Roanoke to vacate the alley east of this new dedication as shown on
an attached map.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing he held on the question of vacating,
discontinuing and closing the alley at 2 p.m.. Monday. February 22. lq?2. The
motion mas seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation the request of the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Mousing Authority that certain streets, avenues and alleys
within or bordering the area of the Kimball Redevelopment Project, VA. R-4b, in
the northeast section of the City Of Roanoke be vacated, discontinued and closed,
the City Planning Commission submitted a uritten report recommending that the
~equest be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing be held on the question of
vacatlng, discontinuing and closing the streets, avenues and alleys at 2 p.m..
Monday, March 6, lq?2o The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NOHE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTIOH AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
SALE OF PROPERTy-STATE HIGHHAYS: Ordinance No. 20057, authorizing and
!idirecting the sale and conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia of-a parcel of
land containing 10,110 square feet, more or less, and n temporary construction
easement on land adjacent thereto, situate at the southwest corner of Orange
i, Avenue, H'. M., mud Courtland Avenue, N. W., being northerly portions of Official
Tax Hos. 3020372 and 3024006, for the sum of $ab,bqa.00, upon certain terms and
llconditions, having previously been before Council for its first reading, read
iiand laid over, was again before the body.
In this connection, Council having previously requested that the City
Manager clarify certain questions with regard to the umount of money involved,
the City Maaager submitted a written report advJslm~ that according to the Real
Estate Assessor. property in this quadrant of streets has a marhet value of
approximately $2.50 per square foot with corner lots carrying ISO~ of the square
foot value and that this would be approximately $3.50 to $3.75 per square foot.
Mr. Wheeler moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Trout end unanimously adopted.
Mr. Mbeeler then offered the' folloming Ordinance for its second reading
~and final adoption:
(#200§?) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and directing the City's sale and
~conveyance to the Commonwealth of Virginia of a parcel of land containing 10.110
isquare feet, more or less, and a temporary construction easement on land adjacent
ithereto, situate at the southwest corner of Orange Avenue, N. W., and Courtland
Avenue. N. M., being northerly portions of Official Nos. 3020372 and 3024005, upon
certain terms and conditions.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 219.)
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was secondedi!
by Mr. Trout and adopted'by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ...........................
NAYS: None ............O.
CHESAPEAKE AND POTOMAC YELEPHONE COMPANY: Ordinance No. 20077, permltti!
an encroachment of not more than eight inches for the first nine feet and twenty
. inches over the nine foot level of a new facing on a building o~er the
buiIdin9 setback llne on Third Street, S. M., for a distance of approximately one
ihundred thirty-five feet, said facing to be erected on the west side oi the Chesa-
ipeake a~d Potomac Telephone Company building located on Of£icial Tax No. 1012501,
upon certain terms and conditions and repealing Ordinance No.' 19946, adopted by
i Council on November 22, 1971, having previously been before Council for its first
i reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Rt. Trout offering the
following for its second reading and final adoption:
(#200?7) AN-ORDINANCE permitting an encroachment of not more than
eight inches for the first nine feet and twenty inches over the nine foot level
of a new facing on a building over the building setback line on Third Street,
~r a distance of approximately one hundred thirty-five feet, said facing to be
erected on thewent side of a building located on Official No. 1012501, upon
certain terms and condi~ons; and repealing Ordinance No. 19945, heretofore adopted
by the Council on November 22, lgT1.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 35. page 220.~
Hr. Trout Bayed the adoption of the Ordinance. Ybe motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor end udo~ edby the f,Il,ming vote:
AYES: Nessrs. Garland. Llsk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ?
NAYS: None .............. O.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure publicly commending Mr. Rex T. Mitchell, Jr** for his
service as Acting Director of the Roanohe Civic Center and extending to him the
appreciation of the Counci.l of the City of Roanoke and that of the citisens of
the city for the outstanding performance of duties he has rendered in this capacity,
he presented same; whereupon Mr. Lisk offered the followin9 Resolution:
(u2OOgl) A RESOLUTION relating to REX T. MITCII£LL, JR., Acting
Director of the Roanoke Civic Center.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Hook No. 36, page 22g.)
Mr. Lisk 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
Webber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None ............O.
HUDOET-ADVERTISING-SCHOOLS: Council having directed the City Attorney
to prepare the proper measure appropriating $05R.35 to Gratuities under Section =1,
."Council," of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for a full page advertisement
to be published in the Roanoke Times on Sunday, March 19, 1972, in connection
~ith the centennial of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Dr.
Taylor offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20092) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =1, "Council,"
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 22g.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion mas seconded
'by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
iWebber
NAYS: Mr. Garland ..... 1.
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution approving, in general, a
recommendation of certain extensive renovations to the Courthouse Building of the
~cJty, approving, ingeneral, a schematic plan presented by the City Manager for
~such renovations, if the same be similarly approved by others in authority having
i!po~er of approval, and directing the City Manager to determine whether said general
plan mill provide suitable space and facilities for the Courts and public offices
'i:for which the city is responsible and to make further report thereon to Council:
(x20093) A BESOLBTION approving, ia geeernl, e recommeudltloe of certain
extensive renovations to the Courthouse Building of the City; approving, la general
a schematic plan presented by the City Manager for such renovations, if the same
he similarly approved by others in authority having pomer of approval; nnd direct-
ing the City Manager to determine uhether said general plan mill provide suitable
space and facilities for the Courts end public offices for which the City ia
responsible, end to make further ~eport thereon to the Council.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 35, page 230.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption o f the Resolution. The motion was seconded
ilby Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Limb. Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
'Webber ......................................... 7.
NAYS: None .......................... O.
la this connection, Mr. Trout moved that Mayor Mebber be requested to
appoint a committee to revfe~ the report of the Fifth Planning District Commission
with regard to the Regional Jail. s~ d committee to make recommendations to
Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Dr. Taylor then offered the following Resolution approvin9, in general.
Wa recommended plan for the removal of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
and the Police Department into the former Reid and Cutshall Building located on
~ThJrd Street and Campbell Avenue. S. N.. and of a plan for remodeling of the
interior and exterior of said building, and directing the City Manager to make
'the necessary arrangement.s with certain architects and engineers for the pre-
potation of det~ led workioO plans and specifications for such improvements and
to make further report to Council:
(=20094) A RESOLUTION approving, in general, a recommended plan for
the removal of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and the Police Depart-
ment into the former Reid and Cutshall Building located on Third Street and
[ Campbell Avenue, S. M., and of a plan for remodeling of the interior and exterior
of said building; and directing the City Manager to make the necessary arrangements
iwith certain architects and engineers for the preparation of detailed w,thin9
plans and specifications for such improvements, and to make further report to
the Council.
(For fall text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 36. page
Dr. Tayl or m,and the adoption o f the Resolution.The motion
seconded by Mr. ~heeler and adopted by the follo~tng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland* Li~k, Taylor, Thomas,.Trout, Rheeler and M~or
Mebber .....................................
NAYS: Hone .............~ ........ O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Mr. Thomas presented the follouJno Statement
transmitting five suggestions in connection uith the accounting system at the
Roanoke Civic Center:
'TO: MR. MAYOR and MEMBERS OF COUNCIL February 7, 1972
FROM: RARP~ON M. THOMAS, COUNCILMAN
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES FOR CIVIC CENTER
Mr, James K, Campbell will assume his duties es Director of
the Roanoke Civic Center on or about Larch 1st. Aa you are auwe
the accounting system at the Civic Center is in need of immediate
review by thin Council and the City Auditor, both as to policy
m d procedural matters.
Accordingly. it wonld seen appropriate that these matters he
revJeBed and, if possible, resolved prior to Mr. Canpbellts
assuming the duties of his hem position. Additionally. it mould
serve as an excell.~nt basis for the Council revieming the finan-
cial aspects of the Civic Center operation prior to the beginning
of Budget Study sessions.
Therefore, I suggest that the Council direct the City Auditor,
Mr. A. N. Gibson, as follows:
(1) To review in detail the Resolution passed by Council
in early 1971 directing that the Civic Center be placed
(2) To reviem in detail the present accounting procedures
employed at the Civic Center.
(3) To review in detail the present monthly accounting
summary prepared for the Civic Center.
(4) To present such additional comments and suGGestions
as he may deem pertinent to the mat ter.
(5) To report back to the Council by may of a briefing for
Council on the above matters on the Council agenda for
Tuesday, February 22nd.'
Mr. Thomas moved that the statement be referred to the City Auditor to
review in detail the Resolution adopted by Council directing that the Civic Center
be placed on a separate accounting system, to review in det a~ the present account-
JaG procedures employed at the Civic Center, to reviem in detail the present
monthly accounting summary prepar ed for the Civic Center, to present such
additional comments and suggestions as he deems pertinent to the matter and to
report hack to Council by the regular meeting of the body on Tuesday, February
22, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BEALTU DEPARTMENT: Mayor Webber advised that the terms of Mrs. Margaret
S. Whittaker, Mr. Morton Honeyman and Mr, Frank B. Mundy as members of the Board
of Housing and Hyfiene expired on January 31, 1972, that Mr. Honeymafl has declined
;to nerve another term and called for nominationa to fill the vacancies.
Wt. Wheeler placed in nomination the namea of Mrs. MarGaret S. Whittaker
iland Mr, Frank B. Mandy.
There being no further nominations, Mrs. Margaret S. Nhittaker and Mr.
IFrnnk O. Mundy were reelected as members of the Board of Housing and Hygiene
for terms of two years each ending January al, 1974, by the follomJng vote:
FOB ~S. NUITTAK~ AND ~. MUND~: Nesuru. G, rloud, Liuk. 7u~lor,
7homes, Trout. Nbeeler
Nr. Nbeeler rhea moved thnt uction on the vuconcy on the Bourd of Hoes-
lug aud H~giene erected by the resiguetiou of Nr. Norton Hoeeymna be deferred one
meek. Tbe m.otioe mos uecouded b~ Hr. Trout end uuaniaoual! odop~ed.
There being oo further business, Meyor Nebbor'declered the meeting
ad~ ourned.
APPROYED
AT~EST:
Deputy~City Clerk Mayer
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, February 14, 1972,
The Council of the City 6f Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Buiding, Monday, February 14, 1972, at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding,
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton
Thomas. James O. Trout, Vincent S. Rheeler and Mayor Roy L, Mebber
ABSENT: Councilman David Il. Lisk ............ :- ..................... 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hlrst, City Manager: Mr. Byron E.
Itaner, Assistant City Manager: Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney: and Mr. A. N.
Gibson. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: Themeetin9 nas opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C, Taylor.
Member of Roanoke City Council.
MINUTES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday.
January 10, 1972, and the regular meetin9 held on Monday, January 1T, 1972,
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:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday,
February 14, 1972, on the request of Suburban Realty Corporation, that property
located on the corner Of Beech Street and Barberry Avenue, N. M.. described as
Lots 5 - 9. inclusive. Section 3. Map of Mestwood Annex. Official Tax Nos. 2630(,12
2630t~15. inclusive, be Fez*ned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District,
to RG-I, General Residential District. or RG-2, General Residential District.
the matter was before the body.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. Douglas M. Kielkopf,
iAttorney, representing Suburban Realty Corporation. requesting that Council
~ reschedule said public hearing since he had not prepared nor furnished the City
Clerk with the notice of public hearing which is required to be published in a
daily newspaper three weeks before the date of the public hearing, was before
~: the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of Mr. Kielkipf and
ithat the public hearing he rescheduled for Monday. March 13, 1972. The motion
*,was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
ZONING: A communication from Mr. J. L. Boysaw requesting that Council
igrant him permission to come within lO inches of the side property line in connec-
'tion with a garage which is attached to his home located at 2755 Kirl/land Drive,
N. M.. was before the body.
Mr, M, G, Light, Zoning Adwinistrato~, appeared before Council and
advised that this matter has already'been before the Board of Zoning Appeals that
It was denied and that it ia now u matter for the courts to handle,
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimously adopted,
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that $316,05 be appropriated to Maintenance of Eqnlpment.under Section
n5300, "Schools - Maintenance of Equipment," of the 1971-72 budget, advising that
an insurance check for $316.05 will be deposited as revenue with the City
Treasurer and that the appropriation is needed in order for the School Board to use
the insurance funds to repair a damaged vehicle, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20095) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =5300, "Schools -
Maintenance of Equipment," of the 1971-72 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. ~rout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
· ebber ............................
NAYS: None .............O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that $1,955.00 be appropriated to Personal Services, that
be appropriated to Supplies, that $635.00 be appropriated to Equipment, that
i$649.00 be appropriated to Operations and that $117.00 be appropriated to Fixed
!Charges under Section ~21000, "Schools - Manpower Development and Training Act,*
iof the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds to train 36 welders and advising that 100
Ipercent of actual expenditures will be reimbursed from federal funds, was before
!
!Council.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
!School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20096) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #21000, *Schools -
iManpower Development and Training Act," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance,
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No, 36,. page 235.) ·
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. ~he motion was seconded
by Rr. Carland and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, #heeler and Mayor
Webber ........................
NAYS: None ............. O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
Irequesting that $4,773,00 be appropriated to In-Service Training under Section
c2675, *Schools - In Service Training** of the 1971-72 budget, advising that this
amount represents revenue to be received from the State Board of Education for in-
service training classes, that it was not known that these funds would be available
fat the time the 1971-72 budget mas prepared, therefore, this revenue was not
included Jn the budget and an a~propriation for this amount is necessary in order
for the School Board to use these funds to pay the universities which bare con-
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
'School Board and offered the ~ollowin9 emergency Ordinance:
(n20097) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #2675, *Schools -
·
~In Service Training." of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for
:an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 35, page 23b.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adapted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................
NAYS: None ........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
SCHOOLS-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: A communication from the Roanoke City
School Board, transmitting a Resolution concerning sewage problems at the Huff
Lane Elementary School. requesting that Council appropriate funds in the 1972-73
budget to allow said school to be connected to the city sanitary sewer system, was
ibefore the body.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication and Resolution be referred to
!the City Manager for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
iseconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
ii PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
iPROGRAM: A communication from the Roanoke County Woman*s Club. concurring with a
igeneral trend of thought that the Roanoke Valley needs one central facility for
i!the .
housing of prisoners was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
JAIL: Copy of a communication from Mr. Re P. Mason, Jails Superintendent.'
!advising of an inspection of the city jail on December 9. 1971. was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Hr. Hheeler and unanimously adopted.
STREET LIGSTS: Copy of a communication from the Appalachian Power
Coapnny. transmitting a list of street lights instolled and/or removed during
the month of January. 1972. mas before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication and list be received and filed.
The motion mas seconded by BF. Thooas and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Barry L. Flora. Attorney. representing
Graham and Associates. requesting that property located on the southerly side of
Colonial Avenue, 5. H.. described as 1.65 acres of land. Official Tax No. 1260301.
bounded on the west by 10.23 acres, described as official Tax No. 1360201, and on
the east by 1.316 acres, described as Official Tax No. 1260322. be rezoned from
RG-2, General Residential District. to C-l. Office and Institutional 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
mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Hr. #. Heywood Fralin. Attorney. represent-~
'in9 Mr. John L. Cantrell. et ux.. requesting that property located at the north-
~ lB and 19, Block 9, gap of Colonial Heights. Official Tax Nos. IRTlOlYo 1271610
land 1271819, be rezoned from C-2. General Commercial District. to C-I. Office and
Institutional District, was before Council.
Hr. Thomas 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. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. J. D. Logan, III, Attorney, representing
Mr. Richard M. Hylton. et ux., requesting that property located on the southeaster-
ly corner of linthrop Avenue and 23rd 5treat, 5. H., described as Lot 22, Block 4,
HinDus Addition, Official Tax No. 1~70522. be rezoned from RD, Duplex 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 Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Claude D. Carter, Attorney, representing
~Spectrum, Incorporated. requesting that property located at 106 Lee Avenue, N.
[described us the southerly one-half of Lot 3, Block 4, Map of Upson Addition. be
!rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential District,
was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planntn9 Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
Imas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Mr~ John Mo Taylor, Attorney, representing Dr.
James K. Metz, requesting that property located in the vicinity of Ravenmood Avenue
nnd Floraland Drive, N. #** described ns Lots ?A and BA, Layman Square and parts of
Lots 9 end 10, Block 4, Floraland Addition, OffJcinl Trix Nos. 2160201, 2160203,
2280SOB and 22Doso9, be resumed from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, was
before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the request for resuming be referred to the City
iPlanning Commission for study, report end recommendation to Council. The motion
~uas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-COUNCIL: The City Manager submitted a Mritten report recommendin9
that $400.00 be appropriated to Public Ceremonies under Section ~1. 'Council,"
!of the 1971-72 budget.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~2009fl) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~1. *Council,"
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 23b.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion Mos seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the folio#lng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ........................ b.
NAYS: None .........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a written report recommending that
$4,O00.O0 be appropriated to Fees for Professional and Special Services under
Section u21, "Lunacy Commissions,~ of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for
the remainder of the fiscal year.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
iManager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(c20099) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~21, 'Lunacy
;Commissions," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an
!emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 23?.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iby Mr. Thomas and adopted b! the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout #heeler and Mayor
Webber ...................... 6.
NAYS: None ..........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
At this point. Mr. Lisk entered the meeting.
BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a mritten report
concurring in the following report of a committee recommendl·g that the proposal
of Oran Roanoke Corporation for · nam fire truch of u l,O00-9·llon pumping
capacity, in the amount of $34,97B.og, be accepted, and that $4,978,09 be trans-
ferred from Operational ·nd Construction Equipment - Replacement under Section
aDO, *$emer and Drain Construction** to Vehicular Equipment - New under Section
m47, *Fire Department** of the 1971-72 budget~ to provide ·ddition·l funds for
said fire truck;
*Roanoke, Virginia.
February 14, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
After due and proper ·dvertisement on Tuesday,.January 25,
1972, bids were received and opened before a committee of the
undersigned for the purchase of one new fire truck. This new
fire truck of · l,O00-(Jallon pumping c·pacity mas to h·ve a five-
man crew cab of the forward type. Although numerous manufacturers
of this type of equipment were invited to bid, only one bid was
received, that bid from Oran Roanoke Corporation of Vinton,
Virginia, whose bid net f.o.b. Roanoke, was in tbe amount of
$34.9T0.09.
Two other firms responded to the bid only to indicate an
inability to provide a competitive bid mith the loc·l firm.
Although the specific·tions were not restrictive the
primary reason for only one bid appears to h·ve been the fact that
the five-man forward type cab is no longer commercially available.
Previously this type of chassis and vehicle was ·v·il·ble on
an Intern·tion·l Model C08109 chassis, flomever this type of
chassis was discontinued ·s of September 1970.
City Council in the current budget Account 47 - 385 had
appropriated $30,000 for the purch·se of this vehicle. The
increase in cost above the appropriated ·mount is due to the
f·ct that this vehicle must now be custom built. At this fire
truck is needed it would be recommended th·t City Council by
budget ordinance transfer $4,97D.09 from Sewer and Dr·in Con-
struction Account No. BR. Object Code 355. This Sewer and Drain
Construction Account has unexpended funds in the amount of some
Sb,O00 ·fter the purchase of a backhoe ·uthorized within that
·CCD·Ut.
It would be your committee*s recommendation that City
Council transfer $d,976.09 from th·t account to Fire Dep·rtment,
Account 47, Object Code 385. Vehicular Equipment - New, and
authorize the purchase Of this vehicle from Oran Roanoke Corpora-
tion of Vinton, Virginia.
Respectfully submitted.
$! Byron E. Hamer
Byron E. Haner
S/ Rilliam F. Clark
S/ Bueford B. Thompson
Bueford D. Thompson"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance transferring $4,976.09 from
Operational and Construction Equipment - Replacement under Section aGO,
'Sewer and Drain Construction.' to Vehicular Equipemtn - Nam under Section a47,
~'Fire Department,# of the 1971-72 budget:
(u2OIOO) AM ORDINANCE to emend and reordein Section zOO. "Semer and
Drain Construction,' and Section g47. 'Fire Department,# of the If?l-?2 Appropria-
!rico Ordinance, and providing for an emergnncy.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Boot No. ab. page 230.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
iby DF. Taylor and adopted by the follomin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carland, List, Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None ............O.
Mr. Trout then offered the following emergency Ordinance accepting the
proposal of Oreo Roanoke Corporation, in the amount of $34.976.0g, for said fire
truck:
(#20101) AN ORDINANCE providin9 for the purchase of one new fire truck,
upon certain terms and conditions; accepting a certain bid made to the City for
furnishing and delivering said equipment; and providin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36, page 238.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Tm ut, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .........................7.
NAYS: None ...........O.
BUDGET-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATI~ S COURT-CITY ENGINEER-MARKET-PARKS
;AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager submitted the following report requesting certain
appropriations to various accounts which are overdrawn:
"Roanoke, Virginia
February 14, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Auditor has provided the City Mnnager*s office with
a list of various accounts within the City which are overdrawn and
are in need of either an appropriation or transfer of funds. They
are as follows:
Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Account 19, Object Code
201, Utilities. The expenditures within the utilities account of
the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court budget have already
exceeded the amount budgeted by $127.16. This overexpenditure is
a result of two factors, the normal inflationary trend of prices
in the cost of coal in addition to the fact that the coal is present-
ly delivered to the site rather than picked up by City forces.
In times past when the municipal building was heated with coal
the City prcured coal in carload lots and City forces delivered
it. With reduced coal purchases we now have this delivered by
the firm which sells the coal. Funds are encumbered for the coal--
so in addition to this $127.16 overexpenditure funds for electricity
and water are needed. It would be recommended that City Council
appropriate $700.00 to Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, Account
19, Object Code 201, Utilities.
Engineering, Account 55, Object Code 114, Overtime, ia over-
expended by $542.74. This is the first year that the inspection
of the street paving program has been accomplished by the engineer-
ing inspection department, As a result no funds were budgeted or
provided for the overtime work expended by the inspector during
this paving program. In previous lears, the Public moths Department
budgeted $1,200 for this purpose. This $1.2oo mas removed~from the
Public Works account for this fiscal year but not included in the
Engineering Department. As a result this account Is overexpended
in the amount of $542.74. $700 is needed to cover this overexpendi-
ture plus a small cushion for any additional overtime work which
might occur. There are adequate funds within the personnel account,
Object Code 101, for this purpose should City Council concur in the
transfer.
City Mather, Account Ob, Object Code 106, Extra Relp, is over-
expended by $740.48. As members of City Council mill remember the
City Market budget account was reduced this fiscal year based upon
the fact that the refrigeration system owned and operated by the
City Market mould be eliminated and the YaFJOUS tannins within the
building mould provide their own refrigeration. This tooh several
months longer than was anticipated with the result that the City
had to continue to operate and maintain the old system until the
new equipment was installed. As a result the Market*s Extra Help
account was overexpended by $740.46. As this is a bare bones account
it is not possible to find a place within the Account to transfer
funds to cover this overexpenditure. An appropriation of $T50
is needed to Market Account 66, Object Code 106, Extra Help.
In the Refuse Collection Department, Account 69, Object Code
360, Vehicular Equipment - Replacemm t, was overexpended by $1§.17
in the purchase of seven trucks. This overexpenditure apparently
nas a result of the cost of advertising the purchase of new
trucks which was apparently not contained in the to tal amount
appropriated. As an adequate balance exists in Object Code 330,
Supplies and Raterials - Construction, it would be recommended that
$15.17 be transferred from Object Code 330, Supplies and Materials -
Construction to Code 360, Vehicular Equipment - Replacement.
Parks and Recreation. Account ?$, Object Code 235, Advertising,
is overexpended by ~16.19. The majority of this fund of $500 mas
spent for purchase of a brochure advertising the Transportation
Museum. There exists the residue of some $40 in Account 3?0, Other
Equipment - Replacement. This residue exists after the purchase of
the item authorized from this account and it Would be recommended
that $16.19 be transferred from Object Code 370, Other Equipment -
Replacement, to Object Code 235, Advert!sing, to compensate for
this overexpenditure.
Sewer and Drain Construction Account OB, Object Code 114,
Overtime is overexpended by $65.64. This overexpenditure is a
result of the numerous manhours required during December for work on
a sewer break in East Campbell Avenue. This sewer failure, for
which City Council appropriated emergency funds to pay a contractor
was an emergency situation. Humerous manhours were expended
keeping the line operating during the period of repair. One to
personnel vacancies within this department work force, a surplus
of funds will exist in the personnel account this fiscal Iear.
It will be necessary to appropriate additional funds in the amount
of $200 ~ cover this overexpenditure and to provide some funds
should an additional need arise.
~ Interest on Indebtedness, Account 95, Object Code 701, Bond
Issue and Cremation is overexpended by $2,031.73. Additional funds
in that amount are needed to correct his overexpenditure.
Stadium, Account 76, Object Code 114, Overtime, is also over-
expended by $1,019 as a result of two circumstances. First. con-
siderable overtime funds were expended removing the heavy snow from
the tarpaulin prior to the VPI-VMI football game. Additionally
two high school champion}hip football games, one between E. C. Glass
and Andrew Lewis and one between T. C. Williams and Andrew Lewis,
were played in the stadium. The namerous overtime manhours expended
by this purpose were not anticipated. As a result of these two
games, $2,623.34 additional revenue was deposited to the City's
General Fund in payment for the use of thb stadium. It is not
anticipated that additional overtime mill be needed at the stadium
between nam and the end of the fiscal year; however, it would be
recommended that the City Council appropriate $1.200 to the Stadium
Account ?6, Object Code 114. Overtime. to reimburse this account
for the deficit and provide approximately $181 for any additional
overtime that is needed.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Mirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
and offered the £ollouing emergency Ordinance:
(u20102) AN ORMINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, See Ordinance Meek Mo. 3b. page 239.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. task. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Mebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ...........O.
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a mritten
report recommending that $300,000.00 be appropriated to Exhibitions under Section
#?7. "Civic Center,* of the 1971-72 budget, to provide adequate funds to pay for
entertainment for the next fen months at the Roanoke Civic Center, advising that
at least an equal amount of revenue may be expected to offset this appropriatiom.
Mr. Thomas moved that action on the ~eport of the City Manager be deferred
until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday. February 22, 1972, pending
a report from the City Auditor on accounting procedures at. the Roanoke Civic Center.
The motion nas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a written report south
of Melrose Avenue, transmitting copy of a communication written by him to Mr. T. L.
Plunkett. Jr., Attorney. advising that he has been unable to contact a client of
Mr. Plunket~s who is the owner of a car wash business located at the southeast
corner of the intersection of 35th Street and Melrose Avenue to ascertain if he
would be willing to sell said parcel of land to the city and requesting, that Mr.
Plunkett inform his us to whether or not his client is willing to sell this strip
of land to the City of Roanoke to be used in the widening of 35th Street, N. M.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Garland moved that the City
Manager be directed to make a bona fide offer, by registered mail, to the owner
of the property and report his findings to Council.' The motion was seconded by Mr.
Lisk and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mr. Trout presented photographs showing certain
unsatisfactory traffic situations on 35th Street and moved that the City Manager
be directed to investigate the traffic Situation along 35th Street and Melrose
Avenue. N. N.', and make an adjustment in the traffic signs along said street. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SEVERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Nanoger submitted n written report
formnrdfng'n communication from the State Voter Control Board In reference to a
meeting of the Doard on December 7, 1971, nt mhl~h meeting representatives of the
City of Roanohe mere present, nsting that the decision of the Board and the commun
cation prescribes a hearing to be convened in Richmond, Virginia, on Nnrch 13,
1972, for the matters stated and further noting that this mill be on the date of a
Council meeting and prior to that time appropriate arrangements mill be made.
RF. Thomas moved that the report he received and filed. The motion mas.
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEVERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Nauager submitted a written report
advising that the city is now in a position to proceed with the first two major
units of the additions to the Sewage Treatment Plant, that these are the chemical
feed installation end the sludge lagoons, that in order to adhere to time schedules
he would like to receive these bids before Council on March 9, 1972. and recommend-
ing that Council call a special meeting at !0 a.m., that day, and further recommend
in9 that Council call a Special meeting at such time of day as would be convenient
on the following day. March 10, 1972, for the purpose of making an award of con-
tract on the projects if the bids are satisfactory.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PAY pLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager submitted the following report:;
transmitting a revised document with regard to the lebor union matter and arrange-
ment in connection mith city personnel, advising that this document has been dis-
i cussed with Mr. Robert E. Myers, Consultant, Public Service Employees Local Union
iNo. 1261. and has his concurrence and also transmitting copy of the following
!opinion from the City Attorney pertaining to the matter:
*Roanoke, Virginia
February 14, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Herewith there is forwarded a revised document in regard
to the labor union matter and arrangement with regard to City
personnel. This has been discussed with Mr. Robert Myers. their
representative, and has his concurrence.
'Draft
February 10, 1972
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
This Memorandum of Understanding. between the City
Manager of the City of Roanoke, Virginia. hereinafter
referred to as City Manager. end Public Service Employees
Local Union No. 1261 affiliated mith The Laborers Inter-
national Union of North America (AFL-CIO), 2023 Villiam-
son Road, hereinafter referred to as Union, is entered
into this of for the purposes
hereinafter set forth.
1. The Union has requested that it be permitted to be
present with or to appear in behnlf of certain eeploy-
ees nf the City, as listed at Appendix Ao from time to
time in matters or personnel policies nnd matters affect-
lng conditions of eeployment with the City, as the
same may apply to those certain employees, including
mutters, in these instances, before the Personnel Roard
or the City and in the procedures of the City for the
hearing of grierancen.
Consent is given by the City Manager to such request
under the conditions that such appearances or presencea:
a. shall be mith consent of the specific employee or
employees, which consent may be requested by the ·
City Manager of the Union to be evidenced in urlting:
b. shall he requested in an orderly manner and shall
not be with excessive frequency or under circumstances
as to be disruptive to the normal procedures and
the work programing and activities of the City and
its personnel~ and,
c. shall be consistent with established personnel
procedures, chain of supervision and policy deter-
mination respnnslbilJties of the City.
The union has requested to meet with the City Manager,
prior to the final preparation by the City Manager of
the Manager*s annual budget recommendation to the City
Council, for the purpose of making recommendations and
presenting Information with regard to salaries, wages
and employee benefits for and in behalf Of those
employees of the City for whom the Union would appear
as herein designated.
This request shall be consented to and the matters sub-
mitted therein shall be given consideration by the City
Manager prior to final preparation of the annual
recommended budget.
Representation of the Union in any of the above matters
shall be only by duly authorized persons of the Union.
The City Manager, or his designated agent, may require
confirmation of the authorization of any representative.
4. It is recognized that any employee or employees to
whom this Memorandum may refer or apply, shall have
the right to refuse to join or participate in or make
use of the activities of the Union and shall have the
right to represent themselves in matters of personnel
or employment conditions with the City.
5. This Memorandum in no way voids, prevents or interferes
with the authority, right or practice of the City or
its agents to direct or assign its employees or to fully
pursue, make inquiry into or handle matters of personnel,
employment, supervisory responsibility, working condi-
tions or operations, according to established practices
and procedures and according to the best interests of
the City.
6.This Memorandum of Understanding may be amended or
modified as deemed necessary for the purpose of satis-
factory implementation by both parties of the terms herein,
with such amendment or modification to be by mutual
consent of the parties hereto and with such amendment
· or nodJficatkn to be made during and to be applicable
only to the effective period of this Memorandum.
T. This Memorandum of Understanding shall be in effect
from 1972 through 1973
and shall be automatically renewed for one year unless
either party shall give thirty (30) days written
notice by registered mail to the appropriate party prior
to
Should any portion of this. Memorandum be found to be
contrary,to or in conflict ulth uny lam or ordinance
of the City or law of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
said portlonshull thereby be voided,
(Signed)
.(Signed)*
In furtherance of this matter, I attach a copy of a letter
opinion of February 10, 1972o which I have just received from the
City Attorney.
'February 10, 1972
Julian F. Hits,, City Manager
Room 354 Municipal Building
Roanoke. Virginia
Dear Mr. Hirst:
You have requested this office to review certain proposed
written agreements, drawn to be executed betmeen the City,
or yourself, ns City Manager, on the one hand and a local
labor union on the other, and to express opinion as to
whether or not you or the City have authority, should it be
so desired, to enter into such agreement.
It is settled law that municipal governmental units in
Virginia have onlysuch pomers as are expressly conferred
by general law or charter and those necessarily implied in
order to exercise such powers as are expressly conferred.
'It is an established principal that a municipal
corporation, deriving its powers, as it does,
from legislative grant, can exercise no power
not expressly, or by fair implication, conferred
upon it.* Rgvles v. City of Roanoke, 179 Va. 4H4
citing ~uscoe v. Comm., Bb. Va. 443.
*A municipal corporation being a creature of
the State, existing under its sovereignty and
and possessing only such powers as are conferred
by the State,'municipal regulations must not...
contravene the general lame nor can Such regulations
be repugnant to the policy of the State as declared
in general legislation~ City of Lvnchburo v.
Dominion Theaters, 175 Va. 35.
I find no provision, express or implied, in the Charter of
the City of Roanoke or in the general laws of the State
which empowers the City or any of its officials to enter
into a collective bargaining contract with .employees of the
City. Instead, Sections 20 and 21 expressly provide that the
City Manager shall be the administrative head of the municipal
government with, among others, the pomer to discipline and
remove any officer and employee. The legality of these
sections of the City*s Charter has, as you are aware, recently
been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States ~ the
case of Brown v. Hirst, U.S. -- (1972).
The general policy of ~he State in such matters is of long
standing. It is expressed in Joint Resolution No. 12 of
February 8. 194b, found in the Acts of Assembly of 1946. at
page 1006:
*Be it resolved by the Senate of Virginia, the House
of Delegates concurring, as follows:
'1. It is contrary to the public policy of Virginia
for any State. county, or municipal officer or agent
to be vested with or possess any authority to recognize
any labor union as a representative of any public officers
or employees, or to negotiate with any such union or its
agents math respect to any matter relating to them or their
employment or service.
2. Nothing in thin resolution shall be conntrued
to prevent employees of the State, its political sub-
divinionn, or of any governmental ugenc~ of any of thew
from rorwing orgnnlzntJons, not affiliated uith anylubor
union for the purpone of dincusning with the employing
agency the conditionn of their employwent, but not cluiming
the right to ntrike.*
The Attorney General of Yfrgiufa, Bonorable gobert V. Button,
on July 30, 1962, nnsuered in the negative the quention put
by Honornble Edward E. Millay on uhether or not officern and
agentn of the City of Richmond end its City Council had the
authority to recognize a public emplpyees' union end to ne-
gotiate with it and cited un opinion of the ~urt of Law and
Chancery of the Cit7 of Norfolh in the case of VerhaeQefl,
et als V. Reader. et als. The case involved the right of
certain firemen to join a labor union in the city of Norfolk
in violation of a rule or regulation promulgated by the City
Manager, and the Court held that the rule was enforceable.
Attorney General Button further concluded that there was no
duty upon any of the officers of the City of Richmond to
negotiate with a labor union.
The fact that there is a marked and recognized difference
between consulting with a labor union, a permissible but
frowned upon practice, and entering into 3 collective bar-
gaining contract with such a union by public officers is
emphasized in an opinion dated February lb. lg?O, of Honor-
able Andrew P. Miller to Honorable Junie L. Eradshaw. In
that opinion Attorney General Miller. after discussing
relevant case law, stated:
'The opinion of July 30, 1962. points out that
Senate Joint Resolution Ho. 12 does not prohibit
officials from negotiating with unions. Homever,
if a unit of government undertook to negotiate
collective bargaining contract contrary to the
stated public policy, it would be necessary to
imply the power to so do in the absence of legislative
authorization. Although the question of the
propriety of an implied power and its scope probably
is not a novelty, it has met with scant favor. There-
fore. it is my opinion that if collective bargaining
contracts between units Of government and the several
unions are desired, the better practice would be to
enact legislation authorizing Such negotiations, to-
gether with any desirable limitations thereon.'
It is apparent that Senate Joint Resolution No. 12, as well
as the various interpretations thereof, negate any theory
of *implied power* of a city or its officers to execute a
collective bargaining contract with a public service labor
union.
Additionally, it has recently come to the attention of the
undersigned that there is presently pending before the Geu-
eral ASsembly of Virginia. certain legislation, which, if
enacted, might expressly enunciate some general State
policy having the effect of lam on the subject, and which,
if enacted might he made mandatory upon or permissive with
localities. The fact of pending legislation on the subject
is indicative that there is no present express or implied
power or authority on the part of local governments or their
officials to enter into collective bargaining agreements
operative on public employees.,
For the above reason, it is my considered opinion that neither
you nor the City Council have express or implied authority
under present law to execute any formal agreement h~ing the
binding effect of a contract with Laborers' International
Union of North America (AFL-CIO).*
In the preparation of this Agenda letter, there has not been
the opportunity for me to fully review and analyze this opinion.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst'
Julian F. Nirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas loved that thc.report be received and'filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adapted.
STREETS ANO ALLEYS: Yhe City Manager submitted the folleuing report
in connection with a petition of Hayes. Seay,'#attern ~ Mattern. Architects and
Engineers, to abandon certain portions of an existing sanitary meier easement
running through a for~er alley situated adjacent to and east of Lot 20. Block
6. Map of Exchange Building and Investment Company, advising that Hayes. Seay,
Mattern ~ Matterh made an offer in return for this release to convey to the City
of Roanoke a new easement for sanitary sewer purposes through an adjacent portion
of their property, that they have offered to the City a requisite deed of easement
and will pay all expenses of relocating the sanitary meier line to Lot 18 of the
same subdivision, that this exchange is acceptable to the city and recommendin9
that Council adopt.an Ordinance authorizing the signing of the deed of easement
and deed of abandonment and vacation~
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(#20103) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providin9 for tbe City's acquisi-
tion Of a certain perpetual easement in land needed for the proposed construction
of a sanitary seler line through property knoln as Lot lB, Block 6, Map of
ExchanDe Building ~ Investment Company. in the City 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 reserved
in a former alley, previously vacated, situate adjacent and to tbe east of Lot
of the aforesaid subdivision.
NREREAS, Hayes. Seay, Mattern ~ Mattern, a Virginia partnership, has
petitioned the Council to abandon certain portions of an existing sanitary sewer
easement running through portions of a former alley, such easement having been
reserved when said alley was vacated, discontinued and abandoned by the Council
as a public alley by Ordinance No. 6781, adopted October 7. 1945, such easement.
further, being situate between Lots 10 and 20, and between Lots 20, 21, 22 and a
portion of Lot 23 of Block 6 of the map of Exchange Building ~ investment Company,
and have offered, in return for the release, quitclaim and abandonment of said
easement, to 9rant and convey unto the City a new easement for sanitary sewer
~purposes through a certain adjacent portion of said owner's property; and have
:tendered to the City the requisite deed of easement which is on file in the Office
i of the City Clerk; and
MHEREAS, the City Manager has advised the Council that all the expenses
of the relocation of the sanitary meier line presently existing in said former
alley to its proposed adjacent location will be borne by the owners of the property
and bas recommended that the existing easement be released and relocated, ouch
release and relocation befog shown Jn detail on a certain plat attached to the deed1
of easement tendered to the City as aforesaid; in which recoumendation the'Council
concurs,
THEREFORE, RK IT OgOAI~EO by the Council of the City of goanoke as
follows:
1. That the City doth hereby accept the offer of Hayes, Seay,
~Mattern ~ Hattern. · Virginia partnership, to grant and convey to the City acer=
rain perpetual
easement through property in the City of Roanoke within a right-of-
uny. IS feet In width, bounded and described as follows:
BEGINNING at a point on the north side of
Allison Avenue. S. ~.. uhieh point is N. 03°
48" 5b" ~. 291.73 feet frou an iron stake in
the northwest corner of Franklin Road and
Allison Avenue. $. H.o said beginning point
of Lots 17 and 16o Block 6, Map of Exchange
Building ~ Investment Company of 1691, thence,
leaving said beginning point, along We boundary
line of Lots 17 and 18, aforesaid, N. 6°
44" E. 129.93 feet to a point on the south line
of a 10 foot wide alley; thence, along said
alley S. Ha° 49' 20" E. 15 feet to a point;
thence along a new line through Lot IH,
S. 6° OB' 44" W. 129.93 feet to a point on
the north side of Allison Avenue, S. M.; thence.
with the same. ~. 830 48' 56" M. 15 feet to
the Place of Beginning; and being shown in
detail on that certain plat entitled *Property
dated February 4, 1972. which plat is on file
in the Office of the City Clerk; and
HEXNG a part of the same property acquired by
Hayes, Seay, Mattern ~ Hattern, a Virginia
partnership, by deed dated October 5, 1971,
Office of the ffustings Court of the City of
Roanoke. Virginia.
for a nominal consideration of ONE DOLLAR ($1.00). cash. and that proper City
officials be, and they are hereby authorized and directed to accept for the City
2. That the Mayor and City Clerk be. and they are hereby authorized
a deed of release and quitclaim pursuant to which deed the City ~ould release,
i!quftclaim and convey unto the fee simple owner all Of the Cfty*s right, title and
iltherefor. Situate in a former alley, previously vacated, discontinued andabandoned
iby the Council as a public alley, such easement, further, being situate between
iLots 10 and 20 and between Lots 20. 21 22 and a portion of Lot 23 of Hlock b of
ilthe Hap of Exchange Building and Investment Company, in the City as shosn in detail
!:on a plat prepared by Hayes. Seay, Mattern ~ Mattern. under date of February 4,
~and entitled "Property of Hayes. Seay. Battern ~ Muttern, sho~ing existing and
Lproposed sewer easements", said deed of r~lease and quitclaim to be prepared and
~approved as to form by the City Attorney.
The motion mss seconded b7 Mr. Trout and adopted by the follomfag vote:
AYES:· Messrs. Garland, LJsk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Mheeler end Mayor
Nebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None O.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted a written report advising
that.the Hoard of Supervisors of Roanoke County, in its meeting on February O,
1972, rejected and voted down the request of the City of Roanoke, to operate a
controlled sanitary landfill for an IS month period in the city-owned north clear
zone of the Roanoke Municipal (loodrum) Airport and further advising that it is
administratively intended that the city proceed with preparing the north clear
zone site as to necessary trenching and roads and stockpiling Of earth; that the
icity proceed to prepare a trench strip in the south clear zone, south of RershbergeT
!Road for early use; that the city prepare the hollow south of Fern Park off of
i Yellow Mountain Road; that the city review with the Lanfill Committee and the
iCity Attorney as to a decision on'legal steps with respect to the rejection by the
!Roanoke County Hoard of Supervisors of the north clear zone; and that the city
reconfirm in whatever manner is judged necessary the continuing position of the
~City of Roanoke with reoard to the Hrushy Mountain site with the administrative
irecommendation that the city begin whatever definite steps are necessary toward
ioperation by the city of a long tern area at this location.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally advised that he would
ilihe to withhold the suggestions mentioned in his report and that he would like
ira present Council with a different report on the matter at the next regular
ilmeetin9 of the body on Tuesday, FeLrua~y 22, 1972.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
ithat action on the matter be deferred one week. The motion was seconded by Mr.
*Lisk and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the follow-
report on the status of personnel in the Police Department and the Fire Depart-
ment as of December 31. 1971:
'Roanoke, Virginia
February 14, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Listed below is the status of the Police and the Fire
Departments as of December 31, 1971.
*Fire Department
During the month of December.-1971. there were no changes in
personnel in the Fire Department.
Police Department
Hired
Officer L. A. Hayes 12/16/57 Transferred to Traffic Engineering
Department
Officer E. G. Yonce 3/16/65 Transferred to Traffic Engineering
Department
Officer A. M. Martin 9/29/69 Transferred to Traffic Engineering
Department
Officer R. L. Made 9/17/71 Transferred to Traffic Engineering
Department
Officer T. J, Shulkcum 12/ 6/71
Officer J. M. Chemntng 12/ 6/71
Ending December 31, 1971 - (Iff) vacancies*
Respectfully submitted,
S/'Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Llsh and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the City of
Roanoke for the month ~ January.
Mr. Trout moved that the report he received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lish and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUDLXC MELFARE: The City Auditor submitted a month-
ly statement of expenditures for public welfare for the month ended January 31,
1972.
Dr. Taylor moved that the statement be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council baying referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. Walter L, Mheaton that property
located on Moormon Road and 12th Street, N, W.. described as Lots B, 9 and
:Section 6. Map of Melrose Land Company, Official Tax Nos, 2222907 and 2222909,
ibc rezoued from RG-I, General Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial
District, the City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending
~that a C-I zoning classification be approved in lieu of the requested C-2 rezoning.
Mr. List moved that a public hearing be held on the question of rezonin9
~the property to C-2o General Commercial District, at 2 p.m., Monday, March 20,
1972. The motion was Seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
I! DUDGET-COUNCIL-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: Council having referred to a
!committee composed of Messrs. Byron E. Honer, Chairman, Alfred T. Beckley.
iMilliom F. Clark and B. B. Thompson for tabulation, report and recommendation the
ibtds received in connection with the provision and installation of a complete
,microphone and multiple electronic distribution and recording system in the Council
Chamber, the committee submitted the following report advising that the proposals
of Lee Hartman ~ Sons, Incorporated for Proposal No. 1, in the-amount of $5,595.00
?nd Jack L. Hartman and Company, Incorporated, for Proposal No. 2. in the amount of
$2.750,00, ore In accordance with specifications, nnd further ndrJsin9 that certalm
sppropristions mill be needed for said equipment:
'Roanoke, Virginia
February 14, 1972
'Honorable Hayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Honday. January 31, 1972. after proper advertisement.
bids were received and opened before City Council for provision
and installation of a complete microphone and multiple electronic
djstribation and recording system in the City Council chamber.
Three sets of bids were received with the bids of Templeton-Vest,
Incorporated, in the amount of $5.190 for the basic proposal Ho.
I and $2,400 for proposal No. 2, being low.
After careful examination of the bids, and a tabulation of
those bids is attached, the committee finds that the low bid
submitted by Templeton-Yest, Incorporated, does not comply
with the specifications with respect to the following points,
The compressor amplifier module as bid does not comply with
the specifications with respect to the compressor mode release
time or the output pomer. The output power shortcoming could
affect future expansion of this system. This is the same basis
upon which the previous bid of Jack L. Hat*man and Company was
rejected. The tape recorder reproducer does not comply with
respect to the reel size specified. This is an important aspect
as it determines the total length Of time that the tape recorder
would play without replacement of the tape. Additionally and
unfortunately, specifications provided by the contractor are
not complete enough for the committee to positively determine
whether this unit complies with the frequency response as specifi-
ed.
Hhile the basic bid of Lee Hartman ~ Sons. Incorporated. in
the amount of $5,595, does comply with the specifications,
the alternate low bid submitted by Lee Hartmun ~ Sons, for a
Tape-Athon recorder at a cost of $1,995 does not comply; theraflu,
the low acceptable bid for the electronic distribution system
tape recorder would he that submitted by Jack L. Hartman and
Company, Incorporated. in the amount of $2,?50.
On a previous occasion City Council appropriated
for the provision and installation of a complete and operating
microphone system with a multiple output distribution network
adequate for the press, radio and television media, It should
be emphasized that this system as designed would provide sound
distribution capability for these news media only and not a
public address system for City Council.
Should' City Council desire to proceed with this project,
it would necessitate the appropriation of an additional $7?5 to
permit the purchase of Proposal Ho. 1, that system to be provided
by Lee Hartman ~ Sons, Incorporated. in the amount of $5o595.
Additionally should Council desire to provide the recording
equipment as contained in Proposal No. 2, to fund acceptable low
bid provided by Jack L. Hartman and Company, Incorporated,
$2,750 would be needed.
The City Attorney is being requested to prepare the necessary
ordinance appropriating $3,545to permit acceptance of the low
basic bid submitted by Lee Hat*men ~ Sons, Incorporated. in the
amount of $5.595.00 for the sound distribution equipment plus
the low acceptable bid for Proposal No. 2 as submitted by Jack L.
Hartman and Company, Xncorporated, in the amount of $2,?50, Ail
other bids will be rejected.
This report and tabulation is submitted for City Council*s
consideration.
S/ Byron E. Honer
Byron E. Honer, Chairman
S/ Alfred Beckley
Alfred Beckley
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Hilliam F. Clark
Milliam F. Clark
S/ B. B. Thompson
Bueford B. Thompson"
#r. Trout moved that the matter be referred to 1972-73 budget study.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Mbeeler.
Hr. Lisk offered u substitute motion that Council accept the report or
the committee and award the necessary contracts for said equipment. The motion
mas seconded by Hr. OUtland and lost by the following vote:
~ AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk and Taylor ............................. 3
NAYS: Messrs. Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor Nebber
The original motion was then adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thom3s. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber 6
NAYS: Mr. Lisk ........................................................ 1.
Mr. Trout then moved that the City Clerk be directed to return any bid
~bonds that are being held with regard to said equipment. The motion mas seconded
i:by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20081. rezonin9 property described as Lots 2 thmugh
parts of 18 and 19, inclusive, Block 9, Lincoln Court, Official Tax Nos. 2041325-
:~2041341, inclusive, from IDM, Industrial Development District, to C-4. Central
Business District Expansion Area. havin9 previously been before Council for its
i first reading, read and laid over. was again before the body. Mr. Mheeler offering
itbe following for its second reading and final adoption:
(g20081) 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. 204, Sectional 1966
Zone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of ~rdinance. see Ordinance Book No. 36. page 232.)
Rt. Wheeler 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
~Nebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ...............O.
il ZONING: Ordinance No. 20082. rezonin9 a 2.467 acre parcel of land
l:Isituate on the southeast corner Of the Hershberger Road - Peters Creek Road inter-
~isection. described as Official Tax No. 2770301, from G-I, Office and Institutional
District. to C-2, General Commercial District, having previously been before Coun-
cil for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body. Mr.
iTrout offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(n20082) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
ICode of the City of~ Roanoke, 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 277, Sectional 1966
IZone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook No. 36, page 233.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vot~:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber 6.
NAYS: None .............Oo (Mr. Thomas not voting)
PLANNING: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the pro-
per measure approving the City Manager's application to the Department of Housing
and Urban Development for recertification of the city's Workable Program for
Community Improvement to be made under date of February 14, 1972, he presented
tsame; whereupon, #r. Ljsk offered the following Resolution:
Il (n20104) A RESOLUTION approving the City Manager's application to the
!Department of Housing and Urban Development for recertification of the City's
iWorkable Program for Community Improvement to be made 'under date of February 14,
1972.
(For full text of Resolution. see Resolution Book No. 36, page 241.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. Yhe 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.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
CITY MANAGER-INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION: Dr. Taylor presented the following
communication in connection with establishing the position of an Assistant to the
City Manager, recommending that the selection of a qualified person be from the
black community with a beginning salary of $10.000.00 per year:
"February 10, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I recommendthe establishment of the position of an *~ssis-
taut to the City Manager.* Research has revealed that there is
dire need for another Assistant in the City Manager's office.
Further investigation, also. disclosed that every other major
department has a minimum of two (2) assistants.
! am sure each Councilman will agree that ~e have channeled
to the City Manager's office a multiplicity of items which require
many hours of study and work before reporting back to Council.
Proper handling of most of these matters will require skill in
writing, preparing reports, analyzing matters, morking effectively
with others and seeing the job through. Such an individual would
need a college ,background and some administrative expertise.
I strongly recommend the selection of a qualified person from
the Black Community she can. also. serve to develope the type of
public relations contact needed math people interested in employ-
ment in City, Government. The Black Community of Roanoke represents
l/S of the total population and approximately 1/5 of the tax base.
In fact. our percentage of the tax base is increasing with the
silent exodus of many Whites from central City to the surburbs.
It would be reasonable to. expect a fair share of the job oppor-
tunities in local government. Since this has not been the case
in the past. I call upon this Council to act favorably upon this
recommendation.
~n wast bec*an worn concnrnnd about pm*pin and show ourselves
to be pm*pie okiented as well.ns pr*blew centered. Siwply statnd,
people should corm first. A positive response to this request
will causn Black Citizens to know that they havn representatives
on City Council with whoa they can identify; representatives
lntnrested in their well-being; representatives with knowledge
of thn prnbleas thny face and nra willing to do something about
thew.
The position of *Assistant to the City Manaoe~* would not
require a chaffer change and could be handled as an amendment
to the unclassified pay plan. Such a position should carry
n bnginning salary of $10,000.00 and the job discriptJon should
be written by the City #manger with any assistance he may request
from city Council.
I not only believe that City Council will be justified in
taking this action; it will probably be one of the most signifi-
cant advancements we have made in race relations and better human
relations in Roanoke. Your favorable consideration of this
matter is sincerely requested.
Respectfully snbwitted,
S/ Noel C. Taylor
Noel C. Taylor*
fir. Taylor moved that the position of Assistant to the City Manager be
approved by Council at a beginning salary of $10,000.00 par year, that the
City Manager be requested to develop a job description with any assistance be may
need from Council and that the position be filled by July 1, 1972. The motion
*was seconded by Mr. Llsk,
After a discussion of thn matter, Jr. Thomas offered a substitote motion
that the matter be referred to the City Manager for investigation and report to
Council, at the earliest possible date, with the thought of combining the
Community Assistant and the Assistant to the City Manager into one job description.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
il AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, #heeler and Mayor
:Nebber ...............................7.
: NAYS: None ................ O.
i' INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION: Dr. Taylor presented the following communication
ilo connection with Race Relations Day. advising that it is fitting that we pause
it* ive thanks to God 'for better human relations and for the blessings of liberty
the goods bequeathed to us as a people under the Stars and Strips:
"February 11, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Municipal Building
Roanoke, ¥irginia
Gentlemen:
Yesterday was Race Relations Day and the coming Lord*s bay
is Brotherhood Sunday. I believe it is fitting that we pause
here to recognize these significant occasions and give thanks
to Almighty God for better human relations and for the blessings
of liberty and the 9,ods bequeathed to us as a people under the
Stars and Strips. The words we speak today concerning brother-
hood would be meaningless and empty gestures if not supported
by the facts of history. Together we have striven to help the
~atlon grow and some to new heights of power.
With horny hands me have cleared the forest, tilled the
soil and have shared in the cultural pattern of Anerleun life.
Ail of us have suffered for the ~utJon; the'Black, Jewish,
Whites und otherk; and as soldiers our sons nad daughters bare
gladly died, and their sacred remains rest in the earthly bosom
of many ~ations scattered around the world and some bare per-
ished on mad oceans, and their invisible por~lcles'ha~e found
their place in the watery niches of the Seven Seas. The '
sacrifices we have made together have deepened our respect and
'appreciation for one another.
Brotherhood is really the willingness to give to others
every right and dignity we claim for ourselves; it is essential
to the fulfillment and perpetuation of American democracy. So long
as any minority among us is not completely free, all of us are
threatened. Brotherhood *nd better race relations must reach
into our schools, our churches and our community organizations.
~hat we do in Roanoke speaks more loudly to the world than
anything me can say.
Brotherhood has many adversaries. Selfishness,preJudice
and ignorance are divisive forces. They disrupt the human
family, drive and hold its members apart. As citizens of this
country, we must seek to establish conditions mithin mhich
brotherhood and better human relations are possible.
Far more than being a Black problem, the problem of color in
America is a ~hite problem, #em once fought to free slaves. The
problem today is whether we can free ourselves from slavery;'
slavery to the customs and persistant attitudes which permit racial
strains to continue. Each emancipated citizen must somehow write
his *mn charter of brotherhood and the struggle must go on until
all men are respected as brothers.
Ne.must realize that our society is reconstructing itself.
In a real sense, we are experiencin9 the birth pains of a new era
in human relations. As me continue to participate in meaningful
activities during this Brotherhood month, many of us will readily
admit that there are some things wron9 with our race relations,
but many more things right in our race relations. In a way and
with a feeling deeper than we have ko*mn before, Mhites can sing,
61acks can sing, the Jewish community can sing and Americans of
many ethnic backgrounds, creeds and religions can sing in joyous
tones:
My Country fis of thee,
Sweet land of Liberty,
Of thee I sing:
Land where ny fathers died,
Land of the Pilgrim*s pride.
From every mountain side
Let freedom ring:
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Noel C. Taylor
Noel C. Taylor"
ATTEST:
~eputy City Clerk
APPROVED
Mayor
Mr. Link moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
~mns seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business. Mayor ~ebber declared the meeting
!adjourned.
COI~CIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Tuesday. February 22. 1972.
The Council of the City of Roan*he met In regul~ meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Tuesday. February 22, 1972, at 2 p.m., the
regular meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K, Lisk~ Noel C. Taylor.
Hampton W. Thomas. James O. Trout. Vincent $. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L.
Webber ....................... ?.
ABSENT: None ........... O.
!
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr, Julian F. Birst, City Manager; Mr. Byron C.
Hamer, Assistant City Manager. Mr. James N. Klncunon, City Attorney; Mr. B, Ben
Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel
C. Taylor,
~Member of Roanoke City Council.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Rabbi Francis Barry Silberg appeared before
Council and advised that each year the National Conference of Christians and Jews
~presents anards to various people in the community who bare performed good deeds
~and who bare received ne public, recognition and requested permission to present
these awards to six members of the community.
·
Rabbi Silberg then presented the National Conference of Christians and
Jews Good Neighbor Amards to Mrs. Edna Locke, Mr. Douglas Ragsdale, Mrs. Clara
~Carter, Sergeant Paul Adams. Mr. Otey Schilling and Mr. tester Rollins.
BEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC RATTERS:
S~REETS AND ALLEYS: Council having set a public h~aring for 2 p.m.,
Tuesday, February 22, 1972, on the request of the East Gate Church of the Nazarene,
!that a certain alley 12 feet wide running from Kessler Road to East Cate Avenue
between 20th Street and 21st Street, N. i., and another 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 shown in Block 7 of the Map of East
Gate Addition. be vacated, discootinoed 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:
"January 20, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited requeste was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of January 19, 1972,
Mr. John L. Hart. representing the East Gate Church of the
Nazarene, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that
they presently have a building on the corner and that they own
Lot 13. They are requesting these alley closures, he noted, in
order to expand the Church.
The Planning Director noted that these alleys were paper
alleys, and tbnt no utility easements mere located within the
right-of-may.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely.
S/ Creed K. Lemon, JF*o by L. M.
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
The viemevs appointed to viem the alleys in question submitted a written
report advising that they have rimmed the alleys and the neighboring property and
that they are unanimously of the opinion that no inconvenience would result to
any individual or to the public from permanently vacating, discontinuing and
closing said alleys.
No one appearing in oppositio'n to vacating, discontinuln9 and closing
said alleys, Mr. Wheeler moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its
~first reading:
(~20105) AN ORDINANCE enacted pursuant to the provisions of Section
~ 15.1-554 of the Code of Virginia as amended to date, providing for vacating, dis-
~continuing and closing a certain alley 15 feet wide running from Kessler Road to
iiEast Gate Avenue between 20th Street and 21st Street, N. E., ands certain alley
12 feet wide running from 20th Street to 21st Street, N. E.. between Kessler Road
iand East Gate Avenue. being all of the alleys shown in Block 7 of the Map of Cast
!Cate Addition to the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
WHEREAS. a petition has been filed with the Council of the City of
iRoanoke pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-364 of theCodo of Virginia
as amended to date. wherein it is asked that a certain alley 12 feet wide running
from Kessler Road to East Cate Avenue between 20th Street and 21st Street, N. E..
iland a certain alley 12 feet wide running from 20th Street to 21st Street, N.
ihetmeeu Kessler Road and East Cate Avenue. being ali Of the alleys shown in Block
!i7 of the Map of the East Gate Addition. be vacated, discontinued and closed; and
WHEREAS, due legal notice was posted us required by Section 15.1-564
of the Code of Virginia, as aforesaid, the petitioner, the East Gate Church of the
Nazarene. being one of the owners of land adjoining the said alleys to be vacated,
!discontinued and closed; and *
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 20022 adopted on the 4th day of January. 1972,!
the Council of the City of Roanoke. Virginia appointed viewers to report whether
or not in their opinion any, and if any. what inconvenience would result from
ipermanently vacating, discontinuing and closing the aforesaid alleys; and
WHEREAS, the viewers appointed reported in writing, that after havin9
been duly sworn, they viewed the said streets and the neighboring properties and
are unanimously of the opinion that no inconvenience mould result either to the
public or to uny person, firm or corporation~ 'from permanently vacating, discon-
tinuing and closing said alleys; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke has
considered the reqoent and ban found no objection thereto; and
IHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roanoke caused a publi~ hearing to
be held on the question after publication of the notice thereof, and at which
hearing the property owners and other interested parties in the affected area were
given an opportunity to be heard both for and against the request; and
RHEREAS. this Council, after considering the evidence submitted, is of
i the opinion that vacating, discontinuing and closing the aforesaid alleys sill not
abridge or destroy any of the rights and privileges of any person, firm or cor-
:iporation. and that no inconvenience would resnlt to any one therefrom, and is
! further of'the opinion that the request Of the said petition should be granted.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Ronnke 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 shown in Block T of the Rap of East Cate Addition to the
City of Roanoke. Virginia, be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed as
provided by Section 15.1-364 of the Code of Virginia of 1950 as amended to date,
and in accordance with the law in such cases made and provided, and that all right.
tit le and interest in the City of Roanoke and the public is hereby released inso-
far as the Council is empowered $o to do.
BE iT FL~TDER ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that a
!certified copy of this ordinance be delivered by the City Clerk to the Clerk of
;the Hustings Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia and to the City Engineer of
;the City of Roanoke, Virginia and that the City Engineer of Roanoke, Virginia make
appropriate notation of the vacation herein approved on the maps and other docu-
ments in his office.
All ordinances, or parts of ordinances, in conflict with the provisions
of this ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed.
This ordinance shall be in full force and effect ten (10) days after its
ifinal passage.
Upon a call for an aye and a nay vote, the same stood as follows:
i! AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
~Webber ........................... 6.
NAYS: None .............. Oo (Mr. Lisk absent}
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
iMayor Webber 7.
Away: None ..............O.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.a.,
Tuesday, February 22, 1972, on the request of Hayes, Seay, Hattern & #nttern,
Architects and Engineers, that that portion of a ten-foot alley running through
Section 6, Exchange Building & Investment Company. from Fourth Street, S. M., to
Walnut Avenue. S. M., more specifically described in a metes and bounds descrip-
tion. be vacated, discontinued and closed, the matter nas before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report amending said request with the petitioner dedicating and constructing a
neu ten-foot alley and driveway along the westerly side of Lot 9. Block 6,
Exchange Building and Investmen! Company Map. including a triangular turning
area on the southuest corner of Lot fl, and that the City of Roaeeke vacate the
alley east of this new dedication as shown on an attached map:
"February 3, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Mebbec, Haynr
and Members of City Court:i!
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City
Planning Commission at its regular meeting of February 2.
1972.
Mr. Ronald M. Ayers, attorney for the petitioners, appe~r-
ed before the Planning Commission and stated that his request
did not describe the closing of the entire alley and excluded
about 150 feet of the west end portion of the alley, lie then
presented a plat and pointed out to the Pla~nin9 Commission members
the portions of the property he was requesting to be closed.
Mr. John H. Kennett, appeared before the Planning Commission
and stated that he was representing several residences in the
neighborhood who were opposing the alley closure for the follow-
ing reasons:
(a) that this alley prese~tl~ serves ~ ~eside~ces on both
sides,
(b) that the garbage is behind the ~arage and if the alley ia
vacated the garbage truck will not be able to get to it.
(c) that there is a store on 4th Street and the people, utilized
the alley to get to the store.
Mr. G. L, Mattern, appeared before the Planning Commission and
stated that he is developing this general property for new office
space use, He noted that his initial contact with the CitI indi-
cated that there would not be any serious objections to the closing
of the alley,
Mr. Sam H. McGhee, III, City Engineer, was in agreement with
the alley closure noting that it is not desirable to maintain an
alley through a parking lot.
ifter some discussion by the petitioner and the Planning Com-
mission, Mr. ]attern offered a modification to the original request,
which was found satisfactory to all the Commission members: he
would dedicate and construct a new 10 foot alley and driveway
along the westerly side of Lot 9. Block 6, Exchange Building and
Investment Company Map including a triangular turning area on the
southeast corner of Lot 6 if the City would close the alley east
of this new dedication (see attached map).
Accordingly. motion was made. duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to approve thit amended
petition in that:
the petitioner mill dedicate and construct n new 10 foot
alley and drive may along the ueaterly side of Lot 9,
Bloch &, Exchange Building and Investment Company Rap
including a triangular turning area on the southeast
corner or Lot B, and the City uill vacate the alley eaat
of this nam dedication as shorn on the attached nap,
Sincerely,
S/ Creed E. Lemon, Jr. by L. #.
- Creed K. Lemon. Jr.,
~ Chairman" 'i
The viewers appointed to viem the alley submitted a mritten report
iadvlsing that they have viewed the alley and the neighboring property and have
discussed the alley mith the owners of the lands, including the petitioner, abutting
ithe portion of said alley sought to be closed and that they are unanimously of the
opinion that, although no inconvenience would resultto the general public from
!vacating, discontinuing and closing the alley, such closing is not appropriate
~or desirable at this time and that in considering alternatives to the alley
=closing and based on their review and study of the alley in question and ueighbor-
In9 property, they are unanimously of the opinion that no inconvenience mould
result either to any individual OF to the public from vacating, discontinuing and
closing the following described portion of the alley in question:
"BEGINNING at a point in the south line of Walnut
Avenue. S. W.. which point is N. B3° 48* 20" W.
223.24 feet from the meat line of Franklin Road,
S. W.. and which beginnin§ point is also the inter-
section of the east line of a In-foot alley with the
south line of Walnut Avenue, S. N.; thence with the
east line of sgJd alley S. 6° 08' 44' W. 140.00 feet
to a point; thence with the south line of said alley
N. 03° 48' 20" W. 40,50 feet to a point on the northern
boundary of Lot 19, Section b, Map of Exchange Building
and Investment Company; thence crossing said lO-foot
alley N. 6° 08' 44" E. 10.00 feet to a point on the
southern boundary of Lot 9, Section 6, Map of Exchange
.Building and Investment Company: thence with the north
line of said 10-foot alley S. 83° 48' 20" E. 15.50 feet to
an angle point in said alley lime; thence with the northerly
line of said alley N, 51o 10' 12" E. 21.20 feet to another
angle point in said alley line: thence with the west line
of said alley N. 6° 00' 44" E. llS.O0 feet to a point in
the south line of Yalnct Avecue, S. W.; thence with the
south line of Walnut Avenue, S. M., S. 83° 48' 20" E.
10o00 £egt to the point of BEGINNING, and being that
portion of the existing alley adjacent to Lots 9. 10 and 19,
Section b. Exchange Building and Investment Company**
iprovided, however, that in consideration of the Council of the City of Roanoke,
?permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing the above-described portion of
,said alley, the petitioner shall convey, by deed. to the City of Roanoke a strip
:iai land for public alleyway purposes from lands presently omned by the petitioner
i, Jn Section 6, Map of Exchange Building ~ Investment Company. said stipr of land
!!being described generally as follows:
"BEGINNING at a point in the south line of Walnut
Avenue, S. W., which point is N. 83° 48' 20" M.
263.74 feet from the west line of Franklin Road.
S. M.; thence S. 6° 08' 44" M. 130.00 feet to a
point on the north line of the existing alley in
Section 6, ~ap of Exchange Building and Investment
Company: thence with the north line of said alley
N. 83° 48' 20" W. 20 feet to another point in the
north line of said alley; thence N. 51° 10' 12' E.
14.14 feet to a point; thence N. 6o 06' 44" E, 120.00
feet to a point in the south line of Walnut Avenue,
S. N.:'thence with the south line of Walnut Avenue.
S. M.. S. B3o 40' 20" E. lO.O0 feet to the point
of BEGINNING, and being a portion of Lots 8 and 9,
Section 6. Map of Exchange Building and Investment
Company, as shown on the attached map"
Br. Ronnld W, Aye~s, Attorney, representing Hayes, Seay, #attern ~
#attern, Architects an~ Engineers, appeared before Couacflin support of the
request of his client.
No one appearing in oppoaltJon to vacating, discontinuing nad cioai~
said portion of the alley, Hr. Thowas moved that the following Ordinance be
placed upon its first reading:
(agOlO?) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
a certain portion of the alley located in Block 6. Map of Exchange Building and
Investment Company. in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and accepting ghe dedication
of certain property, being portions of Lots O and g, Map of Exchange Building and
Investment Company, from Bayes, Seay, Rattern ~ Mattern to the City ~ Roanoke,
Virginia.
~HEREAS, Hayes. Stay. Mattern ~ Mattern has heretofore filed its
petition before the Council of the City of Roanoke. Virginia in accordance with
law, requesting the Council to permanently vacate, discontinue and close a certain
!portion of the alley located in Ricoh 6. Map of Exchange Building and Investment
Company, in the City of Roanoke. Virginia, and wore particularly described in said
petition, of the filing of which petition due notice was given to the public as
!required by law; and
· HEREAS. in accordance with the prayers of said petition, viewers were
iappointed by Council on the ~Tth day Of January, 1972, to view the property and to
ireport in writing whether Jn their opinion any inconvenience would result from
ipermanefltly vacating, discontinuing and cluing that portion of said alley described
.in the resolution appointing said viewers; and
~HEREAS, it appears from the written report of the viewers filed with the
iCity Clerk on February 3, 19{2, that no inconvenience would result either to any
iindividual or to the public from permanently vacating, discontinuing and dosing
the hereinafter described portion of said alley, provided that the petitioner
dedicate to the public an alleyway providing an outlet from the existing alley to
lalnut Avenue, S. M.; and
WHEREAS. Council at its meetin9 on January 17, 1972, referred the peti-
tion to the City Planning Commission, which Commission by its report filed with
Council on February 4. 1972. recommended th~ the petition as amended by the petitio~-
er at themeeting of the Commission on February 2. 1972, to vacate, discontinue and
!close the hereinafter described portion of said alley be approved; and
#BEREAS, a public hearin9 was held on the question before the Council
at its regular meeting on February 22, lg?2, after due and timely' notice thereof
:published in The Roanoke ¥orld-Newso at ~hich hearing all parties in interest and
citizens were afforded au opportunity to be heard on the question; and
NBERBA$, from nil of the foregoing, Council
ulll result to any individual or to the public from permanently vacating· discon-
tinuing and closing the hereinafter described portion of said alley, as requested
by the petitioner in its amended petition provided that the petitioner dedicate
ire the public an alleyway providing an outlet from the existin9 alley to Ralnut
! Avenue, S. N., and that, accordingly, the hereinafter described portion of said
~street shoold be pernsnently closed: and
NIIEREAS, a deed dated February 22. 1972, from the petitioner to the City
~of Roanoke, Virginia, in consideration of the Council permanently vacating, dis=
continuing and closing the hereinafter described portion of said alley, dedicates
a public alleymay providin9 an outlet from the existing alley to Malnut Avenue,
S. N., as more particularly described in said deed.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
oil Of that portion of the alley located in Block h, Map Of Exchange Building
and Investment Company, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, more particularly
described as folloms:
BEGINNING at a point in the south line of lalnut
Avenue, S. M., which point is N. 83° 40' 20' I.
223.24 feet from the west line of Franklin Road,
S. W., and which beginning point is also the inter-
section of the east line of a 10-foot alley with the
south llne of Walnut Avenue, S. ].; thence with the
east line of said alley S. h° OB* 44# W. 140.00 feet
to a point; thence with the south line of said alley
N. 83o 4B· 20* W. 40.50 feet to a point on the northern
boundary of Lot 19, Section 6, Map of Exchange Building
and Investment Company; thence crossing said 10-foot
alley N. 6° 09' 44' B. 10.00 feet to a point on the
Building and Investment Company; thence with the north
line of said 10-foot alley $. 63° 40' 20' E. 15.50 feet to
an angle point in said alley line; thence with the northerly
line of said alley N. 51° 10' 12* E. 21.20 feet to another
angle point in said alley line; thence with the west line
of said alley N. 6° OB* 44' ~. 115.00 feet to a point in
the south line of Malnut Avenue, S. M.; thence with the
south line of Walnut Avenue, S. M.. S. 03° 48' 20" £.
10.00 feet to the point of BEGINNING, and being that
portion of the existing alley adjacent to Lots 9, 10 and
Section 6, Exchange Building and Investment Company,
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 to the
:same, including any sewer and public utility easements, be, and they hereby are,
released insofar as the Council of the City of Roanoke is empowered so to do.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the aforesaid deed dated February 22. 1972.
!ifrom the petitioner to the City of Roanoke. Virginia. dedicating a public alleyway,
more particularly described as follows:
BEGINNING ~t a point in the south line of Walnut
Avenue. S. W.. which point is N. 83° 48' 20' W.
263.74 feet from the west line of Franklin Road.
S. W.; thence S. 6° 08' 44' M. 130.00 feet to a
point on the north line of the existing alley in Section
h, Map of Exchange Building and Investment Company;
thence with the north line of said alley N. 63° 48'
W. 20 feet to another point in the north line of said
considers that no Inconvenience
10I
102
alley; thence N. 51° 10e 12' E. 14.14 feet to a point;
thence N. 60 00* 44' E. 120,00 feet to n point in the
south line of ~alnut Avenue, S. ~.; thence with the
south line of Valnut Avenue. S. W. S. 03° 40" 20""
~. 10.00 feet to the point of BEGINNING, and being
a portiou of Lots 0 and 9. Section 6. Map of Exchange
Building and Investment Company, as shown on the
attached map
be, and it hereby is, accepted.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer be. and he hereby is,
directed to mark 'permanently vacated" on the above described portion of said alia
on all maps and plats on file in his office on which said alley is shomn, referri~
to the book and page of Ordinances and Resolutions of the Council of the City
of Roanoke nherein this Ordinance shall be spread.
BE IT FURYHER ORDAINED th~ the Clerk of the Council deliver to the Clerk
of the Bustings Court for the City of Roanoke. Yirginia, 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 is shown said alley, as provided
by law, and that, it so requested by any party in interest, he may record the
same in the deed book in his office, indexing the same in the name of the City
of Roanoke as grantor and in the name of ~ny party in interest Who may request it
as grantee.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lish, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .............................7.
NAYS: None ...............O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Tuesday,
February 22. 1972, on the request of Mr. Joseph Griggs, III, that 10.74 acres
of land located on Green Road, N.E..described as Official Tax Nos. 3250801 -
3250804. be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District, to RG-I, General Resi-
dential Histrict, the matter was beforethe body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follomiug
report recommending that the request be granted:
"January 20, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Nebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Yirginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the CitI Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of January 19. 1972.
Mr. M. Coldwell Butler. attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that he was here once
before with this petition to rezone this parceI ~ a RG-I designa-
tion. He noted that the property is located immediately across
from Tinker Creek and presently zoned for RD. He then pre~ented
site plans prepared by Mr. G[iggs; the petitioner, and noted that
the entire tract is 10.74 acres and that the petitioner plans to
construct a total of 200 units. Finally, Mr. Butler stated that
he felt that the property is consistent with the character of.the
area.
The Planning Director then wade a presentation recommending
denial of this petition predicnted mthe following factors:
a. that a portion of the proposed lOth Street extension
bisects apart of this parcel aa delineated both in the
proposed 19OS Thoroughfare Plan and in the adopted 1980
Highway Plan.
b. that a large portion of the area J~ flood prone.
c. that the existing street systew is substandard' and ill-
equipped to serve this new development.
d. that the Planning DepartwentVs tentative plan for this
area is for park use to provide for a systew of parks
between Hollins Park and Eastgate Park.
Hr. Boynton, Planning Commission member, inquired about the
provisions for recreation and play areas. Wt. Butler noted that
provision has been made to provide for adequate open space within
this development.
Mr. Lawrence, Planning Commission member, pointed to the
problem of access to this parcel. He noted that with this RG-I
density, greater attention should have been §lven to the problem
of ingress and egress to this parcel.
Mr. Jim Douthat. appeared before the Planning Commission and
stated that he has been living in this area since 1950 and objects
to this rezoning. He noted that the street system serving this
area is substandard.
Another resident appeared before the Planning Commission and
stated that he lives adjacent to this property and he felt that
this density uss too high noting, in addition, that the parcel
extends into his front yard.
Accordicgly, motion was made, duly seconded and unaoJmo'u$1y
approved to recommend to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed E. Lemon, Jr. by L. H.
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
Mr. James Douthat, a resident of the area. appeared before Council in
opposition to the request for rezoning, advising that the proposed apartment units
are not consistent in keeping with the general character of theoeighborhood and
that the land is subject to flooding.
Mr. M. Caldwell Butler, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client.
After a discussion of the request, Rt. Lisk moved that Council concur
in the recommendation of the City Plannin9 Commission and that the following Ordi-
nance be placed upon its first reading:
(~20106) 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. 325, 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 property located at the southeast corner of the intersection of
Sand Road and Green Road, and bordering on Tinker Creek. in the City of Roanoke.
Virginia, and more particularly described as follows:
104
PARCEL NO. ONE
BEGINNING at n point om the east side of Sand Woad
No 44° 00' E. IS1 ft. from the north side of the
intersection of Sand Woad nnd Green Road; thence
along the east side of Sand Road N. 44°~00"~E.'S24'
ft. to the center of TlnRer CreeR; thence along the
center line of Tinke~Creeh domn the stream the
follouing ? courses: S. 45° 15' E. S47 fa4 thence
S. 35° 45* E. 120 ft.; thence S. 21° 45* E. 105 ft.;
thence S. 10° 4S* E. 126 ft.; thence S. 21° SO* M.
141 ft.; thence S. S3° 1S' W. 216 ft.; thence S.
57° 45' M. 122 ft.; thence S. 68° 45* M. 153 ft. to
a ~oJnt; thence leaving the center of the creeR N.
35u 25' W. 308 ft. to a point; thence N. 61° 45* E.
75 ft.; thence, on a line parallel mith Green Road
about SO0 ft. to the place of BEGINNING.
PARCEL NO. TWO
BEGINNING at a point on the east side of Sand Road
and at the north side of the intersection of Green
Road, said point being N. 44° 00' E. 10-3/10 ft. from
the northuest corner of the E. E. Trent land; thence
along the east side of Sand Woad N. 44° 00' E. 151 ft.
to a point; thence in an easterly direction on a line
parallel mith the Green Woad about SOO ft. to a stake;
thence S. 61° 45' M. 75 ft. to a point; thence S. 35°
25* E. 300 ft. to center of Tinker Creek; thence domn
the center of Tinker Creek 156 ft.; thence in a westerly
direction about 40 ft. to edge of mater; thence along
the mest edge of mater down the creek 220 ft. to a
stake; thence leaving the edge of the creek N. 34° 40*
M. 184 ft. to the E. E. Trent line; theoce along the
E. E. Trent line in a northeasterly direction N. 56°
50* E. 298.02 ft. crossing Green Road; thence along
the northern side of Green Road N. 34° 40' R. 485-5/10
ft. to the place of BEGINHING.
BEING Roanoke City Official #3250fl01, 3250802, 3250803,
and 3250804.
[rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-i, General Residential District:
: and
RHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
!after described land be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-I,
IGeneral Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
land posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of The Code of
lthe 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 mas held on the 22nd
day of February, 1972, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at
mhich hearing all parties in interest and citizens mere given an opportunity
to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council after considering the evidence as herein provided,
lis 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 X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as ame~
!eS relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 325 of the Sectional 196b Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, be amended in the folloming particular and no other, viz.:
105
Property located at t~e southeast corner of the intersection of Sand goad
and Green goad, end bordering on Tinker Creek, in the City of goanoke. Vlrginiao
designated on Sheet 325 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City of goanoke, as Official
Tax Nos. 3250801, 3250002. and 3250D04, be. and is hereby, changed from RD. Duplex
~Resldentlal District. to RG-I. General gesidential District, and that Sheet ko.
325 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: Nooe ...........O.
ZONING: Council having s.et a public hearin9 for 2 p.m.. Tuesday,
February 22, 1972. on the request of Mrs. Grace N. Densmore, that properties
ibounded on the north by Myoming Avenue. on the east by Mestside Boulevard. on the
isouth by Kentucky Avenue and on the west by Gilbert Road. described as Lots 7,
0, 9. 10. 17. 10. 19 and 20, Section 3. Rap of Washington Club Land Company. and a
closed alley extending between Gilbert Road and Mestside Boulevard, described
as Official Tax Nos. 2670307, 2670308, 2670309, 2670310, 3670317, 2670318,
2670319 and 2670320, be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District,
to gG-2. General Residential District. the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
r~port recommending that the request for rezonin9 be denied:
"January 20, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber. Rayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, ¥irqinia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City
Planning Commission at both its regular meetings of January
5 and January 19. 1972.
Mr. Frank K. Saunders, attorney for the petitioner,
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that
this request was first brought before the Planning Commis-
sion in December 1971~ At that time, he noted, the rezoning
petition was for only a portion of the block in question;
now he is requesting that the entire block be rezoned.
Mr. Frank K. Saunders noted that this property would be
put to its best use by rezoning it to RG-2 designation. De
stated that the petitioner has a buyer for this particular
parcel of land if it is rezoned to a RG-2 designation.
Some discussion centered among the Planning Commission
members about rezoning this parcel to a DC-1 designation.
Mr. Frank K. Saunders stated that RG-1 does not represent
the highest and best use for this property. Also. Mrs. Densmore,
the.petitioner, raised the question of why the lot next to'her
was granted a RG-2 desigoatJon and the Commission will not now
grant her the same priviledge.
Mr. Parrott, Planning Commission Chairman. raised the
question about rezoning only the northern portion of this block
to a RG-2 designation and the remainder ~ .a RG-I.
The Planning Commission directed the Planning Director to
contact the petitioner to determine if she mould be agreeable
to a RG-I rezoning.
At the January 19th meeting of the Planning Commission
Frznh K. Saunders. attorney.for the petitioner, stated that he
contacted the petitioner and she is amenable to a RG-I rezoning.
Also, he noted that the petitioner is milling to accept a split
in the rezoning; half the lots plus the alley to the south to a
RG-I. and the alley along with 4 lots to a RG-2 rezoning.
The Planning Commission members then discussed this entire
petition again noting that the area is generally of a residential
nature, and reducing the density to RG-I OF spliting the zoning
on the parcel uith a portion for BG-I and the remainder RG-2
would only have a deleterious effect on the existing residential
quality of the area.
Accordingly. motion mas made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to deny this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by L. M.
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
Mr. Frank K. Sounders, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client and advised that he feels
this area will no longer support single family residences, that the area will
be more susceptible to a RG-2 zoning classification and urged that Council grant
this request for rezoning.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning, Mr. Wheeler
imoved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~2010g) 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. 257. 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 those certain lots bounded on the north by Wyoming Avenue. on the east
by Westside Boulevard. on the south by Kentucky Avenue, and on the west by Gilbert
IRoad designated on Tax Appraisal Map of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as Numbers
2670307, 2670308, 2670309. 2670310, 2670317, 2670318, 267031g, 2570320, and closed
alley extending from Gilbert Road to Westside Bonlevard rezoned from RS-3. Single-
Family Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential District.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land not be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District,
Ito RG-2, General Residential District; and
I 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, 1955, as amended, relating to zoning have been published
iand 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
22nd day of February, 1972. 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
MHEREAS. 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 Roanohe, 1955o us
amended, relating to Zoniog, and Sheet No. 25? of the Sectional 1955 Zone Map,
City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz:
Property bounded on the north by Myoming Avenue, on the east by
Mestside Boulevard, on the south by Kentucky Avenue, and on the west by Gilbert
Road, described as Lots 7, D, 9, 10. 17**lB, 19 and 20, Section 3, Map of
Mashington Club Land Company, and closed alley extending between Gilbert Rood and
Mestside Boulevard designated on Sheet 257 of the Sectional 1955 Zone Map, City
of Roanoke, as Official Tax Nos. 2570307, 267030B. 2670309, 2570310. 2570317,
257031D, 2570319 and 2570320. be, and is hereby, changed from RS-3, Single-Family
Residential District, to RG-2. General Residential District, and that Sheet No.
257 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, Nheeler and Mayor
iNebber ....................7.
NAYS: None ....... O.
: ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Tuesday,
February 22, 1972, on the request of the Church of God that property located on
the westerly side of Compton Street, south of Nobel Avenue, N. E., described as
Lots 15. 17 and 18. Block $, Oakland Map, Official Tax Nos. 3110217, 3110218,
and 3110219, be rezoned from Rd, Duplex Residential District, to RO-1, 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:
"January 20, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request ~as considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of January 19, 1972.
Mr. T. Lo Plunkett, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that the Church of
God is under contract to sell to a developer she mishes to con-
struct apartments on this parcel. He presented plans to the
Planning Commission members and pointed out that the development
would consist of IS units in one building and 14 units in the
other structured Be noted that this development will be 9eared
to young couples. ~ithout children. Finally, Mr. Plunkett noted
that the parcel is adjacent to a C-2 area and would like for the
Commission to consider recommending a C-I zoning designation in-
stead of a RG-1 rezonin9.
:1.08
Mr. Lawrence. Planning Comwlssion member, then raised the
question of what type of units the petitioner wishes to construct
and why be was asking for a C-I zoning. NFl Plunkett replied that
the apartments will be one-and two bedroom units and that the
C-I zoning was being requested to enable the petitioner to Imple-
went his plans.
The Planning Commission members generally noted and agreed
that the best zoning designation for this area was a RG-l'and
to increase it to a RG-2 or to a C-I designation would have an
adverse impact on the area.
Accordingly, motion was made. duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon. Jr.. by
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
Mr. T. L. Plunkett, Jr.. Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client and advised that he would
~lJke to amend his rezoning veqoest to provide for a RG-2, rezoning instead of the
~RG-I rezonin9 as previously requested.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezonin9, Mr. Trout
~moved that Council concur in the amended request of Rt. Plunkett that the property
Ibe rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2. General Residential
District. and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(#20110) 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. 311, Sectional 1966
iZone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
MREREAS..applicatJon has been made to the Council of the City of Roanohe
ltd have property located.on the westerly side of Compton Street, south of Noble
iAvenue. N. E.. described as Lots 16. 17 and 16. Block 3. Oakland Map, Official
Tax Nos. 3110217. 3110216 and 3110219, rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District
ito RG-2, General Residential District; and
~REREAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from RO, Duplex Residential District. to RG-2,
General Residential District; and
· REREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by'Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title l¥, 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
NHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 22nd
day of February, lg?2,.at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City Of Roanoke, at
iwhich hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be
~eard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
· HEREAS, this'Council, after considering ~e evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
.THEREFORE, BE 1T 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 amen/-
ie~ relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 311 of the Sectional 1965 Zone Map. City of
Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on the westerly side of Compton Street. south of Noble
IAvenue, N. £.odescrlbed as Lots lb, IT and lB, Block 3, Oakland Map, designated
!!on Sheet 311 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax Nos.
:3110217. 3110218 and 3110219, be, and is hereby, changed from RD. Duplex Residentia
!District. to RG-2, General Residential District, and that Sheet No. 311 of the
aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded byMr. Mheeler and adopted by the following rote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
iMebber°-~ ........................ 7.
NAYS: None ............ O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Tuesday,
February 22. 1972, on the request of Mr. James L. Mayhew, et ax.. that property
located on the southerly side of Panorama Avenue, N. R.. described as Lots 11,
12, 13, 14 and 15 and the rear or southerly portion of Lot 16, Block 0, Official
Tax Nos. 2740302. 2740303, 2740313. 2740314, 2740315 and 2740316. be rezoned from
RD, Duplex Residential District. to RC-I, Oeoeral Residential 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:
"January 20. 1972
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 January 19. 1972.
Mr. T. L. Plunkett. attorney for the petitioners, appeared
.before the Planning Commission and noted that the best use for
these lots would be for apartments. Be then presented a plot plan
to the Planning Commission members and explained in detail What
the petitioner proposes to do indicating that adequate parking
is being provided for.
The Planning Commission members generally felt that the
character of the area was well suited for a RG-1 designation,
and that this use was in harmony, with its surroundings.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommendin9 to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by L.M.
Creed Ko Lemon. Jr.
Chairman"
'109
The streets mhich we recommend be included Jn this reduced
resurruclng program are as follows:
Wise Ave** S. E** from 12th tn IBth Streets (The City Is in
process of rewovlng old streetcar ties in this uteri)
Ninth Street, S. E** throogh Roanoke Industrial Center
Garden City Donlevnrd, S, E.o between Flndlay Ave., and
Uobry Avenue
Craig Robertsen Road, S. R., between Garden City Bird**
and Mt. Pleasant Blvdo
Brsndon Are** S. W., between Grandin Road and
Wakefield Rd.
Hershberger Rd** N. M** betmeen Florist RD. and
Rllliawson Road
Floraland Drive. N. M.. betmeen 6randrJew Avenue and
Rilliawsun Road
Forest Park Blvd.. N, W., between Grand Avenue nnd
Rershaw Rd.
Grayson Ave.. N. W.. between 17th Street and 19th Street
Staontun Are** N. M., betmeen lOth Street and llth Street
Rugby fllvd** N. M.. between Syracuse Ave.. and loth Street
It should be emphasized that this does not suggest that City
street maintenance activities will be limited to the above
named streets, re annually resurface with City forces
approximately 20-25 wiles of street paving. This activity
mill continue in addition to the above dexcrlbed plant mix
overlya program by contract.
If there are questions on the above, me will be pleased to
discuss the matter with you. It is desirable that we receive
concurrence at the earliest possible time in order that we
can proceed to seek bids for this work."
Mr. Garland moved that the City Ranager be authorized to advertise for
bids based on the $45,000.00 figure immediately and that in the future the bids be
advertised after the first of the year. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor 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
Deportment as of January 31. 1972:
"Roanoke, Virginia
March 20. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Personnel Changes-Police and Fire Departments
Listed below is the status of the Police and the Fire Depart-
ment as of January 31, 1972:
'Police Department
'Officer Robert V. Reid, Jr.
Maureen A. Hyltono Clerk Stenographer
Officer Barry L. Renick
Officer Raymond H. Bowman
Officer Barry $. Ramsay
Jean M. Thurman, Clerk Stenographey
Officer Brockett C. Magnet
'Endin9 January 31, 1972 (16) vacancies.'
*Fi~e Department
*Transferred
Charlie H. Paxton, Life Saving Crew Dispatcher transferred to
Communication Department. This was effective January 1, 1972.
*There are no vacancies us the above transfer from this department will
eliminate this classification from the Fire Department Rolls.'
o
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julia~ Y. Rirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
~ired Resioned
Jan. 4, 1972
Dec. 7, 1970 Jan. 6, 1972
Jan. 17, 1972
Jan. 12. 1970 Jan. 22. 1972
Jan. 24, 1972
Jan. 24. 1972
Jan. 31, 1972
Hr. T. L. Plunkett0 Jr** Attorney. representing the~petitioners0 appeared
before Conncil in support of the request of his clients.
, No one appearing in opposition to the. request for~rezoning, Hr. Thomas
moved that the follouing Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(u20111) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 195h, os amended, and Sheet No. 274, 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 bare property described as Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and the rear or southerly
portion of Lot 16, Block D, of the Mayhem. Map, bearing Official Tax Nos. 2740302,
2740303, 2740313, 2740314, 2740315 and 2740316, situate on the southerly side of
Panorama Avenue mast of Calvary Road, rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District,
~to RG-I, General Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
!described land be resumed from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-I, General
iResidential District; and
MHEREAS, the mritten.notice and the posted sign required to be published
!.and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title X¥, 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 22nd
day of February, 1972, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at
imhich 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,
ils 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, 195b, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 274 of the Sectional lgGb Zone Map,
City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on the southerly side of Panorama Avenue west of Calvary
iRoad described as Lots 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 and the rear or southerly portion of Lot
16 Block D, of the Mayhem Map, designated on Sheet 274 of the Sectional 19hb Zone
Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax Nos. 27d0302, 2740303, 2740313, 27d0314,
2740315 and 2740316, be, and is hereby, changed from RD, Duplex Residential District
~o RG-I, General Residential District, and that Sheet No. 274 of the aforesaid map
be changed in this respect.
Themotion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carland,'Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ............................... 7.
NAYS: None -O.
ZONIBG: Council having set n public hearing for 2 p.m~, Tuesday,
February 22, 1972, on the request of Mr. J. M. lng*, III, Stanford ~ lng*. Incor-
porated, and Mr. Co Fo Kefaarer. that property located on the easterly side of
Ninth Street, S. £., south of Moodrom Avenue, described as Lots I - 5. inclusive,
BI*ch S, Official Tax Nos° 4141BO1 - 4141805, inclusive, be rezoned from RD. Duplex
Residential District, to C-2. General Commercial District, the matter mas before
~ the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the foil*ming
i report recommending that the request for rezoning be granted: 'January 20. 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Nebber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Dentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Plan-
ning Conmisslon at its regular meeting of January 19, 1972,
g~. T. L. Plunk*ti. attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that the property
he is requesting to be Fez*ned Js located on the easterly
side of 9th Street, S.E. lie noted that Mr. Bridges has these
lots under contract and wishes to construct a retail establish-
ment on this parcel.
The Planning Commission members generally concurred with
this rezoning designation since it Has located continguous to
an existing C-2 zone and ~ould not, therefore, have a harmful
effect on the surrounding area.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimousl?
approved to recommend to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon. Jr. by L. M.
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
Chairman
Hr. T. L. Pluokett, Jr.. Attorney, representin9 the petitioners, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his clients.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rea,ming, Mr. Trout
!moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(=20112) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
!:Code of the ~ity of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 414, Sectional 1966
Zone Hap, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
MHRREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have property located on the easterly side of Ninth Street, S. E., south of
Moodro~ Avenue. described as Lots 1 - 5, inclusive. Block 5, Morningside Heights,
bearing Official Tax Nos. 4141B01 - 4141fl05, inclusive, rea*ned from RD, Duplex
Residential District. to C-2, General Commercial District; and
MHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rea*ned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to C-2, General
Commercial District; and
112
WHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section ?1, Chapter 4,1, Title XVo of The Code of the
City of Roan*he, 1956. us amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
posted at required and for the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS, the bearing as provided for in said notice uss held on the 22nd
day of February, 1972, at 2 p.mo, 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 aoainst the proposed resorting; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considerln9 the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be res*ned.
THEREFORE, DE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title XY, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1955, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 414 of the Sectional 19~5 Zone Map,
City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on the easterly side of Ninth Street, S. Eo, south of
Moodrow Avenue, described as Lots I - 5, inclusive, Block 5, Morningside Heights,
designated on Sheet 414 of the Sectional 1955 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as
Official Tax Nos. 4141HOI-4141H05, inclusive, be and is hereby, changed from RD,
Duples Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, and that Sheet
No, 414 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect. ~
The motion was seconded by Mr. Rheeler and adopted by the foil*win9 vote:
AYES: Messrso Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ............................ 7.
NAYS: None .............O.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE-LEGISLATION: Mr. Milliam R. Hill, Executive Vice
President of Downtown Roanoke, Incorporated, appeared before Council and transmitted
copy of a bill introduced by Senator William B. Hopkins in the General Assembly
t which would enable Council to establish an Urban Redevelopment Authority for the
iCitl of Roanoke, advisin9 that this bill differs from the legislation previously
presented in that the original proposal would permit the city to grant the power
of imminent domain and tax incentives to private redevelopment corporations and
that Senator Hopkins' bill is extremely broad and flexible and provides even more
options and powers for Council and the Urban Redevelopment Authority than the
Missouri Urban Redevelopment Corporations Law which was the prototype for the
original proposal.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communications and bill be referred to the cat
Attorney for review with Mr. Hill and report back to Council accordingly. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mr. John W. Boswell, Realtor, appeared before
Council and advised that the property owners on Kirk Avenue, S. M., would like
to be notified when this matter comes back to Council.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
LEGISLATION-HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A communication from the Honorable
Spong, Jr.. with reference to S. 1819. relating to the. Uniform Reloca-
B.
~tton and Real Property Assistance Act of 1970. advising that after studying this
ibill and the problem facing independent housing authorities, he is convinced that
~some relief is essential if these programs are going to continue, therefore, be is
!!Joining in co-sponsoring this measure and has urged Senator Mushie, whose subcom-
!!mlttee has jurisdiction, to favorably report the bill at the earliest possible date
and that he will be pleased to submit any testimony Council would care to submit.
*was before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
:for any further comments he might care to transmit to Senator Spon9. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
MATER DEPARTM~qT: A communication from Mr. J. Ho VanDeventer, Executive
Director. Demonstration later Project, Incorporated, requesting that Council
authorize city officials to negotiate the sale of water to Ne. Uope later, Incor-
porated, a quasi-publi~ non=profit corporation, at the established bulk rate for
redistribution to the members and shareholders of the corporation, was before
Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request he referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas
and unanimously adopted,
COMMONMEALTH*S ATTORNEY: Copy of a communication from the State
:Mr. Robert F. Rider as Chief Assistant Commonwealth*s Attorney, at an annual rate
of $10,400.00, effective February 1, 1972. was before Council...
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
;:motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. J. D. Logan, III. Attorney, representing
igenneth F. Mundy, Theda M. Mundy, Phillip K~ Mundy, Margie G. Mundy and Velma M.
iMundy, requesting that property located on.the southerly side of Eastern Avenue,
i~N. E/. described as Lots 25 - 39, Block 10, Lilly View Land Company, Official Tax
iNns. 3222224 - 3222239. inclusive, be rezoned from LM, Light ManofacturJn9 District,
~to RG-2. General Residential District, was before council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
i!Plauning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a mrltten report
;advising that in conjunction with the authorization by Council of 22 additional
employees in the Fire Department, it will be necessary to purchase 12 beds with
mattresses and 22 lockers and that in order to do this an appropriation of $2.300.
will be required.
Rt. ~heeler expressed the opinion that the request should be referred
to 1972-73 budget study in light of the present financial situation of the City of
Roanoke.
After a discussion of the report, Mr. Thomas moved that action on the
matter be deferred one meek and that the report be referred back to the City
Manager to ascertain if there are any tfuusfers that can be made from one account
to another to provide for the $2,300.00. The motion was seconded by Mr. #heeler
and adopted, Messrs. Lisk and Trout voting no,
Also with reference to the matter, the City Manager submitted a written
report transmitting an Ordinance amendin9 Title 2. Chapter 3. Section 11 (e),
which deletes from The Code the Kelley system and another Ordinance amending
Title 2. Chapter 3. Section 12(a) 5, which changes the wording from two platoon
systems to three platoon systems.
Rt. Thomas moved that action on the two Ordinances be deferred until the
next regular meeting of Council on Monday, February 28. 1972. The motion was
seconded by Mr. #heeler and adopted. Messrs. Lisk and Trout voting no.
BOY SCOI~fS-C1Ty GOVERNMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report
advising that the City of Roanoke will. again this year, join with the Blue Ridge
Scout District in conduct of Eagle Scout Government Day and that the members of
Council are invited to attend any portions of this program in the belief that they
will find it a very interesting project and one that produces an opportunity of
giving these youth some familiarization with the city government that they could
Inot otherwise obtain.
Br. Mheeler moved that the report be received and filed. Th~ motion was
iseconded by Mr. Trout und unanimously adopted.
CITY ENGINEER: The CityManager submitted a written report recommending
that Council adopt an Ordinance,amending the City Code so'as to allow the Public
Rorks Department to require *vid*ucc of adequate public liability insurance as a
condition to the issuance of a Street Opening Permit.
Mr. Nheeler moved that the report be referred to the City Attorney for
Ipreparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council havin9 directed the City Auditor to review
in detail the Resolution adopted by Council directing that the Civic Center be
placed on a separate accounting system, to review in detail the present accountiug
system, to review in detail the present accounting procedures employed at the Civic
Center. to review in detail the present monthly accounting summary prepared for the
Civic Center. to present such additional comments and suggestions as be may deem
pertinent to the matter and to report his findings to Council by the regular meet-
lng of Council on Tuesday, February 22, 1972, the City Auditor submitted the follow-
ing report advising that effective July 1, 19~2, there will be established a com-
pletely separate accounting system for the Civic Center which will include a
separate bank account and a separate budget and will be patterned after the system
now being used by both the water and sewer departments of the City of Roanoke,
except there will not be included administrative cost, bond payment, interest on
debt and depreciation and further recommending the elimination of administrative
cost. bond payments, interest payments and depreciation so as to present the
actual operating cost of the Civic Center:
'February 22, 1~72
The ~onorable Mayor and
Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On February 22. 1971. the Council of the Cit~ of Roanoke
passed a resolution. NO. 19549. which directed the Cfr7 Auditor
to establish a separate accounting system for the Roanoke Civic
Center; and. to report to the Council nonthly on the financial
status of the Civic Center in such detail as the City Auditor
deemed pertinent,
As a result of this action by the Council, the City Auditor.
in order to comply ~ith this directive, established as a part
of his monthly report a profit and loss statement covering the
entire scope of the financial effect of the Civic Center opera-
tion on the General Fund of the City of Roanoke+ This profit
and loss statement included the debt and interest payments made
by the City of Roanoke, administrative expense, which figure
nas an estimate of the amount of general 9overnment costs that
should be allocated to the Civic Center, deprqciation on the
buildJno and equipment in the Civic Center alum9 with all the
direct costs of-the Civic Center operation. Mhen the items
listed above were deducted from the income generated by sale
of tickets, rentals and other income o£ the Civic Center, a
large loss Mas reflected in the profit and loss statement.
The passin~ of time and resulting experience developed has
brought serious questions from the Council about the advisability
of reflecting all of the debt service, depreciation and adminis-
trative charges in the financial reporting on the Civic Center;
and, the Auditor has been requested to once again review all
matters pertaining to the financial reportin9 and accounting
procedures of the Civic Center and present suggestions and com-
ments pertaining thereto.
The original method employed by the City Auditor to accom-
plish the instructions directed by Resolution No. 19549. was one
solution. It did not totally separate the accounting system for
the Civic Center financial operation from the City General Fund
accounting, but it did give a separate accountin9 as to income
and expenses of the Civic Center and was. in the opinion,of the
City Auditor, in compliance with*the direction of Council in fact
and in spirit.
It is recommended effective July 1, 1972 that there be
established a completely separate accounting system for the
Civic Center. Zhis will include a separate bank account and a
separate budget and will be patterned after the system now being
used by both the Mater and Sewage departments of the City of
Roanoke. except there will not be included, administrative cost,
bond payment, interest On debt, and depreciation.
Along with improving the reporting of financial dat~ on the
Civic Center, this procedure will eliminate from the City's
General Fund the revenues and expenses from the Civic Center
which tend to distort the estimates and appropriations of this
The July 1. 1972 date is recommended to give sufficient time
to prepare for the change, pass the budget which will include
116
this nee system and mill coincide ulth the beginning of the
nee fiscal year.
Elimination of edmlnistrative cost, bond payments, interest
payments and depreciation is recommended so as to present the
actual operating cost of the Civic Center. This mill enable the
Council and the City Manager to better evaluate the operation of
the Civic Center. The bond and interest payments are actually
General Fund obligations inasmuch as they are not revenue bonds.
The administrative cost is already being borne by the General
Fund and are Included in the expenditures of that fund. Unless
the depreciation is to be funded on a cash basis, as is now being
done In the Mater and Sewage Treatment Fund, little is to be gained
by merely recording the item as an expense to be charged against
Civic Center revenue.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ A. N. Gibson
City Auditor'
Mr. Thomas moved that the report of the City Auditor be referred to the
City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure carrying out the proposals as
contained in said report. The motion mas secooded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
In this connection, Council having deferred action go a report of the
City Manager recommending that $300,000.00 be appropriated to Exhibitions under
Section n77. 'Civic Center. of the 1971-72 budget, to provide adequate funds to
pay for entertainment for the next few months at the Roanoke Civic Center. advising=!
that at least an equal amount of revenue may be expected to offset this appropria-
tion. the report was again before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20113) 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 n36. page 247.)
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 ......................7.
NAYS: None ........O.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning Commis-
sion for study, report and recommendation the request of the James E. Long Construc~
ttion Company, Incorporated. that that portion of Malton Street. N. E.. lying between
lthe northerly line of Eastern Avenue. N. E., and the southerly line of a ten foot
[alley lying between Eastern Avenue. N. E.. and Mallace Avenue. N. E.. be vacated,
idiscontinued and closed, the City Planning Commission submitted a written report
recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing be held on the request to vacate.
discontinue and close the portion of the street at 2 p.m., Monday, March 20, 1972.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
II
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
ntudy, report and recommendation the request of Nr. R. L. Goode. that property
located in the vicinity of Panoraua Avenue. N. i., described as Lots 1-0, l-E,
i2-O, 2-E, I-F and 6. Official Tax Nos. 2740305. 2740311. 2740312. 2740306. 2740304
and 2740301, Panorama Heights, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District,
to RG-I, General Residential District. the City Planning Commission submitted a
iwritten report recommending that the request be 9ranted.
Mr. Trout moved that n public hearing be held on the request for rezoning
at 2 p.m.. Monday. March 20, 1972. The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and
unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mr. Ilampton No Thomas, Chairman of the Sewer
Committee, verbally advised that the revised semage treatment contracts for the City
of Salem and the County of Roanoke are now completed and requested that the contracts
be reviewed and acted upon by Council acting ns a Committee of the Mhole.
Mr. Thomas then moved that Council meet as a Committee of the Mhole to
review the proposed contracts and documents and that action on the matter be taken
later during the meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
Later during the meeting and after Council concluded its meeting as a
Committee of the Mhole. Mr. Thomas offered the following emergency Ordinance pro-
posing a long-range use of the city*s Sewage Treatment Plant and related semerage
'system as a regional facility to treat wastes originating within defined areas of
the Roanoke Valley area; approving certain contracts prepared to be entered into
with certain governing bodies within said area; conditionally authorizing the Mayor
and the City Clerk to execute said contracts for and on behalf of the City of
Roanoke; authorizing the Mayor to execute certain letters of transmittal relative
~to said contracts; directing the City Manager to cause delivery of said letters to
be made; providing for the city*s participation with representatives of other
localities in continuing study of the best means whereby proper sewerage of all
:areas of the Roanoke Valley area may be provided:
(#20105) AN ORDINANCE proposing a long-range use of the City's sewage
itreotment plant and related sewerage system as a reglonal facility, to treat
~wastes originatin9 within defined areas of the Roanoke Valley area; approving
,certain contracts prepared to be entered into with certain governing bodies within
!said area; conditionally authorizing the Nayor and the City Clerk to execute said
~contracts for and on behalf of the City of Roanoke; authorizing the Rayor to
execute certain letters of transmittal relative to said contracts, and directing
118
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a3b,
page 244.)
Mr. Thomas moved* th~ adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the fol'loming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, LJsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
~ebber ..........................
NAYS: None ............ O.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted a written report in connec-
tion with refuse disposal, advising that he is instructing the Public Worts Departs
meat to commence preparation of the areas of the soath clear zone and the city-owned
property adjacent 'to Yellow Mountain Road, near tbe Partway. for landfill use and
that he is asking the Public Works Department to request necessary use approval
by the State Health Department.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally requested permission to
withdraw the above report from the agenda.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request Of the City Manager
that the above mentioned report be withdrawn from the agenda. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Mith reference to the report of the City Manager, Mr. lyatt K. Metz
appeared before council and advised that he lives in the vicinity of the south
clear zone. that he would like to know why the City of Roanoke has let the landfillI
situation become such a serious problem and raised the question as to why the City
Planning Commission has not suggested suitable areas and that in his opinion the
City Manager should not have to deal in matters of this nature.
Also with reference to the matter, a communication from Mrs. Elizabeth
M. Stokes. Clerk, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, with regard to the applica-
tion of the City of Roanoke for a special use permit to operate a sanitary land-
fill in the north clear zone at Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) Airport, advising that
said request bas been denied by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and invit-
ing the city to use the Dixie Caverns landfill until such time as a suitable land-
fill can be located for both Roanoke City and Roanoke County, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. '
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: MONK.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinauce Ho. 20103, authorizing aud providing for
the city's acquisition of a certain perpetual easement in land needed for the pro-
posed construction of a sanitary sewer line through property known as Lot ID.
l;Block b. Map of Exchange Building 6 Investment Company. in the City of Roanoke,
upon certain terms and conditions, and in consideration of the grant Of said ease-
,ment providing for the city's release, quitclaim and abandonment of all right,
title and Interest in and to o portion of in adjacent sanitary seMer easement
reserved In a former alley, previously vacated, situate adjacent and to the east
of Lot 20. of the aforesaid subdivison, having previously been before Council for
Its first rending, read and laid over. Mos again before the body. BY. Nheeler
offering the folloMln9 for itssecond rending and final adoption:
(n20103) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the City's acquisi-
tion of a certain perpetual easement in land needed for the proposed construction
of a sanitary seMer line through property knoMn as Lot lB. Block b, Hap of Exchange
Building & Investment Company, in the City of Roanoke. upon certain terms and con- '
ditions; and. in consideration of the grant of said easement, providing for the
City's release, quitclaim and abandonment of nil right, title and interest in and
to a portion of an adjacent sanitary sener easement reserved in a former alley,
previously vacated, situate adjacent and to the east of Lot 50, of the aforesaid
subdivision.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book
page 247.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .............................7.
NAYS: None ...............O.
ROYIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
TRAFFIC-STATE HIGHWAYS: Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt. Attorney. represent-
!iing Mrs. L. D. Brugh. appeared before Council in connection Kith Resolution No.
20066. adopted by Council on Monday. January 31, 1972. approving and adopting a
ilcertain revision and amendment of a portion of the Major Arterial Highway Plan for
!ithe City of Roonoke. dated D~cember. 1963, advising that this matter has already
been passed upon, but it appears that through an oversigbt there was no formal
!inotice of publication printed in tbe neMspapers of the City of Roanoke, and it is
therefore necessary for Council and the City Planning Commission to reenact,
subsequent to public notice, the actions already taken.
Mr. Lisk moved that the matter be referred back to the City Plannin§
Commission to reenact, subsequent to public notice, the actions already taken. The
Imotion Has seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS-WATER· DEPARTMENT-LEGISLATION: Mr. Wheeler
~moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare a measure expressing the
~oppositton of the Council of the City of Roanoke to a bill passed by the House of
Representatives permittin9 citizens to force the creation of seKage and water
120
Dr. Taylor moved 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:
Deputy City Clerh Mayor
COUNCIL. REGULAR MEETING.
Monday. February 28,
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, February 26. 1972, at 2 p.m. the regular!
meeting hour, mith Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garloud. Noel C. Taylor. Hampton M. Thomas
James O. Trout, Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber ........ 6.
ABSENT: Councilman David K. Lisk .......................1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Byron E. Haner, Assistant City Manager; Mr. A. N.
Gibson, City Auditor; and Mr. H. Ben Jones. Jr., Assistant City Attorney.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Haco M.
Yon Hacke. Pastor, Emmanuel Lutheran Church.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
Mammary 24, 1972. having been furnished each member of Council. on motion of
Dr. Taylor. seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof
was dispensed mith and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS-MATER DEPARTMENT: Pursuant to notice of advertise-
neat for bids on miscellaneous, small area improved hard surface street and side-
walk restoration occasioned by the normal daily operations of the ~ater Department,
said proposals to be received by the City Clerk until 2 p.m., aonJay, February 20,
1972, and to be opened at that hour before Council, Mayor Webber asked 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:
Adams Construction Company - $49,127.50
John A. Hall C Company, Incorporated - 51,359.25
Virginia Asphalt Pavin9 Company. Inc. - 51,590.25
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 motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Nebber appointed Messrs. [illiam F. Clark, Chairman, Samuel H.
~ McGhee, Ill. and Kit H. Eiser as members of the committee.
PLUMBERS-BUILDING INSPECTOR-ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR: Council having
continued un~il 2 p. m., Monday, February 28, 1972, a public hearing on the ques-
tion of amending the Electrical Code and the Plumbing Code of the City of Roanoke,
the matter was again before the body.
In this connection, the City Attorney submitted a written report advis-
ing that at a public hearing held on January 31, 1972, and continued to February
28, 1972, on certain proposed amendments to the Plumbing Code, the matter was
referred to the City Manager and the City Attorney for further review and to
consider any objections or proposals made by members of the public review and to
consider any objections or proposals made by members of the public with reference
to the proposed Ordinance, advising that no such objections have been made known
to the City Manager, the Building Commissioner or to the City Attorney with
reference to the adoption by Council of the Ordinance pertaining to Amendments to
the Plumbing Code and recommending thnt'Council nffirnatlvely act on the proposed
Ordinance which has been drawn to become effective on #arch lb. 1972, ten days
after its anticipated passage by Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the following Ordinance amending Title X¥.
Construction. otc** of The Code of she City of Roan*he, 1956. ns emended, by the
addition of a new chapter numbered Chapter 3.1, Plumbing Code, providing certain
regulations, requirements and standards contained in the Southern Standard
Plumbing Code. 1971 Edition, and in certain appendices of said Code. save and
except such portions of said Code as are deleted, modified or amended and ordainedl
to be effective as an Ordinance of the city; prescribing certain penalties for
violation of the regulations and requirements of this Ordinance; providing for the
effective date of the Ordinance: and repealing Chapter 3o Plumbing Code, Title
XV, Construction. etc., of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as said chapter
has heretofore been amended, be placed upon its first reading:
(g20114) AN ORDINANCE amendin9 Title XV0 CONSTRUCTION. itc., of the
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the addition of a ne~ chapter
numbered Chapter 3.1. Plumbino Code, providin9 certain regulations, requirements
and standards for the installation of any plumbing installed within the corporate
limits of the City' adopting by reference the provisions, requirements, regula-
tions and Standards contained in the Southern Standard Plumbing Code, 1971
Edition. and in certain appendices of said Code. save and except such portions of
said Code as are herein deleted, modified or amended and herein ordained, to be
effective as an ordinance of this City; prescribing certain penalties for viola=
lion of the regulations and reguirements of this ordinance; providing for the
effective date of this ordinance; and repealing Chapter 3. Plunbino Code, Title
XV. CVns%ruction. Etc., of the Code of the City of Roanoke. 1955, as said chapter
has heretofore been amended.
NBEREAS, it has been proposed and recommended to the CounciX that the
City adopt by reference, as a plumbing code for the City of Roanoke,-the Southern
Standard PXumbing Code, 1971 Edition, including certain appendices and illustra-
tions incorporated therein, save and except certain provisions, sections or sub-
sections therein which are hereinafter provided to be deleted, modified or amended
and, as modified or amended, are herein ordained; and
#HEREAS. the Council considerin9 the proposal, is of opinion that said
Southern Standard Plumbing Code, 1971 Edition, should be so adopted as hereinafter
provided.
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title X¥, Const£~tjQn, Alteration and Use of Land. Buildinos and Other Structures
of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, be, and said Title and Code
are hereby amended by the addition of a new chapter in Title XY, aforesaid, said
new chapter to be numbered and designated as Chapter 3.1. Plumbino Code, to read
and provide as follows:
CHAPTER 3.1
PLUMBING CODE
Sec. 1. Southern Stnndard. Plumhino Code. 1971 Edition -
Adoption.
The provisions, requirements and regulations contained
in that certain plumbing code entitled, known and desig-
nated ns the Southern Standard Plumbing Code, adopted,
promulgated and published by the Southern Building Code
Congress, being particularly the 1971 copyrighted edition
thereof and'the whole thereof, together with and includ-
Ing Appendix 'A# - manufacturers Specifications, Recommend-
ations and Instructions for the Installation of House or
Building Sewers, Appendix "H" - Plumbing Installation
Standards for Hobil Homes end Travel Trailers and Perks,
and the Illustrations, consisting of twelve consecutively
numbered drawings intended rot interpretation of said
code. incorporated into and published as a part of the
1971 edition of said Southern Standard Plumbing Code.
save and except such portions, sections or subsections as
are hereinafter deleted, modified or amended and herein
ordained, be, and the same are hereby adopted by the
City of Roanoke and are incorporated into this section
by reference as fully as if set out at length herein, and
from and after the date on which this chapter shall become
effective the provisions thereof and herein shall be
controlling nnd shall apply to every plumbing installation.
including alterations, repairs, replacement, equipment,
appliances, fixtures, fittings and/or appurtenances thereto,
and/or when connected to a water OF sewerage system, to
the maintenance of all of the aforesaid 3nd to the person
OF persons installing or m~intainin9 the same, within the
corporate limits of the city of Roanoke; and copies of
said code and of this chapter and any subsequent ordinances
amendatory thereof shall be kept on file in the office of
the building commissioner of the city and in the office of
the city clerk.
Sec. 2. Same - Amendments°
7he Southern Standard Building Code, 1971 Edition,
herein adopted, be. and the same is hereby amended and
ordained in the following respects:
Subsection 102.1. Plumbing official, is hereby amended
and ordained to read and provide as follows:
102~1 Plumbing insoector.
To provide for the enforcement of this code the office
of plumbing inspector as heretofore established as a section
of the department of buildings is hereby continued; and
the person appointed as plumbing inspector shall be the
plumbing official referred to in the Southern Standard
Plumbing Code, 1971 Edition, herein adopted.
Subsection 102.2. Insoectors. is hereby amended and
ordained to read and provide as follows:
102.2 ]nsoectors: aonointment.
(a) 7he appointment of the plumbing inspector and any
assistants shall be made by the building commissioner with
the approval of the city manager.
(b) The plumbing inspector and all assistant plumbing
inspectors shall be qualified plumbers. The plumbing
Inspector shall have not less than ten (10) years experience
as a plumbin9 inspector and/or master plumber. Assistant
plumbing inspectors shall have not less than five (5)
years experience, either as a journeyman or master plumber.
Subsection 103.6. Reoorts, is hereby deleted and
repealed.
Subsection 106.3. Schedule of oer'~it *(ees. is hereby
amended and ordained to read and provide as follows:
106.3. Schedule of oermit fees.
(a) Permit fees:
Sewer connection ............. $75.00
Septic tanks ............... 5.00
.124
Each plumbing fixture or floor drain:
First 25 fixtures or floor drains ...
Wext 25 fixtures or, floor drains ....
All over 50 fixtures OF floor drains.
Each gas piping system of I to 4 outlets
Each gas outlet over 4 *** ..............
(b) Water connection fees:
$ 1.50 each
1.00 each
.75 each
5.00 each
1.5o each
1.00 etch outlet
.50 each outlet
Woter connection fees shell be such es are from time
to time fixed end prescribed by the city council, to he
paid to the city*s water department.
,Subsection 109.2. Qgalifications of plumbers, JS hereby
amended and ordained .to read and provide as folloms:
109.2 Qualifications of olumbers.
(a)' Mhosoever desires to enter the plumbing business
or offers plumbing services shall have passed an examin-
ation given by the department of buildings or have had
issued to him a certificate of qualification and such
certificate of qualification has not expired by limitation.
(b) Any person who is required by this code to possess
a plumber's certificate of qualification shall make appli-
cation therefor to the department of buildings.
(c) The fees charged each applicant for examination
shall he as folloms:
Master plumber examination .............. $10.00
Journeyman plumber examination .......... $.00
Apprentice plumber examination .......... 2.00
Renewal of certificate of qualification . 1.00
(d) Every plumber*s certificate of qualification
shall be issued for one year. Each such certificate
shall be renewed from year to year without re-examination
unless said certificate has been revoked as provided for
in section 109.4 of this chapter.
Subsection 109.4. illegal w~rk - Revocation of license,
is hereby amended and drdained to read and provide as
follows:
llle~al work - Revocation of certificate of
oualification.
Any person, firm or corporation engaged in the plumbing
business whose work does not conform to the rules and reg-
ulations hereinafter set out, or whose workmanship or
materials are of inferior quality shall on notice from the
plumbing inspector make necessary changes or corrections
at once so as to conform to this code. If such changes or
corrections be not made within ten (10) days from such
notice, the plumbing inspector shall report in writing
such fact to the building commissioner, with or without
recommendation that the certificate of qualification of
such person or party be revoked, and shall issue no addi, ,
tional permits to such person or party until such changes
or corrections have been made or such recommendation acted
upon by the building commissioner. Upon receipt of such
report from the plumbing .inspector, the building commis-
sioner shall give to the person or party named in'the
report and to whom a certificate of qualification has been
issued not less than five (5) days* notice in writing of
a time and place at which a bearing on said report shall
be held before said building commissioner, together with a
statement of the grounds upon which it is proposed to revoke
such certificate of qualification. At such hearing, the
person or party so notified shall be afforded full
opportunity to present reasons or grounds in opposition
to revocation of such certificate of qualification.
If, upon such hearing, the building commissioner shall
determine that the mork done or the workmanship or
materials supplied for such work by such person or party
does not conform to the minimum regulations and require-
ments set out in this code, he may suspend for a period
of not more than sixty (60) days oF may revoke the certif-
icate of qualification .theretofore issued such person or
party, with right to any such person or party to apply
mithin ten (10) days after decision by the building
commissioner to any court of record in the city to review
the action of said building commi.ssioner.
Sec, IlO. Excavations - Public safety, consisting of
Subsections 110.1. ~A~avations la streets, nad 110.2,
Public erotectiog reouirement. IS hereby deleted and repealed.
Sec, 111. Violations and oennltles~ is hereby amended and
ordained to read and provide ns follows:
SeCo 111. Violations and ~enaltles.
Any person, firm or corporation or agent who shall
violate a provision of this code or fail to comply there-
with or with any of the provisions thereof, or violate
a detailed statement or plans submitted and approved
thereunder, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. Each such
person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for
each and every day OF portion thereof during which any
violation of any of the provisions of this code is committed
of continued, and upon conviction in a court of competent
Jurisdiction for any such violation such person shall be
punished by u fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00),
nor nora than one hundred dollars ($100.00). or imprison-
ment for a term of not more than six (6) months, or by
both such fine and imprisonment,
Subsection 1212.1. Materials, is hereby amended and
ordained to read and provide as follows:
1212.1. Materials.
(a) Above Ground - Materials for water-distribution
pipes and tubing shall be brass, copper water tube.
minimum type "L". stainless steel water tube. minimum
grade "11", lead, or cast iron pressure water pipe, all
to be installed with the appropriate approved fittings,
(b) Under-Ground - Inaccessible water-distribution
piping under floor slabs shall be minimum type "K" copper
tubing, brass, lead, or cast iron pressure water pipe,
all to be installed with the appropriate approved fittings.
All ferrous piping and fittings shall be coated with coal
tar enamel or other coating approved for such purpose.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that Chapter 3. Plumbino Code, of Title X¥.
Construction. Alteration and Use of Land. Buildinos and Other Structu??f, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, be, and said chapter is hereby
REPEALED, provided, however, that the repeal of said chapter shall not be held to
preclude or prevent the prosecution of any unlomful act or omission committed or the
enforcement of any lawful requirement as to any act performed or thing done mhile
said chapter was in effect and before the repeal thereof.
BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that this ordinance be in force and effect
on and after March 16, 1972.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Nebber ........................... 5.
NAYS: None .......... O. .(Mr. Lisk absent)
Mith reference to amending the Electrical Code, the City Manager
submitted a mritten report advising that the City Manager, the City Attorney and
the Building Commissioner met with representatives of the state and area electrical
contractors group during the week in review of their suggestions, that it is intend-
ed to submit several changes in the proposed Electrical Code, that he has not had
Mr. Thomas then moved that certain amendments to ~he Electrical Code be
taken under advisement nndnr the regular meeting of C~u~cil on Monday, March 6,
1972. The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZOHIND: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday,
February 28. 1972, on the questJ'en of amending Sections 8, '10 and 11o Chapter
4.1, Title IV. of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, relating to
Zoning, to permit the operation of day care centers in C-l, C-3 and C-4 Districts
as a special exception after public notice and hearing by the Soard of Zoning
Appeals. the matter mas before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the folloming
report recommending that Council approve the request to permit day care centers
in C-4 districts as special exceptions, and additionally, that day care centers
be permitted as special exceptions in C-I and C-3 districts and transmitting cer-
tain amendments to the Zoning Ordinance in order tO consummate these recommenda-
miens:
'February 3. 1972
The Honorable Roy L. lebber. 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 February 2, 1972.
Reverend Charles G. Fuller. Pastor, First Baptist Church,
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he is
contemplating establishing a day care center in tho new educa-
tional building of the church to provide care for the two-to-four
age group. He noted that the property is located in a C-4 zone
and does not permit uses of day care centers and kindergartens.
Re stated that he is requesting that the Zoning Ordinance be amended
so as to permit operations of day care centers and kindergartens in
C-4 districts as special exceptions.
The Planning Director then presented a report noting that
day care centers are, rightly, not a permitted use in any
zoning districts and are permitted as special exceptions mith
stringent guidelines in all the residential districts and the
C-2-General Commercial District.
He noted that many institutional uses are located within
commercial districts which may have a futur~ need for day care
centers and the strict criteria spelled out in the Zoning
Ordinance mould serve to prgteet both the neighboring properties
and the children in the center itself from any adverse environ-
mental and safety hazards.
Based on the aforemention, he then recommended that day care
centers not only be permitted as special exceptions in the C-4-
Central Business District Expansion area but in the remaining
commercial districts; C-l-Office and Institutional District and
C-3-Central Business District.
The Planning Commission members generally concurred mith the
finding of the Planutn9 Director on this matter.
Accordingly, motion mas made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to approve this request to
permit day care centers in C-4 districts as special exception.
Additionally, it mas recommended that day care centers be permitted
as special exceptions in C-l-Office and Institutional District and
C-3-Central Business District.
To consummate this0 the folloming amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance ore required:
In the C-4 District, amend Section Il. S~eeial £Yceotifln
~fter Public Notice and Hearing by the Board of Zonina
Anneals by the addition of the follomJug:
3. private day nurseries and kindergartens, as for RS
districts.
In the C-I District, amend Section 8, S~eeln! Exee~tlon
After Public Notice and Hearing bv the Board of Zonina
Anneals by the addition of the following:
T. private day nurseries end kindergartens, as for RS
districts.
In the C-3 District, amend Section 10, Special Exception
After Public Notice and Bearina by the Board of Zoning
Aooeals by the addition of the following:
private day nurseries and kindergartens, as for RS
districts.
Sincerely.
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
Math reference to the request, the Reverend Charles G. Fuller, Pastor,
First Baptist Church. appeared before Council and advised that the exception in
the current Zoning Ordinance applicable to residential districts would be, in his
opinion, inadequate to rule upon for day care centers in C-l, C-3 and C-4 districts
and that specific authorization should be 9ivan to the Board of Zonin9 Appeals to
vary the requirements mhen It is appropriate to do so.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred back to the City Planning
Commission for further study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PBTITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: '
ANNEXATION-CONSOLIDATION-LEGISLATION: A communication from Delegate
Ray L. Garland. advising that he is in receipt of Resolution No. 20087 which
would provide that. notwithstanding any other provision of law to the contrary,
the City of Roanoke shall not. for a period of five years from the effective date
of the legislation, institute any suit for the purpose of annexing any of the
territory adjoining the present corporate limits of the City of Roanoke and
Resolution No. 20086 relating to the deputy clerks and clerical assistants appointed
and employed in the Municipal Court, pointing out that he is in agreement with the
stated position of Council and will do his best to effectuate the will of Council
relative to these matters, was before the body.
Mr. Garland moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-CITY TREASURER: Copy of a communication from
the State Compensation Board in connection with the request of Mr. J. H. Johnson,
City Treasurer, to promote Mrs. May S. Van Cleaf to fill the position of Mrs. Helen
C. Nininger, at an annual rate of $b,035.00, advising that in view of their policy
to fill a vacant position at a lesser salary th'an that received by the former
employee after years of experience in the particular position, they are approving
the promotion of Mrs. Van Clear to succeed Mrs. Nininger. at an annual rate of
$5,g00.00. effective February 1, 1972. mas before Council.
In this connection, copy Of a communication from Mr. J. H. Johnson,
addressed to the State Compensation Board. advising tl~t he cannot accept the
127
salary adjustment offered by them. mas also before the body.
Mr. Garland moved that the communlcation~ be taken under consideration.
The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
TgAFFIC: A communication from Mr. and Mrs. Randolph P. Rivinus, request-
lnt that no parking signs be erected on one side of the 2200 block of Restorer
Avenue. S. M., mas before Council,
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
~for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr.
Rheeler and unanimously adopted.
MISCELLANEOUS-ROANOKE VALLEY GARDEN CLUB: A communication from Mrs.
iUharles B. Smith. Chairman'of Projects. Roanoke Valley Garden Club. advising
ithat the Roanoke Valley Gardeh Club is considering landscaping the triangle at the
iintersection of McClanahan Street and Franklin Road and requesting that the City
iai Roanoke grant them permission to execute this plan, that the city provide main-
itenance mhich includes naming and maturing, that the water supply to the location be
paid for by the city and that the city provide low. decorative lighting, mas before
Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager to
*ascertain the costs involved and report back to Council. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
SEMERS AND S'fORM DRAINS: Copy of a Resolution adoptedby the Botetourt
County Board of Supervisors on February 21, 1972, pertaining to the proposed con-
itractual arrangements-regarding the regional Sewage Treatment Plant, was before
Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS-TRAFFIC: A communication from the Roanoke City School
,Board. requesting that an additional $1,422,00 be appropriated to the Jefferson
?arking Lot account. CIP 72-2, advisin9 that the balance remaining in this account
~after the purchase of the lot and razing of buildings thereon, is $5,130.00, that
the low bid for paving of the lot is $5,552.00 and an additional $1,422.00 is
therefore needed in order to complet~ this project, was before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
~chool Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u20115) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~Gg, "Transfers to
:apital ImProvements Fund," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an,emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see as recorded in Ordinance Book
page
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
*y Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayo~
Mebber ......................... b.
NAYS: None ..........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
BUDGET-scHOOLS: A communication from the Roan,he City School*Board.
requesting that $343.43 be appropriated to Maintenance of Equipment under Section
nSaO0. 'Maintenance of Equipment.' of the 1971-72 budget, advising that a check in
this amount for the settlement of insurance claims will be deposited mith the City
Treasurer and that this appropriation is necessary in orde*r for the School Board
use these funds to repair a damaged vehicle, wa*s beE,re Council.
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n20116) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n$300, 'Schools -
Maintenance of Equipment,' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, page 259.)
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler and Mayor
Mebber ............................
NAYS: Nooe ............ O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
BUDGET-SCHOOLS-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: A communication from the Roanoke
:City School Board, requesting that Council appropriate an additional $10,737.OO
!to the Jefferson High School Field B,use account** advising that the funds remaining
ilin this account are sufficient to complete construction of the field house, but mill
i
i!not be sufficient to complete the parking lot, walkmays and lighting facilities
idesired by the Department Of Parks and Recreation for Highland Park, was before
i;Council.
After a discussion of the matter. Mr. Thomas moved that the request be
~referred to 1972-73 budget study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Mheeler and
!~unanimously adopted.
At this point, the City Manager entered the meeting.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: The City Manager submitted
ia written report in connection with the establishment within the Roanoke City budget
ilof a Regional Intake Office, Department Code 25, advising that this regional intake
facility has been previously approved in concept aod in intent by Council. that the
office will be participated in and used by the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem
and Roanoke County and that the full administration of the budget will be through
~the City of Roanoke as it is presently devised,
Mr, Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
~and offered the f,Il,ming emergency Ordinance:
(n2OllTJ AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordnin Section #24. 'Regional
Intake Office,' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, nnd providing for an
emergency.
(For fall text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book m3b, page 260.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion 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. Lisk absent)
BUDGET-CITY MANAGER: The City Manager submitted a written report fcc,m-[
mending that $350.00 be transferred from Fees for Professional and Special Services
to Travel Expense under Section ~3, *City Manager** of the 1971-72 badget.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered'the following emergency Ordinance:
(z2OllB) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =3, "C~ty Manager,"
Of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full.text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a36, page 260.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. Tho 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)
BUDGET-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: The City Manager.i
submitted a written report recommending that Council appropriate an additional
amount of $54.00 to the Municipal Building account in order for the City Manager
approve a chang'e order to several revisions to the dedication plague for the
Municipal Building.
Mr. Wheeler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
:Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#20119) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #Og, "Transfers to
iCapital Improvements Fund,* of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
I for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book g36, page 261.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. Yhe motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor. Yhomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
IWebber .........................6.
t NAYS: None ............O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted the f.ollowing
report in connection with the Civic Center scoreboard, recommending that funds be
transferred from the Capital Fund Account to the Civic Center Account, that he be
aathorized to pay General Indicator Corporation for repairs made to the scoreboard
~and that there remains'to be resolved, at a later date, the matter as to whether the
!!
city mill receive these funds back from the city*s insurers or mhethez the city mill
endeavor to obtain reimbursement from the contractor should it become apparent that~
the damaging of the scoreboard is a result of misinformation provided by them:
*February 28, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
As members of City Council will remember, on May 5. 1971, the
scoreboard at the Roanoke Civic Center fell and mas damaged. Soon
after this occurrence, the City notified our insurers of this damage
and obtained from General Indicator Corporation. builders of the score-
board, an estimate for the repairs.
By Ordinance No. 19720 dated June 14, 1971. City Council authorized
the City Manager to proceed to contract with General Indicator Corpora-
tion for the repairs needed to return this scoreboard to its original
state, the cost of these repairs not to exceed $16,116.50. Subsequent
to this authorization, investigation into the circumstances relating
to the falling of this scoreboard have indicated that this incident
might not have been as a result of negligence on the part of City
employees but could have resulted from information received from the
scoreboard installers. AS a result Of these indications and on the
advice of our insurers, the City has not certified payment to General
Indicator for the repairs, mbJch were completed sometime ago.
Me have received numerous requests from General Indicator
requesting payment and ns n result of the latest inquiry, on
February lO. 1972~ the City Attorney*s office informed the City
Engineer that it is their opinion that the sum of $18,116.50 is due
General Indicator Corporation and the City Attorney recommends that
payment be made pursuant to the provision of Ordinance No. 19720.
Unfortunately, to date no funds have been appropriated for this pur-
Realizing this shortage of funds, an investigation into the
availability of funds within the Civic Center accounts has been made
in conjunction with the City Auditor and it has been determined that
there exists within the Capital Fund Account. fig-liD, funds for equip-
ment and furnishings, sufficient funds for which the $18.116.$0 could
be transferred to the Civic Center Operating Account 77. Object Code
260. Maintenance of Machinery and Equipment. This bill could be
paid by transferring funds to this account.
Should City Council concur, It would be recommended that these
funds be transferred £rom the Capital Fund Account to the Civic Center
Account and that the City Manager be authorized to pay General Indica-
tor Corporation for the repairs. There remains to be resolved at a
later date the matter as to #he*her the City mill receive these funds
back from our own insurers or whether we will endeavor to obtain reim-
bursement from the contractor, should it become apparent that the damag-
ing of the scoreboard is a result of misinformation provided by them.
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
Offered the following emergency Ordinance transferring $16,115.50 from Capital
Improvements - Civic Center under Section zDg. "Transfers to Capital Improvements
Fund** to Maintenance Of Machinery and Equipment under Section ~77, *Civic Center.*
of the 1971-72 budget:
(320120) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section 389, *Transfers to
Capital Improvements Fund." and Section 377, *Civic Center,* of the 1971-72
Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book 33b, page 262.)
131
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The.wotion nas 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)
SENERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following repor~
advising that the Engineering Department has completed preparation of the applica-
tion for federal grant for the expansion of the Sewage Treatment Plant and transmit-
ting and recommending three items to accompany the grant:
,'February 28. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Department of Engineering has completed preparation of
the application for the Federal grant for the expansion of the City*s
sewage treatment plant. Three items remain to accompany the 9rant
and it is on these items that action by the City Council is recom-
mended. They are as follows:
1. A formal contract between the City of Roanoke and
Alvord, Burdick and Howson, Engineers. for the per-
formance of engineering services for this project.
Preparation of this contract is in progress and con
now be proceeded with with knowledge of its scop? and
content of the project. For the present and for the
application the submission can be in the form of a
copy of Alvord, Durdick and Ilowson's letter dated
October 27, 1971. This should be accompanied with
a resolution or ordinance from the City Council
authorizing the execution of a contract with that
firm consistent with that letter.
2. A resolution by the City Council which mould:
(a) Authorize the City Manuger*s signature to the
application for the Federal grant. This appli-
cation agrees that the City will pay the remain-
ing cost of the approved project; that the City
will provide proper and efficient operation and
maintenance of the project after completion'of
construction; that the City mill comply with Title
6 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and, that the
City agrees to comply with the requirements of the
Executive Order No. 11246, Equal Employment Oppor-
tunity in Federally Asalsted Construction Contracts.
(b)Authorization to sign the compliance report for
Title 6 of the Civil Rights AC~ of 1964.
(c)Authorization to sign the assurance of compliance
with respect to Title h of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 as it applies to the 9rant from the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
3. Contracts with the various governmental jurisdictions
within the area for transportation and treatment of sew-
age. It is proposed to attach to this application copies
of the contracts as transmitted by the City Council on
February 22, 1972, to the City of Salem and to Roanoke
County, together with the City Council's resolution, of
the same date. pertaining to proposed services to be pro-
vided to the Tomn of Vinton and Botetourt County. Also
there would be attached the existing contracts with the
City of Salem and Roanoke County and the City Council's
ordinance as to the treatment of excess semage from the
Town of Vinton.
Me would further recommend authorization by the City Council
to pay to Alvo~d. Burdick and Howson their billing for their pre-
vious services under this program which would in effect be their
services to date to the extent of their hilling. It is felt that
these costs would be eligible for the grant participation.
Based on the estimated total project cost. as of this dote,
of $14.669.000. the following funding is anticipated:
Federal Grunt - EPA $7,2b?.000
Federal Grant - Planning - HUD - 726.700 (5%)
State Grant 3,633.500 (25%)
City Funds 2,g06,800 (20%)
Plus $135,000 for Land TOTAL CITY 3.041.800
It should be added that an extensive amount of material must addi-
tionally accompany the application and we would be glad to review
before the City Council any details of the application, its attach-
ments or the project. Some engineering design items particularly
as to Inclusion of major elements within the proposed plant expan-
sion have not yet been resolved among the State Water Control Board.
the City's Engineers and the City and the determination of these
items Is on a timetable arrangement. The application is for a 14
million gallon per day expansion to the existing RI MGD activated
sludge sewage treatment plant, plus advanced maste treatment faci-
lities for 35 MGD flom.
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 offered the following Resolution authorizing and directing application to be made
to the Virginia State Water Control Board and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration for,a ~rant to the city under the Federal Mater Pollution Control
Act for aid in a 14 MGO expansion to the existing 21 #GO Sewn9e Treatment Plant.
together with advanced waste treatment facilities for a 35 WGD flow:
(a20121) A RESOLUTION authorJzlng and directing application to be made
to the Virginia State Mater Control Board and the Federal Water Pollution Control
Administration for a grant to the City under the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act for aid in a 14 MGO expansion to the existin9 21MGD Sewage Treatment Plant,
together with advanced waste treatment facilities for a 35 MGD flow.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book a36. page 262.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. 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. Lisk absent)
Mr. Thomas then offered the following emergency Ordinance authorizing the
City Manager to engage certain engineering services for the design and supervision
of construction, in two or more phases, of certain new facilities at the Sewage
Treatment Plant, upon certain terms and pro~isions:
(~20122) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to engage certain
engineering services for the design and supervision Of construction, in two or
more phases, of certain new facilities at the City*s sewage treatment plant, upon
certain terms and provisions; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook =36, page 263.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was secondedl
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
133
~.34
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ..........................
NAYS: None ........... O, (Mr. Link absent)
Dr, Taylor offered the folloming emergency Ordinance relating to prelimi-
nary engineering studies and services in connection mith the expansion and improve-
ment of the Semage Treatment Plant and authorizing the City Manager to enter into
contract with certain engineers therefor:
(n20123) AN ORDINANCE relating to preliminary engineering studies and
services in connection math the expansion and improvement of the City's sewage
treatment plant; authorizing the City Manager to enter into contract with certain
engineers therefor; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36. page 265.)
Or. Taylor 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
Webber ........................... 6.
NAYS: None ............O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
At this point, the City Attorney entered the meeting.
RECREATION DEPARTMENT-PARKS AND PLAyGROUNDS-SCHOOLS: The City Manager
submitted the following report in connection with the development of the John F.
Kennedy Park. advising that he is in receipt of a communication from the Department:
of the Interior directing that the city submit a firm commitment for the development
of the property, the amount of the expenditure and a timetable of completion and
advising that if this natertal'cannot be provided on or before March 10, 1972, the
government will have to institute proceedings to revert the property back to the
federal government:
"February 28, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
By Reed of May 26, 1965. the City of Roanoke acquired from
the United States Government approximately 7.83 acres abutting
Andrews Road. N. M. The Federal government reserves certain
easements for underground power and control cables related to
the airport operation. The City paid the government $4.900 for
the property. In addition to the payment, one of the stipnla-
tions of the conveyance was that the City would continuously use
and maintain the premises as public park and public recreational
area. The Deed provided that the title to the property mould revert
to the United States in the event of noncompliance with the Deed
by the City.
At the time of the conveyance, the purchase of the property
was authorized by City Council Ordinance No. 15663 dated March
1964. At the time of the purchase, the City prepared and submitted
to the General Services Administration a program for the parR and
recreational development of the property. This was a detailed and
fairly extensive program. It proposed under the "initial Stage
Development" expenditure of $5,T00 for facilities and plantings.
"Stage No. 2 Development" detailed $4,600 in expenditure covering
softball field, parking lot and baseball fields, plus additional
shrubbery and planting. "Stage No. $ Development" outlined an-
additional $8,400 for shelter, utility lines, and paving of parking
lot. These three stages totalled $18,700, math the City further
indicating its estimated cost of development of the property would
ultimately be approximately $25,000.
It mill be recalled thut upproximately tmo leers ugo the City
acquired by contribution nn interior strip of land 104 1/2 feet by
660 feet, which drew together und made as n single unit the two
strips which were in the original acquisition from the Federal
government. Since the purchase, the City has been under the obli-
gation to report each two years to the General Services Administra-
tion ns to the progress of development of this area. As the City
Council is aware, there has not been, to date, any physical improve-
meats on the property. We have submitted items in each of the annual
budgets for the past several years, along with it*ems for other paths,
und in nil cases these for the John F. Kennedl Purh area have been
deleted in budget considerations. It will be further recalled
that in a study and report made by the Community Relations Commit-
tee approximately one and one-hair lears ago, following which the
City Council made supplemental appropriations for path improvements,
this committee had not recommended any physical development in the
John F. Kennedy Park.
I attach a copy of the most recent DjennJnl Report which was
submitted to the Federal government in response to their categories
of questions.
challenging to what they consider as a lack of development on the
part of the City and n failure to comply with the original terms of
the conveyance. The effOFtS of this office to assure them of the
continuing interest on the paFt of the City have been fairly well
used up.
We are mom in receipt from the Department of the Interior of
a letter directing that the City submit a firm commitment for the
development of the property, the amount of the expenditure and a
timetable of completion nnd edvisin9 that if this material cannot
be provided on or before March 10. 1972. that the 9overnment mould
have to institute proceedings to revert the property to the Federal
government.
I submit this to the City Council, inviting your suggestions
and advise as to hum this might be best proceeded with.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F. RJrst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
In a discussion of the report, the City Manager verbally explained that
the City Of Roanoke acquired this property from the federal government in 1955 for
.the sum of approximately $d,900.00, with the provision that the property be developed
for park and recreational purposes and that written into the agreement between the
!City and the federal government was the stipulation that if the city did not develop
i!the property for park and recreational purposes within a stipulated period, the
!property would automatically revert back to the federal government.
After a discussion of th~ matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the City Manager
!~be requested to transmit a communication to the proper authorities explaining the
isituation of the City of Roanoke pertaining to the John F. Kennedy Pork. The motion
luas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Assistant City Attorney submitted a written report~
transmitting an Ordinance amendin9 Title XI, Chapter 1, Sections 5 and 6, of The
Code of the City of RoanoKe, 1956, as amended with reference to custody and disposi~
tion of lost or stolen property and to the disposition of certain dangerous weapons
~and further relating to the establishment of a property office and property custodian
within the Police Department.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the Assistant City
Attorney and offered the folio#Jug emergency Ordinance:
't36
(e20124} AN ORDINANCE amending Sec. 5 and Sec. 6 of C~apte~ 1, Title
XI of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, relating to possession.
custody and disposition of certain deadly wespons~ and providing for an emergency.
(Forfnll text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n36. page 266.}
Br. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Nr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................... 6.
NAYS: None ............O. (Mr. Llsk absent)
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
GARBAGE REMOVAL: The Landfill Committee submitted the following report
recommendtng that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure pro-
viding for a lease agreement betmeen the City of Roanoke and the Norfolk and Western
Railway Company for property owned by said Company situate on the north side of Roanoke
River immediately west of the Norwich Bridge. said land being needed for landfill
purposes:
"February 20, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Your Landfill Committee has received from the Norfold and
Mestern Railway Company their consent to lease to the City of
Roanoke approximately six plus {6~) acres of land omned by the
Company and situated on the north side of the Roanoke River
immediately west of the Norwich Bridge. The tract is bound on
the south by the River and on the north by the track of the
Company. It extends to zero width on both its east and west ends.
The lease would be in consideration of one dollar per year and
such customary terms as necessary.
The tract would be made available to the City for orderly
and proper disposal of solid refuse wastes. The usable area of
the tract for such purposes would he approximately four (4) acres
due to the limitation of a main sewer interceptor passing through
the property and due to the necessity of using only the higher
elevation of the tract in protection of high water flooding area
of the River.
It would be proposed the City would clear gromth from the
usable area and commence disposal by the method of compacted layers
of refuse covered by layers of compacted dirt. Primary entrance
would be from the west end Mith the construction of a grade crossing
across the single tract and a ramp Jato the site.
The City would relocate disposal operations from the Dale Avenue
area to this site as soon as it can be prepared. An estimated
several months of use is available.
Dirt for cover has been made available by several indastiral
properties in the area.
Completion of the disposal and filling operation will make
available to the Railway Company an additional trackage and load-
ing area.
It is recommended the City Attorney be authorized to prepare
jointly with the company and bring to City Council a lease agree-
ment.
I'!
Following the recent denial by the Ronnoke County Board of
Supervisors of the City's latest request to use City owned land
in the County rot n sanitary, landfill, this being the Airport
North Clear Zone. the Committee hms twice wet with representa-
tives of Roanoke County. These meetings have not produced any
beneficial results to resolve the Clty's need for an adequate
and/or long term landfill site. Your Committee will continue
to actively pursue this matter which is critical to the City end
return with report and recommendation to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ James O. Trout
James O. Trout, Chairman
David K. Lisk
Julian F. Hirst'
#r. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for pre-I
!paration of the proper measure. The motion Was seconded by Nr. Rheeler and unanimous-
! ly adopted.
ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL HEALTH SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL, INCORPORATED:
~Council having requested that the Roanoke Valley Regional Health Services Planning
;Council. Incorporated, mahe au in-depth study of emergency medical service needs in
the City of Roanoke, the Roanoke Valley Regional Health Services Planning Council,
lncorporate~ submitted a 49 page report in connectionmJth the matter.
In this connection, Mr. Frank H. Mays, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley
Regional Health Services Planning Council, Incorporated. appeared before Council
i and verbally explained the report and recommendations contained therein.
Mr. Thomas moved that appreciation be expressed to Mr. Nays nod his con-
mJttee for the large volume of work that has gone into the preparation of the report
and that the report he referred to the City Manager ~or study, report and recommenda-
tion to Council. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: Council, at its last regular meeting,
having requested that the City Manager ascertain if there are any transfers that can
be made from one account to another to provide sufficient funds to purchase 12 beds
~with mattresses and 22 lockers in conjunction with the authorization by Council of
22 additional employees in the Fire Department, the matter was again before the
body.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally advised that he has not had
an opportunity to get all of this material together and requested that the matter
be deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, March 6. lq?2.
During the discussion, it was discovered that funds have not been appro-
priated by Council for the employment of the 22 additional firemen; whereupon, Mr.
Trout moved that the report of the City Manager and the budget Ordinance appropriat~
lng necessary funds for employment of the 22 additional firemen be placed on the
agenda of Council for Monday, March b, 1q72. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk
and unanimously adopted.
~ CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
137
':1.38
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 20106. vacating, discontinuing and
closing 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 run-
nJng from 20th Street to 21st Street, b~ing all of the.alleys shown in Hlock ? of
the Nap of East Gate Addition, having previously been before Council for its first
reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, DF. Taylor offering the
following for its second reading and final adoption:
¢m2olo6) AN ORDINANCE enacted pursuant to the provisions of Section
15.1-364 of the Code of Virginia as amended to date. providing for vacating, discon-
tinuing and closing 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 shown in Block ? of the Rap'of East Gate
Addition to the City of Roanoke. Virginia.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Rook n36, page 24D.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Yhomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Nheeler, and Mayor
Mebbcr ........................... 6.
NAYS: None. (Mr. Lisk absent)
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 20107, vacating, discontinuln9 and
closing that portion of a ten-foot alley running through Section 6, Exchange Build~
Jag ~ Investment Company. from Fourth Street. S. M., to Nalnut Avenue, S. M., more
specifically described in a ceres and bounds description, said request having been
amended by the City Planning Commission with the petitioner dedicating and construct-
ing a sew ten-foot alley and driveway along the westerly side of Lot 9, Block 6.
Exchange Building and Investment Company Map, including a triangular turning area
on the southwest corner of Lot fl and the City Of Roanoke to vacate the alley east
of this new dedication as shown on an attached mapo having previously been before
Council for its first reading, read and laid over. was again before the body, Mr.
Nh*clef offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(#20107) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing a
certain portion of the alley located in Block 6, Hap of Exchange' Building and Invest-
ment Company, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and accepting the dedication of
certain property, being portions of Lots R and 9. Map of Exchange Building and Invest-
ment Company, from Hayes. Seay. Mattern ~ Mattern to the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book n36, page 250.)
Mr. Nheeler moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
#ebber ......................... 6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. LJsh absent)
ZONING: Ordinance No. 201080 resorting 10.74 acres of land located on
Green Road. N. E., described as Official Tax Nos. 3250B01 - 3250004. rron 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:
(n20108) 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. 32S. Sectional 1966
Zone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book =36. page 2S2.i
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, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20109. rezonJng properties bounded on the north by
lyoning Avenue. on the east by Mestside Boulevard. on the south by Kentucky Avenue
and on the west by Gilbert Road. described as Lots 7, B, 9. 10, 17. lB, 19. and 20.
Section 3. Map of lashington Club Land Company. and a closed alley extending betweem
Gilbert Road and lestside Boulevard. described as Official Tax Nos. 267030~. 2670308.
2670309. 2670310. 2670317. 2670318. 2670319 and 2670320, from RS-3, Single-Family
Residential District, to RG-2. General Residential District. havin9 previously been
before Council for its first reading, read and laid over. was again before the body.
Mr. Nheeler offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(320109) 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. 267, Sectional 1966
Zone Rap, City of Roanoke'. in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 254.)
Mr. Mheeler 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, Rheeler and Mayor
i Webber ......................... b.
NAYS: None ......... O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20110, rezoning property located on the westerly
side Of Compton Street. south of Noble Avenue. N. E** described as Lots 16, 17 and
!18, Block 3. Oakland Map. Official Tax Nos. 3110217, 3110218 and 3110219. from RD,
i 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. #heeler offering the followin9 for its second reading and final adoption:~
1"40
(a20110) 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. 311, Sectional 1966
Zone Nap, City of Roanoke, In relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u36. page 255.)
Mr. Nheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconde~
by Hr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................... 6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20111. rezoning property located on the southerly
side of Panorama Avenue. N. N.. described as Lots 11. 12. 13. 14. and 15, and the
rear or southerly portion of Lot 16, Block D, Official Tax Nos. 2740302. 2740303,
2740313. 2740314. 2740315, and 2740316, 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. #r. Trout offerin9
the f. Il,ming for its second reading and final adoption:
{c20111) 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?4. Sectional 1966
Zone Rap. City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book #36. page 256.)
Mr. Yrout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. Yhe notion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the f. Il,mia9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .......................... 6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20112. rezoning property located on the easterly
side of Ninth Street, S. E., south of Noodrow Avenue, described as Lots I - 5.
inclusive, Block 5. Official Tax Nos. 4141B01 - 4141005. inclusive, from RD,
Duplex Residential District. to C-2. General Commercial District. having previously~
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over. was again before
body. Mr. Trout offerin9 .the f,Il,win9 for its second reading and final adoption:
(~20112) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title Xg, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 414. Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book ~36. page 257.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iby Nr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Nebber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
141
CITY ENGINEER-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council baying directed the City Attor~
ney to prepare the proper measure amending subsection(2) or Sec. 7, of Chapter 1,
a
Public Streets in General. of Title XVII, Street, Sidemalks nd Sewers of The Codej
of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by requiring any person makiug openings
in the pavement of any street, alley or public may in the city to submit evidence
of public liability insurance to the Director of Public Morks before being issued ai
permit for such work, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Trout offered the following!
emergency Ordinance:
(u20125} AN ORDINANCE amending subsection (2) of Sec. T. of Chapter 1.
Public Streets in General, of Title XVI1, Streets. Sidewalks and Sewers, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1955. as amended, by requiring any person making
openings in the pavement of any street, alley or public way in the City to submit
evidence of public liability insurance to the director of public murks before being
issued a permit for such work; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book =3b, page 267.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the follouing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
--Mebber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Hr. Lisk absent)
MOYIO)*$ AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
LEGISLATION-TAXES: Mr. Trout moved that the City Attorney be directed to
transmit telegrams to the delegation representing the City of Roanoke in the Heneral
~Assenbly expressing the support of the Council of the City of Roanoke and the Vir-
ginia Municipal League to the proposed local option of a one per cent sales tax
increase.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
LEGISLATION-SCHOOLS: Mr. Rheeler offered the following Resolution urging
isupport by the city's representatives in the Ceneral Assembly of Virginia, of pend-
~ing legislation mhich would provide for distribution to the localities of state aid
iifor education on the basis of average daily membership in the public schools:
(=20126) A RESOLUTION ~rging support, by the City's representatives in the
~General Assembly of Virginia of pending legislation which would provide for distri4
bution to the localities of State aid for education on the basis of average daily
membership in the public schools,
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book #36. page 260.)
Mr. Rheeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was secondel
ilby Mr. Trout and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .........................6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
1 42
COUNCIL-CITY MANAGER: Mayor Mebber advised that he would like to reqaesl
an Executive Session relative to the position of the Assistant City Manager.
Mr. Trout moved that Council'concur in the request of Mayor Webber, The
motion was seconded by Mr, Garland and unanimously adopted.
SEMERS AND STORMDRAINS: Mr. Thomas called attention to a report with
regard to certain recommended changes in the sewage treatment contract between the
City of Roanoke and the City of Salem and moved that Council discuss the proposed
changes in Executive Session. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
After the Executive Session, Mr. Thomas presented the following report
incorporating seven changes to the sewage treatment contract between the City of
Roanoke and the City of Salem:
'AGREED CHANGES TO PROPOSED CONTRACT
BETMEEN CITY OF ROANOKE AND CITY OF SALEM
FOR SEMACE TRANSMISSION AND TREATMENT
pQqe 9 Paragraph B., gth line:
Change IV.D to IV.E
Paoes 12 Change Paragraph C. Reserve for Reolacement, to read:
and 13 Reserve for Reolacement: The reserve for replacement
on the treatment plant, and on jbint-use interceptor facilities
existing as of this date. shall be determined annually by Roanoke
and applied in the formula at a rate not greater than two per
cent (2~). per annum on the total Of all local funds expended
in the construction and equipment of said plant and joint-use
interceptor facilities. The reserve for replacement shall he
expended by Roanoke only for replacement of joint-use facilities;
hut the amounts so expended by Roanoke shall not be treated as a
cost or an expense of the City of Roanoke for its ownership,
operation and maintenance of the treatment plant and Joint-use
interceptor or other facilities in determining the base rate
of monthly charge referred to in paragraphs X¥.B and IY.D.I and
in thc definition Of the term Operation and Mainten~? contained
in paragraph IV.C., hereof.
Joint-Use Facilities:
The term 'joint-use facilities' and 'joint-use intercep-
tor facilities' as employed in Section IY. Charaes for Sewaoe
Transmission and Treatment Service, herein, shall be understood
and taken to mean Roanoke*s sewage treatment plant and immediately
related treatment facilities and all interceptor or other sewer
lines and related facilities used jointly by Roanoke and Salem in
connection with the transmission or treatment of wastes made the
subject of this contract.
Paoe 27 Change Paragraph XI. Studies and Evaluations, to read:
XI. STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS:
The parties hereto agree to participate in a study or
studies, the scope of which shall be later determined by mutual agree-
ment. as to organizational or institutional arrangements as would
effect, to the benefit of both parties, the most satisfactory
provision of and for the transmission and treatment of wastes from
the jurisdictional areas of the parties and from the geographical
region within which the parties are situated. Suchstudy or studies
shall commence at the end of Roanoke's second full fiscal year
follomin9 completion of the physical expansion of the treatment
plant contemplated and scheduled as of the date of this contract
and referred to in paragraph IX.B., hereof. It is the intent of
the parties hereto to evaluate the results of the study or studies
in a timely fashion.
Paoe 16 Paragraph VII. A,. 4th line:
Add words not less than, between words t._~_o and th.__~e.
Paoe O 7th line from top, delete word reasonably;
Otb line from top. add at end of 8th line: ]or
Page 14 Add, after Paragraph H.o the follouing:
I. It is agreed betmeen the parties hereto that, at
t~e expiration of the term of this contract should Salem not con-
tinue, by contract or other formal mutual agreement ulth Roasute,
Joint use, math Roanoke, of the semage treatment plant and other
Joint-use seuoge facilities made the subject of tbJa ~ntract.
Salem shall be refunded and paid out of such funds then held by
Roonnhe under this contract as Reserves for Replacement provided
for in paragraph IV.C., above, an amount proportionate to the per-
centana of Salemts total contributions to said reserve fund in
proportion to the total contributions made to said reserve fnnd by
Roanoke end all other po'titicai subdivisions, including Salem.
participating in the use of such facilities; provided, homever,
there shall be excluded from such' determination any amount in
Roanoke's reserve for replacement fund. maintained for said
facilities, as of the commencement of this contract.
Respectfully submitted,
Council Semer Committee,
February 26. 1972 By
Chairman"
Mr. Thomas moved shat the report be received and filed. The motion mas
=se'conded by Hr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas then offered the following Resolution providing for the agree-
ment of the City of-Roanoke to certain changes and modifications of the contract
)roposed and offered to be entered into with the City of Salem pursuant to Ordinance
No. 20105:
(~20127) A RESOLUTION proridin9 the City's agreement to certain changes
and modifications of the contract proposed and offered to be entered into with the
City of Salem pursuant to Ordinance No. 20105, adopted by the Council on February 22.
1972.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book *36 page 269.)
Mr. Thomas uoved the adoption of the Resolution. 7he motion was seconded
i!by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber .........................6.
NAYS: None ............ O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
There bein9 no further business. Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
AT TE ~F: ~'/
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL~ REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, March 6, 1972,
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber la the Municipal Building, Monday, March 6,' 1972, ut 2 p.m** the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L, lfebber presiding,
pRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David R. Lisk, and Noel C. Taylol
INanpton M· Thomas, Ja.mes O. Trout, Vincent S, Mheeler and Mayor Roy L. MebbeF-u-7.
ABSENT: None-
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager: Mr. Byron g. Bauer,!
Assistant City Ranager: Mr, A. N. Gibson, City Auditor: Mr. James N. J~incanou,
City Attorney; and Mr. fl. Ben Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney·
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend E. T.
Button, Pastor, Smeet Union Baptist Church·
MINLFIES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
January 31, 1972, having been furnished each member of Council. on notion of Mr.
Trout, seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof nas
dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ELECTIRCAL INSPECTOR-PLUMBERS-BUILDING INSPECTOR: Council having con-
tinued a public hearing on the question of amending the Electircal Code until
2 p,m.. Monday, March B, 1972, the matter was again before the body.
In this connection, Mr. Jack B. Coulter, Attorney, representing the
National Association of Electrical Contractors, appeared before Council and pro-
posed that Council recognize the importance of the Office of the Electrical Inspec-
tor, that the staff for said office be maintained on a full-time basis, that the
facilities of the office be made more ade.quate for the convenience of the public,
that consideration be given to the employment of an assistant inspector, that the
extra monies generated ~y the increase in the electrical fees be utilized for the
aforesaid purposes and be so reflected in the upcoming 1972-73 budget.
Also in connection with the matter, Mr. Coulter presented a tabulation
setting forth the rates that were in effect in 1971 compared ~ith the rates that arel
proposed to be in effect for 1972 and thereafter.
Mith reference to the matter. Mr. E. L. Brindel, former Electrical
Inspector, appeared before Council and presented a prepared' statement in support
of the request of Mr. Coulter and also urged that the Office of the Electrical
fInspector be updated.
I The City Attorney submitted the following report in connection with the
lproposed amendments to the Electrical Code, summarizing certain proposed'changes
ior additions to the present Electrical Code provisions:
'Hatch b,
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Council on January 31, 1972, referred to the undersigned,
for further consideration and after conferring with represent-
atives of the electrical contractors* interests, the proposed
ordinance which was that day before the Council on public
hearing, which had as its primary purpose adoption of the
standards of work and regulations set out In the 1971 Edition
of the National Electrical Code.
Since the January 31st meeting of the Council, the undersigned
have met with the attorney and other representatives of certain
local and outside electrical contractors and their trade assoc-
iation and have considered all of those points of agreement, as
well as those of objection noted by those others to th~ proposed
amendments of the Electrical Code then before the Council. On
most matters, all parties were found to be in general agreement
and, mith relatively minor exceptions, it may be stated that the
two ordinances transmitted to the Council with this report now
meet with general approval to the extent of the matters covered
in those ordinances. Briefly, the ordinances nam recommended by
the undersigned for the Council's adoption would accomplish the
following:
(a) Sections 7, ?.1, 7.2, 7.3, 7.4 and 7.5, the
latter five of which would be hem sections,
deal with the constitution of the Board of
Electrical Examiners and set out the terms
of office of the members thereof, the Board's
powers and duties and provide an appeal proced-
ure to the Hoard of Examiners from ~ny decision
or action of the Electrical Inspector;
(b) Section B would provide a right of reviem by
a court of decisions and orders of the Board
of Examiners;
(c) Section 9 would provide for the issuance of
certificates of qualification to electrical
contractors and electricians, except for those
electrical contractors currently registered
under the Virginia Contractor*s Registration
Law;
(d) Section 10 would provide for fees to be charged
applicants for examination by the Board of
Examiners;
(e) Section 13 would provide a new schedule
inspection fees, measured by the value of the
work done as opposed to the type of electrical
work inspected;
(f)Section Ih would adopt the regulations and
standards of the 1971 Edition of the National
' Electrical Code as evidence of most approved
methods for the installation of miring and
electrical devices and apparatus;
(g) Section 14. dealt with by separate ordinance,
would require issuance of certificates of
inspection to the local electric utility
upon completion of the wiring of buildings.
The above summarization, is intended to note only those changes
or additions to present Code provisions.
Additional changes of provisions contained in other sections of
Chapter 2, Title XV and further additions to that chapter,
urged by representatives of electrical contractors meeting with
the undersigned, are not recommended by the undersigned for
adoption at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
Julian F. Hirst
James N. Kincanon*
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the public
hearing be continued pending u report from the City Manager as to bom much he
mould like to increase the scope of the Office of the Electrical Inspector taking
into consideration the communication and proposed Resolution presented by Mr.
Coulter. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having set a public hearing rot 2
Monday. March 6, 1972. on the request of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority to vacate, discontinue and close certain streets, avenues and
alleys within or bordering the area of the Kimball Redevelopment Project. VA.
H-46 in the northeast section of the City of Roanoke. the matter mas before the
body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the folloulngi
report recommending that the request be granted:
"February 3, 1972
The Ilonorable Roy L. Kebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Plonntng
Commission at both its regular meetings of January 19 and Feb-
ruary 2, 1972.
Mr. Allen I. Staples, appeared before the City Planning
Commission and stated that the above-noted street closures
represent one major required step by the Roanoke Redevelop-
ment and Rousing Authority in the Kimball urban renemal pro-
cess. Re is, therefore, requesting Planning Commission appro-
val of the street closures. Also, Mr. Staples noted that the
streets and alleys which the Redevelopment and Rousing Authority
is requesting to be closed are internal streets, and in addition,
the N~M has voiced no opposition to these closures.
The Planning Director presented a letter to the Planning
Commission members from the Roanoke Gas Company in opposition
to the request.
Mr. Frank K. Saunders. appeared before the City Planning
Commission on behalf of the Roanoke Gas Company and stated
that the Gas Company has no objections to tbe Kimball Project
but that certain closures will materially affect the Gas Com-
pany*s ingress and egress to its facilities located in the
Kimball prmject and also affect the future development of the
lands owned by the Roanoke Gas Company by denying access to
them. Re noted that the Gas Company Is opposed to the closing
of the intersection of 6th Street 'and Patton Avenue; the clos-
ing of Patton Avenue from Shenandoah Avenue on the east to.
Kimball Avenue on the west; the closing of any part of Kimball
Avenue from its present easterly intersection mith Patton Avenue
to the future street right=of-way designated Street No. 5; and
the closure of Shenandoah Avenue from Patton Avenue on the
north, southerly to the southern most line of the property
owned by the Roanoke Gas Company.
Mr. Lawrence, Planning Commission member, questioned the
uses being made of the lands omned by the Roanoke Gas Company.
Mr. Saunders replied that the Gas Company is using this pro-
perty owned by the Roanoke Gas Company.
Mr. Roy Renleyo executive Director of the Redevelopment
and Rousing Authority, noted the grading problem existing in
the area and generally discussed the Kimball project, pointing
out the importance of approving these street closures so that
the necessary grading can commence in thc area.
The Planning Commission members generally felt that Hr, Henley
should again confer with the Roonoke Gas Company to determine ir
a satisfactory solution to this problem could be arrived at.
At the February 2, 1972 meeting, Hr, Allen M, Staples,
attorney for the petitioner, again appeared before the Plan-
ning Comnlssion nnd stated that the Redevelopment and Housing
Authority and the Roanoke Gna Compnny have conferred and cane
to an agreement on this-issue. Mr. Saunders, attorney for the
Gas Company, then appeared before the Planning Commission and
stated that the Gas Company wishes to withdraw their opposi-
tion to particular street closes noting, however, that there
is no uritten'ngreenent to this affect,
Hr. Huckley of the Roanoke Gas Company, appeared before
the Planning Commission ned stated that he did not want to
slow doan the project but he will have to get certain resolu-
tions from their board and mill also hare to go to their trustees
for release. He also. noted that they are considering a change
of a number of square feet the developer owns.
Hr. Lemon, Planning Commission Chairman, then s~ ted that
the Commission can not conditionally approve this request
until some agreement is made. #r. Huckley then stated that
as of this time, the Roanoke Cas Company withdraws its opposi-
tion.
Mr. Roy Henley. Executive Oirector of the Redevelopment
and Housing Authority. appeared before the Planning Commission
and stated that no new changes are being made to their plans.
Accordingly, motion nas made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to 9rant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
a written report advisin9 that they have the streets, avenues and alleys and the
neighboring property and that they are unanimously of the opinion that ag incon-
venience would result to any individual or to the public from permanently vacating.
No one appearing in opposition to vacating, discontinuing and closing
said streets, avenues and alleys. Mr. Lisk moved.that the following Ordinance be
placed upon its first reading:
(=2012H) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuin9 and closing
within the boundary of or borderin9 the Kimball Redevelopment Project VA H-4b in'
the northeast section of the City of Roanoke, Virginia as are hereinafter more
fully described.
MHEREAS, the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority has
heretofore filed a petition with the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in
the boundary of or bordering the Kimball Redevelopment Project VA R-46, of the
£iling of which said petition due notice was given to the public as required by
law; and
Iflt~REAS, in accordance with the preyer o! said petition, viewers mere
appointed by. the Council on the 4th day of Jonuory, 1972 to view the property and
to report in writing whether in. their opinion any inconvenience would result from
permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing said streets, avenues nnd alleys
IHEREAS, it appears from the written report of said viewers filed with
the City Clerh on the 29th day of. February, 1972, that no inconvenience would resul
either to nny individual or to the public from permonently vacating, discontinuing
and closing said streets, avenues and alleys or portions of same; and
IHEREAS, Council at its meeting on the 4th day of January, 1972
referred the petition to tie City Plannin9 Commission, mhich Commission by its
~report dated February 3, 1972, and filed with Council recommended that the petition
to vacate, discontinue and close the streets° avenues and alleys and portions
thereof hereinafter more fully described be approved; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the question before the Council at
its regular meeting on March 6, 1972, after due and timely notice thereof pnblishedi~
in The Morld News, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were
afforded an opportunity to be heard on the question; and
· H£H~AS, from all of the foregoing, the Council considers that no incon-
venience will result to any ~ndividual or to the public from permanently vacating,
discontinuing and closing the streets, avenues and alleys and portions thereof
within bordering upon ~he Kimball Redevelopment Project, as applied for by the
petitioner, and that said streets, avenues and alleys and portions thereof should
be permanently closed as hereinafter provided.
~NEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that all
of the following describ'ed streets, avenues, alleys and portions of street~ and
avenues located within the boundary of or borderin9 upon the Kimball Redevelopment
ilproject
VA R-46 of the City of Roanohe Redevelopment and Housing Authority, located{i
!in the northeast section of the City of Roanoke, be and they are hereby permanently!i
ivacated, discontinued and closed; and that all right, title and interest of the
ipublic in and to the same be, and it is hereby released insofar as the Councll of
ithe City of Roanoke is empowered so to do, the CioI of Roanoke hereby expressly
Ireserving an easement in said streets,'avenues, alleys and portions of streets and
~avenues for the maintenance, operation, repair and replacement of any existin9
!water line, or other municipal installation or public utility now located in said
streets, avenues, alleys and portions of streets and avenues, such easement or ease-
ments to terminate upon the later abandonment of use or permanent removal from the
streets, avenues, alleys'and portions Of streets and avenues of any such municipal
installation or utility by the owner thereof:
1. AIl of a certain alley approximately 10 feet in width
intersectin9 with the easterly side of 6th Street, N. E.
95 feet northerly from Rutherford Avenue and 94.01 feet
southerly from Malker Avenue, and extending thence in an
149
easterly direction p~ru~lel.mith Rutherford Avenue and
Ralher Avenue approximately 375 feet to the northmesterly
line.of Kimball Avenue.-
2. Ail of n certain alley intersecting with the westerly
side of 5th'Street, H. E, 9S feet southerly iron Rutherford
Avenue sad 100 feet northerly from Harrison Avenue, thence
extending in n masterly direction parallel with Rutherford
Avenue and Harrison Avenue u distance of approximately 425
feet to the property line or Roanoke Auto.Spring Rorhs. Inc.
3. All of u certain alley intersecting mJth the easterly
side of 5th Street. N. E. 95 feet southerly from Rutherford
Avenue and 100 feet northerly from Harrison Avenue and
extending thence in an easterly direction parallel with
s~id streets a distance of 2S0 feet to the boundary line
between Lots 211 and 212. Hard 4, Map of Roanohe Land and
Improvement Company.
4. All of a certain alley approximately 10 feet in m~dth
intersecting with the westerly side of 5th Street. N.£.
equi-distant between Rutherford Avenue and Harrison Avenue.
N. E. extending thence in n westerly direction a distance
of approximately 100 feet to the boundary line between
Lots 212 and 213. Hard 4. Rap of Roanoke Land and
Improvement Company.
S. All of a certain alley approximately lO feet in width
intersecting with the easterly side of Sth Street.
95 feet more or less northerly from Gilmer Avenue. and
feet more or less'southerly from Kimball Avenue. and
extending thence in an easterly direction 200 feet more or
less to the dividing line between Lots 95 and 97. Rard 4.
Map of Roanoke Land and Improvement Company.
b. All of a certain alley intersecting mtth the easterly
side of 6th Street. N. £. 97 feet more or less southerly from
£astport Avenue and.90 feet more or less northerly from
Gilmer Avenue and extending thence in an easterly direction
approximately lbl.5 feet to the northwesterly side of
Shenandoah Avenue.
7. All of the area of Sth Street. ~.' E. lying between the
intersection of 5th Street mith the southerly line of Ralher
Avenue. N. E. on the north and the intersection ~ 5th Street
and the northerly line of Rutherford Avenue. N. £. on the
south; and all of the area of 5th Street. N. E. lying between
the intersection of Sth Street with the southerly line of
Rutherford Avenue. N. £. on the north and a line projected at
right-purina across 5th Street from a point on the easterly
side of 5th Street 163.27 feet south of the southerly line
of Gllmer Avenue. N. E** on the south.
O. All of the area of 6th Street, N. E. lying between the
intersection of 6th Street with the southerly line of Walker
Avenue. N. £. on the north and the intersection of 6th Street
mith the northerly line of Rutherford Avenue. N. E. on the
sooth.
9. All of the area of bth Street. N. £.. lying between the
intersection of 5th Street with the southerly llne of
Rutherford Avenue. N. £. on the north and the intersection
of ~th Street mlth the northerly line of Gilmer Avenue.
on the south.
la. All that area comprising the easterly one-half of 4th
Street. N. E. lying between the northerly line of Harrison
Avenue. N. E. on the north and the northerly line of Patton
Avenue, ~. E. on the south, the easterly one-half of 4th
Street to be closed being approximately 25 feet in width.
11. Ail of the area of Harrison Avenue. N. g. lying between
the intersection of Harrison Avenue nith the centerline of
4th Street. N. E. on the meat and the intersection of. Harrison
Avenue with the easterly line of 6th Street. N. g. aa the east.
12. All of the area of Patton Avenue. ~. ~. lying between
the intersection of Patton Avenue with the easterly line of 4th
Street. N. g. on the west and the intersection of Patton Avenue
with the easterly line of Shenandoah Avenue. N. E. on the east.
13o Ail of the area or sastport Avenue, N. E. lying between
the intersection of Eastport Avenue with the easterly line of
4th Street, H, E, on the west and the intersection of Eastport
Avenue with the northwesterly line of Shenandoa~Avenue, N, E,
on the east.
14, All of the area of Gilmer Avenue, N, E..lying between the
intersection of Gilmer Avenue with the easterly line of 4th
Street, N, E. on the nest and a line projected at right angles
across Gilmer Avenue located 90 feet easterly from the easterly
line of 5th Street, H. E. on the east.
IS. All of the area of Jells Avenue, N. E. lying between,the
intersection of Jells Avenue with the easterly line of 4th
Street, N. E. on the west and the intersection of Malls Avenue
with the masterly line of Sth Street, N. E. on the east.
16. All of the area of Kimball Avenue, N. E. lying between the
intersection of Kimball Avenue with the northerly line of Jells
Avenue, N, E. on the south and the intersection of Kimball
Avenue with the easterly line of 6th Street, N. E. on the
northeast.
17. All of the area of Shenandoah Avenue, N. E. lying batween
the intersection of Shenandoah Avenue with the northerly line
of Patton Avenue, N. E. on the north and a line projected at
right angles across Shenandoah Avenue from a point constituting
the intersection of the nortbmesterly line of Shenandoah Avenue
and the northerly line of Gllmer Avenue, H. E.. on the southwest.
IH. All of the area located within the following intersections
of the above mentioned streets: Intersections of Harrison
Avenue with 4th Street to the centerline of 4th Street; Harrison
Avenue with 5th Street; Harrison Avenue with 6th Street; Patton
Avenue with 5th Street; Patton Avenue with Kimball Avenue;
Patton Avenue with 6th Street; Patton Avenue with Shenandoah
Avenue; Eastport Avenue with 5th Street; Eastport Avenue with
Kimball Avenue; Eastport Avenue with 6th Street; Gllmer Avenue
with Kimball Avenue; 6ilmer Avenue with 5th Street.
All of the foregoing descriptions being according, to Tax
Apprisal Haps No'~ 301 and 302 of record in the City Engineer's
Office of the City of Roanoke.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer be, and he hereby is, directed
ltd mark "permanently vacated".on all the above described streets, ovenues, or por-
!tions thereof, or alleys on oil maps and plats on file in his office on which said
Istreets, avenues and alleys are ghown, referring to the book and page of Ordinances
land Resolutions of the Council of the City of Roanoke wherein this Ordinance shall
Ibe spread.
BE IT FURTItER ORDAINED that the Clerk of the Council deliver to the Clerk
of the Hustings Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia u certified copy of this
Ordinance in order that the Clerk of said Court may make proper notation on all maps
[and plats recorded in his office upon which are shown said streets, avenues and
alleys hereby vacated, as provided by law, and that, if so requested by any party
iln interest, he may record the name in the deed book in his office indexing the
isame in the City of Roanoke as grantor and in the name of any party in interest who
iay request it as grantee.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
Ii AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
iMebber~--I ..... ~ :[
NAYS: Hone -~.
TOTAL ACTXON AGAINST POVERTY IN ROANOKE VALLEY-MARKET: Mr. James fl.
Stamper, Deputy Director bf Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley appeare~
before the body and requested that Council work mitb TAP toward a program which mill
preserve sn~ continue the use of the Roanoke City Market Building, advising that
TAP would like to negotiate a lease with the city in order for TAP to rent the
unused portion of the ground floor 'o~ the Market Building for $400.00 per month froh
now until April 30, 1973, with au option to renew said lease until April 30, 1974,
that any remodeling of the display cases or partitioning will be non-permanet in nature
and done at the expense of TAP with the consent of the City of Roanoke, that con-
currently, TAP requests that the city give them free use of the second floor of the
Market Building with TAP paying for additional maintenance, utilities and other
staff costs to the city as a consequence of donating the space.
In this connection, representatives from Total Action Against Poverty in
Roanoke Valley appeared before Council and displayed various crafts that will be
displayed and sold in accordance with the proposed program.
Mr. Lisk 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.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Mr. Frank C. Hoffuan, O~ner, Dixie Letter Service,
appeared before Council and requested payment in connection with a contract mhich
was amarded to him by the City Of Roanoke totype, pring, colate and bind a Police
Training Manual.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted the following report
transmitting background material in connection with the request of Mr. Hoffman:
~March 6. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
It is noted that on your Agenda for this date, Mr'. Frank C.
Hoffmau. owner Dixie Letter Service, will appear in regard to a
claim for payment for work in the printing of a police manual.
Upon learning of the inclusion of this petition on your Agenda,
the following is prepared to give to the City Council some back-
ground of the situation for the benefit of your deliberations.
The City of Roanoke, through its' policedePartment, under-
took a project for the preparation of a police manual. The
objective of this was to update the manual that had been prepared
some years back and had continued in use with the necessity of
a number of revisions and modernizing. The project also was
generated as a result of the interest of the Virginia Council
on Criminal Justice in the formulation of a standard police
manual that would be of benefit to the local departments in
the State and could serve as a model for their adaptation to
their own particular uses. As a result of this the City of
Roanoke received a law enforcement administration Federal
grant for the project and became the pilot community in
Virginia for this undertaking.
Following the established procedures of the City, an
advertisement for bids was issued thrum9h the City Purchas-
ing Department to a number of printing firms to print this
manual based on material prepared and typed by the City
151
Police Department, Low bid wan received from Dixie Letter
Service for $2,363,51o There were three bids, On Jane 9,
1971, two purcbose orders were issued to Dixie Letter Service,
One for the base bid for the project of $2,363,51 and a sec-
ond for $275,00 to cover typing requirements by the firm. The
advertisement and order, included the requirement of bard back
binder~ and the included printed materiel,
The advertisement and purchase order sp~ecified'delivery
to be made conpleted within 60 days, This would hove required
the ~ontrsct conpletion by approximately'August 9, 1971, In
the latter part of. September, 1971, Hr, Hoffnsn of Dixie Letter
Service, brought ten conpleted manuals to the Poli~e Departnent
for revlem. A number of corrections were found necessary,
These mere noted end returned to Mr. Hoffmon. He did not submit
the completed manuals untJ~ December 31, 1971.
As a sideline to the ~atter, Mr. No/fane raised a question
as to extra pages over that which he had understood to be
necessary in the total project with the billing for these extra
pages of $378.38. This would t'ake the total cost to $3,016.fl9.
While me, with the City~ have some question about the Justifi-
cation of payment for these extra pages, the City has not
challenged this point as a particular issue at this time.
After receiving all of the manuals on December 31, 1971,
the Police Department reviewed a small group of them. They
were found to be not acceptable and this determihation was
concurred in' by the Purchasing Agent. The objection mas that
the sampling indicated: (1) pages smudged with hand prints
or press prints; (2) portions of pages torn or raffled; (3)
considerable differences in printing amen9 9reaps of pages,
i~., some pages very dark, some very light; (4) overprinting,
ia., double printing on the same page; (5) some of the print-
ing too light to be legible; and (6) several pages With wide
variance in vertical balance or setting of print.
Mr. Hoffman was advised of these deficiencies in early
January. The Police Department retained approximately ten
books mithin the department for identification of deficiencies
within those pages. The remainder of the 400 books were stored
in the Police Department Library in the Third Street Building.
Severl discussions took place back and forth between Mr'. Hoffman
and the Police Department.
Then on January 27, 1972, Mr. Hoffman met with me and reviewed
his situation. In addition to the book matter he stressed the
financial ~roblem that he faced within the firm because of the
City*s failure to pay him for the completed work. He displayed
one manual to me. I went through it while talking with him and
ia general this particular manual looked satisfactory. I pro-
mised to review the situation and report back tohlm.
On February 2, 1972, I met with Chief Hooper and Captain
Criggs. I reviewed the sample manuals that they had within the
department and found apparent the deficiencies that they had
noted in each of the manuals. I then went to the storage of
the other delivered manuals in the Third Street Building end
at random pulled ten manuals from these boxes. Each one of
these contained conspicuous deficiencies as noted.
I then met with Mr. Doffnsn again and approximately ten dais
later in my office. I told him of my findings in this situation
and that I did concur with the Police Department in their analysis
of the manuals. De stressed the financial affect of his business
in his failure to obtain payment. I reconfirmed to him the situa-
tion that the City did ~ot normally handle matters like thisby
partial payment and that full payment could not be made until
the order had been completely and satisfactorily received. Ne
inquired as to the possibility of obtaining a partial payment
based on the cost to him of the hard back binders. This was in
the amount of approximately $1,100/ I advised that in an effort
to try to assist him that I would put through a requisition to
pay to him, on a partial payment basis this sun although I nas
not sure as to its accessibilit~ by the City Auditor. The
requisition was prepared and stipulated that thispsrtial pay-
ment did not reflect the agreement or acceptance by the City of
the remainder of the material but only mas payment for the
binders. In talking with Mr. Hoffman, I urged upon him that he
go through all of these books and correct the pages as were
necessary as we were most desirous of paying him in full and
wou~d like to settle the matter. He indicated to me some
receptiveness to doing this and I assured hie of availability
of access to the Police Library for this purpose. I then con-
f~rmed this arrangement to the Chief of Police to permit Mr.
Hoffnan an access. Mr. Bellman asked, as he had in the.~ast,
C~at the Police Department 9o through the manuals and aolvse
him of the pages that mere deficient. He mss sdvlsed that this
could not be assumed by the City because of the amount of moth
that would have to be done and the time that mould be consumed,
After submitting the requisition, above referred too I mas
next contacted by the City Auditor several days later who Informed
me that Mr, Noffman had come*to his office inquiring about the
payment and t~hat he had verbally advised the City Auditor hn
could not accept partial payment but that he mould have to have
payment in full. On this basis the Auditor informed me he could
not make payment and I concurred in his decision.
Next, I set uP a meeting mith Mr. Noffman.on Tuesday morning,
February 29, 1~72, mhich mas attended by Mr. Hoffman, Chief
Hooper. Mr. Gibson, City Auditor and Mr. Thompson, Purchasing
Agent. Me discussed the matter. Mr. Iloffman emphasized and
stressed that he must have full payment and that he could not
accept anything othermise. I feel that I urged upon him as
politely and as diplomatically as possible and in every may I
could think, of, that he go through the books that me have and
make the page corrections where necessary. I assured him that
me mould be "very reasonable and very fair, in that which me
mould accept but that there mere glaring situations that me
could not accept under a justification of having received a
satisfactory delivery, of ordered material." He noted his
personal limitations of time within bls business and that he on
the majority days of the week mas the only one in his plant.
It mas suggested that he might want to come in in the evenings
and that me would make the books accessible to him. The partial
apyment mas again mentioned, but he stressed that he merited
full payment. He advised that if he got full payment he would
then cum back later and make any corrections.
lie was necessarily
told that this could not be acceptable method.
Then at a point, Mr. Hoffman stated, as he had several
times previously, that the City mas not being fair and that
all of the fairness mas on his side. and he arose and left
the meeting. The next action is then this appearance, before
the City Council.
This is an ~nfortenate situation and we recognize that it
quite possibly has presented some financial problem with Dixie
Letter. Service. The printing of a book or manual of this type
is perhaps a classification of work that could best be handled
by a larger firm. Nevertheless, in recognition of the use of
this material and in relation to what has to be a reasonable
quality of ~cceptable product, I do not feel that the City can
accep this printing project. I mould continue to offer the
partial payment method based on the binders with final payment
on completion of his reviem and corrections. OthefMise oar
only recourse, if Mr. Hoffman is not desirous of reviewing
the material, would be to pay for the binders and reject the
printed material supplied or to return the entire material
to the company and reject the order.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report of the City Manager be received and
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adop'ted.
Mr. Thomas then moved that the communication from Mr. Hoffman be referred
itu the'CityManager to ascertain whether this is a matter for Council to handle and,
if so, what action should be taken. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING-SPECIAL PERMITS: Council having received and filed a communication
!from Mr. J. L. Boysam for permission to come m~thin 18 inches of the side property
line for theconstruction of a garage to be attached to his home located at 2755
Kirkland Drive, N.M., Mr. Boysam appeared before Coun~il'an~ again renewed said
equest, advising that ?5% of the garage is already build and requested permission
to let the building stand as is.
153
In u discussion of the Batter, Mr. M. G. Light, Zoning Administrator,
appeared before Council and advised-that the building permit uss issued for a
residence.with no garage, end when the Building Department discovered that a
garage uaw being erected, an order,waS'issued for the construction to be stopped,
After a discussion os to whether this is a matter for Council to handle,
Mr, Lisk Bored that the matter be referred to the City Attorney to render a legal
opinion ns to whether this b a matter for Council or for the courts to handle. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMHt~ICATIONS: ..
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board, requ
ling that $27.?16.00 be appropriated to Section nygo00. "Schools - Library Books and
Materials,* of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for the purchase of library
books and materials under P. L. 8g-lO, Title II and advising that lO0~ of actual
?xpenditures will be reimbursed, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
!School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#20129) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #70000, *Schools -
iLibrary Books and Materials,~ of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
ifor an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see as recorded in Ordinance Book
page 274.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iby Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
i AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Mheeler and Mayor
iMebber ---T.
i NAYS: None .... O.
i: SEI~ERS AND STORM DRAINS: Copy of a Resolution adopted at a special
imeeting of the Botetourt County Board of Supervisors on February 25, 1972. resolving
Icontain specific provisions for study of the adoption of a regional agency, and a
specific deadling (preferably no later than July 1, 1974) for the creation of an
authority under the Virginia Mater and Sewer Authorities Act, was before Council.
Mr. thomas moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion
{was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGE~-S~REET LIGHTS-PARRS AND PLAYBROUNDS: A communication from Mr.
Raymond Hall, President, Southeast Civic League, requesting that Council include
in its operating budget for the years 1972-73 funds to light the new ball field in
Jackson Park. was before the body.
Dr. Taylormoved that the communication be referred to 1972-73 budget
study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SHERIFF-JAIL: Copy of a communication from Mr. Paul J. Puckett,
Sheriff, addressed to Mr. R. P. Mason, State Jails superintendent, Department Of
Melfate and Institnli;~s. requesting that an additional $600.00 be appropriated to
Maintenance of Machinery and Equipment under Section e26, 'Sheriff," of the 1971-
72 budget, to provide funds for the balance of the fiscal.year, was before Couueil.1
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the Sheriff and
offered the following ~mergency Ordinance:
(a20130) AN ORDINANCE.to emend end reordain Section a2b, ~Jall,' of the
1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency,
(For full'text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n3b, page 275.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion mas seconded by;
MFo Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber T
NAYS: None
TRAFFIC: A communication from Mrs, Dawn II. Mells, requesting that a stop
sign located across from Hersbberger Road be removed, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
for investigatiou and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas
and unanimously adopted.
COMPLAINTS: A communication from Mrs. Lucille S. Dragon, 483b Rutgers
Road, N. M,, complaining of certain conditions in her neighborhood brought about
by the construction of an apartment complex directly across the street from her
property, was before Council.
Mr, Link moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager for
investigation and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Or. Taylor and
unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: A petition from Mr. Leonard Muse, Attorney, repre-
senting Mr. John Eo [illett, requesting that a certain alley or roadway beginniug
at a point on the north side of Orange Avenue approximately 216 feet west of the
intersection of Orange Avenue and Courtlund Road and extending in a northwesterly
direction approximately 234 feet to Carver Avenue, No Mo, and being approximately
16 feet side be vacated, discontinued and closed, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution appointing viewers in
connection with closing said alley or roadmay:
(~20131) A RESOLtrIION providing for the appointment of five freeholders.
any three of whom may act, as viemers in connection with the application of John
E. Millett to permanently vacate, discontinue and close a certain map alley or
roadway, beginning at a point on the north side of Orange Avenue approximately
216 feet west of the intersection of Orange Avenue and Courtlnnd Road and extending
in a northwesterly direction approximately 234 feetto Carver Avenue, No E., and
being approximately lO feet wide.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 275.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
155
156
AYES: Mesara. Garland. Link, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, lheeler and Mayor
Jobber
NAYS: None- ~.
Dr. Taylor then moved that the request to vacate, discontinue and close
the alley or roaduay be referred to.the City Planning Commission for study, report
and recommendation to Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unan-
imously adopted.
S~REETS AND ALLEYS: A petition from Mr. Jach B. Coulter, Attorney,
representing Messrs. Byron E. Hamer, Kenneth D. Cummins and James P. Brice, in
their individual capacities as residents and on behalf of the other residents in
the Jefferson Hills - Jefferson Park - Jefferson Forest section of the City of
Roanoke comprising over 100 families, requesting the closing of Winding May Road
at or near its intersection With Park Lane so as to prevent through traffic over
Minding May Road between Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road. was before Council.
Mr, Lisk offered the following Resolution appointing viewers in connec-:!
tiaa with closing said road:
(n20132) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointment of five (5) free-
holders, any three (3) of whom may act, as viemers in connection with the applica-
tion of Ryron E. Hamer, Kenneth D, Cummins, and James P, Brice, in their individ-~
ual capacities as residents and on behalf of other residents of the Jefferson
Hills - Jefferson Park - Jefferson Forest area of the City of Roanoke to alter or
close Minding May Road at or near its intersection with Park Lane to through
traffic by barricade, blockage, guard rail, fence, cul-de-sac or otherwise.
(For full text of Re~olutiofl, see Ordinance Book n35, page 277.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the follomjeg vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .7.
NAYS: None
Mr. Lisk then moved that the request to close Minding May Road at or
near its intersection with Park Lane so es to prevent through traffic over Mind-t
lng Way Road between Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road 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 OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS:' The City Manager submitted a written
report requesting that $210.00 be appropriated to Overtime and that $250,00 be
appropriated to Printing and Office Supplies under Section ~90, X "Sewage Treat-
ment Fund,' of the 1971-72 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance,.to
provide funds in connection mith last minute preparation of the co~ies of the
sewer contracts for presentation to the City of Salem, Roanohe County, the Town
of Viuton and Rotetourt County.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the City. Manager
and offered the follomiug emergency Ordinance:
(n20133) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaJn Section agO, "Semage Treat-
ment Fund," of the 1971-72 Semage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and pro-
viding for an emergent.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, page RTD.)
Or. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion uas 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.
DUDGET-AUDITORICR-COLISEUR: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $2.000.00 be transferred from Canteen Purchases to Travel Expense
under Section u?7, "Civic Center," of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for moving
expenses and to provide an adequate balance for present and anticipated expenditures
and needs.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(z20134) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #?7, "Civic Center,"
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book zOG, page 27B.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. gheeler and adopted by the followinR vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Nebber ..... -7.
NAYS: None ~.
BUOGET-AUDITORIL~-COLISEU~: The City Manager submitted a written report
requesting that $3,400.00 he appropriated to Maintenance of Buildings and Property
under Section ~77, "Civic Center," of the 1971-72 budget, in order to repair the
cooling coils to tmo air conditioning units located at the Roanoke Civic Center.
Mr. Trout moved that Council ,concur in the request of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20135) 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 u36. page 279.)
Mr. Trout 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 "To
NAYS: None O.
PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES-CITY MANAGER-INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION: Council
having referred to the City Manager for investigation and report a communication
'158
from Dr. Noel C. Taylor Jn connection with'establishing the position~of aa Assist4
to the City #anagert recommending that the selection of 8 qualified person be
the black community with n beginning salary of $10,BOO.OO per year, the City Manager
~sbmltted the following report recommending that there be established within the
personnel organization of the City of Roanohe n position titled Assistant to the
City Manager for Community Relations, Range 21, with a starting salary of
advising that in order to implement this office it will be necessary to establish
an additional clerical position which would be proposed as a Clerh ~tenogra~her I,
Range IO, and further proposing to make available the office on the fourth floor
of the Municipal Building on the north side of'the Council Chamber:
"March 6, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, ¥irginia
AS a result of proposals from the City Council and the
Community Relations Committee and from considerations over a
period of time by this office, it is recommended there be estab-
lished within the Clty*s personnel organization a position titled
Assistant to the CityManager for Community Relations.
In brief, the objective of the position would be to provide
within the City government an individual mhose attention could be
fully directed to working within and for community relations. The
occupant would be directly responsible to the City manager, and
when appropriate to the Assistant City Manager. The recommendation
dould displace the heretofore proposed Community Assistant. The
Community Assistant was Federally funded but with salary limitations
'and limitations on permanency. The new proposal would be expected
to be fully City funded.
An explanation is in order for clarity as to the title Assistant
City Manager, now established and expected to continue, and Assis-
tant to the City Manager, here proposed. The Assistant City Manager
is second in command, in effect, and has certain full time direct
supervisory responsibility plus substitute responsibility in absence
of the Manager. An Assistant to the City Manager would not carry
supervisory orcommand obligation. Rather this would be that gener-
ally considered as a staff advisory p'ositien.
The specifications for the position would be formulated to encom-
pass generally the following:
(1) To study areas and aspects of community relations as
(a) they apply to citizens in their regard of the government
and its activities; (b) they apply to the actions, activities,
and procedures of the City government in its dealing with
the pablic and their interests; and (c) they apply between
and among the various endeavors and interests of th'e
community.
(2) To advise the City Manager on matters relating to community
relations with recommendations both as to need and as to
possible method of implementation,
(3) To work within the organizational framework of the City
government to the best interest of the government*s image
and activities as they relate to community relations.
(4) To coordinate with others in other elements of the City
government, State and Federal governments and civic groups
for the maintenance nod development of t~e total community
relations program,
(5) To actively and directly work, as prescribed by the Ctiy
Manager, in programs as would benefit the total community
relations, coordinating mhere'necessary and proper with
existing offices and departments of the City organization.
(6) To prepare written reports, studies and other information
in such fashion os to be suitable for appropriate presenta-
tion and analysis.
(7) To serve as n contact individual for citizen inquiry as to
wethodso modes and policies of operation, service and
function.
(8) To assist the City Homager in sucn other specific duties
and activities ss may be directed.
It would be recommended that this position be established within
the City Pay Plan at Range No. 21, with a starting salary of $8,088,
and a step 6 salary of $9,800.00. It would be further necessary in
order to implement this office to establish an additional clerical
position which would be proposed as a Clerk Stenographer I Range
IOo with a beginning salary of $4,480. *
It would be further proposed, recognizing the limits of vacant
office space, to make available the office on the fourth floor Of
the Municipal Building on the north side of the City Council Cham-
bers.
If any additional information can be provided in connection
with this, I would be glad to discuss if further with the City
Council.
moved that the report be amended to provide for
year. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
Dr. Taylor then moved that the mutter
Respectfully submitted,
s/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager#
of the City Manager, Dr. Taylor
a starting salary of $10,000.00 per
unanimously adopted.
he referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure incorporating the position of Assistant to the City
Manager for' Community Relations into the Pay Plan of the City of Roanoke and that the
position be filled at the beginning of the new fiscal year'. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
TRAFFIC-BRIDGES: The City Manager submitted the following report in con-
uection with the replacement of the bridge on Crandin Road over Mud Lick Creek,
advising that the original total cost estimate on tne project for replacement was
~bS,000.O0, that the city budgeted one-half of this amount or $32,500.00, that in
June the state advised that their estimated cost hod been increased to $69,600.00, with
the share of the city being $4d,600.00, that the city took no action at that time
because the state was anticipating advertising shortly for bids and it was deemed
advisable to wait until bids could he received, however, the project was not actually
~dvertised until December with the bids received in January, 1972, that the state was
hen advised that the total estimated cost, based on the Iow bid, and includin§ engi-
neering and right of way and utility adjustments would be $162,059.g7, the share of
he City of Roanohe to be $74,~50.05, that he has discussed this on several occasions
tth the BJghway Department, that,the [lighway Department is of the opinion that the
bid is very.§ood based on the structure which was advertised, that it is felt that
ithi respect to several major elements that the scope .and design of the project is
s~mewhat above that which would he actually required, that administratively, he is
oi the opinion that he cannot justify this amount of money into the project nor can
160
he Justify this to*si cost, including the state share to rePlace t~l.s bridge and re
mending *but Council concur, or if Council wou~d not wish to,take specific action,
he cea advise the Highmay Department, unless Council mould object, that the City
of Roanoke does not wish to participate in the replacement OF this amount of
expense:
'March b, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Yon mill recall that there has been before the City Council
at several stages the mutt~r of the replacement of the bridge on
Grandin Road over Mud Lick Creek. As the corporate limits divide~
the creek the cost of the bridge, replacement would beshared half
by the City end half by the State. The original total cost esti-
mate on the project for replacement mas $55,000° The City bud-
geted one=half of this amount, $32.$00. Council will recall, in
connection with this, n presentation to you with respect to the
diversion of traffic and n detouring system.
This estimate and City budget amount was set up approximately
a year ago. In June of 1971, the State advised us that their
estimated cost had been increased to $89,600, with the City*s
share being $44,800. Me took no action at that time because the
S~ te was anticipating advertising shortly for bids and it mas
deemed udvisableto wait until bids would be received. The anti-
cipated bidding date Was in July 19TI. ~owever, the'project was
not actually advertised until December with the bids received in
January 1972. The State has then advised that the total estimated
cost, based on the low bid, and including engineering and right
of way and utility adjustments, would be $162,069.97. The break-
down of the Clty*s share of this wou~d be $74,650.65. In other
words the City's share is now approximately 2.3 tJme~ the origi-
nal estimate.
Me have discussed this on several occasions with the Highway
Department. They are of the opinion, and apparently this is cor-
rect, that the bid is very good based on the structure mbich was
advertised% IIowever, in its ultimate and final design the High-
way Department'enlarged considerably upon its orJginnl plan of
design and it is felt that with respect to several major elements
that the scope and design of the project is somemhat above that
which ~ould be actually required. This is expressed without intend-
ing to reflect upon the entirety of the State Highway Department
as me gather there are varying opinions within the Department as
to the design.
Me, administratively, are of the opin~on that we cannot
justify this amount of money into the project nor can we jus-
tify this total cost, includin9 the State share, to replace this
bridge. It is the recommendation that the City Council concur,
or if the Council would not wish to take specific action, we can
advise the Department. unless the Council would object, that the
City does nut wish to participate in the replacement in this
amount of expense.
There are felt to be two reasons for this position, one being
the high degree of design, as ahovementioned, and the other being
the sum of money mhich is represented and which it is felt, in
looking at the total City needs, would have better allocation to
other purposes.
Some consideration has been given and is being given to the
possibility of repairing the present structure by the method of
certain work on the abutments and replac~n9 the new steel beams
and the deck. I do not ask for a decision of Council on this par-
ticular point of replacement as it will receive further study but
wanted to mention this aspect. The tentative estimate of repairs
is $66,326. TO this there would be added approximately $8.340.58
for engineering and right of way acquisition ~ithin the City. If
teh State did all of the repair work, then the labor and equipment
charges would be included in the City*s cash outlay since they
would be charged to the project. The end result of this repair
approach would be approximately the original appropriation of
$32,500. If the City were to provide some labor and equipment,
keeping truck of the actual cost concurred, the Clty*s cash out-
lay could be reduced to on estimated $20,000 to $25,000, It is
felt that through the considered repair the life of the..bridge
could be extended approximately ten years, The end of which time
there would be the necessity to again repair the structure or to
consider its replacement.
As stated, the point at hand at this,time is the matter of the
cost us based on the complete replacement and the question of the
City*s concurring in this replacement cost and agreeing to partici-
pate.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr, Thomas mo~ed that the report be ceceived and filed, The motion was
seconded ~y Mr, Trout and unanimously adopted,
STADIUM: The City Manager submitted a written, report concurrin9 in the
following report of a committee that the bid of Stone Enterprises for concessions
lot the Roanoke Municipal Stadium, in the amount of $4,000,00 per year, be accepted:
~March 6, 1972
Honorable Mayor'and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
As members of City Council are amare, rather than renew the
existing contract with Stooe Enterprises for coflcessions at Roaooke
Municipal Stadium, these concessions mere readvertised this year
under a different format. Past experience indicates that me hsd
no accurate or definite may Of assuring the correctness Of the
payments to the City and over the past years income from this
account seems to have been decreasing,
Invitations to bid this year were based on either the percent-
age of gross sales or an alternate method of annual lump sum bid,
As members of Council can see from the attached tabulation the per-
courages under the gross sales portion of the bidding documents ran
very close; however, there was considerable variation with respect
to.one bid under the annual lump sum, Two annual lump sum bids were
exactly the same,
It is the considered opinion of your committee after discus-
sing this matter with both the City Manager and the City Auditor
· - that the City would be money ahead to accept the alternate bid
that of the annual lump sum bid,
As Stone Enterprises is the incumbent contractor and has his
equipment in hand, it would be the recommendation of your committee
that City Council accept the high annual lump sum bis as submitted
by Stone Enterprises in the amount of $4,000 per year and reject
all other bids, For City Council's information, this $4,000 bid
is over tmice the amoont received from the concessionaire for
this account for the past fiscal year,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Myron E. Haner
Byron E. Hamer
S/ Rex T. Mitchell
Rex To Mitchell
S/ Bueford B. Thompson
Bueford B. Thompson"
162
Mr, Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
that the follomin5 Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(a2013~) AN ORDINAHC~ awarding certain concession privileges to be
exercised at Victory Stadium and the Athletic Grounds in Maher Field upon certain
terms and provisions, on the basis of a certain bid made therefor; directing the
execution of u requisite contract; and rejecting all other bids made.for the award
of said privileges.
WHEREAS, On February 29, 1972, and after due and proper advertisement
had been made therefor certai~ bids for certain concession privileges to be exer-
cised at Victory Stadium and the Athletic Grounds in Maher Field were opened in
the office of the City's Purchasing Agent by three members of a committee appointed
for the purpose, and thereafter were tabulated and studied by the conmittee mhicb
has made mritten report and recommendation to the Council through the City Manager~
and
MHEREAS, the City Manager concurs in the committee's report and had
directed the same to Council recommendinH award of the concession privileHes as
hereinafter provided; and the Council considerinH all the same. has detersined tho
the bid hereinafter accepted is the highest and best bid meeting the City's speci-
fications made for the award of such privileges, and should be accepted.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Robert E'. Stone trading as Stone's Enterprises be end is awarded concession privi-il
leges to be exercised at Victory Stadium and the Athletic Grounds in Maher Field
for the period commencJn9 as of April 1. 1972, and endin9 December 31, 1972, with
an option to renew for two additional years, in consideration of mhich said con-
cessionaire shall pay to the City the sum.of $4,000.00 per year; 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 as
herein awarded, such contract to have incorporated into it all of the terms, pro-
visions and conditions contained in the City*s form of proposal advertised for bids
in the premises and on which the aforesaid concessioflaire*s bid to the City, dated
February 22, 1972, was made. said contract to be, otherwise, on such form as is
approved by the City Attorney.
RE IT FURTHER. ORDAINED that all other bids received by the City for the
award of the aforesaid concession p~ivileges be, and said other bids are REJECTED;
the City Clerk to so notify ~ach said other bidder and express the City*s appreci-
ation for the submission of sai~ bids.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Nessrs. Garland, Llsk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
#ebber ~ :7.
NAYS: None
ANNEXATION-CONSOLIDATION: The City Attorney submitted a written report
advising that the Final.Order in the consolidated annexation cases mas entered by
the Annexation Court On February 29; 1972, in the Circuit Court of Roanoke County.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. 'The motion was
!seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
CITY ATTORNEY-COUNCIL: The City Attorney ~ubmitted a written report
irequesting that he be afforded the opportunity, during or following the Council
!meeting to be hold on March 6, of consultation with the members of Council in
iExecutive Session on certain legal matters and legal documents w~thin the jurisdic=
tion of Council.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney
ifor an Executive Session at the conclusion of the Council meeting. The motion was
iseconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-CITY AUDITOR-AUDITORI UM-COLISEUM: The City Auditor submitted a
~written report advising that at the latter part of the fiscal year 1970-71 his
office was provided un additional employee for the purpose of giving special atten-
ition to the Civic Center, that in the process of adding this employee, the neces-
~sity for providing the office furniture mas overlooked and requesting that Council
· transfer $600~00 from Maintenance of Machinery and Equipment to office Furniture
i'and Equipment - New under Section =lO, "City Auditor." of the 1971-72 budget, to
Provide funds for the necessary equipment.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Auditor
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u20137) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section riO. "City Auditor,"
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36. page 2B0.)
Mr. Trout 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, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
~ebber ---7.
~ NAYS: None,
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for study/
~eport and recommendation the request of Mr. James K. Metz that property located in
the vicinity of Ravenwood Avenue and Floraland Drive, N. M.. described as Lots ?A and
A, Layman Square, and parts of Lots ~ and 10, Dlock ~, Floruland Addition, Official
ax Nos. 2160201, 2160203, 2280509 aed 22B0§0~, be rezoned from MS-3, Single-Family
iesidential District, to RG-2, General Residential District, the City Planning Com-
I' submitted a written report recommending that the request be granted.
164
Mr. Tho~aa moved that a public bearing on the request Sar rezoniug be
he(d at 2 p,m,, Monday, April 3, 1972, The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsh nnd
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council buying referred ta the City Plnnnlng Commission for stuq
un the southerly side of Colonial Avenue. S. i** described ns 1.6S acres of land,
Official Tax ~o. 12BO301, bounded on the mast by 18,23 acres, described as african
Tax ~o. 1380201, and on the east by.l.ai6 acres, descrfbed as Official Tax ~o.
1280322. be rezoned from RG-2, General Residential District, to C-l, Office and
Institutional District, the City Planning Commission submitted a written report
recommendin9 that the request be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request for reaonJu9 be
held at 2 p.m., Monday April 3, 1972. The notion 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. John L. Cantrell, et ux., that!
property located at the northwest corner of Lynn Aveuue, So M., and Drandoe
Avenue, S. M., described as Lots l?, 18 and 19. Block 9, Map of Colonial Heights,
Official Tax ~os. 1271017, 1271810 and 1271819. be rezoned from C-2o General Com-
mercial District, to C-I, Office and Institutional District, the City PlaneJn9
Commission submitted a written report recommending that the request be 9ranted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing be held on the request for renan-,
in9 at 2 p.m., Monday, April 3, 1972. 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. Richard M. Hylton. et ux.,
that property located on the southeasterly corner of Minthrop Avenue and 23rd
Street, S. M.. described as Lot 22. Block 4. Manana Addition, Official Tax No.
1270S22, be rezoned from RD, Duples Residential District to C-2, General Commercial
District, the City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that
the request be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing be held on. the request for renan-I
ing at 2 p.m., Monday, April 3, 1972, 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 Spectrum, Incorporated. that pro-
petty located at 108 Lee Avenue, N. £., described as the southerly one-ha~ of Lot
Block 4, Map of Upsou Addition, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District.
to RG-2. General Residential District, the City Planning Commission submitted a
written report recommending that a RG-1 rezoning be approved in lleu of the
original request for a RG-2 rezoning.
Mr. hish saved that u public hesrio9 be held at 2 p;mo, Mondsy, April
10, 1972, on the question of rezoning the property from RD, Duplex Residential
District, toRG-l, General Residential District, rs RG-2, General Residential
District. The motion mas.seconded by Mr, Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation a request of MFs Jimmy C. Preas that property
located on Mlndsor Avenue, $. M,. described as Lot 23A, Dlock 16, Map of Raleigh
Court Corporation, Official Tax No, 1331505. be rezoned from RG-I, General Resi-
dential District, to C-l, Office and Institutional District, the City Planning
Commission submitted t~e folloming report recommending that the request be denied:~
"March 2, 1972
The Ilono~able Roy L. Mebber, Ray6r
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Planning Com-
mission at both its regular meetings of February 15 and March 1.
1972,
Mr. M~ Heywood Fralin, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that the parcel in
question consists of a very small track 5f land (130' x 100'),
and that the petitioner, Mr. Preas. proposes to remodel the
existing structure on this site and use it for an insurance'
office, noting that the building is located next door to a
triplex and is operated by a chiropractic with the Raleigh
Court Church located across the street. He noted that the
office personnel will consist of Mr. Preas and two secretaries
and will not be the type of office where people will be visit-
log frequently, thus, limiting local traffic on it. Mr. Fralin
noted that the petitioner can only park one car on the property
pres?ntly, but he proposes to dig out a garage to establish
other parking space. Finally. he noted that tbs petitioner
plans to use the entire three floors of the existing structure.
consisting of 600 square feet for office use,
Mr. George Vogel, appeared before the Planning Commission
and stated that he was representing Mr. Crowder who owns and
occupies the house adjacent to the property and noted that
he is in opposition to this petition,
After due consideration of this request at the Feb. 15
meeting a motion was made. duly seconded to deny this request
with a split vote of 3 ayes and 3 noyes. Since a quorum vote
cauls not be mustered, this item mas carried over to the next
meeting.
At the March 1, 1972 meeting, Mr. M. Heywood Fralin again
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that Mr.
Preas has decided to purchase this property'in order to estab-
lish an insurance office. De stated that the business consists
of a very small operation, and all the petitioner*s business
transactions would be taken care of outside of the office.
noting al'so that the general character of the area lends itself
to an office and institutional use. Finally, he noted that the
petitioner wishes to remodel the office and provide parking for
three cars..
Mr. Creed K. Lem'on, Jr., Chairman of the Planning Commis-
sion, questioned the total number of feet of tbs entire parcel.
Mr, Fralin noted that there ore 760 feet on the first and
second floors ~espectively. He stated that Mr. Preas has no
intentions to sue the second floor for office purposes.
Mr. Boynton, Planning Commission member, asked Mr. Light.
the Building I~spector. about the control the Huilding Depart-
ment has if the petitioner decided to utilize the second floor
for office use. Mr. Light stated that they would have to pro-
vide additional parking, spaces.
Mr. Crowder. · local resident in the urea. appeared before
the Pfsdning Commission and fitted his opposition in the
ret,nine.
The Planning Director fluted that his only objection is to
t~e ~arhing Situation end the quality of the development.
. Upon due consideration of this request, u vote of 5 ayes
and 2 nays was taken to recommend to City Council tm deny
request.
Sincerely,
$/ Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
Chairman'
In this connection, a communication from Hr. M. Heywood Fralin.
Attorney, representing the petitioner, requesting that the petition for rea.n-
Jug be mithdrawn, was before Council.
Hr. LJsk moved that Cooncil concur in the request of Mr. Fralin that
the petition for rezoning be withdrawn. The motion was seconded by #r. Wheeler
and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
b~fREETS AND ALLEYS-WATER DEPARTMENT: Council having referred to a
committee composed of Messrs. Milliam F. Clark. Chairman. Samuel H. RcGhee. III.
and ~it n. Kiser the bids received for performing certain miscellaneous, snail
area improved hard surface street and sidewalk restoration occasioned by the
normal daily operations of the'Water Department, the committee submitted the
following report recommending that the proposal of Adams Construction Company,
in the amount of $49,127.50, be accepted:
'March 1. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Geotlemeo:
Bids mere received and opened before City Council on
February 20, 1972, for miscellaneous, small repairs to
streets and sidewalks occasioned by normal daily opera-
tion of the Mater Department for the calendar year April 3,
1972. t~rough April* 2, 1973.
Three bids were received with the bid of Adams Con-
struction Company in the total amount of $49,127.50 being
low. Unit prices are generally five percent higher than
the previous year. Funds are appropriated in the Water
Utility Account for this activity.
It is the recommendation of the committee that the
low bid of Adams Construction Company be accepted.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Milliam F.-Clark
Millia~ F. Clark. Chairman
S/ Kit D. Kiser
Kit B. Kiser
5/ Sam H. McGhee III
Sam Ho McChee III"
Mr. Rhceler moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the
committee and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#20130) AN ORDINANCE accepting the proposal of Adams Construction
Company for performing certain miscellaneous, small area hard surface street
and sidemalh restorotionl authorizing the proper City officials to execute the
requisite contract; reject'lng all other bids; and providing for on emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see' Ordinance Rook n36, page 2RO,)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion mas
seconded by Mr, Lisk and adopted by the follouing vote: -
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Llsk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and
#ayor Webber
NAYS: None O.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT: Council haydn9 deferred action on a report of
the City Ranager in connection with possible transfers that might be made in
order to purchase equipment needed in conjunction with the authorization by
Council of 22 additional employees in the Fire Department, the matter was again
before the body.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted a written report advis-
ing that the Fire Department has located beds which they have refurbished at
no cost and will reduce the requirement of funds to $1.0B0.39 and that balances
remain in four accounts within the Fire Department from uhich transfers can be
made for this purpose.
Rt. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance transferring $323.44 from Vehicular
Equipment - Replacement, 956.05 from Other Equipment - Replacement and 951.61
from Office Furniture and Equipment - New to Other Equipment - N~w under Section
#47. "Fire Department," of the 1971-72 budget:
(s20139) AR ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section z47, "Fire Depart-
ment," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providin9 foran emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Rook :35, page 281.)
Rt. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Nebber
NAYS: Mr. Rheeler ....I.
Mr. Trout then offered the folloming emergency Ordinance appropriating
$4,?00.00 to Retirement Contributions and $2,B00.00 to Social Security under
Section =13. "Retirements." and also appropriating $53,408.00 to Personal
Services and $6,233.04 to Clothin9 and Personal Supplies under Section ~47,
#Fire Department," of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for the employment
of 22 additional employees in the Fire Department and uniform allowances for
these employees:
(u20140) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section Zl3, ~Retire-
meats," and Section m47, "Fire Department," of the 1971-72 Appropriation
Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
.(For full text of Ordinance, see as recorded in Ordinance Rook a3b,
page 2B2.)
'-2,68
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinnnce, The motion nas second
.by #r~'Llsh nnd adopted by the roll.ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
lebber
NAYS: Mr. lheel~r-~l,
After a discussion of the matter. Mr. Trout. moved that the proposed
Ordinance uith'regard to repealing subsection (e} of Section 110 Office hours
and holidays, Chapter 3, Officers and Employees Generally. Title II, Administra-
tion, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, pertaining to the
work week for members of the Police Department and the Fire Department be
referred back to the City Attorney for the purpose of amending the Ordinance to
provide that the mork week of the members of the Fire Department be on a
hour basis and that the mork meek of the members of the Police Department be on
a 40 hour basis. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.i
Mr. Lisk then offered the following emergency Ordinance amending and
reordaining subsection 5 ~f subsection (a) Vacations, Section 12, Vacations,
sick leave and military leave, Chapter 3. Officers and Employees Generally,
Title II, Administration, of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 195b, ns amended.
relating to vacation tine for members of the Fire Department:
(#20~41) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordainin9 subsection S of sub-
section (a) y~cations, Sec. 12. Vacations. sick leave and military leave, Chapter
3. Officers and Emoloyees Generally. of Title II, Administration. of the Code ofi~
the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to vacation time for members of
the fire department; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36. page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted 'by the following vote:
AYES: Mess~s. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber b.
NAYS: Mr. Mheeler----l.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted a written report with
regard to the iht,fyi,ming process on 19 potential firemen, that of this number
ten have been completed and determined for employment, advising that he i$ con-
cerned that none of these are blach applicants and because of this, he.has
instructed the Personnel Director not to process any more applicants beyond the
number current with the objectives of affordiug anT black.applicants who might
be interested in this employment the opportunity to contact the city and to give
him the opportunity to evaluate what the city can do in this regard.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having deferred action on a report of th~ City Planning
Comnission In connection mlth the request o! Hr. John E, Thornhill~ that p~ope~ty
l'ocnted at the southuest corner of Elm Avenue and Fifth ~treet, S. W** described
as one half of Lot 11 and all of Lots 12 and 13t Block 12, Lemis Addition Nap,
Official Tax No, 1120813. be rezoned from C-l, Office and Institutional District,
to C-3, General Commercial District, the matter was again before the body.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. T. L. Plunkett, Jr.,
Attorney, representing the petitioner! advising that his client desires a public
hearing on the request for rezoning, was also before the body.
Mr. Lisk moved tBat a public hearing be held on the request for rezouing'
at 2 p.m., Monday, April 10, 1972. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and
unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUYIONS:
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR-PLUNBERS-BUILDINGS: Ordinance No. 20144, amending
Title XV, Construction~ etc., of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, ns amended,
by the addition of a new chapter numberd Chapter 3.1, Plumbing Code, providing
certain regulations, requirements and standards for the installation of any
plumbing installed mitbin the corporate limits of the city; adopting by reference
the provisions, requirements, regulations and 'standards contained in the Southern
Standard Plumbin9 Code, 1971 Edition, and in certain appendices of said Code, save
and except such portions of said Code as are herein deleted, modified or amended
and herein *rd'aimed, to be effective as an Ordinance of the city; prescribing cer-
tain penalties for violation of the regulations and requirements of this Ordinance;
providin9 for the effective date of this Ordinance; and repealing Chapter 3,
Plumbing Code, Title X¥. Construction. etc., of The Code of the City of Roanoke,
1956, as said chapter has heretofore been amended, 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:
(g20114) AN ORDINANCE amending Title XV. Construction. ETC., of the Code
of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the addit*ion of a hem chapter numbered
Chapter 3.1. Plumbino Code, providing certain regulations, requirements and
standards for the installat'i'on of any plumbing installed within the corporate
limits of the City; adopting by reference the provisions, requirements, regulations
and standards contained in the Southern Standard Plumbind
Code,
1971
Edition,
in certain appendices of said Code, save and e~cept such portions of said Code as
are herein deleted, modified or amended and heYeJn ordained, to be effective as an
ordinance of thisCity; prescribing certain penalties for violation of the regula-
tions and requirements of this ordinance; providing for the effective date of this
ordinance; and repealing Chapter 3. Plumbino Code, Title XV. Construction. Etc,,
of the Code of the City of Roanoke'. 1956, as said chapter has heretofore been
amended.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a36, page 270.)
I69
Mr~ Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The notion was secoade~
by Mr. Trout and adopted'by the following vote: -
AYES~ Masaru, Garland, Lish. Tuylor, Thames. Trout, Wheeler end Mayor
Mebber 7,
NAYS: None
SEWERS ANO STORM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Attorney
to prepare the proper measure providing for a special meeting of Council to be
held on Thursday. March 9, 1972, at 10 a.m.. in the Council Chamber for the
purpose of receiving and opening bids for the chemical feed installation and
sludge lagoons at the Sewage Treatment Plant. he presented same; mhereupon, Dr.
Taylor offered-the follouin9 Resolution:
(n201~) A RES~LU~ION providing for a Special Meeting of the Council
to be held on Thursday. March 9. 1972, at 10:00 o'clock,
(For full text of Resolution, see as recorded in Ordinance Book u36,
page 284.)
Dr. Taylor mated the adoption o[ the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, #heeler and Mayor
Mebber ...................... ?o
NAYS: None .........
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure authorizln9 the execution by the City Manager of an agreement
for a right of entry upon and for a lease from the Norfolk and Mestern Railway
Company of approximately six acres of Railway property for the purpose of operat-
ing a temporary sanitary landfill, upon certain terms and conditions, he presented
sane; whereupon, Mr. Mheeler offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20143) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager's execution of an
agreement for a right of entry upon and for a lease from Norfolk 6 Mestern Rail-
mai Company of approximatdy six (6) acres of Railway property for the purpose
operating a temporary sanitary landfill, upon certain terms and conditions; and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, pa9e 285.)
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion was second~
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ,T.
NAYS:' None .0,
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
SEMERS AND S~ORM BRAINS: Mr, Thomas moved that Council meet in Execu-
tive Session to discuss certain changes to the sewage treatment contract with
Roanoke County, The motion nas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Later during t~e seating0 and. after the conclusion of the Executive
Session, Nr~ Thomas presented the foil*ming report proposin~ certain changes
to the contract offered February 22, 1972, to be entered into between the City
or Roanoke and the County of Roanoke rot sewage transmission and treatment:
"CHANCES PROPOSED 'MARCH 6, 1972, TO CONTRACT
OFFERED FEBRUARY 22, 1972, TO DE ENTERED INTO
BETWEEN CIYY OF ROANOKE AND THE COUNTy OF
ROANOKE FOR SEWAGE TRANSMISSION AND TREATMENT
(1) Parle tO Paragraph B., 9th line:
Change IV. D. to IV. E.
(2) Page 13 Change Paragraph C. Reserve for Reolacement. tO read:
Reserve for Reolacem~D~: The reserve for replace-
ment on the treatment plant, and on joint-use interceptor
facilities existing as of this da~e, shall be determined
annually by the city and ~plied in the formula at a rate
not greater than two per cent, (2X), per annum on the
total of all local funds expended in the construction
and equipment of said plant and Joint-use interceptor
facilities. The reserve for replacement shall be expended
by the city only for replacement of joint-use facilities;
but the amounts so expended by Roanoke shall not be treated
as a cost or an expense of the City of Roanoke for its owner-
ship, operation and maintenance of the treatment plant and
joint-use interceptor or other facilities in determining
the base rate of monthly charge referred to in Paragraphs
IV. B. and IV. fl, 1, and in the definition of the term
Oneration and maintenance contained in Paragraph 1V. C.,
hereof.
JOINT-USE FACILITIES:
The term "joint-use facilities" and "joint-use
interceptor facilities' os employed in Section IV. Charaes
for Sewaoe Transmission and Treatment Service, herein.
shall be understood and taken to mean Roanoke's sewa9e
treatment plant and immed~atqly related treatment fucilities.
and all interceptor or other sewer lines and related
facilities used jointly by the city and the county in con-
nection with the transmission or treatment of wastes made
the subject of this contrast.
Pane 27 Chuhge Paragraph XX. Studies and Evaluations, to read:
XI. STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS:
The parties hereto agree to participate in a
study or studies, the scope of which shall be later deter-
mined by mutual agreement, as to organizational or institu-
tional arrangements as would effect, to the benefit of both
parties, the most satisfactory provision of and for the trans-
mission and treatment of wastes from the jurisdictional area
of the parties and from the .geographical region within which
the parties are situated. Such study or studies shall com-
mence at the end of the city's second full fiscal year
following completion of the physical expansion of tge treat-
ment plant contemplated and scheduled as of the date of
this contract and referred to in Paragraph IX. B., hereof.
It is the intent of the parties hereto to evaluate the
results of the study or studies in a timely fashion.
(4) Paoe 17 Paragraph VII. A., 3rd line:
Add words not less than, between words to and the,
(5) Page 8 17th line from top, delete word reasonably;
IDth line from top, add betmeen words and and
oualitv, the character and word
(6) Page 15 Add. after Paragraph H,, the following new.paragraphs:
I, It is agreed between the parties hereto that,
at the expiration of the term of this contract should the
county not continue, by contract or other formal'mutual
agreement with the city, joint use. with the city, of the
sewage treatment plant and other joint-mia sewage facilities
made the subject of this contlact, the county shall be
refunded and paid out of such funds then held by the city
under this contract as Eeservqs for Replacement provided
for 'in Paragraph I¥. C.. above, an amount proportionate to
the percentage of the county*s total contributions to said
reserve fund in proportion to the total contributions made
to said reserre fund by the city and all other political
subdivisions, including the county, participating in {he use
of such facilities; provided, however, there shall be excluded
from such determination any amount in the city*s reserve for
replacement fund. maintained for said facilities, as of the
commencement of this contract.
J, Nothing in this Section I¥, and In Section
Villi, Jafra, shall be deemed or construed to constitute
or amount to au assumption by the County of Roanoke of any
indebtedness of the City of Roanoke, bonded or otherwise,
or an ogreement to pay any part of the principal thereof
or interest thereon to the holder of any such debt.
(7) page 2 Paragraph I, A.:
Change definition of AREA to read us follows:
Ail of ~be unincorporated area or territory
of Roanoke County. Virginia, including such
areas of the City of Salem as are of the date
of this contract served by sewage collector
and transmission facilities of said county
but excluding such area or areas of said county
as are of the date of this contract served
by semage collector, transmission oF treatment
facilities of any municipality; as the limits
of the aforesaid service AREA may hereafter
be expanded or contracted by final order of a
court of competent jurisdiction, subsequently
entered, in proceedings in which all proper
parties are before said court.
(6) pafles 19
and 20 Delete, from pages 19 and 20, Paragraph E., as
heretofore proposed, and substitute new Paragraph E., to
read as follows:
E. It is agreed by the city that the county may
assign and transfer to a public agency organized by the
county as a public service authority under the laws of the
Commonmealth of Virginia, the rights and benefits of said
county under this contract hut no such assignment shall be
construed as relieving the county or the board of supervisors
of said county of any of its responsibilities and lawful
'undertakings to the city herein lawfully agreed to be
undertaken,
(9) Page 26 Paragraph Xo
(a) Delete from lines
, if leoalt? nermissible under existina obli-
oztioq~ 9f the oarties hereto to others.;
(b) Delete'from lines 4 and 5 of Paragraph B:
into with the County of Roanoke pursuant to'Ordinance No. 20,105, adopted by
the Council on February 22, 1972.
Nebber .... 7.
NAYS: None-- O.
There being no ~urther business, Msyor ~ebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED
Mayor
COUNCIL, SPECIAL MEETI
Thursday, March 9, 1972,
The Council of the City Of Roanoke met in special meeting in the
Council Chamber in the Municipal Building, Thursday, Hatch 9. 1972, et IO:00
a,m** with Mayor Roy L~ Webber presiding.
PRES~NT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Noel ¢. Taylor, Hampton #.
Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S, Mheeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber ......
ABSENT: Councilman David K. Lish 1,
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F~ Birst, City Manager; Mr, James N,
Eincanon. City Attorney; and Mr, Ao No Gibson. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened mlth a prayer by Mr. Vincent S,
Rheeler, Member of Roanoke City Council.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mayor Webber advised that the special meetin
of Council was called for the purpose of receiving, opening and considering bids
made to the City of Roanoke for the construction of sludge lagoons and chemical
feed facilities for the removal Of phosphorus at the Sewage Treatment Plant
and for the purpose of taking such action in the premises as Council may be
advised.
Mayor Webber further advised that the proposals were to be received by
the City Clerk until 10:00 a.m., Thursday, March 9, 1972, and to be opened at
that hour before Council, and ashed if anyone present had any questions about
the advertisement for bids and no representative present raisin9 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:
Division No. I Alternate Division No. 2
English Construction
Company, Inc. - $666,000.00 $495,000,00 $29B,000.00
D. R. Allen ~ Son, Inc. - 384,000.00 300,000.00 -
Branch and Associates,
Inc. - 556.850.00 441,850.OO -
Rt. Thomas moved that the bids be referred to a committee to be
appointed by tho Mayor for tabulation, report and recommendation to Council.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted,
Mayor Webber appointed Messrs. Julian F. Ilirst, Chairman, Samuel H.
McGhee, III, Donald E, Eckmann, B. B. Thompson and Rilliam F. Clark as members
Of the committee.
Mr. Thomas then moved that the meeting be recessed until 10:00 a.m.,
Friday, March 10, 1972. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously
adopted.
At 10:00 a.m., Friday, March 10. 1972, Council reconvened with Messrs.
Lish and Trout absent and with Mayor Mebber presiding.
The committee appointed for the purpose of tabulating the bids submitted
the following report recommending that the proposal of D. R. Allen and Son,
Incorporated, for Division Ho. 1, construction of sludge lagoons, in the amount
of $384,000.00, be accepted, and that the proposal of English Construction Com-
pany, Incorporated, for Division No, 2, construction of phosphorus removal
facilities, in the amount of $29B.ooo.oo, be accepted, advising that both of
these bid awards should be made with the inclusion that they are subject, to all
required approvals by the federal government, by the Cowmonweslth of Virginia
and by the Environnental Protection Agency of the United States Covernment and
further recommending that Council appropriate necessary funds Out of capital
funds for the two bid amounts with an additional appropriation of ten per cent
of the bid amounts to allow for contingencies and testing, etc.:
"March 10, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Your undersigned committee, as appointed by the City
Council at your special meeting of March 9, lg?2, for the
purpose of reviewing and reporting on bids received on that
date hereby submits tho following report.
Yhere is attached a tabulation of bids received under
Contract A for the expansion and increase in treatment at the
It is recommended that the award for Division No,
Construction of Sludge Lagoons, be made'to the low bidder
of D. R. Allen and Son, Inc., Fayetteville. North Carolina,
in their submitted base bid of $394,000.
It'is recommended that the bid of Division No. 2.
Construction of Phosphorus Removal Facilities, be awarded
to the low bidder of English Construction Company, Altnvista,
Virginia, in their bid amount of
Both of these bid awards should be made with the. inclu=
sion that they are subject to ail required approvals by the
Federal government, by the Commonwealth of Virginia and by
the Environmental Protection Agency of the United States
It is further recommended that the City Council by
appropriate ordinance provide for the appropriation of
bid amounts with an additional appropriation of ten per~
cent of the bid amounts to allow for contingencies,, te~t-
lng, etc. It is noted that the sum of the two bids is
within the estimate of the cost of the work as previously
determined by the City's consulting engineers.
By way of general comment, and for the information of
the City Council, in the conditions of bids on the Division
No. 1, Lagoons, there are four lagoons provided for. Comple-
tion of all four is to be within 210 days with a bonus if
completed prior to that time or a penalty if the construc-
tion extends beyond that time. Mithin these four lagoons,
one of the four is provided that if completion can be within
120 days there would be a bonus per day and if a second is
completed within 210 days there would bo a bonuw provided
therefor.
On Division No, 2. Phosphorus Removal, the time specified
is 150 days with a bonus if completed prior thereto and a
penalty if completion extends bey*ne that time. The term
completion under the phosphorus removal equipment is speci-
fied as applying to the capability of putting the chemical
equipment into continuous usable operation as opposed to
completing all of the various details relating to this
facility.
It is to be taken of that the City, in its efforts to
meet the requirements of the Mater Control Board and to
comply with its interest and efforts in pollution abatement,
has taken upon itself to set up this particular manner of
176
time schedules with bonuses and pennlties. The City has Rot
received any specific guidance from the State Water Control
Board as to how this aspect would, be handled. Insofar as is
known, this procedure will not Jeopardize the bids; however,
this would be one point that undoubtedly mould be analyzed
by the revJeming agency.
As a further note. it is anticipated that the consulting
engineers mould be recommended to provide a resident engineer
on the Job for these two projects mhich will be underway
simultaneously.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. HJrst
Sam H. RcChee, III
Donald E. Eckmann
Rilllam F. Clark"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the
committee. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas then offered the following emergency Ordinance amending
and reordaining Section #550, 'Capital Improvements Fund - Sewage Treatment
Fund," of the 1971-72 budget:
(n20145) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #550, 'Capital
Improvements Fund - Sewage Treatment Plant," of the 1971-72 Sewage Treatment
Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book msba page 280.)
Rt. Thomas moved, the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the follomin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas. Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .5.
NAYS: None- -0. (gessrs. Lisk and Trout absent)
Hr. Wheeler offered the followln9 emergency Ordinance accepting the
proposal of D. R. Allen ~ Son, Imcorporated, for the construction of fou~ sludge
lagoons and certain related work at the Sewage Treatment PI'ant, for the sum of
$384,000.00:
(#20146) AN ORDINANCE conditionally accepting the proposal of O. R.
Allen and Son. Incorporated, for construction of sludge lagoons at the Roanoke
Semage Treatment Plant; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the
requisite contract for such construction, upon receipt of approval by State and
Federal agencies; rejecting all other bids for said work; and providing for an
emergency.
{For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 209.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motiou was
seconded by Mr, Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs~ Garland. Taylor. Thomns. Nheeler and Nayor
Webber
NAYS: None -- O. (Messrs. Llsk and Trout absent)
DF. Taylor offered the following emergency Ordinance accepting the
proposal of English Construction Company. Incorporated. for the construction
of phosphorus removal facilities and other related work at the Sewage Treatment
Plant, for the sum of $290,000.00:
(u20147) AN ORDINANCE conditionally accepting the proposal of English
Construction Company, Incorporated, for construction of phosphorus removal
facilities; at the Roanoke Sewage Treatment Plant; authorizin9 the proper City
officials to execute the requisite contract for such construction, upon receipt
of approval by State and Federal agencies; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Cook #36, page 290.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrso Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Rheeler and Mayor
~ebbe~ .5.
NAYS: None .......... O. (Messrs. Lisk and Trout absent)
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTE~:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
' 78
COlWelL, REGt~LAR MEETING,
. Monday, March 13, 1972,
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular wanting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, March 13, 1972, at 2 p,m,, the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L, Mehber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A, Garland, David K, Llsk,.Noel C, Taylor,
James O, Trout and Mayor Roy L. Webber-- 5.
ABSENT: Councilmen Hampton M, Thomas and Vincent S, Mheeler ..... 2,
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr, Byron E. Bauer, Assistant City Manager; Mr, James
N, KJncanon, City Attorney; amd Mr, A, N, Gibson, City Auditor,
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Robert
E, Nouff,.Pastor, Summerdean Church of the Brethren.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held en Monday,
February 7, 1972, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr,
Trout, seconded by Mr, Ltsk and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded,
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON ~UBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p,m,, Monday, March 13~
1972, on the request of Suburban Realty Corporation that property located on the
corner of Beech Street and Barberry Avenue, No Mo, described as Lots $ - g, inclu-
sive, Section 3, Map of Westwood Annex, Official Tax Nos, 2630512 - 2630615,
inclusive, be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RG-I,
General Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, the matter was
before the body,
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the folloming
report recommending that a RG-1 designation be approved in lleu of the request for
a C-2 zoning designation:
"January h, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. ~ebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gemtlemem:
The above cited request wa~ considered by the City Plan-
ning Commission at its regular meeting of January 5, 1972,
Mr, Douglas Rielkopf, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and noted that his client wishes
to construct multi-family units on this parcel of land
Re noted that ~is use would serve as a buffer betmeen the com-
mercial and the residential uses in the area, Re noted that he
isrequesting the C-2 rezoning designation since it conforms
with the commercial zones immediately to the north and the west
of his parcel,
Mr, Boynton, Planning Commission member, asked if the
petitioner would be willing to leave a planting strip so as to
conform with the character of the block, Mr, Nielkopf noted
that they would do so if required.
The Planning Director noted that an apartment none would
serve as a bbffer between the commercial and residential areas,
He, however, recommended that it be limited to a RG-I designation
since RG-2 is more suitable closer-in to thn'core area, In ,
addition, it was noted that the petitioner could not build
apartment~nnits under · C-2 zoning designation.
The Planning Commission members generally concurred that
the density should he restricted to RG-I. Mr. Mielhopf noted
that the petitioner would be willing to accept a HG-I zoning
designation in lieu of u RG-2 ~oning dnsignation.
Accordingly, motion uae made, duly soconded and unanimously
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. Parrot by LM
John H. Parrott
Chairman'
With reference to the matter, a communication from Mr. Douglas M, Kielkopf,
Attorney, representing the petitioner, advising that he would like to amend the
request for rezonJng to provide for a RC-2 zoning classification, instead of the
C-2 classification as originally requested, was before Council.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning, Mr. Trout
moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City Planning Commission
that the property be reaoned to RG-I, General Residential District. and that the
folloming Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~20148) AN ORDINANC£ to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of the
of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 263. 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 So 6. 7, D, and 9, Section 3. as shown on the revised Map of Westwood
Annex. recorded in the Clerh*s Office, Circuit Court, Roanoke County, Virginia in
Plat Book Z at page 144 and designated as Roanoke City Official Tax numbers
2630612, 2630613. 2630614, 2630615. rezoned from RS-3, Single Family Residential
District, to RG-2, General Residential District; and
WHEREAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from RS-3. Single-Family Residential District, to RG-I.
General Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and )osted. respectively, by Section 71. Chapter 4.1, Title XV. 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
WHEREAS. the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 13th
day of March, 1972. at 2 P. g., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at whichI
hearing all parties in interest ned citizens were given an opportunity to be heard.I
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 o~ the City of Roanoke that Title
XV. Chop,er 4.1. Section 2. of the Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956. es emended.
relating to Zoning. and Sheet No~ 263 or the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City of
Roanoke. be amended in the following particular and no ether. VIz.:
Property located o~ the ~orner of Beech Street and anrberry Avenue. N.
described as:
Lots 5. b. 7. 8. and 9. Section 3.
according to the Map of Mestuood Annex.
of record In the Cloth's Office of
the Circuit Court of Roanoke County,
¥irginJao in Plat Boob 2, page 144~
and
BEING designated as Official Tax
Numbers 2630612, 2630613, 2630614.
2630615.
designated on Sheet '263 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Rap, City of Roanoke. as Officin
Tax Nos. 2630612, 2630613, 2630614. and 2630615. be, and is hereby changed from
RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RG-I, General Residential District,
and that Sheet No. ~63 of the aforesaid map be changed in thin respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor
Robber .5.
NAYS: None.' .0. (Messrs. Thomas and lheeler absent)
CITY TREASURER-LICENSES: Hr. J. N. Johnson, City Treasurer, appeared
before Council and requested that Council 9ire the City Treasurer the authority to
assess and issue, in addition to his present authority to collect, for the sale of
all 1972 Roanoke City automobile license tags or decals, as mall as all other typesl
of city vehicle licenses.
Mr. Lisk moved that Mayor ~ebber be requested to appoint a committee to
study this request and report their recommendations to Council by the next regular
meeting of the bocy on Monday, Rarch 20, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Rebber appointed Messrs. A. N. Gibson, Chairman, J. N. Kincanon,
J. S. Howard, Jr., and J~ H. Johnson as members of the committee.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
STREET LIG[F~S: Copy of a communication from the AppaIachian Power Company
transmitting a list of street lights installed and/or removed during the month of
February, 19~2, was before Council.
~r. Trout moved that the communicatiou and list be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Rr, Garland and unauimously adopted.
In this connection~ Dr. Taylor moved that the City Manager be requested to
investigate a street light which was installed at the wrong intersection at l?th ·
Street aud Grayson Avenue, N. ~., and correct said situation. The motion was
seconded by Rr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
#r. Lisk then called, attention to the need for a street light in the 1500
block of Denniston Avenue, S~ I and requested that the City Manager investigate
the Installation of a street light in this vicinity.
BUDGET-CLERK OF COURTS-BUSTINGS COURT: A commuoJcation from Judge Ernest
N. Ballou, requesting that $843~00 be uppropriated~to Maintenance of Machinery and
Equipment under Section n25, 'Clerk of Courts,' of the 1971-72 budget, said funds to
be used for the payment of the dictaphone maintenance contract for the calendar
~year 1972 for three Court Remory Recording Machines and advising that the amount
~:has been received by the City of Roanoke from o special recording fee fund, Was
~before Council.
Rt. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of Judge Ballon and
iloffered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20149) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section a25, 'Clerk of Courts
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, page 296.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisko Taylor, Trout and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None ~. (Messrs. Thomas and Wheeler absent)
SEWERS AND STORR DRAINS: Copy of a Resolution adopted by the Council of
the City of Salem, Virginia. approving the proposed contract between the City of
!Roanoke and the City of Salem for sewage transmission and treatment including changes
!ltd be incorporated pursuant to the City of Roanoke*s Resolution No. 20127, was before
iCouncil.
Mr. Lisk moved that the Resolution be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-SHERIFF: Copy of a communication from the
iState Compensation Board, with reference to the December, 1971, expense voucher of
imf. Paul J. Puckett. Sheriff. advising that the state's part of a claim for $18~.89
service connection charges on his telephone bill has been disallowed because the
state does not share in the cost of such expense and that the remainder of the
voucher has been approved for payment, was before Council.
ar. Llsk moved that the communication be referred to the City Attorney for,
preparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and
unanimously adopted.
BCDCET-STATE COHPENSATION BOARD-CORRONNEALTH'S ATTORNEY: Copy of a com-
munication from the State Compensation Board, addressed to Wr.R. L. Lawrence,
Commonwealth*s Attorney, with reference to his December. 1971, expense voucher,
advising that the state*s part of claim for $35.9? service connection charges on
his telephone bill has been disallowed because the state does not share in the cost!
iof such expense and that the remainder of the voucher has been approved for paymenti,
was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be referred to the City Attorney for~
preparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and
'181
'182
POLICE DEPABTNEN?: A commanication from #rn. Arlher D. Jones..lR05
Mallece AveEno. N. E.. advising that on August 4. 1971. the police hsd n shoot out
mith her aext door neighbor aed~in the process her home mas damaged by police
bullets and requesting tbst Council take the oecensery notion to pey for repairs
to her home. was before the body.
Mr. Tront moved that the communication be referred to the City Attorney
for study, report nnd recommendation to Council. The motion ~as seconded by Mr.
Llsk and unanimously adopted.
STREET LIGHTS: A commnnication frOmrMr. N. Io Manning. 4335 Delray Street~
N. M.. requesting that better street lighting be installed in the vicinity of the
4300 block of Delray Street. N~ M.. and Fl,rained Avenue. N. M.. was before Council~
Mr. Troot moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
to be handled administratively. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and
unanimously adopted,
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-CITY ENGINEER: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written report
of the City Manager recommendin9 that $120.00 be transferred from Travel Expense
to Education under Section #55. "Engineering.' of the 1971-72 budget, to provide
funds for a training program available to the Engiueerin9 Department.
* Dr.' Taylor moved that Council, concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the fo]lowing emergency Ordinance:
(u20150) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~55, 'Engineering,'
of the 1971-72 ~ppropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency-.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 297,)
Dr, Taylor moved ~he adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland. Lisko Taylor. Trout and Rayor
Rebber
NAYS: None. .-O, (Ressrs, Thomas and Mheeler absent)
BUDGET-MATER DEPARTMENT: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written
report of the City Manager transmitting the following copy of a communication from
Mr, Kit B. Kiser, Manager of the Mater Department, in connection with certain
transfers of funds mithin, the Mater Department budget and one appropriation which
mill be offset by unexpended funds and recommending that Council approve these
transfers and appropriation:
"DATE: February 26, 1972
TO: Mr. Hirst
FROM: .K.. B,.Eiser
Subject: Transfer of Funds
This is to request the.transfer of the loll,win9 funds to
provide funds for the normal daily operation of this Department:
1, Transfer $4,000,00 from account 260-320, Operating Sup-
plies and Materiels, to account 260-201, Utilities, The $4,000,00
surplus in the 280-320 account Js due to revisions in our chemical
dosage for treating water, The $4,000,00 is needed in the 260-
201 account to provide sufficient funds for electrical service to
our various pumping stations for the remainder of the fiscal year.
2, Transfer $200~00 from account 260-320, Operating Supplies
and Materials, to account 260-220, Communications, This $200,00
mill be an available surplus, in the 260-320 account ~ut is needed
in the 260-220 account to provide sufficient funds for telephone
service and telephone line rentals for the remainder of the fis-
cal year.
3. Transfer $750,00 from account 290-320, Operating Sup-
lies and Materials, to account 290-220, Communications, The
750.00 is a surplus in the 290-320 account due to a reduction
inmeter parts inventory end is needed in the 290-220 account to
provide telephone service for the remainder of the fiscal year.
4~ Transfer $500.00 from account 290-320, Operating Sup-
plies end Materials, to account 290-3050 Clothing and Personal
Supplies. The $500.00 is an available surplus Jn the 290-320
account due to a reduction in meter parts stock inventory. The
$500.00 is needed in the 290-305 account to provide funds for
raincoats, hard hats and rubber, steel,toed safety boots for
field personnel during the remainder of the fiscal year.
5. Appropriate $70.000.00 to account 450-620. Services.
Hydrants and Water Lines. The $?O.000.00 will be offset by an
available surplus in 290-101 account. Personal Services. since
personnel time is adjusted and charged to the work performed.
ie. new. or replacement of. mater lines, services and hydrants.
The funds are needed in the 450-820 account to provide sufficient
funds during the remainder of the fiscal year for nam services.
hydrants and water lines. A large percentage of this fund mill
be offset by revenue received for nam services, main extensions.
customers work and sale of materials. Of the $95.141.72 spent
or encumbered thus far in the fiscal year. approximately $flO.OO0.00
has been received as offsetting revenue. The full amount is not
recovered primarily due to oversizing of water lines for future use."
Mr. Trout roved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City Man-
lager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20151) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1971-
i73 Mater Fund Appropriati'on Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book a36. page 297.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion nas seconded
i:by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
il AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Trout. and Mayor
· ebber 5.
NAYS: None. O. (Messrs. Thomas and Mheeler absent)
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council hu¥in9 directed the City Manager to make a bona
ifide offer, by registered mail. to the owner of the property located at the south- i
east corner of the intersection of 35th Street and Melrose Avenue, N. M.. to ascer-
tain if he would be milling to sell said parcel of land to the City of Roanke in ,
Connection with the widening of 35th Street, N. #., the Assistant City Manager i
submitted the following report of the City Manager advising that he made an offer of!
$4,340.00 to Mr. C. L. Poll, Jr., the owner of this strip of land, and transmitting
:opy of the following communication written to him from Mr. T. L. Plunkett, Jr** :
Attorney, representing Mr. Poll, advising that the offer has been declined and mah-
trig a counteroffer of $17,500.00, the City Manager pointing out that he cannot
recommend acceptance of this counteroffer to Council.
'Hatch 13, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, VlrgJein
Gentlemen:
Reference is made at the matter that has been before City
Council on Several occasions, the moat recent being Febrn~ · 14,
1972. At this later date, the City Council. directed that I-make
a bona fide offer to the owner of the pr*pert· for the purchase
by the City Of the strip of land 152.0 feet in length, along SSth
Street, by 12.5 feet Jn depth, along Melrose Avenue, for the
widening of 3Sth Street. I submitted this offer to the owner of
the pr*pert· by letter of February 23, 1972, at which time the
offering of $4,340.00 was made. This amount, by independent
appraisal, was advised to the City to be an. offering that could
be supported.
There is attached a letter of March 3, 1972, from Mr. T. L.
Plnnkett, Jr** Attorney fro Mr. C. L. Puff, Jr** advising of the
declining of the offer and making a counteroffer of $17,500o00.
I conic not recommend to the City Council this connteroffer~
believing it to be considerably in excess of the reasonable
evaluation of the property with the reasonable evaluation
being that as offered by my letter of February 23.
This is submitted for the City Council*s further consideration.
*March 3, 1972
Mr. Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr, Hirst:
My client has carefully considered the proposal
contained in your letter of February 23, and has instructed
me to decline the offer.for him,
You will recall that we have had previous connections
in regard to this matter and while my client does not
want to part with any portion of his property at 35th
Street, he is still willing to stand by his prior offer
of $17,500.00.
Very truly yours,
S/ T. L. Plunkett
T. L. Piunkett, Jr.'
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Trout mo~ed that action on the report of the City Manage~ be deferred
one week pending receipt of an Ordinance appropriating funds in connection with the
widening and improving of a portion of 35th Street, N. M. Zhe motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, the Assistant City Manager submitted a written report
of the City Manager advising *ha*the city has an option which will expire on March
16. 1972. with Mr. and Mrs. Frada L, Tillman for a small strip of land on the west
side of 35th Street, N. M., needed in connection with the widenin9 of 35th Street,
that Mr. John R. Garrett, Right of May Agent, advises that he bas been successful
in obtaining a second option renewal for au additionai period of 90 days and recom-
mending that Council, by appropriate action, authorize this renewal.
Mr, Trout moved that nction on the report of the City Msnsgnr be deferred
one week pending receipt of un Ordinance npproprlnting funds in connection with thc
widening and improving of n portion pr 3$th Street. N. N. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
BRIDGES: The Assistant City M~nager submitted the following report of the
City Manager in connection with the Mud Lick Creek Bridge replacement, advising
that as a result of discussion with representatives of the Highway Department since
;isubmitting his report on March 6. he has been informed that ~he Highway Department
ils now in a position 3o handle this construction by an alternate method, that the
~total estimated project cost is $162,069.97. that the city*s approximate one-half
ishare, as reported, will be $?4°650.65,. that the state will participate with the
i!city on the city*s share on an BS~ - 15~ ratio, that this would place the city*s
,cost at approximately $11,300.00, which is within appropriated funds and recommend-
ing adoptio~ of a Resolution approving this project:
Ilonoroble Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Reference is made to the subject project upon which a report
was made at your last City Cguncil meeting on March 6, 1972. As
a result of discussion with representatives of the Highway Depart-
ment since submitting this matter to you on March 6, I am advised
that the Department is now in a position to handle this construc-
tion by an alternate me~ od.
The total estimated project cost, as reported, sas $162,069.97.
Zhe City*s approximate one-half share, as reported, would be
$74,650.05. The State will participate with the City on the City*s
share on an 85 percent - 15 percent ratio. This would place the
City*s cost at approximately $11,300. This'is adequately within
appropriated funds.
It is recommended that the City Council by resolution approve
this project and confirm to the Highway Department its participa-
tion in the City's Share of the cost on an 05 - 15 percent ratio.
A copy of this report is being formarded to the City Attorney
asking that he prepare a resolution for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Birst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager andoffered the following Resolution:
(~20152) A RESOLt~ION concurring in the award of a contract by the Depart-i
meat of Highways for the construction of a new bridge and approaches at the crossing'
of Grandin Road, S. M., over Mud Lick Creek, at the City's west corporate limits,
Highway Project 0~92-0§0-149, C-501; 0692-060-150, B-633; and committtn~ the City to
participate in the payment of a certain portion of the costs of said project.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a36, page
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Rase'lotion. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the followihg vote:
185
AYES: Messrs~ Gs~land. Lisk, Taylor, Trout and ~aysr ' '
Webber $'.
NAYS: None. O, (Messrs, Thomas and Wheeler absdnt)
STATE HIGHWAYS: The Assistant City manager submitted a written report
of the City Manager advising that the Virginia Department or Highways has informed
him that it has received a low bid for the signing of the U,S, Route 460 Project -
Orange Avenue - Route 581 to Tinker Creek, from Donald D. Delvage. Incorporated. in
the amount of $126,814.00, that the share of the City of Roanoke is $19,O22,10 and
recommending that Council authorize concurrence in this award.
Dr. Taylor norad that Council concur in the reconnendution of the City
manager and offered the following Resolution:
(n201S3} A RESOLUTION approving amard by the Department of Dighmays of
Contract II, for the purchase of signs on Highway Project 0460-128-102. S-901.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Cook #36. page
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
Webber .5.
NAYS~ None ~. (Messrs. Thomas and Wheeler absent)
STATE HIGENAYS; The Assistant City Manager submitted a written report
,of the City Manager advising that the City Attorney is being requested to review
iagreements.proposed by the State Department of Highmays which are the customary
'state-city agreements for participation in the construction, mnint~aance and opera-
tion of the Tenth Street Project as it relates to the bridge and immediate area
!construction and recommending that Council authoriae him to sign these agreements,
tpursuant to a ~esolution prepared by the City Attorney.
Manager Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(z20154) AN ORDINANCE providing for the execution of an agreement with
lthe Virginia Department of Cighways relative to the constrnction and maintenance of
!~Highway Pro'eot UO00 126 101 PE 101 RM 20
J - - , - , - 1, 6-301, C-501. B-602. Federal Project
EHS-TG-MG-6010 (001), and signifying the City*s intent to participate in the payment
iof a certain portion of the costs of said project; concurring in t~e award of
contract by the Commonmealth of Virginia, Department of HJ§bmays. for construction
~of a new bridge on 10th Street; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =36, page 300.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
I AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Trout
Taylor,
and
Mayor
Webber ..... . --5.
NAYS: None= --~--0. (Messrs. Thomas and Wheeler absent)
SCHOOLS-SEllERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having referred to the City
Manager for study, report and recommendation n petition from the Roanoke City School
Board that Council appropriate funds in the 1972-73 budget to prey'ida a sewer ling I
to the Huff Lane Elementary School, the Assistant City Manager submitted the follow~
lng report of the City Manager transmitting five recommendations in connection witbl
the matter: i
"March 13, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your meeting Ha February 14, 1972, you referred to me for
consideration and recommendation the matter of the petition fram the
Roanoke City School Hoard requesting the Council to appropriate
funds in the 1972-73 budget to provide a sewer line to the Huff
Lane Elementary School.
This matter has come up a number of times over past years
either in relation to the school or in relation to the approxi-
mately 50 homes in the Vancouver Drive, Dorchester Drive, Flora-
laud Drive, Ravenwood Avenue and Avalon Avenue areas. This is the
only area within the City representing a grouping of homes or other
units that does not have public sewer. From time to time we have
had inquiries from property omners in the area os to the means
of obtaining public sewer and in each instance to them as mall as
to the school in the past, and to City Council on several occa-
sions, the situation has been advised. ]ith a few exceptions it
would appear that the homes are fairly well served by their omn
individual septic systems. The strongest problem appears to be
with regard to the school. Of course, there is the parallel
element of the desirability of having public sewer in the area.
In the construction of Interstate 591 a sewer line was built
under the highway in this area, as were lines built in several
other locations, that mould be available to this section and pro=
vide a tie in to the City's overall sanitary sewer system. It
would be advantageous that if a sewer line were build to the
Huff Lane School that it be designed and extended at the same
time to accommodate the dwelling areas.
In his letter of January b, 1072. Mr. McChee, City Engineer,
very adequately summarized the matter. A copy of that was enclosed
with the School Board*s petition to the City Council on February
14, and X attach a copy again with this report rather than repeat-
ing or restating Hr. HcChee*s summary.
On several occasibns over past years we have forwarded to
inquiring residents of the area petition form or similar material
by mhich they could generate a request to the City for this sewer
line construction and by which they could indicate their agree-
ment to participate in its cost. This direction has not been
pursued by the residents, it being presumed largely because of
the significant cost that would be represented in crossing the
open property between the'interstate and the immediate area within
which property is understood the owner has not indicated u will=
ingness to participate. As to the latter point, I am not certain
as to the extent to which there has been a positive effort to work
this out with the emmet; however, it is gathered that the dwelling
owners have been reluctant to assum this share of distance cost.
It is recommended that the City Council:
1. Authorize the preparation of plans for the project.
2. Instruct the CitI Attorney to investigate, for report
back, as lo the City proceeding under the process of
holding a public hearing after the plans have been com-
pleted and then establishing'an assessment with one-
half of the'cost on the property owners, much in the
manner proceeded in the Jefferson flills program of a
few years back.
Then upon completion of the plans, and if a report from
the City Attorney has been received that would indicate
the procedure to be satisfactory, the City Council could
authorize a public hearing and proceed to establish pro-
perty assessments for the SO percent of the construction
costs.
-187
' .88
4oIf the project is approved, negotiations would be nec-
essary to the acquisition of on easement or easements
for the sewer line. · .....
5~ It will be necessary for specific a~propriation of funds,
nam estimated at $Tl.O00.
, . Respectfully submitted°
$/ Julian F, Hlrst
Julian F+ Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the City
·
Manager and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney to investigate as to t~e
City proceeding under the process of holding n public hearing after the plans have
been completed and establishing an assessment with one-half of the cost on the
property owners and report hJs~ecommendation to ~ouncil. The motion mas seconded
by Mr, Trout and unanimously adopted.
RECREATION DEPARTMENT-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-SCHOOLS: Council having
requested that the City Manager transmit u communication to the proper authorities
explaining the situation of the City of Roanoke pertaining to the development of
the John F, Kennedy Park, the Assistant City Manager submitted a written report
of the City Managertransmitting copy of the following communication mritten by
the City Manager to the Rureau of O~tdoor Recreation concerning the position of
the City of Roanoke pertaining to the John F. K~nnedy Park, advising that in sum-
mary. he d'oes not feel that he can fairly submit an elaborate scheme of plans and
development schedule which are not sincere in intent regarding said park:
"March 7, 1972
Mr. Roy K. Wood
Regional Director
Rureau of Outdoor Recreation
United States Department of the Interior
RIO Rem Malton Building .
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
Dear Mr. Wood:
This is further in reference to your letter of February 22,
1972. to the City of Roanoke in regard to the status and use of
the former Federal government surplus property, known as the FAA
Radio Range site here in the City of Roanoke. I have, as X
indicated would be done in my l~tter to you of February 24,
reviemed this situation with our City Council in an effort to
determine ham best and most factually to reply to you as to the
City*s position. This letter is to attempt to summarize our con-
clusions as of this time.
It is the objective of the City to be us completely hon-
est as we can with the Federal government in regard to this
small parcel of land. As you are aware and as your records
' will reflect this tract was purchased by the City by deed of
May 26, 1965. The Federal government reserved certain ease-
meats for underground power control cables. The City paid to
the government $4,900 for the property, In addition, there was
in lhedeed, the stipulatio'n 'that the City mould continuously
use and main'rain the premises as a public park and as a ~ublic
recreation area. The deed provided that in the event of non-
compliance by the City with the deed, the property would
revert to the United States Covernment. All of this we do not
contest.
Prior to the purchase, and apparenkly as a presenta}ion
which was used to substantiate to the Federal government the
City's interest in the property and to substantiate the govern-
meat's conveyance to ~he City, the City prepared and submitted
to the General Services Administration a program for the park
and recreational development of the property. This was, ns you
bore noted, u three stage development. These three stsges ~
totaled $18,?00, with the City further indicating its estimated
cost in the development of the property would ultimately be
spproximstnly $25,000. As has been stated to your Bureau from
time to time, In reports from the City, the City has not pro-
ceeded with the park end recrentionnl development as described.
The City has maintained the property in the condition os ft
mas at the tine of conveyance and in addition, approximately
two years ago, an intervening strip of land mas donated.to the
City by its then deceased owner in memory of the owner mho had
been a leading birch citizen in the community.
As ha~ been additionally advised to the Bureau from time to
time in the reports, the City each year in its budget prepara-
tion has reviemed its overall park and recreational needs of the
in determination of the allocation of funds. In each of these
annual-instances, the decision has been reached, based on funds
available and need, that there mere other more significant and
necessary park and recreational requirements within the City to
mhich funds should be directed. Further, in August 1970, the
Community Relations Committee, a bi-racial citizens group,
reviemed the park and recreational needs of Roanoke and sub-
mitted an overall report to the City Council. Based on this
report, the City Council appropriated approximately $26,000 to
further park and recreational area development; houever, none of
these funds mere allocated at this particular time to the John
F. Kennedy Park, which is the property under discussion, in
view of the specific position of Community Relations Committee
that' development was not a major justifiable need, Over recent
years, there has been a marked increase in home construction in
the vicinity of this park of middle and upper income dmellings
by citizens of our black community. These people have contin-
uously reflected to the City government the preference that this
park area not be developed as an active recreational area.
It is our feeling at this time that it would be highly
desirable to preserve this tract as open space and for potential
future park or recreational development. To express the matter
in the negative, it would be unfortunate to have this property
used for housin9 or other development, thereby removing from a
growing area this reservation of open space. Our reaction is
further affected by the physical relationship of this tract with
the Monroe Junior High School, mhich is immediately nearby and
whose playground area adjoins this tract. There is a possible
future of the use of this particular tract in connection with
that school either for further recreational area or if the
school itself mas physically enlarged then this open land
mould be most valuable for expansion of playground and recrea-
tional facilities which would serve not only the school but the
residential area. At this writing, we do not feel that we
could reasonably substantiate a firm projection of specific
funds and specific physical development goals on the John F.
Fennedy Park. To do so would be permitting to an allocation
of funds and a direction of improvements that would be question-
able with respect to other needs in the City. At the same time,
to make .a specific, commitment to your Bureau would not be act-
ing in truth and would be simply attempting on our part, to
continue the dialogue that has prevailed over the last six or
seven years. It is felt that the City was ambitious in its
programming as was described to the United States Government as
a condition of the deed of 1965. Me would not want to place
ourselves at this time in a relationship with your Bureau that
would not reflect honest anticipations.
lhe City of Roanoke over the past some several years has
had valuable relationships with the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation,
both directly and through the related State agency. This rela-
tionship has been constructive to several significant accom-
plishments mithin the City and I refer particularly to the
development of the Mill Mountain Park. Me do not want to jeopar-
dize that past relationship nor cloud any future dealings,
because of this particular situation.
I would be glad to discuss this directly wi~h ~ou or
appropriate representatives of the Bureau at a mutually con-
venient time and location in an effort to amicably resolve
the situation. We do not feel, in summary, that we can fairly
submit an elaborate scheme of plans and development schedules
which are not sincere in intent. Me do not wish to create a
situation wherein the Federal government must enter into a
situation of unpleasantness with the City of the institution
of procedures against the City. At the same time, we strongly
feel the advantage of the retention of this property as open
space, recognizing the high likelihood of park and recreational
purposes becoming the highest and best use of the land both to
the benefit of the City and Federal governments.
I mill amait your further advice and assure you of our
cooperotive interest,
Sincerely yours,
$! Juiion F, Hlrst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that the report and communication be received and filed
I The motion was seconded by Mr, Garland and unanimously adopted,
MARKET-TRAFFIC-PLANNING: The Assistant City Manager submitted a writ-
ten report of the City Manager advising that the City of Roanoke ia in receipt of
n report made by National Garages, Incorporated, of the feasibility of a parking
garage in the central business district and requesting information as to the pro-
cedure by mhich Council might wish to follow in having this report presented and
reviewed.
Mr. Trout moved that Mayor Webber be requested to establish u date and
time for the purpose of reviewing said feasibility report. The motion was secondedll
by Mr. Lisk and unanimously ado~ted.
Mayor Webber then called an informal meeting of Council for Thursday,
March 16, 1972, at 10:00 a.m., in the Council Chamber for the purpose of reviewing
said feasibility report with affected persons.
AIRPORT: The Assistant .City Manager submitted a mritten report of the
City Manager advising that he is in the process of morking with and negotiating
with Piedmont Airlines for a new three year landing agreement at Roanoke Municipal
(Woodrum) Airport, and requesting information as to whether or not Council would
have any particular requeats or recommendations as to the method of negotiation
math Piedmont representatives or aa to participation in the discussions.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed and that the City
Manager be requested to advise the members of Council as to when the representatives
from Piedmont Airlines mill be in the City of Roanoke in order for the members of
Council to meet with them and discuss certain questions. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: The Assistant City Manager submitted the fol-
!loming report of the City Manager in connection with a request from Mr. J. C.
iCrutchfield, 2641 Springhill Drive, N. M., for relief from a storm drainage situa-
!tion in his area and as it relates to his property:
*March 13, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Storm Drainage Request - Spring Hill Drive, N. N.
Over some time the City has had a request from Mr. J. C.
Crutchfield, 2641 Springhill Drive, N. M., for relief from n
storm drainage situation in his. area and as relates to his
property. The condition is, and has been for many years, that
Boulevard and F~irland Drive flows generally northuard doan
onto Springhill Drive in the area of Mr, Crutchfield's pro-
perty, Mr. CrntchfJeld*s property is located near the low
point of natural drainage in the Fairland Lakes area and
as the City might adopt. As Council is aware, in vlee of the
uould be ellgible for · funded program. In this particular
estimated cost of remedying this situation to be $11.400.
ment would be for a IS-inch pipe from Core Road across Springhill
S/ Julian F. llirst
fiscal year.
191
·192
(s20155) AN ORDInAnCE amending Ordinance Wu. 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; end pro~ldingfor an
emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book s36. page 304.)
Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The m~tlon was seconded
Mr.
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor Webber ......S..
NAYS: None 0
(Messrs. Thomas and Mheele~ absent)
POLICE bEPABYMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: Council having previously deferred
action on an Ordinance repealing subsection {e) of Title I1, Chapter 3, Section
11. of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 195b, as amended, the City Attorney sub-
mitted the following report transmitting an Ordinance which would amend, rather
than repeal subsection (e) of Title II, Chapter 3, Section 11. of The Code of the
City of Roanoke, 195~. as amended. So that in its amended form it would provide
and recognlze that members of the Fire Department be employed on a 5b-hour work
week basis and that ~e~bers of the Police Department be employed on a 40-hour
"March 13, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
At the Council's meeting held on March 6th, the Council had
before it for consideration, but referred back to this office
for further study, a proposed ordinance which would have re-
pealed subsection (e) of Section 11, Chapter 3, Title II, of
the City Code, as that subsection has heretofore related to
the work days and work week of members of the Fire Department
and members of the Police Department. The ordinance as then
prepared and presented by the undersigned was. as the Council
noted, in error in its recital of recent establishment of a 40-
hour work week for members of the Fire Department Of the City.
Looking further into the matter, and after discussion with the
City Manager, it has become apparent that, while the provisions
of subsection (e), abovementloned, need certain revisions, all
of said provisions should not be repealed and that, accordingly,
an amendment, rather than a repeal of subsection (e) is in order.
Subsection (a) of Section 11, in the chapter and title above noted,
provides, in effect, for a 40-hour moth week for City employees and
~atoffices of the City be open for the transaction of business
daily except on Saturdays, Sundays and legal holidays. Subsec-
tion (e) of that section makes necessary exception of the general
rule stated in subsection (a) in the case of members of the Fire
and Police Departments. The exceptions contained in subsection
(e) should be continued but should be revised to reflect the
hour work week recently established for members of the Fire
Department. now organized on a three-platoon basis.
Accordingly, there is heremithtransmitted to the Council an
ordinance which would amend, rather then repeal subsection (e),
basis.
I am authorized to state that the City Manager Joins with the
undersigned in recommending adoption of the ordinance as mom
transmitted.
Respectfully.
S! J. N. Kincanon
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur In the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~201S6) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining subsection (e) of See.
I1. Administration. of the Code of the City of Roanoke. 1955. as amended, making
provision for the work Meek of members of the fire department and the work week
of members of the police department; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book #35, page 204.)
by Mr. LJsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Trout and Mayor
Mebber ...........................
NAYS: None ............O. (Messrs. Thomas and ~heeler absent)
SE#ERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Attorney submitted the following
report transmitting a Resolution which, as an amendment of Resolution No. 20121,
states the fall name and title of the City Manager and.in addition, ratifies,
heretofore made under date of February 29, 1972, by the City Manager on behalf of
of Council:
"March 13, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Council. by Resolution No. 20121 adopted February
1972, authorized and directed the City Manager to make appli-
cation on behalf of the City to the State Mater Control Board
and Federal Mater Pollution Control Administration for grant
to the City Of certain State and Federal funds to aid the City
in the expansion of its Sewage Treatment Plant. Such application
was forthwith executed by the City Manager and transmitted to
the State Water Control Board.
The City Manager has now been advised by letter dated March
1972. from E. R. Simmons, Director. Grants Program. Planning
and Grants Division of the Stat~ Mater Control Board, that it is
necessary that the resolution of the City Council state ngt only
the title bqt the name of the City Manager so authorized to
make application on behalf of the City.
Accordingly, there is transmitted to the Council a resolution
which, as an amendment of Resolution No. 20121. states the full
name and title of the City Manager and. in addition, ratifies.
approves and confirms the written application for grant of
State and Federal funds heretofore made under date of February 29.
1972. by the City Manager on behalf of the City to the State
Mater Control Board pursuant to the prior resolution of the
Council.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
James N. Kincanon'
193
Hr, Llsk moved that Council concur In the report of the City Attorney
nnd offered the following Resolution:
(a20157) A RESOLUTION dreading Resolution No. 20121. adopted February 28,
1972, authorizing and directing applica~Jo~ to be made to the Virginia State Mater
Control Roard and the Federal Mater Pollution Control Adminlstratian for a grant to
the City. under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act for aid In n 14 MGD expan-
sion to the existing 21RGO Sewage Treatment Plant, together with advanced waste
treatment facilitlen for a 35 MGD fJom.
(Foe full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Dank a3h, page 305.)
Mr. LAsh moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrso Carlando LAsh, Taylor, Trout and Mayor
Mebber .......................... 5.
NAYS: None ........... O. (Messrs. Thomas and Mheeler absent)
REPORTS OF CO~MI~YEES:
ANIMALS-DOGS-TAXES-COMPLAINTS: Council having referred to a committee
i composed of Rr, Byron E. Haner, Chairman, Mr. M. David Reaper, Dr. Barry Emerson,
' ~rs. Leroy Neely, Rrs. Warren Davis and Rrs. James E, Melton to study the feasibi-
, lity of margin9 the animal control program of the City of Roanoke with the opera-
, tions of the Society for tho Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. the committee sub-
mitted th~ following report recommending that Council take into consideration the
facts contained in their report when it considers the request of tho $.P.C.A. for
funds in the next fiscal year budget:
"March 13, 1972
Honorable Mayor and CitI Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Feasibility Study of Animal Facilities
On January lO. 1972. Mayor Roy Mebber appointed the nnder-
signed committee of six to study the feasibility of merging the
animal control program of the City of Roanoke with the operations
of the SocieLy for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (SPCA).
From the outset it was apparent that there mere differences of
opinion among the committee members with respect to this matter
with the result that we have been working toward a compromise
solution which might be acceptable to the majority of the com-
mittee members as well as to the City Council.
All members of the committee recognize that the SPCA pro-
vides a needed service to the entire Valley. The SPCA oriented
members of the committee feel that these services should war-
rant the assumption of a portion of the operating costs of this
facility by the City of Roanoke. To date no effort is being
made to obtain comparable funds from the other Valley govern-
ments. The SPCA representatives state that in some instances
other Virginia cities have either combined the activities of the
SPCA with those of the animal warden. Investigation by members
of the committee does not substantiate that information.
Other committee members feel that should the City assume
any financial responsibility for the SPCA activities, and these
activities encompass the whole of the Roaoohe Valley. the City
coild conceivably be asked to make financial contributions to
various activities of this nature Such as the Roanoke Rescue
Mission. the Salvation Army and the American Red Cross. None
of these activities are normal functions of the municipal
government: however, they all do perform a necessary function
to the residents of the area.
As these two approaches were In direct opposition to one
ahother It soon became apparent that some concessions Mere
needed on the purr of all if · report to City Council was to be
concurred In by all. Your cdmmittee has met numerous times In
an effort to be able to provide Council with a mutually accept-
able report. It is recognized that at such time as the Roanoke
City Garage Is removed from Its present locution, the facilities
of tho City animal warden, commonly known as the dog pound, will.
also have to be removed. At that time it is anticipated that
funds In excess of $30.000 will be needed to construct and equip
a new animal facility or dog pound, Yhls figure is obtained
from the known cost of a somemhut smaller facility built by
Roanoke County In 1968.
Certain pertinent data has been collected. This data
includes the fact that fifty-seven percent (5?%) of the dogs
processed by the SPCA are received from within the City limits.
In 1971 the SPCA handled 3.761 dogs of which 2.154 were received
from residents within the City limits. These dogs were not
picked up but were brought in by individuals mbo wanted to be
rid of the animals. This means the animals are ut the SPCA by
individuals' choice, not governmental choice. For the same
period of time the SPCA handled almost twice that number of cats.
The City of Roanoke has no legislation regarding cats and generally
does not impound them. A total overall budget of $28.000 mas
expended by the SPCA in 1971. A breakout of both the SPCA budget
and the animal warden budget is as follows:
Item SPCA CIt?
Salaries $16,000 $12,906
Food 1,800 1,062 (includes medi-
cines, etc.)
Auto 1.200 1,032
Utilities 1,200 800
Miscellaneous 7,800 ---
TOTAL $28,000 $15.800
Previously it has been mentioned that the SPCA might house
and account for dogs impounded by the City of Roanoke animal
warden. Should the SPCA assume the responsibility of housing
and feeding the dogs impounded by the City warden, the SPCA has
indicated to-the committee that they would need to increase
their staff of three full time and two part time employees by
the addition of three or four employees. They would need a full
time director and possibly three additional kennel men. Such an
action would increase their annual expenditures by at least
$12.000 for personnel and $1,000 for food, while it would only
reduce the City's budget by less than $2,000 a year. The City
would continue to need funds for the animal warden, his assis-
tant and for their vehicle transportation.
The SPCA Board Of Directors met on March 6+ 1972, and voted
to ask the City of Roanoke to contribute $3.00 per dog with a mini-
mum of $7,500 per year to their operation. The amount requested
far exceeds what it is presently costing the City to perform the
same function.
There are two possible approaches to this problem which
might satisfy the SPCA advocates. Ci~ Council could make an
annual contribution to the SPCA, should members of Council feel
that the faxpayers and municipal government have an obligation
in this matter, or at such time as the City must vacate their
present dog pound facilities an arrangement could be made whereby
the City mould reimburse the SPCE for the use of their facility
by a per diem per dog basis.
There is divided opinion amongst your committee with
respect to this total matter. While it is generally agreed
that at some time in the future an arrangement could be worked
out whereby the City could enter into a contract to reimburse
the SPCA for services rendered (housing, feeding, placing and
destroyJn9 of dogs), some members of the committee do not feel
that payment should be made until those mutually agreed upon
services are received while other members concur with the SPCA*s
request for funds now. Yhis is u decision mhlch only City
Council can make.
195
Therefore, It would be your conmittee*s sincere recomuendotion
that City Council In considering the SPCA*a request for fnndo for
next fiscal year's budget take Into consideration these facts as
contained In this report.
Respectfully submitted,
Byron E. Honer, Chairman
M. David flooper
Mrs. Leroy mealy
Mrs. Marten Davis
Mrs. James E. Melton"
In this connection, Mrs. James E. Melton, submitted the following pre-
pared statement in clari/icntion o[ certain remarks contained in the report of the
committee:
~March 13, Ir?2
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Feasibility Study of Animal Facilities
The committee recognizes that the SPCA provides a needed ser-
vice to the entire Valley. The SPCA made no mention with
respect to the other Valley Governments participating because
the SPCA mas instrumental in the County building a new
pound and the County is under Federal Regulations. Secondly,
the Roanoke Valley SPCA Js in Roanoke City and the SPCA
pays city real estate taxes, so naturally we would come to
our own city first.
It is recognized that the dog pound mill have to be removed ·
and a figure in excess of $30,000 will be needed to construct
a new animal facility. This being based on the smaller
county pound mhen construction costs were lamer. The hem
poaud should not be smaller than Roanoke County's. It mill
also cost more to operate than the present pound. Roanoke
should try to create a good public image and the SPCA feels
that they could help with this.
It was stated that Should the City assume any financial
responsibility for the SPCA activities the City could be
asked to make contributions to the American Red Cross, the
Rescue Mission and the Salvation Army. Me feel that these
are indirect services to the City and ours is a direct ser-
vice.
As stated, the SPCA bundled 3,761 dogs in 19TI of which
2,154 were received from City residents. Fifty-seven per-
cent of the dogs processed by the SPCA are from within the
city limits but it remains a fact that 64~ of the City of
Roanoke"s dogs are handled by the SPCA. These figures are
based on Mr. iirst°s report of December 1971. Mr. Hirst
gave a figure of 2,5g0 dogs impounded in a six mouth period
but Jt mas decided in committee this was inaccurate due to
the fact that be also stated only 100 to 110 dogs were
impounded per month. If the figure of 2,5g0 was for the
year and as Mr. DJrst stated that 472 dogs were put to
sleep in a 5 month period that means approximately 900
dogs mere put to sleep in I year and the number of dogs
returned to their owners should be approximately 1,646. It
was slated in committee that $].00 per day is collected for
impoundment fee and the pound is only open to the public for
2 hours in the morning and 1 hour in the afternoon and 2
hours on Saturday and Sunday. The morning and afternoon
hours are 5 days a ueek. It was also reported that only
$b08.00 was collected for impoundment fees in this I year
period. This seems a small sum for 1,600 dogs returned to
goners. Also the figure of $1,0~2 seems rather small for
food. drugs. drug supplies and disinfectant.
It was stated that the animals are nt the SFCA by individual,s
ChOice hot please thiok mhat mould happen if the SPCA closed
it's doors sad refused to accept any more dogs or cats, The
2,1s4 dogs alone mould have been turned out on the streets of
Roanoke and the Animal Control Officer ondhis assistant uould
have been nothing night and day instead or 40 hours · meek. In
fact the City uould probably have had to hire 2 or more assis-
tants for the Animal Control Officer. The tun to four thousand
cats mould have b~en dumped out. on Roanoke streets too.
It mas stated In committee that an injection mss used to put
the animals to sleep. Me do not know shat medication is used
nor if it is being Injected properly, The American Humane
Society, The United States Humane Society and The Virginia
Federation of Humane Societies state that a person administ-
ering the drug should be trained and also a second person
should be trained to hold the animal in a may so as not to
excite it nor make it apprehensive. It nnst be injected into
a vein or directly into the heart. If it hits a rib or goes
Into the lung the pain Is excrlciatln9 and the Federal Regula-
tions state . . . *the humane destruction of an animal accom-
plished by a method which quickly produces a state of uncon-
sciousness follomed by death without visible evidence of pain
or distress.' Some members of the committee feel that any
person not so trained could not put a struggling, healthy
animal to death mlthout visible pain or distress. The Humane
Society of the United States and the Virginia Federation of
Humane Societies investigate city pounds without notice and
stated to us their intention of investigating Roanoke*s pound.
The SPCA would like to be the receiving point for the City's
animals. The Hoard of Directors decided that a fee of $3.00
per dog with a minimum of $7,500 would be fair to all concerned.
If the City would turn over to the SPCA only 2,590 dogs, the
number stated by Hr. Hirst that the City impounded last year
then that would be well over the $7,500 minimum. The SPCA
mould have control of the dogs mith all animals being the pro-
perty of the SPCA with the exception of those dogs being
reclaimed by their rightful owners. No fines to he paid to
the SPCA. To work in full cooperation mith the City Ilealth
Department as to: quarantine of rabies suspects, to feed.
water and give shelter to all animals the Animal Control offi-
cer brings to the Shelter. This would also free the Animal
Control Officer and his assistant from the duties of cleaning
the pound and feeding the animals and the disposing of unclaimed
animals. It mould also 91va them week-ends off since the
SPCA is open all week-end and the pound is not . The SPCA
would keep it's hours of 10 A.M. till 4 P.M. daily with the
exception of Mondays when the shelter is normally closed to
the public.
The SPCA stated that in some instances other Virginia cities
have either combined the activities of the SPCA with those of
the animal warden or have 9ives financial aid. It was also
stated in the report that investigation did not substantiate
that information. Me have letters to prove that our informa-
tion is correct. Arlingtonacts as a receiving point for their
city's dogs and they receive somemhere between $3B,000 and
$50,000. Richmond does not have an agreement because the city
of Richmond insisted they sell their animals to RCV and the
SPCA refused. Alexandria has assumed the operations for their
city; Lynchburg contributes to their SPCA and Richmond does
receive $3,600 per year for their service to the city of
Richmond. As we stated previously, Norfolk, Nemport News and
Hampton also give financial aid to their local SPCA.
The Roanoke Valley SPCA is the only organization in the City
that enforces the Virginia anti-cruelty laws and has 24 hour
service for injured animals. Me provide a lost and found
service to the residents of the city and try to educate the
public in the proper care and control of their pets.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Mrs. James E. Melton
Mrs. James E. Melton
Roanoke Valley SPCA"
198
Or. Taylor moved that action on the report of the committee be deferred
one meek since tmo members of Council are absent. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Lisk moved that the statement presented by Mrs. Melton be received
and filed. The motion 'was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted,
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
ZONING: Council having deferred action on a report of the City Plan-
ning Commission in connection with the request of Mr. J. H. Fralin and Mr, A.
Craig KnEel that property located on Epperley Avenue. N. M** described as Lots 19.
20 and 21. Section 1, Map of Epperley Court, Official Tax Nos. 2160612.2160613 and
2160614, be rezoned from RS-3. Single-Family Residential District, to C-2, General
Commercial District, a communication from Mr. Fielding L. Logan. Attorney, repre-
senting the petitioners, requesting that Council defer action on the setting of a
public hearing until he can further evaluate the matter, was before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request Of Mr. Logan that
action on the matter be deferred pending further evaluation by Mr. Logan and his
clients. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 20128. on second reading, vacating.
discontinuing and closing certain streets and portions of streets, avenues and
alleys within the boundary of or bordering the Kimball Redevelopment Project VA.
R-46. in the northeast section Of the City Of Roanoke. 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:
(~2012D) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
certain streets and portions of streets, avenues and portions of avenues, and
alleys within the boundary of or bordering the Kimball Redevelopment Project VA
R-46 in the northcast Section of the City of Roanoke. Virginia as are hereinafter
more fully described.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook #36, page 291)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr, Lash and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Trout and Mayor
iMebber ....................... 5.
~ NAYS: None~ ........... O. (Messrs. Thomas and Mheeler absent)
~ STADIUM: Ordinance No. 20136, auardin9 certain c~ncessJon privileges
to be exercised at Victory Stadium and the Athletic Grounds in Meher Field upon
lcertain terms and provisions,, on the basis of a certain bid made therefor; direct-
Jag.the execution of a requisite contract therefor and rejecting certain othe'r bids
made for the auard of the contract, 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:
(a2Ol3b) AN ORDINANCE auardlng certalnconcesslon privileges to be exer-
cised at Victory Stadium and the Athletic Grounds In Maher Field upon certain terms
and previsions, on the basis of a certain bid made. therefor; directing the execu-
tion or a requisite contract~ and rejecting all other bids made for the award of
said privileges.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook a36, page 295.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the folio'ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor
Robber .......................... 5.
NAYS: None ............O. (Messrs. Thomas and Wheeler absent)
CITY AUOITOR: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure relating to the Honorable J. Robert Thomas, former City Auditor of
the City of Roanoke, he presented same; whereupon, Hr. Trout offered the following
:Resolution:
(#20150) A RESOLUIION relating to the Honorable J. ROBERT THORAS. former
+City Auditor of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book n36, page 30T~)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The notion Was seconded
~by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the follomJng vote:
.AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Trout and Mayor
Webber ..........................
~ NAYS: None ...........O. (Messrs. Thomas and Mheeler absent)
! MOTIONS AND RISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
TRAINS: Mr. J. E. Dudley, 1313 Church Avenue. S. E., appeared before
iCouncil and complained about the length of time railroad crossings are blocked by
passing trains.
Mr. Lisk moved tha~ the City Manager be requested to check with the
Norfolk and Nestern Railway Company to ascertain the amount of time a railroad
icrossiog may be blocked by passing trains and report back to Council. The motion
~mas seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL-ACTS OF ACKNORLEDREMENT: Mr. Garland offered the following
~esolutlon calling to the attention ~/~the community and endorsing for supportby
all such persons, by may of private d~nations, the program of Friendship Rumor, a
non profit institution which has as its goal. provisions for new convalescent care
and mental health facilities:
(=20159) ARESOLtrrlON callin9 attention to and endorsing a program for
expansion of the facilities at Friendship Manor in the Roanoke Valley.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Rook =36, page 308.)
Hr. Garland moved the adoption of .the Resolution.
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
Tho motion was seconded
.200
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Trout and Mayor
Webber ........................5.
NAYS: None .......... O~ (Messrs. Thomas and Wheeler absent)
In this connection, Mr. Lawrence J. Rice, Administrator. Friendship
Manor, appeared before Council end advised that Friendship Manor is asking for the
moral support of each of the valley governments and that thin will be part of n
comprehensive mental health program In the valley.
BUDGET-PARRS AND. PLAYGROUNDS: Mr. Garland presented a prepared statement!
requesting a report from the City Manager as to what the city is willing and ready
to do in cooperation with the Rill Mountain Garden Club andthe Mill #ohntain
Development Committee for establishing a wildflower garden on Mill Mountain and that
a recommendation be submitted back to Council by the meeting of March 27. 1972.
Mr. Garland moved that the City Manager be requested to report back to
Council with his recommendations concerning said wildflower garden on Mill
tain by the regular meeting of Council on Monday, March 27, 1972. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mr. M. Carl Andrews. Chairman Of the Mill Mountain Development Committee,
appeared before Council and advised tbat it is urgent and imperative that this
wildflower garden get underway, that this will be the first step in the development
of a real park on the mountain and that the City of Roanoke has an obligation to
proceed.
CITY MANAGER: This being the last City Council meeting that Mr. Byron E.
Hamer will attend in his official capacity as Assistant City Manager. Mayor Webber
and the members of Council wished Mr. Hamer much success in his new position as
City Manager of Colonial Heights. Virginia.
There being.no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting ad-
journed.
APPROVED
ATYEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL. SPECIAL MEETING.
Frlduy. Rarch IT. 1972.
The Council of the City of Roan*he met in special meeting In the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Friday, March 17, 1972, at 11:00 a.m., with
Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
iRampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber .....
ABSENT:None ........................................................... 0
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. James N.
iKlncanon. City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor.
Member of Roanoke City Council.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mayor mebber advised that the special meetJn9
iof Council was called for the purpose of considering proposed amendments to the
ilsewuge treatment contract to be entered into with the County Of Roanoke.
Mr. Garland moved that Council meet in Executive Session to review the
proposed changes to the sewage treatment contract with Roanoke County. The motion
'Was seconded by Mr. Yrout and unanimously adopted.
Later during the meeting and after the Executive Session, Mr. Thomas
ipresented the foil*win9 report of the Sewer Committee in connection with the
changes proposed as of March 17, 1972, to contract offered February 22. 1972,
;to be entered into between the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke for sewage
:transmission and treatment:
"CHANGES PROPOSED MARCH 17, 1972, TO CONTRACT
OFFERED FEBRUARY 22, 1972, TO BE ENTERED INTO
BETNEEN CITY OF ROANOKE AND THE COUNTY OF
ROANOKE FOR SENABE TRANSMISSION AND TREATMENT
(1) Pane 1 Change caption so that the parties of the second
part are shown to be as follows: the COUNTY OF ROANOKE and/
or the ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SERVICE AUTHORITY. as their
interests may appear in this contract, parties of the sec-
ond part, and hereinafter referred to as the *county": (etc.)
Page 2 Paragraph I. A.:
Change definition of AREA to read as follows:
A. AREA:
All of the unincorporated area or territory of
Roanoke County, Virginia, and, also such areas
of the City of Salem as are of the date of this
contract served by semage collector and trans-
mission facilities of said county but excluding
such area or areas of said county as are of the
date of this contract Served by sewage collector,
transmission or treatment facilities of uny
municipality; as and until the limits of the afore-
said service AREA may hereafter be expanded or con-
tracted by final order of a court of conpetent
jurisdiction, subsequently entered In annexation
or other proceedlngs of the City of Roanoke in
which all proper parties are before said court.
except that. should any annexation ordered to the
city not provide terms and conditions upon mhJch
sewer lines in such annexed area be owned and
201
202
operated by the city, existing seaer lines la such
annexed area way continue to be owned and operated
by said county; it being understood by the parties
that there nra pending legal proceedings brought
to determine the right end obligations of the city
to provide sewer service to the Edgehill Estates
Subdivision area presently within the corporate
limits of the city recently annexed from Roanoke
County. the declsion of which shall be conclusive
upon the question of omnershlp and operation of
existing seuer lines ia the Jefferson Forest Sub-
division and in a small portion of the Jefferson
Hills Subdivision wore recently annexed to maid city.
and it being further understood and agreed that
should the city not prevail in such proceedings,
said Edgehill Estates Subdivision shall be incorpor-
ated within the abovedefined service AREA.
Pane 2 Paragraph I. C.
Change definition of word County to read as follows:
County: the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and/or
the Roanoke County Public Service Authority, as
their respective interests may appear within this
contract.
Pnae fl 17th line from top, delete ward reasonnblv;
loth line from top, add between words and and
quality, the character and word /or.
Pane 10 Paragraph B., 9th line:
Change IV. D~ to IV. E.
(6) Pane 13 Change Paragraph C. Reserve for Reolace~Bt to read:
Reserve for ReDlacemeqt: The reserve for replacement
on the treatment plant, and on jolnt-use interceptor facili-
ties existing as Of this date. shall be determined annually
by the city and applied in the formula at a rate not 9rearer
than two per cent, (2%). per annum on the total of all local
funds expended in the construction and equipment of said pl~t
and joint-use interceptor facilities. The reserve for
replacement shall be expended by the city only for replace-
ment of joint-use facilities; but the amounts SO expended
by Roanoke shall not be treated as a cost or an expense of
the City of Roanoke for its ownership, operation and main-
tenance of the treatment plant and joint-use interceptor
or other facilities in determining the base rate of monthly
charge referred to in Paragraphs IV. Bo and IV. B. 1o and
in the definition of the term Ooeration and maintenance
contained in Paragraph IV. C., hereof.
JOINT-USE FACILITIES:
The term ~joint-use facilities' and "joint-use inter-
ceptor facilities~ as employed in Section IV. Charnes for Sew-
mae Transmission and Treatment Service, herein, shall be under-
stood and taken to mean Roanoke's sewage treatment plant and
immediately related treatment facilities and all intercep-
tor or ether sewer lines and related facilities used
jointly by the city and the countyin connection with the
transmission or treatment of wastes made the subject Of
this contract.
(7) Paoe 15 Add. after Paragraph H., the following new paragraphs:
Io It is agreed between the parties hereto that,
at the expiration of the term of this contract should the
county not continue, by contract or ether formal mutual
agreement with the city, joint use, with the city, of the
sewage treatment plant and other joint-use sewage facilities
made the subject of this contract, the county shall be
refunded and paid out of such funds then held by the city
under this contract as Reserves for Replacement provided for
in Paragraph I¥. C., above, an amount proportionate to the
percentage Of the county's total contributions to said
reserve fund in proportion to the total contributions made
to said reserve fund by the city and allother political
subdivisions, including the county, participating in the
use of auch facilities; provided, however, there shall be
excluded from such determination any amount in the city*s
reserve for replacement rued, maintained for said facill-
ties, as of the commencement of this contract.
(4)
(5)
J. Nothing In this Section I¥. and la Section
VIIIoo infrao shall be deemed or construed to constitute
or amount to an assumption by the County of Roanoke of
any indebtedness of the City of Roanoke, bonded or other-
misc. or an agreement to pay any part of the principal
thereof or interest thereon tothe holder of any such debt.
(6) Page 17 Paragraph VII. A.. 3rd line:
Add words not less than, between words to and the.
(9) Page 16 Delete second paragraph.
(10) Pages
and 20 Delete. from pages 19 and 20. Paragraph E., as
proposed February 22, 1972.
(11) Pages 22
and 23 Change Paragraph VIII. B. 2. (c), commencing at
bottom of page 22 and extending onto page 23, to read as
follows:
(c) In the event the county shall, within its pro-
gram of major sewer line requirements, as cited in Para-
graph VIII. A. 2., supra, seek the construction or enlarge-
ment of a sewer line within the city to extend to the city*s
treatment plant or to a point of connection with another
line of the city. and the city shall decline to construct
or participate in said line upon and after reasonable
written notice from the county, then the county may pro-
ceed with the construction of said line within the city.
assuming all acquisition of easements and rights of way
and all costs of said line and all maintenance thereof;
provided, no such main or interceptor line shall be used
to serve property located within the city except upon
approval of the governing body of the city expressed by
resolution. Yhe city shall not unduly act to restrict
the ability of the county to proceed hereunder. Should
the city request, subsequent to construction, to use any
portion of the line. such request shall be handled pur-
suant to Paragraph VIII. C.. supra. The Board of Super-
visors of Roanoke County shall approve and concur in any
notice given the city of intent to construct such line or
lines as are referred to in this paragraph.
(12) Paoes 26
and 27 Delete all of Paragraphs X. A., X. B. and X. C. of
the section entitled BOUNDARY CHANGE OF CITY and insert,
instead, the following: -
X. SPECIAL PROVISIONS:
From the date of this contract and until the
pending legal proceedings referred to in Paragraph I.
DEFINITIONS. A. AREA, supra, are concluded on their merits,
present rates and charges made by the county or its agency
to users of the county's sewer system in the Edgehill
Estates Subdivision. the Jefferson Hills Subdivision and
the Jefferson Forest Subdivision areas within the corpor-
ate limits of the city shall be billed by the county to
the city and ~hall be paid by the city to the county in
lump, sum payment within thirty. (30), days from such bill-
ing.;
(13) Page 27 Change Paragraph XI. Studies 3nd Evaluations, to
read as follows:
XI. STUDIES AND EVALUATIONS:
The parties hereto agree to participate in a
study or studies, the scope of which shall be latbr deter-
mined by mutual agreement, as to organizational or insti-
tutional arrangements as would effect, to the benefit of
both parties, the most satisfactory provision of and for
the transmission and treatment of wastes from the jurisdic-
tional areas of the parties and from the geographical
region within which the parties are situated. Such study
or studies shall commence at the end of the city's second
full fiscal year following completion of the physical
expansion of the treatment plant contemplated and sche-
duled as of the date of this contract and referred to in
Paragraph IX. B., hereof, but no later than July 1o 1976.
It is the intent of the parties hereto to evaluate the
results of the study or studies in a timely fashion and
that such study shall be completed within eighteen, (16),
months from the beginning thereof.
(14) The date. of the contract to be entered Into
between the parties thereto be made to appear as of
Narch 17, 19T2.
Respectfully submitted.
COUNCIL SEMER COMMITTEE,
By /a/ Hampton M. Thomas
Chairman
Gated: march 17, 1972".
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the committee.
iThe motion mas seconded by Mr. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas then offered the foil*wing Resolution providing for the city*s!
agreement to certain changes and modifications of the contract proposed and offered
it* be entered into with the County of Roanoke pursuant to Ordinance No. 20105,
adopted by Council on February 22, 1972:
(u20160) A RESOLUTION providing for the City*s agreement to certain
'changes and modifications of the contract proposed and offered to be entered into
'mith the County of Roanoke pursuant to Ordinance No. 20105, adopted by the Council
on February 22, 1972.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Hook u3b. page 300.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Nheeier and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. List. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
~ebber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that the City of Roanoke is becomln9
victim of the Roanoke County Public Service Authority and that the city is sacri-
ficing principal for the state and federal 9rants of $13 million for sewage treat-
ment plant improvements.
Mr. List expressed~the opinion that this is the hardest decision he has
had to make as a Councilman, that he is not happy with certain conditions of the
icontract, that during the discussions Roanoke County won every point and the City
Roanoke lost every point and that he is voting for the contract because the citizens!
!of the City of Roanoke will not understand the loss of the federal 9rant.
Gr. Taylor expressed the opinion }hat he has strong reservations about
he contract, that the city has given in more than it should but he is willing to
'go along with the contract to meet the April I deadline set by the State Water
Control Board.
Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that he could not agree with anyone mbo
'would say that this contract ia se'lling out to the Roanoke County Public Service
iAuthority, that the contract is not perfect in many respects, that Jt is not mhat hell
would like to see, but with all the complexities involved, it is the best that can
be done at this time.
Mr. Trout expresses the opinion that he is not happy with the contract,
but the upgradin9 of the environment transcends his feelings in the matter.
205
Mr, Mheeler expressed the opinion that he is not happy with the contract
that It could have been a better contract but the city has come a long may in
progressing to this point.
Mr. Thomas advised that the Sewer Committee will meet with the Zomn
Council of the Tomn of Vlnton at 6:30
Council Chamber for the purpose of revieming the contract proposed to be entered
into ulth the Toun of Vinton~
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meetin9
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
'206 "
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, Larch 20, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting In the Council
Chamber in the Municipal BoildJng, Monday, March 20. lg?2. at 2 p,m., the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. 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: Mr. James N.
Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Dan
Scott, Assistant Pastor, Calvary Baptist Church,
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday~ March
20, 1972, on the request of Mr. Walter L. Wheaten that property located on Moorman
Road and 12th Street. N. M., described as Lots fl, 9. and 10. Section 6. M~p of
Melrose Land Company. Official Taz Nos. 2222907 and 2222909, be rezoned from RG-I.
Baneful 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 recommedning that a C-I zoning classification be approved in lieu of the
requested C-2 zoning designation:
"February 3, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. #ebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The obove cited request was considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of February 2, 1972.
Mr. George M. Harris, Attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that the property in
question is presently leased to the Redevelopment and Housing
Authority for office use and Mr. Wheaten was advised that the
existing zoning designation (RG-I) be changed so-that it conform
to the C-2 zoning of the adjacent property. Finally. he noted
that the property was originally owned by the Church but is now
owned by Mr. Wheaten.
The Planning Director, questioned the rezoning noting that
a C-1 designation mas adequate for the office use. Mr. Harris
then noted that he was amenable to the C-1 rezoning.
The Planning Commission members generally concurred that the
C-1 designation was a suitable one.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to approve the C-I zoning
in lieu of the original C-2 rezoning request.
Sincerely,
S! Creed K. Lemon. Jr. by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman*
Ho one appeoring in opposition to the request for rezoning, Hr. Llsk
moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City Planning Commission
that the property be rezoned Yron RGol, General Residential District, to E-l, orfl~
and Institutional District, and that the follomlng Ordinance be priced upon its
first reading:
(u20161) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet Ho. 222, Sectiona~ 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 the property located at the intersection of 12th Street and Moorman Road,
H. W,, described as Lots 8, 9 and 10, Section 6, Map of Melrose Land Company and
Official Tax Nos. 2222907 and 2222909 rezoned from RG-I, General Residential
District, to C-2, General Commercial District: and
Whereas, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
iafter described land be rezoned from RG-1, General Residential District, to
iOffice and Institutional District: and
Whereas, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and post~d, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title IV, of The Code of the
iCity of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, relating to Ionia9, 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 mas held on the 20th
day of March, 1972, at 2:On P.M., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at
~mhich hearing all parties in interest and citizens mere given an opportunity to be
heard, both for and against the proposed rezonlng; and
WHEREAS, 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 X¥. Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet Ho. 222 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map.
City of Roanoke, be amended in thefolloming particular and no other, viz.:
Property located at the intersection of i2th Street and Rorrnan Road,
N. M., described as Lots D, 9 and 10, Section 6, Map of Melrose Land Company
designated on Sheet 222 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official
Tax Nos. 2222907 and 2222909, be, and is hereby, changed from RG-I, General Resi-
dential District to C-l, Office and Institutional District~ and.that Sheet No. 222
of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Ltsk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearin9 for 2 p.m., Monday, March 20
1972, on the request of Mr. R. L. Goode that property located in the vicinity of
Panorama Avenue, N. W., described as Lots l-D, l-R, 2-D, 2-g, I-F and 6, Official
Tax Nos. 2740305, 2740311, 2740312, 2740506, 2740304 end 2740301, 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 following
report recommending that the request for rezoning be granted:
"February 17, 1972
The Donorable Roy L. Webber, Rayor
and Rashers of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request uss considered by the City Plan-
ning Commission at its regular meeting of February 16, 1972.
Mr. R. L. Goode, the petitioner, appeared before the Plan-
ning Commission and stated that he owns the property In question
which is presently duplex-zoned, and is requesting that it be
*resorted to a RG-I designation. Also. he noted that he felt this
zoning change would be in keeping with tbs general character of
the area.
Hr. Lawrence. Planning Commission member, noted-that there
are four or five structures located on that portion of the parcel
fronting on Salem Turnpike and raised the question of why he was
then requesting a rezoning. Rt. Goods replied that this resort-
in9 would provide him with the necessary area to construct his
apartment units.
After due consideration of this request a notion was made.
duly seconded and unanimously approved to recommend to City
Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creek K. Lemon, Jr. by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
Mr. R. L. Goods appeared before Council in support of his request.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for resorting, Mr. Trout
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(g20162) 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. 274, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
MHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have Lots l-D, l-E, 2-D. 2-E. l-F, and 6; Official Tax Nos. 2740305. 2740312, '
2740305, 2740304, 2?40301, Panorama Heights, Section B, as owned by Raeford L.
iGoode and others, located on Salem Turnpike, Fairview Road, Dexter Lane, and
Panorama Avenue, N. R.. Roanoke City, rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District,
to RG-1, General Residential District; and
MHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinaftel
described land be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-1, General
Residential District; and
MNEREAS, the mritten notice nnd the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71. Chapter 4.1, Title XY, of The Code of the
City Of Roanoke. 1956, ns amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
~osted ns required and for the time provided by said section; and
MHER£AS, this Council, after considering the evidence ns herein provided,
,s 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. 1955. as
iamended, relating to Zoning. and Sheet No. 274 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City
iai Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on Salem Turnpike, Fairvlem Road, Dexter Lane, and
IPanorama Avenue, N. M., Roanoke City. described as Lot I-D, l=E, 2-D, 2-E. l-F,
!and 6 at Panorama Heights Section B, designated on Sheet 274 Of the Sectional
11966 Zone Map. City of Roanoke. as Official Tax Nos. 2740305. 2740311, 2740312,
~2740306. 2740304. and 2740301. be, and is hereby, changed From RD, Duplex Residen-
~tial District. to RO-1. General Residential District. and that Sheet No. 274 of
ithe aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
t AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
~Webber ......................... 7.
! NAYS: None ...........O.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.,
iMonday. March 20. 1972. on the request of the James E. Long Construction Company,
!Incorporated, that that portion of Maltou Street, N. E., lying between the northerly
lline of Eastern Avenue. N. E.. and the southerly line of a ten foot alley lying
between Eastern Avenue. N. E.. and Mallace Avenue, N. E., 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 17, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
The above cited request was considered by the City Plan-
ning Commission at tis regular meeting of February 16, 1972.
Mr. David S. Hjortzberg. attorney for the petitioner.
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that
his client owns the properties fronting on the east and sent
side of this *paper' street and is.requesting this street
closure so that his client may create a new lot. He noted
· that the petitioner is currently building duplexes on all the
lots in this general area. Finally, Mr. Hjortzberg stated
that the property was originally subdivided in the year 1920
and the area requested for closure is quite steep.
Mr. Boynton, Planning Commission member, raised the ques-
tion of how the petitioner proposes to provide access to this
new unit. Mr. Hjortzberg replied that he could not ansmer this
question at the moment.
Mr. Boynton. asked Mr. Light, the Duildin9 Inspector. to
explain how the petitioner was gain9 to get a driveway in for
off-street parking. Mr. Light noted that the petitioner would
.209
-2'10
have to have off-street pithing before he could get his
certificate.
Mr. Boyuton raise~ the question of whether an alley was
located between Nslllce and Eastern Avenue. It unsuited that
an alley did exist la this area.
After due consideration of this request a motion mas made,
duly seconded and unanimously approred to recommend to City
Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon. Jr. by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
The viewers appointed to viem the street ia question submitted a writ-
ten report advising that they have viewed the street and neighboring property and
that they are unanimously of the opinion that no inconvenience mould result to any
individual or to the public from permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
said street.
No one appearing in opposition to vacating, discontinuing and closing
the street, Mr. Thomas moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(a20163) AN ORD1NAHCE permanently abandoning, vacating, discontinuing
!and closing a portion Of Walton Street, N. E. lying between the northerly line of
iEastern Avenue N. E. end the southerly llne of o 10 foot alley lying between
i£astern Avenue N. Eo and Wallace Avenue N. E. as shown on plat shomlng division of
iproperty of Electric Developers. Inc., being a division of Lots 6 through 20 and
!Lots 22 through 46, Block 12. Map of Jackson Park made by Raymond C. Weeks, CertS-
iliad Land Surveyor, dated June 16, 1971, recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Hustings Court for the City of Roanoke. Virginia on June lO. 1971. in Map Book 1,
!page 199. and being also shown on Sheet 322 of the Tax Appraisal Map of the City
of Roanoke.
WHEREAS. James E. Long Construction Company, Inc. has heretofore filed a
ipetition before City Council. in accordance with law. requesting Council to per-
!manently abandon, vacate, discontinue and close that certain portion of Walton
Street, N. E. which portion is more particularly hereinafter described; and as
to the filing of said petition, due notice was given to the public as required by
~Section 15.1-364, Code of Virginia 1950. as amended; and
WHEREAS. in accordance with the prayer of said petition, Resolution
20059 was adopted by the said City Council on the 31st day of January, 1972, pur-
suant to mhich viewers were appointed to view the said property and to report in
writing what inconvenience, if any, would result from permanently abandoning, vacat~
lng, discontinuing and closing the aforesaid portion of #alto~ Street N. E. here-
leafier described; and further the said City Council referred the issues raised by
said petitioner to the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke for said Commis-
sion to study the said request and to report thereon; and
WHEREAS, it appears from the report in writing filed by the viewers mith
the City Clerk, together with the affidavit of said viewers, on the 2nth day of
February, 1972, that no inconvenience.mould result, either to any Individual or to
the public, from the permanent abandoning, vacating, discontinuing and cloning of
the said portion or Walton Street N. E. hereinafter described, lo mhich report no
exceptions have been filed; and
RREREAS. the City Planning Commission by letter directed to the Hayer Of
the City of Roanoke and members of City Council, dated February 17, 1972, recom-
mended to City Council that the said portion of Walton Street N. E. hereinafter
described be abandoned, vacated, discontinued and closed: and
WHEREAS, a Public Hearing of the question mas held for the Council on
!20th day of March, 1972 at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens mere
afforded an opportunity to be heard on the question of the proposed closing of the
portion of Walton Street N. E. hereinafter described; and
MaEREAS. upon consideration of the matter, the Council is of the opinion
that no Jnconvenlence mill result to the owner or the public from the permanent
abandonment, vacating, discontinuance and closing of the portion of Walton Street
N. E. hereinafter described and that the petitioner's application to permanently
close the same should be 9ranted, said petitioner having agreed to bear and
defray the expenses incident to the closin9 of same.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke. Virginia
that that portion of Walton Street N.-~. in the City of Roanoke and described as
follows:
BEGINNING at a point numbered 5 as shown on plat shomin9
division of property of Electric Developers, Inc., being a
division of Lots 5 through 20 and Lots 22 through 46, Block
12, Map of Jackson Park, made by Raymond C. Weeks. Certified
Land Surveyor. dated June 16. 1971, recorded in the Clerk's
Office Of the Bustings Court for the City of Roanoke. Virginia.
on June lB, 1971. in Map Book 1. page 199. mhlch point is at
the intersection of the southerly line of a certain 10 foot
alley shown on said plat and the westerly line of Walton Street
N. E.; thence with the line of Lot 20A S 34° 28' E 92.00 feet
to a point; thence a curved line to the right whose tangent is
20.00 fept. radius is 20.00 feet, an arc distance of 31.41
feet to a point on the northerly line of Eastern Avenue N.
thence with the northerly line of Eastern Avenue N. E. N. 55°
32* Eo BO.O0 feet to a point on the southerly line of Lot 22A;
thence with the line of Lot 22A a curved line to the right whose
tangent is 20.00 feet, radius is 20.00 feet, an arc distance of
31.41 feet to a point on the mesterly line of Lot 22A; thence
continniug mith the westerly line of Lot 22A and the line of
Walton Street N. E. N. 34° 2B* M. 92.00 feet to a point at the
intersection of the southerly line of the aforesaid alley and
the westerly line of Lot 22A, which point is numbered 7; thence
mith the southerly line of the aforesaid alley S. 55° 32'
40.00 feet to a point, the place of BEGINNING; and
BEING that portion of Walton Street N. E. located between
the northerly line Of Eastern Avenue N. E. and the southerly
line of a 10 foot alley lying between Eastern Avenue N. E. and
Wallace Avenue N. E.
be, and the same hereby is, permanently abandoned, vacated, discontinued and closed
the City of Roanoke, however, reservin9 unto itself an easement for any water,
semer orother public utility line or Iines, if any, now existing therein and the
right of ingress and egress for the maintenance and repair thereof.
'212
BE IT FURTHE~ ORDAINED that the City Engineer of the City Of Roanoke be,
and he hereby is. directed to mark 'Permanently Abandoned, Vacated. Discontinued
and Closed" that certain portion of Walton Street N. E. herelnobove described on
all maps and plats on file in the Office of the City Engineer Of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, aa Which said Naps and plats amid portion of Walton Street
N. E. is shaman referring to the book and page nf Ordinances and Resolutions Of
Council wherein this Ordinance shall be spread.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of the Council deliver tn 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 ali
maps or plats recorded in his said office upon which are shomn the said portion of
Walton Street N. E. herein permanently abandoned, vacated, discontinued and closed
as provided by lam. and may record same at the cost of petitioner, indexing the
sane in the name of the City of Roanohe as grantor and Janes E. Long Construction
Company. Inc. as grantee.
The motion was seconded by Br. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland, Link. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber~ .........................
NAYS: None ...........O.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCDOOLS: A connunication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that $2.280.00 be transferred from Section nSO00. 'Schools - Pupil
Transportation," to Section =7000, 'Schools - Maintenance of Plant and Equipment,"
of the 1971-72 budget, to enable the School Board to purchase one pick-up truck to
replace a truck that is 16 years old and is not suitable or economical for use due
to constant repairs and down time. was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request Of the Roanoke City
School Doard and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20164) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~5000, *Schools -
Pupil Transportation," and Section ~TO00. 'Schools - Maintenance of Plant and
Equipment** of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.:i!
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. Tbe motion mas seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland,.Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ......................
NAYS: None ........... O.
SEVERS AND STORM DRAINS: A joint communication from Mr. J. Thomas
Engleby. Ill, Chairman. Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, and Mr. L. S. Maldrop,
Chairman, Roanoke County Public Service Authority. transmitting copy of the treat-
ment service contract executed by Roanoke County and the Roanoke County Public
Service Authority. advising that it is evident by the execution of this agreement
that it meets the approval of the County and Public Service Authority and that it
.i.
bas been approved by the bond counsel for the Public Service Authority, was before
Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motioi
was seconded by #r. Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
BUDGEToSTATE COMPENSATION BOARD--CO'MMONMEALTH'S ATTORNEY-COMMISSIONER OF
THE REVENUE-SHERIFF-CITY TREASURER: Copy of a communication from the Sta re Compen-~
sation Board. advising that the Compensation Board will meet on April 4. 1972, at
8:30 a.m** in the Community Room of the Salem-Roanoke Valley Civic Center, for the
purpsoe of fixing the salary and expenses of the Attorney for the Commonwealth,
Commissioner of the Revenue, Sheriff and Treasurer for the fiscal year beginning
July 1, 1972, and ending June 30, 1973, was before Council,
Mr, Lisk moved that Mr, A, N, Gibson, City Auditor, be requeste~:.to
represent the City of Roanoke at the meeting of the State Compensation Board, The
motion was aeconded by Mr, Garland and unanimously adopted.
JUVENILE AND DORESTIC RELATIONS COURT: A communication from Mrs, F. H.
Pritchard, Jr., President, The Roanoke Valley Association for Mental Bealth, com-
imending the Council of the City of Roanoke on providing space in the Reid and
Cutshall Building to be used by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. was
!before the body.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
!was seconded by Mr, Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Mr. John M. Taylor, Attorney, representin9
!iMessrs. Elmer M. Cox and Lawrence E. Peters. requesting that properties around and
1
!;adjacent to 1714 Redwood Road, S. E., in the vicinity of Redmood Road and Dundee
Avenue, S. E., described as Lots 3, 4, 5, 6. 11, 12, 13 and 14, Section .I, Map of
Rosewood Park Corporation, Official Tax Nos. 4440722 - 4440725, inclusive, and
4440703 - 4440705, inclusive, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to
RG-2, General Residential District, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas 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.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: An application from Mr. Frank K. Saunders. Attorney.
representing the Roanoke Gas Company. requestln9 that that certain portion of
Patton Avenue, N, E., lying between its intersection with lands of Norfolk and
Western Railway Company on the east and its intersection witb the easterly line Of
Tth Street (Shenandoah Avenue, N. E.,) on the west, be vacated, discontinued and
closed, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk offered the following Resolution appointing viewers in connec-
~tion with vacating, discontinuing and closing said avenue:
(~20165) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointment of five viewers in
connection with the application Of Roanoke Gas Company to vacate, discontinue and
close that certain portion of Patton Avenue. N. E., lying between its intersection
with lands of Norfolk & Western Railway Company on the east and Its intersection
with the easterly line of 7th Street (Shenandoah Avenue. N. E.) on the west.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book x36, page 312.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Or. Taylor end adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. trak. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. #heeler and Mayor
Mebber .......................... ?.
NAYS: None ........... O.
Mr. Llsk then moved that the request to vacate, discontinue and close
the avenue be referred to the City Planning Commission for study, report and
recommendatlom to Council. The motion was seconded by Rro Thomas and unanimously
adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-BUILDING DEPARTMENT: The City Ranager submitted a written report
recommending that $75.00 be transferred from Operating Supplies and Materials to
Travel Expense under Section #4D. "Department of Buildings." of the 1971-72 budget.
advisinR that said funds are needed in order for the Plumbing Inspector and the
Heating Inspector to attend a Virginia Plumbing and Heating Inspectors Association
meeting in Falrfax~ Virginia.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendatlon of the City
Manager and offered the f,il,win9 emergency Ordinance:
(=2016G) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section g4O. "Department of
Buildings." of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book =3b. page 313.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Rr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout. Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber .......................... T.
NAYS: None ........... O.
BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City*Manager submitted a written report il
recommending that $1,000.00 be trunsferred from Overtime to Operating Supplies and i
Materials and that $500.00 be transferred from Overtime to Printing and Office
Supplies under Section #4T. "Fire Department." of the 1971-72 budget, to provide t~
funds for the continued purchase of general supplies used by the department and to
offset the depletion of the Printing and Office Supplies account required by the
establishment of the new communications equipment and the revisions of manuals.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20167) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~4T, "Fire Depart-
ment," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book g36, page 314.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk nad adopted by the following vote:
i
AYES: Nessrs. Garland. Llsk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Rheeler and Mayor
Rabbet ......................... ?.
NAYS: Nose ........... O.
RARKET-TRAFFIC-PLANN1NG: Council having met in an Informal meeting with
representatives of Oowntown Roanoke. Incorporated, and other Interested persons
to review the "Parking Study and Economic Feasibility Report for the City of
Roanoke," the City Homager submitted the following report transmitting proposals
with respect to this study and the program outlined therein:
"Roanoke. Virginia
March 20, 1972
Honorable Hayer and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Parking Report
On Rarch 16. 1972. in an informal session to discuss and
reviem the "Parking Study and Economic Feasibility Report for
the City of Roanoke. Virginia" as prepared by National Garages.
Incorporated. Detroit. Michigan, which report is dated February
22, 1972. and was prepared on contract with the City of Roanoke.
In attendance at this meeting of the members of the City Coun-
cil were representatives of Downtown Roanoke, Incorporated. of
various business and property interests in the City and of the
news media.
The members of the City Council present concluded to sub-
mit to this regular meeting of the City Council on March 20,
1972, the followin9 proposals with respect to this study and
the program outlined therein.
1. That the City Council authorize the undertaking and fund-
ing of Phase II of the study as originally proposed in
their offer of services to the City by National Garages,
Incorporated. This phase would be on a contract basis for
$4,300 and would be a second step in the development of a
parking facility analysis.
2. That the City Attorney evaluate and report to the City
Council at a later date as to the feasible approaches
which might be made as to the feasible legal approaches
that might be made or might be available as alternatives
to the City Council for lhe further procedure with a deter-
mination of a parking lot facility and its accomplishment.
3. That the City Assessor be requested to make an in depth
study and submit appraisal of the properties which would
be affected by the area recommended by the consultants as
a location for a parking facility.
4. That the City Manager determine and ~ecure necessary informa-
tion for submission to the City Council as to the procure-
ment of independent appraisals for the same purpose as in
item 3 above.
This letter is forwarded to the City Council on behalf of the
decision of the informal meeting in order that it may serve as a
means of bringing the matter before City Council. It is under-
stood that the City Attorney is preparing a resolution which
would encompass the above items and such other matters as might
be appropriate in the decision of the Attorney at this point.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Ranager"
'216
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating $10.300.00 to Central
Business Olstrfct under Section nBg. 'Transfers to Capital Improvements Fund.' of
the 1971-72 budget, to provide certain needed funds in connection with the possibl*
establishment of a public parking facility in the central business district:
(a20168) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain SectJ'on a89. 'Transfers to
Capital Improvements Fund,' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book =36, page 314.)
Mr. Wheeler doved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded'i
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following rote:
AYCS: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
#ebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
Mr. Thomas offered the following emergency Ordinance approving and
authorizing the employment of National Garages. Incorporated, of Detroit, Michigan.:
to make the second phase Of a feasibility study associated with a public parking
facility in Roanoke, upon certain terms and conditions, and authorizing the City
Manager to employ the services of one or more qualified real estate appraisers to
appraise the value of property necessary to be purchased for said parking facility:
(u20169) AN ORDINANCE approvin9 and authorizing the employment of
National Garages, Inc., of Detroit, Michigan. to make the second phase of a feasi-
bility study associated with a public parking facility in Roanoke, upon certain
term and conditions; authorizing the City Manager to employ the services of one or
more qualified real estate appraisers to appraise the value of property necessary
to be purchased for said parking facility; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book ~36, page 315.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
i#ebber .......................... 7.
i NAYS: None---? .......O.
i Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution indicating the intent of the
i Councll of the City of Roanoke to pursue further steps in the provision of a public
'parking garage, and providing for investigation and report to Council by the City
Manager on the legal implications thereof and also providing for an appraisal of
the value of necessary properties by proper ~ity officials:
(a20170) A RESOLUTION indicating the intent of the Council to pursue
*further steps in provision of a public parking garage; providing for investigation
and report to the Council by the City Attorney on the legal implications thereof;
*and providing for an appraisal of the value of necessary properties by proper City
Iiofficials.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance 8ook =36. page 316.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by. #r. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Yessrs. Garland. Link. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Mheeler and Rayor
Mehber .......................... 7.
NAYS: No.ne~ .......... O.
Mr. Link then moved that the City Manager be directed to explore the
feasibility of going to Kirk Avenue, S. M., in connection with the proposed public
parking facility. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a written report advis-
ing that the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission met on Tuesday. March 14,
1972, that said meeting was attended by Mr. James K. Campbell. the nam Director of
the Roanoke Civic Center and that he is sure that ut such time as there may be
llmatters pertaining to the Civic Center that mould be of direct and beneficial
interest to Council they will be brought to Council by the Commission or the Counci~
Imembers of the Commission.
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The notion was
seconded by Ur. Link and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a written report trans-
mitting copy of the following memorandum from Mr. Million F. Clark, Director of
Public Morks. in connection with the street resurfacing program, advising that
Rr. Clark's memo is self explanatory and that he concurs in his recommendation:
DAYE: Rarch O. 1972
TO: Mr. Hirst
FROM: Mr. Clark
SUBJECT: Street Resurfacing (Blacktop) Program
Since 1965 the City of Roanoke'$ fiscal year has been Jul~ l,
to Jun~ 30. Prior to that time the City's fiscal year cor-
responded with the calendar year. Recause the calendar year
more nearly coincides with the construction seasons, in
many respects it was more convenient for fJnanclng and admin-
interim9 public works programs. Each year since the change
in fiscal year there has been some difficulty and confusion
mith the City*s street resurfacing program, due to its having
to be extended, and in effect refinanced, out of two budgets.
The present budget included the sum of only $100,000 for the
annual resurfacing program. Previously this bad usually been
at the level of $250.000 per year. The program in progress
last summer resulted in an expenditure of approximately
$135.000 of the available funds, thus me only have approxi-
mately $45.000 with which to start a program this spring. Me
are faced with tow alternatives in this situation. Me can
prepare a program and advertise on the assumption that the
normal level of activity ($250,000) mill be accomplished this
summer. Such an alternate, however, can only guarantee bidders
the $45,000 persently available and would expect them to
gamble that the City would indeed extend their contract after
July 1. Me are quite certain that this mould result in inflated
unit prices and would be asking the bidders to assun~ a lot.
Our preference at this point and time is to-recommend a reduced
street resurfaclng program this spring limited to the $45,000
presently available. Me have experienced a relatively mild
winter and the City*s streets are in a reasonably good condi-
tion to allow deferral of extensive pavement work. Then. early
in 1973, we would be in a position to advertise a sizable resur-
facing program that should result in the best possible unit
prices and still could be accomplished within the 72-73 fiscal
year. This would also afford the opportunity of breaking the
cycle now existing mith regard to the program being split by
the change in fiscal year.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanJuously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY-ZONIRG-IRDUSTR1ES-SYATE HIGHWAYS: The Assistant City
Attorney submitted a written report advising that the city is already the record
omner of certain parcels of land that will be utilized in the construction of the
Industrial Access Road for the Macke Company. that actual consideration has been
paid by the city for all parcels that have been acquired to this date, that the
city is now in receipt of purchase options executed by owners of various additional
Iparcels of land necessary to be acquired so that the project may be commenced, that
ithese parcels will be donated to the city by the ouners, that should the city
i'accept these options and acquire the property, all land necessary for the Project
will have been acquired and transmitting an Ordinance by which Council would
;exercise the ~urchase options and provide for recordation of deeds of conveyance
the city upon receipt of such deeds.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the Assistant City
Attorney and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(#20171) AN ORDINANCE exercising the right to purchase certain parcels
of land situate in the City of Roanoke, and needed for the construction of the City*s
[Industrial Access Road Project g999-12D-IOa, C-501, C-502. upon certain terms and
:conditions; providing for the notice of the City*s exercise of written purchase
· options for said land; providing for the recordation of deeds of conveyance to the
City; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book #36, page 317.)
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
!,Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ...........O.
ZONING-SPECIAL PERMITS: Council having referred to the City Attorney
for report as to the legal aspects in connection with the request of Mr. J. L.
Boysaw that Council grant him permission to come within 10 inches of the side pro-
perty line in connection with a garage which has been constructed and is attached
~to his property located at 2755 Kirhland Drive, N. W., the Assistant City Attorney
submitted the following report advising that Section 53 of the lgb5 Comprehensive
Zoning Ordinance provides that any person aggrieved by any decision of the Board
of Zoning Appeals may present to a court of record of the City of Roanoke a veri-
fied petition setting forth wherein the decision of such Board is illegal and
specifying the grounds of such illegality, ~hat examination of the records of the
Board of Zoning Appeals, including minutes of its meetings of January 4 and
February 6, indicate that it acted properly and within the scope of its authority
land that any issue which Mr. Boysaw may take to the action of said Board should be
lin accordance with Section 63 of the Zoning Ordinance and not to City Cournil:
'219
220
'March 20, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At your meeting of March 6, 1972, Council referred to this
office the situation of Mr. Joseph L. Boysau of 538 Chesnut
Avenueo B&
Examination of the records in the Office of the Building
Commissioner as well as those of the Hoard of Zoning Appeals
reveals that on or about September 9, 1970, Mr. Boysaw made
application to the Building Commissioner for a building permit
for premises situate at 2755 Eirklond D~ive, N. N.. a corner
lot, for the purpose of constructing thereon a residence having
proposed dimensions of S2 feet in length and 27 feet in width.
A plat of survey made under date of June 30, 1970, by C. B.
#alcolm ~ Son, State Certified Engineers. showed the proposed
structure would be located 21 feet from the Aspen Street right-
of-way and 36 feet from Kirkland Drive, This plat of survey
makes no reference to an accessory garage structure. At the
time of making application for his building permit, Mr. Boysaw
also filed with the Building Commissioner certain foundation
and floor plans which show a proposed two-car garage structure
having a widthof from 12 to 20 feet. Each of these plans has
appended thereto a statement saying "garage will not be built'.
I am informed that the matter of a garage was discussed with
Mr. Boysaw and that he nas told by Hr. ~. G. Light that the
garage structure, as shown on the floor and foundation plans,
would violate the 15-foot set back line required by the 1977
Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance.
On the basis of the representations made by Mr. Boysaw and after
investigating and determining that the plans, as qualified by
the statement that the garage mould not be built, and that all
applicable Code requirements, including zoning, had been met,
the Building Commissioner issued the requisite building permit.
Mr. Boysam them proceeded to commence construction of the
building and, apparently because he "decided the house would
have a better appearance if the garage is on itwo as he stated
before the Board of Zoning Appeals and with full knowIedge that
such construction would violate the set back requirements afore-
said, also began construction of the garage.
7hereafter an inspector of the Building Department discovered
the illegal construction and a stop-work order was issued.
Mr. Boysaw then, in an application to the Board of Zoning
Appeals, requested a variance from the building line require-
ments of the Zoning Ordinance so as to permit the' garage to
be situate 5 feet from the Aspen Street property line. On
January 21o 1972, and after discovering that the garage struc-
ture come within some lB inches of the Aspen Street right-of-
may, Mr. Hoysaw again made application to the Hoard of Zoning
Appeals for a further variance of the set back line requirements
so as to permit construction of his garage within one foot of
the Aspen Street right-of-way. On February 8, 1972, and after
Public Bearing and due consideration, the Board of Zoning Appeals
found that its initial variance to permit construction within
5 feet of the property line was reasonable but that to grant
a further variance and permit the structure to be situate lB
inches from said property line appeared unreasonable and the
Board, therefore, declined to issue the second variance. On
March 1. 1972, Mr. Boysaw appealed to City Council.
Sec. 63 of the 196b Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance provides
that any person aggrieved bI any decision by the Board of
Zoning Appeals may present to a court of record of the City
of Roanoke a verified petition setting forth wherein the
decision of such Board is illegal and specifying the grounds
of such illegality. Examination of the records of the Board
of Zoning Appeals including minutes of its meetings of January
4th and February flth. indicate that it acted properly and within
the scope of its authority and that any issue mhicb Mr. Boysaw
may take to the action of said Board should be in accordance
with Sec. 63 of the Zonln9 Ordinance and not to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ H. Ben Jones, Jr.
H. Ben Jones, Jr.
Assistant City Attorney"
#v, Rheeler moved that the report be received and filed, The motion
was seconded by Hr, Trout and unanimously adopted,
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC RELFARE: The City Auditor submitted a writ-
ten report transmitting the #on~ly Statement of Expenditures for Public Welfare,
advising that included in Februaryts report of expe. nditures is an overdraft in the
category, ~Ceneral Relief** of $1,O33,60 and forwarding an Ordinance to correct the~
amount of this overdraft,
#v, Thomas moved that the report of the City Auditor be received and
:filed, The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
Mr. Trout then offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
$1,O33.60 to General Relief under Section #37, 'Public Assistance,' of the 1971-72
ibudget, to correct said overdraft:
(u20172) AN ORDINANCE to amend and veordain Section n37, *Public Assis-
tance,* of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(Fob full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook #35, page 319.)
· Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
!by Mr. Garland and ndopted'bythe following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
iWebber .?.
NAYS: None O,
BUDGET-PENSIONS: The City Auditor submitted a written report transmitting
,an Ordinance, for the consideration of Council, which will correct certain defi-
~ciencies under Section ~13, *Retirements** of the 1971-72 budget.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Auditor and
;3ffered the following emergency Ordinance transferring $3,600.O0 from Social Secur-
ity to State Supplemental Retirement System. and $15,000.OO from Social Security to
Group Insurance under Section ~13, *Retirements,* of the 1971-72 budget, to provide
!funds-to correct said feficiencies:
(~20173) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~13. 'RetJrements,'
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordioance, see Ordinance Uooh ~36, page 319.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Garland and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None O.
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the City of
Roanoke for the month of February. 1972.
Mr. Ltsk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
Seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
221
222
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Plu.nniug Con-
mission for study, report recommendation the request of Messrs, .Byron E, Honer,
Renueth D, Cummins and James e, Brite, in their indlvidonlcapacltles os residents
and on behalf of the other residents in the Jnfferson Hills - Jefferson Park -
Jefferson Forest section of the City of Roanoke comprising over 100 families, that
linding May Road ut or near its intersection with Park Lane be closed so as to
prevent through traffic over Minding May Road betueen Colonial Avenue and Ogden
!
Road, the City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that the~
request be granted to erect a breakauay barricade on Winding May Road near the
uestern end of Park Lane,
Mr. Trout moved that public hearing be held on the request to close
Minding May Road at or near its intersection with Park Lane at 2 p.m.. Monday,
April 17, 1972. 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 T. Meldon Hale, trading as Hale
Real Estate Agency, and Rebecca Y. Hale that 16 acres of land, more or less, near
the intersection of Cove Road and Hersbberger Road. N. M.. described as the north-
easterly portion of Official Tax No. 2470147, all of Official Tax Nos. 2dHOllY.
2480141. 2480146, and the southerly portion of 24H0111. he vezoned from
Single-Family Residential 8istrict, to RG-I. General Residential District, the
City Planning Commission submitted a mritten report recommending that the request
be granted,
Mr. Lisk moved that a public hearing be held on the request for rezonin9
at 2 @.mo. Monday, April 17. 1972. Yhe motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Graham and Associates that pro-
party located on the southerly side of Colonial Avenue, S. M., described as 1.65
acres of land, Official Tax No. 1280301, bounded on the west by 18.23 acres,
described as Official Tax No. 1380201, and on the east by 1.316 acres, described
as Official Tax No. 1280322, be rezoned from aG-2, General Residential District,
to C-I, Office and Institutional District, and the City Planning Commission haviw
previously recommended to Council that the request be granted and Council having
set a public hearing for Monday. April 3, 1972, the City Planning Commission sub-
mitted the following report requesting that Council table this item until such
time as the Planning Department has reported back to the City Planning Commission
on the matter of exteesiou provisions relating to commercial mhd industrial zones:
'March 16. 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council '
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
This petition was recommended for approval by the City Plan-
ning Commission on March 2, 1972, (see enclosure) and is non
scheduled for public besting by the City Council on
Apr~il 3.
The Planning Director requested that this matter be recon-
sidered again in light of the fact 'that the petitioner does
not meet the two-acre minimum requirement as specified in
the Zoning Ordinance to rezone n C-I clusslficatlon (Article
XlI, Sec,' 67).'
Some of the Planning Commission members noted that this
parcel abuts an industrial district and the two-acre minimum
does not therefore apply since this constitutes an extension
of an Industrial district. The Planning Director noted that
if this parcel mere to be rezoned to an industrial classifi-
cation Jhe two-acre minimum uould apply since it represented
an extension of an existing industrial district. Rowever.
the parcel in question abuts a commercial district, and the
two-acre minimum does apply here.
The Planning Commission members generally felt that this
matter required further study by the Planning Department to
determine the feasibility of this sec'tion of the Zoning
Ordinance pertaining to extension provisions which enable
rezoning to a commercial or industrial classification from
a residential classification mithout having to meet the two-
acre minimum requirement. The Planning Director was requested
to specifically determine the feasibility of the extension
provision wbich does not permit a commercial rezoning from
an existing apartment zoning classification to be exempt
from the two acre minimum requirement nhen it abuts an
industrial zone.
Accordingly, motion mas made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to request City Council to table this item until such
time us the Planning Department has reported back to the Plan-
nih9 Commission on the matter of extension provision relatin~
to commercial and industrial zones.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report ~ the City Planning
Commission and that the Planning Commission be requested to report back to Council
!witb their recommendations at the public hearing to be held on Monday,'April 3. 1972.
'!The ~otion mas seconded by Mr. L~sk and unanimously adopted.
TRAFFIC-STATE HIGHWAYS: Council haydn9 referred to the City Planning
!Commission to reenact, subsequent to public notice, the actions already taken in
connection with the request of Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt, Attorney, representing
Mrs. L. D.' Drugh, for o certain reiision and amendment Of a portion of the Major
Arterial Highway Plan for the City of Roanoke, dated December, lgb3, the City
Planning Commission submitted a mritten report advising that since the petitioner
has not provided for this printed notice of public hearingin a loSal newspaper
having general ~irculatJon in the City of Roanohe. that this request to amend the
1980 Major Arterial Highway Plan be approved.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the question of amending the
Major Arterial Highway Plan of the City of Roanoke for 2 p.m.0 Monday, April
1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
l There being some question as to whether or not the public hearing before
tbe City Planning Commission advertised, Mr. Trout moved that the
properly
City
Attorney be requested to ascertain whether or not said public hearing was legally
224
advertised and report hack to Council. The motion was' seconded b? Mr, Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation a communication tram Mrs. S. A. Barbour, advising
that he is part owner of Lots 2 and 3, Block 23, Nasena Hap, that each lot is
fifty feet by one hundred and ten feet, running tram Valley Avenue on the south to
Hombert Avenue on the north, that there is a garage apartment on the right attached
to the house racing Hosbert Avenue and expressing the opinion that he. can see no
reason why a house could not be built on each Iot racing either Valley Avenue or
Howbert Avenue, S. M.. the City Planning Commission submitted a written report
recommending that the request of Mr. Barbour to construct two duplexes on two
sub-standard lots be denied.
Mr. Thomas moved that action on the report of the City Planning Commis-
sion be deferred until the regular meeting of Council on Monday, April 10, 1972.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
BUDGET-4iARBAGE REMOVAL: The Landfill Committee submitted a written
report recommending that Mayor Webber be requested to appoint the entire City
Roanoke Landfill Committee to mark with the Valley-Wide committee in au attempt to
find a solution to the very pressing problem of locating a landfill area that will
meet the needs of the entire Roanoke Valley and that $700,00 be appropriated to
Travel Expense under Section #1, "Council." of the 19?I-TZ budget, in the event
that it becomes necessary to travel to other cities to view existing landfills and
their equipment.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the Landfill Commit-
tee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Mayor #ebber appointed Messrs. James O. Trout, David K. Lisk and Julian
F. Hirst as members of a committee to work with the valley-wide committee in an
attempt to find a solution to the pressing problem of locating a landfill area thati
will meet the needs of the entire Roanoke Valley.
Mr. Trout then offered the folloming emergency Ordinance appropriating
STO0.O0 to Travel Expense under Section al, "Council," of the 1971-72 budget:
(~20174) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~1, "Council.~ of
ilthe 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u36, page 320.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Nra Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None O.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
STMEETS AND ALLEYS: Council ut its lost mew,log go Noodsy. March 13.
1972. buying deferred action on two r.eports of the City Nuasger In connection with
the widening of 3Sth Street. NOM.. pertaining to offers msde to Mr. C. L. Poll.
Jr.. an.d Mr. sad Mrs. Frndu L. Tlllwsa.. pending receipt of an Ordiusnc.e appropri-
ating funds In connection with the project, .the. ma. tter was again before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that the reports of the City Manager be received and
filed. The motion was seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mr, Thomas then offered the following emergency Ordinance approving u
project for widening end improv, ing a portion of 35th Street. N. M.. a public
street of the city. extending southerly from Melrose Avenue. N. W.. providing for
th.e city*s acquisition of certain properties wanted and needed for the purpose of
such improvement, upon certain terms and conditions, .and authorizing and directing
exercise of the city's right of eminent domain to acquire such of said properties
as the city may be unable to purchase:
(#20175) AN ORDINANCE approving a project for widening and improving a
portion of 35th Street, N. W., a public street of the City, extending southerly
from Melrose Avenue, S. M.; providing for the City's acquisition of certain pro-
perties wanted and needed for the purpose of such improvement, upon certain terms
!and conditions; authorizing and directing exercise of the City's right of eminent
i'domain to acquire such of said properties as the City. nay be unable to purchase;
and providiog for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book z35, page 321.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
i by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
ii AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor~ Thomas, Trout, #heeler and Mayor
!i~ebber '7.
i NAYS: None* O.
Mr. Lisk offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating $4,640.00
fro Land - Right of Nay under Section #87, *Street Construction.' of the 1971-72
llbudget, to provide funds in connection with acquiring properties needed for the
~widening and improving of a portion of 35th Street, N.
(n20176) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordoin Section #87° *Street Con-
istruction,* of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u36, page 323.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote;
AYES: Messrs. Garland, ~ish, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and.Mayor
NAYS: None O.
ANIMALS-DOGS-COMPLAINTS-TAXES: Council, at its last meeting on Monday,
March 13, 1972, having deferred action on a report of a committee appointed for
-
purpose of studying the feasibility of merging the animal control programs of the
:226
operat~Gns
City or Roanoke with the of the Society rot the Prevention or cruelty
Animals, the matter was again before the body, ' ' ·
-Mr. Thomas moved that the report of the committee be referred to 1972~73
budget study. The motion was seconded by Hr. Trout ned unanimously adopted,
In this connection. Hr. R, P, Barnes appeared before Council and advised
that he ia under the impression that a controlled drug knomn as nembuthal sodium
Is being ~sed at the City Dog Pound by the Bog Warden to destroy unclaimed dogs
and questioned the legality of the use of this drug and whether or not-the Dog
#arden is the proper person to administer said drug,
R~. Garland moved that the City Attorney be directed to investigate the
use of aembuthal sodium at the City Dog Pound and report his f~ndings to Council.
The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
LICENSES: .Council having referred to a committee composed of Messrs, A. N.
Gibson, Chairman, James N, Kincnnon, J. S.·Howard, Jr., and J. H. Johnson for
study, report and recommendation a communication from the City Treasurer request-
ing that Council give She City Treasurer the authority to' assess and issue, in
addition to his present authority to collect, for the sale of all lg?2 Roanoke
automobile license tags or decals, as well as all other types of city vehicle
licenses, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, Mr. A. N. Gibson, Chairman of the committee verbally
advised that the committee has not had an opportunity to meet on the matter and
requested that action on the matter be deferred for approximately one week.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of Mr. Gibson that action
on the matter be deferred until the regular meeting of Council on Monday, April
1972. The motion was'seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously'adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
I ' ZONING: Ordinance No. 20148, rezoning property located on the corner of Beech
iStreet and Barberry Avenue, N. W., described as Lots 5 -- 9, inclusive. Section 3,
!Map of Westmood Annex, Official Tax Nos. 2630512 - 2630615, inclusive, from RS-3,
Single-Family Residential District, to Re-I, C~neral Residential District, having
Ipreviously been before Couocil for its first reading, read and laid over, was again
before the body, Hr. Garland offering the following for its second reading and
final adoption:
({20148) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4,1, Sectioh 2, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 263, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book {36, page 310.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs, Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout. #heeler and Mayor
~ebber ~7.
HAYS: None --0.
EASEMENTSoAPPALACHIAN PORER COMPANY-WATER DEPARTMENT: Council baying
directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure providing for conveyance
to th~ Appalachian Power Company.an easement for construction of an electric trans-
mission line over a right of way through a portion of the Carvius Cove Reservoir,
u~on certain terms and conditions, he presented same; whereupon~ Mr. Lisk moved
that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(a20177) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for grant by the City o!
Roanoke of an easement to Appalachian Power Company providing the right to construc
erect, operate and maintain an electric transmission pomer line upon, over and
across lands of said City situate partly in Roanoke County and i~ Botetourt County,
Virginia. upon certain ter~s, conditions and provisions.
MDEREAS, Appalachian Power Company, a public service company, desires to
obtain from the City of Roanoke a perpetual easement, with the right to construct,
erect, operate amd maintain a portion of its Funk-Cloverdale electric transmission
line over a distance of approximately 7503 feet within a 200-foot wide right-of-
way over the City's Carvins Cove Reservoir property, and a committee of the Counci
studying th~ proposal and conferring with representatives of said utility has made
written report to the Council dated September 20, 1971, recommending cert'uin terms
upon which such right should be granted said utility and recommending that restric-
tive terms and conditions be specified for the better protection of the City*s
watershed area and for minimization of the effect of the construction of electric
transmission lines therethrov~h, certain of said restrictive covenuntsand conditiohs
to become~ by agreement, applicable to a certain other area of said property on
which said utility already operates and maintain~ another electric transmission
line; and
MHEREAS, being advised that said utility is generally agreeable to the
recommendation of said committee, this Council is of opinion to concur in said
committee's report and recommendations hereinabove referred to.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
said City of Roanoke do grant and convey to Appalachian Power Company, u public
service company, a perpetual easement in certain of the City's Carvins Cove
Reservoir property located partly in Roanoke County and in Botetourt County,
Virginia, with the right to construct, erect, operate and maintain within a right-
of-way 200 feet in width and approximately 7503 feet in length, an area of approxi]
mutely 34.45 acres, a line or lines for the transmission of electric power, with [
the right to construct, erect, operate and maintain within said right-of-way not [
I
more than six (6) towers with crossarms and fixtures, and the right to inspect, [
protect, repair, renew and add to the number of and relocate wires and cables upon[
Said towers and across through over said right of way and the right of reasonable
ingress and egress in. and over,existing roads and ~sys on said land for enjoyment
of the rights above set forth, the aforesaid right-al-way to be as the some is
oh*mn on plat of Appalachian Power Company entitled 'Funk-Clorerdale Line thru
property of City of Roanoke~, da~ed October 12, 1970, n copy of which la on file
the office of the City Clerk, the aforesaid grant and conveyance to be made by the
City of Roanoke upon the following express terms, conditions and pr*vis.ions. Inter
(a) That Appalachian Poser Company pat to the City the sum of
which shall include the value of the right-of-way ~ver said 34.45-acre parcel of
land. the value of the dauage to the watershed area of said right-of-way and the
value of the timber required to be cut from said right--of-may;
(b). That Appalachian Power Company .contemporaneously grant and convey
to the City of Roanoke, for a cash consideration of $g,400.25, cash, to be paid
by said City to said Company, the fee simple unencumbered title to that certain
?2o61-acre parcel of land nom ouned b~ Franklin Real Estate Company on the north
jside of Creen Ridge in Roano~ County, Virginia, adjoining the City*s Carvins Cove
property, as said ?2.61-acre parcel of land is shoxn on plat of Appnlachlan Pomer
Company dated January 15, lg?O, entitled "Plat of Survey showing property of
Annie R. Cravutt. et al, to be.conveyed to Franklin Rem1 Estate Company", a copy
of which plat is on file in the office of the City Clerk; provided, however, that
Appalachian Power Company m~y reserve in said ?2.61-acre parcel of land a perpetual
easement providing the right to construct, erect, operate and maintain on said
land that portion of said Company*s Funk-Cloverdale electric transmission line as
the same is shown on the plat dated October 12, 1970, entitled Fun~-Cloverdale
Line. above, upon the same general conditions and ~ro~isions as are applicable to
the easement herein authorized to be 9ranted said company in the Cityts Carvins
Cover watershed property;
(c) That the City of Roanoke*s deed of easement to Appalachian Power
Company contain provisions to the following effect, to be covenanted and agreed
to by said Company, namely:
(1) .That said Company agree to indemnify and save said City harm-
less against any and all loss or damage from accident or injuries to person or
property, mh~ther the City's or of any other person or corporation, and including
said City*s mater resources and supplies, arising in any manner frgm said Company*s
negligent construction, operation or maintenance, or failure to properly construct,
operate or maintain said Company*s to,ers, c~ossarms, fixtures, wires or ~ables,
or in exercising an~ of its rights and privileges granted said Company by the City,
or in f~llin9 to comply with or carry out any of its covenants or agreements unde~
taken or entered into by said Company in said deed o~ easement;
(2) That said,Company will restrict and minimize its clearing
and cutting of trees mithin the ab*red*scribed right-of-may to areas within the
immediate vicinity of its towers on said right-of-way and to such other critical
ureas on said right-of-way mb*re cutting or clearing is reasonably necessary or
essential for purposes of safety or of proper construction o! said transmission
lines;
(3)' That said Company will promptly reseed such areas of said right-
(4} That said Company shall not be permitted to user in clearing
teeping clear any portions of said right-of-may, nor shall it use chemicals or
lng or cutting shall be performed in a manner approred by the City Homager in mrit-I
lng:
(5) That said Company mill pay oil taxes which may be lamfully
(6} That said Company will exercise nil reason'able care so as not
~ (?) That, should said Conpanyts towers, lines and cables on said
· terms and provisions mhich are hereinabove set out in paragraphs (2),
(3), (4) and (6)· svpra, as applicable to said 34.45-acre parcel and said ?2.~l-
parcel of land be made covenants and agreements binding upon Appalachian
operation of another electri~ transmission line approximately 1~,~28 feet in length
229
23O ~
Appalachian Pouer Company relating to the 34.45-acre right-of-may abovementioned,
the #ayor and the City Clerh he, and they are hereby authorized to execute end to
seal and attest, respectively, the City*s aforesaid deed of easement, the sane to
be delivered to said Coupany, together with the City*s check to said Company in
the sun of $8,4G0.25, upon payment to the City of the $19.321.36 consideration to
be therein provided, upon delivery to the City of deed conveying title to the
72.61-acre parcel Of land ab*red*scribed, and upon delivery to the Clty~ the writ-
ten covenants and agreement to be undertaken by said Company with respect to the
16,620-foot long right-of=way provided for in the indenture dated November 22.
1961o aforesaid.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:~
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber '?.
NAYS: None, -- O.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Council having directed the City Attorney to pre-
pare the proper measure relating to accounting procedures and the handling of funds!i
appropriated to and derived from operations of the Roanoke Civic Center, he presented
sane; whereupon, Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution:
(#20178) A RESOLUTION further relating to accounting procedures to be
employed in the financial operation and control of the Roanoke Civic Center.
{For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Rook ~36, page 324.}
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The notion Mas secondedi
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
· ebber .... 7.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Mr. Lisk offered the following Resolution acknowledging!i
~to the Norfolk and Western Railway Company and to Virginia Holding Corporation. and
it* their several officials who have acted on their behalf, the appreciation of the
City of Roanoke for their actions in having made available for the city's use cer-
itain of their open and undeveloped areas of land in the city upon which the city hal
!been permitted to conduct necessary sanitary landfill operations for the benefit of
the residents of the community:
(u20179) A RESOLUTION relating to the NORFOLK AND WESTERN RAILWAY COM-
!PANY and the VIRGINIA HOLDING CORPORATION.
(For full text of Resolution. see as recorded in Ordinance Book
page 325.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion nas seconded
iby Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:.
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Yhomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
NAYS: None O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
SERERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: Mr, Trout presented u petition signed by 48
property owners of #elcher Street end New Spring Branch Road, S. E., located In
the Garden City area of the City of Roanoke, petitioning Council to take appropri-
ate action to correct a aerioua muter drainage problem in the area.
Mr. Trout moved that the. petition be referred to the City Manager for
study~ report and recommendation to Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr.
Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ACTS OF ACKNORLEDGEMENT: On behalf of the Members of the Council of the
City of Roanoke..Rayor Mebber presented a suitable plaque to Dr. Thomas Martin, Jr.,
iDlrector of Athlectics,. Roanoke College, expressing, the appreciation of Council for
the Outstanding achievement and sportsmanship of the Maroons in their successful
pursuit of the National Collegiate Athletic Association College Division National
Basketball Championship.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mr. Garland moved that Council meet in Execu-
tive Session to discuss a possible amendment to the proposed sewage treatment con-
tract with Roanoke County. The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously -
adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
iATTEST:
!Deputy City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Nondiy, March 27, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roan*he met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the M~niclpel Building, Monday, March 27, 1972, at 2 p.m., the regular
!meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Jabber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David M. Lish, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayo~ Roy L~ Mebber~T.
ABSENT: Hone O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. James N.
Kiacanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend
Mlllinm E. Harper, Jr** Pastor, Trinity Lutheran Church.
MINUTES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
February 14, 1972, and the regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 22. 1972,
having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Trout, seconded by
Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with and the
minutes approved as recorded.
Mayor Mebber welcomed a group of fith and sixth grade students from
Belmont Elementary School to the meeting.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
RADIO-TELEVISION-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Mr. Richard F. Pence, Attorney,
representing Roy H. Park Broadcasting of Roanoke, Incorporated, appeared before
Council and requested that the City of Roanoke enter into n lease agreement which
will permit MSLS-TV to use the tower and building on Mill Mountain for its trans-
lator antenna (Channel 2).
After a discussion of the request, Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be
referred to the City Manager for study, report and vecommendntiou by the regular
meeting of Council on Monday, April 3, 1972, and that the City Manager also be
requested to report on a communication from Mr. Jim Gibbons in connection with the
request of MPVR to install an FM translator on the city-owned tower on Mill Moun-
tain for the purpose of transmitting a clearer, better sound to several parts of the
Roanoke Valley such as Hidden Valley, Garden City. Sugar Loaf, South Roanoke and
South Salem by the regular meeting of Council on Monday, April 3, lg?2. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-ELECTIONS-REGISTRAR: A communication from Mr. Andrew H. Thompson,
Chairman, of the Electoral Board, requesting that $3,250.00 be transferred from
Fees for Professional and Special Services to Personal Services and that $950.00
,be transferred from Fees for Professional and Special Services to Printing and Offic~
Supplies under Section #HS, *Electoral Hoard,* of the 1971-72 budget, to provide
undsfor extra help and to cover the cost of mailing H,O00 letters to update their
records as. required by the SAute Board of Elections, mas before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that Conncil concur Jn the request of the Chairman of
the Electoral Board undorfered the folloulng emergency Ordinance:
(a20162) AN ORO1NASC£ to amend end reorduin Section a85, 'Electoral
Board,' at the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u36, page 337.)
Mr, Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Nr. Mheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AXES: Hessrs. Garland, List, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Mebber ?.
NAYS: None
BUDGET-CONRONNEALTH*S ATTORNey: Copy of a communication from the State
Compensatio'n Board, addressed to Mr. Richard L. Lawrence, Commonuealthts Attorney,
advising that the Board is approving the promotion of #rs. Teresia G. Millis to
succeed Mrs. Norma L. Ruddic~, at an annual rate of $5,?00.00, and that they are
changing their records to show toe employment of Hrs. Vicki C. Sink, at an annual
;rate of $4,G00.O0. effective April 1, 1972, to fill the position vacated by Hrs.
~Millis, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be received and filed. The motiol
was seconded by Nr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
MARKET-PLANNING-TRAFFIC: A communication from Thompson and Payne, Archi-
tects and Engineers, requesting that Thompson and Payne be considered to work with
the City of Roanoke and its consultants on the proposed ChurCh Avenue Parting
Garage, was before Council.
Hr. Lisk moved that the communication be referred to the Citl Raoager
for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Dr.
laylor and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
~'~REET LIGHTS: Council having requested that the City ~anager investigat~
a street, light which was installed at the wrong intersection at Grayson Avenue and
1?th Street. N. ¥., and correct said situation and that' the City Manager also check
into the possibility of the installation of a s~reet light in thelS00 block of
Denniston Avenue, S. W., the City Manager submitted a written report advising that
due to an offset in the alignment ~f l?th Street, there ore tmo points of lntersec-!
tiao of this street math Grayson Avenue, that he is in the process of chocking the
area for street lighting and necessary additional lights will be added to the next
requisition placed with the Appalachian Power Company and further advising, that
there are street lights at both ends of the 1500 block of Deonist~n Avenue, that th~
normal criteria for mid-block lighting is a lenotb of more than 600 feet, or unusual'
·
hills or curves, that none of these conditions exist at this location and in his
opinion, the block is adequately lighted.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas seconde~
by Mr. Rheeler and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAXGROUTiDS: Council, at its regular meeting on Monday, March 13,
234
1972, hoving requested that the City Homager submit · recommendation ·s to mbut the
City of Roanoke Is willing and resdy to do la cooperation with the Mill Mountain
Garden Club and the Mill Mountain Development Committee for estsblishlng a wild-
flower garden on Mill Mountain, the City Ma·agar submitted the following report
advising that the.decision of mba,her to go forward ore dependent upon mba,her or
not Council would lush with favor upon the project and that there is a question
uJth regard to funds:
"March 27, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Wild Flower Garden - Mill Mountain
The Hill Mountain Committee, through its Chairman, Mr. M.
Carl Andrews, and with th~ in,avast of the Roanoke Council of
Garden Clubs, has appeared before the City Council in the past in
particular reference to one aspect of the considered overall
development or'the top area of Hill Mountain. This specific
interest deals, with the proposal of a wild flower garden to be
situated generally between the Zoo on the south and the parhing
area on the north. This wild flower 9arden would encompass that
Appalachian Power Company and ~¥ Channel 2, a small building, et
cetera.
· At the request of the Mill Mountaln Committee sometime ago.
the Council appropriated 9500 for that committee to engage Hr. Joe
B. Beer, who is associated with Blue Ridge Parkway, for a study
and plans of such a wild. flower garden project.
Mr. Beer did so carry out his contract and has made, I
believe, presentations to the Mill Mountain Committee and to a
meeting of representatives of the City and of the Council of
Garden Clubi. This latter presentation occurring in November,
1971. We have a drawing of Mr. Beer's proposal for such a wild
flower 9arden.
From the standpoint of layout, adaptability to the area and
objective, it is felt that the proposed plan would be good.. The
technical aspects of types of plantings and the such, we admini-
stratively mould and should leave to persons such as Hr. Beer and
others who are much more authoritative. A copy of that plan is
available if the City Council has not seen. it or would wish to
study it.
Mr. Beer submitted an estimate for the project of 917,610.
In this estimate he noted that there were several items on-which
he did not have figures plus several other items which he felt
the City should review for mot proper notation of estimated cost.
This we have done. I attach a copy of the estimate prepared
indicating by notations thereof on the suggested adjustments to
these figures by the City. This brings the total cost to
In addition to the above, there would be the. consideration of
living accommodation for the caretaker. This plan would require
the removal of the present building. I feel that it is desirable
that there be a caretaker on or very close to the top of the Moun-
tain area or to put it another way, it is advantageous for some-
one to live in the upper Mill Mountain area who has smsa measure
of responsibility for supervision. Me would estimate that the
cost of a new dwelling would be not less than $12,000 and this
figure added to the previous one would bring the total estimate to
$38,052.
The proposed layout would out interfere with the present or
proposed sewer line to the Zoo as has been discussed from time to
time in the past. Neither would ft interfere with water supply
to the Zoo.
The tower, which is located within the wild flower garden
site, and is used by the power company and TV, would have to be
relocated. It. is our understanding that the Mill Mountain
235
Com~lt. tee boa disenaaed this mith ~be pn~er enmpan~ nnd tbnl the
company Is already taking into consideration the possibility of
having to remove this tamer should the project go t~rough. The
precise legal situation relating to the existence or this tamer on
the ma.ant.alu is uncertain at t~is paint and mould bear further
check although in recognition of the attitude of the pomer company,
It mould be anticipated that some If not many of the plant-
Ings mould be undertaken and perhaps financed by the garden clubs
or other interests. The extent or this is not definitely known
at this point and perhaps could not be rexolved until the .total
project Is determined.
It mould appear that the deni'sions of mhether to go foruard
are dependent upon tmo elements. The first element is mhether or
not the City Council mould look math favor upon the project, From
a standpoint of administrative reaction, I feel that this mould te
a good undertaking and such a project mould fit into t~e total
and hopefully ultimate program of Mill Mountain. It mould also
have much interest on the part of garden clubs and mould have a
measure of public appeal and to the extent that there can be
determined what is or what is not in conflict math the Zoo it
mould not appear to appear to conflict with the Zeals location.
The second element ts the question of funds. Me do not have
monies available and currently budgeted. To this point it mould
be submitted for City Councllts decision as to whether or not they
should be included in the total budget program of the City In
relationship to other requirements.
If me can furnish additional information, please advise.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mrs, Fred P, Uullington, representing the Mill Countain Garden Club,
!appeared before Council and urged that the project 9et underway as soon as is
ilfeasibly possible.
Mr. M. Carl Andrews. Chairman of the Mill Mountain Development Committee. i
lappeared Council and urged that Council appropriate the necessary funds to
before
i proceed math the mildflower garden on Rill Mountain in order for work to begin ns
tsoon after the first of the fiscal year os possible.
After a discussion of the report, Mr. Trout moved that the matter be
referred to the City Auditor and the City Attorney for preparation of the proper
measure appropriating the necessary funds.
and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYGRO~DS: The City
matting COpy of a memorandum from Mr. John
concerning the Mill Mountain Zoo, advising
report, but that he is of the opinion that
The motion mas secooded by Mr. Garland
Manager submitted a written report trams
A. Nemson, Superintendent of Recreation,
that no action is necessary au this
Council might be interested in the hem
requirement of a license for the Zoo, the comments on the inspection of the Zoo by
the U. S. Veterinary Medical Service and the progress of activities in improvements
~t the facility:
"DATE: March 16, 1972
TO: Julian F. Hirst, City Manager
FROM: John A. Newsono Superintendent of Recreation
SUBJECT: Mill Mountain Zoo
Attached are the four copies for the City of Roanoke*s applica-
tion for u license for the Mill Mountain Zoo. This lecense is
now required by the Federal Government, The cost is $25,00,
This fee is based on the number of animals that ire presently
ct the Zoo. ~
OnNarch 1St 1972, I net with Mr, Hans J, Seyffert, U. S.
'Veterinary Medical Officer, and sent orer the Zoo in detail,
He Was quite pleased with our present operation and the future
projects that ere being planned ct the Zoo.
The new p~uns at the Zoo are coming along nicely~ The new
fencing for the deer should be completed by the first of the
week. -The dividing of the museum has been completed and the
stuffed nninals removed. The nam steps to the area of the new
deer pen have been completed, Repairs ere now being done to
the buildings, Old paint ls being removed from the present
facilities, and painting alii begin shortly. Rhen all the work
ls completed, I will foruard you a complete list of all the
organizations and individuals that have helped mith these nee
projects.
If you could please sign the certification on the attached
sheets and formurd to ne, I will null them to the United
States Department of Agriculture.
S! Joh~ A. Newman
John A. Newman
Superintendent of Recreation"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by ~r, Thomas and unanimously adopted,
STATE DIGHNA¥S: The City Ranager submitted the folloning report iu con-
nection with the proposed section of the Southnest Expressuay which is designated
as Route 220 being the connection between Franklin Road and U. S. Route 220 south
of the City of Roanoke at the intersection of Starkey Road and Virginia Route 419,
recommending that the City Attorney prepare and the Council approve a Resolution
which could reflect the approval of the city to the demi9n of the project as
presented at the public hearing and as recorded in the official transcript of that
hearing and that the Resolution stipulate that in this approval, the City of
Roanoke reserves the opportunity and privilege of further determinations math the
Highnay Department on the matter of interchanges nith the roadway connections to
this highway as they would be situated or proposed within the city and that as
to the stipulation, it would be requested by the city that there be th~ opportunity
iai reviem and final determination of such interchanges and intersecting streets or
roads prior to the preparation of the final plans for the project at a later date:
"Rarch 27, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Geutlemen:
Subject: Route 220 - Southwest Expressnay
As has been presented and discussed before the City Council
on various past occasions, the Virginia Department of Highways
has prepared tentative plans for the proposed section of the South-
west Expressway, which is designated as Route 220v Projects 6220-
126-105. C-501 and 6220-080-104, C-501, being the connection
betmeen Franklin Road and U. S. 220 south of' the City at the
intersection of Starkey Road and Virginia Route 419.
The Department of Highways conducted a formally advertised
public hearing on this section of the project on May 13, 1969.
Representatives of the City Council and the City were present at
that hearing as were a number of other persons. This hearing
was conducted in the Virginia National Guard Armory in Roanoke.
The Highway Department has advised it is hecessary~ in=
order that they may proceed further with certain aspects of this
project, to obtain from the City Council of Roanoke n resolution
23~/
which'uould approve the design of this project as was presented
nt the public hearing on Hay 13, 1969, The Highway Department
has forwarded, nnd I have in my flies, for the record of the
City, a copy of the transcript of-the public hearing.
It is recommended that the City Attorney prepare and the
City Council approve a resolution which would reflect the appro-
val of the City to the "design of the project as presented at
the public hearing and us recorded in the official transcript
of that hearing.' It Is further recommended that the resolu-
tion stipulate that in'this approval, the City of Roanoke does
reserve the opportunity and privilege of further determinations
with the Highway Department on the matter of Interchanges with
and roadway connections to this highway as they would be situated
or proposed within the City; As to this stipulation it mould
be requested by the City that there be the opportunity of '
ravine and final determination of such interchanges and inter-
secting streets or roads prior'to the preparation of the final
plans for the project at n later date.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
In this connection, Mr. John M. Miller, Presidnet, Virginia Metal Manu-
facturing Company, appeared before Council and requested that action on the matter
be deferred one week pending rec~/~t of certain information he would lite to pre-
sent pertainin9 to the matter.
Mr. Trout moved that action on the report be deferred until the regular
meeting of Council on Monday, April 3, 1972. The motion mas seconded by Mr. List
and unanimously adopted.
SEHERS AND S'FORM DRAINS: Council having referred to the City Manager for
investigation and report a communication from Mrs. Eva Miller Willard in connection
with a storm drain which was installed in the 2DO0 block*of. Longviem Avenue. S.
advising that during heavy rainfall the water accumulation becomes so heavy the
drain is unable to take care of it properly causing water to overflom into her yard
and requesting that Council alleviate her of this nuisance without any expense to
her, the City Manager submitted the following report transmitting two alternatives
in connection with the matter:
'March 27, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Storm Drainage - 2800 Block of Longview Avenue, S. M.
The City Council on April 12, Ir?l, received a letter from
Mrs. Eva Miller Millard, 2825 LSngview Avenue, S. M.. in whic~
letter Mrs. Hillard advised that during heavy rainfall the storm
water accumulation becomes so heavy that the drain is unable to
take care of it. causing overflow into her yard and requested that
the City Council alleviate the situation mithout expense to her.
This matter has been looked into a number of times ss a result
of contacts to the City by Mrs. Millard and also from Hr. Pltzer
who lives at 2626 Stephenson Avenue, to the rear of Mrs. ¥illard*s
property and down grade in ihe natural drainage. The drain by
Mrs. Nillard*s property empties onto Mr. Pitmer*s lama. On the
occasion of hard or voluminous rains, the quantity of water has
exceeded the capacity of the existing storm drain presenting some
drainage problems which are not apparent or which do not occur
under normal conditions of average rainfall.
There is an existing drop inlet on the north edge of the curb
and gutter in front of 2D25 Longview Avenue which connects to a
lO-inch corrugated metal pipe which extends through the Lcngviem
property and discharges onto the Stephenson Avenue property.
The lard ·nd house on Lougviem ere below the ·trees grade. 2825
Longview'is in wh·t is termed · low susg in the ·trees and is
situated in the ntturel d~uinugb channel for the area. There is
no other reusonsble ual'to divert mater from thisperticular
location. '
A field reviem bi the Public Moths Oepartment indicates that
the desirable or, ultimate errungement mould be un lO-inch pipe to
replace the existlng lO-inch line and that any such lO-inch pipe
be extended through the Pitxer property and directly into an
exist'lng drop inlet on Stephenson Avenue,
Such would eliminate the overflow on Longview and the dis-
charge onto private property On Stephenson, An easement mould
be required through both'properties, In the last contact math
Mrs. Mallard, she had indicated to ~he Engineering survey per-
sonnel that she mould be hesitant to give or accept payment for
an easement through her property, As noted, natural terrain
prohibits any possibility, of placing this drain in any other
manner,
Observation last summer in several cloud bursts showed
that water filled the catch basin and either overflomed to some
extent or started to overflow, but as the rain slowed the mater
level dropped.
If an easement couId not be obtained, the second best alter-
native mould be to place the necessary pipe and drop inlet in the
lomer portion of the drainage basin across the Pitzer property
but this would resolve omiI that particular lot situation. As an
example of involvement in cost, City forces could be employed in
this particular murk and placement, However, the estimated cost
would be approximately $6,000, There are no funds available and
au appropriation would be required.
Me do note, as bas been noted in other instances, that there
are a number of somemhat similar situations about the City lively-
lng storm drainage, These could be handled by City forces but
would require the establishmeht of a priority program, the avail-
ability of adequate funds, including the engagement of one con-
struction crem who would permanently be in storm drainage pro-
grams.
Other than this, wc do not hnom of any immediate remedy and
this is submitted as a ~eport for any further advice that the
Council maI have. There is attached a copy of a she·ch shomiug
this location,
RespectfullI submitted,
S/ Julian ¥. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
In this connection, Mrs. Eva Miller mallard appeared before Council and
advised that she would be hesitant to give an easement through her property to
allow for an 10--inch pipe to be extended through the property of Mr, Blair Pitzer
and directly into an existing drop inlet on Stephenson Avenue,
After a discussion of the matter, Mr, Trout moved that the report be
referred bach.to the City Manager for further consideration. The motion was sec-
onoed by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted a written report recommend-
.ing that he be authorized to execute a letter agreement with Roanoke Distributing
Company, Incorporated, for the excavation of dirt from property at the northeast
Icorner of Patterson Avenue and 24th Street, S, l,, 'advising that the property emmet
lis interested in having the dirt removed and the city could mahe use 6f the material
;'for covering refuse at the recently opened Norwich Sanitary landfill,
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
!land that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper
ilmeasure, The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
RADIO-TELEVISION: The City Manager submitted a written report relating
to the matter Of cable television, advising that 'the Federal Commenications Commis-
sion has recently adopted uaw Cable Television regulations which go into effect on
March 31, 1972. that it would appear that the new regulations firm up or aid in
resolving many of the qnestions that have prevailed in making local determinations
of how to handle the franchising and establishing of CATV and it appears that from
a contractual or franchise standpoint, the city has gained in having delayed to thii
point any commitment to a local system.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be referred to Mr. Vincent S. Mheeler
for necessary action and to proceed as he sees fit In the near future and that
iMF. [heeler also be authorized to meet with Roanoke County pertaining to the matter~
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-TRAFFIC: Council having referred to the City Manager
his consideration a communication from Mr. M. V. Perdue. Association of RetiredI
for
IPersons, and Mr. C. C. Crochett, Association of Retired Railroad Employees, reqnest~
Jag that Council take whatever action is necessary to have the Police Deportment
take photographs of all motor vehicle accidents and of the close area that may have
caused the accidents in an effort to avoid many law suits and settlement of insur-
ance claims sooner, the City Manager submitted a written report transmitting copy of
the following communication written by him to Mr. Perdue and Mr. Crockett in con-
nection with the matter:
*March 22, 1972
gr. ~. V. Perdue
Association of Retired Persons
545 Highland Avenue, S. ~.
Roanoke. Virginia 24016
Mr. C. C. Crockett.
Association of Retired Rail-
road Employees
545 Highland Avenue, S. M.
Roanoke. Virginia 24016
By letter of November 24, 1970, you gentlemen wrote to the
City Council expressing the interest of your two organizations in
a request that the City through its Police Department take photo-
graphs of all accidents which are investigated by the department
and that these photographs include pictures of the area surround-
lng the accidents. Your letter came before the City Council on
November 30, 1970. and was referred to ne for consideration. After
some delay, for which I again apologize, we were able to bring
about a meeting on the matter and on February 24, Chief of Police
Hooper and I had the pleasure of meeting with both of yon gentle-
men along with Mr. A. A. Akers and Mr. G. E. Akers.
It is felt that our meeting was fruitful. You gentlemen
present explained your interest in this matter and Mr. Crockett
described several of the accidents in which he had been involved
in which you felt that photographs would have been beneficial
to you. You noted that you had been before several of the other
governing bodies in the area and had received their support in
the encouragement of photographs of accidents.
In our discussion with you, we indicated that many departments
of police or law enforcement, includiog the Virginia State Police,
have procedures for taking photographs of accidents but that this
is not a firm and automatic procedure for each incident and is
handled at the discretion and under certain policies by these
organizations. This, too. has been the interest and handling
by the City of Roanoke.
240
Me noted that the City of Roan*he Police Deportment handles
or is called to approximately 5,000 accidents per year iud this
number represents the number of occiden.t reports that ore made.
There ere additionally many accidents, generally minor in nature,
to which officers ute called but which are resolved on the scene
by the parties thereto and do not result in further handling by
the department. Additionally, not oil accidents on which reports
or investigative material is gathered, proceed to the courts and
significant evidence, including photographs, would be of little
worth in acquiring. The use of photographs in the handling or
those cases that go to court is not an automatic conclusion as
presentable evidence, but rather os in all matters of evidence,
wherein the City or the Conuonmealth is involved, the decision
rests with the Conmonweolth*s Attorney as to what will or will
The gathering of material, imf*motion and evidence for.
p'oasible civil suits is not a proper or established role for the
police department and I believe this la generally recognized
and accepted. Attorneys and Insurance companies in their proper
functions, search much of the material gathered by the police
department on accidents. They, in their discretion, determine
that which they might use or not use with tAe result that in this
particular direction aisc information or evidence gathered,
including photographs, does not automatically proceed into u
As we indicated ~o you, we would have some question as to
the practicality and advisability of a firm policy of photo=
graphing all situations. This presents very considerable matters
of costs, of tine and capability and photographing ail scenes,
of the usefulness of much of the material that would he gathered,
of the certainty of benefit of photographs in determining
happenings or responsibility in all incidences and of problems
in storage of the volume of material and the absence of provisions
under law as to the length of time of retention.
it is felt though that we hopefully did indicate to you
the strong support of th~ City and its police department in your
interest in photographs within certain policy lines.
The department (1) takes au average of l~ photographs of
accidents involving fatalities; (2) takes photographs of personal
injury involvements; and (S) takes photographs of all major acci-
dents. The exp~ri~nc~ here and with other law enforcement agencies
has been that generally within these bounds there is a validity
to the usefulness of photographs and she. circumstances indicated
out our interest in photography along th~ line of your interest,
all police traffic cars of the City are equipped with cameras,
equipment in all evidence technician cars, Me have further
found that any one or more of these particular cars are brought
to the scene of the category of accidents wherein photographs
become justifiable and of considerable value.
It is hoped that our discussion and this' summary letter will
indicate to you and your memberships the-interest of the City in
this program and the procedures that we already have' in operation,
Me further assure you that we will continue in this direction and
will expand the program aa opportunities would be presented and
which mould ]ustifi~bl~ bE constructive' to' the interest of law
Thank you for your interest nnd again it was a pleasure for
Chief Hooper and me to meet with you.
Sincerely yours,
S! Julian F. HOrst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
In this connection, Mr. C. C. Crockett appeared before Council in sup-
port of his request.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SIGNS AND DILLISOARDSoTRAFFIG: Council having referred to the City Munage~
for investigation and report n communication from Mrs° Damn H, Wells, requesting
that a stop sign located across from Hershbe~ger'Rosd be removed, the City Mansger
submitted a mritten report advising that he has written Mrs, Wells advising that
this location is in the county and suggesting that her inquiry he formarded to the
Resident Engineer of the State flighwuy Department in Salem,
Or. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr, Thomas and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Council having referred to the City Manager a communi~
cation from Mr. Frank C, Hoffman, Owner, Dixie Letter Service, requesting payment
in connection with a contract which was awarded to him by the City of Roanoke to
type, print, colate and bind a Police Training Manual. the City Manager submitted
the following report advising that the matter has been resolved insofar as any
consideration might be necessary on the part of Council unless there should be
other developments to the contrary:
"March 27, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
On March 6, 1972, the City Council referred to me a csmmunica-
Service mhich requested the ~ssistance of the City Council in
S/ Julian F. Hirst
:2 2
MATER MEPARTMENT: Council having .referred to the City Manager for study
report end re~ommenddtion a noumuuication from Mr. Jo Mo VenMeventer, Executive
Director, Memon~tration Mater Project, Incorporated, requesting that Council
authorize city officials to negotiate the sale of water to New Mope Mater, Incor-
porated, u quasi-public non-profit corporation, at the established bulk rate for
redistribution to the members and shareholders of the corporation, the City Manager
submitted the foil*ming report advising that there have been several ~lgnificant
In contrast to Mater Mepartment policies, that the
difficulties
In
the
proposal
organization Is familiar with these and is mom endeavoring to determine if these
difficulties might be morked out and that he is endeavoring to see if a mutually
suitable arrangement can be produced:
"March 27. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Nem Dope Mater gequest
The City Council on February 22, 1972. referred to me
the communication from Mr. Joseph Van Deventer of Demonstration
Mater Project, Incorporated, soliciting the assistance of the
City in permitting a connection of u proposed mater system in
the Mem Hope community, south of the City's corporate limits.
to the Roanoke City public water supply. Previous to the letter
to Council. Mr. Kiser. Mater Department Manager. and I had met
mith Mr. VanMeventer on several occasions concerning the matter.
Since the City Council referral, we have had an additional neet-
lng and most recently Mr. VanDeventer and I had a telephone
conversation on Friday, March 17.
There have been several significant difficulties in the
proposal in contrast to our Mater Departmentpolicies. The
organization is familiar with these and is now endeavoring to
determine if these night be worked out and we are jointly en°
deavorin9 to see if a mutually suitable arFacgcment can be.
produced.
This is written to advise City Council of the considera-
'tion to this referral.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Mirst
City Manager"
Mro Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by HZ. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SE~ERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a mritten report
transmitting copy of a communication from Alvord, Burdick & Howson, Consulting
-
Engineers, as to their evaluation and recommendation on the bids received by the
City of Roanoke on March 9, 1972. for Division No. 1 and Division No. 2 of the
~ additions to the Sewage Treatment Plant.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by*Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
TRAFFIC-STATE HIGMMA¥S: .Council having requested that the City Attor-
ney ascertain mhether or not a public hearing which was held before the City
Planning Commission with regard to the request of Mrs. L. Do Mrugh for a certain
revision and amendment ~ a portion of the Major Arterial Highway Plan for the
City of Roanoke was legally advertised, the Assistant City Attorney submitted
the following report advising that it is his opinion that prescribed procedures
have been follomed and that statutory requirements of notice of the public hear-
lng on the propoaed amendment have been met by the applicant requesting said
amendment:
'March 27. 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On March 20, 1972, the Council directed this office to
determine whether or not prescribed statutory procedures have
thus far been. followed in connection with subject proposal
and, particularly, whether or not proper notice had been given
of the public hearing held March IS, 1972, before the City
Planning Commission.
The Fifth Planning Oistrict Commission having determined
that the proposed change has less than district-wide signifi-
cance, the matter was previously properly referred to the
City Planning Commission, for consideration and recommendation
to the CouncJlo
Section 15.1-446 of the Code of Virginia requires that the
local planning commission give notice and hold a public hearing
prior to recommendation of and change in the comprehensive plan
or any part thereof; the notice being required to be advertised
circulation in the community. The public hearing before the
local planning commission shall be not less than fire days nor
more than twenty-one days after final publication,
The applicant published a notice of public hearing, in a
local newspaper, on March 3, 1972, and March 10,.1972, a certi-
fied copy of which has been inspected. The public hearing was
set for and held March 15. 1972, befnre the Planning Commission,
which has subsequently made its recommendation to the Council.
It is the opinion of this office that prescribed pro-
of notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendment
of Plate 03 of the Major Arterial Highway Plan have been
met by the applicant requesting said amendment.
Nespectfully,
S/ Edward A, Natt
Edward A, Natt
Assistant City Attorney'
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed.
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mr. Thomas moved that Council meet in Execu-
tive Session to discuss certain matters pertaining to the proposed sewn9e treatment
contracts,
After the Executive Session, Mr, T~o~as offered the following emergency!i
Ordinance approving and authorizing the execution by the City. of Roanoke of a
certain contract with the County of Dotetourt providing far said County*a long-
fanta use of the city*s sewage treatment plant and related sewerage system as a
regional facility:
(~201flO) AN ORDINANCE approving and authorizing the City's execution
of a certain contract uith the County of Botetourt providing for said. County*s
long-range use of the City*s sewage treatment plant and related sewerage system
as a regional facility; and providing for an emergency.
'243
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a360 page 333.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion was seconded
by Hr, Wheeler end sd,pied by the foil,wing vote:
AYES: Wesars, Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, TrOUt, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .?,
NAYS: None. O.
Mr. Thomas then offered the following emergenc~ Ordinance approving
and authorizing the execution by the City of Roanoke of a certain contract with
the Town of Vinton, Virginia, providing for said Tomn.'s long-range use of the
cf*yes sewage treatment and related sewerage system as a regional facility:
(Z2Olfll) AN ORDINANCE approvin9 and authorizing the Cityts execution of
~a certain contract with the Town of Vinton, Virginia, providing for said Townts
long-range use of the City*s sewage treatment plant and ~olated sewerage system
as a regional facility; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance 8,ok n36, page 335.)
Mr, Thomas moved the adoption of ~he Ordinance, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Rheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
~AYS: ~one O.
Later during the meeting, the City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting copy of a communication from the Staie Water Control Board, addressed
to Mayor Webber, advising'that the letter is the result of the hearing of the Board
on March 13, 1972, in respect to the valley governments and it provides for the
invoking of the Board's Requ{rement' No, I and for the specification of certain
deadlines of construction and t~catment, the City Manager verbally reported that the~
State Water Control Board has set a May 1 deadline for construction of the chemical
feed facilities and an August I dead~ine for the construction of the sludge lagoons,
that the city can meet the second deadline if the state acts soon, but there is no
way the city can meet the May 1 date, the C~ty Manager expressed concern that
,standards are being set that the city cannot meet, presentin9 a danger of ruling
that the city cannot qualify for the eighty per cent grants for sewage treatment
plant improvements from the state and federal governments.
~i
here has been a meeting of the minds with the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem,
the County of Roanoke, the County of Botetonrt and the Town of ¥inton insofar as th, i!
~ording of the sewage treatment contracts are concerned, but that the matter relatin~
i, the disposition of the Town of Vim*on Semage Treatment Plant still remains to be
~esolved, Mr. Thomas pointed out that it has been the recommendation of the City of
oanoke Semer Committee that the City of Roanoke assume the $135,000.O0 outstanding
ebt on the Vinton Sewage T~eatment Plant when the Town abandons said plant, that on
Friday, March 24, 1972, he received a communication from Mr. G. N. Nicks, mayor of
the Town of Vim*on, transmitting the following counter-offer of the Town of Yinton:
'lo That the bonded indebtedness and lore iudebtedueaa oa the
'Vinton Plant, as of the dire or the signing et a contract
with the City of Roanoke by the Town of Vinton to treat
sewage from the Town of ¥inton, should and would be in same
legal manner assumed as the obligstion of the City of
Roanohe;
That the Town be compensated in the amounl or twenty per
cent (20%J or its investment in ltl sewage treatment pleat,
said sun being $60.000,00 and representing salvage value
of the ¥inton Plant;
That the Town or ¥inten should retain all rights and title
to their plant and land;
4. That as or such time as the City of Roanoke commences
treating sewage from the Tomn of ¥Inton and when through
independent studies there has been · krue evaluation made
of the actual fair value or the Town of Vinton plant, the
Town Would be compensated for any value so determined in
excess of the ShO,O00,O0 mentioned in paragraph 2; and
S. The Town or ¥1nton would be agreeable to using the above
outlined cost and compensation figures as setorr against
the treatment cost as stated in the contract between thc
City of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton for the treatment
of sewage from the Town of Vinton by the City of Roanoke,~'
Mr. Thomas advised that the City of Roanoke is 9ettiug closer to the April I dead-
line set by the State Water Control Board for the signing of these contracts, that
the Semer Committee has pot all the material together as far as the contracts are
concerned, that the Committee has been unable to resolve the matter regardin9 the
Vinton Sewage Treatment Plant and moved that after the remaiuin9 items on the
agenda have been acted upon, that the meeting be recessed until 7:30 pon., in the
Executive Session Converence Room in order for the entire Council of the City of
Roanoke to meet with the entire Council of the Town of ¥inton in an effort to
resolve this matter prior to the April I deadline. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Wheeler sod unanimously adopted.
Rt. Thomas then moved that the report of the City Manager and the com-
munication from Mayor C. Mo Nicks be received and filed. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Nheeler and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DgAINS: Council having referred to the Semer Committee
for study, report and recommendation a communication from the Roanoke County Public
Service Authority, transmitting two requests in connection with the construction of
the Tinker Creek Interceptor Sewer Line, the committee submitted the followin9 report
recommending that Council indicate its millingness to grant said easement by
Resolution, subject to receipt by the city of an easement document mhich meets the
approval of the City Attorney and that such a Resolution agree to waive the terms
or the city-county sewage treatment contract with regard to the requirement that the
lines constructed within the city by the county be de~ded to the city:
"March 27, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Roanoke County-Tinker Creek Relief Sewer Line-Committee
Report
The City Council on Deceuber 6, 1971, received a communica-
tion from Roanoke County through its Public Service Authority
requesting that the City grant an easement across'city property
in the Tinker Creek area to enable the construction of a new 36-
inch relief sewer line that the County proposes to parallel to
its existing 15-inch interceptor semer line.
'246
This easement mould be across property of the Mater Depart-
ment on the west bunk of Tinker Creek, commencing ut the inter-
section of Corvins Creek with Tinker Creek smd thence extending
southward along the west bank for a distance of approximately
$00 feet, The proposed county semer line mould be approximately
30 feet away from the creek bank,
The study by the Mater Department and the Department:of.
Public Works indicates thot there should be no objection by tbn
City to the granting or this easement, Mith respect to the
Water Department, its location mould be outside of the fenced
area of city operations,
It has been recommended by the Mater Department that there
should be a stipulation within the granting of the easement
restricting blasting during construction in the vicinity of
powder storage magazine of the Mater Deportment mhich in adja-
cent to Tinker Creek.
Your committee recommends that the City Council indicate
its willingness to grant this easement by a resolution, said
granting be subject to receipt by the City of an easement
document satisfactory to the approval of the City Attorney. .
It would be further recommended that the City Council in
such a resolution agree to waive the terns of the City--County
sewage treatment contract with regard to the requirement that
the lines constructed mithin the City by the County be deeded
to the City.
Respectfully submitted,
Hampton M. Thomas
Vincent S. Mheeler
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst"
Mr. Yhomss moved that Council concur in the report of the Semer Committeei
and that the folloming Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(n20103) AN ORDINANCE providing for the grant and conveyance to the
County of Roanoke of a certain easement for the construction and operation of a
portion of a public sanitary semer line within the City; and waiving, to the
extent herein provided, certain provisions contained in the contract between the
City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke nude under date of September 20. 1954.
RHEREAS, the City has been requested by the Hoard of Supervisors of.
i Roanoke County and the Roanoke County Public Service Authority to grant the ease-
meat hereinafter described and to waive certain contractual covenants and agree-
manta heretofore entered into September 28, 1954, between said City and Roanoke
i County, with respect to a certain new sewer line proposed to be installed in said
easement area and in an adjacent portion of the City; and
MHEREAS, a committee of the Council considering the request has recom-
mended that the same be.granted.
THEREFORE, DE XT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
request of the County of Roanoke and the Roanoke County Public Service Authority
for right to construct a, portion of a new thirty-six inch sewer line across the
City's Mater Department property on Tinker Creek and for certain naiver of condi-
tions as to said new line and as to another portion of said new line proposed to be
constructed on other property adjacent to the City*s said property, be and the same
is hereby APPROVED; and the Mayor is hereby authorized and empowered to execute on
behalf of the City to the County of Roanoke a good and sufficient deed of easement
granting to said County, its successors and assigns, including the Roanoke County
Public Service Authoriiy, on nowfnal consideration of $1.00. cash, and upon the
~rovisioas herein contained, an easement for n twenty-foot wide sanitary sewer
~ight-of-uay through, under and across that certain City-owned property containing
approximately 15.7 acres located in the northeast quadrant of the City, on the west
bank of Tinker Creek, presently used by the City0s Water Oepartwent, for the con-
struction, operation and maintenance in said right-of-way of a portion of a cer-
tain thirty-six inch relief sanitary sewer line, as the same is shown on a certain
plat of survey made by Raymond C. Weehs. C.L.S., under date of January T, lg?2. a
copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, such deed of easement to
be upon such form as is approved by the City Attorney; and that the City Clerk be
and is likewise authorized end directed to affix to such deed of easement the City*
~seal, and to attest the same.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City of Roanoke doth hereby waive to the
extent of the 35-inch sewer line to be constructed on the City of Roanoke's ~ater
.Department property, aforesaid, and of another portion of said line which is pro-
~posed to be constructed on adjacent property of the Eli Lilly and Company, in the
~City, those two (2) certain provisions contained in Section till. A. of the con-
tract in writing heretofore entered into between said City and County under date of
~September 29, 1954, relating to the City's transmission and treatment of certain of
i~the County*s wastes, the first provision waived being relative to said County's
installation of sewer lines within the City of Roanoke, which provision would, except
"for this express waiver, cause or require the title to the within described sewer
lint to be conveyed by said County to said City; and the second provision waived
~being relative to the provision of said contract requiring all additions to sewer
systems to be and remain the exclusive property of the County; which such waivers
may be incorporated in the City of Roanoke*s deed of easement hereinabove authorized
to be made and executed.
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 O.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
ZONING: Council having deferred action on a report of the City Planning
Commission in connection with the request of Mr. J. H. Fralin and Mr. A. Craig
Kugel that property located on Epperley Avenue, N. #., described as Lots 19, 20 and!i
21, Section 1, Map of Epperley Court, Official Tax Nos. 21h0612, 2160613 and 216051!!,~
be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial
District, recommending that the request be denied, the matter was again before the
body.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. Fielding L. Logan, Jr..
Attorney, representing the petitioners, requesting permission to withdraw the peti-~
tion for rezoning, was before Council.
248
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request that the petition for
rezonlng be withdrawn. The motion wes seconded by Mr, Wheeler and unanimously
adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20161, fez*ming property located on Mo*man Road
and 12Lb Street, N. M., described us Lots 80 9 and 10, Section 6, Map of Melrose
Land Company, Official Tax Nos. 2222.907 and 2222909, from aG-I, General ResidentialI!
District, to C-10 Office and Institutional District, 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:
(a20161) 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. 222, Sectional
1966 Zone Nap, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook #36, page 325.)
. 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, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber T
NAYS: None O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20162, fez*ming property located in the vicinity
of Panorama Avenue, N, W.. described as Lots l-D, l-E, 2-D, 2-E, 1-F and 6, Offi-
cial Tax Nos. 2740305. 2740311. 2740312, 2740306. 2740304 and 2740301, 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. Wheeler offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(n20162) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title IV, Chapter. 4.1, Section 2, of The~
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amend.ed, and Sheet No. 274, Sectional 1966
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
Mr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the ~rdinance. The motlon was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ' ~7.
~AY~: None -p..
STREETS AND ALLEYS: . Ordinance No. 20163, vacating, discontinuing and
closing that portion of Walt.on Street, N. E., lying between the northerly line of
Eastern Avenue, N. E.. end the southerly line of a ten foot alley lying between
Eastern Avenue, N. E., and ~allace Avenue, N. E** having previously been before
Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Dr.
i Taylor. offering the fallowing for its second reading and final adoption:
(~20163) AN ORDINANCE permanently abandoning, vacating, discontinuing
! and closing a portion of Walton Street, N. E. lying between the northerly line of
£nstern Avenue N~ E. end the southerly line of n 10 foot al.lei 17lng between Eastern
Avenue Hi E~ and Wallace Avenue N. E. es shown on. plat showing division of propert71
of Electric Developers° Inc** being n division of Lots 6 through 20 and Lots 22
through 4h, Blech 12, Mop of Jechson Path made by Raymond C. leehs, Certified Land
Surveyor, dated June 16, 1971, recorded in the Clerhts Office of the Hustings
Court for the City of Roanohe, ¥1rgJnia on June lfl~ 1971, in Rap Book 1, page 199o
land being also shomn on Sheet 322 of the Tax Appraisal Nap of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book n36. page 32g.)
Br~ Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion nas seconded
by Br~ Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber--
NAYS: None ..... -0.
MATER DEPARTMENT-EASEMENTS-APPALACHIAN PO~ER COMPANY: Ordinance No.
20177, authorizing and providing for grant by tho City of Roanoke of an easement to
Appalachian Power Company providing the right to construct, erect, operate and main-
tain an electric transmission power line upon, over and across lands of said city
situate partly in Roanoke County and in Botetourt County, Virginia, upon certain
terms, conditions and provisions, having previously been before Council for its
first reading, read and laid a~r, was again before the body. Mr. Lisk offerin9 the
following for its second readin9 and final adoption:
(~20177) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for grant by the City
of Roanoke of an easement to Appalachian Power Company providing the right to con-
struct, erect, operate nod maintain an lectric transmission power line upon, over
and across lands of said City situate partly in Roanoke County and in Botetourt
County, Virginia, upon certain terms conditions and provisions.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u36, page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Br. Taylor and adopted by the following; vote:
i AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber
! NAYS: None---
ACTS OF ACKNOMLEDGEMENT-=CITy MANAGER: Mr. Lisk offered the following
gesolution relating to Mr. Byron E. Bauer, former Assistant City Manager of the City
of Roanoke:
(n20184) A RESOLUTION relating to MR. BYRON E. ItENER, former Assistant
City Manager of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book ~36. page 339)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
2,5'O
AVES: Messrs, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Troute ~he~ler and Mayor
Mebbez 7,
NAYS: None---- O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
COUNCIL-CITY GOVERNMENT: Mr. Thomas called attention to the foil*ming
communication from Mr. William M. Snider, Advertising Director, Times-World Corpora~
itl*n, advising that the City of Roanoke has not made u comprehensive report to the
citizens of.the City of Roanoke since 1965 and expressed the opinion that the time
has come for another such report and that the Times-Wordi Corporation is anxious
to assist in such an undertaking:
*March 23, 1972
Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
Honorable James O. Trout, Vice Mayor
Honorable Vincent S. Yheeler, Councilman
Honorable Hampton M. Thomas, Councilman
Honorable David Lisk, Councilman
Honorable Robert A. Garland, Councilman
Don*ruble Dr. Noel C. Taylor, Councilman
City of Roanoke
City Dali
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
To the best of my research knowledge, The City of Roanoke
has not made a comprehensive report to the citizens of the city
since 1965.
On April 16 of that year, in a 12=page tabloid-sized news-
paper section called 'Your Roanoke - Today; Tomorrow** the
Mayor, City Council, and City Manager reported in depth the
the source of tax revenues, the expenditures of those resources,
work then underway in various departments, and plans for the
future. Needless to say, it was well conceived and I'm sure
well received by the populace.
It seems to me that the time has come for another such
report. As a matter of fact, un annual report probably would
pay great dividends in citizen support. In this age of 'con-
sumerism* there are increasing demands on all sides for more
knowledge about what is going on. I need not tell you either,
that in an election year there is an urgent need for reporting
on your stewardship.
The Times-World Corporation is anxious to assist you in
such an undertaking. Our picture-files are available for your
use; our news department will assist in the lay-out of the
news presentation; and our art department Mill be happy to
design a cover, and assist in the overall design of such a
section.
On an attached proposal are outlined space and color costs
and estimates of production charges for two ways such a section
could be presented.
The first of thses is in The Roanoke Times dnd World-
News or the Sunday Roanoke Times. This plan would cover our
entire circulation area. This, of course, would mean circula-
tion in u lot of homes outside the city.
The second plan is to use the World-News only. This would
confiee your report, for the most part,' to the metropolitan area.
Also attached is au analysis of our circulation shoming how the
two papers serve the areas in which we circulate.
Also enclosed ere two sections recently circulated in the
Tidewater area which might be of interest to you as to copy and
format.
I have taken this manner of approaching each of you individ-
ually in order that you might have as much information as possible
on mbich to base a decision, I hove also tahen the liberty
of sending · copy to City Ranager Julian Hirst,
Ir you have any' questions, I can be reached by telephone
at 981-3378, or I shall be happy to appear before Council at
any time you suggest. 1 sincerely hope you will take advan-
tage of.this means to report to the citizens of the City of .
Roanoke,
Respectfully yours,
S/ Rm, M, Snider
Mr, Thomas moved that Council authorize the preparatio~ of such a report
and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper
measure appropriating the necessary fonds, The motion was seconded by Nr, Rheeler.
Ressrs, Lisk and Garland expressed opposition to the preparation of such
'u report at this time, and advised that the matter should be sent to budget study,
~Rr~ Lisk pointed out that the concept is good but.the timing is premature and that
itbe ~lty should gear itself to accomplishing some of the items that have been
?reaRmed to its citizens but have not been completed.
Mr. Lisk then offered a substitute motion that the report be prepared
~after July 1, 1972, in order to give the City Manager un opportunity to resolve
some of the prior priorities, The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and lost by
the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs'. Garland, Lish and Taylot 3,
NAYS: Messrs. Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor ~ebber ..... 4.
The original motion was then adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor Rebber
NAYS: Ressrso Garland, Lisk and Taylor 3.
MUNICIPAL COURT: The City Clerk reported that Mr. Charles P. Alexander,
iJr,, has qualified as an additional Substitute Judge of the ianicipal Court of the
iCity of Roanoke in accordance with Sec. I Ca), Chapter 2, Title XI of The Code of
ithe City of Roanoke, for a term of two years ending September 30, 1973.
251
ition of the Town of Vinton Sewage Treatment Plant.*
Present Representing: THE CITY OF ROANOKE: Councilmen Robert A. Garland,il
i. Davld K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout. Vincent S. Nheeleri!
!and Rayor Roy L~ *ebber-- ........ 7.
!i ABSENT: None---. ....... ----0. -
i PRE~NT REPRESENTING THE TO#N OF VINTON: Councilmen Shirley D. Crowder,
Calvern Lo Lyke, Ag A. Sanderson, I. Norman Dowdy and Mayor G. M.
· Nicks ..... 5
Mr, Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Rheeler and unanimously adopted,
Mr, Thomas moved that Council recess until ?:30 p.m,, in the Executive
Session Conference Room. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
~adopted.
At 7:30 p.m., in the Executive Session Conference Room in the Municipal
iHuilding, the Council meeting mas reconvened for the purpose of meeting with the
Council of the Town of Vinton to settle certain matters pertaining to the disposl-
252
ABSENT: None O.
The meeting was opened mlth n prayer by Dr, Noel C. Taylor, Member
Roanoke City Council'.
Hr. Thomas advised that the approach to the mutter by the City of Roanoke
Sewer Committee is that the City of Roanoke assume the indebtedness on the Vinton
Sewage Treatment Plant et the time the Town of YJnton hooks onto the City of Roa-
noke sewage system.
During a discussion of the matter, the City Homager pointed out that the
Vinton Sewage Treatment Plant mill hove no use in the regional system for pretreat-
Kent, holding or lagoon purposes end that he sees no value of fitting it into the
overall program.
After a private session by the members of the Council of the City of
Roanoke, Mr. Thomas made reference to the following communication from Mayor
N. Nicks transmitting a counter-offer of the Town of Vinton:
"March 24, 1972
Mr. Hampton Thomas
Chairman, Roanoke City Sewer Committee
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear ttamp:
This letter sill constitute the Town of VJnton*s counter-
offer to the City*s_proposal of March 22. 1972, roiarding th~
disposition of the town Sewage Treatment Plant. The Town
recognizes as do other Valley Governments that th~ upmost and
paramount consideration is the preservatibn of the Federal and
State Grant Funds available to the Valley for construction of
the regional semage treatment plant. Homever, the Town feels
that the City of Roanoke and other ValleyGovernm~nts recognize
that the closing domn and phasing out of the Town of Vtnton Sem-
age Treatment Plant is as much a part of the expense for the
construction and creation of the new regional sewage treatment
facility as would be construction of lines, holding tanks,
improvement to plant and equipment and other items that will
have to be done to up-grade and improve the Roanoke City
Plant to make it a Valley side plant mhich complys with the
State and Federal water quality standards. With these objectives
in mind, the Town Council feels that the following would be
acceptable to the Town.
1. That the bonded indebtedness and note indebtedness
5n the Vinton Plant, as of the date of the signing of
a contract with the City of Roanoke by tbe Town of
! Vinton to treat sewage from the Town of Vinton, should
and would be in some legal manner assumed as tbe obli-
garish of the City of Roanoke.
2. That the'Town be compensated in the amount of twenty
per cent (205) of it*s investment in it's semage
treatment plant, said sum being Sixty Thousand Dollars
($60,000.00) and representing salvage valo~ ~f the
Vinton Plant.
3. That the Town of Vinton Should retain all rights and
title to their plant and'land.
4. That as of such time as the City of Roanoke commences
treating sewage from the Town Of Vinton mud when
through independent studies there has been · true
evaluation made of the actual fair value of the Town
of Vinton plant, the Toqn would be compensated for
any value so determined in excess of the $60,000.00
mentioned heretofore in paragraph 2.
5. The Town of Vinton would be agreeable to using the above
· outlined cost and compensation figures as set-off
against the treatment cost as stated in the contract
between the city of Roanoke and the Tomn of Vinton for
the treatment of semage from ~he Town of ¥inton by the
city of Roanoke.
The Tow· of Vlnton is and alii be willl·g ·nd ready to sign
· contract along with other Volley Governments with the City of
Roanoke for the treatment of sewage as stated in said contract
with the changes stated herein incorporated in said contract.
Sincerely yours,
S/ G. M. Nicks
G.M. Nicks
Mayor~
At this point, Dr. Taylor left the meeting,
In reference to this communication, Mr. Thomas advised that the Council
of the City of Roanoke has given consideration to items l, 3 and 5, that they have
!eliminated item 2 and item 4 becomes a moot proposition.
Mr. Thomas then read a prepared statement advisin9 that the City of
Roanoke offers to*agree with the Town of Vinton to allow as credits or offsets to
ithe Town against the sewage transmission and treatment charges which would accrue
:uncer the proposed contract dated March 22, 1972, a sum equal to Vinton*s outstand-
ing principal indebtedness evidenced by bonds and notes as of March 22, 1972, on the
.matures for payment on said indebtedness from March 22, 1972, to the date of actual
commencement of the cityVs treatment of all of the wastes of the area described in
the proposed contract dated March 22, 1972, and less the sum of $28,600.00 which
:is represented to be the value of the land on which the treatment plant is located;
~the Town of Vinton to retain all right and title to its treatment plant and land.
and no such credit or offset to be applied against treatment charges made to the
Town more than three years after the date of actual commencement of treatment.
After a private session by the members of the Council of the Town of
Vinton, Mr. C. Richard Cranwell. Town Attorney, advised that the Town of Vinton
is willing to accept a flat payment of $135,000.00 for the Vinton Sebage Treatment
Plant - $60,000.00 when the sewage treatment contract is signed and $T5,000.00 when
the Town of Vinton joins the sewer system and that the Town of Vinton keep all
!right, title and interest to the Vinton Sewage Treatment Plant.
i . After another private session by the members of the Council of the City
;o£ Roanoke. Mr. Thomas advised that the City of Roanoke agrees to items 1. 3 and 5
as contained in the communication from Mayor Nicks, that the City of Roanoke
igive Vinton ownership of the p~nt, assumption of the indebtedness on the plant at
~its present level and payment through credits.
In a discussion of the offer, Mr. Thomas and Mr. James N. Kincanon, City
~Attorney, advised that the City Charter prohibits the City of Roanoke from spending
/Roanoke because-Vinton would be keepi~9 its Sewage Treatment Plant but that a credit
~on the rate formula would be legal.
After another private session by the members of the Vinton Town Council Mr
~,C ..... 11 advised that the T ....fVint ..... Id be ag .... hie to five y .....f f
~:treatnent wxth the Town of V~nton retaining the Sewage Treatment Plant.
'254
The City of Roanoke officials disagreed with this offerand insisted thai
the credits must be related to n figure, ' -
After the final private session of the members of the Council of the Cit]
of Roanohe advised that they could find no legal uny of appropriating funds for thf
purpose and that they h~ve'to stand by their last offer in the form of credits to
the Torn of Vlnton and tba~ V~nton retain all rights, title and land to the Vlnton
Sewage Treatment Plant.
After the final private session by the members of the Council of the
of ¥inton. Razor Nicks adivsed that the Town Council had agreed to accept the
last offer made by the City. of Roanoke, that it is the feeling of the Vinton Town
Council that they are taking too little and have not done enough for their citizens
but that the Vinton Town Council voted to accept the terms of the City of Roanohe
in the interest of all the people in the valley and that Vinton has made a sacrific~
in the interest of the valley.
Mr. Thomas then offered the following emergency Ordinance authorizing a
certain contractual agreement to be made and entered into between the City of
Roanoke and the Tomn of VJnton relating to a certain credit to be made and allowed
said Town against future amounts which may become due to the City of Roanoke, con-
ditioned upon said Town*s participation in the.use of the regional sewage treatment
facilities of the city under ~ther contract with the City of Roanoke:
(~201RS) AN ORDINANCE authoriring a certain contractual agreement to be
made and entered into between the City of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton relating to
a certain credit to be made and allowed said Town against future amounts which may
become due the City, conditioned upon said Town*s participation in the use of the
regional sewage treatment facilities of the City under other contract.with said
City; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook #36, page. 33g.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Nheeler and a~opted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Wcbber~5.
NAYS: NSne O*
IOr. Taylor absent)
Mayor Webber advised that the signing of the sewage treatment contracts
i would
take place at the Vinton War Memorial at 12:00 noon, Mednesday, March 29,
! 1972, and that t~e governing bodies representing the City of Roanoke, thc County
ici Roanoke, the Town of Yinton, the City of Salem and the County of Botetourt are
ili requested to attend this meeting.
! Mayor Webber then declared the Council meeting recessed until 11:30 a.m.,
i March 2~, 1072, in the Council Chamber in the Municipal ~ailding.
At 11:30 a.m., Tuesday, March 2R, 1972, the Council of the City of
~ Roanoke reconvened in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building with Mayor
llRoy L. Webbe~ presiding.
FRE~NT: Counciluen Robert A. Garland, David K. Lisk, Hasp*on !. Thomas,
Janes O~ Trout, Vincent S. lheeler end Mayor Roy L. Webber .....
ARSENT: Councilman Noel Co Taylor--
The meeting was opened with a prayer by Mr. Vincent S. Wheeler, Member
of Roanoke City Council.
Mr. Thomas offered the following emergency Ordinance relating to certain
contracts of the City of Roanoke with the City of Salem mith the County of Ootetour~
with the Town of Vinton and with the County of Roanoke and/or the Roanohe County
Public Service Authority, eta** heretofore authorized to be entered Into on behalf
of the City of Roanoke, respecting transmission and treatment of wastes from
defined areas, authorizing certain express changes to be made in each of said con-
tracts prior to formal execution thereof:
(n20106) AN ORDINANCE relating to certain contracts and proposed con-
tracts of the City of Roanoke with the City of Salem with the County of Rotetourt,
with the Town of Vlnton and with the County of Roanoke and/or Roanoke County Public
Service Authority, etc., heretofore authorized to be entered into on behalf of the
City of Roanoke, respecting transmission and treatment of wastes from defined
areas; authorizing certain express changes to be made in each of said contracts
prior to formal execution thereof; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook ~36. page 341.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber ....
NAYS: None 0 (Dr. Taylor
absent.)
In this connection, the City Attorney submitted the following report of
the 5ewer Committee transmitting certain changes proposed on March 29, 1972, to the
contract approved on March 17, 1972, to be entered into between the. City of Roanoke
and the County of Roanoke and/or Roanoke County Public Service Authority for sew-
~CHANGES PROPOSED MARCH 2R, 1972, TO CONYRACT
APPROYED MARCH IT, 1912, TO BE ENIERED INTO
BETNEEN CITY OF ROANOKE AND TRE COUNTY OF
ROANOKE AND]OR ROANOKE COUNTY PUBLIC SER¥1CE
AlffRORITY FOR ~EMAGE TRANSMISSION AND TREATRENT
Ii (1) P~oe 2. Paragraph A. AREA, 12th line:
add words ineludino any aonellat~ court, between
words Jurisdiction, and subse0uentlv
(2) Page 3, fourth line from top of page:
change word decision to read final d~termJnation
aod chaoge word shall to read may
(3) Page 4, lost line at bottom of page:
change words Tho city to read ~neh oartv
:256
(4)' Page. 9 first line It top of pig.:
add word ~a~nmblv berm.em words he and
Dated #arch 28, 1912 Respectfully submitted,
COUNCIL SEWER COMMITTEE,
By ~1 Hampton Thomas
Mr. Thomas moved that the report of the Sewer Committee be received and
filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
Mr, Thomas then offered the follouin9 emergency Ordinance providing for
the city*s agreement to certain additional changes a~d modifications of the con-
tract proposed and offered to be entered into uith the County of Roanoke and/or
Roanoke County Public Service Authority pursuant to Ordinance No. 20160 and to
Ordinance No. 20186:
(n20167) A RESOLD~ION providing for the City*s agreement to certain
additional changes and modifications of the contract proposed and offered to be
entered into with the County of Roanoke and/or Roanoke County Public Service
Authority pursuant to Ordinance No. 20195, of the Council adopted this date. (For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book n36, page 344°)
Mr, Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. ]heeler a~d adopted by the following vote:
'rYES: Messrs. Garland, Li~,Thomaso Trout, ~heeler and Mayor
Webber .................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absm t)
Mr. Thomas moved that the meeting be recessed u~til 2 p.m.. Wednesday,
March 29, 1972, in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building. The notion mas
At 2 p.m., Nednesday, March 29. lq?2, the Council of the City of'Roanoke
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland and David Ko Lisk ....... ~ ..... 2.
ABSENT: Councilmen Noel C. Taylor, Hampton W. Thomas. James O. Trout,
Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy Lo Webber ..................................... 5.
A quorum falling to appear, the meeting was adjourned.
APPROVED
, !
I1!
257
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, April 3, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met In regular meeting in the Council
Chamber In the Municipal Building, Monday, A~ril 3. 1972, at 2 p.mo, the regular
meeting hour. with Mayor Roy L, Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David M. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout. Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L.
Mebber ...........................
ABSENT: None .........O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Ilirst, City Manager; Mr. James N.
~Kincanon. City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Jack E.
iChalmers, Pastor, South Roanoke Baptist Church.
Mayor Webber welcomed Eagle Scout Troup No, 2 to the Council meeting.
IIEAR1NG OF CITIZENS UPON PURLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council havin9 set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday, April 3,
!1972, on the request of Mr. John L. Cantrell. et us., that property located on the
corner of Lynn Avenue, S. l., and Brandoo Avenue. S. l., described as
:Lots 17, lb and 19, Block g, Map of Colonial Heights, Official Tax Nos. 1271817,
;'1271~1B and 1271819, be resumed from C-2, Ceneral Commercial District. to C-l,
,Office and Institutional District, the matter was before the body,
In this connection, the City Plunnin9 Commission submitted the following
:report recommending that the request for resuming be granted:
~March 2, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by tRe City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of March 1, 1972.
Mr. Heymood Fralin. attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and presented a plot plan point-
ing out the petitioned lots. Be noted that the property is 141
feet on Lynn Avenue and ldo feet on Brandon Road and that the
alley is a paper alley. Mr. Fralin stated that Mr. Cantrell
wishes to construct a combination of office and apartment build-
ings on the site (21 apartment units). Finally, he noted that
lives next door has no objections to this rezoning.
Hr. Roy Pollard appeared before the Planning Commission
and stated that he owns the adjoining property and wanted the
plans explained to him in detail.
The Planning Commission members generally felt that a rezon-
lng from a C-2 to a C-I designation represented a higher and
better use designation.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by LH
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Hr~ W. Heywood Fralin, 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, Hr. Wheeler
moved that the follouing Ordinance be placed upon its first rending:
(a2Olfla) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2 of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 195h, as amended, and Sheet No. 127. 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 hare:
Property located at the northwest corner of Lynn Avenue, S.M., and
Hrandon Avenue, S.tf., described as Lots 17, lO. and 19, Block 9, Map
of Colonial Heights, Official Tax Nos. 1271fl17, 1271818 and 1271619,
rezoned from C-2 General Commercial District, to C-I, Office and Institutional
District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from C-2, General Commercial District, to C-I. 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
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 he;~ring as provided for in said notice was held on the 3rd
day of April, 1972, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at which
hearic9 all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to bo heard,
both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
RHER£AS, 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 C~ty of Roanoke that
Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amend-
ed. relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 127 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City of
Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property-located on the northwest corner of Lynn Avenue, S, M,, and
Brandon Avenue, S,
And described as follows:
Lots 17, lO and lq, Block 9, Map of Colonial Heights designated on Sheet
127 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Rap, City of Roanoke, as Official Taz No (s).
1271817, 1271019 and 1271819, be, ccd is hereby, changed from C-2, General Commercial
District, to C-I, Office and Institutional District, and that Sheet No. 127 of the
aforesaid mnp 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, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ....................... 7,
NAYS: None ........... O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 pom. o Monday, April 3,
1972, on the request of Mr. Richard M. Dylton, et mx.. that property located on the
southeasterly corner of Mlnthrop Avenue and 23rd Street, S. M., described as Lot
Block 4, Minona Addition. Official Tax No. 127OS22, be rezoned from RD. Duplex
Residential District, to C=2, General Commercial District. the matter was before th~
!body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
orr ........dlngthattherequestf ....... ingbegranted:
*March 2, 1972
The Denotable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request Has considered by the City Planning
Commission at its reoular meeting of March l, 1972.
Mr. J. D. Logan. III, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that he was representing
Mr. HyIton in this rezontng request, lie presented a ;lot plan
to the Plannin9 Commission members and noted that Mr. Dylton has
o~ned this property for a number of years and now he ~ould like
to move his architectural Office on this property. Mr. Logan
noted that the petitioner is surrounded by parking lots.
Mr. Coleman. Planning Commission member, noted that he felt
the petitioner Has asking for C-2 rezoning in order to save the
requestadditi°nala c-2expenSerezoning.Sh°uld he have to return at a later date to
lhe Planning Director noted that the area ~as generally of
approved to recommend to City Council the grantin9 of this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Mr. J. D. Logan, Attorney, representing the petitioners,
before
i Council in support of the request of his clients.
*~moved thatthe folloming Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
!a201Dg) 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. 127, Sectional 1966
~Zone Map, City of R .... ke. in relation to
Zoning.
MHEREAS. application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
Ito have that certain lot located on the southeasterly corner of ~inthrop Avenue
l~afld 23rd Street, S. M., being Lot 22, Block 4, Minona
Addition,
Official
Taz
Number
L7270522 rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District. to C-2. General Commercial
IDistrict; and
259
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission bas recommended that the herein-
after described land be resorted from RD, Duplex Residential District, to C-2,
General Commercial District; end
WHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title XY, of The Code Of the
City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning, hare been published and
posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
MHEREASo the hearing as provided for in said noticq was held on the 3rd
day of April, lg72, at 2 p.m.. before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at which
hearing all parties in interest aud citizens mere given an opportunity to be heard,
both for and against the proposed resorting; and
WHEREAS. this Council. after considerln9 the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE, BE 1T 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. 127 of the Sectional 1965 Zone Map, City
of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz:
Property located On the southeasterly corner Of Winthrop Avenue and 23rd
Street, S. W.. described as Lot 22, Block 4. Winona Addition d~signated on Sheet
127 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke as Official Tax. No. 1270522,
be and is hereby, changed from RD. Duplex Residential District, to C-2. General
Commercial District, and that Sheet No. 127 of the aforesaid map be changed in
this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garlands Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
~ebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ......... Oo
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, April 3,
1972, on therequest of'Mr. James K. Metz, that property located in the vicinity
of Ravenwood Avenue and Floraland Drive, N. M., described as Lots 7A and 8A, Lay-
man Square,-and parts of Lots 9 and 10, Block 4. Floraland Addition, Official Tax
Nos. 2160201, 21b0202, 2280508 and 2280509. be rezoned from RS-3. Single-Family
Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential District, the matter was before
the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
I report recommending that the request be 9ranted:
*March 2, 1972
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 March 1, 1972.
Mr. John. M. Taylor, attorney-for the petitioner appeared
before.the Planning Commission end stnted that he uss represent-
lng Dr. Mhtz who wishes to construct two-twelve unit apartment
structures on the property in question, noting that there are
only two houses located on the northe'rly side and that Mr. Metz
is buying oil or lot 10 so that his plans would not adversely
affect the other neighborhood residents. He then presented a
plot plan to the Commission members and pointed out the parking
layout. Finally, he noted that the lots are located on Raven-
wood and Floralsnd Drive, and on a dead-end street.
Mr. Boynton, Planning Commission member, asked #r. Taylor if
his client would consider a RG-I rezonlng. Mr. Taylor stated
that the petitioner would accept a RC-I rezoning. Additionally,
Mr. Taylor noted that each unit would have 3 and 5 bedrooms,
wall to wall carpeting, garbage disposal, etc., and the entrance
to these units would be from Layman Street.
Mrs. Fisher appeared before the Planning Commission and
stated that she mss representing the people on Floralsnd Drive
and they are concerned about the parking situation. She noted
that the schools are already over-crowded. Finally, she stated
that there are old citizens in the neighborhood and have been
in the area for 35 years.
Mr. Hall appeared before the Planning Commission and stated
that he lives next door to the property in question and mas
opposed to the rezoning. He noted that two-12 unit apartment
structures was excessive for this area and since most people
have more than one car would create an additional problem for
the neighborhood.
Mrs. Evans, a local resident, appeared before the Planning
Commission and stated that she was opposed to the apartments. She
noted that they were too close to her home and she mould be pinned-
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and approved
with a voice vote of b ayes and I nay to recommend to City
Council to grant this request.
Sincerely.
S/ Creed K. Lemon. Jr. by LM
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
Chairman"
Mr. M. N. Elgin, 4310 Delray Street, N. M.. appeared before Council in
iopposition to the request for rezoning and presented a petition signed by 45 pro-
perty owners in the Floraland Drive. Ravenwood Avenue, and Greenlawn Avenue, N.
vicinity objecting to the rezoning because of parking and sewage problems.
Mr. John M. Taylor, Attorney, representing the petitioners, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his clients and advised that the pro-
iposed apartments will be nice units and that there will be ample parking.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Mheeler moved that the request for
!'rezoniug be denied. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the follow'
i~ AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
!Webber .........................
ii NAYS: None ..........O.
i ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday, April 3,
!i1972, on the request of Graham and Associates, that property located on the southerly
ilside of Colonial Avenue, S. ¥., described as 1.65 acres'of land. Official Tax No.
1280301 bounded on the west by 18 23 described Official Tax Nos
i1380201, and on the east by 1.316 acres, described as Official Tax No. 1280322. be
irezoned from RG-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 follomin
report requesting that Council table this item nntfl such time as the Planning
Department has reported back to the City Planning Commission on the matter Of
extension provision relating to commercial and industrial zones:
'March 16, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Mebbero Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
This petition was recommended for approval by the City
Planning Commission on March 2, 1972 (see enclosure) and is
now scheduled for public hearing by the City Council on April
The Planning Director requested that this matter be recon-
sidered again in light of the fact that the petitioner does not
meet the two-acre minimum requirement as specified in the Zoning
Ordlnnnance to rezone a Col classification (Article XII, Sec.
Some of the Planning Commission members noted that this parcel
abuts on lodnstrial district and the two-acre minimum does not
therefore apply since this constitutes an extension of an industrial
district. The Planning Director noted that if this parcel were to
be rezoned to an industrial classification the, two-acre minimum
would apply since it represented an extension of an existing
industrial district. Homever, the parcel in question abuts a
commercial district, and the two-acre minimum does apply here.
The Planning Commission members generally felt that this
matter required further study by the Planning Department to deter-
mine the feasibility of this section of the Zoning Ordinance per-
taining to extension provisions which enable rezonJng to a commer-
cial or industrial classification from a residential classifica-
tion without having to meet the two-acre minimum requirement. Zhe
Planning Director was requested to specifically determine the
feasibility of the extension provision which does not permit a
commercial rezonJng from an existing apartment zoning classifica-
tion to be exempt from the two acre minimum requirement when it
abuts an icdustrial zone.
Accordingly. motion was made. duly seconded and unanimously
approved to request City Council to Table this item until-such
time as the Planning Department has reported back to the Planning
Commission on the matter of extension provision relating to commer-
cial and industrial zones.
Sincerely
S/ Creed K. Lemon. Jr. by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman#
Mr. Thomas moved that the public hearing be continued until 2 p.m., Mon-
day, April 10. 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. #heeler and unanimously adopted.
COMPLAINTS-SIDEMALK. CURB AND G~TER: Mr. Joseph K. Ingram appeared before
Council and renewed a petition signed by nine property owners which was presented
to Council in April. 1970, relating to the condition of the curb in the 2000
block of Mount Vernon Road, S. M., caused primarily by flooding at the intersectioni!
of Mount Vernon Road and Brandon Avenue, S, M., and further complainin9 of sewer
rats entering his home through the semer lines, and expressing the opinion that the
installation of the curb should be done at total city expense since the deteriora-
tion was caused by floodin9.
After a discussion of the complaints, Mr. Thomas moved that the matter
be referred to the City Manager for further investigation and report to Council as
!soon as possible. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, page 346.)
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, lheeler and Mayor
Webber ..........................
NAys: None ........... O.
BUDGET-COMMISSIONER OF TIlE REVENUE: Copy of a communication from Mr.
Jerome S. Howard, Jr** Commissioner of the Revenue. transmitting his proposed
1972-73fiscalyearbudget .... beforeC .... il.
Mr. Garland moved that the proposed budget be referred to 1972-73 budget
study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
SGtlOOLS: Copy of a communication from Mr. Richard 11. Hahn, tenderin9 his
resignati ........ beroftheLocalBoardof¥irginiaMesternG ..... ityCollege
since he will be residing in Cleveland, Ohio, was before Council.
Dr. Tayl ......d that th ....ignation b .....pted with regret. The
motion was seconded by Rt. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
STREET L1GIITS-SIGNS-TRAFF1C: A commuhication from Mrs. Betty McCeorge,
Chairman. Loudon Parent Organization, transmitting copy of a petition signed by
164 Loudon Day Care Center parents, requesting that a traffic light be placed at
the corner of ?th Street and ~henandoah Avenue, N. M.. that the 700 block of
Shenandoah Avenue, N. ~., have signs stating ten to twenty minute parking and
that the pedestrian walkway be painted, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Dr.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: A communication from Mr. James L. Cross. Jr**
President, Cross Electric Company, Incorporated. requesting the permanent closing
and abandonment of a portion of Roanoke County Road No. IHS~ also known as old
Route 117. was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the request be referred to the City Manager and the
City Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: An application from Hr. Jach B, Coulter, Attorney, representing
Hodges Lumber Corporation, requesting thst property located ut the intersection of
!Malnut Hill and Laurel Street, S. E.. described as Lots 12, 13 and 14, Bloch 20,
~Roanoke Cas and Mater Company Map, Officisl Tax Nos. 4041001 and 4041002, be rezone
ifron RG-I, General Residential District. to RG-2, General Residential District,
mas 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..Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Mr. John L. Apostolouo Attorney+ representing
Roanoke Development Corporation, requesting that S.377 acres of land, more OF less.
located on the south side of Shenandoah Avenne at Peters Creek, and also, a tract
of land containing 2.25? cares, more or less. located on the south side of
Shenandoah Avenue and Miller Street, N. N., be rezoned from RS-3, 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
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The notion
was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-GARAGE-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written
report recommending that $29.00 be transferred from Insurance under Section ~71.
"Garage.* to Insurance under Section m45. "Police Department," of the 1971=72 bud-
get. to provide additional funds for a three-year policy for professional liability
insurance for coverage of nurses working in the blood alcohol clinic.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Ctiy
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20191) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #?1, "Garage," and
Section ~45, "Police Department," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and pro-
viding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Hook n36, page 346.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the follouing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler and Mayor
Nebber ...................... 7.
NAYS: None ......~ .... O.
BUDGET-SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS-CITY ENGINEER: The City Manager submitted
a written report recommending that $2,b00.00 be appropriated to Data Processing
under Section u~O, *Sewage Treatment Fund," of the 1971-72 Sewage Treatment Fond
Appropriation Ordinance, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year and
further recommending that $100.00 be transferred from Vehiculer Equipment - Replace.
iment to Printing and Office Supplies under Section m50, EStreet Repair,* of the
~1971-72 budget, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year.
'265
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the City
Manager and offered the folloulng eaergency Ordinance appropriating $2.600,00 to
Data Processing under Section ago, 'Sewage Treatment Fund.# of the 19T1-72 Sewage
Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance:
(n20192) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section agO. "Sewage Treat-
!nent Fund," of the lg?l=T2 Senage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance, nnd pro-
vidln9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book ~36. page 347.)
'Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following rote:
i AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor,. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
iMebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: N ..............O.
Mr. Thomas then offered the following emergency Ordinance transferring
$100.00 from Vehicular Equipment - Replacement to Printing and Office Supplies
under Section n5fl. "Street Repair." of the 1971-72 budget:
(#20103) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~50, "Street Repair,'
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
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 .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........ ~-0o
RADIO-TELEVISION-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having referred to the
~CJty Manager for study, report and recommendation a communication from Rt. Richard
~F. Pence, Attorney. representing Roy B. Park Broadcasting of Roanoke, Incorporated.
i(WSLS-TV), requestin9 that the City'of Roanoke enter into a lease agreement which
:will permit MSLS-TV to use the tower and building on Mill Mountain for its trans-
!!later antenna (Channel 2), and Council having further requested the City Manager
'rD report on the request of Mr. Jim Gibbons, representing WPVR. to install an FM
translator on the city-owned tower on Mill Mountain for the purpose of transmitting
[iGarden City, Sugar Loaf, South Roanoke and South Salem, the City Manager submitted
following report advising that should the MSLS-IV application be 9ranted, there
:~be vacated if so required by the City 'of Rbanoke, that interference protection be
ithe responsibility of the company be either correction or vacation that a rental
!irate be determined for further report to Council adequate to accommodate rental of
i!the tower, the benefit of the use of the tower and the expense which the city bears
~of ~nsurance, stand-by equipment, maintenance and electricity, and, further advising
Ithat should the request of WPVR be granted, it should contain the same provisions as
iabovementioned plus the procurement of consent from the Times-Morld Corporation:
'266'
"April 3, 1972
Honorable Mayor end City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Rill Mountain Tomer
At your last meeting on Rarch 27. Mr. Richard F. Pence,
Attorney, appeared before the City Council in behalf of Roy H.
Park Broadcasting of Roanoke, Incorporated, requesting that the
City authorize the installation and enter into a lease agreement
math that company which mould permit MSLS-TV to use the tumor
and building on Mill Mountain for its Channel 2 translator antenna.
The Council referred this to me for report back to you at your
meeting on April 3 and the folloming constitutes such reply.
For some years MSLS-TV has had its translator equipment
· mounted on the tower owned by Appalachian Power Company and
situated on Mill Mountain. Last fall the Mill Mountain Com-
mittee approached the pomer company in regard to its proposed
project of constructing a mild flomer garden. They indicated
to the company that the tower was situated in the area of their
proposal and made inquiry of the company as to the possibility
of removing or relocating the tower. As a result of this the
power company investigated the possibility of relocating its
radio equipment entirely from Hill Mountain and accordingly they
notified MSLS-T¥ that they mere planning to cancel their present
agreement math RSLS-TV. On receiving this advice the general
manager of the broadcasting company and other personnel conferred
with us as to their situation and inquired as to the possibility
of mounting their translator on the City tower. Me indicated our
interest in looking into this, also some question in regard to
it and also the necessity of obtaining certain approvals from the
Times-Morld Corporation who is the actual owner of the structure
and from whom the City leases the facility and use thereof.
Basically the purpose of a translator is. as the name ibplies.
that the equipment receives the signal of a broadcasting station
from its main point of transmission and then translates that sig-
nal to a usually specifically defined area. The interest of the
Mill Mountain area is %he difficulty of the area broadcasters
being able to direct their signal from their main point of trans-
mission, particularly sites such as Poor Mountain, into the Gar-
den City and South Roanoke areas. This the translator does.
At the present time there is mounted on the tower MDBJ-TV,
MBRA-TV (as very recently authorized), the C ~ P Telephone Com-
pany, the U. S. Forestry Service and the several antennas of the
City's operational frequencies, There is, as noted, this
request by MSLS-TV. Additionally the Council received and refer-
red for study, on November 15, lqTl, a request from MPVR to
install an FM translator on the tower. There has been a further
and more recent suggestion of another radio station for permis-
sion to mount its equipment on the tower; however, this verbally
has been suggested to the owners that the proposal not be made.
There is admittedly at this time space on the tower that
would enable the accommodation of both WSLS-TV and WPVR. In
the case of television the requirement for the receiver antenna
is approximately four feet of vertical space and the translator
antenna requires approximately four feet of vertical space.
Our concern in this situation is two-fold and it is empha-
sized that these are not in any way intended to be adverse in
attitude to the applicants themselves or their particular inter-
est. The first point is that the tower is becoming rapidly filled
in use. In addition to these specific space requirements above
noted, there must also be maintained certain clear space between
installations. The limitations of tower space come into consider-
ation as to how future requests might be handled and decisions
made as to who would be or mbo mould not be permitted on the tower
and also as to the necessity Of reserving space ~or future City
installations. At the moment, for example, plans are under con-
sideration for an additional police base station for which engi-
neering has not been completed but mhich will require tower space.
It is felt that any further lease agreements to utilize the tower
must contain a vacate clause subject to the future needs of the
City although it is recognized that the practicality of securing
a vacation from such a facility is not easily attained. It is
felt that the time mill shortly arrive, or may be here, when
broadcasting operations should seriously consider the situating
and construction of another tower somemhere in the Valley area
that mill accommodate present and future needs. It is recognized
that approval of a second tower on Rill Mountain would be ques-
tionable in view of potential development on that area; homever,
studies quite possibly could locate a site that mould satisfac-
torily direct to the same purpose as Mill Mountain.
The second point is that radio radiation devices in a con-
centrated situation such as the Mill Mountain tower and transmitter
building otter the potential for mutual electronic interference.
This could impose upon MSLS-T¥, MPYR or other requests an obli-
gation of engineering studies to determine problems of tbis type
os might develop and what might be measures to correct them,
Mith this it is likewise recognized that various studies by
various firms can produce different analyses related to antenna
purpose of the stodles.
Mlth its existing operation, Park Broadcasting has the
authority of a translator installation and it is presumed that
the mechanics are relatively simple for a resituatlon with the
FCC. It is understood that MPVR does not have FCC approval for
its translator but that it cannot seek such authorization until
a location has been confirmed and this established site is a part
of the data submitted to FCC for approval of the equipment.
As mentioned, under the City's lease, the Times-Morld Cor-
poration must give approval to any installation other than the
City on the tower subject to the subletter being (a) a public
service corporation or (b) a federal, state or governmental
agency for such agencies own communications functions. This
consent. MSLS-TV has obtained. Any authorization by City Coun-
cil to MPVR would be subject to that firm obtaining this consent.
It is acknowledged that discontinuance of the translator by
MSLS would produce repercussions on the part of certain 9eographi-
cai segments of City and County citizens. Additionally the
ability of MPVR to perform with a translator mould increase the
service of that station to City and County areas. Future requests
by the one remaining television station and other radio stations
as to their needs are unknown at this point. It is also to be
noted that MSLS is already on Mill Mountain.
It is acknomledge that under present circumstances and with
the only two requests before the City Council at this point that
it is difficult to develop a positive case that would confirm
immediate problem upon 9ranting these requests. At the same
time to properly project, as must be done. these two installations,
irrespective of conditions that might be written, can impose
future difficulties in additional tower space requirements for
City facilities or for other public use purposes under civil
defense, etc.
Should the MSLS-T¥ application be granted, there should be
included among other standard conditions of a lease, that the space
would be vacated if so required by the City. that interference
protection be the responsibility of the company by either correc-
tion or vacation and that a rental rate be determined for further
report to the City Council adequate to accommodate rental of the
tower, the benefit of the use of the tower and the expense, which
'the City bears, of insurance, stand=by equipment, maintenance and
electricity.
Should the request of MPVR be 9ranted then it should include
the same provisions as the above plus the procurement of consent
from Times-World Corporation.
If we can furnish any additional information to the City
Council. we mould be glad to so do.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager"
Rt. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager and the
'City Attorney to work out the necessary details, the City Attorney to prepare the
iappropriate measores after said details have been worked out. The motion was
268
that a petition mill be circulated among rresldents within the block to request tha
the "Ho Parking" signs be installed on the north side ofthe street and that mben
this petition is received, the matter will be bandied accordingly.
Mayor Webber advised that the petition has been mailed to him and he
mill forward said petition to the City Manager for necessary action. ~
Mr. Thomas moved that the report of the City Manager be received and
filed. The notion was seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the petition be referred to the City Manager for
necessary action. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the folloming report
advising that in view of recent stringent requirements that have been imposed upon
the Semage Treatment Plant. he is instructing the Director of Public Works to issue
instructions that will be posted in the Sewage Treatment Plant and mill be avail-
able to any and all companies, firms or persons who are delivering to the Sewage
Treatment Plant advising then that certain listed materials will not be accepted
at the Plant:
"April 3, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Mater Pollution Control Plant
In view of the recent stringent requirements that have
been imposed upon the City's Sewage Treatment Plant. it is felt
that, in addition to a number of other things which will be
coming along in the course of time. the City should exercise
definite and tight control over that which the septic tank
companies are delivering to the plant. Accordingly. I am in-
structing the Director of Public Works to issue instructions
that will be posted in the plant and that will be available
to any and all companies, firms or persons who are delivering
to the plant that the following materials will not be accepted:
I. Motor oils; greases.
2. Solvents or volatiles as kerosene, cleaning fluids.
gasoline, fuel oils, naphtha, or explosive liquids,
solids or gas.
3. Metalic Ions (mercury, chrome, lead, zinc, copper, etc.).
4. Sand, grit.
5. Any solid units as cans, rags, rocks, wire, etc.
6. Any acid waste (pH below 6.0).
7. Any strong alkaline waste (pH above 9.5).
8. Any insecticides, pesticides or similar material.
Any poisonous material harmful to aquatic life.
10. Asphalt, tars, bituminous materials, phenols.
Re additionally are advising that if the deliverer has any
doubts in regard to. the material, it is necessary on their part
to contact the plant before they load and that the plant nay
require a sample of not less than one-half gallon with any other
information that may be appropriate and that the plant will have
the option of accepting or rejecting each and all deliveries of
material.
Me do not feel at this point that it would be necessary to
request of City Council an ordinance with penalties in this regard.
Should, however, it become apparent that there is difficulty in
enforcing this matter, we may return to Council for ordinance con-
currence.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julain F. Hirst
City Manager"
· 269
Hr. C. H. Hall, Ouner. Hall's Septlo Tank Service, appeared before Counci
and raised the question as to what will be done with substances that cannot be
accepted at the Sewage Treatment Plant and pointed out that some understanding
should be reached at this time.
In a discussion of the matter, Hr. Llsk and Or. Taylor expressed concern
iover where the materials that cannot be accepted at the Semage Treatment Plant mllli
~be disposed of and pointed out that it is the responsibility of the city to find
~a location and a means of disposing of these materials.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
!Manager and that the matter also be continued until the regular meeting of Council
'on Monday, April 10, 1972, for further discussion. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Trout and unanimously adapted.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted a written report advising that a
meeting has been scheduled with representatives of Piedmont Airlines for Tuesday,
April 11o 1972, at 9 a.m** in his office, pertaining to negotiations with Piedmont
Airlines for a new three-year landing agreement at Roanote Municipal (Woodrum) Air-
port, and extending au invitation to any of the members of Council who might wish
to attend this meeting.
iseconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
STATE IIIGHWAYS-TRAFFIC-DRIDGES: The City Manager submitte~ a written
report advisin9 that Councll concurred in the awardin9 of a contract by the Virginia
Department of tligh~ays for the replacement of the Mud Lick Creek Bridge - Grandin
Road. that he has since received copies'of the standard maintenance agreement.
includin9 the cost participation estimate, from the ¥irginia Department of Ilighways
for execution by the City of Roanoke and recommendin9 the adoption of a Resolution
~approving this agreement.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20194) AN ORDINANCE concurring in the award of a contract by the Com-
moamealth of ¥irginia Department of Highwzys for the improvement of a portion of
iRoute 682 (Grandin Road, S. l.), in the City; providing for the execution of an agree-
!ment with the Virginia Department of Higbmays relative to the maintenance of Highway
Project U000-128-104, PR-lO1, RW-201, C-501 and Project 0682-080-150. B-633, Federal
IProject S-94~ (2), and signifying the City's intent to participate in the payment of
~!a certain portion of the costs of said projects; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinaoce Book ~35, page 34H.)
Mr. Lisk 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, #heeler and Mayor
Webber ...................... 7.
i~ NAYS: Nooe ......... O.
STATE HIGHMAYS: The City Rensger subwltted n written report odvisieg
thst the Store Highway Depsrtment has nwsrded the contrnct for the Tenth Street
approaches over the N ~ W Railroad to E. F. Blsnkenship Company, in the amount of
$1,261.364.15. and that the Highway Department has also awarded to Donald H.
Selvage, Incorporated, the signing of the Route 460 ProJect. in the total amount
of $126,534.37.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STREET LIGHTS: Council having received and filed a previous report of
the City Manager in connection with the installation of a street light in the
1500 block of Denniston Avenue. S. W.. the City Manager submitted a written report
advising that an order is being placed on the next listing to the Appalachian
Power Company for residential street liohting for the light installation at nidbloch
in the 1500 block of Denniston Avenue. S. W.
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted,
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a written rdport advising
that the City of Roanoke has received a finn! billing from Nello L. Tear Company
for the construction of the Roanoke Civic Center. that the final inspection of the
facility was held on February 24. 1972o that some items which are in need of cor-
rection were noted and it is believed that essentially all of this work has now
been adequately taken care of by the contractor, that the City Attorney is prepar-
ing such documents as will be required of the contractor at the stage of completion
and in connection with final payment, that as soon as these documents are prepared,
they will be handled with the company in conjunction with the architect and a
report will be made to Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City Manager submitted a written repor~
transmitting copy of the Ig?l Annual Report of the Social Service Bureau of the
Department of Public Welfare as prepared by Mrs. Corinne B. Gott. Superintendent.
Mr, Thoma~ moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITY ENGINEER: The City Manager submitted the following report advising
that the city has now taken title to the property near Courtland Avenue and
Thurston Avenue, said property to be developed by the city as a public works ser-
vice center, that located on this property are several outdoor advertising bill-
boards owned by Creative Displays of Roanoke, that the Company has requested that
the city grant the continued use of these billboards until such time as the
service center development commences, upon certain terms and conditions, and if
Council concurs in this proposal, it would be assumed that a Resolution authoriz-
i ing this agreement and accepting the payment of rental fee would be appropriate:
27~.
'April 3. 1972
Honorable Haler and City Council
Ronnoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: Public Works Service Center Property
The City has now taken title to the property near Courtland
and Thurstun Avenue formerly owned by Greyhound and Trailway
Bus Lines, which property Is proposed to be developed by the
City as a public works service center.
Located on this property are several outdoor advertising bill-
boards owned by Creative Displays of Roanoke. This company
has requested that the :ity grant the continued use of these
billboards until such time as the service center development
commences. Ve are in receipt of a check for $600 proposed
as semi-annual advance rental, comparable to the arrangements
with the prior owners. The terms of the agreement would
provide for the billboard owner to pay all utility bills and
idemnify the City for any liability arising from the existence
of the structures. The right to cancel the agreement at any
time would be on a thirty days' notice.
If Council concurs in this proposal, it would be assumed that
a resolution notborizin9 this agreement and acceptin9 the
payment of rental fee would be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Ilirst
City Manager'
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and that the aatter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper
measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
S£M£RS AND b-TORM DRAINS: The City Attorney submitted the following report
transmitting an opinion given to the City Auditor relative to rates to be charged
under new contracts for sewage transmission and treatment and suggesting the con-
sideration of Council of the establishment of a single date for commencement of
new charges:
*April 3. 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I attach hereto, for the information of Council and should
the Council consider it appropriate to direct a way other than is
stated in the attachment, copy of my letter opinion to the City
Auditor given Rarch 29th relative to the effective dates of the
new rates of charge to be made by the City for waste transmission
and treatment service rendered by it to the City of Salem and to
Roanoke County.
The'opinion expressed to the City Auditor, namely, that the
new base rate applicable to wastes of the City. of Salem commences
as of February 29. 1972. and that the neu base rate applicable to
the wastes Of Roanoke County commences March 17, 1972, is drawn
entirely from the written words of'the respective contracts which.
in each case, provide that the rate stated in the contract shall
It occurs to'the'city Manager. the City Auditor and the under-
signed that the Council may wish to make provision for some single
date within the near future on which the new waste transmission end
treatment charges shall, in each case, be commenced, rather than
abiding by the strict terms of the executed contracts, To that
extent, the Council's consldeEation of the matter is invited.
Respectfully,
J. N. Kiacanan
City Attorney'
Mr. Thanes moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and that the date of April I be established ns the dote on which the new waste
transmission and treatment charges shall, in each case, be commenced, and that the
City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure accordingly. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted,
MARKET-TRAFFIC-PLANNING: The City Attorney submitted the followJn9
report with reRard to an investigation of the legal possibilities available to the
City of Roanoke in the matter of the provision of a public parking garage in a
specified downtown area of the City of Roanoke and aa to which of the available
alternatives would provide to be the most advantageous to the city:
"April 3. 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
The within in is an interim report to the Council on the
assignment given on March 20. 1972. wherein the undersigned was
directed (a) "to investigate the legal possibilities available
to the City" in the matter of the provision of a public parking
garage in a specified downtown area of the City and (b) to "re-
port to the Council which of the available alternatives would
prove to be the most advantageous to the City." It will, of
necessity, concern itself primarily with the first of the two
involving matters considerably beyond those purely legal.
available reports and other material, as to those of the alter-
nate methods of financing of the proposed project by issuance of
its own bonds, as distinguished from the financing of the project
A
7he City Council determining the public necessity therefore,
the City ia authorized by its charter and by general law to pro-
vide off=street automobile parking facilities, and may lease space
therein not suitable for parking for private commercial purposes;
and, herin9 provided such facilities, may provide for its opera-
tion as a public parking facility by a department, board or other
into with a party other than the City.
B
City may lawfully expend public funds of the City. Lackin9
available cash funds, the City may derive such funds by sale of
bonds of the City,-of the type and having the characteristics as
set out in (a). (b). or (c), respectively, next following.
(a) Bonds issued under the City Charter as general obliga-
tion bonds and in which the full faith and credit of the City is
pledged for their payment, the amount of which is included in the
City's bond debt limitation and which require approval of the
273
(b) Bonds issued under the City Chsrter us for u revenue pro-
ducing project, in which bonds are pledged the revenues produced
by the proJect as well us the full faith und credit or the City.
So lung os such revenues are sufficient for the operation of the
project and for payment of the bonds and interest thereon as the
same becomes due. the amount of such bonds is not lucloded in the
Clty*s bond debt limitation but, as in (a), above, the approval of
the City*s qualified voters is required prior to sale and issuance
of the bonds.
(c) Bonds Issued under [ 15.1=178. et seq.. of the ¥irginia
Public Finance Act, os for n revenue producing project, the payment
of principal and interest on which are payable exclusively from
the revenues and receipts of the specific project and mhich may be
issued on affirmative vote of n majority of the Council, without
submission of the question of issuance to the qualified voters
for approval.
C
A further and perhaps equally advantageous alternative to
the City may be provided in legislation enacted as Senate Bill
No. 400 by the 1972 General Assembly of Virginia, recently
adjourned. While the act as passed has not yet been made avail-
able and, hence, no opinion is expressed as to its validity, it
is understood that the legislation, sponsored by a local member
of the Legislature at the instance of business interests of the
area mbo are cognizant of the need for off-street parking facil=
Jties in the major business area of the City, is designed, especi-
ally, to provide a vehicle by which the Council of the City of
Roanoke could assure provision of a public parkin9 garage afford-
In9 off-street parking facilities. It is further understood
that when the legislation is approved, the provisions of Senate
Bill No. 400 will become effective as law on July 1.
Under the recent legislation, there is created by the Legis-
lature in the City an Ucban Redevelopment Authority, as a tax-
free agency authorized to acquire property and to operate thereon
one or more projects pursuant to a plan authorized by the City
Council. The agency is authorized by the statute to borrow money
sufficient for its purposes and, when empowered by the Council, to
exercise the power of eminent domain under conditions authorized
by the Council or as provided under the general condemnation
statutes. It may not commence transactin9 its affairs or con-
ducting business unless and until the City Council, by resolution,
sets forth the necessity that said agency 90 into operation on a
date specified in such resolution. Further, the recent, legisla-
tion would authorize the City to acquire property within the area
of the aforesaid plan and, thereafter, to sell or lease such pro-
party, for use in accordance with the provisions of the act. It
is understood that the aforesaid act. as all other measures
enacted by the 1972 General Assembly, must be approved, or
disapproved, by the Governor no later than April 10, 1972.
Obviously, various policy decisions founded on factual
matters should be made by the Council prior to determini~9 whether
or not. or to what extent the City proceed as in (a), (b) or (c),
above. The reports of property value appraisals and the Phase 2
preparation of plans and drawing ordered by the Council at the
time of directing the within report have not, it is understood,
been completed and reported to the Council. Time, however, is
recognized as being of the essence in certain of the decisions
which the Council may wish to promptly make; however, it does
not appear that any great exploratory consideration has been
given the matter of what degree of assurance, if any, might be
afforded the City with reference to its financial obligation
should the Council elect to proceed as in (a), (b)
or
(c),'
abovementioned, such as an underwriting or guarantee of the
City's obligations on thus bonds.
The Council might, if its mature consideration so dictated,
take formal action to commit the Council to implementation of the
provisions of the recent legislation, referred to as Senate Bill
No 400 when that legislation is approved to take effect on
uly 1. 1972. That done, a first step towards provision of the
off-street parking facility contemplated by the Council would
have been accomplished; but should it develop to the Counctl*s
satisfaction and prior to July 1. 1972, that the facility coul~
better be provided by financing such as in (a), (b) or (c), above,
thewayw°uldbe'°pent°thatmethndth .... lectedbytheC .... il.
I shall advise the Council upon receipt from bond counsel
of their comments on the methods of procedure aborementioned,.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Klncanon
J, N, Kincanon
City Attorney"
Later during the meeting. Hr. Wheeler moved that Council go into
Executive Session to discuss the matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
After the Executive Session, Mr. Wheeler moved that action on the matter
be deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, April IO, If?2.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, a joint communication from Mr. John Penn Lee and
Fleetwood Realty Company making a formal mritten commitment to the construction of
an office building located at Second Street, Church Avenue and Kirk Avenue, S.
contingent upon the commitment of the city to b~ild the parking facility as recom-
mended in the feasibility study prepared by National Garages, Incorporated, mas
also before Council,
Mr. Garland moved that the communication from Mr. Lee and Fleetmood
Realty Company be received and filed. The motion Mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
Mr. Wheeler then moved that Council invite affected merchants in the
downtonn area to be present at the next meeting of Council on Monday, April lO,
1972, for the purpose of presenting their views on the matter. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Lisk further moved that the report of the City Attorney be taken
under advisement, The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Council having referred to the City Attorney for
study, report and recommendation a communication from Mrs. Arthur Jones, 1805
Wallace Avenue, N. Eo, advising that on August 4, 1971, the police had a shoot out
with her next door neighbor and in the process her home mas damaged by police bul-
lets and requesting that Council take the necessary action to pay for repairs to
her home. the Assistant City Attorney submitted a mritten report advising that it
is his opinion that the city is not legally liable for any damage caused to the
home of Mrs. Jones, that the policemen were acting in their official capacity and
therefore are entitled to immunity for negligent actions, if any.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Garland moved that the City Managel
be requested to furnish Council with an appraisal of the. damages done to the home
of Mrs. Jones. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
DOGS-COMPLAINTS-TAXES: Council having requested that the City Attorney
investigate the use of nembuthal sodium at the City Dog Pound and report his find-
! ings to Council. the Assistant City Attorney submitted a written report advising
that prior to the interest o~ ~ouncll Jn this matter, Mr. Don Garver, an inspector
!, of the Commonwealth*s Pharmacy Board. visited the City Dog Pound concerning the
275
of this drag, that his office has been In contact mith Mr. Carver, that he will
be providing his report in this matter to the City Attorney's Office and suggesting!
that the matter be deferred pending receipt of a report from Mr. Carver. '
Hr. Mheeler moved that the report he received and filed. The motion mos
Iseconded by #r. Trout and unanlmonsly adopted.
REPORTS OF CORRITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
CITY TREASURER-LICENSES: Council having referred to a committee for
i!study, report end recommendation a request of the City Treasurer that Council give
~the City Treasurer the authority to assess and issue, in addition to bis present
authority to collect, for the sale of all 1972 Roanoke City automobile license tags
or decals, as well as all other types of city vehicle licenses, the matter was
iagain before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that action on the matter be deferred until the next
iregular meeting of Council on Monday. April 10. 1972. The motion mas seconded by
Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted,
STATE HICHRAYS: Council, at its last regular meeting, having deferred
action on a report of the C~ty Manager in connection mith the proposed section of
the Southmost Expressway which is designated as Route 220 being the connection
,between Franklin Road and U. S. Route 220 south of the City of Roanoke at the inter-
section of Storkey Road and Virginia Route ,I19, pending receipt of certain informa-
tion from Mr. John i. Miller, President, Virginia Metal Manufacturing Company.
Incorporated, the matter mas again before the body.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally advised that he would like
to withdram his report and proposed Resolution pending further reviem and that he
will report further on the matter at a later date.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
ifor permission to withdraw the report and proposed Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mr. John M. Miller, President, Virginia Metal Manu-
!fracturing Company, Incorporated, appeared before Council and requested that at such
time as the report of the City Manager is presented to Council he mould like to
ipr~sent a written statement pertaining to the matter.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: Ordinance No. 20163. providing for the grant
!previously been before ouncil for its fi t rea lng, re a Iai v , u g '
~lbef°re the body, Mr. Trout offering the following for it ...... d reading and final
(a20183) AN ORDINANCE providing for the grunt and conveyance to the
County of Roanoke of a certain easement for the construction and operation Of a
portion of a public sanitary semer line within the City; and waiving, to the extent!
herein provided, certain provisions contained in the contract between .the City of
Roanoke and the County of Roanoke made under date of September 20, 1954.
{For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u36o page 3§S.)
Mr. Trout 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, Nheeler and Hayer
Mebber ......................... 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
GARBAGE REMOYAL: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure authorizing the City Manager's execution of an agreement with
Roanoke Distributing Company, Incorporated. permitting the city to enter onto cer-
tain property owned by said Company for the purpose of borrowing fill material for
use at the city's Norwich Landfill, he presented same; whereupon. Mr. Trout offered
the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(~20195) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager's execution of an
agreement with Roanoke Distributing Company. Inc., permitting the Gity to enter
onto certain property owoed by said Company for the purpose of borromlng fill
naterlal for use at the City's Norwich Landfill; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 351.)
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following ~ote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Tro~. Nheeler and Mayor
Webber .........................
NAYS: None ..........O.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-SCHOOLS: Council having directed the City Attor-
Basketball Team and to its coaching staff upon their successful pursuit of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association College Division National Uasketball
Championship and to Coach Charles R. Molt. Captain Hal Johnston and Jay Piccolo
Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution:
(u20196) A RESOLUTION expressing congratulations to the Roanoke College
Basketball Team and to its coaching staff upon their successful pursuit of the
National Collegiate Athletic Association College Division National Basketball
Championship, and to Coach Charles R. Moir, Captain Hal Johnston and Jay Piccolo
for their attainment of certain individual honors.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~36,. page
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
277
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
IMebber ..... ~ .................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
BUDGET-COUNCIL-CITY GOVERNMENT: Council having directed the City Attorne~
to prepare
the proper measur~ appropriating $4,761o69 to Dues, Memberships and Sub-I
scrlptions under Section FI. 'Council,' of the 1971-72 budget the matter was
before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be tabled with regret. The motion was
iseconded by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the followin9 vote:
I AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
iMebber .......................... ?.
NAYS: None ........... O.
BUDGET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having directed the City Attorney
to prepare the proper measure appropriating funds in connection with a wildflower
garden on Mill Mountain. Br. Trout offered the following emergency OrdJuance
appropriating $29,550.00 for said purpose:
(~20197) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #Bg. "Transfers to
Capital Improvements Fund," Of the 1971-T2 Appropriation Ordinance. and providin~
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~35, page 354.)
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. Rheeler and Mayor
Rabbet ........................7.
! NAYS: None ........... O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY: Mr. Lisk verbally requested that the
iCity Attorney determine when the City of Roanoke will be able to advertise the 105
~parcels of land recommended by the Real Estate Committee to be put on public auction.
In this connection, the City Attorney submitted a written report pro-
posino that the notices of sale be published weekly on three occasions commencing
;on April 13, 1972, followed by auction sale of the properties on April 2B, lg?2,
ilthe details of conducting said sale to be handled by the Real Estate Committee.
~: Mr. Trout moved that the report of the City Attorney be received and
!filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
CiTY ENGINEER: Mr. Lisk verbally requested that the City Manaoer report
?on bids for the service center, plans and specifications.
+
The City Manager submitted a written report advisin9 that tltle,clearance
'278
for this particular type of facility, a part of the interest has been in the desig
of the buildings, homever, u major element Is in the analysis Of the city*s opera-
i tions and future with the object that the firm who undertakes the mark may
present
be in a position to relate operational needs and total property use, replacement.
purpose and design of structures and other facilities and that it is believed that
at this point, one particular firm is felt to be in u position to best work along
these lines and if all matters progress satisfactorily a specific recommendation
intended to Council mithin approximately the next two weeks.
FIRE DEPARTMENT-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: Mr. Lisk verbally requested
a progress report from the City Manager in reference to the three locutions for
the northmest, southmest and domntown firehouses.
The City Manager submitted a written report advising that an architect
has not yet been recommended to Council for the main fire station and that this
will be proceeded with very shortly and then he will follom mith more detailed site
analysis and building requirements evaluations in order to make a specific recom-
mendation to Council, that preliminary design drawings have been made by Minston S.
Shorpley for the southmest fire station, that various analyses have been made of
sites Mith the alternative locations having been unframed down to a specific area
of approximately two street block lengths, that from this he has narrowed to and is
concentrating drawings on one specific site. that this location is being currently
and actively reviewed with the uses of the property and just as soon os certain
determinations are worked out in this connection, a recommendation will be brought
to Council as to location and building design.
AIRPORT: Mr. Lisk verbally requested that the City Manager give a
Status report in reference to CounciJ*s concurrence to proceed On the airport expan-
sion as to the timetable pertaining to this matter.
The City Manager submitted a written report advising that the architects,
Sherertz and Franklin, have proceeded with the plans and specifications, including
the updating of all previously prepared material, that the work has included con-
sultation with city personnel, the airlines, the FAA. the restaurant operators amd
others, that on March 28. 1972, the architect advised that it was expected that the
plans would be completed by April 15 and would be ready for review and approval by
Council thereafter.
PLANNING-JAIL-POLICE DEPARTMENT-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: Mr. Lisk verbally requested that Mayor Mehber appoint certain members of
Council to the Regional Jail Study Committee.
Mayor Mebber advised that Messrs. Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and
Vincent S. Nheeler are now on the Fifth Planning District Commission representing
the City of Roanoke and that he takes the position that these three men can and
will represent the City of Roanoke on the Regional Jail Study matter.
279
.!
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the neeting
!adjourned.
t APPROVED
ATTEST:
IDeputy City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, April 10, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, April 10, 1972, at 2 p.m., the regalar
meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding.~I
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor, ~
Hampton M. Thomas. James O. Trout. Vincent S. Mheeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebber--7.
ABSENT: None ...................................................... O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Ilirst, City Manager. Mr. James N.
Kincanon. City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was 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,
February 28, 1972. having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of
Hr. Trout. 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:
ZONING: Council having continued a public hearing until 2 p.m.. Monday,
April 10, 1972. on the request of Graham and Associates, that property located on
the southerly side of Colonial Avenue, S. M.. described as 1.65 acres of land,
Official Tax No. 12130301, bounded on the west by ID.23 acres, described as Official
Tax No. 13G0201, and on the east by 1.315 acres, described as Official Tax No.
1280322, be rezoned from RG-2, General Residential District~ to C-l. Office and
Institutional District. pending a report from the City Planning Commission on the
matter of extension provision relating to commercial and industrial zones, the
matter was again before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report advising that the request for r.zoning has been reconsidered by the Plan-
ning Commission and that since the petitioner does not meet the two-acre minimum
requirement for fez.ninE, the Planning Commission has no other recourse except to
recommend that th,is petition be denied:
"April 6. 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Nebber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
This communication pertains to the Graham and Associates
petition in which the Planning Commission on March 1, 1972
recommended approval of a 1.65 parcel of land from a RG-2 to
a C-I designation. Subsequently. the [~laoning Director on March
15 recommended to the Planning Commission that this petition be
reconsidered in light of the fact that the petitioner does not
meet the 2-acre minimum requirement. The Planning Commission
then instructed the Plannin9 Director to study the 2-acre pro-
vision and determine its validity and applicability to this
petition.
At the April 5 meeting of the Planning Commission a notion
was made, duly seconded and unanimously approved to reconsider
this petition. The Planning Director then presented a legal
opinion (see enclosed) from the City Attorney noting that the 2-
acre minimum requirement is not applicable if the rezonJng peti-
tion represents an extension of an existing zone. Houever. In
this case the petition does not represent an extension of an
existing district and the petitioner must meet the R-acre mimi-
mum requirement.
The Planning Director noted that the extension provision
concept is predicated on preventing spot zone situations, and in
thereby providing for a harmonous grouping of separate commercial
or industrial uses of sufficient size and acreage to create n
viable entity. Certainly. he noted, uses in n Col zone, such as
a doctor*s office, as an example, are not compatible mith uses Ja
a IIM district, such as a machine shop operation.
The Plannin9 Commission members expressed thc Viewpoint
that since the petitioner does not meet the tho-acre minimum
requirement they then have no other recourse except to recom-
mend denial of this petition.
Mr. Richard Cranwell, attorney for the petitioners, appears
before the Planning Commission and noted that if this is the case
the only relief for this petitioner would he to mlthdram this
petition.
On reconsideration a motion nas made, duly seconded and
unanimously approved to recommend to City Council to deny this
request.
*March 2R, 1972
Lothar Mermelstein, Planning Director
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Extension of existino district
boundaries
Dear Mr. Mermelstein:
You have requested from this office an opinion as to
whether the previsions of Sec. 67 of the Zoning Ordi-
nance would permit the rezoning of less than two acres
of residentially zoned property, adjacent to an indus-
trial zone. to a commercial designation.
Sec. 67 of the Zonin9 Ordinance reads, in part. as follows:
"Except for extension of existing district
boundaries, no change in zonin9 classification
to a commercial or industrial category shall
be considered mhich involves an area of less
than tho acres, and no separate commercial or
industrial district of less than two acres
s~all he created by any amendment to this chap-
ter."
This provision clearly permits the extension of an exist-
icg commercial or industrial zone uhere the area of such
extension is less than tuo acres, but prohibits creation
of a separate commercial or industrial district of les§
than two acres.
It is the opinion of this office that the provisi~ns Of'
Sec. 67 of the Zoning Ordinance will permit the creation
of an industrial zone where a residential district of less
than two acres ndjoias an existing industrial district,
but will not permit the creation Of o new commercial dis-
trict where the existing residential district adjoins an
existing industrial district and the area involved cbc-
rains less than two acres.
Respectfully,
S/ Ednard A. Natt
Edward A. Natt
Assistant City Attorney*
Sincerely.
S/ llenry D. Boynton by LM
Acting Chairman"
lith reference to the matter, a communication from Mr. Barry L. Flora,
Attorney, representing th~ petitioners, requesting permissi'on to mithdram the
request for fez,ming, mas also before Coun'cil.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of Mr. Flora for per-t
mission to withdraw the petition for fez,ming. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 pom., Monday. April
10, 1972, on the request of Mr. John £. ThoFnhill that property located at the south-
west corner of Elm Avenue and Fifth Street, S. !** described as one half of Lot 11
and all of Lots 12 and 13, Block 12. Lewis Addition Map, Official Tax
be res,ned from C-l, Office and Institutional District. to C-2. General Commercial
District, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, t~e City Planning Commission submitted the foil,win9
report recommending that the request be denied:
"January 20, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. lebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke. ¥irginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Plan-
ning Commission at its regular meeting of January lC, 1972.
Mr. T. L. Plunkett, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that this property is
located on the corner of Fifth Street and Elm Avenue, S. N. lle
noted that Mr. ~hornhill is the proprietor of the Pick-~ick
grocery stores and that he proposes to build another such estab-
lishment and a gasoline pump on this site. He also noted that
the parcel is located on a heavily traveled street and, therefore,
represents a good use orr this piece of land.
The Planning Commission members generally concurred that the
area remain in its present C-I designation to provide for high
quality office and institutional uses. In addition, it was
pointed out that the location of a service station or a small
retail store on this site would tend to create more of a traffic
hazard on this heavily traveled intersection.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to deny this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr., by LM
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
Mr, T. L. Plunker., Jr., Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client and advised that his client
proposes to construct a Pic-Ouik Grocery Store on the corner of Fifth Street and
Elm Avenue, S. B., that this parcel of land is located on a heavily traveled
street and represents a good use for the land.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoniug, Mr. Wheeler
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(a2Olg8) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥. Chapter 4,1, Section 2, of The
I Code of the City of Noanoke~ 1956. as amended, and Sheet No. 112, Sectional 1966
iZone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
WREREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to hare property located at the southmest corner of Elm Avenue and Fifth Street,
S, W., described as one half of Lot 11 and all of Lots 12 and 13, Bloch 12, Lewis
Addition Map, Official Tax No. 1120fl13, rezoned from C-I, Office and Institutional
District, to C-2, General Commercial District; and
WH£REAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land not be rezoned from C-l, Office and Institutional District.
to C-2, General Commercial District; and
WR£REAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
aWd posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1, Title X¥, of The Code of the
City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and post-
ed as required and for the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS. the hearing as provided for in said notice mas held on the lOth
day of April, 1972. 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. 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. 112 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map,
City of Roanoke, be amended in the folloming particular and no other, viz.:
Property located on the southmest corner of Elm Avenue and Fifth Street,
S. Mo, described as one half of Lot 11 and all of Lots 12 and 13,'Block 12. Lewis
Addition Map, designated on Sheet 112 of the Sectional 1965 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 1120B13, be, and is hereby, changed from C-l, Office
and Institutional District, to C-2, General Commercial District, and that Sheet
No. 112 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by ~r. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber .......................
NAYS: Rt. Trout ......1.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Ronday, April
10, 1972. on the request of Spectrum. Incorporated. that property located at lO0
Lee Avenue, N. E., described as the southerly one-half of Lot 3, Block 4, Map of
Upson Addition, Official Tax No. 3160129, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential
District, to RG-1, 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 original
request for a RG-2 rezoning:
'March 2, 1972
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 March 1, 1972.
Mr. Claude D. Carter, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and presented a plot plan noting
that ~Js development mould serve as a suitable buffer between
the commercial uses on iilliamson Road and the duplexes located
in the surrounding area. Additionally. he noted that the property
in question consists of a house and a garage, and there are
apartments located in the garage, the basement, and the upstairs.
Finally. Mr. Carter stated that an apartment rezoniog mould be
in heaping mith the character of the neighboring properties.
Mr. Boynton, Planning Commission member, raised the question
of shy he was asking for a RD-2 rezoning. Mr. Carter noted that
this property apparently has been used for sometime as an apartment
structure. Also. he noted that sometime in the future the RD-2
zoning designation may be appropriate for this parcel.
Mrs. Colverson appeared before the Planning Commission in
opposition to the rezoning and stated that she lives on the other
end of the block and noted that the street is very narrow and if
it is converted into apartments, it mill result in excessive traf-
fic circulation.
The Planning Commission members generally concurred that the
RO-I rezoning would be more appropriate than the RD-2 classifica-
tion.
Accordingly, motion mas made. duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to approve the RD-1 rezon-
lug in lieu of the original RC-2 rezoning.
Sincerely.
S/ Creed K. Lemon by LM
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
Chairman"
Mr. Claude D. Carter, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client.
On one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning, Mr. Garland
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(#20199) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke. 195b, as amended, and Sheet No. 3lb, Sectional 1965
Zone Map. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning..
NHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have the property described as log Lee Avenue, N. E.. Roanoke. Virginia. and
being the southerly one-half (~) of Lot 3, Block 4, according to the Map of Upson
Addition, being Roanoke City Official Tax No. 3160129 reaoned from RD, Duplex Resi-
dential District, to RG-2 General Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herelnafte?
described land be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-1, General
Residential District; and
NIIEREAS, 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
ity of Roanoke. 1956. as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published
posted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
WBEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice uns held on the I,th
day of April, lq~2, at 2 p,a** before the Council of the City of Roanoke, nt which
hearing all parties in interest end citizens were given an opportunity to be heard,
both for and against the proposed rezoning, and
WB£R£AS, this Council, al.tar considering the evidence as herein provided,i
is of the opini~n that the hereinnrter described land should be Fez,ned.
TBRREFOR£, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
=:Title XY. Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as
iamended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 316. of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map.
!of Roanoke, be amended In the relieving particular and no other, viz.:
Property located at 10B Lee Avenue, N. E., Roanoke. Virginia, described
'as the southerly one-half (~) of Lot 3, Block 4, Nap of Upson Addition, designated
on Sheet 316 Of the Sectional 1955 Zone Map, City of Roanoke as Official Tax No.
3160129 be. and is hereby, changed from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RC-I.
General Residential District, and that Sheet No. 316 of the aforesaid map be changed
in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the folloving vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ....................... ?.
NAYS: None ...........O.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
STREET LIGHTS: Copy of a communication from the Appalachian Purer Com-
pany, transmitting m list of street lights installed and/or removed during the
month of March, 1972, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication and Ils* be received and filed.
Tho motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-CLERK OF ZHE COURTS: A communication from Mr. Walker R. Carter,
Jr.. Clerk of the Courts, requesting that $900.00 be appropriated to Printing and
, Office Supplies under Section a25, "Clerk of Courts." of the 1971-72 budget, vas
before Council?
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the Clerk of the
Courts and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
ti (~20200) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~25, ~Clerk of Courts
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
!~~ .(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, page 358.)
ii'i Mr. Thom ......d the adopt ion of the Ordi ......The mot i ..........dud :i
I by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
I AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
i Webber ............... 7.
I NAYS: None ....... O.
POLICE DEPARYMENT: A communication from Mr. Frank C. Hoffman Owner
~Dixie Letter Service, in connection with the Police Training Manual which was
i printed by his Company. advising that he has received a check from the City of
:286
Roanohe in the amount of $2,638.51 mhJch covers two purchase orders for said work,
that there is · further outstanding invoice in the amount of $378,38 and requesting!
payment of said amount, was 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.
AIRPORT: A communication from Major Charles S. Glass, Commander, Roanoke
Squadron Virginia Ming, Civil Air Patrol, requesting a special appropriation of
$750.00 for the purpose of repairing two aircraft owned by the Civil Air Patrol
which were damaged during a windstorm while parked inside Moodrum Airport Ilaogar
15, advising that prior to this time and mJthout notification to the CAP, city
employees removed the doors from the hangar, and in so doing, deprived their air-
craft of the weather protection for which CAP pays and expressing the opinion that
the removal of the hangar doors by city employees was a direct cause of the damage
to these aircraft and is evidenced by the fact that no other hangared aircraft
suffered damage that night, was before the body.
Dr. Taylor moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager and
the City Attorney for study, report and recommendation to Council by the regular
meeting of Council on Monday, April 24, 1972. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk
and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-S~ATE COMPENSATION BOARD-SHERIFF: Copy of a communication from
the State Compensation Board, addressed to Mr. Paul J. Puckett. Sheriff. with
reference to his February, 1972. expense voucher, advising that the ~tate*s part
of claim for udes, memberships and subscriptions in the total amount of $42.00 has
been disallowed because the state does not share in the cost of such expense, was
before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE: Copy of a
communication from the State Compensation Board, addressed to Mr. 'Jerome S. Howard,
Jr.. Commissioner of the Revenue. with reference to his February, 1972, expense
voucher, advising that $33H.07 has been transferred from Data Processing Salaries
to Data Processing Equipment Rental in order to cover the February rental expense,
was before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
CELEBRATIONS: A communication from Mr. Frank Tirico. Sales Manager,
Roanoke Telecasting Corporation, respectfully soliciting the commercial participa-
ii~ tion of the City of Roanoke as one of the sponsors of certain telecasts to be pre-
Dogwood Festival to be held April 24 - 29,
sented
in
connection
the
Vinton
11972, was before Council.
Mr. Mheeler moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted, Mayor Webber voting no.
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: A communlcution from Mr, J. Thomas Rngleby, III
Chairman, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, transmitting the pleasure of the
Rosnohe County Board o! Supervisors in having u pert in resolving the seuer contro-~
versy end advising that It is his understanding that the City of Roanoke uill be
receptive to a revieu of the rate formula in approximately three years to deter-
mine mhether or not'inequities exist, was before the body.
RE. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. Tbs motion
~mas seconded'by Rro Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. C. Richard Cranuell. Attorney. repre-
senting Camille A. matin and James L. #eador, requesting that a 2.74 acre tract of
land located on the northerly side of Kenwood Boulevard, S. E., described as Offi-
cial Tax No. 4320120. be resorted from RG-I. General Residential District, to
General Residential District, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the request for rezdning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Ur. Garland and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OYiOE~ICERS:
BUDGET-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: The City manager submitted
a mritten report transmitting copy of u communication from the Juvenile and
:Domestic Relations Court requesting a supplement appropriation of $2,000.00 to
Printin9 and Office Supplies, advising that while this type of appropriation at this
particular point within the fiscal year is not n desirable procedure, it would
appear that the expenses incurred by the court throuRh the previous months of
the fiscal year and for those which remain, would necessitate this additional
funding.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20201) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~19, #Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court,# Of the 1971-T2 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
287
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber ...................... 7.
NAYS: ~one- .......... o.
the following report recommending certain adjustments in the 1971-72 budget of the
ii J ils and D tic Re 1 att°ns C°urt: .... ....
'288
"April 10, 1972
Ronorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
SubJect: 1971-72 Juvenile Court Budget
In the adoption or the budget far the Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court in June 1971, for the current fiscal year,
supplements mere provided therein from the Division of Justice
and Crime Prevention in the amounts of $5b.736.00 for personnel
and $5,152.00 for equipment. This is the supplemental program
that has been operated by the Roanoke City Court for two years
under the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention Program, mherein, under
this grant, au undergraduate and graduate trainee program is
conducted for probation officer trainees.
Shortly before the adoption of the City budget, this State
division changed the funding formulas from 60~ Federal and 40~
local to 75~ Federal and 25~ local. Due to the lack of time
which then prevailed, it was not possible to have the grant
approved by the Division of Jastlce and Crime Prevention in time
to place the adjustment in the budget.
Durin9 the past several months, there has been submitted an
application for a grant which has been approved but which is
more than the amounts contained in the City budget. For this
reason this recommendation J$ submitted for an amended budget.
The grant provides for a total of $78,749.00 to be added to the
personnel services account of the Court budget; for $5,000.00
to be added to the auto allowance account; for $1,bO0.O0 to be
added to the office equipment account and to continue the
$5.152.00 in office equipment account as provided for by the
City budget and the original grant.
The increase in personnel services is somemhat large but
the only change from that approved area is actually the addition
of a clerk-stenographer to handle the worh of the trainees, the
sic probation officers and the program administrator. This is
a net increase over that originally budgeted of
Ail of this, restate, is Federal Crime Prevention Funds.
It is recommended that the City Council by budget ordinance
amendment provide for this adjustment.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Ilirst
Julian F. Rirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating $22,013.00
to Personal Services, $5,000.00 to. Automobile Allowance and $1,500;00 to Office
iCourt," of the 1971-72 budget:
(~20202) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~19, "Juvenile and
iDomestic Relations Court** of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
ifor an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book ~3b. page 359.)
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, Nheeler and Mayor
#ebber 7.
! NAYS: None ......... ~-0.
BUDGET-AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted n mritten report recommendin
that $500.00 be transferred from Extra ~elp to Overtime under Section x65, "AJrpor
of the 1971-72 budget, advising that the additional overtime funds have become
overexpended due to the use of overtime for call back for the electrician at
nights and meekends, the overtime use of Janitors due to shortage of personnel or
vacations and that the airport call bacl also involves laborers during storms and
servicemen on certain evenings or midnight shifts mbo are math*ut supervisors.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
tManagcr and offered the foil*ming emergency Ordinance:
(a20203) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #65, #Airport.' of
the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 360.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. LJsk and adopted by the foil*ming vote:
AYES: Messrso Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout. ~heeler and Mayor
Mebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
SE~ERS AND S'fORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a mritten report
\
concurring in the foil*ming report of a committee recommending that the proposal
of Kappe Associates. Incorporated, for furnishing 1,500 diffuser tubes, in the
amount of $1D,O01.O0. be accepted, and further recommending that $10.001.00 be
appropriated to Appropriations for Capital Outlay - Replacement Reserve under Sec-
tion ggO, "Semage Treatment Fund," of the 1971-72 Semage Treatment Fund Appropria-
ition Ordinance. to provide necessary funds for the purchase of the 1,500 diffuser
tubes:
"April 10. 1972
To the City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Centlemen:
Bids mere opened on Mednesday, April 5, in the office of the
City*s Purchasing Agent for 1500 diffuser tubes to be used in
the aeration tanks at the City's Mater Pollution Control Plant.
These tubes are used to dispurse air in the secondary portion of
the City*s semage treatment process and mill replace other
diffusers which have been'in Use for a number of years.
Approximately six (6) months ago a similar bis mas received
and diffusers were replaced in one-half of the aeration tanks
and these additional tubes will complete the replacement in
the remaining tanks.
Tmo bids were received by the City for these 1500 diffuser tubes.
A bid of $1O,O01 was submitted by Kappe Associates. Inc., of
Rockville, Maryland, for tubes manufactured by Chicago Pump - FMC.
This type of diffuser was bid and supplied to the City mhen it
recently purchased some of these items. A second bid by
Brightly and Associates of Kingsport. Tennessee was submitted
in the amount of $18.000 for tubes manufactured by Pollution
Control. Inc. Due to the type of installation required an
additional expenditure Of $10,500 would be required for related
items if this type of diffuser was purchased.
Funds are available within the Replacement Reserve Account for
this expenditure. It is quite desirable that we be able to
place an order at the earliest possible date since there mill be
several months* delay in normal delivery of the tubes.
290
It ia recommended that City Council authorize the issuance of an
order to Kappa Associates, Inc** in the amount of $18,001 for
1500 diffuser tubes manufactured by Chicago Pump -FMC.
APPROVED:S/ Milllam F. Clark APPROVED:
William F. Clark Rueford Thompson
Director of Public Murks Purchasing Agent
Rex Mitchell
Director of Parka & Recreation~
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance appropriating the necessary
funds for the 1,500 diffuser tubes:
(#20204) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section agO, *Sewage Treat-
ment Fund," of the 1971-72 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and pro-
viding for an emergency.
(For'full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a3~, page 3f~l.)-
Mr, Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted hy the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .........................? ·
NAYS: None ........... O.
Mr. Thomas then moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
proper measure accepting the proposal of Kappa Associates, Incorporated, for the
1,500 diffuser tubes, in the amount of $1fl,O01.O0. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following
report in connection with plans for implementing an interim sludge removal project
at the Sewage Treatment Plant:
"April 10, 1072
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject:_ Mater Pollution Control Plant - Sludge Removal
Without detailing all of the background to the situation,
the greater portion of which, if not all,' the City Council is
familiar, an essential requirement at the Water Pollution Con-
trol Plant is the removal Of sludge. The efficiency of the
entire plant process is related to the capability of this removal
and for some time the sludge drying beds have not been adequate.
Under the contract which the City Council conditionally
authorized a special meeting on March 10, 1972, and which con-
sisted of two divisions: one for chemical feed and the other
for sludge lagoons, the process of sludge removal mould be
remedied by these lagoona. On Friday afternoon, March 31, 1972,
the City was advised by the State Water Control Board of the
approval by the Board and other agencies, of the plans and speci-
fications for the lagoons and chemical feed equipment (phos-
phorus removal). These were the plans :.~d specifications which
has been forwarded to the Board on February 15, 1972.
Among other elements in the Order of the Water Control
Board resulting from the hearing in Richmond on March 13, 1972,
was that the City meet by May I, 1072, the standards of effluent
into the Roanoke River as would be those standards and quality
of effluent that it is anticipated will be achieved mhen the
overall construction program is completed approximately two
years hence. The Board also directed that the construction of
the lagoons and chemical feed be completed by May 1, 1072, and
as to this there is no way. Additionally, the Board directed an
intermediate procedure he accomplished for sludge removal. All
of these combined, plus our nun operational need and requirements,
dictate an intermediate or temporary sludge disposal arrangement.
Mr. Clark, Public Works Director. and that department have
wafted out an arrangement MJth Roanohe Industrial Center for the
use of the land of the Industrial Center along the west 8auk of
the Roanoke River roy this disposal or sludge. A formal agree-
nentin this regard is being prepared by the City Attorney*s
office to be handled with the Industrial Center and mhich mill
be returned to City Council rot approval.
The operational procedure mill involve the use of pumps
mhich are available at the plant and the installation of a
pipe llAe from the treatment plant, under the Buzzard Rock
Ford Bridge and out onto the Industrial Center property where.
by a process that might be best described as spring, this material
will be put out on the laud. Some snail eubanknent$ will be
constructed to control runoff to the river. Realizing these
various deadline situations, we have proceeded with and nam hare
underway the Installation of this pipe line and other arrange-
ments. Through the courtesy of the State Civil Defense organ-
lzation'the piping for this has been obtained. It is on a
loan basis to be returned to CD storage in Richmond,
This disposal method is beneficial to the soil up to cer-
tain limits beyond which there would develop that which might be
best termed over saturation. Considering the time element
involved in the completion of the construction of the lagoons.
it is anticipated that this temporary arrangement will not be
long term. Our alternatives mere punpin9 and piping to other
properties sonemhat greater distances away or truckin9 by tank
trucks at rather considerable expense. The latter is being
ehld as a reserve possibility should later conditions warrant.
There Is involved approximately 120o000 gallons of sludge to
be disposed of per day.
Unless the City Council would have some objections, we
will proceed as we now are doing with formal approval by the
Council to be occasioned when the written agreement is presented
to you.
Of particularattention is to acknomledge the cooperation
and assistance which the City has received from the Roanoke
Industrial Center in this situation. Thls has been a great
help and the cooperative attitude with which they have approached
this matter is indeed commendable.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
]n this connection. Mr. C. B. Mood. 1920 Riverdale Road, S. E.. appeared
before Council and requested that action on the report of the City Ranager be
!ideferred one week and that the City Manager and his staff meet-with the affected
iiparties in the southeast area to ascertain if some other arrangement might be worked'
out.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur
~in the report of the City Manager mith the understanding that the City Manager will
P P ' n r ourtng the week of April 10. 1972.
itaking into consideration the following recommendations
1. That the city, upon completion of the first lagoon, will stop
, using ,bls land;
2. ~ho;tngitfhrthoeu~~ ~;er~nnefalal~dthe city w,ll ag ..... t to h ....... ge
3. That at any time the line creates an odor to people in the area.
the city .ill take steps to alleviate the probl .... lng chemicals
that the City Manager be directed to report back to Council by the next regular
292
meeting .of /he body on Monday, April 17, 1972. T~e mot'ion mas seconded by Mr.
lheeler and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Mansger submitted a written report
transmitting'copy of a communication from the Sta~e Mater Control Board advising
of their conditional approval of the plans and specifications for the two contracts!
providing for the constTuctlon of the sludge lagoons and phosphorus removal faci-
lities at the Semage Treatment Plant.
Hr. Link moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. ~heeler and un.ominously adopted.
BUDGET-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having referred to the City
Manager for study, report and recommendation a petition signed by 46 property 6mneru
on Melcher Street and Nam Spring Branch Road, S. E., located in the Garden City
area of the City of Roanoke, petitioning Council to take appropriate action to
correct a serious mater drainag? problem in the area, the City Manager submitted
the following report transmitting three recommendations as to the correction Of
this matter:
"April 10, lg72
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Storm Drainage - Melcher Street and New Sprin9 Branch Road. S. E.
The City Council on March 20, 1972, received a petition
signed by dB property omner$ Of the Melcher Street and New
Spring Branch Road, S. E., area, requesting the City Council to
take appropriate action to correct what was termed in the peti-
tion a serious water dralnage problem in the area. The petitioners
noted that this situation had been calIed to the attention of
various staff personnel.of the City and this is quite correct.
The drainage, through this area has been discussed and studied
a number of times over some period of years. Although I am
unable to find any formal report, I know that it has been mentioned
before City Council several times and there has been various past
correspondence and discussions with residents in the area. The
pr*blew here is that which is much similar t o many portions of
the Garden City area. The cause is due to the area having been
developed with parctically no enclosed storm drainage system and
no curb and gutter. Runoff from Roanoke Mountain follows its
natural course toward the river and this takes it along streets
resulting in heavy mashing and also takes it through yards and
even into basements during heavy rain falls. In the recent TV
inspection by the Department of Public Marks Of sanitary sewer
lines in the Garden City area there have been identified numerous
locations of storm mater infiltration into the sanitary sewer
s~stem. The ~elcher Street and New Spring Branch Road immediate
area receives the storm drainage from the portion of the Roanoke
Mountain area, largely mithin Roanoke County mhlch drains to the
Yellow Mountain Road and thence northward alan9 the area of these
two streets. A partial solution to this immediate area is the
construction of storm drainage. This would in general involve
approximately two blocks of 24-inch pipe along Yellow Mountain
Road thence a 30-inch and 36-inch line from Yellow Mountain Road
along Melcher Strbet to Danford Avenue thence to Spring Branch
Road and into the beginnin9 of the storm drainage ditch at that
point. This, as stated, would benefit the immediate area of the
petition but then conceivably could lead to some larger problems
in that there is limited underground storm drainage beyond Dual*rd
through the channel of the drainage ditch on northward.
An estimate made in 1971 indicated the cost of this storm
drainage to be approximately $117,000. There would be uddi-
tlonally recommended that curb and gutter should be installed
on #elcher Street and Hew Spring Brauch Ruud for without curb
wad gutter lnatullation the effectiveness of the underground
storm draleuge system mould be very limited. This lould be
potable to the experience oe King Street. H. E.. Ihere ia the
~bseece of curb sad gutter ~lth a uel storm droin situution
Mater did out reach the inlet satisfuctary.
Approximutely three yesrs ago, nt one of the paints
when discussion o£ this storm drainage erasco it mss suggested
that some benefit would he gained by curb and 9utter on Relcher
and Hew Spring Branch Road with the property ouners purticipating.
This uould be an aid to the streets and to individual property
driveways and would provide some control of average rainfall
which would come down the street areas.. RoNever, it Js not
known' that there was response to this among the residents.
As has been previously stated in other storm drainage mat-
ters about the City, this is one of several areas to which
improvement would appear to be subject to availability of sizable
capital funds.
As to the correction with respect to the petition, it is
repeated that the recommendation Mould be:
1. Curb and gutter on both streets with property owner
participation. This alone would take care of immed-
iate street area situations.
2. Underground storm drainage at an estimated cost of
$117.000 from and including YelloM Mountain Road to
Danford Avenue.
That plans be formulated and funds provided for the
extension beyond Danford Avenue should the accumulation
of Mater create problems to the north.
If Me can furnish additional information, it is asked that
the Council so advise.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Ilirst
Julian F. flirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout,moved that the report be referred to 1972-73 budget study. The
motion was seconded by ~r. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Garland then moved that the City Manager be requested to furnish
Council with a priority llst of drainage problems in the City of Roanoke before
lg72-73 budget study sessions begin. The motion Mas seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
STATE HIGHWAYS-BRIDGES: The City Manager submitted the following report
connection with the Highway TOPICS Projects. making certain recommendations with
i,!Fegard to ~'th Street and the Jeff ..... Street Bridge: '
"April 10. 1972
Hoa~rabie May .... d City C .... il ' '
R .... .e. Virginia
~ent lemen:
Subject: Highway TOPICS Projects
oil has been aware in the past, mere designated for study under
the TOPICS program and were included in a report prepared by
Hayes. Seay. gattern and Mattern. consulting engineers. ~ho sere
engaged by the Highway Department through the Fifth Plan'ning
District for the TOPICS study in this area. As a result of this
~e have conferred with the appropriate State Hiohway Department
representativei on several occasions as to procedure and in the
interest of endeatorin~ to brin~ aboat thus studies which
~evelop the proper information for these projects and hopefully
could produce them if and when funds became available.
Certain actions h,ve been taten by City Cil previously ....
and it would non appear that these should be updated and if the
City Council is acceptable to these matters, it would be submit-
ted as follows:
24th Street
It mould be recommended that the City Council by resolu-
tion request that the Virginia Department of Highways establish
the 24th Street project as a TOPICS project. Further that the
limits of the project be expanded beyond those set forth in the
study by Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern. engineers, and extend
on 24th Street from Melrose Avenue and LafayetteBoulevard to the
north face of the 24th Street tunnel (Shaffers Crossing) under
the Norfolk and Mestern Sbaffers yards. Further that the project
be extended to include the intersection area of Salem Turnpike,
-22nd Street and Loudon Avenue for the purpose of reducing the
five-way intersection of Salem Turnpike and 24th Street to a
four-say intersection as proposed in the regional arterial
plan. (This is the matter in which Dickerson GMC Company is
interested and is an effort to help bring that about).
By may of description, and not for resolution inclusion,
the intent ~ this project would include Melrose Avenue betmeen
24th Street and Lafayette Doulevard. In its overall concept
it would be generally along the lines of the widening of Rersh-
barfer Road in that additional traffic lanes and turn movement
plus new signals would be included.
The Hlghmay Department would request that the resolution
indicate the agreement of the City Council to bear 15 percent of
all cost involved. The resolution would also Stipulate that
Should the City decide to abandon the projects ut any time the
City would agree to pay 100 percent of the cost incurred to that
date. If this resolution is adopted it mould he anticipated the
Highway Department would proceed with studies and specific cost
estimates could then come back to the City Council for ravia# and
essential determinations.
'Jefferson Street Bridne
It would be recommended that the City Council adopt a
resolution requesting, the'Virginia Department of Highways to
proceed with preliminary layout studies and plans for the
construction of a new bridge for South Jefferson Street over the
Roanoke River. with the possible consideration of the enlarge-
ment of this bridge to extend, in addition to over the river, over
the tracks of the Norfolk and Nestern Railway Company.
The resolution would state that upon the development of
these preliminary study and layout plans, the City mould then
confer with the Virginia Department of Highmays as to the deter-
mination of a project and final decisions as to construction
design. The resolution should request the Department of High-
ways to establish this as a TOPICS funded project.
This resolution should also confirm that the City of
Roanoke will agree to bear 15 percent of all costs involved,
and that should the City decide to abandon this project at any
time, the City would agree to pay 100 percent of all costs
incurred to that date.
It should be noted on both of the above items that there
are no funds budgeted for either one of these projects. If the
City Council would wish to provide some budget appropriation for
the purpose of these projects, recognizing the status of City
funding, we could suggest some general amount which would be
anticipated to be adequate to carry through at least the study
phases on these two proposals. As an additional item, it is
noted that in a discussion by the City Council on the 24th Street
matter in December of lgTl, it was suggested by the Council that
the tunnel under Shaffers Crossing be included in a TOPICS study.
Ne are adivsed by the Highway Department that they do not feel
that this would be acceptable under the intent of TOPICS and also
under the availability of funding.
As Council is no doubt aware, in TOPICS programs the acquisi-
tion rights of way is at total local expense.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Nirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
STREET LIGHTS: The City Manager submitted the following report trams-
Bitting two charts witb regard to street lighting, advising that the information
gives a reasonably good idea as to the development of the atreet lighting program
in the City or Roanoke
*April 10, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Street lighting
The City Council may be interested Jn the attached two
charts which constitute somewhat of a repSrt on street light-
lng. These were prepared for me back in January and after hav-
ing the opportunity to review them fairly closely and realiz-
ing the number of street lighting requests that are coming in
plus the approach of budget considerations, I thought that the
Council may like to see this information mhJch gives some rea-
sonably good idea as to the development of street lighting pro-
gram.
Chart No. I provides a breakdown using each annual Dec-
ember as a comparison for the past six years ShONiflg monthly
bi~l, size, type and number of lights. Also reflected is the
increase or decrease in number of street lights. In the lower
portion of the chart comparing December of 1971 with December
of 1970 and then Jn comparison with the six-year period. Of
particular note is the reduction in the 2500 Incandescent
lamps mhlch have been a part of the phasing out program.
Chart No. 2 was prepared with regard to a fairly sizable
group of purchase orders for nam street lights which were
issued on December 28, 1971. This chart shows the size, type,
number, increase or decrease, how budgeted and cost per group
that were on those purchase orders of December 26, 1971.
Also on this chart is a summary of the other purchase orders
that were Outstanding as of December 31, 1971.
It would be pointed out that when all of these purchase
orders which were outstanding at that time are completed the
monthly bill will increase approximately $1.461.30.
It is also of note that on the completion of the purchase
orders of December 28, 1971, the southeast section of the City
will be 99~ complete in the program of phasing out of incan-
descent type lights. This section of the City was picked be-
cause most of the lights located there were of the oldest type
in the City and gave the most trouble in keeping them burning.
This though as noted will have practically all of these phased
out.
Initially there have been received by my office and we bare
processed requisitions since the attached report was made. These
newer requisitions cover the northwest section of the City lying
generally between 5th Streqt. N. W., on the east, 24th Street
on the west, Interstate 591 on the north and the Norfolk and
Western Railway on the south. A second requisition covers
a part of the southwest section of the City lying generally
north of Campbell Avenue. These latter requisitions include
replacements with larger lamps and additional lights. -
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. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
tnection with an inquiry 'as to the possible availability of dirt bein9 excavated
#April 10, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Dirt - Kimball Area
The City Council on March 20, 1972, made Inquiry os to the
possible availability of dirt being excavated in the Kimball area
and its storage in Mashington Park. I would report as follows.
The matter of this dirt being removed from the Kimball Mede-
velopment area by Malay H. Jackson Company, under contract, has
been discussed with representatives of the firm on several pre-
vious occasions. The material presently being excavated is
being used for the fills on the Southmost Expressway. Some of
the excess is committed to others in addition to that highway
project, bat they still have approximately 100,000 to 125,00
cubic yards which would be available. The material is virtually
all rock and shale with practically no clean dirt. This happens
to be approximately the same composition of material which was
hauled from the Civic Center site several years ago and stock-
piled at Mashington Park.
As Council knows there has been proposed for some several
years a culvert pipe extension in Mashington Park.which would
enable the filling of the hollow, the removal of the unsightly
stockpile and the leveling of the top of the park. Our feeling
is that unless there was a certainty in this culvert extension
that it would not be desirable to stockpile additional quanti-
ties of such material in the park. It is felt that additional
material will not add to the appearance of the property and
further that any stockpiling of the type of material now coming
out of {he Kimball area would not be beneficial unless it could
be immediately put into use in fill.
The Jackson Company"s contract in the Kimball area is for
another four to five months, As time posses and some judgment is
made on the upcoming fiscal budget of the City, we may be in a
better position to determine whether or not the culvert project
is possible. Obviously, of course, the longer the wait is made,
the more likely that the Kimball fill material will be diverted
to other uses.
Respectfully submitted,
5/ Julian F. flirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed, The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BUSES: The City Manager submitted a written report advising that he is
in receipt of correspondence from Safety Motor Transit Company pointing out that
the firm has completed th'e legal proced'ures necessary to change its corporate name
from Safety Motor Transit Company to Roanoke 'City Lines, Incorporated.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-APPROPRIATIONS-CONTRIBUTIONS: The City Manager submitted a writ-
item report transmitting copy of a communication from the Children's Home Society
i Virginia expressing an interest in budgetary assistance from the governmental nnits~
in Virginia toward the Society.
Mr. Thomas moved that the ~eport be referred to 1972-73 budget study,
i:The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
STATE HIGHWAYS-?RAFFIC-BRIDO£S: The City Manager submitted a written
Ireport formally advising that the construction contract commenced on the replace-
i:ment of the Mud Lick Creek Bridge - Grandam Road on Monday, March 20, 1972, that
297
the bridge was closed on that date and Will remain closed until such time as the
hem brldg~ is constructed and can be opened to traffic and pointing out that the
contract tine on the project is five montbs.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and flied, The motion mas
seconded by #r. Garland and unanimously adopted.
HEALTH DEPARTMENT-GARBAGE REMOVAL: The Assistant City Attorney submitted
the following report transmitting an Ordinance, for the consideration of Council,
which mill prohibit the dJspo, sai Of garbs9e and/or refuse collected outside the
corporate limits of the City of Roanoke at any landfill facility operated by the
city within its corporate limits:
*April 10, 19Y2
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City has in recent months been forced to seek suitable loca-
tions within the corporate limits to utilize for temporary sani-
tary landfill purposes. The facilities presently available are
very limited in space, and, therefore, should be restricted to
the disposal of gorbage and refuse generated within the corpor-
ate limits. It has come to the attention of this office that
persons have been disposing sanitary landfills operated by the
City within its corporate limits. There is, at present, no
provision in the City Code prohibiting such practice.
It is the recommendation of this office that the City Code be
amended to prohibit such practice, in mhich recommendation the
City Manager concurs. Me have, therefore, prepared and trans-
mit herewith for the Council's consideration an ordinance which
would prohibit the disposal of garbage and/or refuse collected
outside the corporate limits of the city at any landfill facil-
ity operated by the City within its corporate limits.
Respectfully.
S/ Edward A. Natt
Edward A. Natt
Assistant City Attorney"
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the report of the Assistant
City Attorney and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(%20205) AN ORDINANCE to amend Chapter 3, Sanitary Regulations, of
Title III, Health, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by add-
in9 thereto a new section to be numbered Section 8.1, prohibiting the disposal of
garbage and/or refuse collected outside the corporate limits at any landfill facil-
itI operated by t~e CitI within the City'S corporate limits; and providing for an
emergencT.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #35, page 361.)
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.
'298
BUOGET-CORROHBEALTH*S ATTORNEY-SHERIFF-CITY TREASURER-COMMISSIONER OF
THE REVENUE: Councll.h&~.lng directed the City Auditor to represent the City of
~oanoke at a meeting of the State Compensation Board on April 4, 1972, in the
Community Roomof ~he .Salem-Roanoke Valley Civic Center, for the purpose Of fixing
the salary and expenses of the Attorney for the Commonmealth, Commissioner of the
Revenue. Sheriff and Treasurer for the fiscal year beginning July 1. 1~2, and
!e~dlng June 30, 1973, the City Auditor submitted a written report advising that he
~attended the meeting of the State Compensation Board on April 4, 1972, that prior
!to the meeting, the Commonmealth*s Attorney, the Commissioner of the Revenue, the
Sheriff and the Treasurer were instructed to hold to the federal guidelines of
5 1/2~ in salary increases which are contemplated, that the Board indicated to him
that any salary increases they approve will not he in excess of the guidelines
which mere indicated unless the officer requesting a larger increase can justify
Mr. Thomas moved that the report of the City Auditor be referred to
1972-73 budget study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted communications transmitting
copies of the examinations of the records of the Rasena Elementary School, the
Raleigh Court Elementary School, the Hurt Park Elementary School, the Mashington
Heights Elementary School. the Stonewall Jackson Junior High School, the Preston
- Park Elementary School, the Oakland Elementary School, the Jamison Elementary School*
the Morningside Elementary School, the Lincoln Terrace Elementary School, the Rest-
side Elementary School, the Belmont Elementary School, the Round Hill Elementary
School, the Melrose Elementary School, the Highland Park Elementary School, the
Forest Park Elemenatry School, the Moodrow Milson Junior Iti§h School, the Crandin
Court Elementary School, the James Madison Junior High School, the Monroe Junior
High School, the Crystal Spring Elementary School, the Garden City Elementary School,
the Fishburn Park Elementary School, and the Ruffner Junior High School for the
dance with generally accepted auditing standards and that all the records were in
actions for the period and the financial condition of the funds.
Mr. R~eeler moved that the audits be received and filed. The motion was
;seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for fur-~
First Baptist Church, in connection with amending the Zoning Ordinance so'
as to authorize the Board of Zoning Appeals to issue special permits for the opera-
ition of day care centers and kindergartens in C-4 districts, advising that the
exception in the current Zoning Ordinance applicnbl~ to residential districts would
~e, in his opinion, inadequate to rule upon for'day care centers in C-l, C-3 and
C-4 districts and that specific authorization should be given to the Board of
Zoelo9 Appeals to vary the requirements when it is appropriate to do so, the City
Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that Council permit
private day care nurseries and kindergartens in all connercial districts mlth the
provision that e protected area shall be provided of not less than IO0 square feet
for each child and that nil outdoor activities shall be limited to the hours betmee]
8:00 a.m., and 8:00 p.m., and shall be conducted within the protected play area.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing be held on the matter at 2
Monday. May 8, 1972. The motion mas seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONISG: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for stndy~,
ireportand recommendation the request of Ressrs. Elmer M. Cox and Lawrence E.
PetersI
!that properties around and adjacent to 1714 Redwood Road, S. #., in the vicinity
lof and Dundee Road, S. Eo, described as Lots 3, 4, S. 6. 11. 12. 13
Redwood
Road
from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential District, the
iCity Planning Commission submitted a written report recommendin9 that a RG-I rezon-
i~ing be approved in lien of the original RG-2 request for resorting.
Mr. Trout moved that action on the request of the City Planning Commissionl
be deferred *until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday. April 17, 1972,
Bending a communication from Mr. John M. Taylor, Attorney. representing the peti-
tioners, as to whether or not his clients will accept the RG-2 rezoning as recom-
Fended by the City Planning Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Link and
~animously adopted.
S*fREETS AND ALLEYS: Council herin9 referred to the City Planning Commas-
ion for study, report and recommendation the request of the Roanoke Gas Company
~hat that certain portion of Patton Avenue, N. E.. lying
etween its intersection with lands of Norfolk and Western Railway Company on the
east and its intersection with the easterly line ~f 7th Street (Shenandoah Avenue,
N. E.) on the west. the City Planning Commission submitted a written report recom-
ending that the request be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearin9 be held on the for 2
~onday, May 8, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: The City Planning Commission submitted a written report recom-
~en lng certain amendments to the off-street parking requirements for apartment and
~ommnrclal zones.
i moved that the report be referred to the City Manager and the
Mr.
Garland
City Attorney for consideration and recommendation to Council and that a public
~earing be held on the matter at 2 p.m., Monday, May H, 1972. The motion was second
ed by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
LISCERSES-CIT¥ ZR£ASURER: Council having referred to a committee composed
%f Messrs. A. N. Gibson, Chairman, James N. Kincanon, J. S. Howard, Jr., and J. H.
Johnson for study, report and recommendation a communication from the City Treasurer
300
requesting thit council'give the City Treasurer the authority to asse~s and Issue,
in addition to his present authority to the authority to collect, for the sale of
nil 1972 Roanoke City autmoblle license tags or decala, us well as nil other types
of city vehicle licenses, the committee submitted the following report recommending!
that there not be a change of procedures for the current year, that the Commis-
sioner of the Revenue and the City Treasurer have agreed to'work Jointly in order to
expedite and accommodate the taxpayer and efficiently administer payment of persona~
property taxes on and issuance of automobile licenses and recommending that the
committee be continued in order for it to neet in the early fall for the purpose
of determining from that experience'what recommendations, if any, should be offered
prior to the next licensing period:
"April 10, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council
Gentlemen:
At your meeting of March 13, 1972, you referred to the under-
signed committee a communication from the City Treasurer concern-
lng the method to be used. currently, to assess taxes for and
issue automobile license tags, or decals. The committee, of
which the City Treasurer and the Commissioner of Revenue are
members, was directed to study, report and made recommendations
to the Council concerning the suggestions mode iu the communica-
tion to the Council.
The entire committee net on April 4, ~972, and, after review
and considerable discussion of the procedures now established in
the Treasurer*s Office and in the Commissioner of Revenue*s Office,
have agreed that it not recommend a change of those procedures for
thecurrent year. The committee recognizes and foresees the
possibility of some questions arising in the mechanics of the
forthcoming issuance of automobile licenses and decals, and in the
payment of license taxes on licensable vehicles, brought about,
largely, by reason of recent changes in the ordinances of the
City of Roanoke relating to the date of payment of automobile
license taxes, the filing of tangible personal property returns
and the requirement that current personal property taxes on
automobiles be paid prior to the licensing of them.
The Commissioner of Revenue and the City Treasurer have
agreed to work jointly in order to expedite and accommodate the
taxpayer and efficiently, administer payment of personal property
taxes on and issuance of automobile licenses. The committee ·
believes that this is the immediate solution to the problems
which have been anticipated due to the .requirement for present-
ing evidence of payment of personal property tax as a condition
of purchasing City automobile license tags.
The committee recommends that the committee be continued;
and, on the experience realized by following the procedures and
regulations which have been heretofore prescribed, the ~ommittee
would propose to nnet again in the early fall for the purpose of
determining from that experience what recommendations, if any,
should be offered prior to the next licensing period,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ A. N. Gibson, Chairman,
S/ Jerome S. Howard, Jr**
S/ J. H. Johnson,
S/ James ~. Kincanon."
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
'seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STATE HICHMAYS: The Citizens* Adv, isory Committee submitted the following
i eport requesting, with the approval of the City Manager. that an updated Resolution
e resubmitted to the State Department of Highways pertaining to Route 115 from
Dale Avenue to Riverdale Road, S. ~,, and Route 24 from llth Street to 19th Street,
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the Citizens'
Advisory Committee and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for pre-
station of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unani-
mously adopted.
I~FINISHEO BUSINESS:
S£RERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having previously concurred in a report
of the City Manager advising that in view of recent s~ringent requirements that
ilhave been imposed upon the Sewage Treatment Plant, he is instFuctin9 the Director
of Public Works to issue instructions that will be posted in the Sewage Treatment
Plant and will be available to any and all companies, firms or persons who are
i~delivering to the Sewage Treatment Plant advising then that certain listed materials
!will not be accepted at the Plant and the matter having been continued until
'Monday, April 10, 1972, pending fuFtheF discussion by affected parties. ~he matter
~uas again before the body.
No one appearing in connection with the matter, Mr. Trout again moved
!that Council concur in the report of the City Manager. The motion was seconded by
iDF. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
MF. Lisk then moved that the City Manager be requested to report on a
ilocation or n means of disposing of materials that cannot he accepted at the
ilSewage Treatment Plant. The motion was seconded by Mr. GaFland and unanimously
i!adopted.
MARK£T-TRAFFIC-PLANNIND: Council having taken under advisement an interim
report of the City Attorney with regard to an investigation of the legal pnssibili-
l~ties available to the City of Roanoke in the matter of the provision Of a public
parking garage in a specified downtown area of the city and as to which of the
Council, at its lost regular meeting on Monday. April 3. 1972. haying invited
affected merchants in the downtown area to attend the regular meeting of Council
~on Monday, April IO, 1972, fortbe purpose of presenting their ¥ie~s on the matter,
the matter mas again before the body.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. Walter #. McAllister, Presi-
dent, ~nited Vlrginio Dank/Security National, ndvising that it is bis personal
ifeeling that Council has exhibited complete cooperation with 0owntown Roanoke
linterests in attempting to bring the parking garage to a reality and that Council
~is to be complimented for its strong posture on this important step ~or the future
Iof Downtomn Roanoke. was before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be F~cetved and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and ~nanimously adopted.
A communication from Mr. George B. LaMson, JF., requesting that Council,
in considering the proposed Resolution for the parking garage, word the Resolution
so that the commitment mill only be binding if,. and only If, the proposed high-
rise office buildings are actually built, mas before the body,
Hr. Thomas moved that t'he communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. LJsk and unanimously adopted.
A communication from Hr. J. L, Trinkleo transmitting certain background
material in connection mith the matter and advising that he is in favor of pro-
ceeding mith the parking garage, only if a certain amount of flexibility ns to
size and location, etc.. is reserved and that he hopes these proposed substantial ~
office developments become an actuality, Was also before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filod. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Hr. Hilliam R. Hill, Executive Vice President, Donntown Roanoke, Incor-
porated, appeared before Council and presented the following prepared statement:
'STATEHENT PRESENTE~
TO THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
by Nilliam R. Hill
EXecutive Yice President
April 10. 1972
The problem we expect to solve today already has been amply described.
Simply stated, developer need a firm commitment on parking so
they can secure financing to construct in Downtown Roanoke mhat
will be the largest office building in the state west of
Richmond.
They need this commitment now because they have been spending a
substantial amount of money to get ready to build and they need
to know that thcl mill be able to proceed with construction
before they spqnd any more money.
It should be understood that it is not the function of Downtown
Roanoke, Inc,, to further the cause of any one developer. Ne
are joining in the request for a comsitment on a parking build-
ing because Jt and the'high-rise office building it will make
possible are indispensable elements in the start of the Down-
tomo redevelopment process that both city government and the
business community have been morkin9 toward for several years.
It should also be understood that the council is not being asked
Downtown is the'city's and the re§ion*s largest public facility.
or the public will go some place else.
This is directly related to Domntomn's importance to the.city*s
tax base. It is io the best interest of every taxpayer for all
of us to take every legitimate step to assure that every piece
of Downtown property is developed to its highest and best use to
yield the maximum tax return from the only area in the city which
ts suitable for large-scale commercial development.
Ail of this is dependent on the parking building non under
discussion. The need is evident. .The study by National Garages,
Inc., shows that the project is economically f~asible. The ~
city has the legal authority to acquire sites, construct, oper- ~
ate and =aintain off-street parking facilities, il
Ne would be remiss if me did not recognize aggressive action ~
already taken by the City Council. The feasibility study would
not be available as a basis for a decision today had not the
this information. The resolutions adopted by council and author- ~
izin9 preparation of a functional design, appraisals and legal
valid expressions of thecity*s intent to proceed mith the
parking building.
'303
The only problem is with lenders who want firmer guarantees at
a critical stage in development of one of the buildings, Look-
ing at the positive side of the situation, this is a problem ue
should be glad to have the opportunity to solve. It means me
have moved from the planning stage to the development stage, and
it means that large amounts of investment capital can be attracted
to the central city under the proper conditions. The fact that
additional parhing is a prerequisite for additional large-scale
development really comes as a surprise to practically no one.
Examination of available information, both legal and economic,
convinces us that it is definitely possible to construct the
parking building on the recommended site, and that it is appro-
priate for the City Council to make a commitment to this effect.
Accordingly, we urge. the council to mahe such a commitment at
this time."
Mr. Ceorge B. Lamson appeared before Council and advised that he owns
property at lis Church Avenue. S. #., that his property is not for sale and he is
Iopposed to the City of Roanoke taking his property at a fimancial gain.
Mr. Milliam R. TrJplett, Chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Odd
!Felloms, appeared before Council and advised that they have entered into a long
i~term lease for property at ~21 Church Avenue. S. #,, that the property has not been,
offered for sale and they do not want to sell said property.
Mr. Ceorge B. Cartledge. President. Downtown Roanoke. Incorporated,
iappeared before Council and advised that Downtown Roanoke, Incorporated, is in
favor of the proposed parking garage, that the City of Roanoke has a strong down-
town, that the downtown area is substantial at this tine but it is at a turning
ipoint and urged that Council vote in favor of the proposed Resolution.
Mr. Stuart A. Rarbonr. Jr., appeared before Council and advised that he
iowns property at llO ~est Church Avenue. that all is not well in the downtown area,
that Dounto~n Roanoke is not moving ahead, that the downtown area has been going
douuhill and needs help immediately.
After a discussion as to the wording of the proposed Resolution. Mr. Lisk
offered the following Resolution concurring ia a site selection for a new public
~facility for off-street parking and storage of vehicles by the public, and commit-
itlng the City of Roanoke to construct or assure the construction of an 800 to 850
car parking and storage garage as generally proposed in a certain report made to
Council:
(u20206) A RESOLUflON concurring in a site selection for a new public
facility for off-street parking and storage of vehicles by the public; and committin
the City to construct or assure the construction Of an BO0 to 850-car parking and
storage garage as generally proposed in a certain report made to the Council.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Rook u36, page 362.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
)y Mr. ~heeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. G~rland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Mebber .........................7. ii
NAYS: None .......... O. ii
Mith reference to the matter, Council having referred to the City Manager ~,
for study, rep;rt ned recommendation a communication from Thompson and Payue, Archi-'
tecta and Engineers, requesting consideration in consulting work on the Church
seconded by Mr. LJsh and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having deferred action on a report of the City Planning
Commission in connection with a communication from Mr. S. A. flarbonr, advising
that he is part owner of Lots 2 and 3. Wasena Map, that each lot is fifty feet by
one bandred and ten feet. rnnalng from Valley Avenue on the South to 8owhect Avenue
on the north, that there is a garage apartment on the right attached to the house
facing Howbert Avenae and expressing the opinion that he can see no reason why a
house could not he built on each lot facJag either Valley Avenue or Hasher, Avenue.
S. W., recommendin9 that the request of Mr. Uarbonr to construct two duplexes on '*
two substandard lots be denied, the matter was again before the body.
In this connection. Mr. Stuart A. Barhour, Jr** appeared before Council
in support of the reqaest and explained in detail his plans for the development of
this property.
After a discussion of the request, Mr. Wheeler moved that the matter be
referred to the City Attorney for the purpose of working out a procedure whereby
the request of Mr. Oarhour can be granted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland
and unanimously adopted.
CONS1DERATXON OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20100, rezoning property located on the northwest
corner of Lynn Avenue, S. W., and 8randon Avenue, S. M.. described ns Lots 17, 10
and 19. Block 9. Map of Colonial Heights, Official Tax Nos. 1271817, 1271816 and
1271819, from C-2, General Commercial District, to C-l, Office and Institutional
District. having previously been before Council for its flrat reading, read and
laid over, was again before the body, Mr. Wheeler offering the following for its
second reading and final adoption:
(g2OIOD) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2 of The
Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, az amended, and Sheet No. 127. Sectional 1965
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance nook n36, page 356.)
Dr. Mheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded,,
iby Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor. Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
i NAYS: None O.
3O5
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20189, rezonJng property located on the south-
easterly corner of Winthrop Avenue and 23rd Street. S. W., described as Lot 22.
Block 4. Wlnona Addition. Official Tax No. 1270522. from RD, Duplex Residential
District, to C-2, General Commercial District, having previously been before Coun-
cil 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:
(a2Olflg) AN OROINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The
tCode of the City of Roanoke. 195b, as amended, and Sheet No. 127, Sectional 196b
~Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
i (For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book #36, page 357.)
i Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iby Mr. Jheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, LEak, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
iWebber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O.
CITY ENGINEER: Council having directed the City Attoroey to preparethe
:proper measure authorizing and providing for the leasing by the City of Roanoke to
!Creative Displays, Incorporated. of Roanoke of a portion of Official Tax No.
Ii3080433, for the purpose of outdoor advertising billboards only. upon certain terms
land cond.it~ons, he presented same; whereupon. Mr. Wheeler moved [hat the following
[Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(#2020?) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the City*s leasing
!to Creative Displays, Inc., of Roanoke of a portion of Official No. 3080433. upon
ilcertain terms and conditions.
WHEREAS, The City Manager has advised the Council of an offer to lease
i!from the City a certain portion of the parcel of land purchased by the City for
flume as a service center, but not yet used for such purpose, recommending that such
lease be authorized upon the terms and provision herein contained; in which recom-
[mendation the Council concurs.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
City Manager be and he is hereby authorized upon the effective date of this ordi-
inance to enter into written lease agreement on behalf of the City with Creative
Displays. Inc.. of Roanoke, leasing to the said firm for the purpose of outdoor
ladvertislng billboards only. a portion of Official No. 3080433, as such lot abuts
the east side of Interstate 501, and as such portion is presently utilized by said
iflrm for outdoor advertising purposes under lease with the prior owners of said
land, said lease expiring on March 12, 1972. said new lease to be upon form drawn
and approved by the City Attorney, but to contain amongst its provisions the follow-
lng, viz:
(a) The property to be leased shall be that portion of Official No.
10~0433 lying immediately to the east of Interstate Roote 581. extending approxi-
mately 750 feet in length along siad Interstate Route 581 and extending for a depth
~f 100 feet from said Interstate Route 581;
(b) That the term of lease shell be from year to year, retroactive
effect to March 13, 1972, and shall be terminable by either party at any time by
30-day written notice given to the other party of said party*s Intention to termi-
nate: provided, however that should the City exercise its right of termination, any
rental paid In advance shall be pro rata refunded to the lessee;
(c} That there shall be paid to the City as rental for said premises the
sum of $100~OO per month, payable semi-annually fn advance;
{d) All equipment and structures erected on the premises by the lessee
shall remain the property of the l~ssee but shall be promptly removed by the
lessee at the expiration of the term of this lease or at such earlier date as the
same may be terminated by ngtice herein provided.
(e) All utility bills incurred by the lessee in furtherance of its
business shall be paid by the lessee:
(f) That the lease shall not be assignable by the lessee nor shall the
premises be sublet, in whole or in part, without the prior written consent of the
City.
(9) That the lessee shall agree to defend, indemnify sad save the City
harmless from the claims of all parties for damage or loss by reason of personal
injury or property damage or loss in any manner arising as a result of or by rea=
son of said lessee*s use or occupancy of tbs premises; and
(h) Such other provisions protecting or insuring the City*s interest
in the aforesaid premises ns nay be incorporated into said lease by the City
Manager OF the C~ty Attorney.
The ~otion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lash. Taylor* Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None .......... O.
SEWERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure relating to the effective date of new charges for waste
transmission and treatment provided for in certain contracts recently entered inet
between the City of Roanoke, the County of Roanoke and the City of Salem. he pre-
sented same. whereupon. Mr. Lisk offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u20208) A~ ORDINANCE relating to the effective date of new charges for
waste transmission and treatment provided for in certain contracts recently entered!i
into between the City, the County of Roanoke and the City of Salem; and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordi'nance Book ~35, page 364.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber .......................7.
NAYS: None .......
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
COUnCIL-CITY GOVERNMENT: Mr. Garland offered the following Resolution
calling for the pabllcation Da · biennial basis to the citizens of the City of
Roanoke to be entitled, *The State of The City Reoort":
(n20209) A RESOLUTION calling for the publication on a biennial basis
to the citizens of the City of Roanoke to be entitled, *The State flf The City Renor
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book e35. p~ e 35§.)
Mr.. Garland moved the adoption of the'Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES:. Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor and Mayor Webber .............. 4.
WAYS: Messrs. Thomas. Trout and Wheeler ........................ ~--3.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST: ~C~-~.
iDeputy City Clerk Mayor
$O7
'308
COUNCIL, REGL~.AR MRETING~
Monday, April 17, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in reM.utes meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, April 17, 1972, at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Llsk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James. O. Trout, Vfocent 5. Jbeeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebberu--7.~
ARSENT: None .................................................. 0
OFFZCERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst. City Manager; Mr. James N. Kin-
canon, City Attorney; Mr. H. Ben Jones, Jr.. Assistant City Attorney; and Mr.
N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by the Reverend John
M. Long, Emanuel Baptist Church.
MINU~ES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
March 6, 1972, and the special meeting held on Thursday, March 9. lg72, having
been furnished eac-b ~ember of Council, on motion Of Mr. Trout, seconded by Mr. Lisk:
and unanimously adopted, toe reading thereof was dispensed with and the minutes
approved as recorded.
HUARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
KIREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.,
Monday, April 17, 1972, on the question of altering, closing or discontinuing
linding May Road to through traffic by barricading or blocking said road at or near',
its southwesterly intersection with Park Lane so as to prevent through traffic over,
1/inding Way Road between Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road, the matter was before the
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the felloming
report recommending that the request be granted to erect a breakaway barricade oo
Miodia9 Way Road near the western end of Path Lane:
"March 16, 1972
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 March 15, 1972,
Mr~ Jack D. Coulter. attorney for the petitioners appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that he was representing
the residents on behalf in the Jefferson Bills-Jefferson Park-
Jefferson Forest section of the City. Ne pointed out on a map
the proposed street he was requesting to be closed noting that
a barricade type of fence er guard rail in contemplated to be
constructed near the intersection of Minding 1/ay Road with Park
Lane so as to prevent through traffic over Minding May Road
between Colonial Avenue and Ogden Roa~. Mr. Coulter stated that
the Jefferson Hills-Jefferson Park-Jefferson Forest section of the
City was a quiet residential area of high-quality, with beautiful
homes and numerous children. The opening of Virginia Mentern
Community College at the northerly boundary line of the Jefferson
Hills-Jefferson Park-Jefferson Forest area has generated a com-
siderable amount of increased traffic circulation on Minding May
Road between Ogden Road and Colonial Avenue, he noted.
Also, Mr, Coulter stated thut the Tonglewood Shopping Center
would generate a considerable umount of troffic and place on
intolerable burden, upon the residents or the Jefferson Hills-
Jefferson Pork-Forest Hill area sad endonger the lives of their
children, This traffic coupled ulth the existing truffio from
nearby Western Community College would create on sdditionul surety
hazard, and dertlue the neighboring properties, he noted.
He olso noted,that there his been an ubnormun amount of
burglaries and break-ins within the Jefferson ~llls-Jefferson
Perk-Jefferson Forest area uud that this closure is O sensible0
reasonable und logJcol solution to the anticipated problem.
Finally, Hr. Coulter stated that more than 100 families mere
represented here at this meeting and about g3 percent supported
this petition.
Many residents expressed there support of this petition.
HFS. Sue Mull*ns, a resident in the area, appeared before
the Planning Commission and stated that she supported this street
closure for the safety of her children. She noted that her
children board a bu~ to school on Winding Way Road; and the
street is quite, narrow, without side walks, and was not made to
serve through traffic.
Mr. Gordon Hancock. who lives on Forest Road, appeared before
the Planning Commission and stated that he was in favor of this
closure because of the crime problem and the excessive traffic
circulation through the area.
Mrs. Linda Cumins, who lives on Minding May Road, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that the Community
College has resulted in increased traffic flow on Minding May
Road.. She noted that her immediate concern is the opening, of the
new shopping center. Me can expect trucks to and from the shop-
pint center, she noted. Finally, she stated that there are
enough blighted areas in the City now and we don*t need any more
blight. *
Hr. James P. Brice, who lives on Park Lane, appeared before
the Planning Commission and stated that there will be increased traf-
fic and blight if through traffic is permitted on Winding Way
Road. Il* noted that people will not want to raise their children
in this neighborhood, and he felt that it would be a shame to
destroy this quality residential area. He would therefore like
for a breakaway divider to be placed near th*western end of
Windin9 May Road near Park Lane in order to save this neighbor-
hood.
Some residents expressed their oppoaition to this petition.
Mr. Walter McAllister, who lives at 3954 Mindin9 Way Road,
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he has
lived in the neighborhood for seven years and he was opposing to
this closure. He noted that the closure of Winding May Road
would create a mile long cul-de-sac and provide for hazardous
conditions, endangering property value and impede the delivery
of essential City services. He felt that before any final deci-
sion is made in this matter that a comprehensive traffic engineer-
Jag study be undertaken.
Mr. Matts Gill, who lives at 4015 Winding May Road, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that he was not here in
opposition to his neighbor. He noted that where they propose to
close this street will prevent him from directly entering Winding
May Road and, additionally, he expressed concern over fire and
police protection and mail delivery.
Mr. Tom Meadous.~.who lives on Winding May Road, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that he wanted to enjoy
his property with safety, and is therefore, requesting that the
road be closed.
Mr. Byron Hanert a local resident, appeared before the Plan-
ning Commission in support of this petition noting that the con-
struction of a road divider would not materially impede the
delivery of essential public services and would provide the local
residents with a safer and quiet, neighborhood.
Some of the Planning Commission members then discussed alter-
nate circulation patterns and alternate locations for the barra-
cuda. Mr. Coulter noted that in his discussions with the residents
of this neighborhood they expressed their desire to place the
divider at the southerly end of Park Lane.
~ddltlonal written commenta by farinas goyermmental officials
concerning this petition mere also furnished to the Plonnieg
Commission members nad ire enclosed herewith.
culy seconded and approved with a vote of & ayes nad I nay recom-
mending to City Council to grant this of the residents of the
Jefferson Hill-Jefferson Park and Jefferson Forest subdivision to
erect n brenkomay barricade on Minding Mny goad near the mestern
end of Park Lane.
Sincerely,
$/ Creed ~, Lemon Jr, by LM
Creed K. Lemon Jr.
Chairman'
A petition signed by 151 residents of tho Jefferson Hills-Jefferson Park-
Jefferson Forest area, advising that upon the opening of the new Tanglewood Shop-
ping Center, it is expected that Winding Way Road will be subjected to an increased
flow of traffic and that in order to preserve the residential character of the area
and to protect the lives of their children they respectfully request that Minding
May goad be closed at the Park Lane intersection, was before Council.
Communications from Mr. Mark gnome. 3550 Minding May Road, S. W., Mrs.
Sue Moeller, 3745 Heritage Road, S. W., Mr. and Mrs. Lewis E. Go~ett. 3805 Minding
Way Road, S. W., Mr. and Mrs. R. Re Norfleet, 3933 Park Lane, $. M.,. Mr. C. B.
Wells, 3824 Minding Way goad, S. W., Mr. Kemper A..Dobbins, U25 Park Lane. S. W.,
Mr. and Mrs. Kenneth L. Cummins, 3652 Winding May goad, S. W., Mr. and Mrs. William
C. Williams. 3714 Minding Say Read, $. M., Dr. Keith C. Edmunds, 3866 Winding Way
Road, S. W., and Mr. Byron E. Hamer, 3702 Forest goad, S. W,. requesting that Coun-
cil concur in the recommendation of the City Plannin§ Commission that Winding Way
Road he altered, closed or discontinued to through traffic bi barricading said road
at or near its southwesterly intersection with Park Lane so as to prevent through
traffic over Minding May goad between Colonial Avenue and 09den goad, were before
Council.
Mr, Trout moved that the petition and communication be received and
filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Frank Gill, appeared before Council and advised that he is opposed to
having to relocate his mailbox and expressed the opinion that by livin9 in the Cityl,
of Roanoke he should have the normal city mail delivery.
Approximately 100 persons were in attendance at the Council meeting in
support of the request.
In a discussion of the proposed Ordinance, Council requested that Mr.
Coulter, the City Manager and the City Attorney confer on the question of whether
Winding Way goad will be altered, closed or discontinued by a barricade or a
The City Manager submitted the following report in connection with barri-
cading or closing Winding Way Road, S. W., and transmitted two points which he
feels are worthy of administrative comment:
'April 17, 1972
Honorable Mayor end
City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Barricading and Closing Of Minding May Road, S. M.
The City Council is to receive, it is understood, aa ordi-
nance prepared by the petitioners In the matter of the proposed
closing to through traffic of Minding May Road, S. M. This is
proposed to be accomplished by blocking the roadway or right of
way between Park Lane intersection and Ogden Road intersection.
It is believed that most of the background as to the proposal
has been presented or will otherwise be presented, thus a
description is not necessary in this letter.
Two points are deemed worthy of administrative comment:
1. The ordinance reads in the first paragraph on page
three thereof *that said alteration, closing, or discon-
tinuance would substantially improve the area as a resi-
dential subdivision** It is submitted that this is not
a proper determination for the City Council in a matter
of these circumstances. The proposed closing comes
about as a reflection of the opinion of a majority of
the property owners on the street. This is an opinion
that they have come to as a result of their own conclu-
sions. It would be open to question, I believe, that
the City 9overnment throu9h an official ordinance posi-
tion of the City Council could state that the area would
be substantially improved if this were done. Whether
the best arrangement is a closed street or on open
street has two sides that would be evaluated by immedi-
ate area opinion.
2. The decision of nhether to close or leave open the street
would appear to weigh heavily upon the feelings of the
residents or such majority thereof as would be deemed to
be appropriate. Me, administratively, have no strong
feelings either way. It is felt a good case can be made
to leave it as it is, as well as to have it closed. We
do not completely agree with the reasoning in all instances
of the petitioners; however, that is quite likely beside
the point as their end decision is the point to be
regarded. Ideally, if this closing were to take place
there should be un alternate connection into this area
rather than to restrict this much area, this much popu-
lation and this many streets to the confinement of a
single access as would result. The factors of time,
money, right of way and current interest obviously pre-
cludes that at this time.
Given all items involved in this subject, it would seem
that the weight of any recommendation administratively would be
to the recognition of the expression of the petitioners to the
extent that they nay represent the property owners. In other
words, without the petition the question of closln9 would not be
as supportable,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
In a discussion of the proposed Ordinance, Mr. Thomas moved that the
Ordinance be amended by deleting the words 'that said alteration, closing or dis-
continuance would substantially improve the area as a residential subdivision."
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout then moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its firstl
reading, as amended:
(n20210) AN ORDINANCE to alter, close, or discontinue Minding May Road
Lo through traffic by barricading or blocking said road at or near its southwesterly!
filed their petition with the Council of the City of Roanoke in accordance with
law requesting said City Council to alter, close, or discontinue Minding May Road
to through traffic by b~rrJcadin9 or blocking said road at OF near. its sonthwesterl~
intersection with Park Lane sb as to prevent through traffic over Minding kay Road
between Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road; to appoint viewers as required by law; and
tO refer the matter to the City Planning Commission for its review', recommendation,
and report; and
WHEREAS, due notic~ of the intended application had been given to the
public by posting at least ten.days in advance of its presentation to City Council
as required by Section 15,1-3~4 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended to
WHEREAS, in accordance with the request of said petitioners, Resolution
~o. 20132 was adopted by City Council on Watch h~ 1972, appointing viewers to view
aforesaid street and area and to subnlt their report in writing; and
WilEREAS, pursuant to said Resolution, said viewers viewed the area to
be affected and thereafter submitted their r~port'in writing under oath that in
their epinionoo substantial inconvenience would result from said alteration, said
report and affidavits having been filed with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, this matter was also referred to the*City Planning Commission
MHRREAS, the City Planning Com=ission considered said request at its
meeting on the 15th day of Watch, 19?2,'and has submitted its report and recommen-
dation to City Council recommending that the request of the petitioners be granted
and that Minding Way Road be closed to through traffic by the erection of a break-
away barricade on Minding May Road at or near its southwesterly intersection with
Park Lane; and
~HEREAS, a Public Hearing on the request of the petitioners was held by
City Council on the l?th day of April, 1972, at which hearing ali parties in inter-i
est and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard both for and against the
proposed discontinuance of Winding May Road a~ a through street; and
WHEREAS, upon due consideration of the matter, all land proprietors to
.
be affected thereby having been duly notified, the Council is of the opinion that
no substantial inconvenience will result to the landowner~ in the area or to the
public in general from the alteration, ~10sing, or discontinuance of ~n~ing May
Road to through traffic at or near its southwesterly intersection with Park Lane;
and that, in view of all the circueatance~, the petitioners* application should be
granted;
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council'of the City of Roanoket Virginia/
that Minding Way Road be altered, closed, or discontinued to through traffic ~y the
erection of such scenic dlvldert barricade, guard rail, fence, cul de sac. OF other
similar device as. the. City Engineer might approve at or near the southwesterly
intersection of Winding May Road with Park Lane so as to prevent through traffic
OVer Minding May Road between Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road; and
BE IT FI~RYOER ORDAINED that appropriate lighting, reflectorization, and
warning slDns be lnstalle~ and maintained at both ends of said barricade and that
appropriate signs be installed at both entrances to linding Nay Road to indicate
!that it is a dead-end street or otherwise closed to through traffic; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer be, and he hereby is, direct-
ed to make proper notations of the discontinuance of Minding May Road as a through
street on the maps and plats on file in his office on which Minding Nay Road
iappears; and
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Clerk deliver to the Clerk of the
iHustings Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, au attested copy of this Ordi-
~nance in order that said Clerk may make proper notations of the discontinuance of
i:Ninding May Road as u through street on all maps and plats recorded in his office
ion which Minding Nay Road appears.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk an~ adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrso Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
~ebbex ' '
!i NAYS: None
TRAFFIC-STATE IIIOHWAYS: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.mo,
Monday, April 17, 1972, on the request of Mrs. L. D.' Hrugh for a certain revision
nd amendment of a portion of the Major Arterial Highway Plan for the City of
Roanoke dated, December, 19630 so that the proposed straightening of Forest tlill
Avenue at its intersection with Williamson Road and to the west of Williamson Road
nay be eliminated in order for the development of Lots 11-14, inclusive, Block F,
/ap of Williamson Grove, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
~eport recommending that the request be granted:
*March 16, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
This matter was considered by the Planning Commission on
November 16, 197] at which time.the.Planning Commission unani-
mously recommended approval of this request to amend the 1980
Major Arterial Highway Plan (See enclosed report). Subsequently
however, it was revealed that the petitioner inadvertantly had
not provided for any formal and printed notice of public hearing
by the Planning Commission in the local newspaper.
Since the petitioner had not provided forthis printed
notice,of public hearing, a motion was made, duly seconded and
313
314
followiag Resolution approring and adopting a certain revision and amendment of a
portion of the Major Arterial Highway Plan for the City of Roanoke dated December,
1963:
(#20211) A HESOLUTIO~ approrfng and adopting a certain revision and amend-
ment of a portion of the Major Arterial Highway Plan for the City of Roanoke, dated
December, 1963,
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book sSb, page 371.)
Hr. Rheeler moved the adoption of the Resolution. 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
ZONING: Council h~ving set a public hearing for ~ p.m., Monday. April IT~
1972, on the request of T. Meldon Ilale, trading aK Hale Real Estate Agency, and
Rebecca y. Hale, that 16 acres of land, more or l~ss, near the intersection of Cove
Ro~d 'and Hershberger Road, N. M., described as the northeasterly portion of Officio
Tax No. 248014?, all of Official' T~x ~os. 2480117, 2480141 and 2480148, and the
southerly portion of 2480111, bo fez*ned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential
District, to RG-I, General Residential District, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the ~ollowing
report recommending that the request be granted:
"March 16, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Rebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered ~y the City Planning
Commission at its regular meetings of February 16 and March 15,
1972.
Mr. J.~Glenwood Strlcker, attorney for the petitioners,
appeared before the Planning Commission'and stated that he was
representing the petitiouers, Mr. and Mrs. Hale. He then pre-
sented a site plan tothe Commission members noting that the
petitioners prgpose to erect 22 four-plex apartment structures
on the property in question; Finally. Mr. Strickler noted that
the apartments would be for moderate income families and would
serve both therwhite and the non-white population.
Mr. Lawrence,.Plannin9 Commission member, questioned the
total number of units to be-constructed,on this site. Mr.
Strickler noted that there mill be a total of DO living units
and 16 additional living units in the 3 tomnhouse apartments, He
also stated that the 2-bedroom apartments mill rent for about
$125 a month and the 3-bedrooms for $135 a~month, Finally, Mr,
Strichler presented a petition with 94 names on it of people call-
.lng for apartments mithin n tm*month period,
Hrs, Ralph B, Leslie, u resident in the neighborhood, appear-
ed before the Planning Commissian in opposition to the fez*ming,
She stated that the area is presently residential.and she felt that
it should remain that way. Hr, Strickler noted that he felt the
rea*ming change would be an asset to the community,
The Planning Commission members generally felt that the~
circulation and access elements related to this site needed to
be studied in greater detail and that the Planning Director
should confer with the petitioners to resolve these issues,
Mr, StFickler again appeared before the Plan~ing Commission
at the #arch 15 meeting and stated that Hr, Hale and the Planning
Director had resolved the circulation pattern relating to the pro-
posed development, He noted that the petitioner plans to extend
Coy*land Drive and Glenroy Street, both to terminate at Klrkland,
The Planning Director noted that his office had worhed
closely with the Engineering Department and Hr, Hale and it mas
generally agreed that this new circulation pattern represented a
viable solution.
Accordingly, motion was nad*, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council the granting of this request.
Sincerely,
$! Creed K. Lemon, Jro by LM
Creed K, Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
With reference to the matter, Mr. Clifton A. lo*drum III, Attorney,
irepresentiug residents in the area opposed to the request for rezoning appeared
before Council and presented a petition signed by 84 residents of Ferncliff Avenue,
#., expressing opposition to the fez*ming due
~lenroy
Street
aud
Kirklaud
Drive,
N.
to the fact that it is a low density area, that more people in the area would change
ithe character of the neighborhood, that it may cause overcrowding of Huff Lane
~Elementary School, that it will few*rate more traffic and that the proposed apart-
Iments devalue existing properties.
I Mr. Ernest Mils*n, 3124 Kirkland Drive, N. M., appeared before Council
and expressed the opinion that if the proposed apartments are constructed the crime
irate increase. .
Mr. J. Glenwood Strickler, Attorney, representing the petitioners, appear-
ted before Council in support of the request of his clients,.and advised that the
roperty will remain low density, that it will take approximately one and one-half
ears to complete the apartments and that in that time a large portion of the school
population will have moved on, that the whole purpose of the apartments is to serve
th~ moderate income families, that there will be 205 off-street parking spaces and
the apartments will be an asset to the community,
Mr. and Mrs. Lee Hartman appeared before Council and advised that they own!
three parcels of land in the area, that they would llke to 'see the fez*ming approved!
and that they do not think the property will be devalued in any way by rea*ming the
property and allowing the construction of the apartments.
NAYS: Messrn. Thomas, Trout,'Wheeler'and NaTor Mebber .4.
Mr. Trout then moved that the request for rezoning be denied. The motion'
mas seconded by Mr. Thomas und adopted br the foIJoming vote:
AYES~ Messrs. Thnmas, Trout, Mheoler and Mayor Mebber -4.
NAYS: Messrs. Garland, Lisk and Taylor -3.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that $139,50 beappropriated to Repair and Upheep of Buildings and
Equipment under Section n?400, #Schools - Repair and Upheep of Buildings and Equip-
~ment~* of the 1971-72 budget, advising that the amount represents insurance funds
which ~ill be deposited with the City Treasurer and that these funds will be used to
repair a School Board truth damaged in a collision, was before Council.
Mr.'Lisk moved'that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and'offered th~ following emergency Ordinance:
(~20212) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~7400, "Schools -
Maintenance of Buildings,~ of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~35. pge 372.)
Mr. LJsk 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-- 7.
NAYS: None-- ..
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanohe City School Board,
requesting that $53,0G0.00 he transferred to Fuel and Power under Section n6400,
to Section #5700, "Schools - Transportation by Contract,~ and to Seotion ~?100,
*Schools- Maintenance Labor,* of the 1971-?~ budget, in order to continue school
iplant operations for the remainder of the fiscal year, was before Council.
Mr. Mheeler moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(n20213) 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 ~3b,. page 3?3.)
Mr. #heeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the ~ollowing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland° Lisk, ~uylor0 Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
gebber~- : ..... ..........7.
NAYS: None, -- ~.
BCDCET-~CBOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board, .
requesting that $2?,8o%00 be appropriated to Vocational Education for the Dandi-
capped under Section nao000, *Schools - Vocational Education for the Handicapped**
of the 1971-72 budget, advising th.at the School Board mill be reimbursed 100~ of
actual expenditures for this special project by the State Department of Education,
Mre Nheeler moved that Council concur Jn the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(a20214) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #00000. "Schools -
Vocational Education for the Daudicapped," of the 1971-72 Appropriatinn Ordinance,
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a36, page 373.)
Mr. Nheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iby Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
Mebber ?
NAYS: None O.
BUDGEY-ASSESSOR OF REAL ESTATE: A communication from Mr. C. S. McNulty,
Assessor, advising that the University of NOrthern Colorado has a program through
the Department of Housing and Urban Development that offers college credit courses
to employees of local, state and federal, governments, that a fellowship has been
offered to him to pay for the tuition for courses he needs to complete work on a
Bachelor degree in Land Plnnning, that he needs to ottend five seminars of one week
each to finish the work and requesting permission to use money approprioted an.der
ObJect Code R31, Education, of {he budget of the Assessor, to pay for his room and
board while attending these five seminars, was before Uouneil.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the Assessor of
Real Estate and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation
of the proper measures. The notion was seconded by Br. Thomas and unanimously
DEPOSITORIES: A communication from Mr. Lenis Po Thomas, Chairman of the
Hoard, Bank of Virginia - Roanoke Valley, r'eqnesting that in the list of authorized
deposito~i.es t~at the name of "Bank of Virginia" be changed to "Bank of Virginia --
Roanoke Valley," and that consideration be given to aothorizing the safekeeping of
pledged oollateral with other banks in RichmOnd in addition to the Federal Reserve
Bank of Richmond, nas before Council.
Mr. Thom'ss moved that the communication be referred to a committee com-
posed of Messrs'. A, N, Gibson,' Chairman. James N. Kincanon, and J. H. Johnson for
study, report and recommendation to Council by the next regular meeting of Council
on Monday. April 24, lg?2. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
317
318
ZONING: A communication from Mr. James J. Belcher, requesting that pro-
per~y located et 412 Walnut Avenue, S. W., described as Lot 3, aloch 23, Officisl
Tax No~ 4031116, be rezoned from RG-I, General Residential District, to RG-2,
General Residentinl District. uas before Council,
Or. Taylor moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council, Tie motion
was seconded by Mr. LJsR end unanimously adopted,
REPORST OF OFFICERS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS-STATE H1GHRA¥S: The City Manager submitted the follow~
lng report in connection with the Southwest Expressway. transmitting a communica-
tion from Mr, A, E. Hunsberger, Director of Engineering, Department of Highways.
expressing the interest of the Dighmay Department for a Resolution mhlcb mill speak
directly to the plan as presented in 1959 and which will not contain any specific
reservations of future interchange review, advising that he is uncertain as to the
exact procedures for the City of Roanoke to follow and that he is continuing to
pursue the matter:
"April 17, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Southwest Expressway
At the City Council meeting of Rarch 27, 1972, I submitted a
proposal of a resolution to be adopted by the City Council which
mould reflect the approval of the City Council of the design of
the Southwest Expressway project from Franhlin Road south to the
south corporate limits of the City as the design was presented at
a public hearing on Ray 13, 1969. The request for such action had
been received from the State Highway Department in view of their
necessity of certifyin9 to the Federal Highway Administration that
the hearing had been held and in order to secure the Federal
government*s approval of the project prior to May 13, lg72. in
order to secure Federal construction participation. It is neces-
sary under Federal regulations that this action be taken within
three years after a hearing else, in a sense, the procedures must
be commenced all over again.
Recogffizing that there have been and are questions on the
part of the City Council and the City staff as to certain inter-
change arrangements in the project, it had been included in the
resolution that the City Council reserve a later opportunity and
privilege of finally determining the matter of interchanges.
From the discussion at the Council meeting off March 27,
action on the resolution was withheld subject to a fuller review
of the actual interchange designs and proposals.
Following ~he meeting of March 27, I discussed tha matter
with State Highway Department. The result is that is is now the
interest of the departmeet for a resolution which would speak
directly to the plan as presented in 1969 and which would not
contain any specific reservations of future interchange review.
In summary of that position of the department, I attach a copy
of a letter of March 31, 1972, from Mr. A. K. Hunsberger, Direc-
tor of Engineering.
At this point, I am quite frankly uncertain as to the exact
procedures for the City to Follow. As stated, we at the staff
level have certain questions on design of interchanges, Me do
not, as has been previously stated, fully concur in certain points
raised by several of the property owners on Franklin Road. The
concern-stated by the City Council is also 'understood.' At the
same time the situation of the Htghmay Department is also recog-
nized as to the complications which could develop and the fund-
lng problem.
, This is written to report to yon on the Status of this Rat-
ter smd that ue are continuing to pursue it,
It ls believed that this is the extent to uhich I could
a~lse at this,tiRe.
Respectfully sobmitted,
S/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager=
NFo Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and that the Clt~ Manager be requested to report further on the matter by the next
[regular meeting of Council on Monday. April 24, 1972. The motion was seconded by
iMF, Iheeler and unanimously adopted,
i In this connection, NFo John M. Miller, President, Virginia Metal Mann-
tfacturin9 Company, Incorporated, appeared before Council and read the folloming
iprepared statement in connection with the location of the Franklin Road approach
ito the proposed Southwest Expressway:
To the Honorable Mayor
and Councilmen of the
City of Roanoke
u~d
the
March 27, 1972
intervieRs on this subject, we cannot too strongly stress
folloming:
(1) Id our opinion and in the opinions of engineers we
have consulted, the proposed location of the approach,
intersecting Rith Franklin Road at Broadmay, SM, is poor
planning and Rill result in unnecessary traffic hazards and
confusion at that intersection, besides dumping a large
(2) It is suggested that one better solution for the approach
location would be u T-intersection with Franklin Road
approximately .half-way between Broadway and McClanahan
Place. This would result in better control of traffic and
the large volume which Rill be heading for the Crystal
Spring mqdical-bnslness complex would normally take the
McClanahan Place route, thus staying on a business street
.and off one .heavily built up with homes and apartments.
(3) Broadway Nest should be hept open, intersecting
directly with Franhlin Road and mahing it much easier for
the heavy truck and trailer traffic to and from the warehouse
and industries located on Broadway MeSto Present plans
would give this heavy truck and trailer traffic ingress and
egress only via a ramp onto the approach ramp. Further, the
City should make every effort to have Broadway Nest also
hept open into Colonial Avenue as an auxilliary route for
traffic to and from the Community College and Cave Spring
areas· It should be possible to accomplish this by moving
the location of the Southwest Freeway-N~M'overpass somewhat
to the North and bridging both Broadway Nest and the N~M
(4) The approach ns planned, taking.as it willa good
part of our plant property as #ell as adjoining property
which wehad planned to use, will make it next to impossible
have been here since 1912. The centerline of the proposed
approach goes right through the middle of an area where we
recently demolished a building to make room for a. pipe
coating plant. Further, our industry bas developed to a
point where large pile-down inventories of made-up pipe are
becoming a necessity (some of our competitors are carrying
footages in the high five figuresJ and Re Rill have no-room
left with which to meet this competitive threat.
(5) From n tax angle~ our suggestions, if curried out,
mould permit development o! valuable property on the North-
meat corner er Frnnklin Road and flroedmay, the continued
operation and expansion of Virginia Ne*al Hfg, Co** Inc**
~ pieces of'proper*! which would then be available for deve-
lopment on both sides of the approach at Franklin Road, -
thus the probability, almost the certainty, of three highly
developed properties producing increased taxes Just*md of
one, and.the.holding of au industry mhich, if forced tn
move..mould, in all probability, leave the Roanoke area
because of better warket cundftfonn for It els*mb*re,
(6) la view of the above it mould seem that City Council
.should now move promptly to head orr this situation and
prevent the creation of hazardous and confusing traffic
conditions, the. serious hampering and limitation or several
business operations, with the probable loss of one. and the
loss of tax revenue as pointed out in (5) above.
It is possible that the alternative we have heretofore suggested
and which ue mention above is not the best. although certainly
better than the approach us planned. De that as it may, we feel -
that the tine has cone for Council and the State Highway Depart-
ment to get together on a study of this situation and either
adopt our suggestion or cone up mith some other plan' mhich
mould be an improved substitute for the objectS*nmi Franklin
Road Approach as located on the present plans, - and that Coun-
cil shouldinsiztupon such a change before giving even general
approval of the plans unless with a specific exception stating
that the presently planned Franklin Road Approach mill not be
approved.
Incidentally, we hope Roanoke avoids the mistake we understand
mas made in Atlanta. where we are informed too many inter-
changes pick up too much local traffic, throttle thru traffic
and have caused an increase in both minor and major accidents.
It recently took a friend of ours over an hour and u half to
traverse Atlanta on its supposedly limited-access highway, dur-
ing which period thru traffic several times came to a complete
halt.
Thank you gentlemen for your patience with us and mith this
long letter. Me sincerely hope you will see to it that this
objectionable and potentially dangerous plan is corrected
before it is too late.
Sincerely laura
S/ John R. Riller
John R. Rill*r, President
VIRGINIA METAL MFG. CO., I~C.
S/ Anselm D. Riller, Sr.
Anselm D. Miller, Sr.
PARER OF ATTORNEY FROR
EDNA QUINN HILLER"
SE~ERS AND ~fORR DRAINS: Council having requested that the City Manager
meet mith affected people in 'the southeast area during the week of April 10, 1972,
taking into c'onsiderati~n certain recommendations made by Council concerning an
interim sludge removal project at the Sewage Treatment Plant, the City Manager
submitted a mritten report advising that he has met with 15 to ~0 citizens of the
southeast area of the City of Roanoke nt the Semage Treatment Plant to discuss and
reviem the interim project of thecity for the dumping of sludge material from the
plant across the Roanoke River to the property of the Roanoke Industrial Center and
that the expressed conclusion of those citizens present was a willingness to permit!
the cstI to proceed.
Hr. Thomas ~oved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Hr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
321
SERERS AND STORN DRAINS: The City Ransger submitted a written report
advising that on Saturday, April O~ 1972, the members or the State Rater Control
Board visited Roanoke and were conducted on a tub end one-half hour tour of ele-
ments Of the City of Roanoke sewerage system, that the tour included the Sewage
Treatment Plant. the construction in the Albecarle Avenue. S. E., areao mhlcb elimi-
nates the city*s last major combined sewer situation and tour locations mhich have
from time to time constituted In-line overflow situations and that it is believed
that the tour fairly presented the city's system mithin the limited time available.'
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SERERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a mritten report
transmitting copy of a communication from the Planning and Grants Division of the
State Rater Control Board with regard to the allocation of funds to the City of
Roanoke for the program of expansion of the Semage Treatment Plant facilities.
noting that this matter pertains to the allocationin June, 1971, by the Hoard of
SO million.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion sas
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted the toil.ming report
expressing the desire of the City of Roanoke to seek modification of the Speical
Order of the State Mater Control Board dated March IT, 1972, and advising that the
City Attorney has filed a Notice of Appeal in the Circuit Court of the City of
Roanoke praying for a review of the decision and orders of the State Water Con-
~rol Board made and contained in said Special Order:
*April 17, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Rater Control Board Funds
Attached for the records of the City Council is a letter
from the Planning and Grants Division of the State Mater Control
Board with regard to the allocation of funds to the City of
Roanoke for the program of expansion of the Sewage Treatment
plant facilities.
It is to be noted that this matter pertains to the alloca-
tion last June, 1971, by the Board of $8 million.
'April 7, 1972
Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, Virginia
· SubJect: City of Roanoke (WPC-VA-3~O)--Reinstatement of
Dear Mr. Birst:
As you know, the Board at its meeting on Retch
1972 (Minute 2) withdrew the State/Federal grant funds
from the City of Roanoke. However, the board ruled
that if it had received by April 1, 1972, a consummated
regional institutional arrangement providing for treat-
ment of wastes from Roanoke City, Roanoke County, City
of Salem, Town of Vinton, and Rotetourt County, the
funds mould be reinstated.
Please be advised that the staff has reviewed the con-
tracts between the above-named political entities and
"322
finds that they ore in order, Therefore, in accordance
with the Board's ruling, the funds bare been reinstated.
All of ~h~ communities l~v~i~ed bre't~ be'congratulated
on reaching thin cooperative arrangement.
If you have any~questi~nso please let us
Very ~ruly yo.urs,
S! Robert R. Jennings
Robert R. Jennings, Director
Planning ~ Grunts Division'
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Hr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Homager
and the actions of the City Attorney and that the City Attorney be directed to pre-
pore, the proper measure confirming said action. The motion mas seconded by
i Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
MUNICIPAL U~ILDING-CAPITAL I~PROVER£NTS PROGRAM: The City Ramager sob-
mi*ted the follou~n9 report in connection mith courthouse renovations~, advising
that numerous meetings have been he~d between city personnel and th~ architects
and engineers and transmitting certain material consisting of summary notes on two
particular meetings on Hatch g and March 30, 1972:
*April 17, 1972
Honorable Rayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Courthouse Building Renovations
In the process of construction work wherein the City is
associated with architects or engineers, there are, as I am sure
the City, Council recognizes, many conferences betmeen the archi-
tects and engineers and the City representatives or involving
other persons ~ho may be related to a project, in the course of
both developing the project as mall as its execution. This is
particularly true for the Courthouse building renovations because
of the many complications and decisions that must be made for
this type of a program. Quite a large number of such meetings
have already taken place over some several years with representa-
tives of Hayes, Seay, Hat*em and Mattern and the City and persons
associated with the City in regard to the Courthouse, With.the
authorization by City Council to proceed and the general deter-
mination of the ultimate arrangement, these m~etings have now
been stepped up in frequency.
The purpBse of these background comments i~ to identify the
material which is beingsent to you consisting of summary notes
on two particular m~etings of March 9 and March 30, 1972. These
notes contain various comments, observations and decisions with
regard to the Courthouse'reaovatJon~ 'It is ~hought th~ members
of Cit~ Council might be interested in the items ~ontained in
these notes as they firm up some direction for the architects--
engineers, set certai~ guidelines and also indicate points that
will later have to be resolved.
I enclose this material for your information, without any
particular identification of specific items of exceptional note.
R~spectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Hr. Trout und unanimously adopted.
CORPLAIHTS: Council having referred to the City Ranager for lnvestigatlo~
and report a communication from Hr. William H. Coleman, President, Hoard of Dlrec- /
tots, Hunton Life Saving and First Aid Crew, Incorporated, requesting that a per-
..... t C .... t cover be installed over a creek which is located a few feet from the~ ~
Irear of the Hunton Lire Saving and First Aid Crew Headquarters at Hoorman Road and
lBth Street, N. W., the City Manager submitted a written report advising that the
tenclosing of this section of the channel with a double siX-foot by four-foot'box
culvert would cost between $15,000.00 and SRO,O00.O0 and that for the purpose of
project expenditures, the higher estimate of $20,000.00 should be used.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be referred to budget study. The
1972-73'
imotion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Hr, Trout requested that the City Manager check into
!the possibility of the ~ity obtaining federal funds in connection with the construc-
~tion of the permanent concrete cover over the Trout Run Creek Channel along the
rear of the Hun'ton Life Saving and First Aid Crew Headquarters.
i
FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report in connec- ·
!tion with the ne.cessity to purchase 12 beds with mattresses and 22 lockers for the
~22 additional Fire Department employees.as authorized by Council, advising that the'
IFire Department has been able to obtain the necessary equipment ~ithout requirements
of a special appropriation by Council and that the matter can be closed.
Mr~ Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted a written report advising that the
IClty of Roanoke is submitting to the Federal Aviation Administration a request for
'iaid under th~ Federal Aid Airport Program for the construction of the dual purpose
fire and rescue station at Roanoke Municipal (#oodrum) Airport.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted a written report advising' th. at it
was anticipated that a report with completed drawings on the Airport T~rminal
Building would be available from the architect about April IS, that as a result
of further discussions and certain complications which have developed with regard
to utility systems in the Terminal Huildtng and their relocation and FAA approvals,!!
the architect advises that this material Cannot be completed prior to June 15.
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
AUHXZORXUMoCOLISEUM: The City Manager submitted the following report in
connection with music at the Roanoke Civic Center, recommending that Council ~utho-
rize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Broadcast Music, Incorporated,
to be effective April 1, 1972, and terminate on December 31, 1973, with automatic
year-to-year extensions, advising that the best summary is provided by two provlsiois
within the agreement which states that *HMX is engaged in the business Of licensin
'32~,
music for public performance for profit' and tbe "licensee proposes to. perform,
present or cause the performance of musical compositions at'theatres ns parts of
muscial attractions:"
"April IT, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Civic Center Agreement - Music
This is a matter mhJch has been a subject of discussion and
involvement since back sometime prior to the actual opening of
the Civic Center. It is a fairly commom place situation that
developes with public facilities and public areas involving a
license to the facility under the copyright lam and requiring
the payment of certain fees for the performance of copyright
and music, There are two firms in this business, both based
in Nem York, HMI and ASCAF. Both initially approached the City;
however, flMl, which is Broadcast Music. Incorporated, has
apparently developed the negotiations to the fullest.
The City Attorney's office has had extensive contact with
BM1, the result of mbich is a recommendation to the City Council
for the authorization by the City Council for the City Manager
agreement would be effective April 1. 19~2, and terminate on
December 31, 1973, with automatic year-to-year extensions. The
best summary is provided by two provisions within the agreement
Which state that "BMI is engaged in the business of licensing
music for public performance for profit* and the "licensee pro-
poses to perform, present or cause the performance of musical
compositions at theatres as parts of musical attractiGns.*
Certain performance fees are provided dependent upon
capacity. Zhese fees, mithin our scope of operation, range from
~15 minimum for up to 1,500 seats to $100 for lO,OOl to 12,SO0
seats. It is proposed that revisions mill be made in the con-
tracts for use of the Civic Center wherein either the promoters
will themselves have BMl licenses and thereby pay the fees Or
the cost of the fees #ill be made apart of the rental charges
for the use of the Civic Center. In those instances wherein out-
side promoters, otc** are not involved in the rental of the
center then the payment of the fees would become a part of the
center's cost of operation for a particular performance.
Me will he glad to respond to .any questions from the City
Council and would recommend your autborlzation by the appropriate
document as prepared by the City Attorney's office.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
i Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(a20215) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager on behalf of the Cxty
to enter into a License Agreement with Rroadcast Music, Inc., for a term of twenty-
one months commencing as of April 1, 1972', renewable thereafter from year to. year,
upon certain terms and provisions; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook naB, page 374.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion uaw seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Mheeler
NAYS: M~yor Webbe~ ---
SALE OF PROPERTY-STATE HIGHWAYS-MATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager sub-
mitted n written report recommending that Council adopt nn Ordin'ance authorizing the
sale Of two parcels of land owned by the City Of Roanoke totaling 3,294 square
'feet, together With construction ensementse which parcels Of land are necessary to
the construction of the Tenth Street project and which are surplus to the city, that
the consideration is $1,697.00 based on appraisal standards used in this project
larea and these parcels were not acquired for right of way purposes,
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
iManager and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(z20215) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and directing the Clty*s sale and con-
!veyancc to the Commonwealth of Virginia of two parcels of land containing a total
of 3,294 square feet, more or less, and temporary construction easements on land
adjacent thereto, situate on Tenth Street, N. M., being designated as Official Nos.
211132I and 1110204, according to the Tax Appraisal Maps of the City of Roanoke,
upon certain terms and conditions.
WHEREAS, the City is the owner of the parcels of land hereinafter describ-
ed which, being held as purplus pro~erty and not needed for public purposes, were
the subject of an offer to purchase made by the Stute Highway Department; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has reported to the Council and has recommended
that Said offer, being equivalent to the appraised value of said parcels of land,
should he accepted and that conveyance of the title to said parcels and to tempor-
ary construction easements on land adjacent thereto, to the offeror he authorized
THEREFORE, RE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
!sale and conveyance of the following described parcels of land situate in the City
iof Roanokee viz:
PARCEL 1
BEING the easterly 33.33 feet of Lot 16, Block 4g, Map of Rogers,
Fairfax and Houston. and designated as Official No. 2111321,
according to the Tax Appraisal Maps of the City of Roanoke, said
parcel being further designated as Parcel 0R5 on Sheet 7 of the
plans for State Highway Project UO00-126-IOI,
TOGETHER with the right and easement to use such additional areas
as are shown on said plans for cat and/or fill slopes required for
the proper construction and maintenance'of the work, said additional
area containing approximately 2.530 square feet; and
REING the same property acquired by the City of Roanoke from Old
Dominion Fire Insurance Company, Incorporated, by deed dated
December 4. 1934, of record Jn the Clerk*s Office of the Hustings
Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Rook 598, at page
16g.
PARCEL 2
BEING the southerly portion of Lots land 2, Rlock 15, of the
Dr. J. M. Mebb Map, designated as Official No. 1110204, according
to the Tax Appraisal Maps of the City of Roanoke. said parcel
bela9 further designated as Parcel 0R2 an Sheet 5 of the plans
for State Highway Project U000-128-101, RW-201;
TOGETHER with the right and easement to use such'additional areas
shown on said plans for cut and/or fill slopes required for the
proper construction and maintenance of the work, said additional
area containing approximately 558 square feet; and
BEING the same property conveyed to the City of Roanoke by Moss
A, Plunhett, Trustee, by deed dated August 19, 1940, of record
in the Clerh*a Office of the Bustings Court of the City, of
Roanoke, Virginia, in Deed Book 664, at page 191;
to the Commonuealth of Virginia, for and in consideration of the sum of $1,697,00,
cash, be, and ia hereby authorized and ~ppro~ed, subject to the terms and condi-
tions herein provided, and the City Clerk shall so notify said offeror by transmit-
tal of an attested copy of this ordinance.
BE IT FURTHER ORBAINRO that the Mayor be, and he is hereby authorized
and amp*meted, for and on behalf of the City to execute to the aforesaid purchaser
a deed of conveyance drawn by the City Attorney conveying to said purchaser the
fee simple title to the aforesaid parcels, as well as temporary construction ease-
ments on land adjacent thereto, said deed to contain the City's General Warranty of
covenants on behalf of the City, and the City Clerk be,
Title,
and
Modern
English
and is hereby authorized and directed 'to affix to the aforesaid deed of conveyancei
the City*s corporate seal and to attest the *same, bath said officials to thereafte~
acknomledge their signatures as provided by law.'
The motion nas 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.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC lfliLFARE: The City Manager submitted the foil*win9
report advising that Miss Bernice F. Jones has successfully passed the examination!
and is certified and licensed as a nursing home administrator as of March 2, 1972:
"April 17, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: City Nursing Home
The State of Virginia, by the General Assembly of two ses-
sions ago, adopted regulations requiring'that each nursing home
in Virginia'have assigned to it an administrator who carries the
certification and license of the then newly established State
Board of Examiners for Nursing Home Administrators. When that
requirement became lam and the procedure became mandatory, Miss
Bernice F. Jones. Director of Public Welfare, voluntarily agreed
to undergo the process of certification and licensing on behalf
of the City of Roanoke.
It has been a long and arduous process involving a great
many trips to Richmond over many months to go through the pre-
scribed course. It has also involved study requirements and
Both as information to the City Council and also to
recognize her interest in this regard, I would advise that we
are now informed by the State Department of Professional and
Occupational Registration that Miss Jones has successfully
passed the examination and is certified and licensed as a
nursing home administrator as of March 2, 1972.
It is 9*od to know that Miss Jones is now qualified to
do that mhich she has been doing for many years.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr, Wheeler moved that the report he received and filed, The motion nas
seconded b7 Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
S~REETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a written report concur-
ring in the follouing recommendation of n committee that the Joint bid of Virginia
Asphalt Paving Company, Incorporated, end Adams Construction Company, in the amount~
of $46.652,20. for resurfaoing of various streets in the City of Roanoke, be
accepted:
~April 17. 19T2
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
SubJect: Street Resnrfacing Program
Bids were received and opened before the committee named
below on Thursday, April 13, for the resurfacing of various
streets throughout the City of Roanoke, Two (2) proposals
were submitted, by John A, Hall ~ Company, Inc., in the
amount of $50,525.00, and n joint venture by Virginia Asphalt
Paving Company. ~nc.. and Adams Construction Company in the
amount of $46.652.20.
AS previously reported, this year's program uill include a
limited amount of street paving in order to facilitate bringing
the biddino process into alignment uith the City*s fiscal year
budget. A sizable contract will be advertised early in 1973.
for work authorized in the upcoming budget.
The lam bid received is mithin our estimate, and funds are
available mithin Account =50-255o Street Repair - Maintenance
of Buildings and Property. It is recommended that a contract
be awarded to Virginia Asphalt Paving Company, Inc., and Adams
Construction Company in the amount of $46.652.20.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Nilliam F. Clark
S/ Sam H. McGhee, III
S/ Bueford B. Thompson"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following' emergency Ordinance:
(#20217) AN ORDINANCE accepting the proposal of Virginia Asphalt Paving
i!Company, Inc., and Adams Construction Company for the' paving of streets at various
locations in the City of Roanoke; authorizing the proper City officials to execute
the requisite contract; rejecting certain other bids made to the City; and pro-
viding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook #36. page 375.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded
!by Mr. Lish and adopted by the folloming vote:
~ AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Yrout. {{heeler and Mayor
Mebbe~ 7.
! NAYS: None O.
t SENERS AND STORM BRAINS: The City Attorney submitted the following repor~
~in connection with the implementation of increased charges for treatment of septic
tank wastes, transmitting a Resolution. which, upon adoption by Council. would
l institute the new rate of charge for treatment of septic tank wastes, effective
'April 17, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Re.ubers
o! Ronnoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Oa August 30, 1971, the City Council adopted Resolution Bo. 19841,
which hud the effect of staying the application and implemen-
tation of the provisions of Ordinance Bo, 196110 adopted ear-.
lief, which prescribed an increase in the amount of charge to
be made by the City for tank tract deliveries of septic tank
wastes at the Cityts sewage treatment plant, This stay was
ordered, due to the issuance of the President*s Executive
Order of August IS, 1971, stablizing prices and wages for a
period of ninety days from said Order,
The initial period of the President*$ Executive Order having
expired and the City, in the meanwhile, having in the interim
incurred increased expense and cost for the treatment of
wastes at the treatment plant, some in the nature of permanent
improvements and others in the nature of temporary measures
employed for better t~eatment, it would appear that every
justification mould now exist for implementing the schedule
of charges decided upon by the Council on August 90 1971,
Accordingly, thi~ office has prepared ~nd transmits herewith
for consideration a resolution nhich, upon its adoption by
the Council. would institute the new rate of charge for treat-
ment of septic tank wastes, effective May 1, 1972.
Respectfully,
S/ J. S. Kincanon'
In this connection, a~. Robert C. Churchill, Jr., Owner, Churchill's
Portable Johnnyst appeared before Council and raised the question as to whether or
not he will be affected, by this nam rate.
After n discussionof the matter, Mr. LJsk moved that the report of the
City Attorney be referred to the City Manager and the City Attorney to ascertain
if they would like to effect this ~ew rate and further, to ascertain if said new
rate, if adopted, would affect Mr. Robert C. Churchill, Jr., Owner, Churchill's
Portable Johnnyst and report back to Council accordingly. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
EASEMENTS-APPALACHIAN PORER COMPANY-RATER DEPARTMENT: The City Attorney
submitted a written report, advising that, pursuant to Ordinance Bo. 20177, adopted'!
on March 2?, 1972, deeds hare been exchanged which have resulted in the city's pre-i
sent ownership of an additloaal 72.61 acre tract of land lying on the north side of
Green Ridge in the Carvlns Cove Ratershed, that a deed of easement containing the
restrictions outlined in Ordinance No. 20177 has been delivered by the city to the
Appalachian' Power Company which easement relates to the right of way for a new
porter transmission line for said company*s proposed Fnnk-Cloverdale line and, in
addition, by separate recorded agreemeut, those same restrictions have beau ~ade
applicable to the easement formerly granted by the city to Appalachian over other
property in the Carvins Cove Matershed.
Hr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
CITIZENS' AD¥ISORy COMMITTEE-STATE HIGHWAYS: Council having directed the
City Attorney to prepare an updated Resolution to be resubmitted to the State Depart-
ment of Highways pertaining to Route 115 from Dale Avenue to Riverdale Road. S. Mo?
329
and Route 24 from llth Street to l?th Street, S. E., the Assistant City Attorney
submitted a urttten report advising that both proJects are proceeding as rapidly as
Is physically possible and that little, if anything, would be gained by the formal
request by the city to the Highway Department to alter the programming of the
projects as presently scheduled and in process of implementation,
In thiJ connection, Reverend Calvin B. Fulton, Chairman of the Citizens*
Advisory Committee, appeared before Council and reiterated the request of the Citi-~
~zens* Advisory Committee for the preparation of the ahoy,described Resolution.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney and the
ICity Manager for the purpose of preparing an updated Resolution to be forwarded
It* the Highway Department in connection with the two projects, The motion was
iseconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously adopted.
CITY EMPLOYEES-CITY ENGINEER: The Assistant City Attorney submitted a
!written report transmitting a Resolution in connection with a lump sum payment,
in the amount of $3,5?0.000 to Hr.-Raymond A. Itarris as full and complete settlement
of. any and all claims for morkmen*s compensation benefits arising out of an injury
to Mr. Harris on December 29, 1969, while in the course of his employment with the
City of Roanoke, providing such settlement be approved by the Industrial Commission.
Hr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the Assistant City
Attorney and offered the following Resolution:
(~2021H) A RESOLUIION c~ncurring in the City's paymeatof a final work-
men*s compensation award to Raymond A. Harris, a former employee of the City.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Hook u36, page 376,)
Mr, Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion Was seconded,
by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by the foil*ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
iWebber 7~
NAYS: None O.
: . CLAIMS-AIRPORT: The Assistant City Attorney submitted the following
ilreport in connection with a claim for damages by the Civil Air Patrol arising out
iof windstorm damage incurred at Roanoke Municipal (#**drum) Airport on June 7,
it* an aircraft owned by the CAP, advising 'that he is of the opinion that the matter
present an enforceable claim for damages against the City of Roanoke:
*April 17, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Council, on April 10, 1972, referred to this office and to
the City Manager a claim for damages that day made to the Council
by Civil Air Patrol, the claim arising out of windstorm damage
incurred at Mo*dram Field on June 7, 1971, to an aircraft of
the claimant.
The Civil Air Patrol previo~sly filed its claim in the amount
of $746.20, with the Municipal Airport Department which, in
turn, had called upon this office for opinion as to whether or
330
not the claim represeRte~ In enforceable, lawful demand against
the City. Upon receipt o! this claim, this office conducted an
cf the occurrence and, by letter dated January 19t 1912, e copy
of mhich Is attached hereto, informed Major Charles S. Glass,
Connauder o! the local Civil Air Petrol Unit, of Its opinion
that the City was not legally responsible far the damages
resulting to the aircraft.
In matters Involving damage claims asserted against the City, this*
office proceeds on the theory and maintains the position that it ~
may not approve o claim mhJch It considers would be held in a
court to be not legally enforceable against the City. As indicated
by the letter of January 19, 1972, enclosed herewith, and for the
reasons stated in that letter, it is my opinion that the matter
does not present un enforceable claim for damages against the City.
Respectfully,
S/ Edmard A. ~att
Edmard A. Natt
· Assistant City Attorney"
Mr. Trout moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the pro-
per measure donating the necessary funds to pay the Civil Air Patrol for said
windstorm damage. The motion was seconded by Mr..Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ANREXATION-CoNSOLIDATION: The City Attorney submitted the followJn9
report making certain recommendations with respect to the Final Order of Annexation
entered February 29, 1972, in certain consolidated annexation cases:
"April 17. 1972 .
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
I have previously provided you with copy of the Final Order of
Annexation entered February 29, 1972, in the consolidated annex-
ation proceedings recently conducted in the Circuit Gourt of.
Roanoke County. The following ere brief comments upon some of
the more important aspects of the cases and upon the procedure
employed in the annexation court*s trial and decision of those
cases, as reflected in the Final Order and in other orders and
rulings of the Court made prior thereto.
Despite the City*s claim and showing of need for a major annex-
ation of territory to the City and despite the cases put before
the Court by two groups of petitioners who sought the annexation
of their respective areas to the City of Roanoke, the Court dis-
missed in its entirety the City*s case for annexation of any new
territory and alloned the annexation of only 2.505 square miles
of the total of 5.2 square miles of territory which had been
sought for annexation to the City by the two groups of petitioners.
Zhe annexation ordered by the Court would add to the populati on
of the City 314 persons resident of the area in the vicinity of
the Municipal Airport and 14 persons resident of an area adjacent
to but not in the Mindsor Rill Subdivision, none of which latter
persons were among the petitioners for annexation,
The final order of annexation carved out of the Mlndsor Rills area
and left unannexed to the City substantially all of the residential
and developable property of that area and all of the individual
properties of the many petitioners for annexation in that particular
area, The order of annexation carved out of the Municipal Airport
area and left unannexed to the City the Crossroads Mall Shopping
Center area, the developable land around that facility, u part of
the City*s Airport northeast Clear Zone property and ail of its
North Clear,Zone. Individual property lines, as opposed to exist-
ing street lines and natural boundary lines were largely employed
by the Court in drawing the boundary lines Of the two small areas
approved for annexation to the City. One of the two judges-desig-
nate to the special annexatloncourt expressed formal dissent to
the failure of the Court to order annexed to the City of Roanoke
more of the territory petitioned for annexation in both the Mindsor
Rills case and the Municipal Airport case, stating his opinion
that the City had *shown a need, necessity and expediency for
additional property,*
The two areas comprising the 2,595 square miles or territory, and
32H inhabitants, and no more, will become annexed to the City or
Roanoke as of December 31, ~972, under the terms of the order or
Roanoke as of December 31, 19720 under the terms of the order of
29, 1972. Because of what counsel for the City consider to have
been material errors of procedure ordered by the Court in trying
what were then consolidated cases end errors of the Court in dis-
missing Jrt toro the City's case, in allowing dismissal of other
cases without a hearing0 and in granting inadequate annexation in
the cases brought by the Windsor Hills and the Municipal Airport
area residents, under the evidence presented In those and the
CJty*s cases, counsel for the City consider and recommend that
appeal be taken by the City to the final order of annexation of
February 29, 1972, aforesaid. If appeal be granted, tho Supreme
Court of Virginia, hearing the case may make such order as it
considers should have been made by the annexation court, may remand
the cases for a new trial or may, of course, affirm the order of
the annexation court.
There is transmitted herewith a proposed resolution, drawn by the
undersigned, by which the Council, considering the matter, may
approve and direct that proceedings be taken by counsel for the
City to appeal, in the City*s behalf, the final order of annexation
entered February 29, 1972, in the Circuit Court of Roanoke County.
All counsel associated mith the undersigned, together with the City
Manager, join in the recommendation made herein.
Respectfully,
5/ J. N. Kincanon
J. N. Kincanon
City Attorney*
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
.and offered the follomin9 Resolution authorizing and directing that appeal be taken
by the City of Roanoke to a certain final order of annexation entered February 29,
1972, in the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virgiuia:
(~20219) A RESOLUZION authorizing and directing that appeal be taken by
the City of Roanoke to a certain final order of annexation entered February 29,
111972, in the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia.
(For full, text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book ~36, page 377.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
!by Mr. Mheeler and adopted by. the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber--6.
NAYS: Mr. Garland, 1.
In this connection, Mr. Garland advised that he Mould like to speak in
~oppositlon to the Resolution. that he is of the opinion that enough money has been
squandered on annexation in the past ten to tmelve years, that the sentiment is
Ivory much against annexation in the county and raised the question as to why the
city should force itself on people who do not want annexation when tho money could
be put to use in so many other ways,
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the City of
Roanoke for the month of March, 1972.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLICMELFARE: The City Auditor submitted a monthly~
statement of expenditures for public welfare for the month ended March 31, 1972.
331
332
Dr. Taylor moved that the report, be received end filed, The motion mas
seconded by Mr, Trout end unanimously adopted,
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
UNFIN'ISRED RUSiSESS:
ZONING: Council having deferred action on a report of the City Planning
Commission in connection ~Jth the request of Mess~s. Elmer M, Cos and Lawrence
Peters, that properties around and adjacent to Redwood Road and Dundee Road, S,
described as Lots 3, 4, 50 6, 11, 12, 13 and. 14, Section 4, Map of Rosewood Park
Corporation, Official Tax Nos, 4440722 - 4440725, inclusive, and Official Tax RD.
4440?03 - 4440706t inclusive, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to
RG-2, General Residential District, the City Plannin9 Commission recommending that
a RG-1, rezonin9 be approved in lieu of tho original RG-2 request for rezoning, thel
matter was again before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that action on the matter be deferred until the next
regular meeting of Councl'l on Monday, April 24, 1972. The motion mas seconded by
Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCT1ON AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20196, rezoning property located at the southwest
corner of Elm Avenue and Fifth Street, S. W., described as one half of Lot 11 and
all of Lots 12 and 13, Block 12, Lemis Addition Map, Official Tax No. 1120813,
from C-I, Office and Institutional 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. Wheeler offering the follomlng for its second read-
in9 and final adoption:
~a20198) 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. 112, Sectional
1q66 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n36, page 365.)
Mr. Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. 7he. motion mas seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the followiog vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Wheeler and Mayor Webber-6.:!
NAYS: Mr. Trout .
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20199, rezoning property located at 108 Lee Avenue[
N. E** described as the southerly one-half of Lot 3, Block 4, Map of Upson Addition[
Official Tax No, 3160129o from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RC-I, 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:
(~20199) AN ORDINANCE to ~mend Title IV, Chapter 4.1 Section 2, of The
L Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as.amended, and Sheet No. 316, Sectional 1965-
r Zone Map,.City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, page 366.)
Nr~ Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion was seconded
by' Hr~ Wheeler end adopted ~y the following vote:
AYES: Masaru, Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, #heeler and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None
CITY ENGINEER: Ordinance No. 20207, authorizing and providing for the
cfty*s leasing to Creative Displays, Incorporated, of Roanoke of a portion of
tOfficlal Tax No~ 3080433. upon certain t ...... d 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:'
(~20207) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the City*s leasing
ito Creative Displays, Inc., of Roanoke of a portion of Official No. 3000432, upon
ilc~rtaln terms and conditions.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u36. page 36T.)
Nr~ Wheeler 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
Mebber
i NAYS: None O.
il STATE NIGItMAYS-BRIDGES: Council having directed the City Attorney to pre-
pare the proper measure recommending and urging the Virginia Oepartmeat of Highways
ltd proceed with the development of necessary preliminary plans and studies for the
i:construction of a new bridge on South Jefferson Street over the Roanoke River, in
ithe City of Roanoke and setting out the need therefore and committing the city to
~psy its proportionate part of the cost of such improvement, he presented same;
whereupon, Mr~ Lish offered the following Resolution:
(~20220) A RESOLUTION recommendin9 and urging the Virginia Depart,:ent
iof Highways to proceed with the development of necessary preliminary plans and
~Roanoke River, in the City of Roanoke; setting out the need therefor; and committing:
ilthe City to pay its proportionate part of the cost of such improvement.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book u36, page 37B,)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution., The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
Webber 7.
NAYS: None O.
In this connection, Council having also directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure recommending and urging the initiation by the Department
of Highways of a project to provide for the widening and improvement by coustructionl
lof additional'traffic lanes and of coordinated traffic control signal devices for
iCrossing) to the intersection of Melrose Avenue, N. M., and thence, Melrose Avent~
on
'333
1'334
N. W,. to the intersection' of Lafayette Boulevard. N. W., In the City of Roanoke.
setting ant the need therefore and Committing the city to pay its proportionate
part of the cost of s~ch iwprovement~, he presented same; w~ereupon. Br. Taylor
offered the follo~ing Resolution:
(n20221) ~ RESOLUTION recommending and' urging the initiation by the
Department of Highways of a project to provide for the widening and improvement by
construction of additional trnffi~ lanes and of coordinated traffic control signal
devices for 24th Street, B~ w.. from the north line of the 24th Street Tnnnel
(Shaffer's Crossing) to the intersection of Melrose Avenue, N, J,, and thence, On
Melrose Avenue, N, M., to the intersection of Lafayette Boulevard, N, W,. in the
City of Roanoke; setting out the need therefor; and committing the City to pay
its proportionat~ part of the cost of Such improvements, '
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book n36. page
Dr~ Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was secondedI
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Lash, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber 7,
NAYS: None OB
SEWERS AND 5~fORR DRAINS: Council havin~ directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure accepting the proposal of Kappe Associates, Iocorporated~
for furnishing to the city 1,500 Chicago Pump diffuser tubes for use at the Sewage
Treatment Plant, he presented same; hwereupon, Mr. Mheeler offered the follo~ing
emergency Ordinance:
(#20222) AN ORDINANCE accepting a proposal for furnishing to the City
1,500 Chicago Pump diffuser tubes for use at the City's Semage Treatment Plant;
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =36, page 380.)
Mr~ Wheeler moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded;
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the follo~ing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lash, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
,7.
NAYS: None.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: NONE.
There being no further business, Mayor ~ebber declared the meeting
adjourned~
AT'JEST:
iDeputy City C~erk
APPROVED
Mayor
335
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
#onday, April 24, 1972.
The Council or the City of Roanoke m'et in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building. Monday, April 24,'1972. at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. lrebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland. Bavid K. LiSk, Noel C. Taylor.
~Bampton M. Thomas. James O'~ Trout, Vincent S. Mbeeler and Mayor Roy L. Mebber .... ?.
I ABSENT: None ..........................................................O
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hlrst,' City Manager: Mr. Janes N.
iKlncanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by the Reverend g. L.
Minnick, Jr., Pastor. Christ Lutheran Church.
MINI~/ES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
'March 13, 1972, the special meeting held on Friday. March 17, 1972, and the regular
meeting held on Monday, Rarch 20. 1972. 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.
BEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
TRAFFIC-STATE IIIGHMAYS: A Resolution of the Towers Shoppin9 Center
,Merchants Association Board of Directors. urging the support of further consideration
for the design of access to the Southwest Expressway giving consideration to both
north and south exist in the near vicinity of Towers Shopping Center, advising that
they feel that ingress and egress to the shopping center is essential to maintain
and increase sizeable revenue and tax source, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the Resolution be referred to the City Manager for
proper transmittal to the Highway Department at such time as he sees fit. The
"motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted the following report in
'connection with the $outhmest Expressway, Franklin Road to Virginia Route 419,
south of the City of Roanoke. advising that as a result of discussions with the
~ltighway Department, they have agreed to provide on the plans a northbound off
to connect with 23rd Street. that this mould be proposed as a loop which would be
constructed so that the off bound movement would commence after crossing 23rd
Street with a loop around and down into 23rd Street for movement to Colonial Avenue.
S. M., that the present proposed on ramp from 23rd Street from Franklin Road. to
northbound would remain but would be slightly relocated to accommodate this
~dditi°aal loop ramp, that it is believed that this will accommodate the situation
that has been discussed and will provide this additional and beneficial movement
and recommending that Council, by Resolution, indicate its concurrence in the plan
ith the condition that there be constructed an off ramp for egress of northbound
xpressway traffic onto 23rd 'Street and that in consideration thereof the northbound
egress ramp from the expressway to Roberts Road be deleted from the plans:
'336
'April 24, 1972
Honorable #ayor and City Coumell
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Southwest Expressway-Franklin Road to Virginia
Route 41g, South of City
This is a continuing report on this matter which has been
discussed in recent City Council meetings. Listed below are the
design arrangements for getting off and on this section of the
expressway as they are currently provided for in the plans of
the project, which were the plans presented at the public hear-
ing In 1969.
~t Etm Avenue
Northbound off ramp
on rump
Southbound off ramp
on ramp
~t Frsnklln Road
As long as expressway terminates at Franklin Road
Northbound on ramp
Southbound off ramp
p~Fmanent - after coostruction section of expressway from
Frail in Road south.
At 23rd Street
Northbound off ramp
Southbound on ramp
(General area) Northbound
Southbound
Northbound
At Franklin Road and Virointa 41~
Full interchange
on rump - two -
from Franklin Road
off ramp - two -
to Colonial Avenue -
to Franklin Road
on ramp
off ramp to Roberts
Road & Franklin Road
on ramp - ultimate
from Fersinger
The major question that has arisen bas been Os to the
absence of an off ramp for northbound traffic on the express-
way in the vicinity of 23rd Street and which would beneficially
serre the Towers Shopping Center area. One of the major problems,
if not perhaps the major one, in the matter of interchange methods
in this general area that is the subject of discussion is the
difficulty of the terrain, the existence of the Norfolk and West-
ern Railway track, the overall narrow area that lies betmeen
Colonial Avenue and Franklin Road and the number of businesses,
dwellings and the such that are affected not only by the express-
way itself but would be affected by any changes that might be
brought .in.
As mill be noted in the above listing there is a northbound
off ramp for access via Roberts Road into Franklin Road. Ulti-
mately when the connection is made for Persinger east of Colonial
Avenue, under the expressway and then to connect into Roberts
Road and Franklin Road, this north egress ramp mill provide move-
ment both to Franklin Road as well us back to the must to
Colonial Avenue. There is some question as to the full need of
this particular ramp in the overall plans of the project. It
had been considered by the Highway Department to serve ulti-
mately the community college area and the shopping center area;
however, it is recognized that this is an ultimate situation as
well as there being some question about the total advantage Of
its location.
As a result of discussions during this past week with
officials of the Righway Departmentl I have their verbal and
informal willingness to eliminate thin ramp and as substitu-
tion therefore to provide,on,the plaqs a northbound off ramp to
connect with 23rd Street. This mould be proposed as a loop which
would be constructed so that the off bound movement would
mence after crossing 23rd Street with a loop around and down
into 23rd Street for movement to Colonial Avenue. The present
proposed mn ramp from 23rd Street, from Franhlin Road. to north-
bound, would remain but would be slightly relocated to accom-
modate the situation that has been discussed and will provide
this additional and beneficial movement.
It would be recommended that the City Council by resolu-
tion indicate its concurrence in the plan with the condition
that there be constructed on off ramp for egress of northbound
expressway traffic onto 23rd Street and that in consideration
thereof the northbound egress ramp from the expressway to
Roberts Road be deleted from the plans,
It is realized that this does not fully answer the general
complaint of the property owner ut the intersection of Broadway
and Franklin Road. This is a very difficult one to resolve
and involves an effort to try to shift a roadway to leave a
piece of property, this particular one that is vacant. That
mhich is proposed on the highway plans does not result in an
ideal intersection, it is recognized; homever, the absence of
an ideal situation occurs at this Intersection because or the
nature and locution of Broadway itself as it comes from the
east into Franklin Road. To shift the 23rd Street further north
on Franklin Road as has been proposed by the property omner may
have some benefit with respect to the property itself; however,
it increases the confusion of intersections by having within a
relatively short distance the westbonnd intersection of Broad-
may, the eastbound intersection of Broadway, the eastbound
intersection of 23rd and then on doan to the intersection for
RcClanaban. We mould hope to continue to work with the Highmay
Department ns time progresses and as the project itself might
approach later on as to the best perfection of this particular
intersection but insofar as major elimination or changes
at this particular time, I mould feel that it mould be open to
question and would recommend the City Council proceed as
advised above.
Respectfully submitted,
S/Julian F. tlirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report of the City Manager be taken under advise-
'meat. The motion was seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the Mayor be requested to call an infornal meet-
ing of Council to discuss certain pla~s for the Southwest Expressway. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Rheeler and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber then called an informal meeting for Wednesday, April 26, 19T2,
at 2 p.m., in the Executive Session Conference Room in the new Municipal Ouilding,
iWith the members of Council, the City Ranager and affected parties to discuss plans
!
ifor the Southwest Expressway.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: A communication from Judge
!Lawrence L. Koontz, Jr., requesting that $650.00 be appropriated for one Class C
ilsafe for the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, mas before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for pre-
;paration of the proper measure granting the request. The motion was seconded by
~Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CITY. TREASURER: A communication from Mr. J. H.
i!Jobnson, City Treasurer. requesting that he be supplied with a key for one of the
iChurch Avenue main floor-doors to the new Municipal Building, was before Council.
Mr. Carland moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
!handling administratively. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously
TRAFFIC: A communication from Mr. Robert C. Wilson requesting that Coun-
.icil have a traffic light installed ut the intersection of McClanahan Street and
'337
'338
Droaduly, $. i., to Illeviate the traffic dinner there, vas before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation:to CooacJl. The motion wis seconded by Mr. Trout
amd unanimously adoptkd.
ZOHI~G: A communication from MF.'J. Ralph Dooley, requesting that con-
struction be allowed on a 50 foot lot he owns on Vinton Mill Road, ~. E., desnribe~
as Lot 6, Bloch 8, Idleuild Park, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication 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 communication from Mr. J. Albert £11ett, Attorney, represent-
inn Mr. ¥ rnon Mackie. et mx., requesting that property located in the 2800 block
of Floraland Drive, N. ~., described as Lots 18, 19 and part of 20, Official Tax
Nos. 2280417, 2280418 and 2260419,.Floraland Addition, be rezoned from RS-3, Single~
Family Residential District, to aG-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. Garland and unanimously adopted.
REPORT5 OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-CITY MANAG£R: The City Manager submitted the followin9 report in
connection with certain office furniture in the Office of the City 9manger:
"April 24, 1972
Honorable mayor and City Council
Roanoke, YJrginio
Gentlemen:
Subject: Budget Transfers - City Manager's Office
In the 1971-72 budget, there is provided $1,~50.13 for
the purchase of office furniture in the City Manager*s office.
Since this listing was prepared last spring, priced and items
tentatively determined for the purpose of making the budget,
it is felt that some revisions should be made to enable the
purchase of particular items which ore now desired within the
limits of funds provided. This does not require any additional
appropriation but necessitates the preparation and approval of
new Forms 3A and one transfer within the budget account.
1. It is recommended that all Forms 3A under Department Code 3.
Object Code 3S5 be cancelled with the exception of the Form
3A for two small office work tables which have been purchased.
In lieu of the above, it is recommended that Forms 3A be
approved for purchase under Budget Code 355, Office Furniture
and Fixtures, Replacement in accordance uith the following
list of items:
Desk., Wooden 76 in. x 38 in. $ 597.40
Credenza
2 Side Arm Chairs A07.00
Small Wooden Table 57~ x 19~ 143.00
1.End Table ' 111.73
TOTAL $1421.63
It is recommended that $228.50 be transferred from Depart-
ment Code 3, Object Code 355, to Department Code 3, Object
Code 300, Office Furnitureand £quipmont, ~ew and a Form 3A
for window draperies be approved under this object codk.-
It is recommended that City Council favorably consider an
appropriate budget ordinance for the above.
Respectfully submitted,
5/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager#
Mr. LJSh moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u20223) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaln Section #3. *City Manager."
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n35, page 363,)
Mr. Lish moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas 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.
MUNICIPAL COURT: The City Manager submitted the following report trans-
mitting copy of an application prepared by ~e gunlclpal Court for submission to the
Virginia Division of Justice and Crime Prevention for Federal Law Enforcement
Administration funds, advising that this application provides for the purchase Mith
federal funds of certain new equipment for the Municipal Court and the employment
of an additional Deputy Clerk:
*April 24. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Application for Criminal Justice Grant-Municipal Court
For your information I attach a copy of ag application pre-
pared by the Municipal Court for submission to the Virginia Divi-
sion of Justice and Crime Prevention for Federal LaM Enforcement
Administration funds. This is for the information of the City
Council unless you would wish to take some specific action in
this regard as otherwise we would go ahead and administratively
formard it on to the State.
It will be noted that this provides for the purchase with
federal funds of certain new equipment for the Municipal Court
and the employment of an additional Deputy Clerk. It is quite
possible under the rules and procedures of the State agency that
the employment of the Deputy Clerk Mould be disallowed; however.
Me mill submit the application in tact.
It will further be noted, on Page 7. that the contribution
of the City of Roanoke to this application will be $3.953 in in-
kind services and $1.172 in cash. The Judge of Municipal Court
advises that the $1,172 is available within the account of the
Court'and can be transferred from Code No. 106. Extra Help. If
the application is approved, we mould then submit to City Council
a request for this transfer of this amount or of such portion
thereof as would be applicable.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
iseconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following report,;
in connection with a communication from Mr. J. Thomas Engleby, III, Chairman of the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, pertaining to the sewage treatment contract
tulth Roanoke County, advising that it ia the understanding of Hr. Engleby. III,
ltbat the City of Roanoke mill be receptive to a reviem or the rate formula in
,iapproximately three years to determine whether inequities exist:
"April 24, 1972
Honorable Mayor end City Council
· Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
SubJect: Sewage Treatment Contract - Roanoke County
At your meeting of April 10, 1972, the City Council received
a letter from Mr. J. Thomas Engleby, II1, Chairman of the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors, which letter was dated March 29,
1972. and which letter included the following paragraph.
"Incidential to this execution we understand, as
advised by Mr. Rahoney ~ the Public Service Authority, that
the City of Roanoke mill be receptive to n reviem of the
rate formula in approximately three (3) years to determine
whether or not inequities exist. This is not conditional
on the execution of the contract but is an understanding
between Hr. Mahoney and Mr. IJampton Thomas."
BAth the thought that as times goes by and persons may
reflect back on a letter of this content which had been written
and had been received by the City Council. there may be some
uncertainty as to the validity of such a statement and it amy
be felt to have been unchallenged, I wish to note for the City
Council*s record the following comments which generally summarize
the verbal statements made at the Council meeting on March lO.
1972. and which add certain other observations.
At no point in the negotiations with the County of Roanoke
and its Public Service Authority leading up to the execution of
a contract for semage treatment, did the committee of the City
acknowledge that there were inequities in the rate formula of
the contract as finally adopted. Likewise neither the City
committee nor the City Council stated any agreement to review
the rate formula itself within a period of three (3) years or
any other period.
The statement of the City committee chairman, Councilman
Thomas, of which the undersigned was aware, as a member of the
committee, and which Councilman Thomas verbally noted at the
Council meeting on March 10, was that the reviews of the rate
charges as would be later made mould be within the framework of
the provisions for review as provided mithin the contract. These
reviews are specified and are intended to be applicable, not to
the make-up of the formula itself, but to various calculations
of CoStS and other elements as are used mithin the formula for
application and determination of a rate charge.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
rseconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SEMERS AND STORM ORAI~S: The City Manager submitted a written report trans-
mitting copy Of a communication written by him to llvord, Hurdtck and Howson, Con-
isulting Engineers, advising that they are to continue to proceed with the design,
drawings and specifications for the 14,000,000 gallon plant expansion and the ad-
vanced waste treatment facilities for the 35,000,000 gallon design at the Sewage
Treatment Plant.
Mr, Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager.
motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor a~d unanimously adopted.
CITY EMPLOYEES-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written
report in connection with the employment of 22 new positions in the Fire Deportment
advising that he hos completed the fill*lng of these voconcies and individuals are
mom employed or scheduled for duty in oil of the positions.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unonJmously adopted.
ZONING: The City Manager usbmitted the follomiu9 report in connection
with the request of Mr. S. A. Barbour for a variance in the Zoning Ordinance in order
to permit the construction of a duplex duelling on each Of Lots 2 and 3, Block 23, ,
iWasena Map, advising that the Zoning Ordinance requires that two substandard vacantI
!lots under common ownership cannot be developed individually but must be consolidated
!for development and urging caution to Council of any amendment to the Zoning Ordi-
inance which would have the effect of removing this provision as to the requirement of
consolidation for development:
*April 24, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Zoning Ordinance-Adjacent Lots
The City Council has received a reqpest on behalf of Er. S.
A. Darbour for a variance in the Zoning Ordinance in order to
permit construction of a duplex dwelling on each of Lots 2 and
3. Block 23, Wasena Mop. As was noted before Council the Zon-
ing Ordinance requires that two substandard vacant lots under
common ownership cannot be developed individually but must be
consolidated for development.
The matter of these tmo lots has been before our attention
on a number of instances in the past. I believe that this is
the first time that it has ever been directly submitted to the
City Council.
Without the opportunity to go fully into the details and
reasoning behind this provision in the Zoning Ordinance, in
order to get this letter before you, I mould urge caution to
the City Council of any omendment to the Zoning Ordinance
which would have the effect of removing this provision as to
the requirement Of consolidation for development. It is recall-
ed that in the original preparation of the Zoning Ordinance this
particular provision was discussed in some detail and all evn~-
nation indicated it to be a desirable restriction. The experience
over the several yeors of administering the ordinance has further
indicated that the original reasoning for that provision mas
valid and is deserving of retention.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian Fo Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
BCDGET-CITY ENGINEER-MORKMEN'S COMPENSATION: The Assistant City Attorney
!submitted a written report transmitting a Resolution in connection with a compromise.
settlement, in the amount of $15,500.00; to gary Currna, Midow of Cerald S. Curran.!i
Ins full and complete settlement of any and all claims for uorkmen's compensation
341
benefits arising mat of Mr. Carton's death om NoTch lB, 1971, while Jn the ~oorse
of his .employment with the City or Roanoke, providing such settlement be approved
by th~ Industriol Commission,'
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report or the Assistsb~ City
Attorney and offered the following Resolution concurring in the payment of said
amount:
(m20224) A RESOLUTION concurring in the Clty*s payment of workmen's
compensation benefits to Nary Currna, widow of Cerald S. Cu~rnn. m former employee
of the City.
(For full te~t of Resolution, see Ordinance Book #36, page 303.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded!
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the follouJng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, List. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler an~ Mayor
Webber .........................7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
Mr. Garland then offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
$1S,SO0.O0 to Morkmen's Compensation under Section mgl, 'Non-Departmental," of the
1971=72 budget:
(u20225) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ggl, Non-Departmental,"
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 384.)
Mr. Carland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. List and adopted by .the foil*win9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. List, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler nod Mayor
Webber ....................... T.
NAYS: None ........... O.
APPOINTMENTS-CITy ATTORNEY: The City Attorney submitted a written report
advising of the appointment of Mr. Byron A. Adams as an Assistant City Attorney,
effective April 17; 1972.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report. The motion mas second-
ed by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
SA~E OF PROPERTY: The Real Estate Commi ttee submit ted a written report
in connection with the request of Antrim Motors, Incorporated, to acquire from the
City Of Roanoke a small triangle of property which remains ns the residue of the
~closing of the remait~ng section of Stephenson Avenue, S. W.0 advising that the
iiplot of land has no value to the city and recommending that Council approve an
'Ordinance authorizing this conveyance, for the sum of $50.00, with the conditions
ins protection of utility easements, conformance for ingress and egress with normal
City Code requirements, amy"excavation to protect the support of New Street and
that the purchaser survey the property and furnish the city with a map thereof.'
343
#r. LJsk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Real
Estate Committee, and that the following Ordinance be placed upon Its first read-
(n20226) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City's quitclaim and conve ance of
certain right, title and interest in and to a parcel of land hereto fore comprising.
the right of uny of a portion of Stephenson Avenue, S. M** vacated, discontinued
and closed as a public street by Ordinance No. 19466, adopted January 16, 1971.
= WHEREAS, Antrim Motors. Inc., has offered to purchase from the City for
a consideration of $50.00, chas, u certain parcel of land formerly comprising the
right of way of a portion of Stephenson Avenue. S. W.. which part of Stephenson
Avenue was heretofore closed, vacated and discontinued as a public street by
Ordinance No. 19468, of the Council, adopted January lO, 1971. which offer was
referred by the Council to its Real Estate Committee for consideration and recom-
mendation back to the Council; and
RHEREAS. said committee, in written report to the Council dated April 24,
1972, has adivsed the Council that said parcel of land is no longer needed by the
City as a public street, although certain existing sewer lines, water lines and
drains and lines, wires and lines in facilities of the public utility companies
must continue to be maintained on, through or under said land but that the City,
reserving all such rights for existing and future public facilities and utilities,
should offer and agree to release, quitclaim and convey to Antrim Motors, Inc.,
for the consideration offered, all other of the City*s right, title and interest in
said parcel of land; in which recommendation the Council concurs.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that,
upon payment to the City of the sum of $50.OO, cash, the Mayor and the City Clerk
be and are hereby authorized and directed to execute, seal and attest, respectively,
the City's deed of release, quitclaim and conveyance of all of the City's right,
title and interest, except as hereinafter directed to be reserved in and to that
certain parcel of land formerly comprising the right of way of a portion of
Stephenson Avenue. S. R.. which is bounded on the south by the north line of New
Street. S. R.. and on the west by the established southeasterly line of Franklin
Road. (now 80 feet wide), and is bounded on the southwest by the former southeast-
erly line of that portion of Stephenson Avenue vacated and closed by Ordinance No.
19466 of City Council. there to be expressly reserved by the City. however, a
I perpetual easement in said parcel of land for the right and privilege of construct-:
~ lng, operating, maintaining, replacing or relaying public water lines, sanitary
i sewer lines, storm drains and lines, and necessary public gas, electric and
Ii telephone utilities and facilities; such deed of release, quitclaim and conveyance
;, to be upon such form as is approved by the City Attorney and which said deed may
!! contain a metes and bounds description of the property hereinabove 9enerally
described.
344
The motion wes seconded by Dr~ Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. LJsk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler ned Mayor
Mebber .....
NAYS: None ........ O,
SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PRGPE~TY: The Real Estate Committee submitted the
following report in connection with the sale of certain city-owned properties,
recommending that Council accept the proposal of Hylton Howell Real Estate and
Auction Company for handling said sale. that Council designate such auction as
would be held as absolute subject to the required formal confirnation by Council,
that an additional six parcels of land be added to the original 105 parcels of
land and that this additional number of six includes the 3.95 acres formerly occupied
*April 24. 1972
by the Rirerdale Elementary School:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Real Estate Committee Report - Sale of City Properties
The Real'Estate Committee met on April 19, 1972, and reviewed
matters to this date on the proposed dale of a number of miscel-
laneous properties under City ownership.
After reviewing proposals which the committee had received
from Hylton Howell Real Estate and Auction Company, 754 Dalewood'
Avenue, Salem, Virginia, and J. G. Sheets and Son, Inc., 15
South Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia. tho committee con-
cluded that the sale of this property should be handled for the
City by a private auctioneer and that the most adequate and cost
beneficial proposal had been received from Hyltoa Howell Real
Estate and Auction Company. The commission rate would be ten
percent of the sale price of the property.
It is recommended that the City Council by appropriate
action authorize agreement with this firm for this sale.
The committee also recommends that the City Council desig-
nate such auction as would be held as absolute subject to the
required formal confirmation by the City Council. It is felt
that this will greatly benefit the conduct of the auction, the
interest of buyers and the sale itself.
It ia recommended that the appropriate instrument be
approved by City Council for this purpose.
Additionally, as information, six additional, parcels are
being proposed by the committee to be added to the original 10~
parcels. These are miscellaneous properties including several
that have been with the Mater Department all of which are not
considered to be of particular value to the City government in
its municipal functions. This additional number of six includes
the 3.95 acres formerly~occupied by the Riverdale School. The
committee is certainly subject to the City Council's overdl
wishes with regard to any of these properties.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ David K. Lisk. Chairman
S/ James N. Kincanon
S/ A. S. Gibson
S/ Julian F. Hirst*
Mr. LJsh moyed that Council concur in the report of the Real Estate Com-
mittee and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(a20227) AN ORDINANCE relating to the sale at public auction of certain
lots and parcels of land ouaed by the City but not needed rot any public purpose
or use; authorizing the employment of the services of an auctioneer for the afore-
said purpose; directing that such sales made at auction be absolute and not subject
to confirmation of p~ice by later action of the Council; and increasing to Ill the
number Of properties heretofore directed to be sold at public auction by Resolution
No.
RHEREAS. Council's Real Estate Committee. in further report made to the
Council dated April 24. 1972, has recommended shat the City Reneger be permitted
to engage the services of the auctioneer hereinafter named to promote end conduct the
sale at public auction of the properties hereinafter referred to; has recommended.
further, that the sales so made a public auction be absolute and not subject to
confirmation of price by the Council; and that six certain properties, additional
to the 105 certain properties referred to and generally described in said committee's
report to the Council dated September 27, 1971, and in Resolution No. 19887, adopted
on the same date, be so sold, in all which recommendations the Council concurs.
THEREFORE, HE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
folloms, viz:
1. That the City of Roanoke do proceed to sell at public auction, to
the highest bidder for cash. at absolute sale at said auction and not subject to
confirmation of purchase price by the Council, those certain 105 properties or
parcels of land referred to and described in said committee's report made to the
Council dated September 27, 1971, and in Resolution No. 19D07 of Council, of the
date and, also. in addition thereto those certain six properties or parcels of land
described or referred to in said committee's report to the Council dated April 24,
1972, in all, a total of 111 such properties or parcels, all such sales to be
offered #ith the City's Special gorranty of Title thereto and to be made subject
to provisions of a general nature applicable to zoning, building and use of said
properties.
2. That the City Manager be and he is hereby authorized and empowered
to engage the services of Hylton Howell Real Estate & Auction Company t° promote
and conduct the auction sale of said properties, said auctioneer to be compensated
by the City in a ~x~equal to ten per cent (10%) of the aggregate cash amount
received by,he City at said auction sale for said properties, said auctioneer to
provide and distribute informative brochures of the sale and to effect advertise-
ment thereof in two editions of a local new~paper; the City, however, to provide
at siad City's expense such legal advertisement of sale as may be determined by the
City Attorney; such employment to be, generally, upon the terms and provisions
outlined in letter of said auctioneer dated October 20. 1971, addressed to the Real
Estate Agent for the City of Roanoke; and
3. That the Real Estate Committee he authorized and empowered to fix
the date and place Of the aforesaid auction sale and to make such other arrange-
meats and provisions as are incidental thereto and deemed by the committee to be
necessary.
BE IT FURTHRR ORDAINBD that, upon affecting sale of the properties herein
authorized to be sold, or any of them, and upon certification Jn uriting of such
~facts to the City Clerk and payment to the City of the high bids made at said
~oactJon sale, the Mayor and the City Clerk shall be, and. each are hereby expressly
authorized and empowered to sign, seal and attest, respectively, such deeds of con-
.veyance to the successful bidders at said auction sale as are prepared and approved
:as to form by the City Attorney.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
· ebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
DEPOSITORIES: Council having referred to a committee composed of Messrs.
A, N, Gibson, Chairman, James N. gincanon and J. H. Johnson for study, report and
recommendation a communication from Mr. Lewis P. Thomas, Chairman of the Board,
Dank of Virginia - Roanoke Valley. requesting that in the list of authoriaed
depositories the name of 'Bank of Virginia" be changed to "Bank of Virginia -
Roaooke Valley, and that ansideration be given to authorizing safekeeping of pledged
collateral with other banks in Richmond in addition to the Federal Reserve Bank of
Richmond, the committee submitted the foil*win9 report recommendin9 that the Bank of
Virginia - Roanoke Valley be designated aa an approved depository of f~om four per
cent to eight per cent of the funds of the city, those proportions, however, not to
apply to time deposits and that Section 1. Chapter 3, Title V, Of The Code of the
City of Roanoke be amended accordingly, advising that in carrying out this assign-
ment, it came to the attention of the committee that the name of Security National
Bank of Roanoke was changed to United Virginia Bank/Security National, accordingly,
~aud inasmuch
as Section 1, Chapter 3, Title V, aforesaid, has designated Security
Wational Dank of Roanoke as an approved depository of from two per cent to mix per
cent of the public funds of the city, that section should be further amended so a~
to correctly state the present corporate name of that bank:
"April 24, 1972
~he IIonorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen: ,,,
Dank of Virginia-Roanoke Valley. o newly chartered state bank
with its principal office in the Town of Vinton but with a branch
office to be maintained at its bank building on Church Avenue and
First Street. S. W., bas asked that it be designated as an approved
depository of funds of the City of Roanoke, it not now being one
of those banks named in Sec. 1, Chapter 3, Title V, of the City
Code, as a bank wherein public monies of the City may be deposited.
The Council referred the request to the undersigned committee for
consideration and for recommendation back to City Council.
Conferring with Mr. Lewis P. Thomas. Chairman of the Board of Bank
of Virginia-Roanoke Valley, all of the factual statements made in
Mr. Thomas' letter of April 13, 1972, to the Council have been con-
firmed. Nbile the hem bank bas been organized as a state bank and
not a member of the Federal Reserve System, Jt is a member of the
FDIC and depositors* funds are insured by FDIC to the extent of
$20,000.00. per account. It is a member of the Virginia Commonwealth
Bank Shares system of banks, the larger organization owning the
capital stock of the newly organized bank which has its own capital
account of approximately four and one half million dollars. Me are
advised that Bank of Virginia-~oanoke Valley, If authorized as a
place of deposit for City funds, is able and willing to deposit with
the City Treasurer, as indemnity against the loss of such funds.
bonds of the type nnd value required by Sec. 5. of the aforesaid
chapter to be given as security by nil public depositories of City
funds; however, said bnnh not being a member of the Federal Reserve
System. its bonds may not be held in custody by the Federal Reserve
Rank of Richmond but would be held by the City Treasurer in some
other place of safekeeping, which arrangement is agreeable to the
City Treasurer.
The undersigned committee recommends to the Council that Bank of
Virginia-Roanoke Valley be designated as an approved depository of
from four per cent to eight per cent of the funds or the City. those
proportions, homever, not to apply to tine deposits, and that
Sec. 1., of Chapter 3.. Title V, City Code. aforesaid be amended
to so reflect, the name of Bank of Virginia to be deleted from
the Code section as it nom appears.
In carrying out the recent assignment, it has come to the attention
of the undersigned committee that on September 1, 19?l.pursuant to
a plan and agreement of merger between Security National Bank of
Roanoke and Roanoke Bank. N. A.. the name of Security National Hank
of Roanoke mas changed to United Virginia Rnnk/Securlty National.
a national banking association and a member of the Federal Reserve
System. Accordingly, and inasmuch as Sec. 1, Chapter 3, Title V,
aforesaid, has heretofore designated Security National Bank of
Roanoke as an approred depository of from tmo per cent to six per
cent of the public funds of the City, that Section should be further
amended so as to correctly state the present corporate name of that
bank which, as heretofore indicated, is United Virginia Bank/Secu-
rity National.
An ordinance which would accomplish the aforesaid recommendations
has been prepared by the City Attorney and is transmitted heremith
for the Council's consideration and action.
Respectfully,
S/ J. H. Johnson. City Treasurer
S/ J. N. Kincanon, City Attorney
S/ A. N. Gibson, City Auditor and
Chairman of Committee"
Mr. Thomas muted that Council concur in the report of the committee and
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=20228) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sec. 1., Designation, of
iCbapter 3., Public Depositories, of Title V, Finance. of the Code of the City of
Roanoke, 1956, as amended, designating certain banks as depositories for all public
mqnies of the City which may be subject to current withdrawal on check; and provid-
ing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book nab, page 3H5.)
Mr. Thomas muted the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
ilby Mr. Rheeler and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Webber ........................7.
NAYS: None ...........O,
In this connection, Mr. Thomas muted that the committee composed of Messrs.!
~. N. Gibson, Chairman, James N. Kincanon and J. H. Johnson, appointed for the par-
names as depositories of funds of the City
of
studying
the
matter
of
the
banks
~of Roanoke, be continued to study, generally, the provisions of Chapter 3, *Public
Depositories," of Title V, Finance, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
iamended, and to amke recommendation to Council of any changes considered necessary
Dr advisable with respect to the procedures set out in said Chapter for the deposit
347
3~t8, '
of public monies, for the amount and type of security to be given by,designated bas
ss indemnity against loss'and for the records amd rep.s to be hept and made of suc
matters. The motion uae seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
HEALTH DEPARtMENT--GARBAGE REMOVAL:' A report of the Citizens* Advisory
Committee requesting that necessarl funds be appropriated for the clearing and
cleaning of the Roanoke in order that this work night be started this lear and
further requesting thai Ordinance No. 19640 be enforced by the Health Department,
was before Council.
Hr. Trout moved that the report be referred to the City Manager for the
purpose of furnishing Council with a revised figure as to the amount involved in
connection with carrying out the request of the Citizens* Advisory Committee within!
this season. The notion was seconded by Mr. Carland and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
ZONING: Council having deferred action on a report of'the gity Planning
Peters. that properties around and adjacent to 1714 Redwood Road, S. E.. in the
vicinity of Redwood Road and Dundee Road, S. E.. described as Lots 3, 4, 5, 6, 11,
12. 13 and 14, Section 4, Map of Rosewood Park Corporation, Official Tax Nos.
4440722 - 4440725, inclusive, and Official Tax Nos. 4440703 - 4440706, iu~lusive,
be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential Dis-
trict, and the City Planning Commission having recommended that a RG-1 rezonin9
be approved in lieu of the original RG-2 request for rezoning, the matter was again,
before the body.
In this connection, a communication from gr. John g. Taylor. Attorney,
representing the petitioners, advising that his clients agree to the RG-1 rezoning
classification as recommended by the City Planning Commission and requesting a
public hearin9 on the matter, was before the body.
Nith reference to the matter, nine property owners in the vicinity of
Redwood Road, $. E., appeared before Council in opposition to the request for
irezoning.
Mr. #heeler moved that a public hearing be held on the matter at 2 p.m.,
!Monday, May 22, 1972. The motion was seconded by gr. Trout and unanimously adopted~
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordiuance No. 20210, altering, closing, or discon-
tinuing Rinding Nay Road to through traffic by barricading or blocking said road
fat or near its southwesterly intersection with Park Lane so as to prevent through
traffic over Minding May Road between Colonial Avenue and 09den Road, having pre-
viously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was again
before the body.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted a written report advising
!that a general arrangement for physically blocking the roadway has been agreed
upon, that approximately fifty feet of roadmay from Park Lane south mill have the
pavement removed, that closure markers and signs will be instilled, that it is his
administrative opinion that uhere this type of action is hendled for the direct or
sole benefit of petitioners or a particular group of residents, that the cost of
work involved would be the responsibility of those persons, honever, it is gathered
that this is not the direction of Council and that he is proceeding with the city
assuming the expenses involved with the exception that the residents advise they
will be responsible for costs of beautification or special appearance work within
the fifty foot closure area.
HFo Wheeler moved that the report be received and filed. The notion was
!seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
With references to the matter, Council, at its last regular meeting on
iMonday, April 17, 1972, having deleted the words, 'that said alteration, closing,
*or discontinuance would substantially improve the area as a residential subdivision,"
from the Ordinance on its first renamE, Mr. Trout moved that the Ordinance be
'adopted on its second reading as it xas originally written by~r. Woulter and that
the words, *that said alteration, closing or discontinuance would substantially
;improve the area as a residential subdivision," be inserted back into the Ordinance.
The motion nas seconded by Hr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
i Mr. Trout then offered the following Ordinance. on its second reading, as
~amended:
il (~20210) AN ORDINANCE to alter, close, or discontineu Windin9 Way goad
~to through traffic by barricadin9 or blocking said road at or near its southwesterly
!intersection with Park Lane so as to prevent through traffic over Windin9 Way Road
!'between Colonial Avenue and Ogden Road.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 369.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
ihy Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor,~Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber .........................7.
NAYS: None .......... O.
SALE OF PROPERTY-STATE HIGHWAYS-WATER DEPARTMENT: Ordinance No. 20216,
authorizing and directing the city's sale and conveyance to the Commonwealth of
Virginia of tmo parcels of land containing a total of 3,294 square feet. more or
.less, and Mmporary construction easements on ~and adjacent thereto, situate on
tTenthStreet. N.W.,being Official Tax Nos. 2111321 and
designated
as
1110204.
Iaccording to the Tax Appraisal gaps of the City of Roanohe, upon certain terms and
conditions, 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
tsecond reading and final adoption:
(#20216) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and directing the City's sale and con-
iveyance to t he Commonwealth of Virginia of two parcels of land containing a total
· '349
350 ' ' '
of 3,294 square feet, lore or less, end temporary construction easements on lnnd
adjacent thereto, sitnate on Tenth Street, N. M., being deslgnatedus Official Nos
2111321 and 1110204, according to the Tax Appraisal Naps of the City of Roanoke,
upon certain terms and conditions.
(For rail tent of Ordinance, see Ordinance Oook.n36, page 301.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adpptlon of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, List, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
~ Mebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ............ O.
BUDGET-AIRPORT: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper neasnre approving and authorizing a donation to the Roanoke Squadron,
iVirgtnia Ming, of the'Civil Air Patrol, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Trout
,offered the following Resolution:
(#20229) A RESOLUTION approving nnd authorizing a donation to the Roanoke
Squadron. Virginia Ning, Of the Civil Air Patrol.
(For full Text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Oook z36, page 3B6.)
!Webber ........................... 7.
i NAYS: None ............ O.
I (For full tent of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 307.)
!by Mr. Th ...... d adopted by the following vote:
~l AYES: Messrs. .Garland. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout. Wheeler and Mayor
iWebber ....................... 7.
#April 24. 1972
Honorable Hayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:'
Subject: CAP Aircraft Damage - Hunlcipnl Airport
On April 10. 1972. the City Council received a request from
the Civil Air Patrol for payment by the City of Roanoke of their
claim in the amount of $764.20 for damages occurring to their air-
craft during a mindstorm on June 7. 1971. The City Council refer-
red this to the City Attorney and the undersigned.
The City Attorney reported on April 17. 1972, your preceding
meeting, as to the opinion that the City was not liable for payment
fOF these damages. This was a restatement of advice which the
City Attorney*s office had given to the Civil Air Patrol by letter
of January lg, 1972, following a reviem by that office and the
various departments as mere related to the matter.
I submit the following as to may portion of this report.
For three budget years, the City through its maintenance
division of the Department of Public Works has been upgrading
doors on the hangars at the Airport.
This has primarily involved puttin9 in neu and heavier track
for the slidin9 doors. This includes replacement of single wheel
rollers with dual mheel rollers and suitable track, all of mhich
increases the strenght of the doors and considerably adds to their
mobility and ease of use. To put in this new track, the doors must
be taken doan.
The schedule of this work has been that three openings are
replaced or upgraded each year. Essentially, this would normally
mean both doorway ends of one hangar plus one doorway end of a
second hangar in one budget lear period.
The scheduled work had progressed to the point of working on
the doors of building No. 15. which is the hangar involved in this
matter. A total doorway unit consists, on building No. 15, of four
panels which individually slide and which must be totally taken
down for the replacement of the rollers and replacement of~e
On Thursday, June 3, 1971, the doors on the south end of
building No. 15 were removed. It was scheduled that after complet-
to the north end of this hangar.
and Friday, June 3 and 4, and partially over the weekend. It
windstorm occurred at the Airport. There was a great deal of
publicity. ~ attach a single page report prepared by Mr.
the results at the field. As would be recognized, I think
that this was a highly unusual storm, one that could not have
been anticipated or certainly fully prepared for.
There were three aircrafts in hangar No. 15. Two belonged
to the CAP and one was otherwise owned. With the doors down,
the strong wind came in the south end of the hangar, blew
against the closed doors on the north end and created consider-
able turbulence within the hangar. This resulted in damage to
the two CAP planes. Apparently the third ship which was at the
north end of the hangar had little if any damage.
As a result of this storm, in addition to the aircraft
damage in hangar No. 15. two struts in the building, mhich
brace the roof were pulled loose and bent and these the City
had to replace. Additionally. the doors on the north end were
blown outward. Apparently, the wind raised the building totally
and slightly because at the conclusion of the storm the bottom
feet outside of the sliding track.
The doors on the south end, which had been removed prior
storm or within a week after their removal. This is normal
schedule. The damaged doors on ~e north end had to be taken
down and they were removed on June 8, 1972.
'352
could not be immediately replaced and the City did not get a
go-ahead ca them until June 27. The crams marked on the 2?th,
2Qth, 29th, and 30th or June. repairing doors, replacing the
track and replacing the doors to their original position.
It is considered that the City proceeded quite properly
Jn ali respects ia its handling of this matter and in those
actions mbich it carried out. I can rind no reason rot Judging
that there mas negligence In any way on the part of the City.
The City Attorney has reported on the legal aspects or the
situation and I mould add that I do not reel .hit there is an
obligation, moral or other, or the city to make a payment for
this damage or in am amount representing the claim or statement.
A question has been raised as to tie down capability rot
this or other aircraft. Aircraft can be tied down within
hangars and ia a brier ground survey on my part Off April
I observed l? tie-damn hooks, along the west side or the out-
side or hangar No. IS and 12 tie-damn hooks along the east
side or the hangar 15 building.
There have been no doubt hundreds or planes damaged at
the Roanoke Ai£povt over the years in various maya as a result
or storm effect. Undoubtedly. as tines goes on, there will be
many others. ! have no dispute whatsoever with the Civil Air
Patrol and certainly recogniae as do the members or the City
Council, its very excellent and outstanding work in many
aspects or aviation as nell as community service. At the
reit that any payment that may be made or precedent that may
be established by payment Jn the case or these particular
aircraft should be viewed with a great deal or caution.
Ir we can furnish any additional information, ue would be
glad to do so.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Mtrst
City Manager~
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
CITIZENS' AO¥1SORy COMMITTEE-STATE HIGHMAYS: Council having directed the~
City Attorney and the City Manager to prepare the proper measure relating to imple"
mentation of the Route 115 - 116 and Route 24 Uigbway Projects, now in the final
design stage by the ¥irginia Department or Highways, the City Attorney presented
same; mhereupo~, Dr. Taylor offered the following Resolution:
(~20231) A RESOLUTION relating to implementation or the Routes 11S-116
and Route 24 Highway projects, in the City. now in the stage Or final design by
the Virginia Department or Iligh~ays.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book ~36, page 38?.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Rt. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
Webbe~ ?.
NAYS: None O.
SENERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure expressing the city's desire to seek modification of the
Special Order of the State Water Control Board dated March 17, 1~72. issued to the
city and concurring in the filing of a Notice of Appeal to said Special Order in tb
Circuit Court of the City of R~an'oke, he present'ed same; mhereup~n, Mr. Thomas
offered the following Resolution:
I
(#20232) A RESOLUTION expressing ~ke City's desire to seek modificotiou
of the Special Order of the State Motet Control Board doted #arch 17. 1972, issued
to the City and concurring in the filing of a Notice of Appeal of said Special
Order, in the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke.
(For' fail text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book n36, page SOO.)
Hr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Hr. Nheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Bessrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Hayor
· ebber ....................... ?.
NAYS: None .0.
BUDGET-ASSESSOR OF REAL ESTAT£: Council having directed the City'Attorney
to prepare the proper measure approving the payment of certain funds presently
appropriated under Department No. ?o Assessment of Real Estate. Object Code 231,
Education, in the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and to be similarly appropriated
in the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Thomas
offered the following Resolution:
(~20233) A RESOLUTION approving the payment of certain funds presently
appropriated under Department No. ?. Assessment of Real Estate, Object Code 231,
Education, in the 1971-1972 Appropriation Ordinance, and to be similarly approprtat=
ed in the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book n36, page 309.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion nas 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.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
COUNCIL-CITY MANAGER: Mayor ~ebber requested that Council meet in
Executive Session to discuss the Assistant City Manager position.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of Mayor ~ebber. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
Later during the meeting and after the Executive Session. Mr. Thomas
offered the following Ordinance appointing Mr. Nilliun F. Clark as Assistant City
Manager, ut a salary of $1B,o00.o0, for the period from May 1, 1972, through June
30, 1973:
(=20234) A~ ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 19752, heretofore adopted
on June 20, 1971, fixing the annual compensation of certain unclassified officials
and employees of the City. by fixing the rate of annula compensation provided for
the City's assistant city manager; providing for the effective date of this ordi-
nance; and providin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a36, page 390.)
354
by Mr. Mheeler and adopted bi the rolloming vote=
Mebber ................... 7.
NAYS: None .0.
claim Monday, May 1. 1972. as LAM DAY USA in the City of Roanoke. The motion mas
ATTEST:
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, May 1, 1972,
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeti*ng in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, May 1, lg?2, at 2 p.m** the regular
meeting hour, mith Mayor Roy L, J~ebber presiding.
PRE~ENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David I(. List, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton B. Thomas, James O. Trout, Vincent S. #heeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber---?.
~ A BS£NI~-. None ................................................... -0.
~ OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager; Mr. Milliam F.
,Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr, James N. I(incanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A. N.
Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend O. C.
iCraig, Pastor, North Roanoke Baptist Church,
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
March 27, 1972, havin9 been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
Trout, seconded by Mr. List and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
IIEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC RATTERS:
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mr. O. M. Porterfield appeared before Council
land read a prepared statement requestin9 that the City of Roanoke purchase and in-
'stall 42 inch concrete pipe through property owned by Porterfield Distributing Com-
*.pony described as Lots fl - 16, inclusive, Section 26, I/asena Court, located on the
!west side of Bth Street, S. M., advising that Porterfield Distributing Company mill
contribute $1,250.00 which would be the approximate cost of purchasing and installin9
!6 inch pipe and that it is his feeling that the storm drain problems in this area
are community problems and that Porterfield Distributing Company should not have to
!bear solely the cost of correcting this problem.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for study,
:report and recommendation to Council by the regular meetln9 of Council on Monday,
,~May 15, 1972. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SHERIFF: A communication from Mr. Paul J. Puckett, Sheriff, request-
ling that $1,200.00 be appropriated to Travel under Section n23, "Sheriff," of the
i1971-72 budget, to provide funds for three deputies to attend au eighty hour course
on Court Room Security to be conducted by the U. S. Marshal's Office in Washington,
D. C., advising that said funds will be reimbursed to the City of Roanoke as soon
os L. E, A. A. funds are available, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of Sheriff Puckett
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20235) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~23, "Sheriff." of the
1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for au emergency.
356 ~
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook n36, page 391.)
#r. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion usa seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garlando Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Mheeler end Mayor
Mebbe~ ......... 7.
NAYS: None
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A communication from Mr. Russell R. Henley,
Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Au'thority, transmit-
ting men annual maximum income limits which have been established as of June 1.
1972,. for lom-rent housing projects managed by the City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication he received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A communication from Mr. Russell R. Henley.
Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, requestin9
the approval of Council to Amendment No. I to the Kimball Redevelopment Project,
Project No. VA R-46, was before Council.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted a written
report recommending that Council amend the Kimball Redevelopment Project Plan so
as to include within its project boundaries all of Gilmer Avenue, N. M.. west of
Fourth Street.
Mr. Llsk moved that Council concur in the request of the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority and offered the following Resolution:
(=20236) A RESOLUTION approving a certain amendment, being Amendment
No. 1, to the Redevelopment Plan for the Kimball Redevelopment Project, Project
No. VA. R-46, located in the northeast section of the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption Of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
iby Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
iMebber ................... 7,
NAYS: None
Mr. Lisk then moved that the report of the City Planning Commission be
received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garlau~ and unanimously adopted~!
Si'ATE COMPENSATION BOARD-BUDGET-CITY TREASURER: Copy of a communication
~from the State Compensation Boardj addressed to Mr. J. H. Johnson, City Treasurer,
!advising that the Hoard is transferring $2,011.68, unused salary allowance for Mrs[
H. C. Nininger for the months of February - May, to his allowance for Temporary'
£mployees with t~e understanding that there will be no increase in the hourly rate
of the person furnishing the service, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be received and filed. The motioz
~was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
357
CITY EMPLOYEES-INSURANCE: A communication from Mr. Roy D. Byers, Regional
Manager. Estate Life Insurance Company of America, transmitting a sample policy
which explains coverage under his Company*s Disability Income Policy which he pro-
poses to offer city employees on a group basis through Payroll Deduction, was 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 Mr.
Mheeler and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC ~ELFARE: A communication from Mrs. Martha Spongier,
iChairman, Citizens* Advisory Committee to the Department of Public Melfare. expressm
lng the appreciation of the Committee to Council for the new food distribution
.center which should result in better services to the recipients of c~mmodJty foods,
was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Leon R. Kytchen, Attorney, representing
Mr. Bentley J. King, et uxo requesting that property located in the 20th block of
!Nalloce Avenue. N. E., between 20th Street and Osborne Avenue, N. E., described as
iLots 9 - 14, inclusive, Block 13, Jackson Park, Official Tax Nos. 3330307 -
i, 3330312, inclusive, be 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
iPlanning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
:seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A petition from Mr. Lawrence L. Tapscott. Attorney, representing:
!Roanoke News Agency, Incorporated, requesting that property lying and being on the
i. east side and the west side of gth Street. S. E., and north of the Norfolh and Nestern
!iRailway Company property line. described as Official Tax Nos. 4240101 and 4142631,
ilbe rezone~ from RD, Duplex Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District.
[was before Council.
t Mr. Trout moved the request for rezoning be referred to the City
~hat
Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was:
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-BUILDING DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $100.00 be appropriated to Printing and Office Supplies under
!Section a48, *Department of Buildings** of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for
ithe remainder of the fiscal year.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
358
(n20237) A~ORDINANCE to amend end reordain Sootlon n48, "Department of
Buildings," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob #36, page 393.)
Hr, Thomas moved the adoption of tbe Ordinance. .The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Webber 7.
NAYS: None O,
BUDGET-DEpARTMENTS OF PUBLIC MELFARE: The City Manager submitted a writ-i
ten report in connection with the City Nursing Home, advising that because of nem
rules and regulations for nursing homes in Virginia, the nursing staff can no longer
enter the birchen, that because of this regulation, it is necessary to provide and
purchase a 16-foot refrigerator which can be placed outside the birchen area in
order to have refrigeration for items which are given to patients during the night
and recommending that $400,00 be transferred from Operating Supplies and Materials
to Other Equipment - New under Section nag, "City Home," of the 1qT1-72 budget, to
provide necessary funds for the purchase of the refrigerator.
Hr. Taylor moved that Cooncil concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=20230) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #39, "City Nome,"
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #ab, page 393,)
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
Webber
NAYS: None
WAVER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report concurrin
in the following report of a committee recommending that the high bid of C. B.
Harris, in the amount of $15,300.00, for the sale of approximately 420.000 board
feet of sawtimber located on approximately 100 acres of City of Roanoke Beaver
Dam and Falling Creek Watershed property, be accepted, and that $3,060.00 be appro~
printed to Fees for Professional and Special Services under Section ;320, "Water -,
General Expense,* of the 1971-72 Mater Fund Appropriation Ordinance, to provide
funds for payment to York Forestry and Land Company of 20% ~ the s~e price when
the trees are individually marked:
"May 1, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Sale of Saw Timber
Attached is a report of the bid review committee receiv-
ing bids for the sale of approximately 420,000 board feet of
sautiuber in the Beaver Dam and Falling Creek reservior pro-
perty. The recommendation of th~ committee ns to the auard Of
high bid is concurred in. It in recommended thut~ City Council
by~ordinance authorize this sale, A copy of the bid specifi-
cations will be furnished to the City ~ttorney.
It is further recommended that City Council provide on
appropriation of $3,060 in Account 320-210, Fees for Pro-
fessional and Special Services, uhich is the agreement with
Yorh Forestry and Land Company for payment of 20 percent of 'the
sale price mhen trees are*individual marhed.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
(~ty Manager*
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
land that the following Ordinance accepting the proposal of C. B. Harris for the
.sale of said samtimber he placed upon its first reading:
(~20239) AN ORDINANCE accepting the offer of C. B. Harris for the pur-
chase of certain timber standing on and near the Beaver Ham and Falling Creek Hater-
sheds; and rejecting certain other bids.
MHEREAS, the City Purchasing Agent, pursuant to the Advertisement for Bids
heretofore published, did, at 11:00 A. M. on the llth day of April, 1972, receive
bids for the sale, for cash, of certain timber growing on Tracts I and 2, situate
Ion or near the City*s Beaver Dam and Falling Creek Hatersheds in Bedford County,
Virginia; at mhich time four sealed bids in writing mere received; and
NIIEREAS. u committee named by the Council to receive, open and review bids,
together with the City Manager. have recommended that the high bid of C. B. Harris
be accepted; and
WHEREAS, in the judgment of this Council, the bid of C. B. Harris for the ·
aforesaid timber is the highest and best bid made to the City, and should be
:accepted.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows~
1. That the City Manager be, and he is hereby directed to accept, for and!
!on behalf of the City, the offer of Co B. llarris of $15,300.00. cash, for the pur-
Ichase of designated trees groming on or near the City's Beaver Ham and Falling Cree~
i#atersheds, in Bedford County, Virginia;
2. That the City Manager be, and he is hereby authorized and directed to
Iexecutethe City of Roanohe with C. B. Harris that certain
for
on
behalf
of
iTimber Sale Agreement referred to in and made a part of the City!s specifications
!flor such sale, which execution the City Clerk is hereby directed to duly attest
iaad t~ affix the City's seal thereto;
~ 3. That the City Auditor, upon execution of the Timber Sale Agreement and
after payment of the $15,300.00 by C. B. Harris to the City of Boanoke, is hereby
iauthorized and directed to pay the sum of $3,060.00, cash, to York Forestry ~ Land
So., Inc., within fifteen days, said sum being 20~ of said bid and being then due
:said Company under its Timber Management Contract with the City; and
4. That the proposal of the other three (3) bidders for said purchase be,
nd~ the same are hereby REJECTED, the City Clerk to so notify said other bidders
io express to said bidders the City*s appreciation of said bids.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Limb, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ........ T.
NAYS: None .0.
WF. Thomas then offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
$3,060.00 to Fees for Professional and Special Services under Section u320, *Mater
General Expense,* of the 1971-72 Mater Fund Appropriation Ordinance, to provide
funds for payment to Yorh Forestry and Land Company of 20% of the sale price when
the trees are individually mnrhed:
¢u20240) AN ORDINANCE to amend end reordnin Section u32o. *Water - Gen-
eral Expense," of the 1971-72 Water Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for~
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #ab, page 394.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoptbn 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 ......................... 7.
NAYS: None ...........O.
BUDGET: The City Manager submitted the followin9 report advisin9 that in
conjunction with the submission of a recommended budget for the fiscal year 1972-
?3, he would like to submit to Council a listing of capital improvement projects to
which it is felt that the city should give consideration:
"May 1, 1972
Ilonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Capital Improvements
In conjunction with the submission of a recommended budget
for the fiscal year 1972-73, I wish to submit to the City Council
a listing of capital improvement projects to which it iS felt
that the City should give consideration. In an effort to broaden
the opportunity of review of the' aspects of the budget, I anti-
cipate, at this mriting, submitting the capital improvement pro-
ject listing separate from and in advance of the budget. I
think this will afford some opportunity of independent review
of these projects so that there might be preliminary thought to
the needs and requirements at the time that the total budget
is being studied. With this objective in mind, it is hoped to
be able to put such a listing before the Council in the form of
a report at your meeting on Monday, May 1, 1972.
Ouite obviously your ~ction will be to take them under
consideration and at the same time this will give the members
of the Council the opportunity of making changes, additions or
indicating additional information that might be requested in
connection with them. This would be a listing that would be
somewhat considerably in excess of what can be anticipated as
available funds within the budget under the present revenue
schedules but will be more in the nature of endeavoring to sub-
mit those projects that merit study,'thought'and financing if
possible.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. LJah moved that the report be taken under advisement. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STATE HIGHWAYS: Council, at its last regular meeting on Monday, April 24;
1972, having taken under advisement a report of the City Manager in connection with
the proposed Southwest Expressway, the City Manager submitted the following report
transmitting certain additional comments and alternatives in connection mAth the
matter:
~May 1, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Southmest.£xpressway - Franklin Road to Virginia Route 419
This is written to supplement the item included on your
Agenda for this date and to document the basics of mhat will be
a verbal presentation on certain matters relating to the exten-
sion of the Southwest Expressway from Franklin Road to Virginia
Route 419 and the intersection with present D. S. Route 220.
In the interest of time, I will not go into the details of the
background of this project and the various developments and
discussions that have taken place up to and includin9 the infor-
mal hearing which the City Council had on April 26. It is
believed that the members of the Council are generally acquaint-
ed mAth the project and the questions that have been raised and
the features of the project which have been discussed.
Folloming your City Council meeting on Mednesday, April 26,
I discussed the matter be telephone with the head of the Location
and Design Division of the Highway Department in Richmond. Then
on Friday, April 28, Mr. Clark, Mr. McChee, Mr. Sink and I went
to Richmond where me met with representatives of the Location and
Design Division and the Urban Division, reviewed the matter at
length and considered the various alternatives and their effect.
In general, the position of the State Highway Department
as to the matters which have been discussed here narrows down
to the following:
1. The Highway Department is generally acceptable to revisions
as to connections from the Expressway to existing City streets
provided that:
a. They do not affect the design and location of the
through expressway itself;
b. They are reasonably within the intent of the project and
in general conformity to the regional transportation
plan;
c. They do not present additional costs to the project ns
those costs are now represented by design of the project
as shown on existing plans; and
d. They do not materially affect location features of the
project in relationship to the public hearing in 1q69 as
such changes might directly affect or involve the pro-
perty owners who viewed the plans at that time and who
then and since have understood the relationship of the
project to their properties; the point being that anI
material changes could conceivably result in the neces-
sity of another public hearing.
We considered as an alternative the cancellation of the
section of the proposed extension of 23rd Street from the
Expressway over to Franklin Road. This would carry with it the
leaving of flroadmay open from Franklin Road to Colonial Avenue
with an underpass for Broadway under t~e Expressway. This has
the resulting affect of avoiding the question of 23d Street
extension into Franklin Road and the opportunity of leaving
Broadway open.
The Highway Department would be acceptable to this because
from a cost standpoint they can balance the elimination of the
23rd Street overpass over the Norfolk and Western tracks and its
extension to FranRlin Road against an overpass from the Express-
way over Broadway. It would be necessary-to continue with a
grade crossin9 with the railroad because of elevation factors.
361
362
The Highway Departeent would not ieproveend widen 'Broadway.'
This would have to be done by the City now or at some established
tine in the future and the Highway Department would now be' inter-
ested in the CJty°s plan for the midening end improvement of
Broadway.
..... Ingress and egress for the Expressway can b~ handled In
all directions for 23rd Street at this location. However, all
ingress and egress would be to and from Colonial Avenue and this
street would have to carry all movements on and orr the Express-
way. One benefit in this arrangement would be that the align-
sent of 23rd Street to the Expressway could be shifted slightly
to the north which would relieve the overlap somewhat onto the
Craves-Bumphreys* property.
As a second alternative we also reviewed the suggestion
which has been made that instead of intersecting 23rd Street
with Franklin Road at the present Broadway intersection, that
it be shifted to the north, This would leave the present
Broadway intersection on the west side of Franklin Road and
would leave Broadway open up to the Graves-Rumphres* property
but Broadway would still be closed as a through street. The
shifting of 23rd Street. with its intersection with Franklin
Road, to the north would be acceptable to the Highway Departeent,
although they question the wisdoe of the arrangement. The shift-
ing would go to the edge or just inside the lumber company pro-
perty as the Department does not wish to materially interfere
with the lamber company property to avoid a major property
acquisition of the plant and operation.
· e discussed also as a third or minor alternative the
question of the short connection from 23rd Street into existing
Broadway near the intersection of Broadway with Franklin Road.
This is t~e location that had been questioned because of the
limited storage area for truck traffic. The suggestion Was made
that this connection between 23rd Street and Broadway be moved
us far meat as possible to lengthen this storage a~dturning
area. This is not too easy because of grade factors; however,
if the present plan is adopted then positive construction effort
should ~e made to move this as far west as possibIe and if
practical generally along the ~outh line o~ O~q Branch?
In regard to the second alternative the shifting of the 23rd
Street extended intersection to Franklin Road to the north, there
is some grade problem because of the necessity in 23rd Street
going over the Norfolk and Nestern tracks. This, however, is not
quite as serious as on original plan studies but the total grade
situation based on the railroad and getting to the Expressway
would be a conspicuous element. This realignment does, however,
still present the disturbing problem of the additional intersec-
tion with Franklin Road.
Our collective administrative reaction prior to the actual
meeting with the Highmay people on Friday and during that meeting
was that the heavy advantage lay with the' first alternative of
eliminating.the extension of 23d Street from the Expressway into
Franklin Road. Since that time, however, I have continued to
reflect on this matter and feel that oil factors taken into
account, that for long term judgment, the best location arrange-
ment is ~at which has been proposed and planned up to this time,
with the revision of shifting the short connection with Broadway
as far west as ~ractical, which latter point I believe can be
done.
My reasons for this are several fold and as follows:
The burden of ail ingress and egress in this area for the
Expressway should be placed on Colonial Avenue.
2. The opportunity of bringing about this connection of 23rd Street
extended, as an improved roadway from the Expressway and from
Colonial Avenue to and from Franklin Road, at this time in
contrast to the City's having to assume the full cost of
improving Broadway would appear to be advantageous'to the
City.
3. Although the number and frequency of trains is not heavy
insofar as interference with traffic on this railroad line,
there is advantage to the elimination of a grade crossing as
would be accomplished by thelpresent plan arrangement.
4. The proposal of shifting the intersection of 23rd Street
extended withFranklin RJad to the ~orth and thereby establish-
jug another intersection continues to be paramount in my
concern as to its being a desirab~ arrangement. If this ~
done, I feel that there will always be future questions of
judgment by those who have to maneuver within this inter-
sectional arrangement taking into account present Broadway
intersections, the proposed 23rd Street intersection and the
Brandon Road intersection, os to there having been the best '
wisdom in design.
5, The volueor the property at the northwest corner of the
intersection of Franklin Road and Broadway is certainly
recognized as is the desire of the owners of that property
to retain it for some form of future development. However,
and with all respect to those interested, it is almost an
axion that any time that a major or a particular shift or
relocation of construction of this nature is done for the
accommodation or-a piece of property, especially one that
is vacant, it will promptly and conspicuously present a
question very shortly after construction as to whether
the resulting events Justify the change and resulting circum-
stances. It should be noted that in this overall Expressway
project, including that section now under construction bet-
ween Elm Avenue and Franklin Road, as well as I-SOl itself
coming into the City. has affected a great many properties.
The problems of construction would be extremely difficult.if
this amount of consideration bore upon the entire length of
design. Of particular concern and attention as in the matter
of properties are the number of homes that will ~ removed in
the area of Sanford Avenue, etc, and these represent affected
privately-owned properties.
One of the reasons for our giving particular thought to can-
celling this section of 23rd Street or in some other w3y
eliminating the extension of 23rd in to connect with Broad-
way to the east of Franklin was the concern for increasing
traffic on Broadway from Franklin Road to HcClanahan Avenue.
There will be some increase obviously mben this project is
constructed. However, with the recently improved intersec-
tion of Brandon and McClanahan with Franklin Road, with the
grades and with RcClanahan itself. I do not believe that this
Broadmay traffic will increase to a major degree. At the
same time, I think offsetting this mould be the future questions
as to the best design route if in the future there were either
the alternative of continuing to use Rroadmay between Franklin
Road and Colonial Avenue or 23rd Street extended if the inter-
section were shifted north of Broadway.
In addition to the above elements of the project, we also
discussed the proposed extension of Persinger, which is projected
for the future, from Colonial Avenue to Franklin Road, crossing
the Expressway. All factors taken into account, it is felt that
a much more desirable connection should be the extension of
Overland Avenue from Colonial Avenue to Franklin Road rather
then Persinger. Overland exists with already the ultimately
desired width between Colonial Avenue and Brambleton. In addi-
tion, it provides a better intersection location to the benefit
of the Community College. From a construction standpoint the
costs are not a great deal different using Overland as compared
with Persinger insofar as the extension itself is concerned. If
Pers~nger were used, however, there would be necessitated major
improvements to Persinger between Colonial and Rrambleton with
resulting affects on properties md homes alan9 this section of
Persinger.
· It, therefore, is recommended that as a condition of the
approval of the project that this relocation be stipulated and
we would then'also proceed through channels to amend the regional
thoroughfare transportation plan accordingly.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Nirst
City Manager~
In this connection, the City ~anager presented charts and verbally
explained certain alternatives of the matter.
Numerous people who will be affected by the proposed Southwest Expressway
appeared before Council and expressed their views and opinions in connection with
the matter.
At this point, Mr. Nheeler left the meeting.
364
In a discussion the City Manager recommended the state plan which will
~rovide access to both FronhlJe Mood nnd Colonial Avenue, S. M.
The City Manager pointed out that the alternative plan would require the
City to reconstruct Droodmay with its own money, while the state plan mould pro-
vide a new road at no cost to the city that mould bridge both the railroad tracks
and Ore Rrnnch.
After a discussion as to the alternatives involved, Dr. Taylor moved that!
the matter be taken under advisement until the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday, May 8, lg?2. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Lisk offered a substitute motion that the City Attorney be directed
to prepare the proper measure advising tee High Department that the City of Roanoke:
is of the opinion that Alternate No. 1, whi.ch would place all traffic from the
Southwest Expressway onto Colonial Avenue, S. M., on a series of loops, eliminatingI
an extension of 23rd Street to Franklin Road, is in the best interest of the City.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and lost by the following vote:*
AYES: Messrs. Garland and Lisk ...........
NAYS: Messrs. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor Yebber ................. 4.
(Mr. Wheeler absent)
The original motion was then adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor Yebber ......... 5.
NAYS: Mr. Trout, - ........ l.
(Mr. Wheeler absent)
Mr. Trout advised that the Highway Department is facing a May 13 deadline
and that in delaying this matter until the next regular meeting Of Council on
Monday, May 6, lg?2, is simply passing the buck.
At this point, Mr. Thomas left the meeting.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a written report trans-
mitting copy of a communication from Mr. M. C. Covey, requesting that the City of
Roanoke close Colonial Avenue, S. W., by barricade at the western city limits and
indicating that a petition can be forthcoming.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted a verbal report advising
that he is in receipt of a further communication from Mr. Covey pointing out that
he mas not prepared for such quick action on his communication and requesting that
the matter be delayed gince there is certain preparatory work to be done.
Mr. Trout moved 'that Council concur in the request Of Mr. Covey that
action on the matter he delayed. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unani-
mously adopted.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING: The City Manager submitted a written report trans-
mitting the legend that in proposed to go on the plaque that will go inside the
lobby of the Municipal Building, advising that the pattern for this plaque has been
prepared and he is in a positipn to go ahead with the casting and that it is be-
lieved that this content is consistent with the past policy of the city.
Dr, Taylor moved .that Council concur in the report of the CjiT Manager,
The motion uss seconded by Mr. Trout and unsnimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the fol-
lowing report on the status of personnel Jn the Police Department and the Fire
Department as of March 31o 1972:
'May 1, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Police and Fire Departments Personnel
Listed below is the status of the police and the fire depart-
meat as of March 31, 1922:
*Police Department
*Officer D, M. Willard August 16, 1966 March 12o 1972
Officer John S. Meaver March 13. 1972
OfficerWm. K. Ralston August 2. 1921 March 22. 1922
Officer lm. E. Maser March 20, 1922
Officer George D. Metheny Sept. 1, 1955 March 31, 1922
OfficeF Alan D. Graham March 27, 1922
'Ending March, 1922 - 15 vacancies.'
*Fire Department
HIRED RETIRED
*C. M. Allie March 1. 1972
Gerald Proffitt March 7, 1972
D. R. McCormack March 7, 1972
D. V. Webster March 7, 1972
J. A. Moses, Jr. March 7. 1972
R. S. Guthrie, Jr. March T, 1972
R. F. Renick March 7, 1972
~. ~. Kopcial March 7, 1972
D. L. Trent March 7. 1972
Go E. Beckner March 7, 1972
F. fl. Lane March 7, 1972
M. E. Hogan March 7, 1972
C. E. LaPrado Jr. March 7, 1972
Captain H. R. Abshire March 9, 1936 March l, 1972
'As of March 31, 1972, there were 11 vacancies in the Fire Department.*
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. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-CITY ATTORNEY: The City Attorney submitted a written report
requesting that $100.00 be appropriated to Dues. Memberships and Subscription~ and
ilthat $500.00 be appropriated to Printing and Office Supplies under Section n4. *Cit~
Attorney,' of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal
tyear.
]ir. Trout moved that Couucil concur in the request of the City Attorney
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20241) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~4, "City Attorney,"
of the 1971-22 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for au emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook =36, page 395.)
365
'366
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion Was seconded
by Mr~ Lash and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, List, Taylor. Trout, and Mayor Nebber ..... S.
NAYS: None ...................................... O.
(Messrs~ Thomas and iheeler absent)
ROANOKE GAS CORPAN¥: The City Attorney submitted a mritten report advis-~
lng that on April 25, 1912, he was delivered a copy of an order of the State Cor-
poration Commission setting for hearing on June 12. 19?2,.before the Commission
the application of Roanote Gas Company for a revision of its tariff of rates,
charges, rules and regulations, proposed to become effective on and after August
1912. that it appears that the uniform rate increase is 11,6% over present rates
~and is the first instance of a rate increase since natural gas was initiated to thei
!. .... k ..... I. i9~o.
Mr. List moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr, Garland and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-CEMETARY: The City Auditor and the City Treasurer submitted the
folloming joint report in connection with a trust which was left to the City of
Roanoke by one Lillie May Cooke, in the amount of $400.00, said fund having been
iestablished to provide income to maintain the burial lots for her parents, which
~burlal lots are located in the City Cemetary on Tazemell Avenue, $.
"May 1, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
In 1927 a trust was left to the City of Roanoke by one Lillie
May Cocke in the amount of $400100. This t~ust was established to
provide income to maintain the burial lots'for Lillie May Cocke's
parents, which burial lots are located in the City Cemetary on
Tazewell Avenue, $.
Over the years, the income from this trust fund has been
allowed to accumulate and has been in the custody of the City
Treasurer. The balance of the account is now $1,154.26.
In order for the city to be able to properly receive the
income from this account, it will be necessary to provide a method
whereby the income can be transferred to the City General Fund
on a regular basis. Ne believe that a petition to the Hustings
Court for entry of an order directing the payment of the accumulated
interest into the General Fund o~ the City, and depositing the
original amount of $400.00 with the Clerk of the Hustings Court,
with the direction to transfer the income on an annual basis into
the Clty*s General Fund, mill accomplish this purpose.
As a matter of information, the City of Roanoke has maintained
these graves, along uith other graves, in the cemetery and the pay-
ment to the flty of the income from this trust as provided by the
will of Lillie May Cocke mould seem to be in order. Therefore,
the City Treasurer and the City Auditor join in recommending that
the Council take the above action by resolution that has been
prepared by the Office of the City Attorney.
i
Respectfully submitted,
S/ J. H. JohnsgR S/ A. N. Gibson
City Treasurer City Auditor"
Dr, Taylor moved that Council concur in the joint report of the City
Aaditor and the City Treasurer and offered the folloming Resolution:
(n20242) A RESOLUTION proposing payment of certain trust income from
the Lillie May Cooke trust into the City*s General Fund, and transfer of corpus of
the trust to the Clerk of the Hustings Court of the City of Roanohe.
(For fall text of Resnlution, see Ordinance Book mab, 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, Trout and Mayor Webber ....
NAYS: None .............................................. O.
(Messrs, Thomas and Mheeler absent)
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
DOUSINO-SLCM CLEARANCE: Council having referred to a committee composed
of Messrs. Julian F. Ilirst, A. N. Gibson and James N. Kincanon for study, report
and recommendation a co~snnJcation from the Executive Director Of the City Of
Roanoke Redevelopment and ;~ousing Authority requesting the determination of Council
as to whether or not the City of Roanoke mould participate with the Authority in
sharing one-third of certain moving expenses in excess of $25,000.00, each, incur-
red by certain business occupants of the Downtown East Redevelopment Project area
whose businesses were requested to be relocated as a result of the project, the
committee submitted the following report:
~May 1, 1972
of Roanoke City Council
Roanohe, Virghia
Gentlemen:
The Council referred to the undersigned committee a communica-
tion from the Executive Director of the City of Roanoke Redevelop-
ment and Housing Authority requesting Council*s determination as
to whether or'not the City of Roanohe *would participate with
the Authority in sharing one-third of certain moving expenses in
excess of $25,000.00, each, incurred by certain business occupants
of the redevelopment area whose businesses sere required to be
relocated as a result of the project. Specifically, the moving
expense incurredby Roanoke Engraving Company in relocating its
business outside the Downtown East Redevelopment area amounted
to $34,214.72; and similar expenses incurred by Advance Stores
in relocating its place of business amounted to
Under Federal regulations made applicable to a housing authority
engaged in a project on a ~two-thirds capital grant basis* the
maximum relocation payment that may be made by the Authority or
recognized in the case of a business concern for moving expense
and actual direct loss of property is $25,000.00.to each such
business concern unless the locality participating mith the
Authority in the project provides in cash one-third of such
amount as, in the case of each such business, exceeds $25,000.00,
which payment, if made by the locality, shall not constitute a
local grant-in-aid to the urban redevelopment project. Any
such payment made by the locality is made directly to the
Authority, rather than to the business concern, and the Auth-
ority, providing the remalnin9 two-thirds of the moving expenses
in excess of $25,000.00 in any one case, is thereby authorized to
reimburse the business concern the full amount of its actual
moving expense.
Im each of the instances referred to above, the moving expenses
were incurred on the basis of bids made for each specific relocation
by the Eousing Authority in writing, the authority to Roanohe
Engraving*Company having been given under date of November
1970, and to Advance Stores under date of March S,1971. In
each instance, the authorization of the Authority to commence
the more of the business concern contained the following state-
ment:
!In accordance with Federal Regulations payment for
construction, moving and other expenses cannot exceed
the auount of the low bids. The maximum payment for
uovJng and oil related expenses under these regulations
is $25,000.00. It will be necessary for this Authority
to seek appropriate action on the amount that your ex-
penses exceed the maximum.'
Not until January R?, 1972, however, did the Authority seek appro-
priate action by the Council, but for the reasons stated in its
letter to Council on that date.
The undersigned committee has discussed the matter at length in
separate conferences uith representatives of the Authority end with
those of the two business concerns involved and there appears to
the undersigned to be no real conflict in the matters abovestated
or in those which mere earlier mad~ to appear to the Counci. Each
of the businesses concerned appears to have been fully apprised by
the Authority of the regulations under shich costs of moving way
be reimbursed by the Authority; however, each of those businesses
have been waiting since the dates abovementioned for the initiation
of the *action* referred to in those letters.
In retrospect, it perhaps would have been desirable that the City
have earlier notice of the possibility that excessive moving costs
wight be incurred by sown businesses required to relocate from the
area of the project and to have been presented with the question of
decision prior to the time that such expenses were incurred by those
business concerns. On the other hand, the reasoning of the Authority
in deciding to present to the Council all such situations at one
time, rather than singlely, is easily understood.
Your committee reports to the Council its opinion that there is no
legal obligation on the City to participate by cash payment in the
reimbursement of individual moving expenses exceeding
although there may he argument, on equitable grounds, that such
participation be approved. There is no doubt but that the City
may lawfully agree to participate with the Authority in payment of
the excess costs of moving incurred by the two business concerns
and may appropriate public funds for that purpose. The decision.
therefore, is plainly one of policy. Furthermore, there is
remaining in the Council's Capital Fund appropriations for the
project sufficent fucds with which to pay one-third, or
of the amount by which the actual cost ~ moving, in the tho in-
stances, exceeded $25,000.00, each.
In order that the Council may, if it so decides, direct partici-
pation in payment of the moving costs abovementioned, there will
be available at its meeting a formal resolution which Mould so
order.
S/ Julaio F. Hirst, City Manager
S/ J. N. Kincanon. City Attorney
S/ A. N. Gibson, City Auditor"
After a discussion of the report, Mr. Trout offered the following Resolu-I
tion authorizing mod directing the participation by the City of Roanoke with the
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority in payment of certain moving
expenses incurred by certain former business occup mts of properties in the Down-
town East Redevelopment Project, Project No. VA R-42:
(n20243) A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the City*s participation
with City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority in payment of certain mov-~
lng expenses incurred by certain former business occupantsof properties in the
,Downtown East Redevelopment Project. Project VA. R-42.
(For full text of Resolution, See Ordinance Rook ~36, page 395.)
Mr, Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor lebber~--5.
NAYS: None -0.
(Ressrs. Thomas and Nheeler absent)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION,OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
SALE OF PROPERYY-S~REETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 20226, authorizing
the city's quitclaim and conveyance of certain right, title and interest in and to
a parcel of land heretofore conprising the right of way of a portion of Stephenson
Avenue. S. W.o vacated, discontinued and closed as a public street by Ordinance No.!
19468. adopted January 10. 1971, 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:'
(a20226) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City's quitclaim and conveyance of
certain right, title and interest in and to a parcel of land heretofore comprising
the right of way of u portion of Stephenson Avenue, S. W., vacated, discontinued
and closed ns a public street by Ordinance No. 1946B, adopted January 10, 1971.
(For full text 'of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a36, page
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 and Mayor ~ebber----5.
NAYS: None ................................................. O.
(Messrs. Thomas and Nheeler absent)
SALE OF PROPERTy-CITY PROPERTY: Ordinance No. 20227, relating to the sale
at public auction of certaio lots and parcels of land omned by the city but not
needed for any public purpose or use; authorizing the employment of the services
Of an auctioneer for the aforesaid purpose; directing that such sales made at
auction be absolute and not subject to confirmation of price by later action of the
Council; and increasing to 111 the number of properties heretofore directed to be
sold at public auction by Resolution No. 19887, having previously been before Coun-
cil for its first ~eading, read and laid over. was again before the body, Mr.
Trout offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(~20227) AN ORDINANCE relating .to the sale at public auction of certain
lost and parcels of land owned by the City but not needed for any public purpose
or use; authorizing the employment of the services of an auctioneer for the afore-ii
said purpose; directing that such sales made at auction be absolute and not subject
to confirmation of price by later action of the Council; and increasing to 111 thel
number of properties heretofore directed to be sold at public auction by Resolu-
tion No. 19887.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book ~35, page
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordimance. The notion Wan seconded
by Nr. Litk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garlan~ Llsk. Taylor, Trout and Nayor Webber
NAYS: None .0.
(Messrs. Thomas and Nheeler absent)
BUDGET-JUVENILE AND DONES~lC RELATIONS COURT: Council having directed
the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure appropriating $6S0.00 to Other
Equipment under Section nlg. "Juvenile and Domestic RdatJons Court." of the 1971-1
budget, to provide funds for the purchase of one Class C safe for the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court, Mr. Lisk offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(g20244} AN ORDINANCE to mend and reordaln Section alg, "Juvenile
Domestic Relations Court," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 397.)
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, Trout and Mayor Webber ....5.
NAYS: None ................................................. O.
(Messrs. Thomas and Rheeler absent) .
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Mr. Frank C. Hoffman, Owner, Dixie Letter Service,
appeared before Council and read the following prepared statement advising that on
April $, 1972, he requested the cooperation of Council in securing payment in the
amount of $370.30 as final payment on a contract to type. print, colate and hind u
Police Training Manual, that the matter was referred to the City Manager for
settlement, that to date he has heard nothing from the City Manager and pointing
out that sincethe matter of payment has not been resolved by the City Manager,
he is again requesting action by Council in seeing that payment is made and the
entire matter Js closed:
"May 1, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
Members of City Council
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On April 5, 1972, I requested your cooperation in securing
payment in the amount of $378.39 due Dixie Letter Service as
final payment on a contract to type, print, colate and bind a
Police Training Manual. This matter was referred to City Manager
Julian Hirst for settlement. To date ! have heard nothing from
Mr. Birst and have been unable to reach him either in person or
by telephone to ascertain his reconnendattoo.
Since there has been no action taken I again request your
cooperation in assisting me in securing payment in the amount
stated above which is so clearly past due.
The facts for your consideration in making a decision are as
follows:
1o The specifications which were presented to my company to
use in preparing a bid on the work in question (a copy of
which you were presented on April 5) mere very explicit in
stating 'approximately 200 pages'. I mas given no other
material to use in preparing ny bid, I.was not given a
copy of the manuscript until the day the contract mas
awarded, I mas given no opportunity to inspect the material
mhfch I had been informed mould be camera-reedy copy either
for the number of pages or the condition of the copy, The
original copy Is at present in my office and is, or COUrSer
available for your inspection should you request it.
2, The day folloming the award of the contract mhich I had then
had the opportunity to inspect. I informed Captain Griggs
that the number or pages stated in the specifications mas
mrong. Upon checking they informed me that an error had
been made in the page count - they had failed to tohe into
consideration the Table of Contents and the Index pages. I
mas requested, honorer, to continue mith the mork and promised
that they 'mould find the money somemhere' to pay the addi-
tional amount.
At the same time I also informed them that it mould be
impossible to work with copy as it was presented to me.
A contract to re-type the manual mas executed and Captain
Criggs and Chief Dooper selected the type which mould be
used. The type they selected increased the total page
count by only two pages.
Since the matter of payment has not been resolved by
HiFst I again request action by Council in seeing that payment is
made and the entire matter is closed.
Sincerely.
S/ Frank C. Hoffman
Frank C. Hoffman
Owner'
The City Manager advised that a report mould be coming to Council at the
next regular meeting of the body on Monday, May 8, 1972.
Mr. Trout moved that the statement from Ur. Hoffman be referred to the
iClty Manager for his consideration. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unani-
i!mously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meetin9
i:odjourned.
APPROVED
AI~EST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
372
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, May B, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met ia regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, May Bo 1972, at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour. with Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRE~ENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Llsko Noel C. Taylor.
Hampton W. Thomas, James O. Trout. Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber---5.
ABSENT: None O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. William F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A. N.
Gibson. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was 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,
April 3, 1972, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Thomas,
seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed
mith and the minutes approved as recorded.
IIEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, May G,
1972, with regard to certain amendments to the off-street parking requirements for
apartment and commercial zones, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report:
"April 6, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At the City Planning Commission meeting of March 1, 1972, the
Planning Commission reviewed the existing parking standards parti-
cularly as they apply to the apartment and commercial districts,
to determine their adequacy or inadequacy to =eat present needs.
The Planning Director noted that a review of all the exist-
ing parking standards in the Zoning Ordinance reveals that the
single family and duplex parking requirements are presently
adequate. However, this is not the case as it applies to the
apartment and commercial zones. He noted that in the apartment
districts, RG-I and aG-2, the present parking requirements pro-
vide for one parking space for each housing unit. This does not,
however, take into consideration visitor parking, the number of
bedrooms per housing unit and the need to increase parking as
the number of rooms increases, and the increasing trend toward a
two-car family. Based on these factors he recommended that the
present parking requirements be increased to 14 spaces for each
unit, and that the owner be required to round out to the higher
figure any fractional space left over. Similar requirements,
he noted, exist in Arlington County, London County, Alexandria,
Falls Church, Fairfax City, and other jurisdiction through
Virginia and beyond.
Additionally, the Planning Director noted that in the Com-.
mercial districts (C-1 - Office and Institutional, C-2 - General
Commercial, and C-d - Central Dankness District Expansion Area)
certain substantive changes to the existing parl/ng standards
were necessary in order to make them conform to modern parking
standards and requirements which presently existing in many com-
munities throughout Virginia. He noted that in the C-I - Office
and Institutional district the present parking requirement is one
space for each 400 square feet of gross building area and racom-
mended that this be IncreaSed to one space for each 200 square
feet. In regard to ~is matter, it was reported that the Building
Code provides as an acceptable guideline that there be 100 square
feet or work area per office worker; and that in an office of
4,000 square feet this would be e potential~ 40 workers which
nnder the existing code would require only 10 off-street parking
spsces, while this amendment would require a total of 20 orr-
street parking spaces.
Mith respect to the C-2-6eneral Commercial District it mas re-
ported that the parking requirements for all the uses permitted
· erein be increased to I space per 200 square feet of gross floor
area mith the exception of the follomlng uses that are to remain
unchanged since they conform to acceptable standards:
Homling alleys: Hotels, Booming houses:
5 spaces for each alley. I space for each 2 rental units.
Motels: Theaters:
I space for each rental unit. lO spaces for the first 100
seats, plus I space for each
5 additional seats.
The Planning Commission members generally agreed that the
amendments to the apartment md commercial parking requirements
were necessary and mould produce a more viable development.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council the approval of the off-
street parking amendments to the apartment and commercial zones.
Sincerely,
S/ Ilenry B. Boynton by LM
Henry B. Boynton
Acting Chairman"
There appearing to be Some questions regarding the matter, Mr. Lisk moved
that the matter be referred back to the City· Planning Commission for further Study,
i. report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and
iunanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, May
1972, on the request of the Reverend Charles G. Fuller, Pastor. First Baptist
Church, that Council permit private day nurseries and kindergartens in all commer-
cial districts, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that Council permit private day care nurseries and kindergartens
in all commercial districts with the provision that a protected area shall be pro-
vided of not less than 100 square feet for each child and that all outdoor acti-
vities shall be limited to the hours between O:O0 a.m., and B:O0 p.m., and shall be
conducted within the protected play area:
· April 6, 1972
The Honorable Roy L'. Nebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City Planning Commission on February 2, 1972, recommend-
ed to City Council an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance permit-
ting day care centers in all commercial districts as special
exception. It was revealed, homever, that the criteria pertain-
Jug to day care centers mas too stingent as they applied to com-
mercial zones, and the matter mas referred back to the City
Planning Commission for additional study.
At the April 5 meeting of tko Planning Commission the Planning
Director noted that many municipalities throughout the stzteo and
beyond° have recognized the 'unique natures character und treatment
County permits nursery schools in all its commercial districts
but requires z special permit in all its residential districts.
Similarly, this is the situation in Baltimore City end many other
municipalities.
The Planning Director noted that any criteria pertaining to
day care centers in commercial zones should be relaxed considering
their built-up nature; and that churches, located within the
older and substantially more built up domntown area, would be the
major petitioners for day care nurseries in this district. Addi-
tionally, he noted that the criteria as they now exist pertain
mainly to residential and apartment zones where the majority or
day care centers are presently located. These districts, he
noted, are better situated tbau the commercial districts to
meet the requirements of day care nurseries and kicdergartens.
The Planning Director then recommended that day care centers
he permitted in ali commercial zones with the proviso that a pro-
texted area shall be provided of not less than 100 square feet
for each child, sod that all outdooF actirJtles shullbe linited
to the hours between B:O0 a.m. and B:O0 p,m. and shall be con-
ducted within the protected play area.
To consummate this recommendation, he noted that private day
nurseries and kindergartens listed presently as a special excep-
tion in the C-2 - General Commercial District under Sec. 9 of
the Zoning Ordinance be deleted. Additionally, Sec. 6 of the
Zoning Ordinance, relating to the C-I - Office and Institutional
District should be amended by the addition under permitted uses
of a new use, private day nurseries and kindergarten, with the
conditions inserted us noted above. This then would carry over
to all the remaining commercial districts.
Mr. Gibbons, speaking in behalf of. the First Baptist Church,
appeared before the Planning Commission and presented a letter to
~em from Reverend Fuller in SUpport of this amendment to the Zon-
ing Ordinance (see enclosed).
. The Planning Commission members generally felt t~ot placing
private day care nurseries nod kindergartens as permitted uses
in all commercial districts with a relaxation of some of the
requirements was necessary considering the nature and character
of the couerciul zone.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommendln9 to City Council to permit private day care
nurseries and kindergartens in all commercial districts with the
proviso that a protected area shall be provided of not less than
100 square feet for each child, and that all outdoor activities
shall he limited to the hours between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m.
and shall be conducted uithin the protected play area.
Sincerely,
S/ Henry B. Boynton
Henry B. Boynton
Acting Chairman#
following Ordinance he placed upon its first reading:
(~20245) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaJning the subsection entitled
i Soecial excentions after nublic notice and hearinobv the Board of Zonino Anneals
of Sec. B. C-I office and institutional district, and Sec. 9. ~-~ oenera! commercial
district, Article IV, Chapter 4.1, of Title XV, of the Code of the City of Roanoke
1956, us amended, relating to Zoning, providing for the operation of private day
nurseries and kindergartens in C-I districts upon certain conditions, and repealin
the provision of Sec. 9. permitting operation of private day nurseries and kinder-
gartens In C-2 districts us a special exception after public notice and hearing by
the Board of Zoning Appeals.
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission on its *mn motion directed to the
City Council, and after doe consideration or the proposal has recommended to the
Council, an amendment of the district zoning regulations hereinafter set out and
*rovided;' and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Sec,.70 and Sec. 71, Chapter 4,1,
*f Title XV of the Code of the City of Roan*he, 1956, as amended, and after due pub~
lication of written notice in a neuspaper having general circulation in the City
more than fifteen days prior to the holding of a public hearing on the question, a
~)ublic hearing was held before the Council On the 8th day of May, lg?2, in accordance
!with said notice, on the recommendations of the Planning Commission as aforesaid, at
mhlch public hearing all persons in interest and citizens were afforded on oppor-
tunity to be heard on the question; and
WH£HEAS, upon the Council's due consideration of the recommendations of
isaid Planning Commission, the Council i$ of opinion that the subsection of Sec. 9.
~C-2. general commercial dist?j~, Article IV, Chapter 4.1, of Title XV, relating to
iZoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, lash, as amended, authorizing certain
special exceptions after public notice and hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals
!.certain principal uses and structures in said district, should he amended as recon-
Lmended by said Planning Commission as hereinafter provided.
TIIEREFORE, BE iT oRDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke es foil*ms:
llV, Chapter d.l, of Title XV, of th~ Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
ilrelating to Zoning, he, and said subsection is hereby amended and reordained to
!freud and provide as follows:
1. Multiple-family dwellings containing not less than 10
dwelling units, subject to the following minimum requirements
and limitations:
a. Minimum lot area 1,600 square feet per dwelling unit, with
a minimum of 6,000 square feet for the first unit.
b. Minimum lot width: 100 feet.
c. Minimum yards: front 25 feet in depth; side 50 feet
combined width, 15 feet minimum for any side yard; rear 15
feet in depth, and further provided that no yard adjacent to
a street shall have a minimum width or depth of less than 25
feet.
do Minimum off-street parking space 1 per dwelling unit,
plns off-street loading and delivery space, with both off-street
parking and off-street loading to be provided other than in
required yards adjacent to streets.
e. Not more than 2 identification signs, with combined
surface area not exceeding ~0 square feet plus not more than
signs with combined surface area not exceeding 4 square feet'in-
dicatJng vacancy or no vacancy, and signs as for RG advertising
the entire property for sale, rent or lease.
2. High-rise apartments, subject to the pt*visions of
section 24 of this chapter.
'376
3. Drive-in eating and drinking establishments, tire
recapping or retreading, if proposed to be located within 250 feet
from any RS, RD, RG or C-1 district, subject to special provision
required by the board.
4. Hospitals, sanitariums, rest homes, convalescent hames,
hames for orphans, homes for aged, as for RS districts.
5.. Cemeteries and columbariuns.
6, Colleges and universities.
2. That the subsection entitle ~ermitted ~rincS~n! uses nad Structure~,
of Sec. 0. C-! office and institutional district, Article IV, Chapter 4.1. of
Title XV, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, lgSb, as amended, relating to Zoning,
be, and said subsection is hereby amended and reordaJned by the addition of a nam
permitted use, to be numbered 13, and to read and provide as follows:
Permitted orincJnal uses and structures:
AS for RG districts, and in addition:
1. Offices.
a. Medical and dental.
b. Other professional, including as incidental accessory
uses places for assembly and fitting of eyeglasses in cannection
with practice of persons qualified to prescribe for eyeglasses, and
similar accessory uses only in connection with permitted professional
office use.
c. Ousiness and nonprofit institutions.
2. Laboratories, including those connected with medical,
dental and other professional offices.
$. Medical supply houses.
4. Clinics, including as incidental accessory uses ethical
pharmacies in connection with medical clinics.
$. Rehabilitation centers.
6~ Ousiness, evening and vocational schools not involving
operations of an industrial character.
T. Roardin9 and rooming houses.
0. Oospitals.
9. Sanitariums.
10. Rest homes.
11. Convalescent homes for the aged.
12. Funeral homes.
13. Private day nurseries and kindergartens provided that a
protected area of not less than 100 square feet for each child be
provided, that all outdoor activities be lisited to the hours
between 0:00 a.m., and 0:00 p.m., and that all such activites be
conducted within the protected play area.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Outland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
Webber ................. 7,
ii NAYS: None O.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council.having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.,
Igouday, May O, 1972, on the request of the Roanoke Gas Company that that certain
fportion of Patton Avenue, N. E., lying between its intersection with lands of Norfolk
fund Mestern Railway Company on the east and its intersection with the easterly line
~of 7th Street (Shenandoah Avenue, N. E.) on the west, be vacated, discontinued and
closed, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending thst the request be granted:
'April 6, 1972
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 April 5, 1972.
Mr. Jim Douthat appeared before the Planning Commission on
behalf of the Roanoke Gas Company and stated that this portion
of Patton Avenue is to be part of the future Kimball Project and
he is requesting this alley closure, as n first step, in order
that the necessary property tines can be established. He noted
that the alley is a paper one.
The Planning Commission members concurred in the street
closure and noted that it would not have any adverse environmental
impact on the neighborhood.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Henry H. Doynton by LM
Henry H. Hoynton
Acting Chairman"
The viewers appointed to view the matter submitted n written report
ludvising that they have vi,mad the street in question and the neighboring property
~and are unanimously of the opinion that no inconvenience would result to any indi-
vidual or the public from vacating, discontinuing and closing ssid portion of the
street.
No one appearing in opposition to the request, Mr. Trout moved that the
following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~2024b) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
that certain portion of Patton Avenue, N. E., lying between its intersection with
lands of Norfolk £ Western Railway Company on the east and its intersection with
the easterly llne of 7th Street (Shenandoah Avenue, N. E.) on the west.
WHEREAS, Roanoke Gas Company heretofore made application to the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, that the portion of Patton Avenue, N. E., hereinafter described
be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed, after having first posted a noticel~
of the intended application as provided by law; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, on the 20th day
of March, 1972, adopted Resolution No. 20165 appointing Messrs. J. Tat, RcBroom,
Dewey H. Marshall, Harry Whit,side, Jr., Dale Poe and R. R. Quick, any three or
more of whom may act, as viewers to view the aforesaid street and report in writing?
pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-354 of the Code of Virginia of 1950, ns
amended
to date, whether in their opinion any, and if any, what inconvenience would'!
result from discontinuing the same; and
NHEREAS, three of said viewers did visit and view the aforesaid portion of~i
Patton Avenue, N. E., and the adjacent neighborhoods and did report in writing that~
'378
in their opinion no inconvenience would result either to nny individual or to the
public from vacating, discontinuing and closing said portion of Patton Avenue,
N. E.; and
MDEREAS, this mutter has been referred to the Planning Commission of the
City or Roanoke, Virginia, uhlch said Commission has approved the permanent vacat-
ing, discontinuing and closing that portion of Patton Avenue, N. E., provided that
the City of Roanoke and Appalachian Power Company retain nil utility easement
rights located within said portion of Patton Avenue, N, E,; and
MHEREAS, a public hearing on the aforesa~ application to permanently
vacate, discontinue and close that portion of Patton Avenue was held, after a notice
thereof was duly advertised in the Roanoke World-News advising the public of the
said public hearing before this Council on Nonday, May 8, 1972, at 2 p.m., on said
day, at which meeting there was expressed no objection or opposition to vacating,
discontinuing and closing that portion of Patton Avenue, N. g.; and
WHEREAS, in the opinion of this Council, no invonvenience to the public
or any owner will result if said portion of Patton Avenue, N. E., be vacated, dis-
continued and closed for the purposes set forth in the aforesaid application.
YIIEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia~
that that certain portion of Patton Avenue. N. E., located in the City Of Roanoke,
Virginia, shown on Sheet No. 303 of the Tax Appraisal Map of the City of Roanoke.
Virginia, and more particularly described as follows, to wit:
That certain portion of Patton Avenue, N. E.,
lying between its intersection with lands of Norfolk C
Western Railway Company on the east and its intersection
with the easterly line of ?th Street (Shenandoah Avenue, N. E.)
on the west
be and the same is hereby permanently vacated, discontinued and closed and that
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 empowered
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 be located
in the aforesaid portion of Patton Avenue. N. E.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer be and he is hereby directed
to mark "Permanently Vacated, Discontinued and Closed" said portion of Patton
Avenue, N. E., on all maps and plats on file in the Office of the City Engineer of
the City of Roanoke, Virginia, on which said portion of Patton Avenue, N. E., is
shown, referring thereon to the book and page of Ordinances and Resolutions of the
Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, wherein this Ordinance 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 recoidation in said Clerk*s Office.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
iWebber ......... T.
NAYS: None O.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION: Mr. William Hodnett
appeared before Council and read a prepared statement on behalf of the Black Van-
guard Party petitioning Council for better recreational facilities in Hurt Path,
Eureka Park, Washington Park and Melrose Park, advising that they want drinking
fountains installed immediately, they want outdoor toilet facilities build immedi-
ately and they want better recreational materials and equipment and any other items
that will mke the parks a place where they know their children can be safe with
good equipment.
Mr. Lisk moved that the matter be referred to the Community Relations
Committee for study, report and recommendation and to 1972-73 budget study, The
motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Dr. Taylor presented the following communication in
connection with Washington Park, recommending that Washington Park be considered as
one of the first priority parks to be considered for improvement and beautification
~during the 1972-73 budget study:
~May 4, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I wish to recommend Washington Park us one of the first
priority parks to be considered for improvement nad beautifica-
tion during the 1972-73 budget study.
On Friday, May 24, 1963, the Roanoke City Council adopted a
resolution directing the City Manager to cease dumping garbage
and refuse ut the Washington Park Dump as of June 1, 1963 and a
committee was appointed *to start proceedngs immediately to put
the Washington Park Dump in the proper condition.' In a later
committee report, it was recommended that the park be leveled
off in an attractive manner and *covered as soon us possible with
the necessary amojnt of top soil for seeding and planting.' The
fact is that Washington Park is now as it was then barren and
incomplete.
Many citizens feel that the land should have been properly
terraced and seeded years ago. However, the park has remained
as it was left in 1963 except for dumpin9 of some huge boulders
and dirt.
I hasten to remind you that this park is surrounded by a
swimming pool, tennis court, the Lincoln Terrace Housing Project,
Darrell Memorial Hospital, Lucy Addison High School, Lincoln
Terrace Elementary School, the Roanoke City School Administration
Building, Orange Avenue Y. W, C, A. and a number of homes. These
are important institutions and facilities and I am of the fi~m
opinion that an effort should be made to make this area more
attractive now. Nine (9) years is long enough towait.
I believe this Council is desirous of doing what is fair and
proper for this section of the City taking into full consideration
what iS best for the City of Roanoke as a growing and progressing
community. Ail of us would readily agree that the solution of
this situation will give the morale of the citizens a tremendous
boost and enhance the beauty of our City. Therefore, I respect-
full request that the Roanoke City Council will take the necessary
steps and proceed with deliberate action to assure the improvement
and beautification of Washington Park and that the matter will be
referred to budget study forthe appropriation of the necessary
funds.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Noel C. Taylor
Noel C. Taylor*
380
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be referred to the Community
Relations Committee and to 1912-13 budget study. The motion nas seconded by
Trout and unanimously adopted*
WATER OEPARTNEHT-S£WERS AND STORM DRAIHS: Mr. M. C, Lindamood, represen
lng Hatcher Trucking Company, and Hr. W. M, Stone, St** representing Transmission
Products. Incorporated, appeared before Council and requested information on the
future plans of the City of Roanoke for providing water and sewer facilities to
,roperty owned by them located on llth Street. N. E,, advising that they are anxious
to develop this property and mould like to know the future plans of the city.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Ranager for study?
report and recommendation to Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Thomas and
unanimousty adopted.
pETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
STREET LIGHTS: Copy of a communication from the Appalachbn Power Company!,
transmitting a list of street lights installed and/or removed during the month of
April, 1972, was before Council. ;
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication and llst be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk mud unanimously adopted.
D~DGET-CIT¥ CLERK: A communicatlon from the City Clerk requesting that
$900.00 be appropriated to Printing and Office Supplies under Section ~2, *Clerk,"
of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year,
before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the City Clerk and~
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20247) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordnin Section ~2, *Clerk," Of the
1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n35, page 397.)
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
Webber 7.
NAYS: None. O,
BUDGET-SHERIFF-JAIL: Copy of a communication from Mr. Paul J. Pucketto
Sheriff, to the State Department of Nelfare and Institutions, requesting that
$6,000.00 be appropriated to Food Supplies under Section =26, "Jail," of the
72 budget, to provide funds forthe remainder of the fiscal year, was before Court-
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the Sheriff and
offered tbe following emergency Ordinance:
(n20248) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaiu Section :26, "Jail,* of the
1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =35, page
Mr. Trout wowed the adoption of th~ Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Lisk smd adopted by the fallowing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Rheeler and Mayor
Webber ?.
NAYS: None O.
RADIO-TELEVISION: A communication from Mr..Richard D. Flora, Vice
Chairman, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, in connection with a valley-wide
CATV study to include the City of Roanoke, the Town of Vinton and the County of
Roanoke, wes before Council
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be referred to Mr. Vincent S.
Wheeler, Chairman of the CATV Committee. for study, report and recommendation to
Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
RADIO-TELEVISION: A communication from Mr. Charles F. Klein, Director,
iSys*em Development, TeleVision Communications Corporation, transmitting a book to
each member of Council entitled, U. S. News and World Reoort, and expressing the
ihope that the City of Roanoke mill take formal cognizance of their request
to present a proposal for cable television to the City of Roanoke, was before
!Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
'?as seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CITV TREASURER: Council having referred to the City
ilManager for study and report n communication from Mr. J. H. Johnson, City Treasurer,
ireqnesting that he be given a key for one of the Church Avenue. first floor doors
~!t° the Municipal Building, n communication from Mr. Johnson again requesting that
~he be given said key, was before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
for necessary handling. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopt-~
ed.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $4,000.00 be appropriated to Court Attendance under Section
,Police Department** of the 1971-72 budget.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20249) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u45, *Police Depart-
ment,' of the 1971-T2 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergent.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 39B.)
Mr..Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
r. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber 7.
NAYS: None O,
381
'382
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $10000,00 be transferred from Funeral Escorts to Fees for Pro-
fessional and Specia~ Services under Section u45, 'Police Bepartmento' of the lq71-~
72 budget, to provide funds for payment of nurses for blood alcohol withdrawal
fees and vehicle touing under city Ordinance, .
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u20250) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u45, "Police Depart~
meat," of the lgTI-T2 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see OrdinanceBook uab, page
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, ~heeler and Mayor
· ebber- ~7.
NAYS: None .......... O,
BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report re-
commending that $1,000.00 be transferred from Overtime to Maintenance of Machinery
and Equipment under Section #47, "Fire Department," of the 1971-72 budget, advisingi
that the maintenance of machinery account was depleted prior to the end of the budget
year due to the required installation of air brakes on one of the fire pumpers.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered' the following emergency Ordinance:
(#20251) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u47, "Fire Depart-
! meat," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency. -
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
!by Mr~ Garland and adopted by the following vote:
t AYES; Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, ~heeler and Mayor
!Nehber ................... ?.
NAYS: None O.
BUDGET-CITY MANAGER: The CitI Manager submitted a written report recom-
mending that $25.00 be transferred from Printing and Office Supplies to Dues, Member-
ships and Subscriptbns and that $145.00 be transferred from Education to Travel
under Section n3, "City Manager," of the 1971-72 budget.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
'Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n20252) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordntn Section =3, "City Manager,"
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency..
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~3b, page 400.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ................... -7.
NAYS: None O.
BUDGET-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY IN ROANOKE VALLEY-PARKS AND PLAY-
GROUNDS: The City Manager submitted a written report in connection with seasonal
maintenance and cleaning of the three city swimming pools in Washington Park,
Eureka Park and Hurt Park, advising that in order to begin operations the pools
need a general cleaning, in addition to replacing n pump at the Hurt Park pool and
that there is a further need for a service contract on all three pools and pointing
out that if these needed services are to be performed an appropriation of
will be needed:
"May B, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Swimming Pools
The summer season is fast approaching and it is now neces-
sary to perform seasonal maintenance andcleanJng of the City's
three swimming pools in Mashing*on, Eureka and llurt Parks. Pre-
sent plans are to open all three pools on Saturday, June 10, and
close on Labor Day. Monday, September 4, 1972.
In order to begin operations, the pools need u general
cleaning, in addition to replacing a pump at the Hurt Park
pool which is presently unserviceable. Funds will be included
in the next fiscal year budget for operating supplies such as
chemicals; however, a one-month supply will be necessary out of
the current budget. Finally. there is need for a service con-
tract on all three pools. The total cost for these immediately
needed services is $4,160. An appropriation in this amount will
be required if these pools are to be opened as described above.
The Parks and Recreation budget has funds to pay supervisory
personnel throughout the remainder of the fiscal year.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. llirst
Julian Fo Hirst
City M~nager'
Or. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
!iManager and offered the follot~ing emergency Ordinance:
(~20253) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reorduin Section ~75, "Recreation,
fParks and Recreational Areas." of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =36, page 401.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Ltsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ............... 7.
NAYS: None -0.
BUOGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISFUM: The City Manager submitted a written report
lrecnmmending that $2,500.00 he transferred from Maintenance of Bnildings and Pro-
party to Maintenance of Machinery and Equipment under Section ny7, "Civic Center,"
'383
384
of the 1471-72 budget, to provide funds to accommodate proper budget clos$ificatiom
of expenditures.
Yr. Garland moved that Council concur Jn the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u20254) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~77, "Civic Center,
of the 1911-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for on emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u36, page 401.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. LJsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Rayor
Webber .....................
NAYS= None ......... O.
BUDGET-AUD1TORII~f-COLIS£UN: The City Ranager submitted the follouing
report recommending that Council authorize preparation of and execution of two
change orders pertaining to the construction of the Roanoke Ciric Center. said
change orders relating to the signs and plaque for the project and the rock
excavation in the caisson construction and advising that an additional $1B,515.6B
will have to be appropriated in connection wJt~ the rock excavation.
Mr. Trout moved t~at Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating $10,415.63 to
CIP 62-16 Civic ~enter under SuctJo~ egg, "Transfers to Capital ImproVements Fund,"i
of the 1q71-72 budget:
(#202SS) AN OROINANCE to amend and reordain Section aGg, "Transfers to
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
Capital
Improvement s
Fund,"
for an emergency.
(Eor full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob ~36, page 402.)
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, Wheeler. and Mayor
Webber ?-
NAYS: None O.
Mr. Trout then offered the following Resolution approving issuance of
Change Orders No. 8 and 11 in connection with the city's contract with Nello L.
Tear Company for the construction of the Roanoke Civio Center, relating to the sign
and plaque for the project and the rock excavation in the caisson construction:
(#20256) A RESOLUTION approving the City Manager's issuance of Change
Orders No. 8 and Il ia connection with the City's contract for the construction of
the Roanoke Civic Center.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 402.)
Hr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
Iby Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
385
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber -7.
NAYS: None O.
STATE HIS,WAYS: Council. at its last regular meeting *on Monday, May l.
1972, baying deferred action on a report of the City Manager in connection with the
!Southwest Expressway, the matter was .again before the body.
In a discussion of the m~ttero the City Manager again recommended the
plan as set forth by the Highway Department as being the best plan, and pointed out!
that the city has always had good cooperation with the Highway Oepartment and that
ihe would like for this cooperation to remain in tact.
Mr. R. R. Quick. Realtor. appeared before Council in connection with the
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Lisk moved that the City Attorney
ibe directed to prepare the proper measure approving the arrangement contained in
iAlternnte No. I which eliminates the connection to Franklin Road. S. W.. mill pro-
vide an off-ramp for northbound traffic to 23rd Street. S. M.. and provides for
bridging of Broadway leaving Droadmay open to through traffic. The motion
seconded by RF. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. CaFland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, MheeleF and Rayor
Webber 6.
NAYS: Mr. Trout ...... 1.
WATER DEPARTMENT': Council having requested that the City Manager study
Ithe request of Mr. J. Il. YanDeventer, Executive Directors Demonstration Water Pro-
iject, Incorporated. that Council authorize city officials to negotiate the sale of
iwater to New Hope Water, Incorporated. at the established bulk rate for redistribu-
ition to the members and shareholders of the corporation, and the City Manager having
ireported back to Council advising that there have been several significant difficul~
Ities in the proposal in contrast to Water Department policies, that the organinatio~
iiis familiar with these and is now endeavoring to determine if these difficulties
imight be morked out and that be is endeavoring to see if n mutually suitable arrangei~
meat can be produced, the City Manager submitted a written report transmitting the
irequest of Mr. J. H. VanDeventer to appear before Council in regard to'his interest
liin developing said water system for the New Hope area within Roanoke County.
i In this connection, Mr. VanDeventer appeared before Council and presented
the~foil.ming prepared statement:
"May B, 1972
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor .nd Members of City Council
City of Roanoke, Roanoke. Virginia
FROM: New Hope Mater, Inc., Roanoke County, Virginia
1227 Patterson Ave., S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
SUBJECT: Water Service - Area Residents
Confirming our request to the City Manager and your body, were-
quest that the City of Roanoke agree to the sale of water to Our
'386
corporation (a nat'-for-profit group of citizens ~! Roanoke County),
at Roanoke City's established bulb rate for redistribution to the
members of the corporation,
ORGANIZATION:
Nem Hope Mater, Inc., a not-for-profit corporation, organiz-
ed under the statutes or virginia to oma and operate a mater
system to serve residents of the community,
LOCATION:
System is' designed to serve resident~ along State Ilighmays
a789 and a672, beginning at O,S, No, 220 (south) and ending at
the city limits at Garden City.
PURPOSE:
Resideots of the area, because of diverse situations mod
due to existing geologic formations in the area and commercial
activities, are unable to secure adequate mater supplies on an
individual basis. This proposal mill alleviate these conditions.
EXISTING CONDITIONS:
The corporation has endeavored to secure adequate potable
mater supplies through deep well facilities mithout success and
must now approach the City. for cooperation. It has been establish-
ed that the City has ample supplies, immediately available, adjacent
to the proposed corporation's lines and that connections can be
made without undue cost to either the City of the corporation.
BE~EF1TS TO THE C'ITIZENS AND ROANOKE CITY:
Residents of the Nam Hope area, immediately adjacent to the
city limits of Roanoke City, are unable to secure adequate water
supplies to insure the prosperity and ehalth of the citizens.
Roanoke County facilities are not now available and cannot be
forseen in the immediate future.
BENEFITS TO THE CITIZENS AND ROANOKE CIT~: (Continued)
The health of the residents and those of the immediate environs
must now rest with the cooperation of the City of Roanoke.
FINANCINO:
Estinated cost of construction is $72,900.00 with financing
arranged with loans and grants through Farmers Home Administration
and Demonstration Mater Project, Inc. No liability will be
assumed by the City of Roanoke.
SUMMATION:
We pray that the City of Roanoke will grant our request to
sell our corporation water at its established bulk rate and so
alleviate the conditions that now exist in our community.
S/ James G. Booker, President
New IIope Mater, Inc."
the City Manager verbally advised Council that granting
In
discussion,
this request will require changes in the city code and for the sale of water at a
bulk rate price, that the water system ~ould conform to city regulations which
would provide for the installation of metal, rather than plastic pipe.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that there seems to be certain administrative
matters which need to be worked out ad moved that the matter be referred bach to
the City Manager for'further study, report and recommendation to Council. The
imotion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Council having referred to the City Manager for
stuey, report and recommendation a communication from Mr. Frank C. Hoffman, Owner,
Dixie Letter Service, making a claim on the City of Roanoke in the amount of $378.3B
for further payment of printing work performed by his firm on the Police Training
Manuals, the City Manager submitted the folioming report advising that the claim
for additional payment cannot be supported due to three listed reasons:
'May D, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City C~uncll
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
Subject: Dixie Letter Service
This is in response to your referral to me at your
ne*ting on April 10, 19720 of the letter directed to the
City Council by Mr. Frank C. Hoffwan, owner of Dixie
Letter Service, which letter mas dated April S, 1972,
and making claim on the City for the amount of.$37H.aO
for further payment of printing work by his firm on
Police Department Manuals. I report and reply thereto.
Believing it to be the best summary of the bactground
on the matter up to that point but apoligizing for the
amount of paperwork, I, nevertheless, include for review
by the Council members a copy of wy report of March 6,
1972, which summarized the situation as it stood at the
tine that Mr. Hoffman appeared before Council in the then
immediately precedin9 meeting requesting payment on his
basic contract. Following my report of March 60 Mr.
Hoffman then went through the manuals which be had
delivered to us, concurred in the need of revision work
and took the manuals back to his plant. As i verbally
reported to Council at one point, Mr. ThompSon, Chief
Hooper and I met with Mr. Iloffman then at his place of
business and went over the notes of needs of corrections
that be bad detected and in which we generally concurred.
Folloming this he made corrections, returned the manuals
to us and as I advised the Council, the City made payment
of $2,639.51, which ~as the original contract proposal,
plus his billing for retyping.
It misht be noted at this point that in the original
bidding on this work of printing the manuals, which bids
the City received, after proper advertisement, in May,
1971, there were two bids made. Dixie Letter Service bid
$2,363.51 and Stone Printing Company bid $3,100.00.
In some of the various discussions that took place
during the time that we were dealing with Dixie Letter
Service for corrections ia the manuals, Mr. Haffman
indicated the claim On the City for printing what be
termed extra pages. It is this matter that be has now
submitted an invoice and on which be has appeared before
the City Council on two occasions.
I attach a copy of purchase order No. A-97435, dated
June 9, lgTl, to the company. This is the identical word-
ing of the invitation to bid. I call City Coancil*s
attention particularly to the first sentence of the
description of the work to be done which extends for
the first 12 lines of the purchase order. This descrip-
tion is calculated as was done by the City in issuing the
invitation and as would be done by a printer, estimating
this order, it can be determined that the total pages
involved are 241.
Mr. Hoffman stated in his letter of May 1, 1972, to
the City Council that 'they (the City) had failed to
take into consideration the table of contents and the
index pages.* It is to be noted that in this description,
as attached, there is specific reference to the table of
contents and to the index pages aloog with the other
details, The point mhicb Mr. Hoffman makes and on.which
he bases his claim for further payment is the reference
further down in the description mbich reads, *all binders
to contain I 3/4' metal rings or metal rings of sufficient
capacity to adequately contain all printed sheets (approxi-
mately 200) and additional space for future expansion**
It is on this reference to the "approximately 200* that
the contractor contends that he Should be paid for all
pages o~er and above 200.
In order to make this contention the contractor must
extract the phrase "approximately 200" out of context and
at the same time disregard all of the previous description.
The "approximately 200" refers to the s~zing of the binders
and metal rings. Conceivably this figure could have been
almost any number or conceivably the pharse could have been
387
omitted but it was inserted for the convenience of
estimating the binder sine. It Is our contention that
for the bidder to draw his entire calculations nnd to
base bis bid fully and soley on this estinmte uitbin this
sentence of the binders and to disregard all of that
preceding information places the bidder In n position
of having failed to either fully read the proposal or
to accurately calculate his cost in estimating n bid on
the contract.
The claim for additional payment cannot be supported
for the following summary reasons:
1. A full and accurate reading of the bid advertisement
and the purchase order, which are identical, reflects
the number of pages in the contract and the number
of pages upon mhich a bidder, and resulting contractor,
can accurately estimate the job bid.
2. The reference of the claimant to the number of ~ages
applies to 'a separate matter and further, even if
this were to be applicable, there would be a question
as to what number is 'approximately** Again, even
if this were n valid number Er the purpose upon which
claim is made. the question would be when dues the
count start on additional pages:
To pay for pages in this manner would be at variance
to the rules of bidding and would appear to be unfair
to the other bidder as mell as any other companies
that might have considered bidding. In other words
any other bidder OF potential bidder should have had
benefit of any such potential bonus.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F. HJrst
City Manager*
Ur. Frank C. Hoffman, Owner, Dixie Letter Service, appeared before Council
and again expressed the opinion that the City of Roanoke should pay him said
additional amount of $370.39 for this printing moth.
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that this matter has been an unfortunate
misunderstanding, that it is a complicated matter, that the specifications which
mere composed for the Police Tralr~ning Manual could have been interpreted in
in two different mays and moved that Council honor the claim as presented by Mr.
Hoffuan and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the
proper measures. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
S£MERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following reporti
concerning ~he actions which have been taken by the administrative .staff of the
City of Roanoke in connection with certain semage treatment matters:
~Nay D, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Sewage Treatment Plant
It will be recalled that in connection with the recent hearing
before the State Mater Control Board, there resulted a ban on new
sewer connections in the Roanoke Valley. Additionally, the City mas
ordered to take certain immediate steps to improve the effluent
quality into Roanoke River, including the initiation of certain
actions by May 1, 1972. This is as report to the Mayor and Council
concerning the actions which your administrative staff have been
pursuing.
As a temporary means of handling digested sewage sludge from
within the treatment plant, the City bas previously proposed to
pump for irrigation and fertilization onto · farm across Roanoke
River from the treatment plant. This proposal Uaw submitted to
the State Mater Control Board in early April and on Tuesday, May 2,
a letter mas hand-delivered to the City finally giving approval
to proceed wJtb tbJz method of operation. As weather permits we
are now proceeding mJth this interim method of solids disposal.
Additionally, the City uaw ordered to institute by Ray 1,
the removal of phosphorous from the sewage effluent. Although
me have conditionally awarded a contract rot the construction of
chemical storage and feed facilities which are directly related
to this matter, the State and Federal governments hare yet to
authorize the City to proceed with this construction. Arrangements
have been mode, however, for an interim means to haul and store
waste pickle liquor which mill be introduced into the treatment
process for the purpose of precipitating phosphorous within the
plant. These temporary measures mill have to be operated for
approximately six months until the permanent construction is
complete and will be an expensive process. The interim method
includes the hauling of waste pickle liquor by tank truck and
together with the necessary testing and temporary storage charges
will cost the City approximately $15,000 per month. After the
permanent facilities ave complete, this cost should be consider-
ably reduced due to the more economical means of hauling via
tank cars.
If there be further questinns from Council concerning our
procedures, we would be pleased to discuss the matter in on?
detail desired.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. tlirst
Julian F. liirst
City Homager*
Mr. Thomas moved that the report he received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SEMERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: Zhe City Manager submitted the following report
recommending authorization Of o letter to be issued to D. R. Allen md Sons, Incor-
porated, the scheduled contractor for the construction of the sludge lagoons at
i the Sewage Treatment Plont~ authorizing that firm to proceed with said work with
recognition that the formal contract cannot be signed until the city has obtained
iopproval from the State Water Control Board:
· May B, 1972
lion,Fable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
Subject: Sludge Lagoons Construction
This is to recommend to the City Council your authorization
by proper instrument for a letter to be issued to D. R. Allen
and Sons, Incorporated, the scheduled contractor for the con-
struction of the sludge lagoons at the sewage treatment plant,
authroJaiog that firm to proceed with the work with recognition
that the formal contract itself cannot he signed until the City
has obtained the approval from the State Mater Control Board.
Me have been placed iq a predicament that we ore endeavoring to
handle in the best way possil~e under the circumstances, The
sludge lagoons are critical to the plant operation and are
critical to the entire time schedule. On the basis of what
might be best termed faith and good relationship, this contrac-
torproceeded with the preliminary grading on u verbal uaderstund-
lng in order that he might get the work underway and he able to
take advantage of what has been good weather for this construc-
tion. Be has reached a point where he needs some formalization
of the agreement with the City. In full fairness, he Js entitled
to this and should have it. To do otherwise, he mould be
justified in withdrawing from the site; and if this is done,
this Mould present schedule problems mith the possibJllkles of
getting his equipment~ bach In a reasonable time and also
schedule problems mith the City in getting this contract
handled.
As Council is auaree there'is a second contract on the
construction of the chemical feeding equipment by English Con-
struction Company; houever, no murk hum commenced on this end
both the contractor and the City are holding off because of
the absence of approvals.
As to the sludge lagoons there still is perhaps an open
question as to State and Federal participatiun; however, the
weight of implications are that these Mould be eligible.
As has been previously advised to the City Council, the
request for approval of plans and specifications on both the
sludge lagoon contract and lhe chemical feed equipment contract
went to the State Mater Cantrol Board in mid-February. The
handling for approval then moved around through the State
Mater Control Doard and'the State Health Department and nom
has gone on to EPA. There have been numerous conversations
with the Donrd's staff as to handling on this. Our latest advice
mithin the last three lo four days is from EPA in Philadelphia
requesting additional information regarding the Valley program
and this information is due to them by May 24. 'The signifi-
cance is that any approval will not be received prior to that
time. All of this Mill take ns into at least the fourth month
of awaiting approval of these tug projects in order to proceed
mith the contracts. As has also been advised Council, the
Board has emphatically pointed out to us that it would be
inadvisable to execute the contracts and proceed without the
proper approval. All of this again points up the conflict of
deadlines as have been laid down by the State Water Control
Board itself.
To restate, it is.recommended that me be authorized 'to
enter into the proper letter of direction to the contractor
to continue his work Mith the sludge lagoons under payment and
related conditions as contained in the terms of the contemplated
contract.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrs~
City Manager~
Mayor Webber questioned whether or not the City Charter mill permit the
City of Roanoke to proceed with the arrangement os recommended by the City Manager
and if Council is acting on safe ground by doing this without prior approval of
the State Water Control Doard.
Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that the City Manager should be directed
to write a strong letter to the State Rater Control Board requesting them to speed
up their processing in this matter, advising that the city bas a commitment to its
citizens and that the city must have quicker approval to neet the requirements as
set forth by the Board.
Mr. Thomas 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 Rt. Lisk and adopted, MaYor Webber
voting no.
TRAFFIC-BRIDGES-STREETS AND ALLEYS-STATE HIGHMAYS: The City Manager sub-
mitted the following report transmitting revised Resolutions in connection with the
widening and improvement of 24th Street, N. W., and the preliminary plans and
studies for a new bridge on South Jefferson Street over the Roanoke River, advisin!
that the Bighmay Department has called to his attention that it will be necessary
for the. City of Roanoke to participate in these costs and to assume IS per cent
thereof and recommending adoption of the revised Resolutions:
391
Honorable Mayor ned City Couucil
Rosnohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: TOPICS Projects
The City Council on April 17, 1972, adopted Resolution
~o. 20221 recommending the State Highmay Department proceed
mitb studies for the widening and improvement of 24th Street,
~, W.o and Resolution no. 20220 recommending that the High-
may Department proceed with preliminary plans and Studies for a
nem bridge on South Jefferson Street over the Roanoke River.
The Highway Department has called to our attention that both of
these resolutions stated that the preliminary surveys and plans
would be *at no cost to tbe City' and that this mas contrary
to policy and procedure mherein it would he necessary for the
City to participate in these costs and to assume IS percent
thereof. This advice of thd Department is consistent with our
understanding of procedures under these programs.
It fs therefore recommended that the City Council approve
revised resolutions as prepared by the City Attorney's office
and included on this Agenda.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F, Rirst
Julian F. Hirst
ioffered the followin9 Resolution recommending and urging the initiation by the
ilDepartment of Highways of a project to provide for the widening and improvement
i~oes
idevices for 24th Street, N. W., from the north line of the 24th Street Tunnel to
(#20257) A RESOLUTION recommending and urging the initiation by the
iDepartment of Highways of a project to provide for the widening and improvement
!(Shaffer*s Crossing) to the intersection of Melrose Avenue, n. M., and thence, on
~roportionate part of the cost of such improvements.
i full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Rook n36, page 404.)
(For
Hr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
i AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas,
Trout,
Mheeler
Mayor
and
Webber 6.
I nAYS: Mr. Lisk-~ ....I.
the folloJwing Resolution recommending and urging
Mr.
Trout
then
he Virginia Department of Highways to proceed with the development of necessary
r~liminary plans and studies for the construction of a new bridge on South Jeffer-
son Street over the Roanoke River:
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded b~
'392
(n20258) A RESOLUTION recommending and urging the Virginia Department of
Highways to proceed with the development of necessary preliminary plans end studies
for the construction of a new bridge on South Jefferson Street over the Roanoke
River, in the City of Roanoke; setting out the need therefor; end committing the
City to pay its proportionate part of the cost of such improvement.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book z36, page 4OS.)
Mr, Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
A~ ES: Neasrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout, Yheeler and Hayer
Webber ...................... 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City #meager submitted the follomin9
report in connection with a suit which has been instituted by the Legal Aid Society~
of the Roanoke Valley against the Director of the Oepartment of Public #allure and
Institutions, individual members of the State Board and Miss Bernice F. Jones. City
Director of Public Ne l~re. in connection with a certain policy of the State
Department of Welfare and Institutions with regard to Aid to Dependent Children:
"Ray B, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Uentlemen:
Subject: Legal Aid Society Suit
This is for your information. The poli'cy of the State
Department of Melfare and Institutions has for sometime
provided that under the program of Aid to Dependent Children.
(ADC) the eligibility of children 16 and 17 years old for
benefits under this program are limited to such children who
are in school or enrolled in a vocational training program.
Legal Aid Society of the Roanoke Valley has instituted
suit in Federal District Court against the Director of the
Department of Public Welfare and Institutions, against the
individual members of the State Board and ugalnst Miss
Bernice F. Jones, City Director of Public Welfare, and
challenging that under the United States Constitution, etc.,
the requirement that these children be in school or enrolled
in vocatisnal training is improper.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
· Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
CIZY EMPLOYEES-PAy PLAN-CIVIL DEFENSE: The City Manager submitted the
following report requesting to establish within the Pay Plan the position of Coordi
nator Of Civil Defence. that the position of Assistant Coordinator be eliminated.
and that Mr. Warren E. Trent be appointed as the Coordinator of Ci~l Defence at
Range 22 in the Pay Plan:
"May H, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Civil Defense
I
I
I
I
I
Ia the Structure of n CIvil Defense organization On n local
level there are standardized generally' two positions. One is
the Director who is responsible for the overall civil defense
program und the other is the Coordinator who actually s~upervises
the civil defense program oversees its operations and handles
the routine and emergency functioning and details. This structure
is comparable to the arrangement on the State basis wherein the
Governor serves as Director and there is an appointed coordinator
who actually manages the program.
In Roanoke, as in most cities end towns, the city manager
has the designation of direcotr or in the absence of a city
manager this most frequently is the mayor*s designation and
then there is designated u coordinator of the local program.
Up until. January 1, 1972, the Roanoke organization pro-
vided that the City Manager was the Director and Mr. J. Robert
Thouss was designated as Coordinator. Both of these assignments
were Jn addition to their other duties. In addition there was
provided, as still is, an Assistant Coordinator of Civil
Defense. a position occupied by Mr. Marren E. Trent. The
Assistant Coordinator Is a title position in the City's Pay
and Classification Plan. Mith Mr. Thonas*s retirement, the
Coordinator position became vacant and Mr. Trent has continued
as Assistant Coordinator.
I am of the opinion that it would be desirablo to extublish
the position of Coordinator of Civil Defense within the P3y and
Classification Plan and to substitute that for an Assistant Coor-
dinator, which position could be eliminated.
I should like to appoint Mr. Trent to the Coordinator's
position, recognizing that he has most capably fulfilled his
responsibilities in handlin9 our Roanoke Civil Defense orgaaj-
ration and that he operates within the City government a ciuil
defense unit that easily equals and perhaps surposses uny others
in the State as to effectiveness, organization and responsive
capability.
If the City Council would have no objection, I wish to
mending their approval of a new job description and position
title within the City°s Classification Plan and Jf the Board
to this position, advising Council thereof, and Simultaneously
recommending the postion be upgraded from Range 21 in the City*s
Pay Plan to Range 22.
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
!!measure amending the Pay Plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Zhomas and unanimously
iadopted.
il MARKET-TRAFFIC-PLANNING: The City Manager submitted a written report
~:in connection with u public parking facility in the downtown area, advising that
National Garages anticipate~ that ti will be able to complete its Phase II report
upon receipt of the site su.vey and other engineering data nhich has been developedi!
and put together by the Engineering Department and that the city should have said
report by about May 17 or 16.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted..
BUBGET: The City Manager submitted the folloming report in connection
with the proposed 1972-73 budget, advising that it mould appear that the budget
be formalized and submitted to Council on or about the third meeting in May, and
~;ransmitting certain information for anticipated consideration by Council:
393
39.4
'May 8, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen: · -
' SubJect: 4972-73 Budget
Recognizlhg the obligations of dates for submission of a
proposed budget for the coming fiscal year to the City Council,
I would advise you of the foil,ming and invite your understand-
lng. Hecanse of a variety of matters of diversity of attention,
it has been difficult to concentrate as fully upon the prepara-
tion of your budget as I hod certainly anticipated and had fa-
deed hoped back about tug months or so previously. It would
now appear that this budget can be formalized and submitted
to you on or about your third meeting in this month of Ray.
In connection with the budget I might indicate the follow-
lng to you for your advance anticipation of the situation. As
of this writing there is a differential of approximately
$5,200,000 between the total proposed expenditures, including
the schools, for the coming year over the anticipated available
revenues. This figure includes $2,000.000 for repayment of that
total an,nat in temporary loans which were authorized during
this past year to cover requirements for operating expenses and
supplemental budget appropriations. If this $2,000.000 can be
otherwise handled, either by payment prior tothe fiscal year
or by continuation as a temporary loan through the coming
fiscal year, then the net amount of difference which will
have to be made up by budget reductions or by additional revenue,
or a combination of both. would be $3.200,00.
It should be noted that the above figure does not include
funds for significant capital outlay projects.
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.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: The City Manager sub-
mitred the following report recommending adoption of an Ordinance authorizing
execution of an agreement with Sowers, Rodes and Whitescarver, in connection with
appropriate plans and specifications for renovation of the Former Reid and Cutshall'l
Building for use by the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and the Police Depart~
ment:
"May 8. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Third Street Municipal Building Annes
It will be recalled the City Council has previously con-
sidered and authorized the renovation of the former Reid and
Cutshall Building on Third Street for use by the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court and the City'sPolice Department.
Consultants have been proceeding with conferences with the
affected departments and preparation of appropriate plans and
specifications. Administratively, me have been negotiating a
formal contract with the consultants, Sowers, Rodes and White-
scarver, for this work. An agreement is now available whereby
a fee of 7~ percent of the actual construction cost would be the
basis of their furnishing the required engineering and archiT
tectural services. It whonld be noted that this is less than
work, Additionally, the City will receive credit for monies
already paid to the consultant for preliminary moth already
accomplished.
It is recommended that City Council authorize by appro-
he mill have an appropriate ordinance prepared for'this purpose.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
~ager and offered the follomin9 emergency Ordinance:
(u20259) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the employment of the professional
!and providin9 for au emergency.
Webber ......................... ?.
i!.~eague of the annual meetin9 of the Urban Section of the League on May 19 in Richmond,
Virginia.
secouded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopied.
395
:396 ,
SALE OF PROPERTY-STREETS AND ALLEYS: The Assistant City Attorney sub-
mitted the folloming report in connection with the conveyance to the City of Roonok
of a triangular shaped parcel of land located on Salem Turnpike. N. Mo. for street
improvement by the Reverend John J. Russell. Bishop of the Rooma Catholic Diocese
of Richmond:
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Mr. William F. Clark~ while Director of Public Works, had various
communications with a representative of the owner, of a triangular
shaped parcel of land on the south side of Salem Turnpike. N.
adjacent to its intersection with Westuood Boulevard. N, W,. Be
indicated that in order to improve sight conditions at this
location, it would be beneficial for the City to acquire this
small psrcel of land. The owner, the Most Reverend John J.
Russell. Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese of the City of
Richmond. has since tendered to the City a deed by which would
be conveyed to the City n triangular shaped parcel of land
containing IS.246 square feet. situate at the above location.
I have prepared and transmit heremith for Council*s adoption.
an ordinance by which Council would authorize the acquisition
of the sbovementioned parcel of land. for a nominal considera-
tion of ten dollars and would express its official appreciation
to the owner for the donation of this parcel of land to the City.
Respectfully,
S/ Edmard ~ Nutt
Edmard A, Natt
Assistant City Attorney#
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur lathe report of the Assistant
City Attorney and offered the following emergency. Ordinance:
(~202b0) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the acquisition of
a triangular shaped parcel of land, approximately 680.70 feet in length situate
on the southerly side of Salem Turnpike, N. W., adjacent to its intersection with
Mestwood 8oulevard. N. M., upon certain terms and conditions, for street purposes;
expressing to the City's donor of said land official appreciation of such oct;
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 407°)
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, #heeler and Mayor
Webber ............. 7. . .
NAYS: None ........ O.
SALE OF PROPERTY-ZONING-STATE BIGHNAYS'INDUSTRIES: The Assistant City
IAttorney submitted a written report advising that the city has acquired ail nec-
essory rights of may for the Industrial Access Road, that the city is now in o po~i
tion to take the necessary steps in order to commence 'constructional said pro-
ject, that the City Engineer has informed him that all required utility easements
have been or are in the process of being made and will be completed prior to the
397
atart of actual construction and transmitting n Resolution which will inform the
Virginia Department of Highways of the aboveuentioned facts.
Hr. Llsk moved that Council concur In the report or the Assistant City
Attorney and offered the following Resolution:
(520261) A RESOLb'TION advising the Virginia Department of Highways that
ell necessary rights-of-may hare been acquired and all necessary utility adjust-
ments have been or are being made for the Industrial Access Road.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Hook aah. page 409.)
Mr. Lish moved the adoption of the Resolution. The nation wss seconded
by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, #heeler and Mayor
Webber ................... ?,
NAYS: None ......... -0.
STREEYS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning Commis~
sion for study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. John E. Millett, that
a certain alley or roadway beginning at a point on the north side of Orange Avenue
approximately 316 feet west of the intersection of Orange Avenue and Conrtland
Road and extending in a northwesterly direction approximately 234 feet to Carver
Avenue, N. ~., and being approximately 18 feet wide be vacated, discontinued and
closed, the ClLy Planning Commission submitted o written report recommending that
a public hearing be held on the request at 2 p.m., Monday, June S, 1972. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning Commis-
sion and the City Manager for study, report and recommendation the request of
Mr. James L. Cross, Jr., President, Cross Electric Company, Incorporated, for the
permanent closing and abandonment Of a portion of Roanoke County Road No. 1850,
also known as old Route 117, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
*May 4, 1972
The Honorable Roy L, Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Yhe above cited request was considered by the CitI Plan-
ning Commission at ~s regular meeting of May 3, 1972.
Mr. James L. Cross, appeared before the Planning Commission
and presented photographs to them depicting the nature of the
area and specifically that portion of Roanoke County Road No.
1858 (old Route 117) he is requesting to be ~losed. He noted
that both his company, Cross Electric Company, and a portion of
the City's airport property front on this portion of the peti-
tioned for street closure.
Additionally, he'pointed out this portion of the road being
petitioned for closure is presently barricaded from Route 117
(Peter.Creek Road) and, therefore, closing it will not present
anyadditional access problems; also, its closure will not
adversely'affect access to the airport; and, finally, that a
major reason he is requesting closure of this portion of the
roadway Is that much garbage has been dumped on this street.
'398
The Planning Commission members ~n~relly agreed t~et the
closure of thi~ portion or the rondusy could not prese~nny
access problems nor bare nn adverse environmental Impact on the
Accordingly, motion wes made. duly seconded nnd unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed E. Lemon, Jr.
Mr. Thomas moved.that a public hearing be held on the request at
Monday, June S. 1972. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Wheeler end unanimously
adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: None.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAINS: None.
INTRODUCTION.AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
WATER DEPARTMENT: Ordinance No. 20239, accepting the offer of C. B.
Harris for the purchase of certain timber standing on and near tbs Bearer Dam and
Falling Creek Watersheds, having previously been before Council for its first read-
ling, read and laid over, was again before the body. Mr. Thomas offering the following
!for its second reading and final adoption:
(z20239) AN ORDINANCE accepting the offer of C. B. Harris for the pur-
chase of certain timber standing on and near the Bearer Dam and Failing Creek
IWatersheds; and rejecting certain other bids.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book c36, page
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance· The notion was Seconded
l, by Mr. Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
I; AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber
{ NAYS: None O.
~ MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
I GARBAGE REMOVAL-WATER DEPARTMENT: Mr. C. B. Wood, 1920 Riverdale Road,
,iS* E., appeared before Council and requested that Council have the debris removed
~rom the banks of the Roanoke River in the Riverdale section of the City of Roanoke
Mr. Garland moved that the City Manager beinstructed to have city crams
remove the debris from the banks of the RoanokeRiver in the Riverdale section.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
CODNCiL: Mr. Thomas moved that Council meet in Executive Session to discuis
n personnel matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
COUNCILLJAIL: Mr. Llsk and Mr. Thomas called to the attention of Council
n communication from the Roanoke Jaycees advising of a Jail Benefit Dance at "The
lings Inn* on Wednesday night, Nay 10, 1972, advising that all money received at the
door will he turned over to the Jail Investigation Committee and will go towards
furnishing black and mhite television sets for inmates at the city Jail and that
if any funds are left over, they mill go into sprucing up u somewhat inadequate
library, Mr. Lisk and Mr. Thomas urging everyone who possibly can to ettent this
benefit dance.
BUDGET-TAXES: Mr. Trout presented the following prepared statement mak-
Ing certain recommendations in connection with tax exemption for persons 6S years
of age or older:
MOTION
I move that the City Auditor, Commissioner of Revenue and the
City Attorney be appointed a Committee to consider and draft
an ordinance which would provide for complete exemption from
taxation of Real Estate owned by and occupied as the sole dwelling
of a person or persons of 65 years of age or older, within the
framework of Sec. 58,761 of the Code of Virginia, with the
folloming limitations:
1. Persons with income less than $2,000 per year to be fully
exempt.
2. Persons with income of from $2,000 to $3,000 would he
subject to ~ of the normal real estate tax.
3. Persons with income from $3,000 to $4,000 would be subject
to 70% of the normal tax.
4. Persons with income from $4,000 to $5,000 would pay
of the normal real estate tax.
5. If legally permissible, the amount of the real estate tax
on all such persons mould be frozen at the amount of the
1972 tax assessible on the property.
6. The effective date of the exemption to be January 1, 1973.
S! James O. Trout
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendations contained in
his statement.
The motion died for lack of a second.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the recommendations be referred to 1972-73
budget Study and to a committee composed of the City Auditor, the Commissioner of
the Revenue and the City Attorney for study. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout
~and unanimously adopted.
There being ua further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
iDeputy City Clerk Mayor
399
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, May 15, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanohe met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, May 15, 1972, at 2 p.m** the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David R. Lish, Noel C. Taylor,
James O. Trout, Vincent S. Wheeler and Mayor Roy L. Webber ...........
ABSENT: Councilman Hampton M. Thomas 1.
OFFICERS pRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. William
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A.
Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend John
O. Atkins, Pastor, Belmont Christian Church.
MINt~fES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
April 10, 1972, the regular meeting held on Monday, April 17, 1972. and the regular
meeting held on Monday, April 24, 1972, having been furnished each member of
Council, on motion of Mr. Trout, seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted, the
reading thereof Was dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded. HEARING OF C~TIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
HEALTH DEPARTMENT-GARBARGE REMOVAL: Mr. A. Baron Smith, Presidnet,
Voters League, appeared before Council with regard to an Ordinance which
twas adopted by Council pertaining to the clearing of vacant lots of weeds and other
!~debrJs, and verbally reported that absentee owners of property
are unable to obtain the services of anyone to keep their property in adequate
condition so as to be in compliance with the Ordinance adopted by Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
necessary handling. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that $162,902.4g be appropriated to Section nDlO00, "Schools
P. L. DR-lO, Summer 1972,# of the 1971-72 budget, advising that 100~ of the expen-
diture of this project will be reimbursed from Title I - P. L. fig-lO funds, was
!before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Bo~ d and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n20262) AN ORDINANCE to amend end reordatn Section nOlO00, "Schools -
Title I - P. L. DB-lO. Summer 1972,* of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book ~36, page 414.)
~ Nv. Llsk iove~ the adopt/on of the Ordinance. The lotion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: #essrs. Garland. LJsk. Taylor. Trout. Nheeler and Mayor Webber--6.
NAYS: None, 1.
(Hr. Thomas absent) ·
STREETS AND ALLEYS: A communication from Miss Sheila Eelley, registering
an avid complaint against the closing of any more roads, advising thai'roadways
are built for the use or the public, not Var the private use of residents and the
idea of barricading a street to prohibit traffic is absurd, was before Council.
Mr. Trout loved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
~was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
BIRDGES: A communication from Mrs. Lillie F. Atkinson, Eresideot, Nild-
iwood Civic League, requesting that Council check into the possibility Of getting a
!low water bridge across Tinker Creek from Rhodes Avenue, N. E. to connect with
:Eastern Avenue. N. E.. mas before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for study.
?aport and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and
iunanimomly adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-COMMONNEALTH'S ATZORNE¥: Copy of a communication
from the State Compensation Board addressed to Mr. Richard Lee Lawrence, Common- -
iwealth*s Attorney, in reference to his March, 1972, expense voucher, mas before
!Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
ilwas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE: Copy of a commuut-
!cation from the State Compensation Board, addressed to Mr. Jerome S. Howard, Jr.,
!'Commissioner of the Revenue, in reference to his March, lg72, expense voucher, was
ibefore Council.
Mr. LIsk moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
i~was seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted. ·
JAIL: Copy of a communication from Mr. R. P. Mason, Jails Superintendent,
iDepartment of Welfare and Institutions, in connection with an inspection of the city!
~jail on April 26, 1972, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
DEPOSITORIES: A communication from Mr. Paul C. Buford, Jr., Marketing
Officer, United Virginia Bank/Security National, advising that in lieu of action
ltakenby Council to continue a committee composed of Messrs. A. N. Gibson, Chairman,!i
amesi N. Kincanon and J. fl. Johnson to study the provisions cf Chapter 3. Public
Depositories, of Title V, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, he
~ould like to request that Council include in its recommendations for study and pro=!
~osed changes, Chapter 3 as it pertains to the rate of per cent of the revenues of
~he city on deposit with the various designated bank depositaries, was before Caul-
'402
Hr. Garland moved that the communication be referred to the committee
composed gl Messrs. A. N. Gibson, Chairman. James N. KJncanon and J. H. Johnson
for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion mas seconded by Hr.
Trout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: The following communication from Hr. H. P. Cbittum, trunsmittin
certain problems he bas encountered since his property located et 2417 Hrombleton
~Avenue, S. #., was rezoned to RD, Duplex Residential District:
2417 Dranbleton Avenue.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
May H, 1972
Mr. Hampton Thomas '
Mr. Hob Garland
Rr. Roy Nebber
Mr. James Trout
Rr. Noel Taylor
Mr. Vincent Wheele~
Mr. David Lisk:
Dear Sirs:
I would like for you to explain hum you rezoned by property
consistin9 of Lot 19 and half of Lot 18 at 2417 Brambleton Avenue,
SM, Roanoke, Virginia, where I built my home over sixteen years
ago. The zoning was changed from residential to duplex without
my hnomledge or consent, and also Lot 17 joining my property.
This all came to light the first of October, 1971, when Mr. R.
A. Neff appeared on Lots 17, 16 ~ 15 mitb a bulldozer preparing
to start construction on three duplexes. I then called the Plan-
ning Commission and was informed that ir. Neff and his lawyer,
Mr. Barry Lichtenstein and the members Of Roanoke City Council had
approved this rezonlng. I confronted Mr. Naif of my findings
and he seemed very sorr~ and upologitic and wanted to at once
right this wrong. He promised (letter enclosed) if I mooldn*t
move to have the rezonin9 set aside and if I would help him
rezone his remanin9 two lots (15~16) he in return would construct
me a driveway, curb, gutter and concrete apron and reshape my
lawn with top soil. All of this I did for him and I went to my
neighbors who were involved, asked ~m not to contest the zoinings.
He in turn completely defaced my property by dumping tons of rock
and mud in my front and side yard around the middle of October,
1971, and it remained in this condition until one week ago (May 1,
1972). I called Mr. Neff about 10 days before the ninety days
were up on the contract which he gave me. He then told me he
would keep his promise at once. Nothing happened. On or about
the first of February, 1972, I learned that Mr. Neff had sold
Lots 15, 16 and'IT, to three lawyers, King, Fulghum ~ Renick.
Mr. Fulghum said they purchased the property from Mr. Neff in
December, 1971, but had discussed the sale in October. Mr. Neff
said 'no* to a sale at this tine because he had to get the zonings
fixed first. I then retained a lawyer to inform me of my rights.
He informed me that Mr. Naff had used me for his own enrichment
and of February IH, 1972, my lawyer wrote Mr. Neff asking his
intentions concerning this matter. He.never even showed
courtesy enough to ~nsmer this letter. After three weeks my
lawyer went to see Mr. Neff, at which time he said he had
plenty of money and would not be held up and would take the
lots back, if necessary.
I then instructed my lawyer to 9et an injunction to stop
all construction and to take all legal action to have the zonings
set as~ie. Hr. Fulghum and his partners then met with my attorney
and agreed to pay me $300f00 to appease me to stop this action.
Also, at this time, M~ Neff again agreed to fulfill his part of
the bargain.
As of this writing, Hr. Fulghum and his partners have r~neged
on the $300.00 and Mr. Neff has again taken the *do-nothing'
stand. I have had to hire a bulldozer at my expense and buy five
loads of top soil so that I can have a decent yard again. I have
once again learned that this seems typical of a lot of lawyers
and real estate men. They promise you the sun and moon until
they have gotten out of you what they needed; then they forget
all promises, even those in written contracts.
I feel that If you, Members of City Councilo hsd fulfilled
your duties to me ns a toxpayer and · citizen of Roanoke, this
situation could have never happened. I feel that it is your
responsibility to talk to Mr. Naif and Mr. Fulgbum to see that
they carry out their promises to we. If City Council refuses
to help nee I will have only one last resort and that will be
thru the Courts and I wlll'call rot a full lnvestJgntion thru
the Local Papers. This, l-~a-'i~', will prove most enbarassing
for all concerned.
I cannot understand how you continue to let such operators
continue to maintain a license and continue to fleece the people
of Roanoke. who are the ones who keep ~ in Office.
Sincerely yours.
S/ H. P. Chittom
H. P. CHITTU~"
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to the City Attorney
for study and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Rt. Lisk and unanimous~
ly adopted,
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Jack B. Coulter, Attorney. representing
Mr. Price H. Hurst. Jr., requesting that property located at 2502 Berkley Avenue,
S. M.. described as Lot 1, Section 4, Block 6. Virginia Heights Map, Official Tax
No, 1430901, 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
was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-DEPARTmENT OF BUILDINGS: The City manager submitted n written
ireport recommending that $600.00 be transferred from Personal Services to Extra
!iHelp under Section ~48. "Department of Buildings" of the lC?l-?2 budget, to provide
~funds for needed temporary clerical help in the Building Commissioner's office.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
ilManager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n20263) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~48, "Department of
[iUuildings," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book z26, page 414.)
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, Wheeler and Mayor Webber---6
NAYS: None
(Rt. Thomas absent)
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $19,076.00 be appropriated to Insurance under Section ~77, "Civic
Center," of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds for insurance coverage for the
iRoanokn Civic Center.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
404
(n20264) AN ORDINANCE to emend and reordnln Bection n??, WCivic Center,'
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinnnce, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boor u36, page 415.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion wac seconded
by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Link, Taylor, Trout° Mheeler and Mayor Mebber--6
NAYB: None
(Mr. Thomas absent)
At this point, Mr. Thomas entered the meeting.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City Manager submitted a writ-
ten report recommending that $2,000.00 be transferred from Child Melare Services -
Day Care to Day Care - Not Mia under Section z37, *Public Assistance," of the 1971-!
72 budget, to provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year and advising
that both these categories are ten per cent local money and ninety per cent state
reimbursable.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(m20265) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #37, "Public Assis-
tance** of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook n36, page 415.)
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Mebber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None ............O.
{n this conuection, the Cit! Auditor submitted a monthly state of expendi~
tures for public welfare for the month ended April 30, 1972.
Dr. Taylor moved that the statement be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by NF. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report
advising that the city's vehicle impoundment lot located on Underhill Avenue, S. E.~
is full to capacity, that the limited area at the City Garage for temporary storage
is also full leaving no available space for storing impounded vehicles, that since
all available city storage space is full it is deemed necessary that the city sell,
at public auction, vehicles presently impounded and recommending that $500.00 be
appropriated in order that he might proceed to advertise and sell these impounded
vehicles.
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the recommendation Of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(m20266) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section {45, "Police Depart-
ment," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n36, page diG.)
Hr, Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted b7 the following vole:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Nheeler and Mayor
~¥ebber .......................... ?.
NAYS: None O.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC NELFARE: The City Manager submitted a writ-
Item recommending t~a't the City of Roanoke eater into agreement with Gibson
report
iMelding Company, Incorporated, and Mr. John T. Morgan for leasing properties to
ithe west Of the surplus commodity food center and to the rear of the commodities
center, said property to be needed for vehicular circulation around the building
and that $340.00 be transferred or appropriated for payment of said lease agree-
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency 0rdinance appropriating $340.00 to
Rentals under Section #40, "Food Distribution," of the 1971-72 budget:
(#20267) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~40, *Food Distribu-
tion," of the 1971o72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 417.)
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
Mebber ........................
NAYS: None .......... O.
Mr. Trout then offered the followin9 emergency Ordinance authorizing and
providing for lease by the City of Roanoke from Gibson Welding Company, Incorporat-
ed, and John T. Morgan of properties located adjacent to the surplus commodities
center at 534 Salem Avenue, S.
(~20260)' AN ORDINANCE authorizin9 and providing for lease by the City
of properties located adjacent to the City's surplus commodities food center at
534 Salem Avenue, 5~ W.. in the City of Roanoke, from the owners of said properties~
to be used for parking and to facilitate the movement of vehicular traffic at the
surplus commodities food center; upon certain terms and conditions; and providing
for on emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 417.)
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
~ STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having previously set a public hearing for
I 2 p.m.. Monday. June 5, 1972, on the request of Cross Electric Company, Incorporat-~
iied. that the City of Roanoke permanently close and abandon a portion of
Ii
County Road No. 1858 also known us old oute 117, t e ity g r u '
406
following report-recommending ~h~t the section of the roaduay not be closed and
abandoned=
"May 15, 1912
Honorable Mayov and City Council
aoanokeo Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Request to Close Portion of County Road Ho. 1859
The City Council has before it a request of Cross Electric
Company, Inc., that the City concur' Jo the permanent closing and
abandonment of a portiond Roanohe County Road No. 1859, uhich
roadway previously served as old Route 117. The council also
has received a communication at your meeting On Hay 8 from the
-City Planning Commission recommending the granting of this
request.
This is written to advise the City Council of the recommen-
dation of this office that this section of roadway not be closed
and abandoned.
· . The City owns approximately 575 acres of land in its Airport
property. In acreage of this size' and of the extent of use and
development as characterizes an airport, it is considered desir-
able that there be held or retainedin'every extent possible
public right of way along the outer perimeter of the property.
This would apply mhether or not theright of way is in active
use. This woaldalso apply, it is believed, whether or not there
might be an apparent need for the right of way within the immediate
future.
The reasoning of Cross Electric Company is certainly under-
stood and I feel that they are logical in their approach and
reasoning insofar as their firm is concerned and as to the pre-
sent lack of use of th~ roadway and its condition. However, from
the standpoint of the airport, I would recommend to Council
that it would be desirable to retain this strip which is approxi-
mately 800 feet in length as a portion of a public right of way
boundary of the north side of the Airport.
As a further point the northeast section of the Airport
property is still open to determination as to w~at may be its
future and fullest use. As one possibility it may simply be
continued as l~ now is as open space for the Airport area. As
another possibility it may be susceptible in the f~ture to
specific development in connection mith the Airport. As a
third possibility, it may be determined to be worthwhile in
development for other purposes. In either of the above three
circumstances such a right of way bounding the property should
be retained as a right of way strip.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
in this connection, the City Attorney submitted the following report
advising that it would appear to be the burden of Cross Electric'Company, Incor-
porated, to initiate required road closing procedures before the proper county
authorities and suggesting that Council give clarification to the City Clerk
regarding present scheduling of a public hearing before Council on June 5, 197~:
"May 15, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Cross Electric Company. Inc., on March 27,' 1972, addressed to
the City, through the City Clerk, a proposal for the permanent
closing and abandonment of approximately 568 feet of State
407
Secondary Route 1858 (Old Route 117) in Roenohe CourtLy, os it
abuts a northerly portion of the ~unicipal Airport property.
It mas stated that the portion of'the road referred to hsd been
closed to trefftc by barricades placed by the State Highway
Department at points indicated on the map attached to the uppli- ·
cant*s request.
The Council, having referred the proposal to the City Planning
Commission and to the City Manager for study, report end recom-
mendation and the Council having received, et its meeting on
May 8, 1972, the Planning Commisnlon*s recommendation that the
Council grant the request to close the road, set the matter for
public hearing to be held before the Council on June S, 1972, which
action would normally carry with it direction that the City Cloth
or others cause notice of the public hearing to be published in
a neuspaper, I have recommended to the City Clerk that publica-
tion of the usual notice of public hearing before the City Coun-
cil be dnferred until the matter is further clarified.
As is above stated and as set Out in the initial communication to
the Clerk. the road proposed to be closed and abandoned lies in
Roaeohe County. Formal procedure to close the road, or a portion
of it, should it not alreayd have been effectively closed and
vacated by the barricades mentioned in the letter of the appli-
cant, should and must be processed in Roanohe County. and not
before the City Cnuncil; although the City of Roanohe, as an
abutting owner on the road, would, of course, have standing the
right to appear and assent to or oppose the closing of the road
in such procedure brought in the County.
It would appear, therefore, that a public bearing on the pro-
posal need not be held before the City Council unless.' for some
reason, the Council desires to take the sense of other abutting
property owners along the County road or of the public, in general.
with respect to the proposed closing. Instead, it would appear
to be the burden of the applicant for the road closing, namely,
Cross Electric Company, Inc., to initiate required road-cloning
procedures before the proper County authorities. In such case.
the Council might, if it so desires, indicate in some formal
way, such as a resolution, the City's position with respect to
the proposed closing, although prior action by the City Council
is not required as a prerequisite to the applicant's initiation
of the abovementioned procedures.
I would suggest, therefore, that some clarification of the -
Council'~ desire in the matter be 9ivan the City Clerk and
Cross Electric Company, Inc., regarding present scheduling of
a public hearing before the Council on June $,
Respectfully,
S! J. N. Eincanon
J. N. Kincanon'
After a discussion of the reports~ Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be
!tabled. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimo~ly adopted.
i! INDUStRIES-APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY: Council having referred to the
iCity Manager for study, report and recommendation a communication from Mr. D. C.
i!Kennedy, Division Manager, Appalachian Power Company, requesting application of
iilndustrial Access Funds for construction Of an access road from Ninth Street, S. E.,
l~to their east p~operty line in connection with the proposed Roanoke Division Service
i,C~nter, the City Manager submitted the following report transmitting a Resolution
lirecommending and urging the initiation of a project to provide industrial access
tfrom 9th Street, S. E., to a new division service center Of Appalachian Pomer Com-
pony located in the Roanoke Industrial C~nter, for the
provision
furnishing
necessary right of way therefor and for the adjustment of utilities and requesting
provision of a 30-foot wide pavement and assuring the city*s future maintenance of
said new street:
~408
#May 15, 1972
Hoaoroble Mayor nod City Cooocil
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: l~dustirol Access Road - Appalachian Pomer Company
The City Council ulll recall that it has received a request
from the Appalachian Pomer Company for Industrial access funds
for the construction of an access road to their proposed new
Roanoke Division Service Center which will be in the,uestern
portion'of the Roanohe Industrial Center property. The Industrial
Access Road will connect to the west aide of Ninth Street ns Jt i
extends southward from the new Ninth Street Bridge.
As thb City Council will further recall, industrial access
projects.within municipalities are handled on the same basis by
'way of design as are those within the counties with specific
reference to a 24-foot pavement and no curb and gutter. It is
considered especially desirable within the municipalities to
construct a 30-foot pavement both for adequacy in traffic move-
ment'and also as a standard for inclusion within urban highway
fund allocations. It Js also desirable to provide curb and 9utter
wherein possible.
The length of this particualv road will be approximately 500
feet, Ail necessary data has been obtained and has been or
will be transmitted to the Hiqhmay Department as the schedule ~
provides.
Representatives of the City have met with Hr. H. C. Eenoedyo
Division #anager of Appalachian'PoweF Company, who has expressed
an interest verbally nod by letter in participating in the addi-
tional cost of roadmay width and curb'and gutter and who has
further advised that they are attempting to obtain a letter of
intent from the' Roanohe Industrial Center with respect to their
furnishing of the necessary Tight of way. The specific deter-
mination of how much the pomer company and/or others will bear
the cost of additional roadway width and curb and gutter has not
yet been fulIy arrived at.
However, the Highway Commission's policy requires that before
they give consideration to a request for an industrial access
project, the CitI Council most submit a resolution expressing the
Council's recommendation for the pr'eject. A resolution includes
a guarantee' as to the dedication of the right of way and an adjust-
ment of utilities at no cost to the State. The resolution further
must provide information as to the source of funds to acquire
the right of way and to adjust the ~ilitles and to the source of
funds for any additional pavement width or other improvements which
might be desired.
Accordingly and in order to enable this project to proceed,
the City Attorney has prepared a resolution which is submitted
with this Agenda and which it is recommended for approval. This
resolution carries out the above intent as to the scope of the
project.
Very rough estimates of the cost of this project put it at
under $20.000 with the extra pavement width and curb and gutter
bein9 approximately $8,000 of this amount. It is anticipated that
IDECO will dedicate the necessary Fight of way at no cost.
Utility adjustments will be minor and will consist primarily of
ad~stin9 manholes to the grade of the new roadway.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. HJrst
City Manager' .
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Hanager
and offered the following Resolution:
(#20269) A RESOLUTION recommending and urging the initiation of a pro-
ject to provide industrial access from 9th Street, S. £., to a new division service
setting out the need therefor; making provision for furnishing the necessary right-
of-way therefore and for the adjustment of utilities; requesting provision of a
30-foot mide pavement; and assuring the City*s future maintance of said hem street.i
(For full text of Mesolution. see Ordinance Book a36. page 419.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Mesolution. The motion mas seconded!
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the f,Il,wing vote:
AYES: Mensrs. Garland. Link. Taylor. Thomas. Trout'. Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ......................... T.
NAYS: None ........... O.
S~REET LIBHTS-SIGNS-TRAFFIC: Council havln9 referred to the City Manager
for study, report and recommendation a communication from Mrs. Betty McGeorge,
Chairman, Loudon Parent Organization, transmitting copy of a petition signed by
164 Loudon Day Care Center parents, requestln9 that a traffic light be installed
at the corner of 7th Street and Shenandoah Avenue, N, M,, that the ?00 block of
Shenandoah Avenue, N. M., have signs stating ten to twenty minute parking and that
the pedestrian walkway he painted, the City Manager submitted the following report:
~May 15, 1972
Monorably Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Request for Traffic Signal and Other Improvements -
Shenandoah Avenue and Seventh Street. N. W.
On Monday, April 3, City Council received a request from
the London Parent Organization concerning the need for n traf-
fic signal at Shenandoah Avenue and Seventh Street, N.
along with other parking signs and pavement markings in the
vicinity of the TAP Day Care Center on Shenandoah Avenue.
You referred this request to my office.for study, report
and recommendation.
On Thursday, April 20, 1972, our Traffic Engineering
Division performed a 12-hour lntersectional movement count
and a 12-hour pedestrian count at the Subject intersection.
As you hnom, the City follows the uniform code of traffic con-
trol devices udopted by the state and federal governments for
the purpose of establishing certain criteria on mhich to judge
the need for various sign and signal installations. It would
be well to mention that the principal benefit of traffic
signals is to give right of way at an intersection rather
than as a means of controlling speeding. The Police Bepart-
ment has been directed to increase surveillance in this area,
particularly during the hours of day care center operations,
since excessive vehicular speed is reportedly n problem at
this location.
On Shenandoah Avenue there are in existence school flashers
with 15=mile per hour designation, *School* signs and a
pedestrian cross malk. Additionally a school crossing guard
is provided by TAP during the hours when children are going
to and from the day care center. On the basis of our study,
me have not found the need to exist at this time for a full
traffic signal installation. According to police records
there have been 0nly two reported accidents at this location
during the past 15 months and these mere relatively minor
property damage only,
The Parents Orgnnizoilon also requested n chsnge in the
psrhing designation adjacent to the doy care center. There
will be installed signs indicating *lO-minute passenger load-
iago 6 a.m. to 6 p.u** rather than the *No Parhing* signs
mhich non exist, litbin the next month the pedestrian cross-
walh will be repainted as part of regular pavement msrhing
program. It is necessary that the weather be sufficiently
warm for this program to he carried out.
If there are further questions concerning our investi-
gation and recommendations, we would be pleased to discuss
them with Council.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. WOrst
Julian F. HOrst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
RUDCET-SE~ERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having referred to the City
Manager for study, report and recommendation the request Of Ur. D. M. Porterfield
that the City of Roanoke provide a storm drain installation through property owned
by Porterfield Distributing Company, west of £ighth Street, S. N., the City Manager
submitted the following report advising that in an attempt to remain consistent
with recent, past and present policies and with requirements imposed upon others,
it is recommended that this proposed storm drain installation be rightfully a
responsibility of the property owner in connection with this developeent:
"May 15, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Porterfield Distributing Company, Incorporated
On Monday, May 1, City Council received a request from
Mr. B. ~. Porterfield that the City of Roanohe provide a
storm drain installation through property owned by Porterfield
Distributing Company, west of Eighth Street, S. 4. This
matter was referred to the City Manager*s office for study,
report and recommendation.
The property in question is presently undeveloped and Has
in the natural low for drainage through the area. The natural
watershed contains approximately 47 acres and lies generally
between Masena Avenue and Uamilton Avenue, westerly to beyond
Rriqhton Road. There are a few small areas of enclosed storm
drainage but the majority of the watershed drains naturally.
Our engineering computations for required pipe sizes and cost
estimate to enclose the drainage through this block are not
significantly at variance with the figures submitted by Mr.
Porterfield. Our estin~ee of the cost to extend a storm
drain pipe through the Porterfield property is approximately
$8,500. To enclose the system through the remainder of the
block to.conned with the existing storm drain system located
on Main Street would cost an estimated $8,500 additional.
Administratively, we have been*discussing this subject
with Mr. Porterfield as far back as July, 1971. According
to records, the-City did install a portion of storm drain
through Porterfield property east of nth Street. This though
was in 1950 and prior to many of the City's ordinances for
zoning and development which now exist. Under present regu-
lations and policies, the completion of such storm drain im-
provements are considered part of development expense and for
this reason, we have previously informed Ur. Porterfield that
this storm drain installation would be his responsibility.
#h~le Hr. Porterfield makes reference to estimations
that the City mould soon recover its investment in this
storm drain installation through increased property and busi-
ness license taxes, such could be said or nearly ail con-
mercial development within the City. A precedent in this
instance for City participation in property development
could require significant expenditures in upcoming budgets
and would conflict with established procedures and ordi-
nances. Furthermore, we would offer the suggestion that
there are already existing developaents with storm drain
problems which carry priority for iaprovement', some of
which from time to time are brought to the attention of
Council.
We would highly encourage the development proposed
by Mr. Porterfield and believe it would be an asset to ~e
community and to the neighborhood. Nevertheless, in an
attempt to remain consistent with recent-past and present
policies and mith requirements imposed upon others, it is
recommended shat this proposed storm drain installation
be rightfully a responsibility of the property owner in
connection with his development.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
In this connection, Mr. T. C. Porterfield appeared before Council and
read the following communication in connection with the matter, advising that in
the original communication to Council under date of April 24, 1972, the figure as
set forth was considerably higher than the cost will be and transmitting copy of
a proposal from Draper Construction Company, agreeing to furnish and install the
required 42* csncrete pipe through the property for $2,925.00 and again soliciting
the support of Council in authorizing this project:
"Ray 12, 1972
Amended May 15, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
It seems that our original advice on the cost of installing
a storm drain through our property, as set forth in our
letter to you on April 24, was considerably too high - ns
was the City Manager's estimate in bis letter to yon dated
May 15.
Enclosed is a copy of a proposal from the Draper Construc-
tion Co. to furnish and install the required 42* concrete
pipe through our property for $6,150.00.
You will also note in this propssnl in additional expenditure
of $8,700.00 is required to put this property in condition
for development. This amount plus the investment we presently
have in this property will bring our total investment to the
point where we probably will be lucky to come out in the
black on this enterprise.
As you gentlemen knowi warehouse property within the city
and particularly with no railroad siding simply does not
command premium prices. As a matter of fact, many busi-
nesses prefer to locate their warehouse outside the city.
We are not at all familiar with the various ordinances adopted
since lgSO and therefore, are in co position to question Mr.
Hirst*s opinion that the city is not legally responsible for
providing this drain. We do firmly believe, however, this
expenditure in this particular instance would be an excep-
tionally good investment for the city.
As Mr. Hirst's letter states the City in 1950 did recognize
it to be their responsibility to construct a drain across the
other side of this property and did so in order for it to
be developed. That certainly has proven to be an excellent
investment. Since lgSO it has produced well over $100,000.00
in revenue for the City. The following are figures for
Porterfield
Merchnnts License $3o9T0.81 $ ?
Personal Property 1,346,16
TOTAL $T,140.53 ?
ue again solicit your support ia authorizing this expendi-
ture of $6,150.00.
$/ T. C. Porterfield
T. C. Porterfield~
unanimously adopted,
~May 15, 1972
Roanoke, Virginia
to be available would require a sewer assessment project to
to be appropriately developed. '
4. There are numerous'locations throughout the City where such
concrete replacement would be appropriate.
$~ If the City were to embark upon a program of replacing o£ such
curbing and sidewalk ut the CJty*a full e~pense, this would
necessitate a sizable appropriation of funds in upcoming budgets.
6. Each year for the past several years in our budget preparation
we have considered setting monies aside for curb and gutter
replacement in an effort to approach a program, as some
established prograw is always the best method, but in last minute
budget deletions such un idea.has had to be eliminated because
or lact of funds,
7. Block replacements or reconstruction of short sections of curb
and gutter and sidewalk have been und are handled with City
forces under maintenance funds to rectify serious hazardous
conditions'or mhere there Is short section damage due to other
construction, due to trees or due to other factors.
Mhether an existing curb and 9utter or sidewalk was built
totally by the City in some past years or was built with pro-
perty owner participation, also in some past years, is possibly
not too significant to the point. It would appear that the
existence of curb and gutter would be the starting point and
any policy position mould apply from there on out.
Comments and reaction of the City Council are solicited to
offer some guidance position as to how you might feel with respect
tO the 9eneral matter and I invite your note of the above comments.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be referred to 1972=73 budget study. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-HEALTH DEPARTMEMT-GARBAGE REMOVAL: Council having referred to the
City Manager a report of the Citizens* Advisory Committee requesting that necessary
ifunds be appropriated for the clearing and cleaning of the Roanoke River in order
that this work might be started this year and further requesting that Ordinance No.
lgb40 be enforced by the Realth Department, the City Manager submitted the following
report transmitting a cost breakdomn in connection with the matter:
"May 15, 1972 '
Bonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Roanoke River
The Citizens* Advisory Committee and the Riverdale Civic
League have presented to the City Council a request that the
City proceed under the recently adopted ordinance to handle the
cleanup of properties along the Roanoke River. This gs we under-
stand it would be a mat~er of City forces working and maintain-
ing more areas along the river banks through the City of Roanoke.
This was referred to me. Then on April 19, 1972, the Citizens'
Advisory Committee again requested enforcement of the ordinance
and requested that City Council appropriate funds for the murk.
About three months agog the Department of Parks and Recrea-
tion had developed un estimate of $19,500 which would be required
to accomplish the cleanup work. Since then, we have further
reviewed the work involved and the distance that is proposed to
be handled and feel a revision necessary and a rearrangement
as to how the crews would be established. It is recognized that
the Department of Parks and Recreation provides routine maintenance
of the publicly owned grassed areas such as along Wiley Drive and.
Benntngton'Street, S. E. Me assume that the desire is to clear
and maintain other areas along the River, with first emphasis
devoted easterly from the Jefferson Street Bridge. In our
opinion this will be an ongoing program once started, ia order
to keep weeds and bruch from becoming re-established, and to
~ clean up the debris which accumulates alga9 the River banks
i following heavy st ..... -
~ ~e have concluded that a relatively small crew could be
~ kept busy full tlme at such an effort. During the heavy grow-
~ lng summer months these men could be
supplemented
by
trustees
from the City jail in cooperation with Sheriff Puckett's
program of keeping prisoners occupied. Our estimate of the
permanent employees and equipment necessary to establish this'
crew are as foil.ms:
I labor foreman
I equipment operator
I laborer II (truck driver)'
3 laborer I
sub-total, personnel
front-end loader
bucket
I 1/2 ton dump truck
brush hog mower
power sam, hand tools, etc.
sub-total,equipment
TOTAL
$6,000:00
5,160.00
4,680.00
12.096.00
$27,936.00
21,000.00
5,000.00
1,800.00
500.00
28.300.00
$56,236.00
This si submitted for such consideration the City Council
might wish to apply to the matter.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to 1972-73 budget study.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Wheeler and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mr. Mo Lo Merkel appeared before Council in support of
the request of the Citisens' Advisory Committee and urged that Council proceed with
this project immediately.
FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the following report recom-
mending the employment of Wells, Meagher ~ McManama as the architects for the main
fire station:
"May 15. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Main Fire Station
The selection of an architect for any project, pa[ticularly
when it is the City government making the selection, is an
extremely difficult one to make. We have many fine architectural
firms within the City of Roanoke almost any of w~om could quite
capably handle the various of our design projects. The result
is that the situation narrows down to the fact that in making a
selection is not a matter of saying that others are not acceptable
or that they cannot peri.mr such a commission but rather that
some cb.ice has to be made among many good firms and oftentimes
it is a situation of attempting to distribute in the best possible
may the work of the C~ty among the firm~.
In proceeding uith the project of the main fire station, it
ia felt that it is desirable at this point to engage an archi-
tectural firm and to bring one into the picture. Services of
such a firm can be of considerable benefit to the City in alternate
site studies and in preliminary projections of building requirements
in order to determine best adaptability of a necessary structure
to mhaterer site alternatives might be reviewed and to the site
ultimately selected.
I have written to each of the architectural firms in the City
advising them of my wish to proceed with this project. All but
one has expressed an interest in the work. The fee proposals are
generally comparable among all firms with mhat little variations
that might exist being of not too great u significance in affect-
ing the determination of a firm.
All factors considered s~d recognizing my above coauents, I
wish to recomuend to the City Council the employment of
Meagher ~ McManaua, Roanohe, as the architects for the main fire
station, I attach a copy or their letter of April 18, 19Y2,
expressing their interest in performing this commission.
It would be recommended that the City Attorney prepare the
appropriate instrument to enable the execution of a contract
which ue uould develop with that firm for these services.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recoumendation of the City Manager
and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the pro-
per measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lash and unanimously adopted.
CITY ENGIN££R: The City Manager submitted the following report recommend-
in9 that he be authorized to enter into contract with the firm of ¥osbech Vosbech
Kendrick Redinger for a detailed comprehensive study of the alternatives to the
development of the proposed service center along with architectural schematics for
the final master plan as agreed upon by all parties concerned, in the amount Of
$25,600.00 or work at 2.5 tines payroll costs, plus expenses, with a maximum of
the aforementioned figure:
"May 15. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. ¥irginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Service Center
Over what has been some period of time, we have been
endeavoring to determine the best approach to the development
of the recently acquired service center site. The result of
all of our considerations has been that the best initial
approach is that Of the development of a comprehensive master
plan and program for this center operation in relationship to
the many factors that are involved in the final decision.
These factors include an evaluation of the City*s public
works operation as well as those operations which conceivably
might be incorporated into the service center. This includes
the determination of the functions which should go into there,
the study of the degree to which the various functions would be
concentrated in the center, the best overall utilization of the
property and potential reorganization or restructuring of public
works and allied operations not only for the benefit Of the City
organization itself, but also for best use Of a service center
facility.
As we see it, the development of this center is more than
simply the arrangement of a certain number of bui.ldings and the
design of those buildings. It should go deeper, and this
opportunity should be taken advantage of. into public works
performance both as to the internal operation of the City as
well as service to the public and to the City area for which
we are responsible.
With this in mind it is felt that the development of this
center should be approached initially from an overall evaluation
standpoint, then on the basis of that information and a review
of conclusions reached, there would be proceeded with the actual
design of the facilities.
In selecting a firm to work with the City, ue have taken the
above into consideration and rather than going entirely to
architectural studies we have sought firms that te felt might
be in best position from staff and experience to satisfactorily
undertebe the e~aluntlons. This is recognizing that the City
of Roanoke bas never had a facility adequate for the cowplex
functions which will operate from this locution and we want to
be thorough in our advance planning. We would ash the firm to
analyze our present shortcouings os well as project future tan-
power end equipment needs in order to design a facility which
will serve' the City well for many years to come. ~ith our
operations spread throughout the City in various offices and
shops, many of them have of necessity become quite independent.
Undoubtedly there are numerous economies to be derived from the
proper interrelationships of functions and activities. In this
area, we believe that an experienced consultant, obviously with
our coordination and suggestions, can develop the best possible
plan.
~
· e are recommending that the firm of Vosbech Voshech Kendrich
Redlnger, with offices here in Roanoke, be employed for a plan-
ning study. This firm has experience in planning and program-
ming comprehensive facilities. Their proposed fee for this study
would be a lump sum contract of $25,600 or worh at 2.5 times pay-
roll costs, plus expenses with a maximum of aforementioned
figure. As we progress, if there are aspects of this study that
can he accomplished by City forces, such as topo surveys and
data gathering, the final cost can be reduced.
I attach a copy of the proposal of this firm. From this, as
is noted, the City will receive a detailed comprehensive study
of the alternatives to development of the proposed service center
along with architectural schematics for the final master plan as
agreed upon by all parties concerned. This. of course, will be
reviewed with City Council. This also would be just short of.
bat would provide oil details necessary for, working dramJngs
for construction purposes.
It is recommended that the City Council give proper
authorization by direction to the City Attorney to prepare the
appropriate contract form, for the entering into an agreement
with this firm for this project.
Respectfully submitted
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hivst
City Manager~
In this connection, Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that he feels the
city is putting the cart before the horse and questioned the hiring of a consultant
and then an architect.
The Assistant City Manager advised that division heads are not sure of
what is needed in the new public works service center because they have never had
an adequate facility and that such a study is needed to determine proper layout for
smooth operation and coordination of the various public works divisions.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that the report Of the
City Manager be taken under advisement. The motlo~ was seconded by Mr. Thomas
and unanimo~ ly adopted.
SE~ERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report in
connection with the Albemarle Avenue storm drain project, recommending that Councill
authorize the execution of a change order mhich would increase the contract time
;for the Albemarle Avenue storm drain project by 30 working days, advising that all
iwork will be completed Within the original contract price and no additional funds
~iiare necessary.
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 pro~
i per measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
im
CITy TREASURER-MUNICIPAL BU~LOING: The City. Manager submitted a written
report in connection with a request or Hr. J. H, Johnson, City Treasurer, for a
key to one of the Church Avenue, first floor doors to the Municipal Building, sdvis~
lng that he has discussed this. request uith Mr. Johnson and will report on the
matter ut the regular meeting of Council on Monday, Bay 22, 1972.
Rt. Wheeler mored that the report be received and riled. The motion was
,seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted a writ-
ilten report supplementing the tentative listing of capital~outlay projects as sub-
imitted to Council on May 1, 1972, transmitting a communication from the Roanoke City!
!School Doard as to the proposal of the School Board.for the conversion of coal-heated
,buildings to oil hear and the request for the inclusion of capital funds for a por-
ition of this purpose in the 1972-73 fiscal year budget.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be referred to 1972-73 budget study. The
~motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimouslyadopted.
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following report
recommending that Council authorize the employment of three additional operators
!at the Sewage Treatment Plant beginning June 1, 1972:
"May IS, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Gentlemen:
Subject: Sewage Treatment Plant Operating Personnel
In the upcoming 1972-73 budget there will be proposed three
additional operators for the Sewage Treatment Plant. These per-
sonnel will be necessary for training in anticipation of additional
facilities and processes which will be a part of the expanded
treatment plant.
Even now with our interim arrangements for sludge handling
and phosphorus reduction, there is a need to have these personnel
available. It would be desirable to have these postions filled
at the earliest possible date Jn order to proceed with their
trainin9 as well as to take advantage of their assistance with
the expanding plant facilities. Sewage Treatment operators are
included in the City*s classification system under Pay Range 13
and one month*s salary for three operators would be $1,356,
assuming they could be hired by June 1. Funds are available
within the Sewage'Treatment account to corer the salary expendl-
tuzes for these three positions.
It would be requested that City Council authorize the employ-
ment of three additional operators at the Sewage Treatment Plant
beginning June 1, 1972.
Respectfully submitted,
~/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Llsk moved that ~he matter be referred to the City Attorney for pre-
paration of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimousl
~dopted.
£AS£MENTS-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The Assistant City Attorney submitted
a written report in connection with the acquisition of a perpetual easement for
for storm drain and public utility purposes from Mr. Edger E. Cro~hett, et il.,
loceted et the southwest corner'of Nill~omson Road end Cumberlend Street, N.
and transmitting on Ordinance in connection therewith.
Mr. Lfsk moved that Council concur in the report of the Assistant City
Attorney and offered the folloulng emergency Ordinance:
(a20270) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the CitY's acquisi-
tion of a certain perpetu~ easement, in land needed for storm drainage end public
utility purposes along the rear portion of property belonging to Edgar E. Crockett
and others, in the City, upon certain terms and provisions; and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Rook #36, page d20.)
Mr. Llsk moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Garland and adopted by the following Vote: il
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
#ebber ........................ ?.
i NAYS: None ..........O.
{ AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report Of the City of
Roanoke for the month of April, '1972.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
!seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORST OF COMMITTEES:
BUDGET-INTEGRATION-SEGREGATION-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-ZONING: The Community
Relations Committee submitted the following report transmitting four Resolutions
were adopted by the Committee in conjunction with certain matters referred to
i~he Community Relations Committee by Council at its meet~g on May B, 1972:
~ TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
I FROM: HAMPTON M. THOMAS, CHAIRMAN
I COMMUNITY RELATIONS COMMITTEE
DATE: May 15, 1972
The Community Relations Committee at i~s regularly scheduled
meeting held May 10, 1972, at 7:30 p.m. met in the Council Cham-
bers with representatives of the Black Vanguard Party in conjunc-
tion with certain matters referred tO the Committee by the Coun-
cil at its meeting on May B, 1972. As a result of the meeting,
the Committee offeres the following four resolutions for action
by the Council:
(1) Resolution endorsing and concurring in the request of
the Black Vanguard Paryt regardin9 the immediate need for drinking
fountains, toilet facilities and recreational facilities in Wash-
ington, Eureka, Staunton, Melrose and Hurt Parks end requesting
that funds for same be provided in the 1972-73 budget.
RESOLVED'that the Community Relations Committee
endorses and concurs in the request of the Black Vanguard
Party that immediate attention be given to Eureka,
Staunton, Mashington, Melrose and Hurt Parks in respect
to:
(~) Drinking fountains which should be installed
immediately.
(2) Outdoor toilet facilities which should be provided
immediately. (Chemical toilets would serve a
temporary need; however, permanent facilities are
necessary and funds for same should be provided
in the 1971-72.)
(3) Upgrading of recreational equipment in the above
parks should be done immediately.
And further the Community Relations Committee urgently
requests Roanoke City Council again to review the report of
the CommnnJty Relations Committee ns originally prepared
on May 18, 1970 and upgraded on April 21, 1971, copies of
which are attached hereto for reference, end provide the
necessary funds for these much needed recreational facili-
ties in the current budget for 1971-72.
(2) ReSolution endorsing end concurring In the request
of Or. Noel C. Taylor for the completion of work in and upgrading
of recreational facilities in Washington Parh and requesting that
funds for same be provided in the 1972~73 budget.
RESOLVED that the Community Relations Committee endorses
end concurs In the recommendation or Dr. Hoel C. Taylor
regarding the completion, improvement and beautification of
Washington Park and culling upon Roanoke City Council for
immediate attention to this long pending problem.
The Committee feels that the recommendations of the
Black Vanguard Party are of amore immediate nature in
respect to Washington Park and the other parks mentioned;
however, the matters set forth by Dr. Taylor and previously
emphasized by the Community Relations Committee pertaining
to Washington Park are in need of immediate investigation.
report and action by Council: and the Committee further
strongly requests tho Council to provide funds for the com-
pletion of the Mashiegton Park project in the proposed
budget for 1972073.
(3) Resolution stroegly recommendin9 that Roanoke City
Council review the proposal for erecting low-density multi-
family housing near the intersection of Bershberger and Cove
Road as being needed by the Black community and of interest
and encouragement to Black citizens who will provide the econo-
mic incentive to accomplish these much needed housin9 facili-
ties.
RESOLYE~ that the Community Relations Committee, hav-
Black and White community, regarding the matter of the pro-
posed erection of lom-density multi-family units near the
intersection of Bershbor§er and Cove Roads, NW, regard the
project as being in the best interests of the entire com-
munity and particularly the Black community in that:
(1) The subject project mill provide homes for
Black citizens which are much needed in the community.
(2) The project will provide the opportunity for Black
citizens to participate in providing the economic incentive
for the project and: thirdly, that it appears to the Com-
mittee that the project has the endorsement of the Roanoke
City Planning Commission in that it meets all of the needs
and requirements of such projects for the City.
Therefore~ the Community Relations Committee strongly
recommends that Roanoke City Council reviem amd reconsider
the matters pertaining to this project immediately as being
in the best interests of both the Black and #hate community.
(4) Resolution requesting Roanoke City Council to appoint
Rev. Benjamin Sparks, 364 Walnut Avenue, SR, Roanoke, Virginia,
and Miss Connie D. Smith, 702 Harrison Avenue, NW, Roanoke,
Virginia as members of the Community Relations Committee to
replace Mrs. Thomasine Williams, who is unable to atte~ meet-
ings at this tine, and Dr. James Crooks, who will be moving from
the City in the very near future.
RESOLVED that the Community Relations Committee requests
of Roanoke City Council that Rev. Benjamin Sparks, 364
Walnut Avenue, SM, Roanoke, Virginia and Miss Connie 0.
Smith, 702 Harrison Avenue, NW,'Roanoke, Virginia, be
appointed as members of the Community Relations Commit-
tee to replace Mrs. Thonasine Williams, who is no longer
able to attend meetings, and Dr. James Crooks, who will be
moving from the City in the very near future.
In respect to the resolution set forth in paragraph 3 above
regarding the low-density multi-family housing units to be
erected in the vicinity of Bershberger and Cove Roads, NW, it
is my proposal as Chairman of the Conmunit~ Relations Committee
to move that the matter be reconsidered by Council. I believe
I will be privileged to make this motion as I voted with the
majority mheu the issue mas previously before the Council.
'419
?420
Should this motion pass It would then be my thought to moue
thus the mutter be referred to the Planning Commission for
rehearing and re-evaluation sad recommendation to Council.
This matter mas unanimously approved by the Planning Commission
when it previously mas before the body; however, it is my
understanding that opposing citizens do not have un opportunity
to appear to voice their objections. It is the thought of the
Community Relations Committee that if the project continues to
meet the standards required'by the Planning Commission that it
should be reconsidered by the Council on its befits.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Hampton M. Thomas
Community Relations Committee"
i #ith referenct to Resolution No, I which endorses and in the
concurs
iirequest of the Hlack Vanguard Party that immediate attention be given to £nreku,
i Staunton, ~oshlngton. Melrose and Hurt Parks in respect to drinking fountains.
outdoor toilet facilities and upgrading of recreational equipment. Mr. Thomas moved
!that Council concur in the Resolution and that the matter be referred to 19T2-73
!budget study. The notion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
~Jth reference to Resolution No. 2 wh~h endorses and concurs in the recom-
~mendotion of Dr. Noel C. Taylor regarding the completion, improvement and heautifica-
tiaa of Nashington Park. Rt. Thomas moved that Council concur in the Resolution ;
and that the matter be referred to 1972-73 budget study. The motion was seconded I
Iby Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Nith reference to Resolution No. 3 which recommends that Council review
Hershberger Road and Cove Road as being needed by the Black community and of
inter,est and encouragement to Black citizens who will provide the economic incentive
tto accomplish these much needed housing facilities. Mr. Thomas advised that he is
of the opinion that the matter should be reconsidered by Council and that it should
be referred to the City Plannin9 for further hearing mhereln all citizens may be
heard with reference to the matter and that the City Planning Commission be directed
to report further to Council.
In this connection, the following communication from Mr. Clifton A.
#oodrum. III. Attorney, representing a number of residents and/or home owners in the
area that will be affected by this project, advising that he has 9rave doubts as to
l'the legality of any reconsideration of the petition for rezonin9 at this time. that
the Roanoke City Code. Title 2. Chapter 4. Section 2. (Rule 10), provides for recon-
sideration of questions, however, this Ordinance is general in its application, that
an Ordinance which is specific in its application supersedes an Ordinance which is
eneral in its application, that there is such~specific provision contained in
~rticle 12, Section 67. Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance which provides, in pertinent
part. as folloms:
"Having once considered a petition. City Council will not reconsider
substantially the same petition for one year."
and therefore, he believes that reconsideration of the action of Council ubich was
taken at its meeting on April 17, 1972. in rejecting the petition filed in this
matter mould be iaproper nnd n violation of the plain terms of the applicable
Ordinance of this city:
'Hay 12. 1972
The Nonorable Roy L. ~ebber The Honorable James O. Trout
4020 Nllliamson Road 3744 Signal Hill Avenue. N. ~.
Roanoke. Virginia 24012 Roanoke. Virginia 24017
The Honorable Robert A. Garland The Honorable David K. Lisk
1345 Lakewood Drive. S. ~. 909 Carting.on Avenue. S. ~.
Roanoke, Virginia Rbanoke, Virginia
The Ilonorable Noel C. Tailor . The Honorable Hampton W. Thomas
2460 Orandin Road 3673 Peakwood Drive
Roanoke. Virginia Roanoke. Virginia
The Honorable Vincent S. Nheeler
1847 Blenheim Road. S. ~.
Roanoke, Virginia
Ye are writing mith reference so Item fl (a) (3) on the
agenda of the City Council of Roanoke for Ray 15. 1972. This
item for a resolution from the Community Relations Committee
· . , strongly recommending that Roanoke City Council review
the proposal for erecting low-density multi-family housing near
the intersection of Hershberger and Cove Roads as bain9 needed
by the black community and of interest and encouragement to
black citizens who will provide the economic incentive to accom-
plish these much needed housing facilities.'
If you will recall, we represent a number of residents
and/or home owners in the area that will be affected by this
project. Our clients continue to strongly oppose the erection
of this project in this area and have asked us to advise you of
their continued opposition.
In addition, me have grave doubts as to the legality of
any reconsideration of the petition for rezonlng at this time.
The Roanoke City Code, Title 2, Chapter 4, Section 2 (Rule 10),
provides for reconsideration of questions. However, this ordinance
is uenera] in its application. An ordinance which is soecific in
its application supersedes an ordinance which is general in its
application. There is such specific provision contained in
Article 12, Section 67, Roanohe City Zoning Ordinance which pro-
vides, in pertinent part, as follows:
*Having once considered a petition, City Council will
not reconsider substantially the same petition for
Therefore. we believe that reconsideration of the action of
the Roanoke City Council which was taken at its meeting on April
17. 1972, in rejecting the petition filed in this matter would
be improper and a violation of the plain terms of the applicable
ordinance of this city.
Se will be present at your meeting on May 15 and will be
ready to discuss this matter further should you deem it advisable.
Nith kindest regardsl we are
Very ~ruly yours,
DODSON. PENCE, COULTER, VIAR ~
YOI~G
S/ Clifton A. Woodrum, III
Clifton A. Woodrum, III~
In a discussion of the matter, the City Attorney called attention to Role
12, Alteration, amendment and suspension of rules, under Title 2, Chapter 4, Section
:422'
2, of The Code of the City'of Roanoke, 19§6, as amended, which' provides that these
rules may be altered or amended it any regular meeting by a vote of et least five
members Of Council and that any of these rules may be suspended for the time bain
by a vote'of at least five members.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the ResolntJoe of the Community
Relations Committee and that the matter be reconsidered. The motion was seconded
by Mr. RheeleF. ·
Mr. Garland offered · substitute motion that Council suspend its rules
as set forth in Rule 12, Alteration, amendment and suspension of rules, under Title!
2, Chapter 4, Section 2, of The Code ~f the City of Roanoke, 19§6, as amended,
which provldes that these rules may he altered or amended at any regular meeting
by a vote of at least five members of Council and that any of these rules may be
suspended for the time being by u vote of at least five members. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Mheeler and Mayor Webber ....
NAYS: Masers. Thomas and Trout ................................... 2.
Rt. Thomas moved that Council reconsider its action of April 17, 1972,
denying the request of T. Weldon Hale, trading as Hale Real Estate Agency, and
Rebecca Yo Rain, that 16 acres of land, more or less, near the intersection of
Cove Road and Hershberger Road, N. M. described as the northeasterly portion of
official Tax No. 2480147, all of Official Tax Nos. 248011T, 2480141 and 2480148
and the southerly portion of 2480111, be rezoned fram RS-3, Single-Family Residen-
tial Oistrict, tO RG-I, General Residential UJstrJct. The motion was seconded by
Hr. Trout and adopted by the followin0 VOte:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Mebber 7
NAYS: None 0
Mr. Lisk then moved that the public hearin9 on the request for resorting
!he continued until the regular meeting of Council on Tuesday, Ray 30, 1972, at
!2 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
~ith reference to Resolution No. 4, requesting that Council appoint the
!Reverend Renjamin Sparks and Miss Connie O. Smith as members of the Community
iRelations Committee to replace Mrs. Thomasine Millieme and Dr. James R. Crooks,
imf. Trout moved that Council concur in the Resolution. The motion was seconded by
!Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20245, amending and reordaining the subsection
.entitled Special exceptions after public notice mhd hearing by the Board of Zoning
Appeals of Sec. 8, C-l, Office and Institutional District, and Sec. 9, C-2, General
.'423
Commercial District. Article IV, Chapter 4.1, of Title IV, of The Code of the City
of Roanoke, 19S6, as amended, relating to Zoning, providing for the operation of
private day nurseries and kindergartens iu C-2 districts as u special exception
after public notice and hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals, having previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, mss again before the~
body, Mr. Trout offering the folloving for its second reading and final adoption:
(a2024S) AS ORDINANCE amending and reordaining the subsection entitled
Of Sec. D. C-I office and Institutionnl district, and Sec. 9. C-2 fleneral commercial
district. Article IV, Chapter 4.1o of Title XV, of the Code of the City of Roanoke
1956, as amended, relating to Zoning, providing for the operation of private day
nurseries and kindergartens in C-I districts upon certain conditions, and repealiug!
!;the provision of Sec. 9. permitting operation of private day nurseries and kinder-
:gartens in C-2 districts as a special exception after public notice and hearing by
:the Board of Zoning Appeals.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36. page 409.)
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, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ....................... 7.
NAYS: None ......... O.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 20246, permanently vacating, discon-
tinuing and closing that certain portion of Patton Avenue, N. E.. lying between its
intersection with lands of Norfolk ~ Western Railway Company on the east and its
intersection with the easterly line of ?th Street (Shenandoah Avenue, N. E.) on the
west, 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:
(ff20246) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
that certain portion of Patton Avenue, N. £. lying between its intersection with
lands of Norfolk ~ Western Rail#ay Company on the east and its intersection with
th ....terly line of 7th Street (Sh .... doah A ......N. E.) on th ....t.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #ab. page d12.)
Dr, Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas 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.
' SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure authorizing and directing the City Manager to enter into!
t emp .... y written ag ..... .at wlth D. R. All .... d Son, I .... porated, authorizing
said firm to continue the constrnction of sludge lagoons ut the City*s Sewage
Mro LIaR offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(e202Tl) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and directing the City Manager to
authorizing said firm to continue the construction or sludge lagoons at the City*s
Sewage Treatment Plant upon certain terms and conditions; and providing for an
(FOF rail text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Oook a36, page 421.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Wheeler ....
NAYS: Mayor Mebber .............................................. 1.
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure honoring a claim of Mr. Frank C. Hoffnan of $378.38 in
connection with printing the Police Training Manual, Mr. Trout offered the follow-
ing emergency Ordinance appropriating the amount of $aTo.aB for said payment:
(#202?2) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~45, "Police Depart-
ment," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, page 423.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Hessrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, Wheeler and
Mayor Webber T
NAYS: None 0
Dr. Taylor then offered the following Resolution directing payment for
said claim of Mr. Hoffman:
(~20273) A RESOLUTION directing payment of a claim of Mr. Frank C.
Hoffman. owner of Dixie Letter Service.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 423.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion Was secondedi
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
'AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor
Webber ?
NAYS: None ............................................... -0.
STATE HIGHWAYS: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the!
of the Southwest Expressway, between Franklin Road at Maple Avenue, S. M., ond
Route 419, he presented 'same.
In this connection, Mr. Martin Barks, General Counsel for the Norfolk
and Western Railway Company, appeared before Council and.advised that the state's
plan provides a safe, quick and efficient means of handling traffic, while the alter-
nate plan would leave open the railroad grade crossing on Broadway and urged adoption
of-the state plan in the interest of public safety and convenience.
Mr. E. C. Marten appeared before Council on behalf of the Toners Shopping
Center Merchants Association, and presented a Resolution adopted by the Towers
Shopping Center Merchants Association Board or Directors requesting that the plan
for the Southwest Expressway approved, by the Highway Department and recommended by
the City Manager be approved by Council and that the Stat~ Highway Department be
duly informed,
Mr. Richard R. Quick, representing omners of Towers Shopping Center,
appearedbefore Council and advised that the bulk of shoppers come from south and
southeast Roanoke and that the alternate plan would put an effective barrier hetweenl
ithem and Towers Shopping Center and urged that Council support the original plan. i
Mr. John M. Miller, President, Virginia Metal aanufactnring Company,
appeared before Council and advised that he would continue to shop at Toners Shoppin~
Center regardless of the roads and suggested that the train traffic problem would
be solved if the Norfolk and Meatern Railway Company would erect safety gates and
organ that Council adopt the best plan even if the city must spend some money.
Mr. Fred Mangus. representing Graves-Humphreys, appeared before Council
:and advised that his Company has a large investment in its property, that he would
like to see Broadway remain open to through traffic and that the state plan would
only give access through Franklin Road,
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Lisk moved that the proposed Resolu-
tion as presented by the City Attorney be tabled. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Garland and adopted by the following vote:
i AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and Mayor
Webber ......................... ?.
NAYS: None ......... O.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the City Attorney and the City Manager be directed
[ltd confer in connection with the preparation of a measure carrying out the plan aa
submitted by the State Highway Department· The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor
and unanimously adopted.
OUDGET=~IVIL DEFENSE: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure in connection with the position of Coordinator of Civil Defense,
and that fonds be appropriated in connection with the promotion of Mr. Marren E.
iTrent ns the Coordinator of Civil Defense at Range 22 in the Pay Plan, Dr. Taylor
offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating the necessary funds;
(#202?4) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~52, *Civil Defense,"
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing far, an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 424.)
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, Nheeler and Mayor
Webbe~ 7.
NAYS: None O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
COUNCIL: Mr. Mheeler presented the follouing communication tendering hi
resignation os a member of Roanoke City Council, effective MaY 15, 1972: *May 11, 1972.
Honorabie Roy L.' Mebber, Mayor, and Members Of Council.
Dear Sirs:
Please accept this letter as evidence of my resignation as a
member of the City Council, effective May 150 1972.
It is with malice tomard none and love to all that I take leave
of my seat.
You may not realize it, but this is the first year mhern an
election preceded the making of a budget. Heretofore the term
began September I and the budget came in November. The appoint-
ment to fill by vacancy lies in the discretion of the Council,
but in all fairness to the nee candidate who mas elected to the
Council I feel it would increase his wisdom if he bad part in
the proposed $50,000,000.00 budget.
I have counted it a high honor and privilege to be of service to
my city. I trust there are some small tokens of my accomplish-
ment that can be seen.
In the future if I can be of any service to the city in any way
both to the Council and the City Manager I shall be happy to
serve to the best of my humble ability.
Yours very truly,
/ Vincent S. Mheeler
Vincent S, Mbeeler*
Mr. Thomas moved that the resignation be accepted with regret and deep
appreciation for the services rendered by Mr. Mheeler as a member of Roanoke City
Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: Council having previously appointed a committee composed of
Messrs. Julian F. Hirst, Chairman, James N. Kincaeon and J. R~bert Thomas to study
the proposal of Vice Mayor James O. Trout that Council consider the establishment
of a department for airport activities, Mr. Trout presented tho following prepared!
statement advising that such a department would allow the city to finance develop-il
merit and expansion of the airport through revenue bonds if it could be readily
shown that the income could meet the revenue demand for the payoff of the bonds
and that be feels it is most important for the committee to submit their recommen-!i
dations to Council prior to budget study:
Mayor and Members of Council:
Some time back a proposal was made that Council consider
the establishment of a department of government for airport
activities similar to the water and sewer departments and under
the office of the City Manager. Having such a department will
allom us to be more aware of the total operation and development
of the airport. Having its own bookkeeping system removed from
the general fund would give a better picture of airport financ-
Such a department would allow us to finance development
and qxpansion of the airport through revenue bohds if it could
be readily shown that the income could meet the revenue demand
for the payoff of the bonds. Therefore, I feel it is most important
for the committee that was duly named tostudy the report and
recommend that Council bring in its report prior to the budget
study.
This is most important because with the financial position
of the City 'we must revise any procedure that would.return
revenue to the general fund. FinanCing of the airport through
revenue bonds would not affect the bonded indebtedness of the
City or push us toward the bonded indebtedness ceiling that is
IB~ or the City*s taxable real e'state es set forth in state
statute,
It would also allow us to use money allocated from the
general fund for other purposes than the airport. Also, the
capital improvements bond program money pledged to the airport
could be used for other activities i~ the bond program such as
renovation of the Court House or any other need as agreed on
by Council.
Over the years our citizens, especially those associated
with aviation, have expressed the view that airport revenue
should not go into the general fund but should be used to further
the growth of the airport and I am in complete agreement..
S/ James Trout
James O. Trout"
Mr. Trout moved that the stotement be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
STADIUM: Mayor Webber called to the attention of Council that the terms
iof Messrs. E. Marvin Lemon, James M. Satterfield. Guy L. Furr. Rex T. Mitchell, Jr.
land Dr. Wendell H. Butler and the one year term of Mr. Andrew H. Thompson. President,
~Roanoke Valley Sports Club, as members of the Stadiuu Advisory Committee, expired
on December 31, 1971, and called for nominations to fill the vacancies.
Hr. Lisk placed in nomination the names of Messrs. E. Marvin Lemon, James
M. Satterfield. Guy L. Furr, Rex T. Mitchell, Jr., and Dr. Wendell H. Butler.
There being no further nominations, E.'Marvin Lemon, James M. Satterfteldi
Guy L. Furr, Rex T. Mitchell, Jr.. and Wendell H. Butler were reelected as members
of the Stadium Advisory Committee for terms of two ye ars each ending December 31.
1973, by the followin9 vote:
FOR MESSRS. LEMON, SATTERFIELD, FURR, MITCHELL AND BUTLER: Messrs. Garland,
iLisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler and Mayor Webber .... 7.
Mr. Lisk then placed in nomination the name of Mr. John E. Savage, Jr.,
ilas Presidnet of the Roanoke Valley Sports Club for a term of one year ending
!!December 31. 1972.
There being no further nominations, Mr. John E. SaVage, Jr.. was elected
as President of the Roanoke Valley Sports Club for a term of one year ending Decem-
ber 31, 1972. by the following vote:
FOR MR. SAVABE: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler and
Mayor Webber ........................................ 7.
SCHOOLS: Mayor Mebber advised that there is a vacancy on the Local Board:l
of Virginia Western Community College created by the resignation of Mr. Richard B.
Hahn, for a term ending June 30, 1975, and called for nominations to fill the
vacancy.
427
There being no further nominations, #arner N. Halhoase mas elected to
fill the unexpired term of Mr, Richard H. Hahn as a member of the Local Gourd
of Virginia Western Community College for a term ending Jane 30, 'lg?S, bT the
following vote:
FOR MR. BALBOGS~: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Mheeler
and Mayor Rebber ?
CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Mayor Webber advised that the terms of
#rs. Honnie W. Lome, Mrs. Jolliet T. Gresen, HFS. Cordelia S. Williams, Mrs. Lo*tie:
M. Neely, Messrs. Thomas L, flu*son, George W. Harris, Jr** N. A. Relvin, J. E,
Dudley, Sr., A. A. Akers, Janes E. Roberts,n, E. C. Mo,maw, E. L. Rayse, Reverend
R. R. Wilkinson, Reverend Calvin H. Fulton, Reverend G. Thomas Turner and Dr. S. R.
Crockett and James £. Stringfield as members of the Citizens' Advisory Committee
expired April 14, 1972, that Mr. James £. Stringfield and Mr. £. L. flayse have
declined to serve another term and called for nominations to fill the vacanices.
Mr. Thomas placed in nomination the names of Mrs. Bonnie K. tome, Mrs,
Jollier T. Cf,son, Mrs. Cordelia S. Williams, Mrs. Lo*tie M. Neely, Messrs. Thomas
L. Itu*son, George W. Harris, Jr** James E. Roberts,n, N. A. Melvin, J. £. Dudley,
Sr., A. A. Akers. £. C. Roomau, Reverend H. R. Wilkinson, Reverend Calvin R. Fulton,
Reverend G. Thomas Turner and Dr. S. R. Crockett as members of the Citizens'
Advisory Committee.
There bela9 no further nominations, Mrs. Bonnie Ko LoRe, Mrs. Jolliet
T. Cf,son, Mrs. Cordelia S. Williams, Mrs. Lot*ia M. Mealy, Messrs. Thomas L.
Buts,n, George M. Harris, Jr., James E. Roberts,n, N. A. Melvin, J. E. Dudley, Sr.,
i A. A. Akers, E. C. Mo,maw, Reverend R. R. Wilkinson, Reverend Calvin B. Fulton,
i Reverend G. Thomas Turner and Dr. $. R. Crockett were reelected as members Of the
Citizens* Advisory Committee for terms of two years each endin9 April 14, 1972, by
the following vote:
FOR MRS. LOWE, MRS. CROSON, MRS. WILLIAMS, MRS. NEELY, MESSRS. Ht~rsoN,
e HARRIS, ROBERTSON, MELVIN. DUDLEY. AKERS, MOOMAW, REVEREND WILKINSON, REVEREND
!FULTON, REVEREND TURNER AND DR. CROCKETT: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas,
i Trout, Wheeler aud Mayor Webber ......................
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: Mayor Webber called to the
! attention of Council that the terms of the Reverend F. E. Alexander and Mr. Wayne
R. LaPierre as members of the Youth Commission expired on April 30, 1972, and
called for nominations to fill the vacancies.
Mr. Lisk placed in nomination the name of Mr. Wayne R, LaPierre. There
being no further nominations, Mayne R. LaPierre was reelected as a member of the
Youth Commission for a term of two years ending April 30, 1974, by the following
FOR MR. LAPIERR£: Messrs. Garlnnd, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, Wheeler
and Mayor Webber ............. ?.
There being no further business, Rayor Mebber declared the Beating
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,'
Monday, May 22, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in Se Council
Chamber in the MunJcipelBuilding, Monday, May 22, 1972, at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour, ulth Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding,
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David N. Lisk, Noel Co Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout, and Mayor Roy L. Mebber .........
ABSENT: None .......................................... O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. Milldam F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr.
A, N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened mith a prayer by the Reverend Edgar
A. Ports, Pastor, Greene Memorial Methodist Church.
MINOTES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
May 1, 1972, and the regular meeting held on Monday, May D, 1972, having been
furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Trout, seconded by Mr. Thomas
and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with and the minutes
approved as recorded.
ItEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC RATTERS:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, May 22,
1972, on the request of Messrs. Elmer M. Cox and Lawrence E. Peters, that proper-
ties around and adjacent to 1714 Redmood Road, S. E., in the vicinity of Redwood
Road and Dundee Road, S. E., described as Lots 3, 4, 5, 6. 11. 12. 13 and 14,
Section 4, Map of Rosewood Park Corporation, Official Tax Nos. 4440722 - 4440?25,
inclusive, and Official Tax Nos. 4440703 - 4440T06, inclusive, be rezoned from
RD, Duplex Residential District. to RD-l, Deneral Residential District, the matter
was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that a RG-I rezonin9 be approved in lieu of the original
RG-2 request for rezonin9:
"April 6, 1972
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 meeting of April 5, 1972.
Mr. John M. Taylor, attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that the petitioners
plan to construct apartment units on this unimproved parcel
of land. He then presented photographs to the Planning Commis-
sion members depicting the nature and character of the area
noting that it is generally zoned for duplexes.
Mr. Lawrence, Planning Commission member, questioned the
stated that 48 units (4-twelve-unit~ str'ucteres) will be con-
structed on this site. Alsoe he noted that the one-bedroom
units will be along the front and the 2-bedrooms will bo al'cng
the rear Of the lot.
Mr. Hoynton, Planning Commission member, nshed if the
petitioner would consider a RG-I reaching, and Mr. Taylor
stated that the petitioner mould be amenable to this amend-
ment in his petitioner*s request.
Mr. Dan Daldwin, local residnet in the area, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated his opposition to
this petition noting that the increased density would depriv·
the area of its open space character. Additionally, he noted
that the existing street system is inadequate and the traffic
generated by this apartment use would have an adverse effect
on the area.
The Planning Director pointed out that the existing street
system is inadequate to service this use mith a portion of
Dundee Avenue closed, and the open portion of an inadequate
pavement width; that the lots are located on steep terrain;
and that the existing character of the area is that of single
family resifecce.
The Planning Commission members generally felt that the
RG-I reaching mould be more keeping with the character of the
area and would permit the petitioner to construct about
34 housin9 units as opposed to 62 units under a 86-2 reaching.
Upon consideration of this request, a motion was made,
duly seconded and unanimously approved to recommend to City
Council to approve the RG=I rezoning in lleu of the original
RG-2 rezouing petition.
Sincerely,
S/ Henry B. Boynton by LM
Henry B. Boynton
Acting Chairman"
I With reference to the matter, Mr. Jerry M. Hogan, 1704 Redwood Road
[ ,
~ S. E., appeared before Council and presented a petition signed by d2 residents of
Redwood Road, Riverside Terrace, and Catawea Street, S. E., in opposition to the
Approximately ten persons appeared before Council in opposition to the
frequent for rezoning.
Mr. John Taylor, Attorney, representing the petitioners, appeared before
Council in support of the request of his clients.
It appearing that certain affected residents i~ the area had not appearedi
before the City Planning Commission to voice their opposition in connection with
Ithe matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the-request for rezoning be referred back to the
ICity Planning Commission for rehearing and further, recommendation to Council. The
lmotion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
i ZONING-SPECIAL PERMITS: Mr. John J. Butler, Pre~idnet, Andrews-Pitzer-
IButler Fuel Oil Corporation, appeared before Council and presented a prepared
~statement requesting relief in the form of relaxing the City Code, or any other
means, in order for him to have more storage area for fuel oil tanks on Virginia
Avenue, N. W.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager and to
the Commissioner of Buildings for study, report and recommendation to Council.' The
m~tion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
431
IHSURANCE: Mr., James H, Omen, representing American Fomlly Life Assur-
ance Company of Columbus, appeared before Council and aubmitted a proposal on the
CancerCare Radical Expense Plan~for the employees of the City of Roan*he,
Hr, Thomas moved that the proposal be rerer~ed to the City Manager rot
review, The motion mas seconded by Hr, Trout and unanimously adopted,
PETITIONS AND CORRUNICATIONS:
CITY OF ROAHOKE REDEVELOPMRHT AND HOHSIHG AU~RORITY-COHNClL: A communica~
*ion from Hr, ¥illiam $. Hubar~, tendering his resignation as a member of the City
of RoanoKe Redevelopment and Housing Authority, effective immediately, in viem of
his recent election to Roanoke City Council, was before the bpdy.
Rt. LisK moved that the resignation be accepted. The motion was seconded
by Mr, Gorland and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mr. LisK placed in nomination the nome of Mr. Milliam
S. Hubard to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Vincent S. Mheeler, resigned, as a
member of the Council of the City of Roanoke for a term ending September 1, 1972.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Milline $. Rubard was elected as
a member of the Council of the City of Roanoke to fill the unexpired term of Ur.
Vincent S. Rheeler, resigned, ending September 1, 19?2, by the following rote:
FOR HR. HUBARD: Messrs. Garland, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber ...............................
ZONING: The following communication from Mr. Edison F. Shrader, trans-
mitting a problem be has encountered since purchasing property at 814 Murray Arenue,
S. E., was before Council:
*May 18, 1972
Dear Members of the Roanoke City Council:
This concerns an apartment that I bought in 196D, which is a
four unit' apartment building having four kitchens with front
and back entrances. I was advised approximately nine months
ago by the Health Environmental Department that I would have
to install two more toilets. After waitin9 nine months for a
plumber to put them in, Mr. Light of the building Inspectors
said my property was only zoned for two apartments; but if it
existed this way prior to 1965 I shouldn*t have any difficulty
rattier it approved by the city council. I have one tenant in
the apartments who has lived there since 1964, and she stated
it existed this may then. The former omners are deceased nos
and I bought the property thinking it was zoned this way, giv-
ing quite a sum more for it. I recently retired from the
Veterans Administration Hospital expecting' thin apartment build-
lng to supplement by retirement pay.
Thanking you for your cooperation in this matter, I am
Very truly yours,
S/ Edison F. Shrader
Edison F. Shrader
814 Murray Ave. S. E.
Roanoke, VA 24013'
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.
Thomas and unanimously adopted.
433
REPORTS OF OFFICEgS:
BUDGET-MARKET-TRAFFIC-PLANNING: The City Manager submitted u written
report ndvisfn9 that on March 20, 1972, Council adopted an Ordinance a~thorizin9
that one or wore real estate appraisers be retained to appraise the properties need
ed to be acquired for the proposed downtown parking garage near the intersection
of Church Avenue and First Street, S. N., that $6,000.00 mas authorized for this
work, that he has been negotiating with two qualified real estate appraisers for
the desired services, that each of the parcels proposed to be acquired have varying
involvements between property owners and tenants, that these involvements and the
potential of condemnation proceedings suggest that comprehensive appraisal investiga.
Itions and reports mill be most appropriate and that $2,2oo.oo additional funds are
necessary in order to proceed with these appraisals.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
l~offered the following emergency Ordinance.
ii (z20275) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section z89, "Transfers to
iCapital Improvements Fund" of the 1971-73 ApprOpriation Ordinance, and providing for
inn emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =36. page 425.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion uaw seconded by
,Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Nebber ,6,
NAYS: None ........... O.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City Munager submitted ~ e
!following report recommending that $100,000.00 be transferred from Aid to Dependent
~Children to Emergency Assistance to Needy Families With Children under Section ~37.
"Public Assistance." of the 1971-72 budget, in connection with recent action upprov~
ed by the State Board of Nelfare and Institutions to provide immediate assistance
to families with children who are in need as a result of disaster, loss of employ-
ment, eviction, need for essential household equipment and emergency need during
processing of an ADC application, and that both the Aid to Dependent Children and
the Emergency Assistance to Needy Families Nith Children accounts are 100 per cent
state reimbursable:
"May 22, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Nelfare Department Budget
The State Board of Nelfare and Institutions, in'recent
action, approved the expansion of the 'Emergency Assistance
to Needy Families with Children* program, effective May 1,
1972, to provide for emergency assistance to families with
children who are in need as a result of: 1. a disaster,
2. loss of employment, 3. eviction, 4. need for essential
household equipment, and 5. immediate need during processing
of an ADC application. The City has been informed that this
program must be instituted within the remainder ofthe current
fiscal year.
Funds from the existing Aid to Dependent Children category
may be transferred for this new program~ both of these categories
are 100 percent State reimbursable. The City has.already re-
ceived sizable requests for funds under this new program to
cover the cost or furniture payments,mom eligible to melfave
recipients. It is difficult to estimate the cost of such a
nem program with no experience lo use as judgment; bomever, me
estimate that approximately $100,00 will be necessary during
the remainder Of the current fiscal year. These funds can be
transferred from Object Code 273, Aid to Dependent Children, to
Object Code 278, Emergency Assistance to Needy Families mith
Children, for this hem program,
The proposed City budget for 1972-73 which you have just
received did not anticipate this new program, Therefore, we
must already suggest that additional appropriations be included
therein. It is estimated that $250,000 will be required under
ObJect Code 270, Emergency Assistance to Needy Families with
Children. This mill result in a partial reduction in ObJect
Code 273, Aid to Dependent Children, in the estimated amount
of $72,000. Since both categories are totally State reimburs-
able, this mill not have a significant effect on the CiW*s
1972-73 budget.
Since the State has ordered that this nee melfare program
be instituted inmeidately, it is necessary to recommend that
$100,000 be transferred from ObJect Code 273 to Object Code
278 of the existing Public Assistance budget Account No.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of thc City
Manager and offered the foliomin9 emergency Ordinance:
(n20276) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section m37, "Public
Assistance.' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emer-
gency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book #36, page 42S.)
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, and Hayor
Webber
NAYS: None O.
BUDGET-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS-CITY ENGINEER-GARAGE: The City Manager
submitted the folloming report recommending certain transfers and one appropriation
within the Public Works budgets:
"May 8, 1972
Honorably Mayor ~ City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Public Works Budgets
There has developed a need to supplement the appropriations of
several budget accounts within the Department of Public Works
activities.
The Street Division utility account u58-201 is presently over-
drawn. This has come about principally due to higher costs
for various utilities, such as coal which has increased from
$15.50 per ton to $27.20 per ton during the past year. It is
recommended that $500.00 be transferred from account ~$8-360,'
unencumbered equipment replacement funds, to cover the current
over expenditure and provide for utilities during the remainder
of this year.
The Garage Division overtime account uTi-Il4 has been nearly
exhausted. This comes about when repairs are necessary on
weehends and holidays, ~uch as Police vehicles out of service.
Funds remain in the insurance account u?1-240, and it is
recommended that 9SDO.O0 be transferred to cover overtime
expenses which could be expected to occur during the remainder
of this fiscal year. The Garage utility account ~71-20i is
overdrawn, for reasons similar to those described above
concerning the Street Division. The additional sum nf
$3,000.00 is estimated to be required and would also be
available for transfer from account n?1-240.
Finally at the Garage, the main operating account a?l-2bO rot
maintenance of machiuery and equipment is rapidlT being depleted,
This account is used to purchase the large number and variety
of parts and supplies needed to service and repair the City*s fleet,
everything from lawn mowers to heavy equipment. The level of
expenditures da~ing the current year has been at the rate of
approximately 91D,ODO per month. This will give rise to a need
for approximately 932,DDO additional funds during the remainder
of this fiscal year. The number of vehicles in the City Fleet
increases every year and replacement has not kept pace with
money is not available elsewhere in the Garage budget and ue
The Semage Treatment Plant overtime account agO-Il4 has been
overdrawn due to recent mechanical difficulties occurring on
weekends, necessitating calling men back to work. Unencumbered
funds are available in the terminal leave account #gO-liS, and
it is recommended that $500 be transferred for this purpose.
In connection with the recently concluded sewage treatment
negotiations, the reproduction of contracts caused an over
expenditure of printing and office supply account agO-320
of the Sewage Treatment Fund. It is estimated that $300.00
is necessary to cover these costs and provide sufficient funds
for the remainder of the fiscal year. Funds can be transferred
from the operating ~upply and material account #g0-320.
In summary me recommend the following appropriations and/or
transfers to various accounts within the Department of Public
~orks:
Street Division:
.transfer $500.00 from account ~5D-360 to account ~58-201
Garage Division:
transfer $500.00 from account =?1-240 to acconnt :?1-114
transfer 93,000 from account a?1-240 to acconnt :71-201
appropriate $32°000 to account u71-260
Sewage Treatment Fund:
transfer $500.O0 from account #90-115 to account ~gO-114
transfer 9300.00 from account ~90-320 to account #90-300
Respectfully Submitted,
$/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance amendin9 and reordaining Section
~Street Repair,' and Section ~?1. 'Garage," of the 1971-72 budget:
(~20277) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~SD, "Street Repair,~
and Section ~71, "Garage,* of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
l for an emergency.
i (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 426.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the O~dinance. Tb~ motion ~a$ seconded
.by Mr. Garland and adopted by th~ following vote:
AYES: Messrs~ Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None ........ O.
436
Mr, Thomas then offered the following emergency Ordinance transferring
$500.00 from Terminal Leave to Overtime und $300.00 from Operating Supplies and
Materials to Printing and Office Supplies under Section #90, "Sewage Treatment
Fund," of the 1971-72 Semage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance:
(~20278) AH ORDINANCE to amend and reoradin Section a90, "Sewage Treat-
ment Fund," of the 1971-72 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and pro-
viding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Boob u36, page 427.i
Mr. Thomas waved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by DF. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None ..........O,
' STATE HIGRMAYS: The City Manager submitted n written report transmitting
a Resolution pertaining to the Southmest Expressway.
Iu this connection, Mr. Lisk suggested the pvoposed Resolution be amended
to provide that proper provision be made for all necessary traffic control signals
Mr. Trout then offered the following Resolution as amended indicating
general approval of certain plans for the location and design of a section of the
, $outhmest Expressway, as developed end presented by the Virginia Department of
Highways for Projects 6220-128-105, C-§OI and 6220-080-104, C-501 at u certain
public hearing held thereon:
(=20279) A RESOLUTION indicating general approval of certain plans for
the location and design Of a section Of the Southwest Express#ay, as developed
!and presented by the Virginia Department of Highways for Proj acts 6220-128-105,
C-501 and 6220-O80-104, C-§OI at a certain public hea~ing held thereon.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Boob #36, page 427.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
#ebber
NAYS: None,
PLANNING-JAIL-POLICE DEPARTMENT-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted the following report in connection with a
regional jail facility, advising that it is his understanding that the Fifth
Planning District Regional Criminal Justice Advisory Commission is meeting on May
123 and one of the main questions before this group is as to their recommendation
!for u future jail site, that it is his understanding, without confirmation of
written material, that a possible pvime recommendation by the District's consultunt~
is in the area of Hershberger Road and Interstate Route 581, pointing out that
several months ago he suggested consideration of property lying immediately west of
437
the Third Street Building (Reid and Cutshall) as a posnibl~ site for n Jail or a
unit of the jail with intake area and that his purpose ia writing is to advise
Council of the consideration that is being given by the Fifth.Planning District
at this point by its committee and to solicit as to whether or not Council might
~have any position at this time:
'May 22. 1gTe
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Jail
As we go further into the renovation, design and plans
on the courthouse building, the question of what is to be done
about the jail becomes more and more of significance. I write
this to point that out to you and to invite your anticipation
that this question is coming closer and closer to some point of
decision or direction.
I also write, and especially at this time, on the matter
of the jail because it is my muderstanding that the Fifth Plan-
ning District Regional Criminal Justice Advisory Commission is
meeting on May 23 and One of the main questions before this group
is as to their recommendation for a future jail site. I also
understand, and this is without confirmation of written material,
that a possible prime recommendation by the District*s consultants
is in the area of Bershberger Road and Interstate 581.
I do not knom whether or not the City Council wants to
take any position on this matter at this time. It is to be
noted that the City of Roanoke has not as yet returned comments
on the original Fifth Planning District Jail Study. That is
to say that such comments have not been returned with the excep-
tion of the resolution with regard to the possibility of the
unused land adjacent to the Veterans Hospital.
It may be recalled that in the report that I submitted to
City Council some several months ago, relating to the courthouse
boildiog and the Third Street Building that I suggested consider-
ation of property lying immediately west of the Third Street~
Building (Reid and Cutshall) as a possible site for a jail or a
unit of the jail with intake area. My writing Js not neces-
sarily t.o press for that particular site, but to advise the
City Council of the consideration which I understand is being
given within the Fifth Planning District at this point by its
committee and to solicit as to whether or not the Council might
have any position at this time.'
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F, Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Mannger#
#ith ref~erence to the matter, the City Managersubmitted the following
.supplemental report:
i "May 22, 1972 ·
i Honorable Mayor and City Council
i Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Regional Jail Facilities
This is to supplement the item which I have on your Agenda
today making reference to my understanding of further studies and
pending decisions by the Fifth Planning District Commission on
the matter of regional jail facilities.
~438
Since mritiog thb~referenced.'letter for'your~Ageed~, I
have hod access to material of the Fifth Planning District which
represents n revision of o Chapter of the Regionnl Corrections
Report uhich Chapter pertains to 'Corrections Center Site
Evaluation**
It is felt that there is still open some cloriflcotion and
refinement os to the intent of the Commissionts proposols deal-
ing with facilities. The report, in its original form, refers,
as I interpret, to the ultimate of 16 different facilities.
Thus, there is interplay os we tala about facilities and the
specifics or their individual proposals.
Mevertheless, the site evaluation revision, to mhicb I,
above referenced, lists considerations by the consultants of
ten sites for comparison and applies criteria to each of those
sites. The one site, which the study considered and which ia
near to the center of court activities, mas the preseut post
office building on Church Avenue. I do not recall at any point
our suggesting that location on the part of the City and would
agree that a major disadvantage to that location, as the Con-
misslon*s consultants note, Would be cost of demolition.
However, the study does not inquire into property west of
Third Street, S. N** mithin the limits of Campbell Avenue and
Church Avenue. as the City has from time to time considered.
It is recommended that the City of Roanohe indicate to
the Fifth Planning District Commission that the City would not
be in a position to respond to the study until this general
site area could be evaluated under the sane criteria as applied
to the other sites in the study. This should not be interpreted
to be a request of the City to have the District's consultants
determine the desirability or lack thereof of this particular
location area but rather to have it included in the criteria
analysis of their report.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F, HOrst
Julian F. HOrst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper~
measure requesting that the Fifth Planning District Commission have its consultants'
consider the property west of Third Street, S. N., within the limits of Campbell
i Avenue and Church Avenue as one of the sites to be evaluated for a regional j ail
and that the Fifth Planning District Commission 'further be requested to take no
iaffirmative action on the sites until this report is made. The motion was secondedi
i by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout then moved that the Mayor be requested to appoint a committee
to evaluate the report of the consultants on the proposed sites and report its
irecomnendations to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
Mr. Thomas farther moved that the City Manager be directed to transmit a
communication to the Fifth Planning Distriot Commission advising them that such a
measure will be considered by Council at its next regular meetin9 on Tuesday, May
30, 1972, and a copy of said measure will be ~orthcoming. The motion was seoonded
by'Mr, Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a written report advising that there
Iwill be submitted a prsposal for the 1972-73 budget in the form of a Budget Message
and the detail budgets of the City of Roanoke.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted n 46 page Budget Message.
Mr, Garland moved that.the propo~ed 1972-73 budget 'be ~n~en uncer eonsJd-
erntion. The motion wes seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Attorney for study, report
nnd recommendation a communication from Mr, H. P. Chittum, 2417 Brambleton Avenue,
$. M., relative to the fez*ming of his property at 2417 Brnmbleton Avenue wherein
Mr. Chittam calls upon Council to in'tercede for him and enforce certain agreements
which he described as baring been entered into between him and others following his
discovery that his property had been fez*ned by Ordinance No. 19554, the City
Attorney submitted the foil*sing report advising that he is of the opinion that the
city should not attempt to enforce the agreements stated to have been entered into
with Mr. R. Bo Naif by those applying for the rezoning of his and other properties;
homever, he feels certain that Council would stand ready to consider a reclassifica~
~tion Of the westerly one-half of Lot IH and all of Lot 19, aforesaid, to its former
iclassification of RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, should it be so desired!
iby its owners and the matter properly brought on as for a further amendment Of the
Zoning Ordinance by said ameer or by others responsible for its earlier classificn-
*May 22, 1972
The Honorable Ma~or and Rembers
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
At the meeting of the Council held on May 15, 1972, you referred
to the undersigned the letter of Mr. H. P. ChJttum of 2417
Brambleton Avenue, $. W., relative to the rezoning of his pro-
petty at the above address effected by Ordinance No. 19654,
adopted May 17, 1971. Mr. Chittum calls upon the Council to
intercede for him and enforce certain agreements which he
described as having been entered into between him and others
following his discovery that his property, designated as
Official No. 1561139, had been fez*ned by the ubovementioned
ordinance.
For the Council's information, I enclose herewith'a copyof an
office memorandum which I had prepared for my own information
following receipt of a copy of the communication abovementloned,
which memorandum is dramn completely from the City Clerk's
files in connection with the fez*ming applications handled by
the Council. At no point in the record of the fez*ming procedure
by the City Council, the City Planning Commission or other City
office or official is there evidenced any error on the part of
those bodies or officials; rather, each body apparently assumed,
as it should bare, the correctnedd of the application made by
R. R. Naif Realty Company for the fez*ming of Lots 17, 19 and
19, Block 20, Map of Park Square, the correct omnership of which
lots mas misstated in the applicattonJ
It should be noted, however, that the Council's action in the
matter was taken only after a public hearing was duly held in
the matter, notice of such public hearing on the proposal of
the rezontng of Lots 17, 18 and 19, Block 20, Map of Park
Square, having been published on April 23, 1971, in The World-
News, one of the local newspapers.
A~ indicated in my office memorandum, I am of opinion that the
City should not attempt to enforce the agreements stated to have
been entered into with Mr. Naif by those applying for the fez*n-
lng of his and other properties; however, I feel certain that
the Council would stand ready to consider a reclassification of
440
the mesterly one-hair of Lot 10 and ail of Lot 19, aforesaid,
to its former clnssification of RSo3, Single-Family Residentiel
BJstrictt should it be so desired by its owner mhd the matter
properly brought on us for u further amendment of the Zoning
Ordinance by said owner or by others responsible for its earlier
classification.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. KJncanon
J. N. Kincanon'
Mr. Thomas moved that the report of the City Attorney be received and
filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: Council baring previously appointed Mr. Namer N. Oalhouse as
a member of the Local Board of Virginia Mestern Community College, the City
Attorney submitted u nrittee report transmitting a Resolution officially appoint-
ing Mr. Warner N. Oalhouse as a norther of the Local Board of Virginia Western
Community College, to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Richard R. Hahn, resigned,
ending June 30, 197S.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and of£ered the following Resolution:
(n20280) A R£~OLOTION appointing MARNEB N. BALBOBS£ a member of the
Local Board o[ Virginia MesteFn Community College to fill an unexpired term of
office on said Local'Board, expiring June 30, 197S.
(For full text of ~esolution, see Ordinance Boob m36, page 42~.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption ~ the Resolution. The motion was seconded
· by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, and Mayor
Webber ..................... 6.
NAYS: None O.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The Assistant City Attorney submitted a written
report in connection with a lease between the City of Roanoke and Mr. and Mrs.
Gale B. Cyphers for approximately four acres of land on Garden City Coulevard
I which is being used as n public athletic and recreational area, advising that the
: lease expired on May 31, 1970, that it has not been formally renewed or extended,
although the city has continued its occupancy of the land and has regularly paid
the $75.00 per year former rental charge, that the last payment provides for the
city's occupancy of the property until May 31, 1972, that the city has been
advised on behalf of the property armors that they n~ longer desire to lease their
property for the purposes abovementioned and that this information is brought to
the attention of Council in order that other arrangements may be made if necessary,
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STRBETS AND ALLEYS: The Assistant City Attorney submitted a written
report transmitting an Ordinance for recommended adoption by Council which would
44!
authorize the acceptance of a deed of conveyance from Family Dollar Store of Roonohd,
for a 63.50 square foot parcel of land located nt the southeasterly corner of Dale
Avenue and Vernon Avenue, S. E., to be used in order to round the corner of said
street intersection.
Or. Taylor moved that ·Council concur in the recommendation of the Assis-
tant City Attorney and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=2O2Ol). AN ORDINANCE providing for the acquisition of a b3.SO square
froot parcel of land at the southeast intersection of Dale Avenue and Vernon Street,
~S. E., for public street purposes; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =36, page 429.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
!by Hr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
i AYES: Messrs. Garland, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
!Rebber .......................
~ NAYS: None ........
I ZONING: Council having referred back to the City Planning Commission for
Ifurther study, report and recommendation certain amendments of the Off-street parh-
ina requirements for apartment and commercial zones, the City Planning Commission
,submitted a written report in connection with existing minimum off-street parking
!requirements in the medium and high density residential areas (RG-1 and
and on the existing minimhm off-street parking requirements in the Office and
Institutional District and the General Commercial District.
Mr. Trout moved that Council set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday,
iJune 19, 1972, on the matter. The motion wan seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously
iiudopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: '
POLICE DEPARTMENT-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: Council having referred to a com-
Imittee composed of Messrs. Robert A. Garland, Chairman, Byron E. Hamer, Robert B.
Turner, Jr., and Olin.Garrett for study, report and recommendation a report of the
llCity Manager submitting un evaluation and certain recommendations with respect to
mhat is known as the proprietary fire and burglar alarm communications systems
Operating within the City of Roanoke which are monitored and supervised in the city*sl
communication control' center located on the first floor of the Courthouse Duilding
by police and fire personnel, Mr. Garland presented the following majority report
itransmitting certain ~ecommendations in connection with the matter 'and advising that!
the committee feels that this is a municipal responsibility that increases the
iprobability of the apprehension of the criminal which is the 'primary function of
Ithe Police Deportme~t:
~22 May. 1972
I L. Nebber and
Mayor
Roy
, Members of Roanoke City Council
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to a motion made and duly seconded, at your meetiog of
October 11, 1971, you referred to the undersigned committee, the
z 42
report madeto the City Council on tbal date by the City Manager,
in mhich he recommended the discontinuance of the private burglar
alarm system by' the cJtyes Communication Center, Y6u'ashed ua to
study this report and make our recommendations to the Council.
The Committee had Its first meeting on October 14o 19Ti, et mbJch
time a public hearing nas held. 'After u rather broad discussion,
the committee referred the matter to the city°s Traffic Engineering
and Communications Division of the Department of Public #orks for
clty*s new comaenication center. It should be mentioned nt this
point that one of the committee memberst Mr. Byron Hamer, former
assistant City Manager left the city*s employ since the inception
of this committee. It nas presumed that his replacement on the
committee mould be assumed by the newly appointed assistant City
Manager, Mr. William Clark.
The report from the city's Traffic Engineering and Communications
Division was received by the chairman Of your committee in the
latter part of February. Inasmuch as the couneilmatic elections
were forthcoming, the chairman felt it best to delay any recommen-
dation until after the election. This is mentioned only to
explain to you the reason for the long interim.
The committee met again on Ray 11, ]972, at which time another
public hearing was held to hear the report from the city*s
Traffic Engineering and Communications Division, a copy of which
will be included for Tour careful perusal. Messrs, Sink, Beckley
a Very thorough discussion was held. In addition to the committee,
financial institutions, industry, burglar alarm companies and also
an attorney representing a firm that is interested in installing
a.private central control station.
The real crux of the matter and which o decision is to be based
is mhether or not the city is to continue past practices of
monitoring private burglar alarms in the city's Communication
Center Or to release them to private enterprise. From all indi-
cations particularly fromthose present that receive this service
from the city. they all seemed satisfied with this service and
had much praise for out police department in the performance of
these duties. It is understandable why they would be reluctant
to give up a satisfactory service as opposed to one that they
had had no experience with. The question was also raised as to
whether or not the city would be legally correct to offer this
service to a restricted number of its populace without making it
available to all that desired it or could meet the standards
that would be included in aoy new proposal of specifications.
After the public hearing was concluded, the committee met
privately to discuss the matter further. Since this ts a
policy matter and one which will ultimately be decided upon by'
the Council, the committee felt it should come forth with its
recommendations to the Council at the earliest possible time.
The committee is aware that the Council will be studying it's
1972-73 budget very shortly and should it be the wisdom of the
Council to continue this service, then it will be necessary to
when the vote was taken was divided on thematter by a 3 to
I vote. Accordingly, this majority report is hereby respect-
fully submitted for your careful consideration:
That the City of Roanoke maintain the p~ivate burglar system.
2. That the private burglar alarm system be moved from the old
3. That the operation of the private buYglar alarm system be
entirely under the jurisdiction of the Traffic Engineering and
Communications Division, subject to their regulations and
4. That ~he city's Traffic Engineering and Communications Divi-
sion outline the necessary specifications for ali of the equip-
ment to be used in the operation of this system, that all instal-
lations be approved by them and to be in compliance with the
Roanoke City Electrical Code.
5. That an ordinance be drawn for the approval of the Council
outlining this.
6. That the City of Roanoke advertise for the purchase of the
necessary console equipment and any other equipment that might
be necessary for the city to provide this service.
?. That every means be taken to eliminate false alarms and that
a service charge of $25.00 be established for each false alarm
that results in the police being activated to the scene regard-
less of the cause or that false alarm.
0. That sufficient monies be appropriated in the forthcoming
budget to provide adequate wanpower to monitor this equipment.
(Approximately
9. That sufficient monies be appropriated for the remodeling of
any rooms associated with the relocation of this systea. (Approxi-
mately
10. That an initial charge of $50.00 be adopted for a perait in
the new communications center with an annual renewal fee of
$25.00.
11. That the city provide all terminating equipment and that an
additional $$.00 monthly charge be assessed payable once annually
in advance.
12. That this service be offered anyone that desires it provided
they meet the requirements and regulations as set forth by our
Traffic Engineering and Communications Division.
The committee feels that this is a municipal responsibility
that increases the probability of the apprehension of the criminal
which we would all agree is the primary function of the police
department. There remains some doubt in the committee*s mind
that Roanoke has reached the point whereby a private central
station can be established mhich would be within the relm of
economic acceptance by the subscriber. Nor is there any guaran-
tee that this central station would he available should the city
discontinue this service. However. there is evidence of much
interest of establishing a privately operated central station and
for that matter, there is nothing to keep anyone from doing this
regardless of what the city decides to do. Ouite naturally any-
one interested in such an endeavor would prefer the city to
discontinue providing this service.
However, that be as it amy, it appears to the committee, that if
our recommendations are followed, that this would be a sell sus-
taining department and at the same time would be offering a
service to the public that would give them n general feeling of
well being.
Respectfully submitted,
Robert A. Garland Robert H. Turner, Jr. Olin Carrett
Chairman#
The following minority report from Mr. Byron E. Bauer, former Assistant
City Manager and member of the committee, advising that it is his sincere conviction
that the City of Roanoke, the businessmen and the taxpayers will benefit most by
Council accepting the original ~ecommendation of the City Manager to direct the
removal of this electronic alarm equipment from city property and to recommend the
:transfer of the responsibility for alarm surveillance to private enterprise:
"March 13, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Retention of Electronic Alarm Systems
Every business man is confronted with the problem of pro-
textin9 his business against some phase of crime; therefore, it
becomes his responsibility to select the method of protection or
to take the necessary measures to reduce the inpace on and possibi-
lity of crime against his business. There are many methods by
mhich the businessman may provide more effective protection against
crime, including the use of physical means such as alarm systems.
The businessman must. discourage burglary by maintaining the high-
est level of protection possible for his establishment; therefore,
he should know as much as possible about the alternatives available
to him. The cost of maintaining the alarm system should be
measured against the expected savings in insurance cost as well
as against the average cost of a typical burglary for his type of
Several years ago,,under the.guidance of the Small Huslness
Administration,' a study was undertaken.or the managerial measures
by which businessmen might undertake to protect themselves from
crime. The subsequent report submitted to the Congress of the
United States and entitled *Crime Against Small Husfness* lndi=
ca*es a distinct possibility that the use of central station
systems and/or police department connections may become suffi-
ciently economic and wide spread so as to approach in character
a public utility. The outlook for the future Is for greater
coupetition In the central station industry with the resulting
benefits of better technology aod.lomer cost.
Insurance companies favor alarm protection for attractive
targets and require or recommend Underuritern Labor*Dries certi-
fied systems, other central station service or.local alarms,
in that order. The Hartford Insurance group has stated in its
manual that *the central station system is the best protection
available. Hany target risks otherwise uninsurable can be made
acceptable with the central station alarm. There are also
substantial discounts available.'
On October 11, 1971, the City Homager recommended to City
Council that the practice of permitting private burglar alarm
system to terminate in the City's communication center be discon-
tinued and that such business be encouraged to utilize a central
stations system as provided by private enterprise. City Council
referred the City Hanager*s report to n committee composed of
Conncilman Robert A. Garland, Chairman, Hr. Robert H. Turner, Jr.,
Hr, Olin Garrett and myself to study this request and report back
to City Council with our recommendations.
On October 14, 1971, this committee met with a number of
people concerned with respect to this item. Unfortunately, due to
an emergency situation, I mas forced to'leave the meeting; bom-
ever, it was the majority opinion of the committee remainin9 that
the recommendation of the City Manager not be accepted and the
committee requested that the Traffic Engineer and Communications
Division provide an alternate plan which would involve retaining the
system in theCommunications Center but would include: a. stan-
dards for installation, end b. possible charges and penalties to
include false alarms plus any other data of value to the committee.
A result of their study is being submitted to Council this date
under separate cover. I must disagree with the majority report
and I hereby submit a minority report os folloms:
Nationwide police experience with electronic alarm systems
has been poor and extremely costly to our taxpayers. Statistics
show that in excess of 90% of electronic alarm signals received
by the police in municipal communication centers are false alarms
with u resultln9 high loss in police manhours. The policeman
responds Only to arrive at a locked business with no means of
determining the actual cause of the alarm. He must await the
arrival of the owner. The great majority of these alarms, when
checked in the central station by competent technicians, could
be determined to be false in nature and the police not even
notified.
Huny cities around the country have realized the capabili-
ties of the central station system. They have taken the neons-
sar! steps to provide the proper service through this free enter-
prise, thus saving the taxpayers money and allowing the police to
continue their normal duties and only respond when the central
station notifies the police communication center of a valid
alarm. In such an instance the policeman will be met at the site
of the alarm by a security man who has the keys to the business.
This will allow faster access to the building aDd quicker deter-
mination of the source of the alarm. The following cities have
taken the action indicated:
Richmond, Virginia - Has removed all private alarm systems
from their communications control center.
Norfolk, Virginia - Has removed~all private alarm systems
except to monitor financial institutions. (Expect
financial institutions to move soon.)
Portsmouth, Virginia - Same as Norfolk, Va.
Greensboro, North Carolina - June 1970 notified all private
alarm systems of discontinuance of service.
445
Mlnston Salem, Berth Carolina - February 1971 notified all
Bigh Point, North Carolina - March 1971 - Disconnected burglar alarms from Communications Center,
Virginla Beach, Virginia - After loss of many thousands of
manhours, implemented a $5 charge rot false alarms.
False alarms continue unabated.
Chicago, Illinois - Bo burglar alarms terminating 'in
communication center, handled by private enterprise.
Denver, Colorado - March 1, 1971 - Required removal of alarm sFstems from police communications.
Little Rock, Arkansas - Started removal of burglar alarms in 1969. Now a responsibility of private enterprise.
Sacramento, California - P~l'i~y is to limit' burglar alarm terminals to banking institutions,
Roanoke has reached a point of decision with respect to the
practice of monitoring private alarms by the City*s Communication
Center. City representatives, in an effort to obtain the best
guidance possible with respect to this matter, talhed mith repre-
sentatives of the International A~sociation of Chiefs of Police,
Inc. about burglar alarms, In a letter to Chief M, D. Beeper,
dated January 14, 1972, Mr. James A. F. gaily, Assistant Director
of the Research Division of the IACP stated: *Our experience
reflects that the local law enforcement agencies have resisted the
incorporation of alarm banks into the Communications Centers of
the Police Department. It is our opinion that this is a reason-
able position to take,
The alarm companies have developed a central station system
and are better equipped to handle this specialized function. There
are a number of such companies, and their equipmeot is not neces-
sarily similar. It would be unreasonable to expect, the police
agencies to act in this capacity as it mould require a number of
different systems to be entered into the police communications
center, It js also our judgment that this is an extra service
above and beyond that which i$ provided by the tax base. There-
fore. individuals who desire to have these kinds of systems to
protect their homes must bear the cost of that service.*.
Gentlemen of City Council, I. recognlze that strong influences
from alarm systems users have been applied. They resist ~hange
and they feel that this is a service that they have a right to
expect. It is n service that the City has provided for years
without compensation. Prior to the development Of the State Of
the art in electronic, alarm systems and when the demand for this
service mas small, the City Manager implemented tkls service.
There was or is no biais for this service either in the Charter
or the City Code.
The demand for this service has oatgromn the ability of the
City to provide without needless expenditure of tax dollars. The
expenditure needed is outlined in the committee*~ report. Further-
more the City is providing a service usually provided by private :
enterprise,
It is my sincere conviction that the City, the businessmen
and the taxpayers will benefit most by City Council accepting the
original recommendation of the City Manager to direct the removal
of this electronic alarm equipment from City property and to
recommend the transfer Of the responsibility for alarm surveil-
lance to private enterprise.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Byron Bo Barter'
Byron E. Baner
Assistant City Manager"
Mr. Nilliam F, Clark, Assistant City Manage~ and member of the committee,
!isubmitted the following minority report advising that it is understandable that a
Isegment of the business community favors retention of the present system, particularly
446
since it has been virtually free, but they are overlooking the important improve-
merits in services which could otherwise be provided and the increased costs which
are inevitable in either case:
"May 22. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
SubJect: Retention of Electronic Alarm Systeas*
You are receiving this day a committee report on a pre-
viously submitted proposal from the City Manager which recom-
mended the discontinuance of private burglar alarm systems in
the City*s Communication Center. The majority recommendation
disagrees with the City Manager's proposal and suggests'that
the City retain these alarms. Respectfully i disagree with the
majority opinion and think it appropriate to submit this
minority report.
Included with your material on this Subject there are
provided various studies and reports which have been made con-
cerning this proposal. I do not wish to burden you with an
extensive report containing duplicate statements already out-
lined. A report dated March 13, 1972, from former Assistant
City Manager Myron E. Hamer, would be recommended in your reviem
of the facts. There are a couple of principal points which I
would like to emphasize for Council's consideration.
It is a fact that one of the biggest problems under the
present arrangement involves false alarms. Me now receive
10 - 15 such alarms each day which consume an average'of one-
half hour of a police officers time to respond and verify.
Even using the low figure this means fireman-hours per day
unnecessarily removing police personnel from service. If the
alurmsare continued in the control center they will undoubtedly
expand and the volume of such false alarms will increase. Under
a privately'operated central station, qualified technical per-
sonnel can monitor the system electronically and verify the
accuracy of a large portion of the~arms before involving the
police..The City has neither the personnel nor the equipment
to provide such monitoring and it would be expensive to attempt
to develop these capabilities. Even when a true burglar alarm
developes police officers responding to the scene frequently
have to wait for the property owner or OCCUpant to*arrive with
keys to the building, thus incurring additional delay in
verifying the burglary and ~pprehending the intruders. Again
with u privately operated central station, security officers
can promptly meet the police ut the scene to expedite the
investigation.
Another important factor is that a rather limited service
to a particular segment of the community is now provided and
would be available if the alarm system is retained in the City's
control center. There are a number of additional types of
alarm service, such us industrial surveillance and monitoring,
which would be available but are difficult for a private firm
to offer so long as the City is providing these alarm facilities
in competition. Regardless of Council's decision it seems
reasonable that cost of alarm service to the subscriber will
increase. Even if the City retains the alarms the recommenda-
tions include fees for improved facJlitles~and services, along
with proposals to require more of the alarm companies connect-
ing to the control center. The value of a central station is
shown by the fact that insurance companies will give up to O0~
in premium reduction for alarms connected to approved central
stations but not when connected to police facilities.
It is understandable that a segment of the business com-
munity favors retention of the present system, particularly
since it b~s been virtually free. I believe they are over-
looking the important improvements in services which could
otherwise be provided and the increasedcosts'which are
inevitable in either case. Mhatever Council*s decision you
may be assured of the administration*s fullest cooperation in
carrying out your wishes.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ #illiam Clark
William F. Clark
Assistant City Manager"
In a discosslon, the City Manager exprqssed the opinion that he does not
feel that this is a matter that the city government should become the agency
iresponsible for handling, that the present system has gromn to the point that it
should be monitored by private enterprise that can provide more sophisticated
systems and questioned the fine for the false alarms as set forth In the report of
the committee.
Mr. Lish advised that he Joins uith the minority group, that the committee
is not taking into account the amount, of mnnpouer that is being used, that me have
called upon the Police Department to do so many things and that he cannot see tak-
ing up the time of these men mhen there are people who operate this type of business
for a livelihood,
After a lengthly discussion of the reports, Mr. Thomas moved that the
matter be referred to 1972-73 budget study for further 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:
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS-PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES: Council having directed
the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure authorizing the employment of three
additional semage plant operators, for the Sewage Treatment Plnnt, effective June 1,
1972, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution:
(~20282) A RESOLUTION authorizing the employment of three (3) additional
sewage plant operators, (Code DO20) for the Sewage Treatment Plant, effective June
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 430.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted hI the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None O.
FIRE DEPARTMENT: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure authorizing the employment of architectural services to prepare
and provide plans, specifications, contract documents and other professional ser-
~ vices in and about the construction of a new Rain Fire Station for the city, upon
certain terms and provisions, he presented same, whereupon, Mr. Thomas moved the
' adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland.
Hr. Lisk offered a substitute motion that action on the proposed Ordinance
be deferred pending a report from a committee composed of Messrs. Julian F. Hirst,
A. K. Hughson and Robert E. Mullah, Jr.. as to their recommendations in connection
i with the locations of the three fire hou'ses. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
447
SEWERS AND STORM' DRAINS: Council having dlrecfed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure approving the City Manager's issuance or Change Order
No. I in connection with the cfty*s contract with Wiley N: Jackson Company dated
December' 6. 1971, for the construction or the Albemarle Ay'anne Storm Drain Project
he presented SaDe; mhereupon, Mr. Garland offered the folloming Resolution:
(=20283) A RESOLUTION approving the City Wanager*s issuance of Change
Order No. I in connection with the City's contract with Wiley N. Jachson Company
dated December 6, 1971, /or the construction of the Albemarle Avenue Storm Drain
Project.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Rook =36, page 431.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lish, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None ........... O.
CITY EMPLOYEES-PAY PLAN-CIVIL DEFENSE: Council having directed the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure 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 the position of Coordinator of Civil Defense,
i and deleting from said plan the position of Assistant Coordinator of Civil Defense.
he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Link moved that the following Ordinance be placed
, upon its first reading:
(=20284) AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 19751, heretofore adopted
on June 28, 1971, providing a System of Pay Rates and Ranges and anem Pay Plan,
i by adding to said Pay Plan the position of Coordinator of Civil Defense, and
~deleting from said plan the position of Assistant Coordinator of Civil Defense;
providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, the City Manager has recommended to the Council the changes to
the City*s Pay Plan hereinafter authorized to be made, in order to make provision
for the position of Coordinator of Civil Defense in said plan and to delete there-
from the position of Assistant Coordinator of Civ~ Defense in the Administrative
and Specialized class, such changes to take effect May IS! 1972; and the Council
~has concurred in said City Manager's recommendation.
WHEREAS, it is necessary for the usual daily operation of the municipal
igovernment that this ordinance take effect immediately upon its passage.
THEREFORE,'BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the'City of Roanoke that
Ordinance No. 1'9751, heretofore adopted on the 28th day of June, 1971, providing a
i;System of Pay Rates and Ranges and a new Pay Plan for the employees of the City, be
land the same is hereby amended by the deletion therefrom' of the classification set
! Work Range Stems in Ronthl? Amounts
Code Classification Meek No. I ~ 3 4 ~ ~
1229 Assistant Coordi- - 21 $642 $674 $708 $744 $780 $820
nator of Civil
Defense
449
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that Ordinance No. 19751, be further amended by
the addition to the aforesaid Pay Plan, in an appropriate place, of the follouing
described position of euploymento such addition to he made in the folloming mords
and figures, to-mit:
1229 Coordinator or - 22 $700 $144 $780 $820 $860 $904
civil Defense
BE IT FURTHER ORDAIHED that. an emergency existing, this ordinance be in
force and effect on and after May 15. 1972.
The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Mayor
iWehber ........................6.
NAYS: None ..........O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Mr. Barry Housman and Mr. Bob Knight. Disc Jockeys,
i!trfo¥, appeared before Council and requested the permission of Council to allow
iWfO¥ to conduct record hops in the tennis courts at Hurt Park, Eureka Park and
Mr. Thomas moved that the request be referred to the City Manager for
i:study, report and recommendation to Council. The notion uae seconded by Mr. Lish
~and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT-INSURANCE-CITY EMPLOYEES-PENSIONS:
iMr. Trout read the following prepared statement in connection with the assumption b~
ilthe City of Roanoke of the total monthly premium of Blue Cross - Blue Sl~eld - Mai
Medical hospitalization insurance for all municipal employees and their families,
that certain changes be incorporated into the city pension plan for police and fire*
fighters and providing certain changes in the city personnel board:
The R,an,he City Police Patrolman's Assoc. and the R,an,he Fire-
fighter's Ass,c, hereby requests that the City of R,an,he assume
the total monthly premium of Blue Cross - Blue Shield - Major
Medical hospitalization insurance for all municipal employees
and their families.
The Associations further request that the f,Il,ming changes be
incorporated into the city pension plan for p,lice and firefighters.
I - The minimum service retirement age is age 55 or the date
prior thereto mheu a member completes 25 years of service.
A member who has attained his minimum service retirement
age may upon his own application retire. Retirement is
compulsory at age 65, except for elected officials, while
serving in such capacity.
The retirement allowance consists of:
A - Same as.in book. - See Note 1
B - A pension which, together.with his annuity, will
provide a total amount equal to 1/60 of the average
final compensation of the member, multiplied by the
number of his years of creditable service.
2 - The f,Il,ming changes for the city personnel board:
A - The board should consist of 7 qualified voters, two of uhich mould be members of the city classified
service, nominated end elected by members'of the
city classified service, one of mblch MUST be n
member of the police or fire department. Five
members of the board mould constitute a quorum at
any meeting.
To hear appeals from any disciplinary action involv-
ing suspension, reduction in rank or psy or removing
any officer or employee in the classified service us
herein-after provided end to report Its findings and
decisions to the city manager. The decisions of the
board are to be final.
Note I. A - An annuity equal to the amount provided by the
contributions of.the member at the tine be retires;
Also, the results of the survey requested of the
city manager by Councilmen Ljsk pertaining to
Blue Cross - Blue Shield.
Mr. Trout moved that the question of whether the City of Roanoke will
assume the total monthly premium of Blue Cross - Blue Shield - Major Medical
hospitalization insurance'for all municipal employees and their families be
referred to 1972-73 budget study for consideration. The motion mas seconded by
Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout furthermoved that the City Auditor be directed to furnish
Council with a cost breakdown in connection mith allowing the minimum service
retirement for members of the Police Department and Fire Department to be at age
55 or tbs date prior thereto mhen a member completes 25 years of service and that
the matter be considered by Council during the 1g72-73 budget study sessions.
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout amended his motion to provide
that the above retirement benefits apply to all municipal employees and not
specifically to the members of the Police Department and the Fire Department and
that the City Auditor he requested to furnish Council with the necessary cost
breakdown accordingly. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted,
Mr, Trout then called attention to the following recommended changes for
the city personnel board:
a. Zhe board should consist of ? qualified voters, two of which
mould be members of the city classified service, nominated and
elected by members of the city classified service, one of mhicb
MUST be a member of the police or fire department. Five members
of the board mould constitute u quorum at any meeting; and
b. To hear appeals from any disciplinary action involving suspension,
reduction in rank or pay or removing any officer or employee
in the classified service as hereinafter provided and to report
its findings and decisions to the City Manager, The
decisions of the board to be.final,
Mr, Trout moved that the proposed two changes be referred to the City
Manager for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion mas seconded
by Mr, Thomas and unanimously adopted,
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the neeting
adjourned.
'APPROVED
ATTE~:
iDeputy City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Nondaye Bay 30, 1972o
The Council o[ the City of Roanoke met In regular meeting Jn the Council
Chamber in the #unicipal Building, Tuesday, Bay 30, 1972, ut 2, p.m., the regular
meeting hour, uith Bayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PR£SENT: Councilmen Egbert A. Garland, Duyfd K. £fsk, ~oel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Webber
ABS£NT: None ,0,
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager; Hr. William F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. H. Ben Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney; and
Mr. John H. Mitchell, Assistant City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Mr. Charles J.
Nhitacre, Director, Offender Aid Restoration of Roanoke.
MINUTES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
May 15, 1972, and the regular meeting held on Monday, May 22, 1972, having been
furnished each member Of Council, on motion of Mr. Trout, seconded by ~r. Lisk and
unanimously adopted, the reading thereof mas dispensed with and the minutes approved
as recorded.
· The City Clerk reported that Hr. William 'S. Hubard, who was present at
the Council meeting, has qualified as a member of Council to fill the unexpired
term of Mr. Vincent S. Wheeler, resigned, ending August 31, 1972.
Mr. Thomas moved that the qualification be received and filed, mhereupon,!!
Mr. Bnbard took his seat. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON 'PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council having continued a public hear/fig until 2 p.m., Tuesday,
May 30, 1972, of T. Weldon Hale, trading as Bale Real Estate Agency, and Rebecca
Y. Hale, that 16 acres of land, more or less. near the intersection of Cove Road
and Hershberger Road. N. W** described as the northeasterly portion of Official Tax
No. 2480147, all of Official Tax Nos. 2460117, 24B0141 and 2480148 and the south-
erly portion of 2460111, be rezoned from R$-3, Single-Family Residential District,
to BG-1, General Residential District. the matter was again before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be granted:
"March 16, 1972
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 meetings of February 16 and March 15,
1972.
Mr. J. Dleamood Strickler, ottoreey for the petitioners,
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he uss
representing the petitioners, Mro and HFS. Hale. He then pre-
sented u site plan to the Commission members noting that the
petitioners propose to erect 22 feur-plex apartment structures
on the property in question. Finally, Mr. Strichler noted that
the apartments mould be for moderate income families and would
serve both the mhite and the non-mhite population.
Hr. Laurence, Plsn~ning Commission member, questioned the total
number of units to be constructed on this site. Mr. Strichler
noted that there mill be a total of flO living units and 10
additional living units in the 3 tomnhouse aportments. He also
stated that the 2-bedroom apartments mill rent for about $12S
a month and the 3-bedrooms for $135 a month. Finally, Hr.
Strickler presented a petition mith g4 names on it of people
calling rot apartments within a tmo-month period.
ars. Ralph H. Leslie, a resident in the neighborhood, appeared
before the Planning Commission in opposition to the rezooing. She
stated that the area is presently residential and she felt that it
should remain that may. Hr. Strickler noted that he felt the
rezonin9 change would be an asset to the community.
The Planning Commission members generally felt that the
circulation and access elements related to this site needed to
be studied in greater detail and that the Planning Director
should confer mith the petitioners to resolve these issues.
Mr. Strickler again appeared before the Planning Commission
at the March IS meeting mod stated that Mr. Ilale and the Planning
Director had resolved the circulation pattern relating to the
proposed development, lie noted that the petitioner plans to
extend Coveland Drive and Clenroy Street, both to terminate at
Kirkland,
The Planning Director noted that his office had morked
closely with the Engineering Department and Mr. Male and it mos
generally agreed that this nam circulation pattern represented
a viable solution.
Accordingly, motion was mode, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommendin9 to City Council the granting of this
request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Hr. J. Glenwood Strickler, Attorney, representing the petitioners, appear-
iled before Council in support of the request of his clients, and advised that the
ilproposed apartments will be for moderate imco'me families, that it ia projected that
!ithe apartments will rent for $125.00 per month to $135.00 per month, that there is
ia definite need forthis type of housing and that there will be 205 off-street pork-
fling spaces.
Mr. T. Neldon Hale, appeared before Council in support of his request
advised that he does not feel that the establishment of these apartments will devalue
iexisting properties in ~he area in any may, that if onythfn, it will increase the
value of surrounding properties and that four of the sixteen acres of land mill be
set aside for recreational purposes.
Relations, appeared before Council and presented a communication advising that on
May 15, 1972, the Roanoke Valley Council on Human Relations beard a report on the
proposed los--density apartments for Hershberger and Cove Roads and voted unanimousl
~to support the Hale Real Estate Agency and the endorsement by the Community Rela-
tions Committee, advising that 21 of its 200 members attended this open executive
IsessJon and urged Council to reconsider and make this useful development possible.
[
Mr.' W. ED Armstrong, representing Tech Hode Corporation/ Chatham,
Virginia, appeared before Council and presented a set of plans rot the~ propoued
upurtments andpointed out that when ~he F~A receives their set of the proposed
plans, it mill alleviate nny fears that the project will not be built according to
plans which uere presented to Council.
The Reverend Horatio Edwards appeared before Council and advised that Jt
has been rumored that the proposed apartment project will more or less be au insult
to the existing residents Jn the area, that this Js a matter of opinion° that Coun-
cil bas always advocated progress in the City of Roanohe and expressed the opinion
that he is sure Council mill consider the entire project as it has been presented
to them and vote in favor of it.
Approximately forty persons appeared before Council in support of the
request.
Hr. Clifton A. Woodrum, III, Attorney, representing numerous citizens who'
reside in the area to be affected by the rezoaing, appeared before Council and pre-I
seated the following communication pointing out that bis clients remain firm in
their opposition to this rezonin9 and advised that he is certain that when Council ,
has maturely considered the opposition in this matter, they will find that they have
no jurisdiction to reconsider the issue at this time and that it should be denied
its merits:
The Honorable Roy L. Webber
4020 Williamson Road
Roanohe, Virginia
The Honorable James O. Trout
3744 Signal Hill Drive
Roanohe. Virginia
The Honorable David K. Lish
gOg Carriugton Avenue
Roanoke,.Yirginin
The Honorable Hoel C. Taylor
2460 Hrandin Road
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Honorable Hampton W. Thomas
3673 Peakwood Drive
Rounoke, Virginia
The Honorable Robert A. Gurland
1345 Lakewood Drive, S. M.
Roanoke. Virginia
The Honorable William S. Hubard
2202 Carter. Road, S. W,
Roanoke, Virginia
As you are aware, we represent numerous citizens who reside
in the a~ea to be affected by the proposal of T. Weldun Hale and
others to rezone 16 acres of land, more or less, near the inter-
section of Hershberger Road and Cove Road to provide for 106
apartment units to Serve *moderate income families.* Our clients,
who have increased in number since we last appeared before you on
behalf.of H4 of them, remain firm in their opposition to this
rezouin9. A summary of their position is set out as folloms:
1. First, our clients maintain that any reconsideration of
this rezoning Which was rejected by a four to three vote at the
meeting of Council on April 17, 1972, violates the plain and
uoequivocnle terms of the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance as we
have previously pointed out. Any participation that me may take
on behalf of our clients before Council, therefore, in opposin9
this rezoning is without waivin9 such legal rights as our clients
may huve~
2. Without rehashing What we feel are the persuasive argu-
ments against this rezoning, we nonetheless would emphasize that
the petition would place lO& lfring units Jn the mJddlec~ one of
the finest residential areas in northwest Roanoke. Our clients~
most of whom own their own homes--are solid middle class people who
-45§
bare worked hard to gain what they have. Host of them are
familiar with the problems of apartment projects and they bought
their hones in their present location to excape them; ironically,
the projects seem to follow the. They feel strongly that the
ieposition of these apartments in this area would do the follow-
ing:
(u) Completely destroy the single-family character of this
neighborhood by placing a higher density use in the middle of a
low density area.
(b) Create traffic problems. If we estimate that the 106
living units mould have (by conservative estiomte) 1.5 cars per
unit. this mould indicate an increase of traffic over the roads
that ore and mill be used as access in this area of 159 cars per
day. This figure does not take into account the additional
traffic that would be caused by services such as milk delivery,
laundry, garbage, social visitors, etc.
(c) It would overcrowd the schools in the area. As you
ore aware, most of the children attend Huff Lane Elementary
School which is at or near its capacity. The addition of
200 or nora children to this school would severely overcrowd it.
We are aoare that certain members of Council feel that this is
not a proper issue since, they seem to feel that, *overcrowding
most Occur before expansion** Me would respectfully disagree and
suggest that it is the proper function of council to plan for future
expansion in advance of overcrowding.
3. An article in the Roanoke Times of Sunday, Hay 21, 1972,
indicates that a significant portion of the financial community
feels that there is a definite need for additional single-family
development and that the apartment situation in Roanoke has
reached the point of a riot on the market. (Me are enclosing
a machine copy of this article for your ready reference.)
4. After council denied the rezoning request on April 17,
1972, there was considerable discussion of the merits of this
disposition in the local media. There seemed to be some opinion
that because the petitioners Jn this case happened to be black,
that the rejection of the petition mas Some evidence of discrimi-
nation. We reject that contention as a bogus issue. As some of
you may remember, Council unanimously rejected a similar petition
very close to the property now under consideration on October 21,
1968, which had been filed by Fralin and Waldron--a white develop-
ment firm. As you will recall. Fralin and Maldron desired to
place 116 townhouse residences on approximately 15 acres of land
near the Fairland Lake Club. As you will recall, this was
rejected. .Ne would submit that the same reason under which Coun-
cil less than four brief years ago rejected the petition of Fralln
and Waldron would obtain in the instant situation. (We enclose
newspaper articles on this issue for your reference).
Me are certain that when Council has maturely considered
the opposition in this matter, they will find (1) that they
have no jurisdiction to reconsider the issue at this time and
(2) that it should be denied on its merits.
Respectfully,
DODSON, PENCE, COULTER. VIAR ~ yOUNG
S! Clifton I. Woodrum, III
Clifton A. Woodrum, III*
In a discussion. Mr. #oodrumpointed out that on April 17, 1972, Council
!!held, a public hearing on the matter, that persons appeared in oppoltion to the
request for rezoning and Council denied the matter by a 4 - 3 vote, that the
Roanoke City Zoning. Ordinance provides that *having once considered a petition,
City Council will not reconsider substantially the same petition for one year,*
land that he is of the opinion that any reconsideration of any prior actions of
!Council is improperand illegal in view of the plain terms of the Zoning Ordinance,
!Mr. Woodrum further-pointed out that his clients feel that the proposed apartments
will devaluate their property be placing n higher density uae in the middle of a
low density area, that it mill~aggvarnte a traffic problem on Ferncli~f Avenue, nnd
Coreland Drive, that ~t mill overcrowd Schools in the urea and that the rezoning of
tbJa property mill change the basic character of the neighborhood, that the City of
Roeuche has no guarantee that the plans which have been pre~ented to Council for
the apartments will be constructed, that there is no fir~ commit*men* from anyone,
that what has been said Ir not binding on the developer and that to grant this '
request for rezoning is to give impetus to segregated housing in the ¢i%y of
Mr. f. E. Carpenter, 161~ Covelaad Drive, M. ¥., appeared before Council
and called attention ~o the existing traffic conJection in the area, pointing out
that the proposed apartments will only *ned to make the matter worse and that the
apartments will reduce the value of existin9 properties in the area.
Mr, John L, Choppell, 1616 Coveland Drive. N. f., appeared before Councili
and advised that he has talked with residents of the area and that they have inform~
ed him that they did not rec~ve any official notification from the City Planning
Commission with regard to the rezoning.
Mr. Joseph C. Crutchfield, Presidnet of the Fairland Civic League, appear~
ed before Council and expressed the opinion that this is not a matter of racial
beautiful but they are not compatible with single-family residences.
Approximately forty persons appeared before Council in o~positJon to the
At this point, Mr. Lisk left the meeting.
Mr. George N. Harris, Jr., Attorney, representing Mr. tlale, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client and presented a list of
affected property owners which was presented to the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Garland requested that the Assistant City Attorney render a legal
opinion as to whether or not Council is acting illegally in reconsidering this
The Assistant City Attorney replied that under the provisions of the City
Charter, Council can act only by Ordinance or Resolution, that at the public hear-
in9 held on Monday, April 17, 1972, the Ordinance proposing the rezoning of the
subject property was neither introduced nor voted upop and that in his opinion the
matter would not be fully considered until the rezoning ordinance was introduced
and voted upon, and that, therefore, Council could legally and properly fully con-
Mr. Garland ~hen moved that the following Ordinance rezoniag the property
~be placed upon its first reading: .
(n20285) A~ ORDIMANCE to amend Title XV~ Chapter 4.1, Section R, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 248, Sectional
1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
RHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Ronnoke
to have certain property containing 16 acres, more or less. near the intersection
of Cove Road end Nersh~erger Road in the City of Roanoke~ Virginia, and designated
as being the northeasterly portion of Official Tax Number 24G0147o all of Official
Tox Nunbe~rs21flOllY. 2460141, 2480148, and the southerly portion of Official Tax
Number 2460111. rezoned from RS-3. Single-Family Residential District, to RG-1.
General Residential District; and
MHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the hereinafter
described land be rezoned from RS-3. Single-Family Residential District, to
iOeneral Residential District; and
MHEREAS. 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. 19560 as amended, relating to Zoning. have been published and
iposted as required and for the time provided by said section; and
RHEREAS. the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the 17th
iday of April. 1972, and again, on the 30th day of May, 1972. at 2 p.m., before the
Council of the City of Roanoke, at which hearing all parties in interest and citi-
irons were given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed
!rezoning; and
NHEREAS, this Council. after considering all such matters, is of the
iopinton that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
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
amended, relating to Zoning. and Sheet No. 248 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City
!of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Certain property containing 16 acres, more or less. near the intersection
iof Cove Road and Hershberger Road in the City of Roanoke. Virginia. designated on
heet 240 of the Sectional 1966 Zone MOp, City of Roanoke, as bain9 the northeaster-
ily portion of Official Tax Number 2480147, all of Official Tax Numbers 24fl0117,
!12480141, 2480148, and the southerly portion of Official Tax Number 2480111, be, and
!!is hereby, changed from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to Rtl-l, General
i~ResidentJal District, and that Sheet No, 24fl of the aforesaid map be changes in this
i,respect~
~ Zhe motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
i AVES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Taylor and Thomas 4.
NAYS: Mr. Trout and Mayor Webber ...................... 2.
~(Rr. Lisk absent)
~ CITY EMPLOYEES-PAY PLAN: Mr. R. E. Myers. Consultant. Public Service
~mployees Local Union No. 1261, appeared before Council on behalf of the blue collarl
orkers of the City of Roanoke and requested that Council increase the City Manager*s
budget request for a five per cent pay increase to a seven per cent pay increase
~siace the workers have only received a twenty per cent increase over the past three
years, edrlsleg t~ut he supports tbs City Msuagerts recommendation that the city
uudermrite t~e cost of'the Blue Cross Insurance for the workers nad t~eir families
that if this is done, he eisa requests that Council hold to ut least the five per
cent increase recommended in the budget end commending tbs City Manager on bis
recoemendation roe a fourth step for Sanitation washers, therefore, increasing
the pay of approximately thirty workers after they have completed four and one
half years of merited service.
to 1912-73 budget study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously
adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
DOGS-COMPLAINTS-TAXES~ A communication from Mrs. James E. Melton,
President, Roanoke Valley Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,
advising that she understands that the donation for the Roanoke Valley SPCA has
been deleted from the proposed budget by the City Manager, that she would like for
the donation to be reinstated in the budget and would like the opportunity to be
heard in person at the time of budget sutyd, that she mould further like to pre-
sent a petition from the citizens of the City of Roanoke in favor of lowering the
dog license fee for spayed females and altered males, that the SPCA is of the
opinion that a great many persons are not buying d~9 tags and most probably are
not getting their do~s innoculated against rabies, that since there has been a
quarantine in the county recently because of rabies me do not want the situation
to become a reality in the City of Roanoke and requesting that 'Council not con-
sider the revenue from the dog tag sales 'but the very real threat of rabies in
dogs that are 'not ~nnoculated simply because the owner refuses to buy a tag and
reasons that the innoculations are not necessary now, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be referred to 1972-73 budget
study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting certain transfers totaling $55,4fl2.00 in the 1971-72 budget of the
Roanoke City School Board, adrlsing that the transfers are necessary in order for
the School Board to meet its operating obligations for the remainder of the
fiscal year, was before Council.
Mr. Thomasmoved that Council con'cur in the request of the Roanoke City
School B~ard and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:'
(a20286) 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 drdinance Book a36, page 433.)
Mr. Thomas moved *be adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion #as secondedi
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the folloming vote:
Webber
NAYS: None. .0. (Mr. Lisk absent)
from Fees. for Prores.sional and. Special Services to Data Processing under Section
865, 'Electoral Board,' or the 1971-72 budget, to provide rnnds rot the remainder
or the fiscal year, was before Council.
Hr. Thomas moved that Council concur Jn the request or the Chnirman or
ithe the following emergency Ordinance:
Electoral
Board
and
offered
fm20207! AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section nB5 'Electora
(For tull text or Ordinance. see Ordinance Book m36, page 433.)
Webber .....................
NAYS: None O. (Br. Lisk absent)
office supplies to his allowance for premium on offi(~l bonds, was before Council.
Policy making, was before Council.
Mayor Webber then appointed Mr. Jerome S. Howard, Jr** as a member of the
b!nks as '
ZONIKG:. A communication from Mr. Ednard S. Kidd, Jr.. Attorney. repre-
senting Mr. Sam J. Eiliott. et 'ax,. requesting that property adjoining the east'
side of 2722 Smeetbrier Avenue. S, W., described as park of Lot 5, Dlocb 7. Map
of Corblesham. Official Tax Ko. 1651102, be rezoned from RS-2. Single-Family
Residential District. To RD, Duplex Residential Distriot. was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the request /or rezonfog he referred to the City
Plan~ing Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ZOKISG: A communication from Hr. Harvey S, Latins, Attorney~ represent-
ing S. E. Holding Corporation. requesting that properties located on Jamison
Avenue between 12th Street and 13th Street. S. E.. described as Lots 14 - 23.
inclusive. Map of Oak Ridge Land Company, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential
District, to C-2, General Commercial District. was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the request ~ r rezooing be referred to the City
Planning Commission for study, report nad recommendation to Council, The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET: The City Manager submitted the following report in connection
mith budget accounts which are in need Of fund ajustments or additional funds,
advising that be does not fully concur in the situation but it appears necessary:
"May 30. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Deficient Budget Accounts
There are a number of budget accounts in need of fund adjust-
ments or additional funds. This Situation I do not fully concur
iff but appears necessary. Ne refer to City Council the following
listing of the several existing account deficiencies. Me are
also including several accounts which are anticipated will need
additional funds prior to June 30.
Account No. 45 - Police Department
Object Code 114, Overtime. Requested appropriation,
$20,000.
The major portion of this expenditure is for
monhours assigned at the Civic Center which was not
originally budgeted. These costs are largely reim-
bursed to the City by those using the facilities
as a port of Center use costs.
Object Code 26~. Maintenance of Machinery and Equipment -
Requested appropriation, $12.41.
Object Code 245. Rentals, Transfer $543.65 from Object Code 220, Communications.
These funds are necessary for the rental fee on
the computer terminal connected to the State nad
Federal Crime Information Centers. The installa-
tion cost was by LEA grant funds. Rental cost
mill be the localities'.
Account 47 - Fire Department
Object Code 201, Dtilities. Requested appropriation.
$5400.
The deficiency in this account is largely attri-
butable to theincreased price of coal during the
past fiscal year.
Object Code 311, Food,· Medical aud Househeeping Sup-
plies. Transfer $365.15 from Account 370, Other Equip-
ment, Replacement.
These funds are necessary for the payment of
laundry and cleaning services for the balance of
the current fiscal year.
Account 57 - Traffic Engineering and Communications
Object Code 320e Printing and Office Supplies.
Transfer $25 from Account 320, Operating Supplies
and Materials.
This is to properly adjust account charges.
Account 65- Airport
Object Code 201, Utilities. Transfer $2500 from Object
Code 245; also requested appropriation of $4,000; total
needed, $b500.
There has been a general increase in business
activity at Roanoke Municipal Airport of approxi-
mately 14 percent during the current year with a
resulted increase in heating, lighting, fuel end
other utility expenses. Hilling to the Airport
by the supplying utilities project these costs to
the end of the fiscal year.
Object Code 300, Printing and Office Supplies. Transfer
$50 from Object Code 240, Insurance.
This is to properly adjust account charges.
Account 66 - Market
Object Code 105, Extra Help. Transfer $500 from Object
Code 201, Utilities.
Due to two extended sick leave experiences by
market personnel, this extra help account has
exceeded original estimates.
Account bH - Street Cleaning
Object Code 114, Overtime. Transfer $50 from Account
69, 114, Refuse Collection and Disposal Overtime.
These expenses arise from the need to clean
debris and mud from the streets following storms.
Account 76 - Stadium
Object Code 201, Utilities. Requested appropriation,
~4,000.
Contributing to the cost of utilities at the
Stadium are the OIC facilities located under the
East Stand. At the end of the fiscal year OIC
will reimburse the City for services used and
this sum will be offset by revenue.
Account ?? - Civic Center
Object Code 106, Extra Help. Requested appropriation,
$82,500.
The majority of expenditures in this category
resuXt from the volume of activity at the Center
and these funds are largely reimbursed by those
using the Center facilities. The rate of extra
help expenses moves with Center activity.
Object Code 114, Overtime. Requested appropriation,
$9.000.
These expenses are also related to Civic Center
activities and are largely reimbursed by those
using the facilities. This rate also moves with
Center schedules and activities.
Object Code 201, Utilities. Requested appropriation,
$28,000.
The expenditures in this category are dependent
upon Civic Center activities and are difficult
to predict in advance. The budget for 1971-72
was prepared without any prior operational
experience.
Object Code 346, Promotions. Requested appropriation,
$7,245.13.
This represents the present deficiency in the account
used to promote events at the Civic Center and
entirely recovered in revenue.
462
ObJect Code 249, Exhibitions. ~eqcested appropriation,
$184,000,
These expenditures are directly related to Income
received by the Civic Center acd deposited in the
City's General Fund. Included sre ticket sales
other out-of-pocket expenses, This is offset ia
revenue.
The folloming transfers are to adjust charges to the various
accounts:
Object Code 260, Maintenance of Machinery and Equip-
ment. Transfer $500 from Object Code 255, Maintenance
of Buildings and Property.
Object Code 245, Rentals. Transfer $1000 from Object
Code 320, Operating Supplies and Materials.
Object Code ~30,.Travel, Transfer $120 from Object
Code 231, Education.
Object Code 300, Printing and Office Supplies. Transfer
$1500 from Object Code 320, Operating Supplies and
Materials.
Account 91 - NonDepartmental
Object Code 534. State Tax. Requested appropriation,
$658.34.
Object Code 538, Refund Accounts. Requested appropria-
tion, $25,000.
A large expenditure in this category is to refund
to the General Fund the School Board telephone
charges.
Account g7 - Terminal Leave
Object Code 115, Requested appropriation, $12o000.
This represents the extent of terminal leave pay-
ments made to retiring employees beyond those
monies anticipated at the beginning of the fiscal
year.
Account 90 - Sewage Treatment Fund
Object Code 210o Fees for Professional and Special
Services. Requested appropriation, $1320.
This sum is needed to reimburse the City"s consul-
that. Alvord. Burdick C Bowson. for engineering
services provided in connection with the recently
concluded sewage contract negotiations. The
budget did not provide funds for this type of
service.
Object Code 230, Travel Expense. Requested appropriation,
$]00.
These funds are ceededto pay for staff expenses
State Mater Control Board.
Account 290 - Mater Department :
Object Code 201, Transfer $500 from Object Cede
Operating Supplies and Materials.
These funds represent cost for electric and oil
bills in excess of those anticipated at the
beginning of the fiscal year.
Object Code 255, Maintenance of Buildings and Property.
Transfer $5°000 from Object Code 320, Operating Supplies
and Materials.
These funds are needed to pay for malntenacce of
broken water lines and related street restorations.
Normal monthly expenditures in this category are
approximately $2500, whereas during the month of
April an excess of $9000 was spend. For example,
more than $5000 was spend in repair of a single
12-inch water line break un Grandin Road.
Respectfully submitted.
$/ Julian F. Nirnt
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager#
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur In the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#20289) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaJn certain aec*ions of the
1971=72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, page 434.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the f,Il,ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubardo Taylor, Thomas, Trout.and Mayor
Webber .........................
NAYS: None ........ -O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
Mr. Thomas then offered the following emeroency Ordinance amending and
reordaining the 1971-T2 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance:
(#20289) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ago, "Sewage Treat-
ment Fund," of the 1971-T2 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and pro-
riding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book 33b, 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. Hubavd, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Mayor
Nebber .......................
NAYS: None O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
Mr. Thomas further offered the following emergency Ordinance amending
the 1971-72 Mater Fund Appropriation Ordinance:
(~20290) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~290, ~Nater - Dis-
tribution and Transmission," of the 1971-72 Mater Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and
providing for aa emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 437.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber 6.
NAYS: None O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
PLANNING-POLICE DEpARTMENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL BUILOING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted a written report advising that by direct
memo of May 23, 1972, he forwarded to the members of Council a letter of May 19,
1972, from Mr. Robert M. Shannon, Executive Director of the Fifth Planning District
Commission, to Chairman J. Thomas Engleby of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors;
a regional corrections study summary; a memorandum from the Commission advising
a meeting on Thursday, May 25, 1972, at a p.m., at Friendship Manor to which local!
officials were invited; and a copy of the revised Chapter XI Corrections Center
Site Evaluation.
463
464
Dr. Taylor moved lbat the report be received sod filed. Th~ motion mas
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
MARKET-TRAFFIC-PLANNING: The City Manager submitted a mrltten report
advising that he fs in receipt of a brief report and certain material from National
Garages, Incorporated, In response to their commission by Council for Phase II of
their study of a proposed parking garage facility, advising that varlQus staff per-i
sonnel bare gone over the report and it ia their opinion that they would lfeb to
confer with the consultants on this material, that such n meeting has been tentative-
ly set for the week of June 5 and that it is felt preferable to hold up on any
detailed presentation to Council until staff personnel can confer with the con-
sultants.
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PERSONNEL-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager submitted the following report
in connection with proposed changes in the city personnel procedure as presented by
Vice Mayor James O. Trout at the regular meeting of Council on Monday, May 22, 1972~
advising that the Personnel Board of the Cityof Roanoke has performed excellent
service since it wes first established, that because of the high quality and interest
of its membership, it has been agreat deal of value in the city*s employee pro-
9ram and that it is felt that to change the system at this time. without any
really good reason baying been put forth for doing so, would reduce the strength
and effect of the arrangement:
~May 30, 1972
ttonorable gayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Geetlemen:
Subject: City Personuel Ordinance
T~e City Council on May 22 referred to me the follow-
ing proposed changes In the City personnel procedure which were
before your body:
A. The board should consist of seven qualified voters, two
of which would be members of the City classified service,
nominated and elected by members of the City classified
service, one of which must be a member of the police or
fire department. Five members of the board would con-
stitute a quorum at uny meeting.
8. To hear appeals from any disciplinary action involving
suspension, reduction in rank or pay or removing any
officer or employee in the classified service as herein-
after provided and to report its findings and decisions
to the City Manager. The decisions of the board are to
be final.
Mhlle It is realized that the Council did not ask for
an early reply, I mould like to respond at thJ~ time in order to
clear un answer to you and also should you want elaboration on
this opinion and recommendation.
As to A, ! would see uo objection the Personnel Board
consisting of seven members with two of those members being
members of the classified service of the City. Under the present
ordinance, the Board comprises of six members with one member
being of tbe classified service. Under the present ordinance all
members of the Board, including the member of the 'classified
service, are appointed by City Council.
Homever, I would raise question that either the one or
.the two mewbers of the City classified service would be nominated
and elected by the City personnel of the classified service. The
procedures of election and determlnotion of candidates would
appear to present some problem but more particularly mould be the
question of membership on the Personnel Board being determined
by what might be considered a popularity wetbod. This most be
especially considered when it is realized that the Board serves
in situations of discipline determination. Especially mould I
disagree with the proposal that one of the tmo mewbers wust be
a member of the Police or Fire Bepartment. It is not reit that
any one or tmo departments should be singled out for certainty
of representation on the Personnel Board. To do so would result
in mhat mould be considered a privilege position of these depart-
ments and only these departments and mould also present the
question as to mhy mould not other departments and offices be
entitled to positive representation.
In summary on that specific proposal, it mould appear
that the Board has functioned well under the present arrange-
meat but to increase from one to two City service personnel
mould not seem to present a problem so IQng as there mas the
understanding that the primary waheap of the Board is with the
intention that there be outside of the City government evalu-
ation of matters that come before the Board. At the same time
I would refer again to a recommendation made sometime ago to
City Council that the City classified service member on the
Board be rotated from term to term in order to provide a variety
of representation within the City employee organization.
On Proposal B, it is recommended that there be no
change in the present system or provisions of the ordinance.
This mas before the City Council about a year and one-half ago
in connection mith a specific situation. My feelings and recom-
mendation given in some detail at that time mould still hold
true. This is not a matter of my, in my particular position,
endeavoring to maintain some certain role in a procedure but
rather a valued Judgment on that which would appear to be the
more satisfactory arrangement for the purpose of disciplinary
procedure and for the benefit of the employee.
The Personnel Board of the City has performed excellent
service since it wes first established and because of the high
quality and interest of its membership, it has been a great
deal of value in our City's employee program. It is felt that
to change the system at this time, without any really good reason
having been put forth for doing so, would reduce the strength and
effect of the arrangement.
As stated; these matters and replies can be elaborated
upon if the City Council would so wish.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Br. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
iseconded by Dr. Taylor amd unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT-POLICE DEPARTMENT-CITY EMPLOYEES-PENSIONS-
!!INSURANCE: The City Manager submitted the following report in connection with a
iiproposal from Vice Mayor James O. Trout for certain amendments in the City*s relire~
!iment program as to retirement age and amount of retirement pension, advising that
ifeelsthere will be some difficulty in adequately studying this proposal mhich
gets
llinto considerable depth in the retirement program and at this same time reviewing
iand handling the many elements of the budget, that with this in mind it would be
suggestion to Council that t~e retirement program matter not be directly relate
ito budget study, but rather held over until fall and good information can be develo~-
ed and the various poli'cy aspects can be reviewed and analyzed somewhat lndependent~
'May 30, 1972
Honorable Hayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: City Retirement System
At your last meeting, May 22, the Council received a propo-
sal for certain amendments in the City*s retirement program as to
retirement age and amount of retirement pension. This matter was
referred to budget stody.
I do not wamt to ia nay way dater consideration of this pro-
posal or perhaps consideration of other aspects of the CJty*s
retirement program mbich from time to time should merit review.
Rowever, I do feel some awareness of the amount of time and atten-
tion that is going to be involved iff the coming month in studying
and handling the budget. The retirement program proposals have
some bearing on the budget but these bearings are more of a
~ng-term nature and relate to n number of matters of City opera-
tion procedures, etc., going beyond Just the budget itself. 'I
feel that there will be some difficulty in adequately studying
this proposal which gets into considerable depth in the retire-
ment program and at the same time reviewing and bcadling the
many elements of the budget.
Math this in mind it would be my suggestion to the City
Council that the retirement program matter be not directly
related to budget study, but rather held over until full and good
information can be developed and the various policy aspects be
reviewed and analysed somewhat independently of other matters.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager#
Mr. Trout moved that the report be taken under advisement. The motion
Was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
DUDGET-HOUSINC-SLUM CLEARANCE: The City Manager submitted the following
report in connection with placing the electrical and telephone facilities under-
ground in the Kimball Redevelopment Project in lieu of overhead lights, advising
that he submitted a report to Council under date of. December 28, 1971, on this
matter, that said report was referred back to him for more information in connection
with the financial aspects, that as a result Of the request for more informattono
he solicited the City of ~oanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for a closer
examination of the matter and transmitting certain information as contained ia a
letter to him from Mr. R. RD Henley, Executive Director of the Authority:
*Ray ~0, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Kimball Redevelopment Project - Underground Utilities
The City Council has on occasions in the past expressed
inquiry as to the possibility of placing the electrical and
telephone facilities nndergroand in the Kimball Redevelopment
Project in lieu of overhead lines. As a result of these discus-
sions and inquiries by the City Council with ~e cooperation of
the Redevelopment and Housing Authority, I submitted to the Coun-
cil under date of December 28, 1972, a report on this matter.
There is attached a copy of that report.
Upon receipt of the report, the Council referred the matter
bach to we for more information in connection with the financial
aspects. As a result of this referral, we ~gain solicited the
Authority for a closer examl~ation of the matter and this has
been more recently followed with the foil,ming information as ,
contained in a letter to me from Mr. R. R. Denley, Executive
Director of the Authority.
*I regret the delay In responding to your letter which has
been due to the complexities of financing, particularly
because or pooling credits as a part of financing the Elm-
ball Project, the Domntomn East Project and the Gainsboro
Neighborhood Development Program.
Due to the urgency and the need for an early decision on
this matter of underground utilities, since we have begun
grading operations, it has been necessary to compute the
finances related specifically to the present approved
financing in the Kimball Project, except donation of the
incinerator mhicb has been considered. This does not include
current updated forecasts of additional grading and site
improvement costs mhich will occur, nor does it include nn
increase in land dispos~tion proceeds which will occur.
For your information we now have sufficient developers's
interest to sell all the land in the Kimball Project once
we have readied it for sale.
Reflecting the costs to the City of Roanoke based on a net
cost of ($3§6,400 less $22,600) $33~800 for electrical
distribution and ($15D.045 less $?,495) $150,550 for tele-
phone distribution lines would add u ~otal additional expen-
diture to the Project of $484,350.00. Applying the one-
third City's cost and two-thirds Federal cost to the $484,350
but considering adjustments on pooling credits, the additional
cost in cash to the City of Roan,he would be $65,300. This
would require an approved Amendment to the Loan and Grant
Contract with the Federal Government requiring an additional
Federal Grant of $419,050.'
This information is sub,iL ted to the City Council for your con-
sideration, review and for such determinations as you would wish
to make.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager#
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to 1972-73 budget study. The
!motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
CARNAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted the following report advis-
!lng of certain situations of city refuse disposal that will be advised to the
Landfill Committee for any guidance, recommendation and handling the committee mlghtl
wish to give:
~May 30, 1~72
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Refuse Disposal
In order that the City Council may be informed of the
situation along with your Council Landfill Committee, it is
wished to advise of'certain situations of City refuse disposal
that will be advised to your committee for the guidance, recom-
mendation and handling as the committee might wish to give.
For several months, it has been hoped that there would
materialize through the Regional Landfill Committee some approach,
even if temporary, that would assist the City of Roanoke. Dow-
ever, it would appear from the first meeting of the Regional
467
~,68 ..
Committee that the first steps will be to study the basics of
sanitary landfills. This will require considerable time whereas
the need of the City is'lmeediete. Me are again in the situation
of having to take the earliest possible action,
The matter falls into tuo categories.
1. The sanitary landfill now being used on the north side of
· e Roanoke River and mast or Norwich Bridge has three to
four more weeks of use at the maximum. The area will be
filled at the present level in about ten days and additional
time can be made by an overlay of about three feet over the
total area,
Me appear to be still under the restrictions the City has
experienced oyer the past several years of going Jato the
County mhere the vacant and suitable space is situated.
There has been proposed to the Chairman of your Council
Committee and I.will invite the consent for recommendation
,of the Committee to a site which has been located mJthin
the City to which we can move. This site has one primary
and one secondary disadvantage bat can otherwise, it is
believed, serve for some Interim period of time. It
would be necessary to have approximately two meeks to pre-
pare the area for use.
2. For several years the City has been~using an area off of
Riverland Road for disposal of non-garbage refuse material.
The material disposed has been that generally described as
debris. -Most of the material is brought in here by citizens
and contractors. This location has been of considerable
advantage because there'has been no way we could have handled
it in the various Sanitary landfills and the filling and
improvement of the area has fitted into the recreational
development of the overall Mill Mountain Park area.
The land being used was bought with funds which were in
Funds. The City is now advised by the Federal Government
that*the use of such land for any purposes, including this,
other than actual recreation development and activities is
contrary to the intent of their monies. They have'instructed
that this activity be terminated..
We have not known nor do we now know, of any other avail-
able and adequate location in the City for such disposal.
The basis under which Roanoke County has restricted the
City from going into the County for the City*s sanitary
landfilling has been a provision in the County*s Zoning
Ordinance. This prnvision applies to sanitary landfills.
I am of the opinion that this zoning provision would not
apply to the proper disposal of materials of the type that
has been handled in the Mill MOuntain area. Further those
objectionato a sanitary landfill that were alleged by various
parties in the County hearing would not appear to apply with
this material. Thin, it is emphasized is nonorganic material
and we have been able to maintain excellent control at Mill
Mountain.
Accordingly, it will be submitted to your Council Committee
that the Committee recommend to the Council that a portion
of the City owned Airport north clear zone be used for this
disposal.
It will be recalled that in the overall plan of the north
clear zone which was submitted to the County, one portion
was for sanitary landfill and the other was for the debris
disposal. It is this latter that would be recommended to
be proceeded with.
Proper control, handling, covering, etc. would, of course,
be given.
3. Several areas have been and are continuing to be closely
studied, in addition to Brushy Mountain, for long range
sanitary landfill use~ As the City'Council well knows, .
along with us, the City badly needs to get into a long-
term operation site.
Information on these studies is being posted to your Council
Committee and presumably mould be tied in with the Regional
Committee study; houevero the urgencies of the City's needs
are such that too much tine at the Regional level will be
most difficult.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Hanager"
Hr. Trout moved that the report of the City Uanuger be discussed in
~Executive Session since it is a real estate mutter. The motion was seconded by
;Mr~ Hubard and unanimously adopted.
ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL HEALTH SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL. INCORPORATED:
!Council having erferred to the City Manager for study, report and recommendation a
ilreport of the Rmnoke Valley Regional Health Services Planning Council, Incorporated,
~concerning emergency medical services in the Roanoke Valley. tbs City Manager sub-
i;mitted the follomin9 report recommending that Council, by Resolution. indicate the
~position that it generally concurs with the overall objectives of the Planning
Council report of January. 1972. and that it encourages the other political sub-
divisions in the Roanoke Valley to likewise concur with the objective, that upon
,the attainment of these expressions Of interest, Jt is understood that the Regional
iPlanning Council will then prepare more specific details of implementation which
iwill be subject to further review and consideration by Council and tbs other
governmental jurisdictions:
*May 30. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Emergency Medical Services in the Roanoke Valley
The Roanoke Valley Regional Health Services Planning Council
presented to the City Council in February a report on emergency
medical services. This report mas also presented by tbs Planning
Council to the other members of the City Council at that time.
As will be recalled the report contained, among other infor-
mation and comments, five specific recommendations. These were
as follows:
1. Local ordinances should provide for recognition of a
broadly representative Emergency Medical Services Council
as suggested in the report. This Council would serve in
an advosory role only to local governments, funding
agencies and all others concerning the emergency medical
services system in the Roanoke Valley.
2~ Local government ordinances should specify that a certifi-
cate of public convenience and necessity is required for
every ambulance and rescue squad operation in their juris-
diction. The Study Committee recommends that existing rescue
squads on the effective date of such an ordinance be
9ranted such a certificate. Local governments should use
a certificate to insure that high quality ambulance service
of a well-staffed, well-equipped commercial firm would be
provided in their respective jurisdictions.
Local ordinances Should specify that there, be no less than
two qualified persons in an ambulance vehicle on ail emer-
gency calls with a patient in the vehicle. These two
469
persons could be · driver and attendant ar e drlver-etten-
, dana and an attendant. Attendants m~st be certified by the
State Hoard or Health as £merge~cy Care Attendants.-
4. Local ordinances requiring certificates of public conven-
ience and necessity should require that nil ambulances be
in full compliance with Regulations of the State Hoard of
Health Governing Ambulances before local certificates
would be issued.
S. Local ordinances should specify that it is a misdemeanor
punishable by COUrt process for my person to:
1. Obtain or receive ambulance services without intend-
ing at the time of obtaining or receiving such services
to pay, if financially able, the necessary charges. A
determination that the recipient of such services has
failed to pay for the services rendered for · period of
ninety days after request for payment, and that the
recipient is financially able to do so, shall raise ·
presumption that the recipient of the services did not
intend to pay for the services at the time they were
obtained or received; or
2. Knowingly and willfully summon an ambulance or report
that an ambulance is needed when such persons ~now that
the services of an ambulance are not needed.
It is my understanding that the main interest with the
Planning Coancil at this time is to seek the interest and general
concurrence of intent from the City Council without necessarily
involving the specific agreement of the City Council or the
City to any exact item or to the details of implementation.
The objective of the Planning Council isto obtain this con-
currence of intent from the governing bodies of the other
jurisdictions in the Valley and then once having that to then
proceed to formulate the more detailed aspects of implementa-
tion and come back to the g,vetoing bodies.
It would be my recommendation that the City Council by
resolution indicate the position that it does generally concur
with the overall ob~ctives of the Planning Council report of
January 1972, and does encourage the other political subdivisions
in the Roanoke Valley to likewise concur with the objective that
upon the attainment of these expressions of interest, it is
understood that the Regional Planning Council ~ill then prepare
more specific details of implementation which will be subject to
further review and consideration by the R,an,he City Council
and the other governmental jurisdictions. '
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian Fi Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Hr. Thomas moved that Council concur in therecommendatiou of the City
Manager and that the m~tter be referred to the City A~torney for preparation of thei!
proper measure. The m,tiao was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously, adopted.
BUDGET-COMMONMEALTH'S ATTORNEY:. The City Manager submitted · written
report advising that the ~ppllcation of the Commonwealth's Attorney to the State
Division of Criminal Justice f~r LEA funds was approved under Grant No. 71-A806,
in the amount of $1,638.00, for travel for two personnel of that office to · trai~-
t!ing seminar in Phoenix, Arizona, that this seminar was attended in November,
that grant funds have not yet been received but it is desired to reimburse the two
~personnel for their expenses and recommending that Council appropriate
to Travel under Section ~2, "Commonwealth*s Attorney," of the 1971-72 budget with an
offsetting revenue account in the same amount.
Hr. Garland moved that the report be referred back to the City Manager
I for itemized breakdown on the costs involved. The motion was seconded by Dr.
Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having erforred to the City Manager rot study, report
smd recommendation a request from Hr. Edison F, Shrader, 814 Murray Avenue, S. E,,
concerning bis apartment development at that location, the City Manager submitted
the folloming report advising that the Zoning Ordinance adopted in 1966 established
the area as a Boplex Residential District, that provision nas included in the Zon-~
lng Ordinance for the omners of property uhich did not comply with the Zoning Ordi-i
the former ouner could have qualified for a non-conforming certificate of occupancy
if they had applied within the original time limits and subsequent extensions thereof
and that the only relief to Mr. Shrader would he for Council to authorize a non-
conforming certificate of occupancy for this property before the Building Commis-
sioner cnn issue additional plombin9 permits or the alternative is that he operate
only two apartments:
"May 30, 1972
Bonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
On Monday, May 22, City Council received a request from
Mr. Edison F. Shrader who resides at 81~ Murray Avenue, S. E.,
concerning his apartment development at that location. Council
referred this request to the City Manager's office for study,
report and recommendation.
The City's Zoning Ordhance adopted in 1q55 established the
area of Mr. Shrader*s property as RD-Residential Duplex Zoning.
This restricts new development in that area to tow-unit apartment
construction. Provision was included in the Zoning Ordinance for
the owners of property which had been previously in a manner
that would be contrary to the adopted zoning standards to apply
for non-conforming certificates of occupancy. A time limit was
established for securing such certificates. This time limit was
extended on several occasions by City Council action. Nlth the
past sever cases of non-conforming development which have come to
Council*s attention, the Building Commissioner*s office has been
authorized and directed to issue certificates Of non-conforming
occupancy.
To the best of our knowledge, it is true that prior to 1966
there were developed on Mr. Shrader*a property four apartment
units, llomever, there mere initially installed only two bathroom
facilities for the four apartments. The Health Department.is now
requiring that Mr. $hrader install tmo additional bathrooms for
the other apartments. It mould appear that Mr. Sbrader or the
former owner could have qualified for a non-conforming certificate
of occupancy if they had applied mithin the original time limits
and subsequent extensions thereof. Since the area is presently
officially monad for only duplex development, the only relief to
Mr. Shrader on his request would be for City Council to authorize
a non-conforming certificate of occupancy for Mr. Shrader*s pro-
perty before the Building Commissioner's office can issue addi-
tional plumbing permits. The alternative is that he operate only
two apartments. If he operates four units, the Health Department
is quite proper in requiring bath and toilet facilities for each
If there are further questions on this matter, we would
be pleased to discuss it with Council.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Dirst
City Manager*
I
In a discussion, the City Manager verbally advised that his recommenda-
tion would be to grant Mr. Shvader a non-conforming certificate, of occupancy.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
ipreparation of the proper measure granting the request of Mr. Shrnder for a eon-
iconformiag certificate of occupancy. The. motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and
!!unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the following report in connection
with runway and taxiway paving at Rosnohe Municipal (Moodrum) Airport, recommending
itbat Council authorize the issuance of a change order to the contract with John A.
Hall and Company, Incorporated, to provide for the raising of 49 canister type
.lights at the threshold of Runmay 33 to provide a better approach grade for this runway,
advising that these lights can be raised at the established contract unit price of
$55.00 per light for an increase in the contract amount of $2,695.00 and that there
mill be sufficient funds to cover this work:
"May 30. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: CIP ~71-102 - Runmay and Taxiway Paving -
Roanoke Municipal Airport
The City now has contract with John A. Rail and Company,
Incorporated, for the placing of bituminous overlays on the
sothern end of Runway and Taximay 15/33 at Roanoke Municipal
Airport. This work began last fall and is now nearly complete
with the paving of shoulders, seeding of disturbed areas and
raising of some of the rnnmay and taxiway marker lights being the
only work yet to be accomplished.
The Federal Aviation Administration has recently suggested,
and we concur in this proposal, that the City raise an additional
49 canister type lights at the threshold of Runway 33 to provide
a better approach grade for this runway. Aunit price for this
type work is provided in the contract and the contractor has
agreed to perform this additional mork at the same unit price
previously bid. The affect of raising these additional 4g
lights mould be to add $2,695.00 to the contract price with the
Federal government bearing one-half of this additional cost.
This work would be accomplished with no increase in contract
time.
It is recommended that City Council authorize the issuance
of a change order to John A. Hall and Company, Incorporated, for
the raising of these additional 49 canister type lights at the
established contract nnit price of $55.00 per light for an increase
in the contract amount of $2,695.00. Upon reviewing the morh
which has been accomplished to date and that remaining to be per-
formed, we believe that the actual work accomplished under this
contract will still be within the original contract price and
there will be sufficient funds to cover cost without supple-
mental appropriation being necessary.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
land offered the following Resolution:
RESOLtrrlON autborlning laauuuce of an unnumbered change order}
(s20291)
A
to the Clty*s contract with John A. Hall ~ Cowpany, INCH, dated Novewber 9. 1971, ~
for certain municipal airport improvements, to provide for raLsing of an addilional~
49 canister type lights at the threshold of Runway 33 upon certain terms and~
conditions.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book a36. page 437.)
Hr° Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The notion was seconded
Iby Hr. Hubard and adopted, by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland, Dubard, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and #ayor
¥ebber ........................ 6.
NAYS: None O, (Hr. Link absent)
INDUSTRIES-STATE HIGHMAYS: The City Manager submitted the following
ireport advising that in March, 1971, Council authorized funds to reimburse the
~Virginia Department of Ilighways for the city's share of the cost of the Ninth Street
llndustrial Access Project, that it was noted et that time that the invoice did not i
include charges which were to be assigned to this. project by the Norfolk and Nestern
iRnilway Company, that the city has now received from the state another invoice
indicating the final bill for this project will require an additional $7,334.94 from
~the city and requesting that this sum be appropriated in order that the final bill
,may be paid to tbs state:
"Ray 30, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: CIP25 - Ninth Street Industrial Access Project
In march of 1971 City Council authorized funds to reim-
burse the Virginia Department of Highways for the City*s share of
the cost of the above subject project. It was noted at that time
that the invoice submitted by the State did not include charges
which were to be assigned to the project by the Norfolk and
Mestern Railway Company. Me have now received from the State
another invoice indicating the final bill for this project will
require an ndttional $7,334.94 from the City.
This amount represents.charges to the project by the Railway
Company for certain facility adjustments which the Railway Company
made.
It is necessary to request City Council to appropriate this
sum of $7,334.94 in order that this final bill may be paid to the
State.
For your ~formatton it will be noted that the final cost of
this project was $306,563.77. The Commonwealth of Virginia
provided $167,500.00 of this cost from Industrial Access Highway
Fundn. Industrial Development and Investment Company provided
$59,111.03 and the City°s share of this project was $129,952.74.
Respectfully sobmitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Dr, Taylor moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following Resolution:
(a2o292) A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the Clty*s payuent to thb
Commonwealth of Virginia of the sam, of STo334.g4, us the balance due of the City*s
share of the cost of constructing the 9th Street, S. E., Industrial Access H~idge
and Loop R~nd, as Project 9ggg-12fl-lOl, C=501, C-S02, B-bOI.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book cab, page 43B.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the f,Il,wing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, Tailor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ......................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
Dr. Taylo~ then offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
the necessary funds:
(~20293) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #fig, "Transfers to
Capital Improvements Fund,' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, page 43g.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance, 'The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and ~ayor
Webber .......................
NAYS: None .......... O. (Mr, Lisk absent)
POLICE DEPARTMENT-SHERIFF: The City Manager submitted the following
report relating to salaries for Deputy Sheriffs which results from action of the
recent session of the General Assembly in which the Assembly, apparently to the
awareness of few, set minimums in Deputy Sheriffs* salaries under certain conditions,
advising that he is fi,Il,wing this matter as it is developing with the sheriffs in
their handling with the State Compensation Board and with various other state agencies
as are involved and that he is interested as to the bearing and relationship this
conveivobly might have on salaries of police officers and at the same time there is
a relationship of other personnel salaries that has to be taken into consideration
for adjustments:
"May 30, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginio
Subject: Salaries
As the members of City Council have no doubt noted in recent
news accounts there Js a matter developing relating to salaries
for Deputy Sheriffs. This results from action of the recent
session of the General Assemblyin which the Assembly, appar-
ently to the awareness of few, set minimums in deputy sheriffs'
salaries under certain conditions.
I wish to advise that me are following this matter as Jt
is developing with the sheriffs in their handling mith the
State Compensation floard nnd with various other State agencies
as are involved. Je are, of course, interested in behalf of
deputies as might be affected in our city Sherirf*s Office as
X am sure the Sheriff Is Interested himself.
At the same time0 we are interested as to the bearing and
relationship that this conceivably might have un~aalarJend
police officers. Should there be some marked movement in the
salaries of sherJf(s* deputies as a result of this legislation,
I feel sure that we will want to evaluate police officers*
salaries In order that the proper pat relationship can be main-
tained in the law enforcement profession. As City Council
mould no doabt anticipate this could have some considerable
affect on salaries and on governmental cost. As entrance
patrolman's salaries increase, then in turn there most be a
general movement Of salaries throughout the police organiza-
tion. Then et the same time there is n relationship of other
personnel salaries that has to be taken into consideration for
adjustments.
I feel that the General Assembly may have entered into
something lithout a great deal of forethought. Nevertheless,
I did want the Council to knom'~ our awareness of this, that me
are folloming it and that it could mace possible some changes
in salary recommendations at a later date to the City Council.
Respectfully Submitted,
S/ Julian F.'Hirst
Jolian F. Ilirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and flied. The motion was
~seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager submitted a written report
;transmitting copy of a memorandum written to him from Mr. John A. Newman, Superin-
~tendent of Recreation, in connection with work that has been done at the Mill
iMountain Zoo during the season preparatory to opening for 1972.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
iseconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the follow-.
i:ing report on the status of personnel in the Police Department and the Fire Depart-
ment as of April 30, 1972:
*May 30, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Personnel Changes - Police and Fire Departments
Listed below is the status of the Police and the Fire
Department as of April 30, 1972:
'Police Department
EmoJoTeq Retired
*Harrold F. Wallic April 3, 1972
Larry E. Steward April 17, 1972
Terry M. fllankenship April 24, 1972
*Ending April 30, 1972 12 vacancies.' i
'Fire Department
'D~ I~ Rhodes April 1, 1972
J. R. Smith April IT, 1972
J. D. Abbott April 17, 1972
G. M. Clark April 17, 1972
Captain S. D. Mitchell · July 6, 1963 April 1, 1972
*On April 30, 1972, there were seven (7) vacancies in the Fire
Department.*
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst"
475
;476
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Hr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
LEGISLATION-AIRPORT: The AJsistaat City Attorney submitted the ronomiu
report of the City Attorney transmitting a Resolution opposing end seehing support
in opposition io propose~ federal legialation which would, overrule the United Stnte~
Supreme Court and prohibit state and local governments from imposing any charges,
taxes or fees directly or indirectly on persons traveling by air transportation
or on the carriage of persons in air transportation:
"May 30, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of R~anohe City Council
Roanohe. Virginia
Gentlemen:
This week it has come to my attention through Mr, M. L. Harris.
Manager of the 6ity*s Municipal Airport, that there is pending
in the Congress proposed legislation (H, R. 14847) which, if
enacted, is understood intended to prohibit all state and local
governments from imposing any charges, taxes or fees. directly
or indirectly, on persons traveling by air transportation.oF on
the carriage of persons in air transportation. It is understood
that the proposed legislation would overrule a decision Of the
Supreme Court of the United States handed domn April 19, 1972,
which upheld the constitutionality and validity of certain use
and service charges imposed elsewhere on passengers enplaning
commercial aircraft opergted from certain local airports in
Indiana and in New Hampshire. It is thought that the proposed
Federal legislation, if enacted, mould 9o so far as to make
valid thereafter the City's system of lundin9 fees and charges
provided, over s period of years, to be paid by operators of
scheduled aircraft, the revenue from which has been depended upon
in part for coninuing improvement and maintenance of the Roanoke
Municipal Airport.
The undersigned considers the pending Federal leoislation most
dangerous from the standpoint of'every locality which owns and
operates a public airport serving commercial aircraft and the
passengers mhich they carry, and as such should be opposed by the
strongest means possible. If such legislation be enacted, not
,only would the revenue generated from landing fees and chaiges be
Jeopardized but the additionaI source of revenue recently proposed
by a member of Council and referred to in the City Manager's
1972-73 Budget Message to the Council. in the nature of a use and
service charge on passengers boarding commercial aircraft at
Roanoke Municipal Airport, would be no longer available to this or
any other Citi.
To the end that such opposition be voiced by the City Council,
I have prepared and transmit herewith n proposed resolution for
the Council's consideration.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kinoanon
J. N. Kincanon"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following Resolution:
(=20294) A RESOLUTION opposing and seeking support in opposition of
~ proposed Federal leoislation which would overrule the United States Supreme Court
and prohibit state and local governments from imposing any charges, taxes, or fees
directly or indirectly on persons traveling by air transportation or on the carriag~
of persons in air transportation.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book =36, page 440.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Gorlbnd and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. flubard, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None. .0. (Mr. Lish absent)
i BUDGET-CITY ATTORNEY: The Assistant City Attorney submitted the folloming
report of the City Attorney requesting that $198.40 be transferred from Personal
Services to Extra Help and that $111.50 be transferred from Personal Services to
iOvertJee under Section a4, 'City Attorney,' bf the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds
iwith regard to the employment of secretarial services as extra help during the
.interims betueen loss of regularly employed personnel and re-employment of their
~successors and by reason of haying to require on several occasions during the current
i!
~'yeur mcetefld services of regularly employed and additional clerks and secretaries:
'Ray 29, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Upon the adoption of the 1971-72 Hodget, no appropriation was
provided this office for the current year for overtime employ-
meat of classified employees (Object Code No. 114) and a pro-
posed appropriation of $200.00 for extra help (Object Code No.
105), was deleted upon the adoption of the fiscal budget.
In the course of the fiscal year to date, and by reason of the
necessary employment of secretarial services as extra help
during the inte~ims betmeen loss of regularly employed plrsonnel
and re-employment of their successors and by further reason of
having to require, on several occasions during the current year
and notably with the generation of the Sewage Treatment contracts
and legal briefs and pleadings, weekend services of regularly
employed and additional clerks and secretaries, expenditures of
$198.40 for extra help and $111.50 for overtime pay for regular
employees have been incurred by this office.
On the other side of the ledger, appropriations provided in the
current budget, for Object Code N~.101 - Personal Services, have
not been fully expended to date because of the loss of services
of two Of the personnel regularly employed at the commencement of
the year with some intervals following before re-employment of
replacement personnel. Hesulttng from this fact, there will be
approximately $2700 left unexpended in Object Code No. 101 for.
this office at the end of the fiscal year whereas, a total of
$310.00 has been incurred in extra help and overtime pay for which
no appropriation was provided in the current budget.
Acco~diflgly, it Js respectfull~ requested that the Council, by
ordinance amending the current budget, direct transfer Of the sum
of $196.40 to Object Code No. 105 - Extra Help and the sum of
$111.60 to Object Code No. 114 - Overtime, both from Object Code
No. 101 - Personal Services in the budget heretofore provided
this office.
In submitting this request, I am assuming that nofurther expen-
ditures will need be made in the remainin9 months for extra help
or overtime, however, soy unforseen similar expenditures during
the current nod next month could be handled as above.
Respectfully,
S! J. N. Kincanon
477
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney
and offered the follouing emergency Ordinance:
(x2o295) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u4, "City Attorney**
of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For f nil text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u36, page 441.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr, Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber 6.
NAYS: None ......... O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISIIED BUSINESS:
ZONING: Council having deferred action on the following report of the
City Planning Commission in connection with the request of Mr. Vernon Macke, et
ax., that property located in the 2600 bi*ch of Fl*talmud Drive, N. R., described
as Lots 18, 19 and part of 20, Official Tax Nos. 228041T, 2280418 and 2280419,
Floraland Addition, be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to
RG-I, General Residential District, recommending that the request be denied, the
matter mas again before the body:
"May 18, 1972
Yhe Honorable Roy'L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Plan-
ning Commission at its regular meeting of Day 17, 1972.
Mr. Charles Coruelison, appeared before the Planning Commis-
sion on behalf of the petitioners and stated their wish to rezone
this property from a RS-3 to a RG-I designation so as to permit
them to build a 24-unit apartment building on this site. He also
noted that this will be a 2 1/2 story structure (43,540 square
feet) end that there will be 40 parking spaces provided for the
24 units. Finally,*he stated that this mill be an above average
development and that he feels the parcel of land involved con-
stitutes an ample amount of laud to provide for this type of
development.
Mrs. Cregger appeared before the Planning Commission and
'stated that she lives at 2730 Fl*talmud Drive and she was oppos-
ed to this rezoning because it presents a traffic hazard. Addi-
tionally, she presented u list of names of other property owners
in the neighborhood opposed to this fez*ming for the same reason.
Mr. Robert Bunt, appeared before the Planning Commission and
stated that he lived directly across from the property in question.
He noted that Hershberger Road is presently very busy and if any
more traffic be added it will become a dusty and dirty pl~ce.
Mr. Bill Cares, the developer, appea~ed before the Planning
CommJssio~ and stated that this parcel is already zoned so ns to
permit for the construction of six apartment units. He noted
that people do hare to have a place in which to live.
The Planning Director noted.that the area is essentially
a quality single family residential area and should remain so.
Cpon due consideration of this request, a motion was made,
duly seconded and unanimously approved to recommend to City
Council to deny this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr., by LM
Chairman"
In this connection, · communication from Mr. J. Albert Ellett, Attorney,
representing the petitioners, requestl'ng permission to uithdrau the petition for
reaonfng nas also before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of Mr. Ellett to
mithdram the petition for rezonfng. The motion mas seconded by Mr. flubard and
unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
PAY PLAN-CITY EmPLOYEES-CIVIL DEFENSE: Ordinance No. 20284, amending
~O'rdinance No. 19751, providing a System of Pay Rates and Ranges and n new Pay Plan,
by adding to said Pay Plan the position of Coordinator of Civil Defense, and delet-
ing from said plan the position of Assistant Coordinator of Civil Defense, and pro-
viding that the effective date Of the Ordinance be July 1, 1912, having previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, the matter mas again
~before the body.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally advised that there nas an
ierror in the Ordinance mhich mas presented to Council on Monday, May 22, 1972, and
iwas placed upon its first reading, that he would like to submit an amended Ordinance
ifor recommended adoption by Council which would make the Ordinance an emergency and
:mould provide that said Ordinance be in full force and effect on and after May 15,
1972.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager and
luff,red the following emergency Ordinance ns amended:-
(=20294) AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinaece No. 19751, heretofore adopted
on June 28, 1971, providing a System of Pay Rates and Ranges and a new Pay Plan, by
iadding to said Pay Plan the position of Coordinator Of Civil Defense, and deleting
!from said plan the position of Assistant Coordinator of Civil Defense; providing for
the effective date of this ordinance; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinanne, see Ordinance Book =36, page 432.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion sas seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None. 0. (Mr. Lisk absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
RADIO-TELEVISION: Mayor Webber called to the attention of Council that
there ore certain vacancies on the Cable Television Committee and advised that he
lis appointing Messrs. Robert A. Garland, Chairman, Julian F. Hirst, James N.
Kincanon, Noel C. Taylor and Hampton M. Thomas as members of said committee.
PLANNING-MARKET: Mayor Webber called to the attention of Council that he
is appointing Messrs. David K. Lisk, Chairman, William S. Hubard, Noel C. Taylor,
~ulian F. Hirst and A. N. Gibson as members of the Central Roanoke Development
Fouodation.
479
48O
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JAIL~MUNICIPAL BUILDINGoCAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: Mayor Webber adriaed that in accordance with the request of Council at
its lust regular meeting on Monday, May 22. 1912, he is appointing Messrs. William
S. Bnbard, Chairman, John M. Wilson, Jr** Paul J, Puckett, Julian F. Hiram and
Beverly T, Fitzpatrick as a committee to evaluate the report of the consultants on
the proposed sites for a regional Jail, said committee to report its recommendation~
to Council.
BUDGET: Mayor Webber advised that the first budget study meeting of
Council is set for 7p.m., Thursdnyt June 1, 1972. in the Executive Session Con-
ference Room in the Municipal Building.
CITY MANAGER: The City Clerk reported that Mr. William F. Clark has
qualified aa Assistant City Manager for the City of Roanoke, effective May 10 1972.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST: PC~
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, June 5, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke wet in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, June 5, 1972, at 2 p.m.. the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Roy Lo Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, William S. Hubard, David K.
ILJsk, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Webber---7*
ABSENT: Hone .0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst~ City Manager; Mr. William F.
iClark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Rincanon, City Attorney; and Mr.
A. N. Gibson, Cit~ Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting nas opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor,
iMember of Roanoke City Council.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
STREETS 'AND ALLEYS: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.,
iMondoy, June S, 1972, on the request of Mr. John E. Wallet, that a certain alley or
!roadway beginning at a point on the north side of Orange Avenue approximately 316
;feet west of the intersection of Orange Avenue and Courtland Woad and extending in
;a northwesterly direction approximately 234 feet to Carver Avenue, N. E., and
ibeing approximately lB feet wide, be vacated, discontinued and closed, the matter
!'mas'before the body~
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follouing
~report recommending that the request be granted:
"May 4, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited was con~idered by the City Planning
sion at its regular meetings of April 5 and May 3, 1972.
Mr. Leonard Muse, attorney for the petitioner, appeared before
the Planning Commission and requested that the alley in question
be closed.
The Planning Director noted that the alley is a paper one,
no utilities or easement rights are entailed, and the City Engineer
bas stated his approval of this alley closure.
The Planning Commission members generally agreed that this
alley closure presente~ no detriment or real hardship on the City
or the neighborhood.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to Rrant this request.'
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
482-
The viemers oppointed to viem the mutter submitted · written report
advising that they have viewed the alley or roadmay in quentin· end the neighbor-
ing property and are unanimously of the opinion th'at no i·co·ve·ience would result
to any i·dividual or to the public from vucati·g, discontinuing ·nd closing the
alley or roadway. .
No one appearing in opposition to vacatl·g, disco·tinui·g or closi·g
the alley or roadway, Mr, Trout moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon
its first reading:
(n20295) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
a certain map alley or roadmay, beginning, at a point on the north side of Orange
Avenue approximately 315 feet west of the intersection of Orange Avenue and Court-
land Road and extending in a northwesterly direction approximately 234 feel to
Carver Avenue, N. £,. and being approximately 18 feet wide.
NB£R£A$, John E. Willett, has heretofore filed his petition before the
Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in accordance with law, requesting the
Council to permanently vacate, discontinue ~nd close the above-described map alley
or rosdway, the filing of which petition.due notice was given to the public as
required by lam; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the prayers of said petition, viewers were
appointed by the Council on the 5th day of Batch, 1972, to view the property and to
report in writing whether in their opinion any inconvenience would resut from per-
manently vacating, discontinuing ~nd closing said map alley or roadway; and
NHEREAS, it appears from the written report of the viewers filed with
the City Clerk that no inconvenience would result to any individual or the the
public from permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing said map alley or
roadway; and
WBEREAS, Council at its meeting on March 5, 1972, referred the petition
to the City Planning Commission, which Commission in its report before Council on
Ray 8, 1972, recommended that the request to close the said mop alley or roadway, us
hereinafter described be granted; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on the question before the Council at
its meeting on the 5th day of June, 1972, at 2:00 p.m., after due and timely notice!
thereof published in the Roanoke Morld-News, at which hearing all parties in inter-
est and citizens were afforded an opportunity to be heardon the question; and
WHEREAS, from all of the foregoing, the Council considers that no incon-
~venience will result to any individual or to the public from permanently vacating,
~discontinning and closing the map alley or roadway, as recommended by the Planning.
Commission, and that according ly said map alley or roadmay should be permanently
closed.
TR£REyORE, BE IT .ORDAINED by the Council of the.City of Roanoke that the
map a~ley or roadway, beginning at a point on the north side of Orange Avenue
approximately 315 feet west of the intersection of Orange Avenue and Courtland Road
and extending In o north meaterly dlrectSoo approximately 234 feet to Carver ~venue
H. E., end being approximately 18 feet aide, be. and it hereby is, permanently
vacated, discontinued acd closed and that all right, title and interest of the City
of Roanoke and of the public in and to the same bet and it hereby Is, released
insofar as the Council of the City of Roanoke is espn'meted so tn doe the City of
Roanoke reserving unto itself, hoverer, a perpetual easement for sewer lines, drainS,
water lines and other public utilities mhich may non be located in and over the
aforesaid nap alley or roadway.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer be, and he hereby is,
directed to mark *permanently vacated* on the map alley or roadway, above described
~oo all maps and plats on file in his office on which the said alley or roadway,
!referring to the book and page of Ordinances and Resolutions of the Council of the
ICity of Roanoke wherein this Ordinance shall~ be spread.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the Clerk of the Council deliver to the
i
iClerk of the Dustings Court for the City of Roanoke, Virginia, a certified copy of
ithls Ordinance in order that the Clerk of said court nay make proper notation on
all maps or plats recorded in his office upon which are shonn the said alley, as
provided by law, and that if so requested by any party in interest, he may record
the same in the deed book in his office indexing the same in the name of the City
of Roanoke as grantor and in the name of any party in inter,at who may request it
i~aS grantee.
7he motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Rubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
!Nebber
NAYS: None O.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A communication from Mr. Russell R, Healey,
Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, in connec-
ftion with amending the Kimball Redevelopment Project, advising that the amendment
lentails changing the status Of the City Incinerator site from *not to be acquired*
redevelopment,"
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Rousi~
Authority be approved:
*June 1, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Rabbet, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Rt. Wesley Mhite, Jr., Assistant Director for Development,
appeared before the Planning Commission on behalf of the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Rousing Authority stating that the Authority
proposes to amend the Kimball Redevelopment Project; and that
this amendment entails only changing the status of the. City
Incinerator site as delineated on the Kimball Urban
Renewal land use map, from a *not to be acquired* to a ·
*clearance and redevelopment* designation. Re then noted the
following reasons for this amendment:
484
1. The City Incinerator is no longer in use ,',~
2. It is not feasible to convert the existing structure for
any other use - ~ .
3.The removal of this facility would further project object-
ives by improving the appearance of the area
4. The site would be included in Disposition Parcel 8, which
will be disposed of as Highway Commercial' end Llght~
Industrial.
· Additionally, Mr. White stated that City Council has already
. passed an ordinance offering to sell the property to the Redevelop-
neat and Housing Authority, and the Authority has already received
official approval from HUD.
Accordingly, motion sas made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council to grant this amendment
to the Kimball Project.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by
Creed K. Lemon, Jr,
Chairman#
Dr. Taylor moved that the report of the City Planning Commission be re-
ceived and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Lisk then moved that Council concur in the request of the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and offered the following Resolution:
(#202g?) A RESOLUTION approving a certain amendment, being Amendment
No. 2, to the Redevelopment Plan for the Kimball Redevelopment Project, Project
No. VA. R-46o located in the northeast section of the City of Roanoke. Virginia.
(For full text of Resolution. see as recorded in Ordinance Book
z36, page 443.)
Mr~ Lish moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ......................... 7.
NAYS: None ......... O.
BUDGET-STATE COMPENSATION DOARD-COMMONWEALTH*S ATTORNEY: A communicationl
from the State Compensation Board setting out the salaries and expenses of the Office
of the Attorney for the Commonwealth for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973, was
before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that. the communication be referred to 1972-73 budget study.
The motion was seconded by Mr. LJsh and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-CITY TREASURER: A communication from
the State Compensation Board setting out the salaries and expenses of the Office
of the Treasurer for the fiscal year ending June 300 1973, was before Council,
Mr. Trout mbved that the ~ommunication be referred to 1972-73 budget
study, The motion was seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENL~: A communica
tion from the State Compensation Board setting out the salaries a~ expenses of the~
Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1973,
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.
BVDGET-STATE COYPENSATION BOARD-SHERIFF: A communication from the State
Compensation Hoard setting out the salaries end expenses of the Office of the
Sheriff for the fiscal year ending June 30, 19'73, mas before Council.
Mr. Trout mOved %hat the communication be referred tv 1972-73 budget
study. The notion mas seconded by. Mr. Lfsk ~nd unanimously adopted.
H~DGHT-TAXES: A communication from Mrs. Frances M. Stone in opposition
Ito the real estate and personal property tax increases as proposed by the City
IManagerin his 1972-73 before
budget
message.
Council.
l Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be referred to 1972-73 budget study~
~The Notion was seconded by DF. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
STREET LIGHTS: A petition signed by six residents of the 2014 and the
~2030 blochs of York Road, S. W., requesting increased street lighting in their area,
imas before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the petition be referred to the City Manager for
ihandling administratively. The motion was seconded by Hr. Garland and unanimously
adopted.
SERERS AND STORM DRAINS: Copy of a petition signed by 37 property omners
:of the Dorchester Court area in opposition to the installation of a sanitary sewer
islstem in their area, mas before Council.
Hr. Link moved that the petition be referred to the Sewer Committee and
i
,the CitI Uanugec for study, report and recommendation to Council. The notion nas
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
,
STREET NAMES: A communication from Miss Carrie Chittun, requestin9 that
ithe name of 12 1/2 Street, S. ~., bounded on the aouth by Kerns Avenue, inter-
isecting Ilombert AYenue on the north, crossing Hamilton Avenue and Valley Avenue
land parallel to Brighton Road on the mest, be changed, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
ilseconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC NELFARE: The City Manager submitted the
!!following report advising that the State Department of Vocational Rehabilitation
has within the Roanoke area a project for the training and emploinent of welfare
recipients, that in cases where there are children in the family this. results-in
~the city picking up the Bay Care payment related thereto and recommending that
$2,000.00 be transferred from Child ~elfare Services - Day Care to DaI Care - Not
iMIN under Section #37, 'Public Assistance," of.the 1971-72 budget, to provide
necessary funds for the remainder of the fiscal year:
"June 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Public Assistance Budget 1971-72
For yet another t/me a situation has developed within the
current Public Mel/are budget which necessitates requesting a
transfer of funds.
486
The State Deportment of ¥ocntionsl Rehabilitation has within
the Ronnohe area n project for the training nnd employment of
welfare recipients. In cases where there are chlldreR in the
family this results in oar pfchlng up the Day-Care payment relat-
ed thereto. For the past several months there has been c con-
tinuing increase in the number of children receiving such day-
care end the monthly expenditures rot these day-care servic~s.
For comparative purposes, the following statistics may prove infoma-
MONTH . ANOUNT CHILDREN
March $6~76.76 161
April 7,446.81 173
May 8,172.03 193
· ~ith the end of the school year, it can be assumed that the
cost for the month of June mill be even higher than previous
months.
The present unexpended balance in account 3?-290 is
approximately $7,100. It is estln~ed that approximately
$2,000 in additional money mill be required to sustain this
account through the remainderof the fiscal year. Funds to
this extent mould be available for a transfer from Object
Code 291 uithin the Public Assistance budget. This
account is for Day-Care Services for those children under the
City*s jurisdiction in Foster Care, for mhich expenses have
-been particularly light this fiscal year. In any case cate-
gories of this nature are gO% State reimbursable and only 10%
local funds.
Mhile we again reiterate our reluctance to request such
transfers at this particular time of ~e fiscal year, expenditures
in this particular category do not leave much choice. It is
recommended that $2,000 be transferred from Account 37-291 to
Account 37-280.
Eespectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
iManager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(a20298) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #37, "Public Assis-
france," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36,.page 444.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
i:by Mr. Trout and adopted by the folloming vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
iWebber 7.
NAYS: None .........O.
BUDGET-GARBAGE REMOVAL-CITY ENGINEER: The City Manager submitted the
!following report advising that the city normally employs a crew of temporary per-
sonnel for the purpose of cutting weeds on various properties of the city, that the
Seasonal Account for the employment of these temporary workers is now exhausted and
recommending that $3.000.00 be transferred from Maintenance of Buildings and Pro-
perty to Extra Help under Section #59, "Street Repair," of the 1971-72 budget, to
~rovtde necessary funds for the remainder of the fiscal year:
'June 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: ~eed Cutting
#lthin the Street Division of the Department of Public
Worhs, the City normally employs a crew of temporary personnel
for the purpose of cutting meeds on ~rious properties of the
City. Our Seasonal Account. 50-106. for the employment of these
temporary morkers is now exhausted and we have the month or June
remaining to complete the fiscal year. If this temporary crew
cannot be re-employed until after July 1, me mill only have
the regular crem used to maintain the median strips along high-
mays in the City and will have to discontinue the weed cutting
along alleys and numerous City properties. The relatively mild
winter weather and subsequent early growing season has bben the
reason for our expending these funds more rapidly than usual.
[e estimate that there mill be ucexpended funds in the
Street Division Account 58-255, Maintenance of Buildings and
Property. It would be recommended that $3,000 be transferred
to Account 58-106 in order to continue the weed 9an9 of temporary
employees.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. tllrst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Hr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
iManager and offered the follomin9 emergency Ordinance:
(n20299) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~SO, "Street Repair,'
toy the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency,
i (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36. page 445.)
i Mr~ Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
.by gr. Lick and adopted by the folloming vote:
i, AYES: Messrs. Garland, Huburd, Lick, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
iWebber ~?.
I NAYS: None ..........O.
il DUDGET-COMMONMEALTH'S ATTORNEY: The City Manager submitted a written
ilreport requesting that $200.00 be transferred from Extra Help to Printing and
iOffice Supplies under Section ~22, "Commonwealth's Attorney." of the 1971-72 budget,
!ltd provide funds for the remainder of the fiscal year.
Hr. Garland moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
land offered the following emergency Ordinance:
t (n20300) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordatn Section ~22. "Commonwealth's
!Attorney," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinunce Book #36. page 446.)
Hr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
By Mr, Troui and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Lick. Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
febber .... 7.
I NAYS: None ...... -0.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE~ The City Manager aohmitted · written
report advising that the city Is in receipt of · proposed agreement with the
State Department of Agriculture concerning the distribution of surplus commodities
iwithin the community, that the agreement has been reviewed by appropriate offices
within the city administration and it is found to be · confirmation or procedures
~follomed in the past and mhich the city would continue to follow and recommending
!ithat he be authorized to execute said agreement.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
iManager and offered the following emergency Ordinance: .
(a20301) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City*s execution of a written
agreement with the Virginia Deportment of Agriculture, Division of Markets, relative
to the storage and distribution of commodities under the Food Distribution Program;
amd providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook #36, page 446.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Ilubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thom3s, Trout and Mayor
· ehher ........................7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted o writteo report recommending that
he be authorized to execute aa agreement with the Hepart=eat of Air Force for use
of the facilities at Roanoke Runicipal (Moodrum) Airport in the event of a natiooal
emergency.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter he referred to the City Attorney for preparation of
the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
HUDGET-ROANOKE VALLEY 6ARDEN CLUB: Council having requested that .the
City Manager furnish them with a cost breakdown in connection with a proposal of
the Roanoke Valley Garden Club to landscape the triangle at the intersection of
McClanahan Street and Franklin ROad, S. M., the City Manager submitted the followin
report advising ~at the initial cost to the city for the water and electrical
facilities involved in this project is approximately $1,450.00:
"June 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Councli
Roanoke~ Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Landscape - McClanahan Street and ~ranklin Road, S. W.
On Monday, February 29, 1972, City Council reveived a
request from Mrs. Charles Do Smith, Chairman of Projects, Roanoke
Valley Garden Club, concerning a proposal to landscape the tri-
angle at the intersection of McClanahan Street and Franklin Road,
S. Wa The garden club*s proposalto landscape thi~ triangular
area included a request that the City install necessary watering
facilities and provide low decorative lighting for the land-
scaping. This matter was referred to the City Manager's office
with a request for an estimate of the cost involved.
We huv~ now cowpleted out investigation if the proposal,
including several discussions mith representatives of the garden
club. The watering facilities would, involve three hose connec-
tions from which the landscaping could be watered during dry
weather. It is estimated that such installatlan could bn accom-
plished for, approxiwately $250.00.
The.decorative lighting proposed would include eight reces-
sed lighting fixtures-to highlight the landscaping. An estimate
of the cost rot such an installation is approximately $1,200
for f~tures, time switch, conduit and wiring completely installed.
The total initial cost to the City for the water and electri-
cal facilities involved in this proposal by the Roanoke Valley
Garden Club ia thus approximately $1,450.
If Council has further question ia this regard, we would
be pleased to attempt to answer same at your upcoming meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Birst
City Manager*
Mr. Garland moved that the report be referred to 1972-73 budget study.
iThe motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING-SPECIAL PERMITS: Council having referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. John J. Butler, President,
Andrews-Pi*act-Butler Fuel Oil Corporation, concerning certain restrictions on fuel
oil storage tanks at property on Virginia Avenue, N. M., the City Manager submitted
the following report recommending that Section 20 (G) 2 of the Zoning Ordinance be
revised as set OUt in his report:'
*June 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Fuel Oil Storage - Andrews-Pitzer-Dutler Fuel Oil Corporation
At your meeting on Monday. May 22, Council received a
request from Mr. John J. Butler, President of Andrews-Pi*act-
Butler Fuel Oil Corporation, concerning restrictions on fuel oil
storage taflk~ at property on Virginia Avenue, N. M. This matter
was referred to the City Manager's office for study, report and
recommendation.
Within the City*s Zoning Ordinanc~ there are limitations and
restrictions on the storage of flammable materials. T~e Virginia
Avenue property in question f.s in a light manufacturing zone.
Under the prnsent standards ~he maximum quantity o~ ~o. 2 fuel
oil, which Mr. Butler desires to handle at this location, is
limited to 40,000 gallons of uh~rground Storage. In order to
store a larger quantity of such material at this location, it
would have to have a flash point in excess ef 187 degrees. This
*Flash point* is an indication of the loses* temperature at which
vapors above a volatile combustible substance ignite in air when
exposed to flame. Since No. 2 fuel oil has a broad range of
flash point between IlO degrees and 190 degrees the storage
capacity is limited under the present standards.
The restrictions in the present City Zoning Ordinance with
respect to storage of flammable materials have been reviewed by
.the City Building Commissioner, Fire Marshal and Planning Depart-
meet. Me believe that the present standards are in conflict
with the current Standards of the National Board of Fire Under-
writers and are unnecessarily restrictive. Since the flash point
of flammable materials normally has a broad range of values, we
believe it inappropriate to establish o specific flash point as
a controlling factor on material storage. .Rather it moald be
489
490
proposed that a sore appropriate' standard mould be'to limit th~
storage capacityof flammable materials to the class designations
of such materials, it mould be proposed~at Section 20 (G.) 2 of
the Cityta Zoning Ordinance be revised as follous:
Industries Eqgaged Above Under HM
}n Storna~ Omi? Cround ground pistrlet
Class lll Materials Prohibited 100,000 Unrestriot, provided
Class II Materiels Prohibited 40,000 that storage, handling
Class I Materials Prohibited 20,000 mud use shall be in
accordance with 'Start--
Industries Engaged in dards of National Hoard
Utilization and Manufacture of Fire Underwriters
of Flsmmable Materials for Storage, Handling,
and Use of Flamsable
Class III Materials Prohibited Prohibited Liquids", National Hoard
Class II Materials Prohibited Prohibited of Fire Underwriters
Class I Materials Prohibited Prohibited Pamphlet No. 30, 1969
edition.
No. 2 fuel oil which Mr. Butler proposes to store at his
¥irghia Avenue property would fall in the category of Class III
materials. This mould allum the storage of up to 100,00 gallons
at this location. Other appropriate safety features such as
distance between storage tanks and minimum distance from abutting
property lines would still apply to the storage of such materials.
It is considered appropriate to recommend for Council's con-
sideration revising the CJty*s Zoning Ordinance in this regard.
If there are further questions concerning this proposal, ne would
be pleased to discuss the matter with City Council at your meeting.
Respectfully subm*Lted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager"
In this connection, the Assistant City Manager submitted the following
report advising that Mr. Butler's problem also involves a nonconforming use on
the Virginia Avenue property, that even if the performance standards for light
manufacturing zones were modified in accordance with the above report, Mr. Butler
mould still need an extension of his present nonconforming use in order to store
additional fuel oil tanks at his property on ~irginia Avenue:
*June 9, 1972
TO: Miss Virginia L. Shaw, City Clerk
FROM: Milliam F. Clark, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Council Agenda Item ? a 7 - June 5, 1972
At the Council*s meeting on Monday, June 5, Council received a
report from the City Manager's office concerning a request from
John J. Butler for additional fuel oil storage tanks at property
on Virginia Avenue, No W. I verbally offered the City Council
additional facts concerning the matter and was requested to
place those ideas in writing for your records~
In addition to tie i~furma~ion included in the City Council's
report, Mr. Butler's problem also involves tho matter of a con-
conforming uso of the.Virginia Avenue property. Even if the per-
formance standards for light manufacturing zones mere modified in
accordance with the report of Council Mr. Butler would still
need an extension of his present nonconforsing use in order to
store additional fuel oil tanks at his property on Virginia
Avenue; This property is presently in a C-2 commercial zone
where fuel oil storage is prohibited. Mr Butler has also
indicated his desire to install fuel oil tanks above ground
rather than underground as recommended in the proposed performance
standard changes. However, at the Council's meeting Mr. Butler
indicated he would install underground storage if required by
the City.
491
The'subject mas.referred to the City Manager and the City Attor-
ney for preparation of necessary papers to carry out the prsposed
zoning amendment as well as extension of Mr. Butler*s nonconform-
ing use.'
Mr. John J. Butler, President, Andrems-Pitzer-Butler Fuel Oil Corpora-
~ion, appeared before Council la support of his ~equest iud slated that he mould
)refer to have the fuel oil storage tanhs above ground.
After n discussion of the reports. Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be
~efe£red to' the City Manager and the City Attorney for the purpose of marking out
the necessary details and report bach to Council accordingly. The mot*ion mas
seconded by Mr. [fubard and unanimously adopted.
AUDITORIUM-COlISEUM: The City Manager submitted the folloming report
recommending that Council authorize n change order to ~he contract with Miller and
!Rhoads by deducting the sum of $?05.17 from the original contract price of
i$36,13g.75 for the furnishing and installation of carpeting for the Auditoriuu at
;:the Roanoke Civic Center:
"June 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Roanoke Civic Center
Auditorium Carpets, Miller and Rhoads Contract
The City has a contract math Miller and Bhoads for the
installation of carpeting in the Aoditorium of the Civic Center.
In addition to the actual carpeting installation the contractor
mas to furnish to the City 200 square yards of extra material for
£uture ose in maintenance of this sur£ace. The carpeting is a
custom pattern and color designed for this particular job and
additional material would be difficult to obtain once the mill
Several months ago approximately 112 square yards of extra
carpeting mas delivered and stored at the Civic Center. There
was apparently some miscalculation of the original quantity of
carpeting required, thus the shortage in extra material for future
use. Since it would be virtually impossible to get an exact
on hand will be the extent of that mhich cnn be supplied. Miller
and Rhoads bus offered the City a credit of $705.17 for the
approximately 66 square yards of extra carpeting not available.
This has been reviewed by the City*s consultant and recommended
It is recommended that the City Council authorize a Chan~e
Order to' the contract with Miller Bhoads deducting the sum of
$705o17 from the original contract price of $36,139.75 for the
furnishing and installation of this Auditorium carpet.
Respectfully submitted.
$/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F. flirst
City Manager'
Mr. Lisk mated that Council concur in the ~ecommendatJon of the City
Manager and offered the folloming Resolution:
(z20302) A R£SOLI~TION authorizing the issuance of an unnumbered change order to
~the City*s contract with Miller ~ Rhoads, dated September 21, 1970, for supplying
lcertain use the Civic Center, reflectiflg'a $?05.17 credit
for
Roanoke
in
to the City on said contract.
492
Hr. Llsk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Ur. Hubard end odopted by the following vote:
AYRS: Messrs. Garland. Hubard. Lish. Taylor. Thomas. Trout nnd Mayor
Mebber- '?'
NAYS: None ..... -=0.
GARBAGE REROVAL: The City Manager submitted the following report in
connection with refuse disposal, advising that as previously reported, there are
at the maximum, remaining at the sanitary landfill situated
to
three
NOrwich Bridge. submitting to Council a location that has not been previous-
of
f
ly noted or considered which is on the south side of Yellow Noun,aim Road. east o
the Parkway Spur. that the one negative factor from an operational standpoint, la
addition to time length, is access, that the Landfill Committee has suggested thei
reconsideration of the northeast area of Fallon Park adjacent to Rise'Avenue. S.
that if Council wishes to reopen this as a possih~ity he can provide such inforna-!i
and maps as would be constructive to consideration and recommending that
,ion
Council consider the city proceeding to use a portion of the north clear zone for
the disposal of debris:
"June 5. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: RefuSe Disposal
This is to supplement the item included on your Agenda
for this date in the matter of disposal of refuse.
~he problems and needs associated with the City*s situa-
tion on disposal of solid wastes have been described and dis-
sary to. rework the backgroun9 but rather to update to the very
current situation and the possibility or possibiltt~s of
handling.'
As I reported to you and to your landfill committee last
at the sanitary landfill situated west of Normich Bridge.
Mhile the Regional Committee meeting held this past week, the
would appear reconfirmed.thatthe prospect of a regional site,
whether it be all of the Valley governments or only several
coming together, is still a while off. It do,snot seem. and
regrettable, that,the regional approach will solve the 'immediate
need of the City of Roanoke unless the County should undergo a
mode of cooperative generosity. As'conclusion, the City
iS still ia the situation of having to independently resolve
The Council is equally aware of the severe limitations
of areas within the City. For the past few years we have been
able to fall beckon the assistance of the Norfolh and Nestern
I submit tothe City Council a location that has not been
previously noted or considered. This site is situated on the
south side of the Yellow Mountain Road, east of the Parkway
Spur. I would emphasize that this is not the same property or
area as mas previously proposed on Yellow Mountain Road. The
property is owned by the City of Roanoke and is in a low area
between two.ridges. It is adjacent' to Yellow Mountain Road and
is easily accessible from that roadmay. It is the area within
which there was situated a house owned by the City which burned
a year or so ago and the residents of the house are now occupy-
ing a trailer and their occupancy is through the pleasure of
the City. It is not felt that this activity woulr require this
family to move from the location.
It iS estimated that approximately six months of activity
tJwe lc possible In thfc location. This estimate In subject
to some modification dependent upon more specific details of
point, of comhenceaeat end extent to which the work would be
conducted in the area.
There Is one dmelllng across the road and other than this
and the occupancy Of the fomily on the City property, there are
no dwellings in near proximity and the area is relatively
isolated. The nearest streets are Kepplemood and Fidelity and
Valley View. I would again point out with repsect to these
streets and to the general area of the City, that the exper-
ience is well demonstrated by the last four locations in which
the City has operated as to the capability of conducting a
sanitary landfill with no area hardship or disagreeableness.
The one negative factor from an operational standpoint,
in addition to time length, is access. The route of access
for vehicles to this site is by Yellow Mountain Road from the
west and from the east. Because of a narrow section of Yellom
Mountain Road from the west approach, traffic would be encouraged
to use the east approach. There are two sharp curves on the
east approach. One down near to the Cordon City area will
receive some minor modifications as any major change would be
difficult. The sharper curve which Js at the top of the ridge.
near the site, can and will be improved as to roadway width
and visibility as the City owns the adjacent land to facili-
tate this.
This is offered and submitted to the City Council for con-
sideration as to the site for operation. Approximately two
weeks is desirable for preparation of this site.
The above location mould be proposed for that mhich is
classified as organic refuse. Being the same material us
handled in the Norwich Bridge site, Tinker Creek, otc.
From within the landfill committee there has been sugges-
tion for reconsideration of the northeast area of Fallon Park
adjacent to Nise Avenue. If the City Council would wish to
reopen this as u possibility, we can provide such information
and maps as would be constructive to considpratioo.
Az a second item, it was advised at your last meeting, that
the City has been directed to immediately close out the debris
disposal area in the Mill Mountain property adjacent to Biver-
laud Road. Me have in fact received a followup inquiry from
th~ Bureau of Outdoor Recreation as to what is being done in
this regard. This it considerable volume material and we
would he very much limited in time of use if this mere trams~
~erred to the site whore mentioned. The opinion is that it
would be most desirable to continue to handle this in a
different area. It is recommended that City Council consider
City proceeding to use a portion of the north clear zone for
the disposal of thi~. the area of that north clear zone is
az wes designated in the original proposal to the County for
the total development within the north clear zone property.
This material is not organic and its disposal does not con-
stitate the operation of a sanitary landfill within the gen-
erally accepted context even though the area has been in the
present site and would be in the new site conducted generally
along the lines of landfill through the cover process. I
would restate that in view of the above, it does not appear
to me that the disposal of this material falls within the
intent or requirement of the County*s zoning ordinance
which is the measure that has controlled the City's pro-
spects of area beyond the corporate limits.
Me will be glad to supplement this with ahy information
that the City Councilwould wish.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F.'Hirst
Julian F. ll~rst
City Manager"
In a discussion, Mr. Trout expressed the opinion that nc matter where a
landfill is placed, there will be objections from citizens, that at one time Council
was able to reach into the "landfill cookie jar" and pull out a location for a
493
494
landfill, that the 'cookie Jar= ia now empty and Council is faced mith the
responsibility of making a decision and suggested that Council use a remote
corner of Fnllon Park for said purposes.
With reference to the matter, Mrs. F. G. Longnecker, 1416 Wise Avenue.
S. E** appeared before Council lu opposition to the possibilit~ of using Fallon
Park for landfill purposes, Mrs. Longnecker obJecting on the b~sis that ¥ise Avenue
has Just been blacktopped, that heavy trucks mill destroy the pavement and
create odors in the area and expressed the opinion that Fallon Park should remain
Just as it is~
After a lengthly discussion of the two mentioned sites for the proposed
landfill. Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the Landfill Committee for
study, report and recommendation to Council by the next regular meeting of the body
on Monday. June 12, 1972. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously
adopted.
BUDGET-COMMONMEALTH'S ATTORNEY: Council having requested that the City
Mannger furnish them with a cost breakdown in connection with the request of the
Commonwealth's Attorney to reimburse two personnel of that office for travel to a
training siminar in Phoenix, Arizona, the City Manager submitted the following
report transmitting certain information from the Commonmealtb's Attorney's Office
with regard to a cost breakdown as requested by Council:
· "June 5, 1972
Honorable Rayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Commonwealth*s Attorney's Grant Fonds
At your meeting on Tuesday. May 30, City Council received a
report concerning a request from the Commonwealth's Attorney for
reimbursement to personnel of that office for travel to training
seminars. These funds mill be covered by a grant from LEA
under the State Division of Criminal Justice. Council requested
that I provide further information on the breakdown of these
expenses.
Actually the sum Of money involved covers several different
training seminars rather than the slngle s~ssion in Phoenix.
Arizona as previously reported. During that particular occasion
in November lg~l, two members of the Commonwealth*s Attorney's
office attended the Phoenix seminar at a total cost of $955 in-
cluding air transportation, room and board and registration fees.
Other seminars were attended by other personnel in the Common-
wealth*s Attorney*s office and their expenses contribute to the
total requested reimbursement of $1638.
Again, it is stated that these monies will be reimbursed
by State LEA funds.
It is recommended that City Council appropriate the above
sum to the Commonmealth's Attorney*s office for travel with an
offsetting revcnne account in the same amount.
Respectfully submitted,
S~ Julian F. Hirst.
Julian F. Hirs~
City Manager"
495
Mr. Thomas moved that CooncJl concur in the request of the Commonwealth's
Attorney and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating the necessary
funds:
(n20303) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~22. *Connonmealth's
~tttorney.* of the lgYl-T2 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook #36, page 449.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
iWebber ......................... ?.
i NAYS: None ........... O.
i BUDCET-COgPLAIFiTS: The City Manager submitted the folloming report advis-
ing that on April 17. 1972, Council received his report on the covering of a section
~of the Trout Run Creek Channel in the rear of the Hunton Life Saving and First Aid
Crew Headquarters and directed him to check into the possibility of obtaining
federal funds to aid in the construction, advising that as of this time he has not
ascertained any definJto federal funds that might be obtainable for this purpose,
,that the one possibility that may exist would be if at a later time the Gainsboro
~roject were extended ill its area and this work could be Jncorporate(t as a part
'of physical development within that area and that should anytlling develop he Mill
advise Council:
motion
copy of a memorandum written to him from gr. Kit B. Kiser, Manager of the Water
artment, on an inspection of the Cit~ Water Department Reservoirs.
~June 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor'and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Trout Run Creeh Channel
The City Council on April 17, 1972, received my report and
estimate in regard to the covering of the section of Trout Run
Creeh Channel in the rear of the Hunton Life Saving and First Aid
Crem Headquarters and referred it to me to check into the possibi=
lity of obtaining federal funds to aid in this construction. AS
of this time, me hare not ascertained any definite federal funds
that might be obtainable for this specific purpose. The one
possibility that may exist would be if at a later time the
Gainsboro project were extended in its area and this work could
be incorporated as a part of physical development within that
area. This, however, would seem to be sometime in the future
and could not be definitely scheduled or projected.
We mill continue to search and should anything develop me
would advise the City Coancil.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Trout moved that the report be referred to 1972-73 budget Study. The
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
WATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report transmitting;
Hr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SEWERS AND STORH DRAINS-CAPITAL INPROVEHENTS PROGRA#: The City
Hanager submitted a written report advising that on April 11, he Was directed to
furnish Council with a priority list or drainage requirements in the city before
19T2-T3 budget study sessions begin, that Jn order to clear'this as a pending Bat-
ter, he would take note of the transmittal to Council of a capital Improvements
project list in which he included a number of drainage problems and advising that
from this list there could be generally determined a sum o£'mon~y which Council
might be in a position to fund on the basis of total funds.
Hr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion wes
seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-ACTS OF ACKNOMLEDGEMENT: Tho City Manager submitted
the following report advising that the Roanoke community has very recently benefited
through a large number of new plantings in Hlmwood Park and calling attention to
various firms, groups and organizations who have had a part in these new plantings:!
"June 5. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe. Virginia
.Gentlemen:
Subject: Elmwood Park
As the members of City Council may have noticed, the Roanoke
community has very recently benefited through a large number of
new plantings in Elmwood Park. This park and the effort toward
plantings has been a project of the Civic and HANDS Committee
fo the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs for some several yearn
and the specific project of these recent plantings has only ~ust
materialized and this committee with the assistance of many
people has brought about this very fine improvement and addi-
tion.
In taking note of this before the City Council. I would
call to your attention the various firms, groups and organiza-
tions who have had a part in this, in addition to the Roanoke
Council of Garden Clubs. its Civic and HANDS Committee and the
officers and members, both past and present, of that committee.
These listedhave through their contributions, of money, labor
and equipment.made this achievement possible:
Sears, Roebuck and Company - HANDS Foundation
Roanoke Business and Professional Nomun*s Club
Spade and Trowel Garden Club
Sam Finley. Insurance
Brentwood Garden Club
Castle Rock Garden Club
Tower Hill Garden Club
South Hills Garden Club
K-Hart Store - Roanoke
Yeatts Nursery. Nartinsvllle, Virginia
Rokeva #omanSs Club
Vallevue Garden Club
Grandin Court Garden Club
Hill and Dale Garden Club
National Association of Railway Dusiness Nomen
Garden Gate Garden Club
Gay Gardeners Garden Club
Laburnum Garden Club
Joe Bandy and Son
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
.City Manager'
497
Mr~ Trout moved that the report he referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure of appreciation. The motion mas seconded by
Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SEVEMS A~O STORM DRAiNs: Council baying previously referred back to the
City Manager for further study, report and recommendation the interest of Mrs. Eva
~illard. 2025 Loagviem Avenue. S. M** far changes in the storm drainage system as
exists i~ the vicinity of her property, the City Manager submitted the follomJag
~port suggesting that in vieu of the very limited number of times wherein there
is overflow of this drop Inlet that the matter be held in abeyance until such tine
as funds might be available:
"June 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe. Virginia
· Gentlemen:
Subject: Storm Drainage - 2025 Longview Avenue. S. #.
In response to your request. I submitted on your Agenda
of March 27, 1972, a report in response to the interest of Mrs.
Eva Miller Nillard. 2825 Longview Avenue. S. M., for changes in
the'storm drainage system as exists in the vicinity of her
property,
As reminder on the matter, there is attached a copy of a
drawing showing the location of an existing ten-inch pipe which
leads from a catch basin on Longviem across the property of
Mrs. Miller, Official Map No. 10?OIlS, to its discharge at the
rear of her property. The mater then floms across, from the 12-
foot alleyway, the Pitzeres property to Stephenson Avenue.
You referred the matter on March 27 bach to me for further
consideration.
In the March 27. 1972, report I did not have date on the
estimated cost of replacing the drain through Mrs. ~illard's
property. We had not prepared this because of her indication
· that she did not wish any relocated drain to cross her lot. As
further information, the estimate of catch basin and an ~8-inch
drainage pipe from Longview Avenue through the property of Mrs.
Millatd to the alleyway at the rear would cost an estimated
$5,400.
AS previously advised, the estimated cost for an extension
of the 18-inch pipe from the alleyway through the Pfizer property
at 2626 Stephenson Avenue across Stephenson Avenue and with suit-
able manholes and catch basins mould be $6,300.
This would be a total of $11,?00 for the entire construction.
~o expense of easement Js included in any. of these costs.
le do not feel the situation to be practical to install a
drain pipe along Longview Avenue either to Stephenson Avenue or
to 28th Street because of the elevations of the street. The
location of the present 10-inch line ia within the natural drain-
age channel of the area and any replacement would logically fol-
low this pattern.
Since March27, I hame discussed the matter on two occa-
sions with Mrs. #illard and in each instance she has reiterated
her feeling that she weald not wish to grant an easement or to
permit a new drain pipe to he constructed.
It is understood that the present drai~ pipe mas put in
about 1950. Most of the houses in the immediate area had been
built at that time mith the exception of possibly two in addi-
tion to the present Mlllard hame. It is further understood that
it was during the conttruction of the Millard home that the
drain line was put in down through that property and this was a
lo9ical occurrence mherein a duelling or building was being con-
structed in the natural drainage channel and it was desire to
control the storm drainage flow through n pipe.
This further information ia submitted to the City Council
for such handling as you might wish to give to the matter. As
you thew, there are no funds currently budgeted for such ·term
drain work ·nd there is the que·tion'of the position of the City
in replacing · drain of this type and also, In particular, the
relationship of necessity of tbJr particular replacement.in:
relationship to other storm drainage needs In the City. It is
suggested that in view of the very limited number of times~
wherein there i· overflow of this drop inlet the matter be held
In abeyance until such times as funds might be available.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirsh
Julian F. Hirsh
City Manager"
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Br. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
TRAINS: Council having prevJouslT directed the City Manager to check
with the Norfolk and Western Railway Company to ascertain the amount of time a
railroad crossing may be bloched by passing trains, the City Manager submitted the
following report:
"June 5. 1972
Ilonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
Subject: Blocking of Railroad Crossings
The City Council, at your meeting of March 13, 1972,
referred to me the question of the amount of time a railroad
crossing may be blocked by passing trains.
In response thereto, I am indebted to the City Attorney*s
office for providing for me the following information:
'TitleXVIlI, Chapter 1, Section 13 of the Code of the
City of Roanoke provides as foLbws:
"It shall be unlawful for the directin9 officer or the
operator of any steam, deisel or electric railway train
or car to direct the operation of or to operate the same
or allow the same to stand in such a manner as to pre-
vent the use of any highway or street for purpose of tra-
vel for a period of time longer than five minutes, except
that this provision shall not apply to trains or cars
in notion other than those engaged in switching. It
shall be unlawful for any such railway train or car to
stop within an intersection or on a crosswalk for the
purpose of receiving or dischargin9 passengers."
'Section 56-1412.1 of the Code of Virginia provides as
Follows:
"It shall be unlawful for any railroad company, or
receiver or trustee operating a railroad, to obstruct
for'a longer period than five minutes the free passage
on an! street or road by standing cards or trains across
the same, except a passenger train while receiving or
discharging passengers, but a passway shall be kept open
to allow normal flow of traffic; nor shall it be lawful
to stand any wagon or other vehicle on the track of any
railroad which will hinder or endanger a moving train;
provided that mhen 'a train has been uncoupled, so as to
make a passway, the time uecessaril~ required, not
exceeding three minutes, to pump up the air after the
train has been recoupled shall not be included in con-
sidering the time such cars or trains were standing across
such street or road. Any .such railroad company, receiver
or trustee, or driver of any such wagon, or vehicle,
violating any of the provisions of this section shall be
fined not less than five dollars nor more than twenty
dollars.'
'Therefore, both of the above Codes provide that five
minutes is the maximum time that u street may be obstructed
ual*ss coupling (on additional three minutes, State Code},
o~ moving (no apparent time limit, City Code}.
*The State Code provides for a fine of not less than
$$.00 nor more than $20.00. In Title XVIIi. Chapter 1,
Section ISl, violations for mhlch no specific penalty is
provided, there is set forth a SS.O0 to $100.00 fine
in the City Code.'
The question arose particularly on the request of a citizen
before the City Council inquiring about the covssiug at Ninth
Street, $. E. Here, either n long time *coors or seems to occur
by virtue of occasions mb*rein trains moving in opposite directions
mill pass over this crossing at approximately the same tine creat-
ing a down time for traffic across the crossing Jonger than that
of a single train.. Contact mas made by the City Attorney*s
office with the Law Department of the Norfolk and Western to
advise them of this complaint. In addition. I have discussed
the matter, with Division Officials of the Railroad. In both
instances, they advised they are revieming their operations in
the interest of conformity to time limits and to the minimum
amount of crossing closing.
If Council would mash further information, we mould be
glad to advise.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Ilirst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. List moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The Assistant City Attorney submitted the fol-
lowing report with regard to an easement from Wells FurnitureCompany for con-
struction of siding for unloading chemicals to be used at the Sewage Treatment
Plant and with regard to authorizing the City Manager to enter into written license
agreements with the Norfolk and ~estern Railway Company for the construction and
maintenance of pipelines, footbridge and trarel walkway across the Railway Company's
~ght of way and the Roanoke River property:
"June 5, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
During the last few weeks, certain officials of the City have
been involved in discussions with representatives of #ells
Furniture Company concerning the purchase by the City of an
easement in certain land owned by said company situate directly
across the Roanoke River from the Sewage Treatment Plant.
As part of ~he City*s upgrading of the Sewage Treatment Plant,
it has become necessary for the City to arrange a suitable place
and method for the receipt and unloading of chemicals to be utilized
in the operation of the plant. Zhe purchase of such easement
would make it possible for the construction of a railroad siding
and unloading site directly across the Roanoke River from the
Sewage Treatment Plant. As the Norfolk ~ Western right-of=way
is situate betmeen the Malls Furniture Company property and the
SewaRe Treatment Plant property, arrangements are presently being
made math the Norfolk ~ Western Railway Company for a perntt
allowing the City*s installation of certain underground pipes and
wiring across the ratlway's trackline and for access to the pro-
posed unloading site across the ratlmay*s right-of-way, h order
to pump the chemicals from the unloading site to the plant,
itself, across said right-of-may and river.
499
500
As'a result' of the negotiations ~lth the representatives of Wells
Furniture .Company, the company has indicated its mlllJngness to
· grant to the City a perpetual exclusive easement in · O.247 acre
tract of land on the soother side of Officlol Ho. 4321021 fur a
total cost to the City of $1o500.00, that sam having been reported
os thevblue of the property by un independunt appraisal made for
the City by a. local professional rea~Lestute oppraiser. From
the Cityts standpoint, it is considered:that rights to that pro-
party acquired by grant, of t perpetual end exclusive easement
would be the equivalent of the fee simple title to it. Such
easement would contain a provision whereby the easement would be
released should the City' not use the siding to be constructed for
a period of two years, or at such earlier time if mutually agreed
upon. The terms of the proposed easement would provlde,~further,
for the possible future fencing of the area, fdr the right of
ingress end egress to the area for maintenance and repairs, and
for indemnification by the City for any damage that may result
from the e~ercies Of the City of the rights granted in said
easement.
The owners have re,nested that the cJtyo in conjunction with the
granting of the easement, release the easement granted the City
by Hells Furniture Company by deed dated Hay 14, 1965, and
authorized by the Council by Ordinance No. 16443, mMch easement
was over a manlier parcel of land situate in oenerally the same
location. The City Engineer has advised that such easement is no
longer necessary for the operation of the Sewage Treatment Plant,
and may be released.
It is essential, in order to provide for the pumping of such
chemicals to the Sewage Treatment Plant and to provide access
to the unloading site across said Railway's right-of-way, to
enter into license agreements with the Railway relative to the
pipeline to transport the chemicals, and for a foot bridge and
gravel malkway across the Railway's right-of-way. The privileges
granted the City pursuant to the provisions of such agreements
are to be donated by the Railway. on nominal consideration of
one dollar, each. The terms of said agreements would provide,
further, for indemnification of the Railway by the City against
the Railway°s loss or damage resultingfrom the City's exercise
of the privileges granted therein; for a sixty-day termination
provision when exercised by the City for termination by the Railway
upon default by the City of any of the terms of said agreements;
and for the cost of all such work to he borne by the City.
1 have prepared and transmit herewith for Council°s considera-
tion ordinances which would authorize the folloming:
1. The purchase from Hells Furniture Company of the ease-
ment mentioned above and the relaese of the former
easement 9ranted by said company to the City dated May
14, 1965;
2. The City Manager to enter into written license
agreements with the Horfolk ~ Western Railway Company
for the construction and maintenance of pipelines and
a footbridge and gravel walkway across the Railway's
right-of-way and the river property;
all to be upon the terms abovementioned and as approved by the City
Manager and City Attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Edward A, Natt
EdwardAo Hatt
Assistant City Attorney"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Assist-
taut City AttSrne~ and offered.the following' emergency Ordinance authorizing the
acquisition by the City of Roanoke of a perpetual exclusive easement from Wells
Furniture Company, Incorporated:
(z20304) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City's acquisition of a perpetual
exclusive easement, in certain land for the construction of a railroad siding and
chemical unloading facilities for use at the Semnge Treatment Plant, upon certain
~erms and conditions; authorizing and providing for the City's execution of said de*
and for its recordation; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text ~ Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a36, page 449.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, flubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ......................
NAYS: None .0.
Mr. LIsk then offered the following emergency Ordinance authorizing the
execution by the City of Roanoke of two written license agreements with the
Norfolk and Yestern Railway Company providing a right to the City to construct,
maintain and operate various water, air, chemical and electric power line crossings
and to provide for the construction and maintenance of a sixty foot footbridge
and an eighty-five foot gravel walhway on, under and across said Compaay*s pro-
perty opposite the Sewage Treatment Plant and to provide such services and access
for said Sewage Treatment Plant from a side track opposite the same:
(z2030§) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City*s execution of two written
license agreements with Norfolk ~ Nestern Railway Company providing a right to the
City to construct, maintain and operate various water, air, chemical and electric
power line crossings and to provide for the construction and maintenance of a
foot footbridge and aa tiS-foot gravel walkway on, under and across said Company*s
property opposite the City's Sewage Treatment Plant, to provide such services and
access for said Sewage Treatment Plant from a side track opposite the same; and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook =36, page 450.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iby Or. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: MeSSrS. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
iMebber .......................
NAYS: None O.
CITY ATTORNEY-COUNCIL: The City Attorney submitted a written report
irequesting that he he permitted to meet with the Ma~or and Members of Council in
iExecutlve Session prior to the adjournment of the Council meeting for consultation
regarding certain legal matters within the jurisdiction of Council,
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request Of the City Attorney.
iThe Motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
'INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES ANO RESOLUTIONS:'
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20205, rezoning 16 acres of land, more or less,
near the intersection of Cove Road and Nershberger Road, N. M** described as the
northeasterly portion of Official Tax Nos. 24BO147, all of Official Tax Nos. 2460117,
and 2480148 and the southerly portion of 248011, from RS-3, Single-Family Residen-
tial District, to RG-I, General Residential District, having previously been before
Council for its firat ~eodingo read.end laid Dyer, was again before the body,
Mr, Garland offering the f?llowlng for its second reading end finol od~ption:
(z202B$) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of
iThe Code of the City. or Roanoke, 1956, as ~mended,.ond Sheet No. 24B, Sectional
~i1966 Zone Nap. City of Roanoke, in relation to ZoninJ .
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book a36, page 442.)
Mr. Garland.moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion, was seconded
iby Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, and Thomas .....5.
NAYS: Trout and Mayor Webber----7----7-- ..............~ ..... 2.
PLANNING-POLICE DEpARTMENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL BUILDINGoCAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure
requesting the Fifth Planning District Commission to cause a study and eraluation,
us a site for the proposed regional jail or corrections facility, to be made of that
area of property situate west of Third Street and within the limits of Campbell
Avenue and Church Avenue, and, pending such evaluation, that no affirmative action
on sites be taken or recommendations be given by the Fifth Planning District Com-
mission, he presented same, whereupon, Mr. Lisk offered the following Resolution:
(#20306) A RESOLUTION requesting evaluation of certain additional sites
for a proposed regional jail and, pending such evaluation, that no affirmative
action on sites be taken or recommendation be given by the Fifth Planning District
Commission.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book e3b, page 452.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. Yhe motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Nubard, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ...................
NAYS: None, .0.
AMBULANCES: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure concurring with the overall objectives of the Roanoke Valley Regional
Health Services Plunnin9 Council report of January, 1972, concerning Emergency
Medical Services in the Roanoke Valley, he presented same;whereupon, Dr. Taylor
offered the ~ollowtn9 Resolution:
(a20307) A RESOLUTION concurring with the overall objectives of the
Roanoke Valley Regional Health Services Planning Council report of January, 1972,
concerning Emergency Medical Services in the Roanoke Valley.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 453.)
Dr. Taylor moved tbe adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
~by Mr. Lis'k on~ a~o~ted by tho following vote:
AyEs: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
NAYS: None
ZONING: Council having directed the City Attorney to'prepare the proper
measure authoriZing the Issuance of a permit to authorize continuance of noncon-
formiog use of premises located ut 814 ~ 816 Murray Avenue, Si'£., Official Tax.
No. 4122536, he presented same; mhereupon, Hr. Trout offered the following Reso-
lution:
(u20300) A RESOLUTION authorizing the iasuance of u permit to authorize
continuance Of nonconforming use or premises located at 614-816 Hurray Avenue,
Si E., Official Tax No. d122S35.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book u36, page 4§4.)
Hr, Trout moved the udoptbn of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Rt. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carlando Hubard, LJsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Hayor
:Mebber ~__?.
NAYS: None .........O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
BUDGET-TAXES: The City Manager Submitted a written report advising that
lit will be necessary for Council to set a public hearing on the budget, that in
recognition of time limits, Council may wish to proceed and do this as soon as
ipractical, that the budget itself does eot have to be finally determined prior to
ithe hearing but the hearing should be scheduled if there is ~ny consideration to a
~revfsion in tax schedules.
Later during the meeting and after the Executive Session as requested by
ithe City Attorney, Hr. Thomas offered the following Resolution providin9 for a
:public heatlog to be held on June 26, 1972. at 2 p.m., in the Council Chamber, on
the subject of an increase of the local tax levy on taxable real estate and tan-
gible personal property ig the city and of other Sources of revenue:
(n20309) A RESOLUTION providing for a public hearing before the Council
on the subject of an increase of the local tax levy on taxable real estate and
tangible personal property in the City, and of giber sources Of revenue.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book g36, page 45S.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded=
iby Hr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
i AyEs: Messrs. Garland Hubard Li~k Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
:Webber '7.
il NAYS: None O.
{ BUDGET-flOGS-COMPLAINTS-LICENSES: Mr. Lisk verbally requested that the
ilCity Manager' try to avoid any further newspaper rebuttals on the subject of the cit~
.,
!ipositiun on the dog pound versus the SPCA position, that theCity Manager give a
Iclarificution on the position of the city in the legality of administering certain
!drugs to ~ispose of animals, that the City Manager.go bach to the o.rtginal request
of February where the Mayor mas requested to appoint a committee, in mhJch the City
ilManager was represented, to discuss and explore the feasibility of consolidating
:many of the city functions of the dog pound mith that of the SPCA and whether it
recommendations back to Council.
In n discussion, the City Homager verbally presented a recap of certain
actions that have transpired betmeen the City of Roanohe and the State Board of
!Pharmacy uith regard to the city*s administering a drug referred to as sodium pen-
tobarbital in the disposal of stray dogs after a specified period of time, advising
i~that the City of Roanoke has bud instructions from the state to discontinue use of
i. tbis drug, and tho in summary he feels the city can conform to the requirements of
the State Board of Pharmacy.
After a discussion of the matter, Br. Lish moved that the City Manager
be requested to study the feasibility of consolidating the city operations with
!another group or organization in the Roanoke Valley and report bis findings to CounT
cil. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that consideration should be given to
extending the length of time stray dogs are kept at the city dog pound before they
are put to sleep.
SALE OF PROPERTY: Dr. Taylor moved that Council meet in Executive
sion to discuss a real estate matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Nebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTE~:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
CERTIFICATE OF AUT~IEI[TICITY
THIS Is TO CERTIFY THAT THE PEPJ4ANENTLY
VALUABLE RECORDS OF THIS OFFICE AS LISTED ON THE TITLE .
SHEET k~'ERE NADE AVAILABLE FOR MICROFILI~II4G BY TIIE LOCAL
RECORDS ]~RANCH OF THE /~RCHIVES DIVISION OF THE VIRGINIA
STATE LI'BRARY As AUI]{ORIZED BY SECTIONS 15,!-8, q2,1-82,
AHO ~2.1-83 OF THE Coup oP VIROINI&, THE PURPOSE OF THE.
FIICROFIUliHS IS TO PROVIDE SECURITY COPIES OF THE RECORDS.
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, June 12, 1972~'
The Council of the City of Roan*he met in regular meeting in the
,Council Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, June 12, 1972, at 2 p~m.o the
regular meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L, Mebber presiding.
PRESIiNT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Milliam S. Hubard, David E~
Lisk, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L.
Mebber 7.
ABSENT: None O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Hr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager; Mr. William F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Klncanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A.
N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by the Reverend
MJlliam. Mood, Pastor, St. John*s Episcopal Church.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on.Tuesday,
May 30, 1972, having been furnished each member of Council on motion of Mr. Lisk,
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed
mith and the minutes approved as recorded.
BEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
STREET LIGHTS: Copy of n communication from the Appalachian Power
Company, transmitting a list of street lights installed and/or removed during
the month of May, 1972, was before Council.
Mr. Lish moved that the ~ mmunication and list be received and filed.
~The motion mas seconded by .Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS-BUSES: A communication from Mr. Robert M, Shannon, Executive
Director, Fifth Planning District Commission, transmitting a Resolution passed by
the Fifth Planning District Commission approving the U~bnn Area Transit Study and
recommending that steps be taken to implement the recommendations contained in the
report, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council set a public hearing for 2 p,m,o Monday.
July 10, 1972, on the matter and that the communication be referred to the City
Manager for studyt report and recommendation to Council at that time. The ·
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
STATE HIGHWAYS: A communication from Mr. Robert M. Shannon, Executive
Director, Fifth Planning District Commission, transmitting a Resolution passed
by the Fifth Planning District Commission approving the Ro~nok~ V~lle? Area
Thorouahfar~ Plan for (lqB~), with the exception of the alignment and location
of the proposed South Salem Circumferential, advising that the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways is currently in the process of reviewing the systemic impacts,
of deleting the South Salem Circumferential from t he proposed highway plan and
requesting appropriate action by Council, sas before the body.
Hr. Thomas, moved that Council set a public hearing for 2 p.m~, July 10,
1972, ~n the, matter s~d that the communication be referred to the City Ysnsger
for study, report and recommendation to Council at that time. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
· pLANNING: A communication from Mr. Robert H. Shannon, Executive Director
Fifth Planning District Commission, transmitting u Resolution passed by the Fifth
Planning District Commission approving the Growth nad D~v~lo~m~nt - I Lnnd Gs~
,riate action by Council, was before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council set a public hearing for 2 p.m., ¥onday,
Inly 10, 19720 o~ the matter, and that · e communication be referred to thc City
Manager.for study, report and recommendation to Council at that time. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: A communication from Mr. Mllltam C. Pittman, tendering his
resignation as a member of the Roanoke City School Hoard Was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be received and filed and that
the resignation be accepted with regret. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland
and unanimously adopted.
DUDCET-~ATE COMpENsATION BOARD~SDERIFF: Copy of a communication from
Sheriff Paul J. Puckett addressed to the State Compensation Board, with regard to
his 1972-73 fiscal year budget, advising that the Board eliminated three additional
deputies as requested in his 1972-73 budget and requesting that the Compensation
Board give serious consideration to the approval of one of the three deputy posi-
tions, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by .Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDG~T-~ITV E~PLOYEES-C~ERK OF THE COURTS: A communication from Mr.
Walker R. Carter, Jr** Clerk of the Courts, requesting that the Personnel Depart-
uent make a study of the employees in the Office of the Clerk of the Courts and
that said department be reincluded in the classified group of the City Pay Plan
~nd further requesting that the proposed budget for said department for the lis-
:al year 1972~7~ be acted upon and that any increases in pay that would result
iuder the classified City Pay Plan be retroactive to July 1, 1972, was before
Mr. Thomas moved t~at the communication be referred to the City Manager
~or study, report and r~commendation to Council. The motion ~as seconded by Mr.
Trout and unanimously adopted.
RADIO-TELEVISION: A communication from Future Cable Communications of
tmerica introducing the members of Council to their revolutionary Cable Television
:oncept end urging that Council conslderthe benefits of their *summarized pro-
~osal** Was before the body.
Dr, Taylor moved thot the communication be referred to a committee com-
posed of Messrs, Robert A, Garland, Chairman, Julian F, Hlrsto James N, Kincsnon,
Noel C, Taylor and Hampton W. Thomas ~or their information in connection mith
their study of the question of permitting the construction of a community antenna
television system in the City of Roanohe..Thc motion was seconded by Hr, Trout
and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
RUUOET-JAII:-CITV ENGINEER: The City Nanager submitted a mritten report
recommending that $525.00 be appropriated to Rointenance of Buildings and Pro-
petty under Section #64, #Raintenance of City Property,~ of the 1971-72 budget,
to provide funds to ~nstall several telephone type communicators in the City
Jail for use of prisoners and their visitors, said amount to reflect in revenue
a 100 per cent refund.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Ranager and. offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(z20310) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #64, "Raintenance
of City Property,' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Cook 36, poge 4S?.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinonce~ ?he motion was second-
ed by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote: ·
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Rebber 7.
NAYS: None O.
BUDGET--TRAFFIC ENGINEERING AND COMMUNICATIONS: The City Ranager sub-
~mitted the following report recommendin9 that $5,500.00 be appropriated to Com-
munications under Section ~57, ~Traffic Engineering and Communications,~ of the
1971-72 budget, to cover the cost,of telephone bills, advising that a portion of
this sum is reimbursed by various state and federal programs which support city
operations:
June 12, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Request for Appropriation - Telephone Accounts
At the beginnine of the current fiscal year there mas .
acknowledged uncertainty as to the actual casts to be incur-
red for telephone services due to the installation of nee
centrex facilities throughout the City government. An esti-
mated sum was included in the Traffic Engineering and Com-
munications' budget to be later adjusted as expenses re-
quired.
Throughout the year the telephone bills hame been
fluctuating and we sought to reach a stable position in the
level of telephone billing. An example of a reason for this
continual change was the new welfare personnel authorized
last year which required considerable telephone end electri-
cal installations in an office on the fourth floor of the
Runicipol Ruilding for their use.
We have non concluded a detailed study of the tele- .
phone bills and found that $5,500 additional monies uill be
necessary to cover, the cost of these facilities.. A portion
of thin sum is reimbursed by various state and federal pro-
grams uhich support City operations, The City Auditor has
indicated that he cam make proper distribution of these
funds to the various departmental accounts if the funds are
appropriated by City Council to the Traffic Engineering and
Communications* budget, It is, therefore0 requested that
$5,500 be appropriated to Account 57 - 220,
Respectfully submitted,
S! Juliin F. Hits*
Julian F. Nlra*
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#20311) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u57, "Traffic
Engineering ~ Communications** of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and pro-
viding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book z360 page 458.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. LJsk end adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Zrout and~Mayor
Mebber ..... 7.
NAYS: None
In this connection. Mr. Garland moved that the City Man{gar be request-
ed to study the possibility of the City of Roanoke,purchasing its own telephone
equipment rather than renting this equipment, thus resulting in a savings to the
City of Roanoke over a period of time and report bis recommendations to Council
accordingly. The motion was seconded by Mr~ Bubard and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-HUSTINGS COURT: The City Manager submitted a written report
recommending that $50.00 be transferred from Dues, Memberships and Subscriptions
Printing and Office Supplies under Section {16, "Hustings Court," of the
1971-72 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 followin9 emergency Ordinance:
(u20312) AN ORO1NANCE to amend and reordain Section #16, "Hustings
Court," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency,
(For gull text of Ordinance, see as recorded in Ordinance Book
page d59,)
Dr, Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion nas second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs.' Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None
BUDGET-BUILOINC DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the followin9
report recommending that $75.00 be appropriated to Travel under Section n48,
"Department of Buildings,~ of the 1971-72 budget, to provide funds in order that
the Electrical Inspector in the Building Commissioner*s Office may attend the
Virginia Chapter of the Southern Section of the Internstionnl Association of
Electrical Inspector's Conference In Charlottesville, Virginia. on June 13 and
14, 1972:
"June 12, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanokeo Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Budget - Account No. 40 - Building Commissioner
This report is a request for travel funds in order that
our Electrical Inspector in the Building Commissioner's office
msy attend the Virginia Chapter of the Southern Section of the
International Association of Electrical Inspector's Conference
in Charlottesville, Virginia, June 13 and 14,
The individual concerned is on the Executive Committee
of the Virginia Chapter and is also Chairman of the City
Conference Committee which is now makin9 arrangements for the
Southern Section's annual conference to be held in Roanoke
in the month of September, 1972. There will be a registra-
tion of between 500 and 600 members at this Southern Section
conference. In addition to the normal benefits derived from
attendance at such conferences, we believe it is desirable
that our Electrical Inspector attend the Charlottesville
meeting in order to participate in palnning for the upcom-
ing fall conference in Roanoke.
It is recommended that $75 be appropriated to Object
Code 230, Travel Expense, in the Department of Buildings*
budget~ Account No. 49. A similar sum of money can be
deducted from the 1972-73 Department of Uuildings' budget
since the fall conference of the Southern Section of the
International Association Of Electrical Inspectors will be
locally held and will not require out-of-tomn travel.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Birst
City Manager~
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20313) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section m46. Department
of Uuildings," of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n360 page 459.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Mayor
Nebber 7.
NAYS: None O.
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a written
report advising that under present appropriation authorization the Civic Cen-
ter is permitted to maintain cash in the maximum sum.of $1,000.00 for handling
of change and other cash requirements for the box office and concessions, that
experience has indicated that this is not a sufficient amount particularly over
meekends, holiday periods and during heavy activities and recommending that
C,ascii appropriate an additional $3,000.00 to this cash fund making s total
cash fund of $4.000.00.
Hr, Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the follomiog emergency Ordinance:
(u20314) AN ORDIHANCE to amend and reordain Section ngl, 'Non-~)epart-
mental°' of the 1971-72 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing fur an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance D,ok #36, page 460.)
Hr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion mas second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ,7.
NAYS: None
BUDGET-RECREATION DEPARTMENT-SCHOOLS-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City
Manager submitted a written repart reserving space on the agenda for n presenta-
tion by a group of citizens in the Kennedy Park area concerning the development
and improvement of Kennedy Park.
In this connection, Mr. Hugh Ennis. I011 Syracuse Avenue, N~ M.,
appeared before Council and presented a p~tition signed by 24 citizens mbo are
interested in the beautification of Kennedy Park so that it might be useful to
the young and old alike, requesting the installati'on if drin,~ing fountains, curb-
lng around the park area, ten cement benches, an enclosed pond, seeding, trees,
shrubbery, a bicycle trail to alleviate the heavy traffic of children on bikes
in the area, grading and excavation to eliminate poor drainage and marshy areas
at Syracuse Avenue and 19th Street and at the upper end of Graysofl Avenue and
lgth Street, concrete walks, necessary lights for a park of this type. road
improvements, parking areas and permission for local garden clubs to add addi-
tional flowers.
After a discussion, Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to 1972-
73 budget study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout further moved that the City Manager be directed to prepare
a set of plans for the beautification of Kennedy Park to be submitted to the
federal government. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted. Ii
POLICE DEPARTMENT: Council having referred to the City Manager a
report from the Assistant City Attorney in connection mith.a request from Mrs.
Arthur D. Jones for funds to repair her home at 1905 ~allace lvenue,.N.E., which
was allegedly damaged by city policeman's hulletts,on August 4, 1971, the City
Manager submitted a written report advising that representatives of the Building
Maintenance Division investigated the dwelling and prepared an estimate of the
cost to repai: damages at $453.06 which is somemhat less than the estimate obtain-
ed by Mrs. Jones from aa outside contractor, that Mrs. Joues has been coutacted
concerning her willingness to accept the above sum of money for repairs to her
property and has advised that this sum mould be acceptable to her.
Mr. Lish*moved that. Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following Resolution authorizing payment in the zm0unt of
$453.06 of certain damages occurring or thought to have occurred to the property
of Mrs. Arthur D. Jones:
(~20315) A RESOLUTION authorizing payment of certain property damages
resulting from certain necessary police action occurring on or about August 4,
1971,
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book #36. page 460.)
Mr, Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution, The motion was seconded
by Mr, Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Moyor
Webber ...................... 7.
NAYS: None O.
MARKET-TRAFFIC-PLANNING: The City Manager submitted a written report
in connection with the proposed parkin9 garage, advising that on June 6, 1972,
certain members of the city administrative staff met with representatives of
National Garages to review the Phase II report that the firm had submitted, that
out of the discussion, several alternate arrangements in design gad space
evolved with the conclusion that National Garages will analyze these elements and
advise the city as to their findings, that when this supplemental information is
available it is hoped to have a representative Prom National Garages make a formal
presentation to Council and requesting guidance from Council as to whether Coun-
cil would prefer to do this at a special meeting or at one of the regular Monday
Mr. Garland moved that Mayor Rabbet be requested to call a special
meeting of Council to discuss Phase II of said report, The motion was seconded
by Mr, Hubard and unanimously adopted,
Mayor Mebber then called a special meeting of Council for ? pom., Mon-
day, June 26, 1972, in the Council Chamber, for the purpose of reviewing Phase
II of the report with regard to the parkin9 garage as prepared by National
Garages, Incorporated,
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager submitted a written report in
connection with a request from RTOY proposing to conduct record hops on the hard
surface tennis court facilities at Hurt Park, Eureka Park and Mashingto n Park
during the summer months, that he is advised by the Director of the Oepartment
of Parks and Recreation that his office feels this matter can be handled and
that he is working out appropriate arrangements with ~OY in this regard,
Mr, Lisk moved that the report be received and filed, The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted,
CIRCUSES-CARNIVALS: ~he CitT Manager submitted a written report advis-
ing that the Roanoke Fair is scheduled to open at Victory Stadium on August 31 -
September 4, 1972, that September 3 is on a Sunday, that Mr. Malter Buckner has
requested that he bring before Council his interest that Council consider permit-
ting the Fair to be open and to operate on Sunday, September 3, 1972o
Mr. Lisk moved that the Roanoke Fair be permitted to operate on
Sunduyt September 3, 1972. between the hours of 2 p,m,, and 10 p,m,, nnd thst the'
City Attorney be directed to prepare ~e proper measure accordingly. The motion was
seconded by Mr, Hubsrd and adopted, Mr. Garland voting no,
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: The City Manager. submitted the
following report advising that the city is in receipt of an offer from Herglund
Chevrolet Company to donate one 1965 Ford Station Wagon for use by personnel
connected with Youth Haven, that the cost of operating and maintaining this vehicle
iwould be lO0 per cent reimbursed by state funds and recommending that Council
accept the offer of this gift and express appreciation to flerglund Chevrolet
jCompany for their most generous offer:
*June 12, 1972
llonorable Mayor mod City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Youth Haven Donation
The City is in receipt of an offer from Hergluud Chevro-
let Company to donate one 1965 Ford Country Squire station
wagon for use by personnel connected with Youth Itavon. This
vehicle would be used by the case morker and other staff
members transporting boys from Youth Haven to and from various
functions. Yhe cost of operating and maintaining this vehicle
would be 100 percent reimbursed by State funds.
Personnel of the City Garage have been requested to
inspect this vehicle and found that it is in reasonable
operating condition. It would be recommended that City
Council accept the offer of this gift and express appre-
ciation to the Herglund Chevrolet Company for their generous
offer.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Thomas moved t~at the report be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure concurring in tho offer of Herglund Chevrolet
Company ~n~ expressing appreciation to said Company for their most generous
offer. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SIC~S-BURRELL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: The City Manager submitted Se fol-
lowing report advising that the city is in receipt of a request fr~m Burrell
Memorial Hospital that they be allowed to ereot small sign markers at the inter-
section of 6th Street and 8th Street with Oran9e Avenue, N. M., that in order for
these two signs tl be placed within the public right of way it is necessary for
Council to authorize an encroachment on city property and recommending permission
for these signs since they would improve the identification of the hospital
to the public and for emergency location:
*June 12, i972
Honorable Mayor and City'Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Signs - Burrell Memorial Hospital
Me are in receipt of a request from Hurrell Memorial
Hospital that they be allowed to erect small sign markers
at the intersections of Otb and 6th Streets with Orange Avenue,
N, W, These signs would be 27 inches high by 36 Inches wide
and carry the mords #Burrell Memorial ~oupltal' with aa appro-
priate arrow. The signs will be puid for by the hospital
and erected by a private sign company,
In order that these signs be placed within the public
right of way it is necessary fur the City CoonclLto authorize
an encroachment on City property. If there are further ques-
tions concerning this proposal from flurrell Memorial, we will
attempt to secure for City Council the appropriate information,
I recommend permission for these signs as they would improve
the identification of the hospital to the public and for emer-
gency location.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian Fo [Jirst
Julian F. flirst
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
per measure. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SE~ERS AND STORM BRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following reportl;
summarizing the status of the Sewage Treatment Plant and its program as it relates
to the State Water Control Board, advising that the confusion and difficulties
[that apparently prevail with the situation of the City of Roanoke and the State
!Water Control Board are not alone with the City of Roanoke but apparently are
being experienced in other areas of the state, that the problems are brought
about by the wide difference between the theory of the Board itself and the
, practicalities of implementation:
June 12, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Sewage Treatment Plant - State Mater Control Board
This is written in the intent of summarizing for you as
best and as fairly passible, under the indicated circumstances,
the status of the matter of the Citf*s Sewage Treatment Plant
and its program as rplates to the State Mater Control Board.
There are a variety ~f confusions in the matter, as mill be
noted, which make an orderly recitation somewhat difficult.
The best beginning of the current period would perhaps
be the hearing on March 13, 1972, in Richmond at which repre-
sentatives of the Valley governments, including the City of
Roanoke appeared and at which the delegation from Smith Moun-
tain Lake also appeared. The local governments attended in
response to the call of the Board who respond to a number of
questions, inquiries and points applied by the Board toeach
locality. The Smith Mountain delegation appeared voluntarily
urging the Board to impose a ban on the Roanoke Valley.
It was at this heuring taut the Board retmposed Require-
ment No. It better known as the semer ban. It was felt, by
way of opinion, that each of the local governments did a
creditable job in describing their individual programs, their
progress and their scheduled projections for the future.
However, the Board took the indicated action.
As the Minutes of that heaving will reflect, there was
general comment by the Ooard and its staff as to reasons for
the imposition of the ban. Some days after the hearing a
letter was received by the City of Roanoke, as was directed
to the other governments in their individual situations, set-
ting forth the imposition of Requirement No. 1. stating the
conclusions of the Board and stating generally several reasons
for the action.
lO
· '' In neither of those comments in the hearing nor In the
mritten communication were~the reasons stated sufficiently.
specific in order to permit the City to determine with n degree
of exactness mhot naa the consular, basis for the imposition of
the ban, In like manner neither mas there sufficient exactness
for the City to determine precisely uhot it had to do in order
that it could'in reply say to the Board at some designated
later date that the City had met the requirements smd, there-
fore, the ban could or should be lifted,
Recognining certain inequities nad questions, your City
Attorney*s office then entered into n series of conferences
with legnl representatives of the other local governments.
Inquiries to the staff of the Board mere referred to the
Attorney Ceneralts office which resulted in a number of
telephone conferences with the Assistant Attorney General mho
represents the State Water Control Board, Included in these
questions was the matter of procedure as to how best smd legal-
ly the City and its neighbors could register question of the
Board's action or any portion thereof. The outcome of all
of this was the conclusion that the level of appeal mas to
the courts rather than to the Board itself.
As was advised to the City Council at the ti~e, as
publicly stated and as was written to the Executive Secre-
tary of the Board, the City with much reluctance noted
appeal of the Board's action An the Circuit Court of the
City of Roanoke. In the writing to the Executive Secretary
of the Board on this matter, the City, through the City Attor-
ney, emphasized its stroh9 dqsire to handle in everyuay pos-
sible with the Board and its staff the questions and its wish
to avoid any actual court hearing on the matter.
That particular action on the part of the City was
taken because the letter document which advised of the im-
position of Requirement No. 1:
1. was in question on a number of points,
2.. needed clarification,
3. represented the restriction on the City and the
Yalley which did not appear ~ustified,
4. had the strong possible affect of jeopardizing
stated federal grants for the City's committed
program° and
5. offered possibilities of delay and complications in
the City*s ability to carry cut its program.
In the course of the period shortly after the March 13
hearing, as will be well recalled, the Valley governments
reached contractual agreements within the deadline of April 1
as had been directed by the Board. ~his mas one of the pro-
visions in the order of the Board although there was question
as to whether or not this was actually a part of the March 13
hearing. Additionally, the City itself proceeded with certain
interim arrangements having first to do mith increasing the
capability of removal of sludge from the plant operation. This
was. arranged and accomplished by pipe line facilities over to
the farm area across the river. The City further set up
procedures for interim chemical feed for the purpose of
phosphorus removal as directed by the Board. This was the
process of trucking pickling liquor into the plant.
Further in the activity which took place, the Valley
governnents through the Fifth Planning District, submitted
by the April I deadline the initial application for State and
Federal approval of the region program. Additionally, the
City of Roanoke through the Fifth Planning District Commis-
sion, by the April 1 deadline, filed the first stage applica-
tion for. overall Federal grant for the treatment plant expan-
sion and Upgrading. This is technically known as Part A of
the grant application. Part B, Which is the more detailed
application, cannot follc~ until after Part A has been
proved.
The summary of sequence must now jump back to early
February, 1972, when the City advertised for bids to be re-
ceived on March 9, 1972, for the construction of the two
first phases of the overall development program. The other
phase mas for permanent chemical feed installation for the
removal of phosphorus.
On February 13, 1972, the City forwarded to the State
Mater Control Board the plans, and specifications for these
two chris*ruction projects. This depth is necessary as
approval must be obtained from the State Water Control Board
and in turn the State Health Department before contracts
can be awarded, before construction can be undertaken at the
treatment plant of any nature and before State and Federal
fund grant approval can be given.
During that time representatives of the City and of its
consulting engineers met on aeyernl occasions jn Richmond
and in Roanoke with staff representatives of the Mater
Control Ro~rd to review the project and to discuss the aspects
of the plans and specifications.
The City Council on March 9, 1972, received very good
bids on the two projects and then on March 13 awarded the
contracts to the low bidders conditional upon approval
by the State Mater Control Board.
Now let me leave the matter of those two contracts
for a ~oment and return to the Requirement No. I or the ban.
Since the Cityts step of noting an appeal in the court,
there have been a number of discussions between'staff mem-
bers of the City and of the Water Control Board on the matter
of the specifics of the requirements under the ban as to
conditions to be met. Additionally. and more particularly.
have been very considerable number mud almost coutiuuous in
nature of conversations between the City Attorney and members
of his staff and members of the staff of the Board and of
the Attorney General*s office on the same subject and questions.
The City has by every reasonable and orderly process
endeavored to find the means by which the ban could be
relieved and there could in turn be relieved problems that
it creates in regard to the City*s sewage plant development
program.
This activity continued up to about May 25 or 26 when
joint arrangements mere made for representatives of the staff
of the Mater Control Board and of the Attorney Ceaeral*s
office to come to Roanoke for a meeting on Thursday, June 1,
1972. It was understood and intended that the meeting on
June I would serve beneficially ~o all concerned and in a
cooperative fashion to have a full scale review of the ban
order, the requirements on the City and the City*s program.
It was the hope and effort of the City that this meeting
on June I would serve to clear the air and that from it, the
City could best determine how to next proceed or as to that
which it should do.
On the previous afternoon, May 31, the City was advised
from Richmond that the meeting was being cancelled and that
the persons from there would not be coming. Then, a few
days later, the City mas advised,' upon recontacting the
Board*s staff, that representatives would come to Roanoke
on Wednesday, June 7. On that date, June ?, one staff member
from the Board, came to Roanoke amd that afteruoon, together
with a local representative of the State Health Department,
met with City persons. Representation of the City consisted
of thd City Attorney,' two of his Assistants, the City Manager,
the City Engineer and the Director of Public Works.
In a kind overall evaluation of that meeting, it was
unproductive. The staff repr~sentative of the Board indicated
that he was unable to answer a number of questions that w~re
raised or to discuss a number of the point~ which were
significant to the overall matter. In some instances, he
advised that the matters on whi'ch the City mis inquiring
have to be taken back to the Board. Many of these questions
mere purely technical in nature and some were procedural. On
certain other points, he indicated that these could only be
answered by the Attorney 6eneral*s office.
I will not go into the details of the specific points on
which the City has needed clarification, supplemental advice
and interpretation and determination of means of relief.
They would appear to be questions, by may of opinion, that
would normally be resolved and worked out at staff level as
a result of policy determinations by a Board or a governing
body. The Board's staff member did on June 7 make one
statement which merits note at this point. In response to
questioning, he stated that it was his opinion that the staff
mould recommend to the Board that the'ban not be lifted
until the City met the standards d treatment prescribed by
the Board und until the City had submitted a schedule of
construction, made o commitment to construct and received
approval of the State Water Control Bourd for the building of
u 30 million gallon rum semage detention pond ut the trent-
meat plant, As to the first element of that statement, this
is one of the matters mhich hum been under question since
the imposition of the ben *nd on uhich the City has continually
sought clarification. As to the second element, this has
injected m nam aspect of n matter into not only the pr*gram
hut the conditions of the ban itself, There ur* details
of this matter that can be enlarged upon but the particular
subject will be left on the basis of Just the general state-
ment.
There should be noted ut this point, that the mordJn9
of one of the directives In the documentation of the Board
ut the time it issued the ban'on March 13, 1972, mas that
the City meet by May 1, lg72t the standards of effluent Jato
the river that the Board had prescribed last fall, 1971, The
Ciiy takes the pSsitiou and contends, based on plant data,
that these standards mere being met on a consistent basis as
of May 1, 1972. As elaboration though on that point there has
appeared to have developed question as to the clear interpre-
tation of the number of different standards that were to be
met and this is one of the.points on which clarification has
been sought.
As a sam*mba* related matter to this subject, it is
understood that there has developed within the last rem days
here locally some question as to the intent of the City to
be represented or to appear at what is understood to be the
meeting of the State Water Control Board on June 12 and 13.
This comes perhaps following a news item in the Roanoke
World News on Tuesday, June 6, 1972, in which it mas stated
that *M. Coldwell Butler, a lawyer representing the Roan*he
Valley Home Builders Association, said he mill ask that both
the general valleymide ban and the special moratorium imposed
two years ago on part of southwest Roanoke County area be
lifted" and that "Delegate Richard Cromwell has asked to
appear before the Board in his capacity as Town Attorney for
To the best of my hnomledge, the City has not been
possibility of a joint appearance. Bore to the point, though,
it has not been the plan of t~e City to present itself at
this hearing. Rather the objective of the City was to follow
the cobrse described above seeking the specifics in the matter.
Once these mere understood and determined, the City staff
felt that it could go before the Board and present justifi-
cation for a request for the lifting of the ban. The City
has felt that it has been in good situation to request such
lifting on the basis of the limits of its understanding of
which prevailed at the time the moratorium mas imposed mould
City, as well as any other Valley government, in a difficult
position in' being able to adequately respond in a proper manner.
To the best of the City*s knowledge, it has been in
compliance with the deadlines and requiiements of the Board.
Another factor has now cone into the picture on which
comment and note should be made. In early May, the City
commenced the introduction of pickling liquor int~ the treat-
ment plant process. Semage treatment in theory and in practice
involves the maintenance of a precise bacteriological balance
within the treatment operati'on. The introduction of any neu
chemical or process through that operation disturbs the
balance and there automatically follows u period of adjust-
ment 'before proper levels and standards of operation can be
rea*rained and a balance ream.med. The pickling liquor moved
the balance in the City*s plant. This mas not totally unex-
pected; the City had reported that it could be anticipated
as a possibility. However, the exact means and methods of
returning to the balance cannot be exactly determined except
upon ~ctual experimentation under full conditions of use. The
disturbance in the balance ~esulted in throwing the quality
of effluent into the River Off of the standards and levels
mhich had been attained and maintained up to that time. In
some elements of the standards, the quality of effluent was
, Through the City's continuing reports of plant data to the
State Water Control Board, the Situation was observed by ~he
Board*s staff, As a result,, the City received n letter from
the Board asking for an explanation end inquiring as to what
action the City would be taking for correction. This nas
responded by ny letter to the Executive Secretary of the Board
on June 9, 1972. For simplicity of paperwork, a copy of
that letter is attached for explanation.
The City and the plant, particularly with the interim
additional treatments established, is significantly dependent
upon the o~llity to go ahead with the construction Of permanent
chemical feed equipment and especially the additional sludge
removal facilities, The following points must be noted:
1, Approval and authorization has not. yet been received
from the Board of the plans and specifications, The
sludge removal facilities and the chemical feed
equipment, which plans and specifications were sub-
mitted in early Febroaryt nearly four months ago,
2. Approval and authorization has not ye~ been received
of the regional plan submitted on April 1, nearly
two and one-half months ago.
3. Approval. and authorization has not yet been received
from the Board of Part At the first'step, of the
City's grant application for the state and federal fund-
ing of either the first stage or the overall con-
struction ~nd improvements at the plant pursuant to
the program proposedond ~proved by the Board. This
grant application was submitted on April 1, nearly
two and one-half months ago.
In addition to a number of obvious problems that result
from the above, it should be noted that the original ache- .
dale as proposed by the City and approved by the Board has
now been placed out of balance. This is meant that it is
completely impossible for the City to meet certain deadlines
imposed by the Board but through all of the processes that
have been previously described, we have been unable to obtain
the desired clarification of our best way of handling under
the circumstances.
In conclusion of all of ~ e above, it'is important that
the foll~wlng comments be added. I do not feel that in any,
respect the City and its staff operates or functions in an
atmosphere of conflict with the staff of the Board. Me do
not meet or discuss in an atmosphere of animosity or anger.
Inherently, wo all have the same objectives and I think this
is recognized. The City has its goals which it seeks to
obtain and these are goals not only set by the State Water
Control Board, as can be best interpreted, but they ore also
goals from the citizens of Roanoke and from the City Council.
Tho City has committed itself in many respects and fully.
The staff of the City has endeavored to carry out these
commitments. I don't think there is an element of a break-
down or absence of communications between the staff of the
City and the staff of the Board. In fact communications have
been extensive.
The imposition of the ban on March 13, for whatever
reason the Board may have had in doing so, while it has
perhaps actually served a little to reduce volume of
sewage, it has nevertheless, by opinion, served to con-
siderably complicate ~he overall matter with legalt admini-
strative and procedural involvement that have detracted from
the capab~llty of everyone to devote themselves to what is
really the ultimate goal--*he construction of additional
treatment plant facilities and tlr continuing upgrading of
extensive sewer lines throughout Se Valley,
The confusion and difficulties thqt apparently prevail
with our situation and the Water Control Board are not alone
with us but ap@arqntly are being experienced in other areas
of the State.
The problems are brought about by the wide difference
between the theory of the.Board itself and the practicalities
of implementation. This affects not only the local juris-
dictions but also the ability of the Board's staff.
AS long es everyone realizes that uo~ ere nil trying to
plod through under these circumstances then I *birth that
ultimately the goal cnn be ren.chedo~
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julion F. Hers*
City Manager~
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
In a discussion, Hr. Lish expressed the opinion that thercJty Should
make a loud noise about its difficultiesndrancing its projects and that the
City of Roanoke~has to become more aggressive in get*in9 the State Water Control
Board to approre its plans.
Mr. Thomas disagreed with Mr. Lis, stating that the City of Roanoke
did make a loud noise by appealing the se.er ban order end that the statement
~mode by the State Mater Control Board that the city does not have an effective
pollution abatement program has not 9one unchallenged.
Mayor Bebber expressed the opinion that the City Manager and his staff
have been very dogmatic in their efforts to get answers from the S~ate Mater
Control Hoard.
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: The City Manager submitted the
following report recommending that the City Attorney be authorized to prepare
appropriate papers for criteria9 into a lease agreement with Mary R. Waynick
through Boswell Realty Companyt Incorporated, for use of apace at 2330 Orange
Avenue, N. W., for the establishment of aRegional Intake Office, advising that
this facility is 100 per cent paid by state and federal funds under the LEA
Justice and Crime Prevention Program:
~June 12, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Regional Intake Office
Funds are included in the current 1971-72 budget for a
Regional Intake Office. This facility is 1GO percent
paid by State and Federal funds under the LEA Justice and
Crime Prevention Program. The £acility provides a location
outside of the other governmental facilities for handling of
juvenile offenders on an around-the-clock, seven-da~-a-meek
basis and is jointly used by Roanoke County and Salem. The
City of Roanoke iS acting as agency £or the operation.
The personnel for this facility have been hired and
trained and have been awoiting appropriate office space.
In the interim they have been housed at the Juvenile Court
facility on Borer Avenue. It has been intended that office
space be leased for this Regional Intake facility. We have
negotiated for space at ~330 Orange Avenue, N. M., for esta-
blishment of this Regional Intake office. The lessor has
agreed to make two minor alterations to the interior of the
building and will provide all utilities for a total sum of
$225.00 per month on a one-year lease. This lease would be
renewable on a year-to-year basis as funds from the Division
of Justice and Crime Prevention are extended.
It would be recommeuded that the City Council authorize
the City Attorney to prepare appropriate papers for entering
into a lease agreement on this office space. The property ·
Is owned by Nary R, Msynick and would bn leosed through
Boswell Realty ComPany, Incorporated. Funds ere orullable in
the current budget ond in the proposed 1972-73 budget for
this program, Again, we remind Court*il that this Is n 100
percent State end Federal funded project,
Respectfully svbmitted,
S/ Julian F, Bits*
Julian F, Rirst
City Yanager~
Mr, Liskmoved that Council concur in tho 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. Garland and unanimoulsy adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY-ZONING-STATE RIGUMAYS-INDUSTRIES: The City Hanager
submitted a written report in connection with an industrial access roadway off
Tenth Street, N. M., for service to the Macks Company along Inter'state Route 501
and other industrial properties in that vicinity, that in the early stages of
the project, the city advised the Highway Department of the city's interest that
the roadway be developed with a 30-foot side pavement to facilitate trnch traffic
and in order to conform mith state standards on pavement midth applicable to gaso-
line tax rebates for maintenance, construction and reconstruction, that under
normal state projects for industrial access roads the pavement width would be
only 24 feet, that the additional six feet pavement width on this project is
estimated to cost $27,200.00 and mould have to be assured from funds other than
the llighmay Department and recommending that the city agree to pay the additional
costs for tMs six feet of wider pavement and that the state desires a Resolution
from Council in this regard prior to advertising for bids on the project.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following Resolution:
(z20316) A RESOLUTION requesting the Virginia Department of Highways
to provide e 30-fOOt wide pavement for the new indu'strial access road, Project
9999-126-103, C-502, instead of a 24-foot wide pavement, committing the City
to provide the funds necessary for payment of the cost of the additional 6-foot
wide pavement.
(For full text of Resolution, see as recorded in office 'of
City Clerk in Ordinance Book a36, page 4~1.)
Mr. Thomas move~ the adoption of the ResOlution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lish and adopted by the following vote:
· AYES:Messrs,. Garland, Hubard, Link. Ta~lor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber 7
NAYS: None
CITY TREASURER-MUnICIPAL BUILDING: The City Manager submitted the fol-
lowing repQrt in connection with a request from the City Treasurer for a key to
the Church Avenue, first floor doors to the Municipal Doilding, advising that he
has indicated to the Treasurer that he will furnish him with a key to the Third
Street doorway, that the Treasurer has verbally advised him that this arrangement
would be satisfactory and that in order to be consistent in procedure, it would
be intended that a hey to this door would upon request be made available to the
other constitutional officer and to each of the department heads having principal
quarters in the Municipal Building, .
Hr, Lisk moved that th'e report be received and filed'. The motion mas
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted,
SEMERS AND STORR DRAINS-BUDGET: The City Manager submitted the follow-
ing report in connection with a storm drainage problem in the 2100 block of Kim-
ball Avenue, N, E,, advising that the businesses principally affected are the
Bud Weaver Beating and Air Conditioning Company and Volley Music Company, that in
hi~ opinion this particular situation is one of the more valid storm drain pro-
blems throughout the city, that should funds be available, it would be recommend-
ed that money for this installation be included i'm the upcoming 1972-73 budget:
"June 12, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
Subject: Drainage Problem-R100 Block Kimball Avenue, N. E.
For the past couple of years there has been an increasing
problem mith storm drainage in the 2100 block of Kimball Avenue,
N.E. (Formerly Patrick Henry Avenue). The businesses prin-
cipally affected are the Bud Weaver Heating ~nd Air Condi-
tioning Company and Valley Music Company, These firms have,
over several years, frequently contacted the City regarding
the matter,
These businesses are located in mhat would be 'described
as the low point for drainage through the area. There are
no enclosed Storm drains in the neighborhood and whenever
there occurs a heavy rainfall, water drains through these
properties, sometimes to a considerable extent. During the
past couple of years there has been additional building de-
velopment in the surrounding neighborhood with a resultant
increase in runoff of storm water. The nearest available
storm drain line is located at the railroad underpass.on Liberty
Roan. The cost estimate to extend these facilities to the
subject area is approximately $62,000. This project is includ-
ed among those storm drain improvements submitted with the
capital improvements list forwarded to City Council approxi-
mately two months ago,
In our opinion this particular situation is one of the
more valid storm drain problems throughout the City, Should.
funds be available, it mould be recommended that money for
this installation be included in the upcoming 1972-73 bud-
get, If there are further questions by City Council regard-
ing this subject we would be glad to discuss the matter in '
detail,
This report is submitted to City Council for consider-
ation during current budget study and in order that the
interested parties may knom that full consideration con-
tinues to be 9ivan to this situation,
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F, Hirst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Garland moved that the report he referred to 1972-73 budget study,
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted,
SEWERS AND S~ORM DRAINS-WATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted
u written report concurring in the following reports from a committee recommend-
ing that the proposal of Suffolk Chemical Company. Incorporated, for furnishing
supplies of liquid chlorine to the Water Department and the Sewage Tr~atnent
Plant for the period beginning July 1o 1972, and ending June 30, 1973, be
accepted, and that the proposal of Lynchburg Foundry Coupnny for furnishing and
supplying certain cast iron and ductile iron 'mater pipe to be used ut the Water
Oepurtmente for the estimated'total sun of $44,414,00, for the period beginning
July 1, 1972e and ending June 30, 1973, be accepted:
"June 12, 1972
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 at 11:00 bom., Wednesday, May 3la 1972, for supply~
lng Liquid Chlorine to the Water Department and Water Pollu-
tion Control Plant for the tmelve month period beginning
July 1, 1972. and ending June 30, lg?3. The bid ~ocuments
stipulated the requirement that the successful bidder will
be required to furnish 2,000 lb. cylinders to the Water
Department at the same price as quoted for the Water Pollu-
tion Control Plant should the Water Department convert from
150 lb. cylinders to 2,000 lb. cylinders.
The low bidder, as per the attached bid tabulation,
quoting on both the 150 lb. cylinders and the 2,000 lb.
cylinders was Suffolk Chemical Company, lac. This bid is
approximately ?~ cheaper than the current price for the
Water Department and 3~ cheaper than the current price for
the Water Pollution Control Plant. It is the recommendation
of the committee that the low bid of Suffolk Chemical Company
be accepted for furnishing liquid chlorine to the Water
Department and the Water Pollution Control Plant for the
tmelve month period beginning July 1, lg?2, and ending June
30, 1973, and that all other bids be rejected.
Respectfully submitted:
S/ William F. Clark
S/ Bueford Bo Thompson
S/ Kit B, Kiser~
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance accepting tam proposal of Lynchbur9
Foundry Company for furnishing and supplying certain cast iron and duc{lie iron
mater pipe to be used by the Water Department:
(#20317) AN ORDINANCE accepting the proposal of Lynchburg Foundry
Company for furnishing and supplying certain cast iron and ductile iron water
pipe to be used by the City's Water Department for the period beginning July
1972, and ending June 30,' 1973, authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract or purchase orders; rejecting all other bids; and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 462.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The' motion was sec-
onded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, task, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayo;
Webbex ....
NAYS: None--
#r. Lisk then offered t~e following euergency Ordinance accepting the
proposals of Suffolk Chemfcol Company, 'lucnrpornted, for furnishing supplies
liquid chlorine to the Water Depot*sent nnd the Sewage Treatment Plant fu~ the
period beginning July le 1972, nnd ending June 30, 1973:
(u20318) AN OROINAHCE authorizing the purchase of supplies of liquid
chlorine to the City*s Mater Department and to the Semage Treatment PI'ant for the
period beginning July 1, 1972, and ending June 30, 1973, upon cer*tain terms and
provisions, by accepting a certain bid made to the City; rejecting certain other
bids; and providing for an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u36, page 463.)
Mr, Lish moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Nubard, Lish, Taylor, Thomas, Trout bad Mayor
Webber ,-7.
NAYS: None ........
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-MUNICIPAL BUILDING: The City Attorney
submitted a written report advising that in the course of finalizing the written
form of agreement authorized to be entered into mith the firm of Sowers, Redes and
lhitescurver, Engineers, pursuant to the authorization contained in Ordinance No.
20259, relating to the improvement and renontion of the Third Street,
rdinance which authorized its execution by the city set out, in figures, the
nor
~resenttheO estimated ConstructionZ Costs on which the percentage fee'wouldbe applied,
hat Costs upon which compensation to the firm under the contract
Construction
ould initially be applied would be approximately $726,500.00 and transmitting
an Ordinance which would amend the earlier Ordinance by directing that such
~stimated amount be expressly stated in the agreement.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the of the
report
City
Attorney
nd offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20319) AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No 20259 authorizing the
iePlOyment of certain consulting engineers to provide certain professional
~f the City's building on the west side of Third Street, S. M., by specifying the
imJting the amount of compensation to be paid under said contract without
further authorization by the Council; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 465,)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
Mr. Hubard and adopted bY the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Ta~]o~, Thongs, Trout and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None--, O.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: The Assistant City Attorney .submitted tbs follow-
ing report in connection with the widening of 35th 5treat, N, W,t recommending
that Council accept the offer of Mr. and Hrs. C. L. PHil, Jr., in the amount of
$50750°00, cash, for tbs acquisition of a portion of their property needed in
connection with said widening of 35th Street, N. M.:
June 12, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia.
Gentlemen:
fly Ordinance No. 20175, adopted Rarch 20, lg72, you approved
a project for the widening and improvement of a portion of
35th Street, H. ]., immediately to the south of Melrose
Avenue and, among other things, directed the acquisition of
a strip of land approximately 12.5 feet wide, being the
westerly portion of Official No. 2660401, which property is
owned by C. L. PHil, Jr., and wife, and upon mhich is operated
*Melrose Rinit Car Mash**
Zhe Ordinance authorized and directed the City Manager to
offer to the owners of said land a consideration Of $4,340.00,
cash, for said owners* c.onveyance to the City of the fee
simple unencumbered title to said parcel of land, said con-
sideration having been based upon an appraisal of the portion
of said land needed by the City for said street widening pro-
ject. Said ordinance further provided that, upon the refusal
by said owners of the City's offer, the the City Attorney
institute condemnation proceedings to acquire said needed
land.
The omners did in fact refuse the offer of $4,340.00 and
condemnation proceedings were subsequently instituted. In
the course of proceedings being matured, the City obtained an
updated appraisal of the needed land. Further negotiation
with the owners has resulted te a letter from their attorney,
dated June R, 1972, by which the City is advised that said
owners will accept the sum of $5,750.00 for the land the
subject of said condemnation proceeding.
Based upon the ~pdated appraisal, as well as other considera-
tions, the undersigned would recommend to the Council that the
owners* offer of June H, last, in the sum of $5,750.00, cash,
be accepted.
Accordingly, there has been prepared and istransmitted
herewith for the Council*s recommended adoption, a form of
ordinance which would authorize the acquisition of a portion
of the Poff property for the consideration Of $5,750.00 and
would modify Ordinance No. 20175 to that extent.
Respectfully,
S! H. B, Jones, Jr**
Assistant City Attorney"
Dr. Taylo~Xmoved that Council concur in the recommendation of the
Assistant City Attorney and offered the following emergency Ordinance:'
(#20520) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and directing the acquisition of a
certain parcel of land necessary for the widening and improvement of a portion
of 35th Street, N. N.~ in the City and, to that extent, modifying Ordinance No.
20175, relating to the same property; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook =36, page 466.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Zhomas and ad~pted by the following vote:
AYES: Neaara. Garlundo Hubard, Liskt Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webbes .. 7.
NAYS: None. .0,.
ZONING: The City Planning Commission submitted the following report .
recommending the institution of.official, duly advertised, public heavings to be
held by the Planning Commission on all rezoning petitions:
"June H, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Rayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Planning Director presented u report, to the Planning
Commission recommending the institution of official, duly
advertised, public hearings to. be held by the Planning Com-
mission on all rezoning petitions (see enclosed report).
The Planning Commission' members g~erally co~cu'rred with
the findings and conclusions of the report and thought the
advertised public hearing a good mechanism to insure that ali
interested parties Jn a rezonJng case are made aware of the
time, place and nature of the petition.
AccordingLy, motion was made, duly seconded and unani-
mously approved recommending to City Council that the Zoning
Ordinance be amended to provide for the institution of duly
advertised public hearing by the Planning Commission on all
rezoning petitions and that the fee structure and procedural
requirement cited in this report be incorporated into this
ordinance.
Sincerely~
S! Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Cr~ed K, Lemon, Jr. by LM
ChaPman"
Hr. Lisk moved that the'report be referred to the City Attorney for
review and for preparation of the proper measure accordingly. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylo~ and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Hodges Lumber Corporation that
property located at ~he intersection of Malnnt Hill and Laurel Street, S.
described as Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block 20, Roanoke Oas end Water Company Map,
Official Tax Nos. 4041001 and 4041002, be rezoned from. RG-l, General. Residential
District, to RG-2, General Residential District, the City Planning Commission sub-
mitted a written report recommending that the'request be denied.
Mr. Lisk moved that action on the matter be deferred one week pending
notification from Hr. Jack B. Coulter, Attorneyt representing the petitioner,
as to whether or not his client desires a public hearing on the rezonJng request.
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 Roanoke Development Corporation,
that 5.377 ~cres of land, more or less, located on the south side of Shenandoah
Avenue at Peters Creek, and also, a tract of land containing 2.257 acres, more or
less, located on the south side of Shenandoah Avenue and Miller Street, he rezoned
from RS-3, Single Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District,
the City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending that the
request be granted,
Hr. Lisk moved that a public hearing he held on the request for fez*n-
lng at 2 p.m., Monday, ~uly 10, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of R~aaoke Nems Agency, Incorporated,
that property lying and being on the east side and the west side of 9th Street,
S, R., and north of the Norfolk and Restern Railway property line, described as
Official Tax Nos. 4240101 and 4142631, be fez*ned from RD, Duplex Residential Dis-
trictt to C-2, General Commercial District, the City Planning Commission submitted
a written report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Lish moved that a public hearing be held on the request for rezoning
at 2 p.m., Monday, July 10, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unani-
mously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred back to the City Plannin9 Commission
for further study, report and recommendation the request of Messrs. Elmer R. Cox
and Laurence E. Peters, that properties around and adjacent to 1714 Redwood
Road, S. E., in the vicinity of Redmood Road and Dundee Road, S. E.,
described as Lots 3. 4, 5, 6. 11, 12, 13 and 14, Section 4, Map of Rosewood Park
Corporation, Official Tax Nos. 4440722 - 4440725, inclusive, and 4440703 -
44d0706, inclusive, be fez*ned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-2,
General Residential District, the City Planning Commission submitted a written
report recommending that a RG-I fez*ming be approved in lieu of the original
RG-2 rezoning request.
Council having previously held a public hearing on the matter on Monday,
May 22, 1972, and having referred the request for r~zoning back to the City Plan-
ning Commission for further study, repor~ and recommendation, Mr. Garland moved
that said public hearing be continued until 2 p.m., Monday, July 10, 1972. Zhe
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. James W. Delcher that property
located at 412 Walnut Avenue, S. E., described as Lot 3, Block 23, Official Tax
No. 4031116, be fez*ned from RG-lt General Residential District, to RG-2, General
Residential District, the City Planning Commission submitted a written report
recommending that a RD fez*ming be approved in lieu of the original RG-2 fez*ming
request.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. Belcher advisin~ that he
is in accord mith the recommendation of the City Planning Commission that the
abovedescribed property be rezoned from RG-I, General Residential District to
RD, Duplex Residential District.
Mr. Lisk moved that a public hearing on the request for fez*nih9 be
held at 2 p.m., Monday, July 10, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and
unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
GARBAGE REMOVAL-BUDGET: The Landfill Committee submitted the folloufng
report in connection math an interim or short term landfill site, recommending
that Council approve the use of the area of land omaed by the city situate on the
south side of Wise Avenue, S, E., at the east corporate limits ~f the city mithin
the Fallon Path tract, that the area be generally constructed to a level and with
suitable terracing to Wise Avenue so that after the landfill activity has been
completed and the area graded and grassed, that a baseball field may be constructed
on top of it to serve the 9rouing requirements for such athletic needs in the
city and that other facilities as might be determined desirable at-that time or
later also be directed to be constructed, and further recommending*hat a portion
of the north clear zone at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport be used for the
disposal of non-organic refuse and debris:
'June 12t.1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Refuse Disposal
At the City Council meeting on June 5, 1972, your Landfill
Committee. mas instructed to study the several proposals that
were made for on interim or short term landfill site and to
report back to the Council,
The Committee recognizes, as does the City Council, that
it is imperative that a location be found and designated for
a landfill site. Such a location will have to be inside the
City because Roanoke County has so far not agreed to any site
proposal by the City to bo situated in the County. Such a
landfill location in the City must be on o short term basis
because (1) there is not adequate or suitable land or sites
in the City for any long term operation and (2) it is tho
definite intent of this committee to recommend that'steps be
~ken by the City to obtain either through the regional pro-
cedure mhich is now underway or by other means a long term
site at an early date. Such a site most likely has to be with-
in Roanoke County, In view of this the City must select a
location for immediate occupancy.
It is the recommendation of the Committee that the City
.Counctlapprove the use.of the area of land omned by the City
as is situated on the south side of Wise Avenue at the east
corporate limits of the City. This area is comprised of pro-
perty obtained by the City from the Norfolk and Western or
Virginia Holding Corporation and from private individuals. A
portion of this area is within the Fallon Park tract. The
landfill would specifically be conducted in the area between
Mis* Avenue on the north and the ridge which crosses a portion
of the Fallon Park area between the two high uooded points on
the south aod between the railroad aa the east and the wooded
knoll on the west.
It mould be the intention Of tho Committee tho*in the
City's use of this area that the landfill be conducted in full
accordance with the best of methods andprocedmres of sanitary
landfills. There are tau reasons for this:
1. It should be the policy of the City to operate its
refuse disposal areas according to best principles in
order that they mill not be detrimental to any area math-
in uhich they are situated and for conformance with sani-
tation, health and appearance principles. These have
been the guidelines which tho City has followed in its
recent locations over the past five to six years,
2. It iS the desire of the committee that this area be o
model lonatlon for further demonstration to the public
that such activites can be properly conducted without
any detrimental affect in any regard, It is particu-
larly desired, in the opinion of the committee, that
this operation in this area serve as a demonstration
to offloialn and citizens of Roanoke County as to the.
suitability of sanitary landfills, as to the fact that
they can be acceptable and aa to the principles and
guidelines of health, safety and appearance under mhich
· they can be operated.
Your Committee notes that this immediate area has never
been used for any particular park or recreation purposes;
whereas with improvement it can be a much more valuable
assest and have higher use. It mould be recommended that
the area would be generally constructed to a level and with
suitable terracing to Mise Avenue. After the landfill
activity has been completed and the area graded and grassed.
a baseball field would be constructed on top of it to serve
the g£o,ing requirements for such athletic needs in the City.
Other facilities as might be determined desirable at that
time or later could also be directed to be constructed.
This landfill construction and its future development
would not detract from the large other area of the Fallen
Park area either during construction or. afterwards and would
leave the remainder of the park for the continuation of its
present uses and the open space that it provide.
As a second matter as has been reported the City has been
directed by the Federal Bureau of Outdoor Recreation to discon-
tinue without delay the filling work in the Mill Mountain
tract off of Riverland Road. This is non-organic refuse and
debris. The City Manager advises he is informed on June O
that the Federal Bureau has notified the State that it is
holding up payment of Federal Outdoor Recreation funds to
the State of Virginia until this landfill mork is stopped.
Your Committee does not know of any space within the
City. The sanitary landfill site cannot be used because of
the volume. Most of material brought is by local business and
citizens. Much hauling distance becomes a hardship to them.
In the County this type of material is dumped in various dif-
ferent areas.
The Committee recommends that the part of the North
Clear Zone that was proposed for this material be used as
the site. This would not be the organic refuse mhich the
County and its citizens seemed to have objected to. Rhile
the area would be trenched, filled and covered much like a
sanitary landfill, the Committee does not consider it would
not be a sanitary refuse landfill mhich requires the hearings,
approvals, etc., under the County's Zoning Ordinance.
This would be an excellent may to improve the appearance
of a large part of the North Clear Zone.
Your committee recommends these approvals to the City
Respectfully submitted.
S/ James O. Trout. Chairman
S/ David K. Lisk
S/ Julian F. Hirst"
In this connection. Mrs. Virginia Snead. 926 Jamison Avenue. S.
appeared before Council and read a prepared statement in opposition to placing a
landfill in Fallen Park. advising that southeast already has the Sewage Treatment
Plant in their area which puts forth a great deal of odor. that it does not seem
fair that southeast should h~ve a garbage dump placed iu Fallen Park and requested
that Council defer action on the recommendation of the Landfill Committee for one
meek in order to allow time for southeast residents to inform state and federal
authorities of the proposed action.
Also with referenct' tothe matter, Mrs. Doris Walker and Mrm. Betty
Staton representing the Southeast Welfare Rights Organization, appeared before
Council in opposition to placing the ~ndfill in Fallon Park.
Mrs, F. G. Longnecker, 1418 Wise Avenue, S, E,, appeared before Council
in opposition to placing the land~lll in Fallon Park and further objected to
the heavy truck traffic mhich will be generated on Wise Avenue0 S. E.
Approximately eight southeast residents appeared before Council in
opposition to the proposed landfill operation.
After a further discussion of the n~tter, Mr. Trout moved that Council
concur in the recommendations of the L~ndflll Committee. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Ltsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout, and Mayor
Webber ............. ?.
NAYS: None ..... -0.
Dr. Taylor then moved that the matter of appropriating necessary funds
to provide a recreational facility in Fallon Park, after the landfill activity
has been completed, be referred to 1972-73 budget study for funding in order for
the recreational facility to be completed as ;xpeditiously as possible. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Yhe City Manager verbally advised that the cost of providing the
recreational facility in Fallon Park will be approximately $15,000.00.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Ordinance No. 20295, vacating, discont'inuin9 and
closing a certain alley or roadway beginning at a point on the north side of
Orange Avenue approximately 315 feet west of the intersection of Orange Avenue
and Courtland Road and extending in a northwesterly direction approximately 234
feet to Carver Avenue, N. E., and. being approximately 10 feet wide, 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:
(n20296) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing
e certain map alley or roadway, beginning at a point on the north side of Orange
Avenue approximately 316 feet west of the intersection of Orange Avenue and Court-
land Ro~d ~nd extending in a northwesterly direction approximately 234 feet to
Carver Avenue, N. E., and being approximately 18 feet wide.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #35, page 455.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, ~rout and Mayor
Webber ......... ?.
NAYS: None-- O. '
AIRPORT: Council havi~g directed the City Attorney to prepare the pro-
4SOOth Air Base Wing, Langley AFB, Virginia, relating to certain use of the
Roanohe Municipal Airport in eveut of national emergency, he presented same;
whereupon, Mr. Llsk moved that the follomiug Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(#20321) AN OROINANUE authorizing the execution of a memorandum of
understanding ulth the 4500th Air Base Wing, Langley AFB, Virginia, relating to
certain use of the Roanoke Municipal Airport in event of national emergency.
DE 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 lute a certain memorandum agreement, entitled Letter
of Agreement, effective for a period of five (5) years commencing June 1, 1972, ~th!
the 4500th Air Ease Ming, at Langley AFB, Virginia, providing for said unit's
use of certain of the facilities at Roanoke Municipal Airport in the event of
national emergency, reimbursement to the City for actual services rendered to be
provided by subsequeot separate service contract; such 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 was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrso Garland, Dubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Mayor
Webber '7.
NAYS: None O.
ACTS OF ACKNONLEDGERENT-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having directed
the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure expressing the appreciation and
gratitude Of the City of Roanoke for contributions Of money, labor and equipment
for plantings in Elmmood Park, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Trout offered
the following Resolution:
(~20322) A RESOLUTION expressing the City*s appreciation and gratitude
~or contributions of money, labor and equipment for plantings in Elmwood Park.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book 536, page 467.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Besolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
~ebbe~
NAYS: None
MOTIONS ~ND MIscELtANEOUS BUSINESS:
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMFNT-JAIL-MU~ICIPA~ BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
~ROGRAM: Mr. Hubard called to the attention of Co~ncil a Resolution adopted by
~he Fifth Planning District Co~mission u~der date of May 25, 1972, requesting that
:he five parttcipatiug localities in the Regional Corrections Program be requested
:o app,~iut two members of their Council or.Board of Supervisors to a committee
,o develop criteria for membership and functions of the proposed Reoiona! Corr~c-
io.~ Board and moved that Mayor Webber be requested to appoint two representatives
to said committee to represent the City of Roanohe. The notion was seconded by
Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Mebber appointed Messrs'. Milllam S. Bubard and David K. Lisk as
representatives of the City Of Roanoke to a committee to develop criteria for
membership and functions of the proposed ~anionml Corrections Board.'
TRAFFIC: Mr. Thomas presented the following communication suggesting
that a committee composed of the City Attorney, the Chief of Police, the City
Managerand one attorney to be appointed by the President of the Roanoke Bar
Association be appointed to review the Roanoke City Traffic Code in order to
bring oar statutes current as to fines and penalties; establish consistency with
state statutes and such other matters as may he necessary to systematize and
modernize this most important aspect of our law:
"June fl, 1972
Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Pursuant to bud§et hearinqs, I am requesting that a com-
plete revien of the Roanoke City Traffic Code by undertaken
immediately in order to brim9 our statutes current as to
fines and penalties; establish consistency with state statutes
and such other matters as may be necessary to systematize and
modernize this most important aspect of our law.
I sugHest that Council appoint a committee consisting of the
City Attorney. Chief of Police, City ManaHer and one attor-
ney to be appointed by the President of the Roanoke City Bar
Association to undertake this requested review and report back
to Council their findings.
Sincerely,
S/ Hampton ~. Thomas mp
Hampton M. Thomas
Councilman"
Mr. Thomas moved that his communication be received and filed. The
o tion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas then offered the followin9 Resolution providing for the
ppointment of the abovedescribed committee:
(#20323) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointment of a committee to
review the City*s code of motor vehicle and traffic regulations.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~36, paHe 46H.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted b~ the followinH'vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Mayor
Mebber -
NAYS: None,
There being no further business, Hsyor Mebber declared the neetin9
adJonrned.
APPROVED
City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, June lei, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular me*tin9 In the Court-
'cfi Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, June lq, lq?2, at 2 p,m., the
regular meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L, Webber presiding,
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A, Garland, Milliam S. Hubard, David E. Lisk,
ilNoel C, Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas and James O. Trout and Mayor Boy L.
!ilfebber
~i ABSENT: None ....... O.
!i OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr, Julian F. flirst. City Manager; Mr, William F,
!Clar** Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Elncanon, City Attorney; and Mr, A,
iN. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by DF. Noel C. Taylor,
'iMember of Roanoke City Council,
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
:!June 5, 1972, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
Trout, seconded by Mr. Lisk 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 a public hearing until 2 p.m.,
Monday, June 19, 1972, on the question of certain amendments to the off-street
iparking requirements under Section 7, Minimum off-street parking and loading
,requirements in RG-1 and HG-2, General Residential Districts, and Sections 8 and
9. C-1, Office and Institutional District, and C-2, General Commercial District,
the matter was again before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follow-
!ling report recommending that the existing minimum off-street parking require-
ments in the RG-1 and £G-2, General Residential Districts. be amended so as to
!!provide one parking space for each efficiency or one bedroom apartment and one
!
i!and one-half parking spaces for each two or more bedrooms, to be come effective
las of October 1, 1972, the City Planning Commission further recommending that
~the existing minimum off-street parking requirements in the Office and Insti-
tutional District be increased from one parking space per 400 square feet of
~gross building area to one parking space per 200 square feet of 9ross building
iarea and that the minimum off-street parking requirements in the General Com-
imercial District be increased from one parking space per 600 and 400 square feet
!iof gross floor area to one parking space per 200 square feet of 9ross floor area,
lexcept for fomling alleys, hotels, rooming houses, motels and theaters, to become
ileffective as of January 1, 1973:
"~sy 18, 1972
The Honorable` Roy Lo Webber, Mayor
nod Hembers of City Council
Roannke, Virginia
The above cited petitions mere considered by the City
Plannin9 Commission nt its regular meeting of May 17, 1972o
'On April 1, 1972 the City Planning Commission recommended
apartment and commercial zones (See enclosed letter of April 6,
1972). These rncommendations were predicated on sound phnning
and zoning principles and practices.
At the regnlar meeting of the City Council on May 8,
1972, a public hearing was held on this matter and subsequent-
ly referred back to the Planning Commission for ad~t. ional study,
report and recommendation.
On May 17, 1972, this matter was again 'brought before the
Planning Commission, The Planning Director appeared before the
Commission noting ·that on May .12, 1972, he had met with repre-
sentatives of the tJome Builders Association and the Real
Estate Doard, (Mr. Trinkle, Mr. Quick and Mr. Strauss) on this
off-street parking matter and that they offered some revisions
to the original amendments as recommended by the Planning Com-
mission.
With respect to the RG-1 and RG-2 medium-and high-density
residential zoning designations they recommended that I park-
ing space be provided for each efficiency or I bedroom, I 1/4
parking spaces for each 2 bedroom apartment, and I 1/2 space
for each 3 bedroom apartment and that, additionally, this
amendment become effective as of October 1. 1972.
The Planning Commission members, however, generally felt
that it was in the best public interest if the parking standards
provided for I parking space for each efficiency or I bedroom
and I 1/2 parking spaces for each two or more bedrooms. The
Planning Commission members concurred that the October 1, 1972
effective date was reasonable so as to permit those plans
which are in the works to be completed.
Mr. Horace Fralin, appeared before the Planning Commis-
sion and stated that his only concern was for the elderly, tie
noted that they are not going to need that many parking spaces
particularly for any federal project and the one space per
unit is more than necessary. The Planning Director noted that
this amendment did not apply to any high-rise apartment or
developments.
Regarding the C-l, Office and Institutional zone the_
builders and developers recommended that the present off-
street parkin9 reguirements be increased from I parking space
per 400 square feet of gross building area to 1 parking space
per 3S0 square feet of gross building area, and in the C-2, Gen-
eral Commercial distr~t they recommended that the present off-
street parking requirements be increased from 1 parking space
~er 400 square feet of gross building area to I parkin9 space
per 200 square feet of gross building area only for the eating
and drinking establishment and the retail food establ/shment cate-
gory. Additionally, with respect to both the C-1 and C-2
district they noted that these amendments should become effec-
tive as of January 1, 1973, to per~tt some reasonable time for
those plans in the works to be completed.
The Planning Commission members generally concurred tha~
the original Cji and C-2 off-street parking amendments which
provided for I parking space per 200 sq, ft. of gross building
area in the C-1 district and 1 parking space per 200 sq. ft. of
gross floor area in the C-2 district except for bowling alleys,
hotels, rooming houses, motels and theaters ms still valid and
saw no reason for changing it except to concur that the January 1,
1973, effective date was a reasonable one essentially for the
same reasons as the BG-I and RG-2 effective date, except
that it was deemed necessary to permit more time for the com~
mercial development plans presently in the works° Additionally,
the Planning Commission members noted that to permi~ the
amendment only to a~ply to specific commercial uses as re~om-
mended by the builders and realtors would present a problem
with respect to a shopping center, which contains a host of
commercial uses, and also would encourage more developments in
C-2 districts since the parking requirements was less stin-
gent than in the C-l.
Accordingly, motion mas medea duly seconded and unani-
mously approved to recommend to City Council that abe existing
minimum off-street perhing requireuents in ~he medium (RG-I)
and high (RG-2) density residential areas be amended so as to
provide I parking space for each efficiency or I bedroom, and
I 1/2 parking spaces rot each 2 or more bedrooms and that this
amendment become effective as of October 1, 1972, and that the
existing minimum off-street requirements in the C-I office
and institutional district be increased from I parking space
per 400 square feet of gross building area to I parking space
per RO0 square feet or gross building area, end that in the
general commercial district (C-R) the existing minimum off-
street parking requirements be increased from I parking space
per 600 end 400 square feet of gross floor area to I parking
space per 200 square feet of gross floor area except for
bowling alleys, hotels, rooming houses, motels and theaters
end that this amendment becbue effective as of January 1, 1973.
Sincerely',
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr. by L#
Creed £. Lemon, Jr,
In this connection, Mr. Edward H. Brewer, Jr.. Realtor, appeared before
Council and advised that he realizes that is necessary to make some changes, how-
ever, he disagrees mith the stringency of the changes proposed by the City Plan-
ning Commission and that such stringent rules mill drive developers into the
county because city land could not be developed as economically under the pro-
posed regulations.
Rr. R. R. Quick, Realtor, also appeared before Council in connection
with the matter, advising that the proposed changes mill restrict the tax base,
that he does not know where the mandate is coming from to change the parking
restrictions, that there is no parking crisis in the City of Roanoke at the pre-
sent time, that the one space per 200 square feet is ridiculous, that 300 square
feet is much more palatable but that the present regulations will-allow the city
to grow.
Mr. Lothar Mermelstein, Planning Director, appeared before Council and
advised that the proposed changes are well within the relm of other cities cam-
)arable in size to Roanoke and that he does not feel that the proposed reguhtions
will hinder growth, but mill provide for orderly growth.
After a discussion of the pros and eons of the proposed regulations,
Mr. Garland moved that the proposed Ordinance in connection with the C-l, Office
and Institutional District, be amended to provide for one parking space per each
300 square feet of g?oss building area instead of one parking space per each
200 square feet of gross building area. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk.
Dr. Taylor offered a substitute motion that the entire matter he refer-
red back to the City Planning Commission for further study, report and recommen-
dation to Council.with the idea of separating certain instances where the proposed
regulations should not apply. The motion was seconded by Mr, Thomas and unani-
mously adopted.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the public hearing be continued until 2 p.m.,
Monday, July 10, Ir72. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously
adopted,
BUDGET-MUNICIPAL COUBT-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS: Mr. Richard F,
Pence, President of the Rosnokb Bar Association, appeared before Council in con-
nection with the inadequacy of the salaries of the Judges of the Municipal Court
and the Juvenile mud Domestic Relations Court, transmitting certain statistics mith
reference to the salaries of comparable judges in other localities In Virginia,
and, also, a table showing the increase in the worh of the Municipal Court by at
least 33 1/3 per cent during the five year period from 1957-71, requesting that
the Judges of the Municipal Court and the Judge of the Juvenile aud Domestic
Relations Court be paid not less than $20t000.00 per year, hopefully $21,000.00
per year, that the Chief Judge of the Municipal Court be paid substantially more,
that the salary of the Clerk of the Municipal Court be increased to $11,000.00
per year and that the salary of the Chief Assistant to the Clerk of the Municipal
Court be increased to $fl,06S,00 per year.
Mr. LJsk moved that the matter be referred to Council acting as a Com-
mittee of the Whole for consideration during 1972-73 budget study sessions. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
ZONING: Council having previously adopted a Resolution authorJzin9 the
issuance of a permit to Mr. Edison F. Shrader for the continuance ~ nonconformin9
use of premises located at ill4 - 816 Murray Avenue, S. E., Official Tax No.
4122535, a communication from Mr. Shrader requestin9 a clarification from Council
with regard to the wordin9 that *it to be expressly understood that the noncon-
forming use will be nontransferable,~ was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication bo referred to the City Attorney
for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-SHERIFF: Copy of a communication.from Mr.
Richard Lee Lawrence. Commonwealth"s Attorney, addressed to the State Compensation
Roard, with reference to the request of Sheriff Paul J. Puckett that the Board
reconsider the elimination of three deputy sheriff positions in his office and
that.the Board further reconsider approving at least one of the three positions as
previously requested, advising that as a taxpayer he deplores asking the Roard
reconsider, but he feels ttis absolutely necessary for the protection of the
Mitflesses and all court related personnel, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the commu~catton be received and filed. The motion
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously-adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-SHERIFF: Copy of a communication from Sheriff Paul J.
Puckett, addressed to the State Compensation Board, with reference to Douse Bill
No. 423, advising that he disagrees with the Board that deputies working in the
Sheriff's Department are not law enforcement personnel as described in the subject
that every deputy employed in his office is a ~ll fledged officer of the
law, sworn to enforce the laws for the jurisdiction served by his office, that the
law provides a $7,200.00 minimum salary for deputy sheriffs in the State of
Virginia. effective July l. 1972. that it is incumbent upon him to support his
deputies by l~slsting that this law be administered fairly and Impartially for
all and respectfully requesting that the Compensation Board reconsider its recent
decision to exclude bls deputies and that the Soard follow the law aswrit~n, was
before Council.
In this connection, copy of a communication from Mr. Richard Lee Lawrence
Commonwealth's Attorney. addressed to the State Compensation Board. with regard
to the above communication from Sheriff Pucker,. advising that as the lawyer for
the Sheriff, it is his op,inion that the new $?,200.00 minimum salary for deputy
sheriffs, effective July l0 1972, is for all deputy sheriffs, and therefore, the
members, of Mr. Puckett*s staff are not to be excluded from consideration or the
protection of the $7,200.00 minimum, was also before Council,
Dr. Taylor moved that the communications be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-MUNICIPAL COURT: A communication from Mr. Beverly. T. Fitzpatrick,
Chief Judge of the Municipal Court, advising that the budget for the Municipal
Court for 1971-72 included $500.O0 for two desks, that is was found tbat only
one desk mas needed, that there remains $250.O0 surplus funds in this account and
requesting permission to use the unexpended funds to purchase a credenz~ type
piece of furniture to hold la~ hooks and other papers, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of Judge Fitzpatrick.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERT¥~ A communication from Mr. John R. Newbill offering to
purchase city=owned property adjacent to his home located on Maymood Avenue, S.
described as Parcel No. l, OfficialTax No. 1070808, for the sum of $1,000,00,
advising that he is making his offer good through,Friday, June 23, 1972, was
baler. Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the offer be referred to the Real Estate Commit-
tee for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
TAXES: A communication from Mrs. R. A. Clark. 3147 Roundhill Avenue.
N. W** requesting that Council take everything concerned into consideration before
increasing property taxes again, was before the body.
Mr. Thomas ~oved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
TAXBS: A communication.from Mr. and Mrs. John Crowgey. 3141Roundhill
Avenue, N. M.. expressing their opposition to a raise in the tax on real estate
in the City of Roanoke, was before Council.
Mr, Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The .
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mr. Thomas presented the following prepared state-
ment in connection with an official statement made by the City Treasurer that he
has as, cash in hand, $7 million, which, after pa~ng June .bills and a $2 million
loan will produce a $3 1/2 million surplus. Mr. Thomas advising that this is a
2 1/2 million conflict between an estimate prO,anted to Council by the City Auditor
!i
"TO: MAYOR AND MEMBE'R$ OF COUNCIL June 19, 1972
FROM: HOMPTON M, THOMRS
.SUBJECT: .REVENUE ACCOUNTING PROCEDURES
. i submit that the matter or accounting and reporting of
they have to put up with it any longer,
whims and desires of a relatively rem people,
It is inexcusable that this Council should' permit such
practices to continue, A near $§0 million budget - aided by
the technological wonders of a near $5 million computer system -
credibility the Council and the administration may have
surplus after paying June bills and a $2 million loan,
Council was advised that me had three alternatives in
order to balance the 1972-73 budget:
(1) Rais~ t~e ~ea! estate tax rates up to $1,01 additional,
a one-time mind-fail of $3,5 million for operating
expenses and/or capital needs',
(3) Cut the budget once again.
On Friday, the City Treasurer publicly made official
uhich after paying June bills and a $2 million loan - mould
produce a $3 1/2 million surplus - a conflict of 2 1/2
million difference,
is responsible for projecting and advising the Council as to
In re~ent elections members of this Council pledged to
me should be no less concerned just because we are dealing uith
the. 1972-73 budget as finally adopted by this Council; how-
$2 1/2 million discrepancy alleged by the City Treasurer; and
ca1 for consideration and reviem prior to said Council meeting,"
Mr. Thomas moved that the City Auditor be instructed to meet with the
City Treasurer and such other City personnel as he deems necessary aud prepare
and submit u detailed written report to Council on Monday, June 260 1972, prior
to the public hearing on the matter of proposed tax increases* said report to set
iforth in detail and Mltb' particularity the exact status Of the current revenues
of the City, that said report project the futurerevenue for 1972-73, that siad
report include an explanation of the purported $2 1/2 million discrepancy alleged
by the City Treasurer and that copies of said report be forwarded to the members
of Conncil for consideration and review prior to said Council meeting. Thc
motion was seconded by Mr, ~isk and unanimously adopted,
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting the request of the Executive Board of the Stonewall Jackson P, T.
and the Southeast Civic League to submit a recommendation for a came for the new
athletic field in Jackson Park.
In this connection,. Mr. Raymond Hall, President of the Southeast Civic
League, appeared before Council and advised that Mr. Alvin A. Akers had dedicated
most of his life to thc assistance of peopleand the schools in the southeast
area, and that the members of the Stonewall Jackson P. T. A. and the Southeast
Civic League wish to ha~e Mr. Akers remembered for his leadership and accomplish-
ments by allowing the athletic field ~n Jackson Park to he named 'The Alvin A.
Akers Athletic Field."
Mr. Hubard moved that the matter be referred to the City Planning
missioc for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SE~ERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written
report advising that on Thursday, June 15, 1972, representatives of the city
administrative staff and the. consulting engineers traveled to Richmond to discuss
the city*s program of improvements at the Sewage Treatment Plant, that remaining
travel funds within the 19TI-72 budget of the Sewage Treatment Fund are inadequate
to cover the e~penses incurred for this necessary trip and requesting that $300;00
be appropriated to Travel under Section ago, MSewage Treatment Fund,* of the 1971-
72 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance.
Mr. Garland m;ved that Council concur in the request of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(a20324) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section agO, *Sewage
Treatment Fund,# of the 1971-72 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance,
and providing for an emergency.
(For full text o~ Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, page 469.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Liskand adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Measra, Garland, Hubard, Link, Taylor, Th*mast Trout .and Mayor
~ebber ,?.
NAYS: None O,
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a verbal report in
connection with the Sewage Tre.atment Plant and the State later Control Board,
summarizing that which has taken place between the City of Roanoke and the State
later Control Hoard over a long period of time, advising that he has an obligation
to the members of Council and the. people of the Roanoke Valley to take. that the
city has. in the way of treatment facil~ties, and enlarge and develop the facilitie
on a basis that is sound, that has proven engineering background, that relies on
people who know the business, that does not waste taxpayers money, that justifies
expenditures and that which will last0 that ii this means standing in Richmond
and being called names, then he has to do that too. the City Ranager readily
admitting that the quality of treatment Jumped off during the month of May, that
it was part of a process of trying to adjust for phosphorous removal, making
reference to a thirty million gallon basin required by the State Mater Control
Board which mould be a holding facility coverning ten acres of land and would be
ten feet deep, advising that the city can meet two other Water Control Board.
requirements for removal of the ban which are the sludge removal facilities end
the removal of phosphates, also making reference to the minutes of a meeting before
the Board last summer in connection with concern by the R~alth Department about a
ballast pond, that u certain member of the staff of the Mater Control Board
!believed at that time that sufficient data was lacking to substantJage the need
for such a facility or to indicate that the proposed design will not fully accom- ~
pltsh the proposed goals and that the staff member requested permission to handle
this on a staff level with the Health Department and the city's engineers, and, if
necessary, to come back to the Board on this particular matter, the City Manager
pointing out that the next time the basin mas discussed was in March when the
Board listed it as a requirement for removal of the sewer ban.
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Lisk moved that Council, the admini-
strative staff of the City of Roanoke, the State Mater Control Board and its
staff and certain fed~ al agencies funding money outside the State of Virginia get
together as a whole to decide upon u plan of action.
With reference to the motion made by Mr. Lisk, the CityManager recom-
mended that Council deal only with the State Mater Control Board and that the
Mater Control Board be the agency to deal with the Rnvironment~ Protection Agency.
Mr. Lisk then amended his motion to include that Cocncil, the adminlstra-
tive staff of the City of Roanoke and the State Nater Control Board and its staff
get together in an effort to come to a conclusion as to bow to remove the semer
ban as presently imposed upon the Roanoke Valley.
Mr. Thomas offered a substitute motion that the motion made by Mr. Link
be taken under advisement until the end of the Council meeting. Yhe motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Garland then raised the quest'ion that, after ~11 which has transpired
if the City Manager still has complete confidence in the city*s consultants',
The City Manager replied that what has taken place and the reason the
consultants have been critiaed by the State Mater Control Board is because the
consultants have argued and disagreed with the Hoard, that he has to rely on
these people who know the business end that he still has confidence in Alu,rd,
Bardlck ~ Homson, Consnlting Engineers.
Mr, Ben Morris, 5555 Valley Drive, S. Moo appeared before Council and
spoke in favor of the motion proposed by Mr. Llsk for a meeting with Council, the
City administration and the State Mater Control Board and its staff and raised
the question as to when the City Manager feels the sewer ban will be lifted by
the Board,
The City Manager replied that he hopes he will have sufficient material
to present to the Board in July in order for.them to be in a position to lift the
sewer ban,
At the end of the Council meeting, the City Attorney suggested that
Council meet with the City Manager tn Executive Session before voting upon any
motion.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Attorney and that Council meet with the City Manager in Executive Session. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted, Mr. Lisk voting ilo.
After the Executive Session, Mr. Thomas moved that the City Manager be
~ermitted to include a retention pond or a ballast pond in the applicatien for
submissioo to the State Mater Control Board for grant prepared under date of June
t23, 1972, and that the administration be directed to continue its study as to
the most effective use of this facility in conjanction with the Sewage Treatment
Plant. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted, (Sometime
during the Executive Session, Dr. Taylor left the m~eting.)
SERERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the i,ll,ming repot
recommending that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure
indicating the acceptance of the City of Roanoke to a siding agreement with the
Norfolk and Western Railway Company, said siding to serve the chemical feed faci-
lities proposed for construction at the Sewage Treatment Plant:
"June '19, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Sewage Treatment Plant
Vice Mayor Trout advises that he has the agreement of
the Norfolk and Mestern for.the provision of a siding mhich
would serve the chemical feed facilities proposed for construc-
tion. These are the facilities which the State Mater Control
Board has given the City a deadline for construction undera
· contract mhich the City Council has conditionally approved but
which contract the staff of the Mater Board has instructed the
City not to award,-
It isrecommeoded that the City Attorney be snthorized
to prepare an, appropriate resolution in respect to this
siding agreement indicating acceptance on the part of the
· City to the Norfolk and Western Railway Company,
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. NJrst
City Manager'
In this connection, the City Attorney submitted the following report:
· June 19, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
As an integral part of the construction of chemical unload-
ing facilities for the City*s Sewage Treatment Plant on the
easement area being acquired from Molls Furniture Company,
Inc., it is necessary that the City enter into a side track
agreement with Norfolk ~ Western Railway Company, from whom
shipment of chemicals in tank carloads will be received, For
that purpose, a standard form side track agreement has been
developed and prepared for execution by the City and by Nor-
folk ~ Western Railway Company. adapted to the purpose of the
particular situation, and has been tendered to the City for
execution. It is my understanding that the general terms of
the agreement have the recommendation of the Council's Sewer
Committee and of the City Manager and that sufficient funds
have been appropriated and are available for the purpose of
payment of the Clty*s cos~ to be incurred under the agree-
meat.
For the sake of brevity, the general terms of the side track
ponies this report. It will be noted that the Railway Company
will be expected to construct that part of the side track which
is to lie on railroad right-of-way and that the City will be
responsible for construction of that part of the trach mhich
will lie aritho easement area being obtained from the Wells
Furniture Company, lac, It is respectfully recommended that
that actual construction of the side track and related unload-
lng facilities may be commenced,
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
J. N. Kincanon"
Dr, Taylor msved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#20325) AN ORDINANCE providing for the City*s acquisition of rights
from Norfolk ~ Mestern Railway Company to a certain railroad siding, necessary
for the construction and operation of unloading facilities ~r the City*s Sewage
Treatment Plant; providing for the payment of the costs of constructing said
siding; authorizing and directing the City Manager to enter into written agreement
with Norfolk ~ Mestern Railway Company relating to said siding; and providing for
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook n36, page 470.)
Dr, Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The mo~ion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Liak, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber---- 7,
NAYS: None O.
STATS HIGH'fAYS: The City Manager submitted the following report list-
ing final allocations of interstate, primary and urban construction funds from the
State Highway Department for the fiscel year 1972-73:
'June 19t 1972
Honorable Hover and City Council
Rosnohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Highway Deportment Allocations
In a report from the State Highway Department us to final
allocations of interstate, primary and urban construction
funds for the fiscal year 1972-73o I list below those approv-
ed allocations which are applicable to our immediate City
ares. This is for the information of the Council.
COUNTY
ROUTE CITY OR TOWN
11 Roanoke
24 Yin*on
101 City of Roanoke
~ Roanoke County
~ESCRIPTION AMOUNT
Correction of Drainage at $ 5,000
Hoxley Hills (Supplemental
Allocation for Construction)
Virginia Avenue: 55,000
Pollard Street - Bedford Road
(Supplemental Allocation)
Between Route II (Rilliamson 125,000
Road) and Route ll? (Supple-
mental Allocation for Construc-
tion)
220 Roanoke
220 Roanoke
220 City of
Roanoke &
Roanoke County
220 Roanoke
311 Salem
419 Roanoke and
City of Salem
460 Roanoke
-- Roanoke
Roanoke
Roanoke
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hire*
Julian F. Hirst
City Hanager~
Franklin Road: 31~,000
N~M Underpass - South Corporate
Limits (SupplemEntal Allocation)
Franklin Road: 270,000
gcClauahan Street - Roanoke
River (Supplemental Allocation)
Elm Avenue - South (Supplemental 2,000,000
Allocation for Construction, Right
of Ray Acquired ~nd tg Continue
Dual-laming)
Overpas~ and Approaches N~M 240,000
Railroad, North of Franklin
County Line (Partial Alloca-
tion for Reconstruction)
Craig Avenue:
Cello9e Avenue - North Cor-
porate Limits (Supplemental
'Allocation)
Between Route 220 Sout~ of' 1,950,000
Roanoke and Lynchbur9 Turn-
pike (Supplemental Allochtion
to Continue Dual-laming)
Orange Avenue: 700,000
Route 561 - Tinker Creek
(Supplemental Allocation)
Crandin Road: Bridge and Appro- 75,000
aches Mud Lick Creek (Initial Al-
location for Preliminary Engineering,
Right of May and Construction)
Tenth Street: Patterson Avenue ,400',000
Moorman' Avenue'(Supplemental
Allocation)
Jefferson Street: Reserve 1,00~,000
Avenue-McClanahan Street (Par-
tial Allocation for Preliminary
Engineering, Including Bridge over
Roanoke River and'RRM Railroad
Inculding Relocation of Streets)
{i
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received tad filed. The notion was
seconded by Sr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SCROOLS: The City Manager submitted n written report transmitting a
report on school facilities as prepared by the Roanoke City Public School System.
Hr. Trout moved that the report be rnceived and filed and that Mayor
Webber be requested to call In informal meeting of Council and the Roanoke City
School Board to discuss said report. The motion was seconded by Dr. Tailor and
unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber then called an informal meeting of Council and the Roan,he
City School Board for 7:30 p.m.. Thursday. June 22° 1972. in the Council Chamber.
CITY ATTORNEY: The City Attorney submitted a written report advising
of the resignation of Mr. Byron A. Adams as an Assistant City Attorney in his
office, effective June 1S. 1972.
Mr. Lish moved that the report be received and filed. The notion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the City of
Roanoke for the month of May. 1972.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE,
U~FINI~BES BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE,
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOL~rflONS:
AIRPORT: Ordinance No. 20321, authorizing the execution of a memoran-
dum of understanding with the 4500th Air Rase Ming, Langley AFB. V'irginia, relat-
ing 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. Trout offering the following for its second read-
ing and final adoption:
(=20321) AN ORDINANCE authorizin9 the execution of a memorandum of
understanding with the 4500th' Air Sase Ming, Langley Ars, Virginia, relating to
certain use of the Roanoke Municipal Airport in event of national emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see as recorded in Ordinance Soak
#36, page 468.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the fpllowing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber--
NAYS: None O.
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: Council having directed the
City Attorney to prepare the proper measure accepting the donation from Berglund
Chevrolet Company of an automobile to be used for purposes of Youth Baven, a
juvenile facility operated under the Juvenile ~ Domestic Relations Court of the
city, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution:
(u20326) .A RESOLUTION accepting the donation, from Berglund ~hevrolet
Company of nn automobile to ~e used ~or purposes of Youth Bsven, · Juvenile
facility operated under the Juvenile ~ Domestic Relations Court of the City. (For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book n36, page 472,)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion .was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, flubard, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber .......
NAYS: None~
SIGNS-BURRELL MEMORIAL BO~PITAL: Council ha~ng directed the City
ney to prepare the proper measure authorizing the placement of certain directional
signs on the Orange Avenue, N. W., right of msy or intersections of 5th Street
and 6th Street, N. W., by the Burrell Memorial Hospital, upon certain terms and
conditions, he presented same; whereupon, Mr, Lisk moved that the folloming Ordi-
nance be placed upon its first reading:
(c20327) AN ORDINANCE granting revocable, non-transferable authority
to Burrell Memorial Ilospital to maintain certain directional signs on the right-
of-way of Orange Avenue, N. M** at the intersections of Sth Street and 9th Street,
N. M., upon certain terms and conditions.
WHEREAS, Burrell Memorial Hospital, located northerly of and adjacent to
Orange Avneue, N. W., bas requested through the City Manager that it be permitted
to erect mud maintain certain painted metal directional signs on the right-of-may
of Orange Avenue, N. M** at the two street intersections hereinafter stated, for
better identification of the location of said hospital; and upon consideration
of the request and pursuant to 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 hospitul*s proposal and is willing to permit the erection and
maintenance of said signs on said street right-of-may, upon the terms and condi-
tions herein contained.
THEREFORE, EE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that permis-
sion be and is hereby granted Burrell M~morial Hospital to erect and to temporarily
maintai~ a painted metal directional sign, 27 inches by 35 inches, bearing the
words *Durrell Memorial Hospital~ and displaying an appropriate directional
on metal posts or standards, within the right-of-way of Or~ngeAvenue, N. M., at
the intersections of said s~reet with 5th Street, N. M., and mtth 8th ~treet,
N. M., each such sign to be approved ss to materials and desig~ by the City Man-
ager, who shall designate the locations at mhich each such ~ign shall be erected,
each such sign to be properly and safely maintained at the expense of said
hospital, in accordance with requirements of the ~it~ Manager and with such of
the City's regulations and requirements as may be applicable thereto; the main-
tenance of the aforesaid signs to be subject to the limitations contained in
§ 15,1-37~ of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and the permit herein granted
to be non-transferable and revocable at'the will of the City Council or the City
Manager, it to be agreed by said hospital, a~ evidenced by its execution of an
'attested copy of this ordinance, that said hospital consents hereto and agrees to
i ledemnlfy end save harmless the City of Roanoke of and from all claims for Injur-
ies or damages to persons or property that may in any manner arise bY reason of
lshall forthwith remove each such sign from said street right-of-may at, no cast
~ mhatsoever to the City or, in lieu of such notice, the City shall have the
continuing right to remove either or both said signs at any. time, in the sole
discretion of the City or said City Manager.
DE IT F~RTHER ORDAINED that the provisions of this ordinance sboll not
become fully effective until such time as a written permit shall have been issued
by the City*s Dullding Commissioner to the aforesaid hospital or its duly autho-
rized contractor or representative, approved as aforesaid by the City Manager,
permitting the aforesaid erection, and until an attested copy of this ordinance
shall have been duly signed, sealed and attested on behalf of B~rrell Memorial
Hospital end shall have been filed in the Office of the City Clerk.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Dubard, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebbet ?.
NAYS: None ....~ .... -0.
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: Council having directed the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure authorizing and prov'iding for lease by the
city of property located at 2330 Orange Avenue, N. E., in the City of Roanoke.
from Mary R. Maynich, through Doswell Realty Company, Incorporated', to be used
as a Regional Intake Office for the handling of juvenile offenders; upon certain
terms and conditions, he presented same: whereupon, Mr. Lisk offered the follow-
ing emergency Ordinance:
{#2032D) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for lease by the City
of property located at 2330 Orange Avenue, N. E., in the Glty of Roanoke, from
Mary R. Maynick, through Boswell Realty Company. incorporated, to be used as a
Regional Intake Office for the handling of juvenile offenders; upon certain terms
and conditions: and provi~ng for an emergency.
{For full text of Ordinance, see as recorded in office of City
Clerk in Ordinance Hook ~36, page 473.)
Mr. Lfsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrso Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None O.
COUNCIL: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure providin9 for a special meeting of Council to be held on Monday,
June 26, 1972, at 7 p.m.. to hear certain plans in connection with the proposed
~arking garage, he presented sane; mhorenpoo, Dr. Taylor offered the following
lesolution:
(820329) A RESOLUTION providing for a Special Nee,lag of the Council
to be held on #onday, Jane 26, 1972, nt-?:O0 o'clock,
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Rock u36, page 4?3°)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion uas seconded
by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland. Rubard. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Nayor
l!~ebber ......
NAYS: None ..... ---0.
CIRCUSES, CARNIVALS: Council having directed the City Attorney to pre-
~ipare the proper measure granting the request of the Roanoke Fair, Incorporated,
that it be allowed to operate its fair at Naher Field in the City of Roanoke on
iSunday, September 3, 1972, between the hours of 2 p.m., and 10 p.m., he presented
:same; whereupon, Mr. Lisk offered the Following Resolution:
(#20330) A RESOLUTION granting the request of Roanoke Fair, Inc.o that
it be allowed to operate its fair at Maher Field in the City of Roanoke on Sunday,
September 3. 1972o between the hours of 2 p.m., and 10 p.m.
(For full text of Resolution, see as recorded in office of
City Clerk in Ordinance Book #36, page 474.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Hubard and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Hubard, Lisk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor Mebber ....
NAYS: Mr. Garland and Dr. Taylor- 2.
Messrs. Garland and Taylor expressed the opinion that there are certain
activities that should not be permitted on the Lord's Day.
There being no further business, Mayor Nebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
ii ep y City Cler Mayor
t
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
MOndSy, Jnae 26, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Buildin~'~ Monday, June 26, 1972, at 2 pom., the regular
meeting hour, #ith Mayor Roy L. Mobber presiding.,
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Milliam S. Hubard, David
Lisk, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton
Webber ............
ABSENT: None
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst. City Manager;
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James
Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Dr. Frank Ho Van
Dyck, Jr., Pastor, Raleigh Court United Methodist Church.
M1NU~BS: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
June 12. 1972, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
Trout, seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
BEARING OF CITIZENS L~ON PUBLIC RATTERS:
TAXES: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday, June
26, 1972, on the question of certain proposed tax increases, viz:
a. Au increase of not more than $1.01 over the current rate of
$3°45 on each $100.00 of assessed value in the current local
tax levy on taxable real estate and taxable tangible personal
property in the City for the tax year commencing January 1,
1973, and thereafter; and imposition of a service charge for
furnishing police and fire protection and for collection and dis-
posal of refuse on certain real estate exempted from taxation
under Section 59-12 of the. 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended.
b. An increase in motor vehicle license fees.
c. Provision for the imposition of an annual tax upon persons en-
gaged in the business of renting real property to others.
d. Provision for the charge of fees for the collection of refuse
from coemercial establishments.
e. An increase in the penalties for certain traffic rtolations set
forth i~ Section 151 of Chapter 1, Title XVIII, of the Code of
the City of Roanoke,, 19§6, as amended.
f. Provision for the imposition of a use and service charge upon
passengers enplaning commercial aircraft operated from Roanoke
Municipal (Moodrum) Airport.
g. Provision for the imposition of a tax upon persons admitted
the matter sas before the body.
Mayor Mebber asked if anyone present would like to speak in connection
with the Ordinance which wouldamend and reordain subsection. Passenger motor
vehicles for bite; subsection 4. Private passenger motor vehicles; otc. subsec-
tion 5. Trailers or semitrailers designed for human use by human beings; and
subsection 6. Motorcycles, motor bikes and trimotorcycles, of Article IV,
Licenses, Chapter 1, Traffic Code, Title XVIII, of The Code of the City of Roanoke
1956, us amended, providing for certain increases in the city*s annusl license
fees certain motor vehicles for the license year commencing May l,
to
be
levied
on
In this connection, Mr. John D. Crawford, 1611Brnndon Avenue, Si
appeared before Council and expressed the opinion that if the City of Roanoke
[would collect fines from people residing wi,thin the city who have not purchased
their city .decals, then the price .of the decals would not have to increase.
Mayor Mebber asked if anyone present would like to speak in connection
with amending Chapter B. 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. 96.1. Renting of land. houses, apa£tments or commercial property;
providing certain definitions and classifications and imposing an annual license
tax upon the business classified in said section.
In this connection, Mrs. Carol Alltotter appeared before Council and
requested information as to bow this proposed tax will affect renters.
Mr. Richard R. Quick, Realtor, appeared before Council in opposition
to said tax increase, pointing out that the proposed increasq will reduce the
tax base of the city, will cause citizens of the City of Roanoke to flee to
Roanoke County and that the City of Roanoke is trying to live within a budget it
cannot possibly afford to maintain.
Mayor Mebber asked if anyone present would like to speak in connec-
tion with amending Chapter 3, Sanitary Regulations, of Title Xlll, Health. of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the addition of a new section
thereto, designated Section 5.1, which would provide for the collection of bulk
trash container units at any commercial location and for certain charges in cer-
tain instances for such collection.
In this connection, Mr. Bruce R. Brenner, representing Roanoke Scrap
Iron and Metal Company appeared and presented before Council the results of a
survey of container service in the major cities surrounding the City of Roanoke.
Mrs. Barmen L. Fulwider, 1646 Brandon Avenue, S. M., appeared before
Council and raised certain questions pertaining to the proposed $1,000,000.00
windfall.
Mayor #ebber asked if anyone present would like to speak in ~onnection
il with amending Title XV. Taxation, of The'Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956,
as amended, by the addition of a new chapter thereto, numbered 12, imposing a
service charge upon the owners of certain dwellings.for police and fire protec-
tion and for the collection and disposal of refuse; providing certain penalty
and interest for failore to timely pay such charges.
Iu this connection, Mr. A. A.'Akers, appeared before Council in connec-
tion with the abovedescribed Ordinance and in connection with tax relief for the
elderly, and expressed the opinion that people who cannot afford to pay large
taxes should not he expected to pay them. that the people residing in Friendship
Manor cannot afford to pay higher taxes and that Council should tax churches for
certain city services which are rendered to them.
Mr. William H. Fl,naaMan. Director.. Roanoke Hem,riel Hospitals. appeared
before Council and advised that he is ~pposed to any type of tax on health care
services and that if any increase is imposed, it will have to be passed on to
the patients Of the hospitals.
The Reverend H. Laurence Rice, representing Friendship Honor, appeared
before Council in connection with the service charge on tax exempt properties,
pointing out that if it were not for places like Friendship Manor the city,
of necessity, would be forced to provide these facilities out of tax revenues
which would force Council to raise additional taxes for these services.
Mr. William R. Reid, Director, Lewis Gale Hospital, appeared before
Council and advised that Lemis Gale Hospital is willing to pay its fair share.
HFS. Emily Wright, 353 Highland Avenue, So M., appeared before Council
and protested an increase in the spending of funds and advised that the members
of Council mere elected to represent the people, but that Council is not represent-
iht the people when it imposes higher taxes on them.
Mayor Webber asked if anyone present had nay questions in connection
with an Ordinance which would establish and fix a use and service charge for cer-
tain enplaning passengers utilizing premises or facilities at Roanoke Municipal
(Mo.drum) Airport.
Ho one appeared before Council in connection with the abovedescribed
Ordinance.
Mayor Webber asked if anyone present had any questions in connection
with amending Title VI, Taxation, of Zhe Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, by the addition thereto of a new chapter, numbered 5.1, levying an
admission tax on persons paying an admission charge or who are admitted free
when an admission charge is paid by others to places of amusement or entertain-
ment. defining admission charge and place of amusement Or entertainment, fixing
the amount of said tax and providing for collection thereof.
No one appeared before Council in connection with the abovedescribed
Ordinance.
Mr. Charles H. Gardner, 1520 Forest Park Boulevard, N. M., appeared
before Council and raised questions with regard to.the policy of the city ia
purchasing.white wall tires versus plain black tires for city vehicles, Mr. Gardner
questioning why the city cannot impose additional taxes on cigarettes and liquor
instead of imposing the proposed tax increases and complained about semage back-
ing up in his home on Forest Park Boulevard.
With further reference to the matter. Mayor Webber entered into the
record a petition signed by seven residents of Friendship Manor urgently request-
ing that Council vote against any tax increase on Friendship Manor and communi-
cations from Mrs. Chris~ine,M. Spencer, Mr. Owen D. Stultz, Mr. Julius F. Prufer,
Mrs. Cecil Mhiteley, Mrs. Eula g. Brogan, Mrs. AliSa Blankenshlp, Mrs. Dorothy M.
Huff, Mrs. Lillie Johnson, Mrs. Gertrude E. Thomas, Miss Roberta E. Jones, HFS.
Emma M. Prufer, HFS. A. L. Shumate, Mrs. P. E. Cauk, Mr. L. P. Bailey, Mrs. C.
Ralston, Rrm. Sallie G. Leslie, Riss R. L. Chew end Hr. John O. PowerL opposing
nay tax increase on non-profit organizations.
Rnyor #ebher osked if anyone present had nay questions in connection
with the proposed Ordinnnce amending nnd reordalning Section 3. When reel estate
taxes due and payable, Section S, Rben anneal tangible personal property taxes due
and payable, Section 6, Penalties for failure to pot current taxes; interest,
Section T, Advertisement of due dates, Section R, Application of Sections I to R
of this chapter end Section lOt Taxation of public service corporations, of
Chapter 1, Current Taxes, Title VI, of The Code of the City of Reanohe, 1956,
as amended.
No one appearing before Council in connection with the sbovedescrJbed
Ordinance, astor Webber concluded the public hearing on the proposed tax increases,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
ROUSING-SLUR CLRARANCR: A communication from Rt. John F. Newsom, Jr.,
Chairman, City of Roanoke Redevelopeent and Housing Authority, transmitting a
Resolution, for the consideration of Council, approving application of the pro-
visions of Section 23 of the United States Rousing Act of 1937, as amended,
in the City of Roanoke, which permits the Authority to lease dwelling units in
privately owned structures which cae be made available by rehabilitation of sub-
standard units, new construction or existing standard units and listing two
distinct advantages to this type of program, viz:
1. It permits the city to receive full real estate taxes since the
structures are privately owned; and
2. Provides a quick housing stock for individuals and families being
displaced by publicaction or emergencies.
Mr. Ltsk moved that Council concur in the communication from the City Of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Rousing Authority and that the proposed Resolution be
amended to provide that the application shall be limited to 200 dwelling units.
The motion was seconded.by Mr. Rnbard and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Lish then offered the following Resolution, as amended:
(~20331) A RESOLUTION approving application of the terns, conditions
and provisions of Section 23 of the United States Housing Act of 1937,.as amended,
in the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Rook ~36, page 476.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Leak, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Mayor Robber-~-- ......... -?.
NAYS: None On
TRAFFIC:. A communication from Mr, Richard F. Pence, President, Roanoke
Rat Association, regarding Resolution Ho. 20323, relating to the study of city
traffic OrdinQnces, advising that in accordance with the Resolution, the Board of
Dire!tots of the.Roanoke Oar Association.authorized the President of the Associa-
tiqn ko appoint Mr. Kenneth,R. Trabne.to.serve on said committee, was before.
Council.
i
i
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received end filed~ The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
COMMONMEALTH*S ATTORNEy: Copy of a communication from the State Com-
pensation Board, addressed to Mr. Richard Lee Lawrence, Commonmealth*s Attorney,
advising that the Compensation Board approved the employment of Nrs. Elaine C~
Need to succeed NFS. Kathy H. Mard, at an annual rate of $4,800.000 effective
June 16, 1972, and at an annual rate of $4.920.00t effective July 1, 1972; that
the Board approved the increase in the annual rate approved for Mrs. VlcKi C.
Sink from $5,400.00 to $5.500.00, effective July 1, 1972; and that the Board
approved the employment of Mr. Byron A. Adams at an annual rate of $9,500.00,
effective June 16, 1972, to succeed Mr. William A. Carter, 111, mas before Coun-
cil.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be referred to i972-73 budget
study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-CITY TREASURER: Copy of a communication from
the State Compensation Board. addressed to Mr. J, H, Johnson, City Treasurer,
making reference to Chapter 803 of the Acts of Assembly, 1972, advising that
there is no provision for the inclusion of constitutional officers in the new
State Health Plan, was before ~ouncil.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be referred to 1972-73 budget
study, The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-SHERIFF: Copy of a communication from
the State Compensation Board, addressed to Sheriff Paul J. Puckett, in connection
with an additional Court Deputy, advisin9 that subject t5 concurrence by Council,
the Compensation Board approved an additional position of Court Deputy, at an
annual rate of $6,432.00, effective July 1, 1972~'houever, the Board was of the
opinion that with three courts of record, no additional court deputies can be
authorized beyond seven in the absence of complete justificatioe, was before
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be referred to 1972-73 budget
study. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
5ERER5 AND STORM DRAINS: A communication from Mr. Frank O. Porter. lll,
Secretary-Treasurer, Society of Real Estate Appraisers, advising that on June 15,
1972, the Roanoke Valley Chapter ml?O of the Society of Real Estate Appraisers
unanimously approved a motion that the proper authorities of all concerned area
governments be urged to immediately proceed to cooperate fully, in solving the
problems related with the present sewer situation and install mhatever facilities
are required to alleviate such and that the cost of doing so be apportioned to
the respective jurisdictions on the basis of their use of the facilities, was
before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
!
ZONING: A communication from Hr, J, H, Jolly, Attorney, requesting that
property locnted on Vieumomt Circle, N, W,, adjacent to CAe Ronnohe Country Club,
described ss the westerly portion of Lot 2 end nil of Lot 3, Hep of Country
Club. Addition, Official Tex Nos, 2660602 and 2660503, be rezoned from R$-3,
Single-Family Residential District, to aC-l, General Residential District, mss
before Council,
Mr, Trout moved that th~ c.ommunfcstion be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation tn Council, The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted,
· In this connection, Mr. A. L. Andrews, 3302 Olivet Street, H. W.,
appeared before Council in opposition to the request for rezoning.
Mith reference to all resuming requests, Roasts, Lisk and Trout express-
ed the opinion that some arrangement should be worked out between the City Clerk's
Office and th~ City Planning Commission mhereby the City Clerk*s Office woul~
automatically refer requests for rezooJflg to the City Planning Commission for
hearing and recommendation to Council, thereby, bT-passing Council at the first
part of the resuming procedure.
Mr, Lisk then moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
proper measure amending The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1955, as amended,
providing that petitions for resuming automatically be forwarded by the City
Clerk to the ~ity Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to.
Council, thereby, by-passing Gounctl at the first part of the rezoning process,
nnd that the City Planning Commission be directed to report its recommendations
to Council by placing said recommendations on a regular agenda of said body.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber expressed the opinion that by having the City Clerk forward
the request for rezoning to the City Planning Commission mithout Council having
prior koowledge of said request is not u wise decision.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR-BUILDING INSPECTOR-PLUMBERS:. The City Manager sub-
mitted a written report in connection mith certain revisions in the Electrical
Code of the City of Roanoke and in the administration of electrical inspections,
advlsin9 that Mr. Jack B. Coulter. Attorney, representing the electrical contrac-
tors in the area, has expressed an interest in having the matter returned to the
agenda and, accordingly, by this report, the matter is once again introduced.
Mr. Jack B. Coulter appeared before Council and reiterated his pre-
vious statements that the major concern of the electrical contractors is that the
scope of ~he Office of the Electrical Inspector be upgraded and that he is in
accord mith the proposed Ordinance relating to an increase in the electrical
fees with the exception of a few minor items which he would like to discuss with
the City Mapager.
After a discussion of the request, Dr. Taylor moved that the City Man-
ager and his staff be requested to meet with Mr. Coulter to reviem the matter
with regard to the Office of the Electrical Inspector and also with regard to
amending the Electrical Code end that the City Manager be requested to report bach
to Council by the regular meeting of said body on Monday, July IO, 1942, The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously odopted,
Hr. E, L, Orindel,-former Electrical Inspector, appeared before Council
Jn support of the statements made by Mr. Coulter,
BUDGET-SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS-AIRPORT-BUILDING DEPARTMENT: The City
Manager submitted a mritten report recommending that Council provide for the
establishment Of a Laboratory Technician in Range 14 Of the Pay Plan at the Sew-
age Treatment Plant; that the position of Assistant Airport Manager be raised
from Range 21 to Range 23, with a starting salary of $9,360.00; and that the
position of Clerk-Stenographer I in the Department of Buildings be changed to
Clerk-Typist 1, thereby, causing a reduction from Range 10 to Range B with a
starting salary of $4,440.00; and further recommendin9 that these matters be
considered by Council in budget study,
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be referred to 1972-73 budget study.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted a written
report advising that he ia in the process of evaluating personnel requirements
particularly as to grades and positions in the Civic Center budget for 1972-73,
that this does not involve additional personnel or additional funds beyond the
budget which Council now has, that it ia a matter of making adjustments in posi-
tions and that he is advisin9 Council of this in their consideration of the bud-
get as be will quite possibly be adjusting titles and r~nges to balance out the
total personnel complement prior to the final printin9 of an adopted budget.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: The City Manager submitted the ~ollowing report
transmitting significant changes to the agreement w~th Local No. 66, International
Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Motion Picture Machine Operators.
in regard to their functioning within the Roanoke Civic Center. recommending that
the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure
and advising that there is no need to make any adjustment mithin the budget for
1972-73 beyond that which is nde before Council:
*June 26, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Civic Center - Stage Hands Organization
Over the past tmo months, our personnel have conferred
from time to time with representatives of Local No. 55,
International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and
Motion Picture Machine Operators in regard to their func-
tioning within the Civic Center. They provide certain ser-
vices of operation ic the Civic Center on the basis of an
agreement which the City entered into with them last year at
the time of the opening of the Civic Center', As ! believe is
knomn it is necessary that the services p~ovided by Local
No, 55 must of necessity be provided gy them OS · union oper-
ation in accord·nco Math conditions of t~e tv·de and perfor-
mance contracts in the facility, Local No, SS requested
meetings with t.he City to consider certain revi.slons in their
agreement. As a result of discussions a balance has been
reached ·s to those that cnn be recommended.
1 att·ch · copy of.a propose.d agreement,
The Significant changes are:
1. Several administrative or housekeeping conditions
have been adjusted based on experience of opera-
tion, .
2. TO make the performance call amount consistent with
the balance of the agreement, an increase in $2 per
cull has been made in the auditorium rates,
3.The .hourly rate is increased from $3 to $4 per man as
initially requested by Local No, 55,
4. The *maintenance and records char9e* is established
as four and eight tenths percent (4,6~) of gross
billings. The net effect is that the surcharge
assessed to the lessee will be a total of ten per-
cent (lO~) to cover F.I,C,A, and related expenses,
Tmo comments are significant as to the appllc·tion of
this agreement and the rates, These personnel are not full
time personnel and are called and used consistent with per-
formances. Practically all of the costs to the City for
this agreement are in turn included as a pa.rt of the payment
by performances for the use of tho Civic Center,
If the City Council would have no objection, it would
be recommended that this be referred to the City Attorney for
the pr'eparation of the appropriate resolution or ordinance for
adjustment within the budget for 1972-73 beyond that which is
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Manager and that the matter he referred to the City Attorney for preparation of
adopted,
JAIL-MUNICIPAL DUILDING: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting copy of material from the Fifth Planning District Commission in
connection with a revision in their comparison of sites which were incorporated
in their Corrections Center Report, advising that this information has been furnish
ed to the Commission by their consultants as a result of the city*s request for
the inclusion of a site in the municipalcomplex ·rea, and pointing out that the
material has just been received and he has not had 3n opportunity to analyze it
in detail.
Mr, Lisk moved that the report be received and filed, The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
JAIL-NCNICIPAL BUILDING: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting copy of a'memorandum directed to him and to the other administrators
of the 9overmenta in the ·rea from the Fifth Planning District Commission, set-
ting forth certain financial data regarding fiscal year distribution of the
regional corrections program if it is to be proceeded with and · construction
DF. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted the folloming report
recommending that the Department of Public Morks he authorized to prepare speci-
fications and advertise for bids for a tmelve cubic yard drag pen to be used in
connection with landfill operations, advising that at such time es bids hare been
received, he mill return to Council for necessary opprova! and appropriation of
funds:
"June 26. 1972
llonorable Rayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Landfill Equipment
The City has tmo pieces of equipment known as drag
pans used to excavate and haul cover material. The smaller
and older of these two units, a 1963 model 9-cubic yard pan.
has recently developed trouble and required that we discon-
tinue its use. Me are presently renting a drag pan for $200
per meek needed to prepare the interim landfill site located
in the northeast corner of Pellon Park adjacent to ~ise
Avenue.
The problem which has developed is to yoke or head end
of the drag pan where it attaches to a bulldozer as is
used to pull the unit. The yoke has split and if it were
continued to be used it would undoubtedly break off. Simi-
lar problems have previously occurred and have been corrected
by welding but due to the age of the equipment such repairs
cannot be satisfactorily made another time. The quotation
for a new yoke is $5,550. However me would still basically
have a ten year old piece of equipment and we consider this
a sizable maintenance expense. This unit originally cost
$9.680 and in our opinion has reached its usable life span.
The City needs to have available two such drag pans on
a permanent basis. Because of the increasing volumes of
solid waste being handled by the City with resultant need to
move an ever increasing quantity of earth material it would
be recommended that a somemhat larger unit he purchased as
a replacement for this pan presently out of service. A
twelve cubic yard unit would cost approximately $22,000 and
funds are available within the Capital Improvements Project,
CIP mi4, from which funds have previously been used to
purchase landfill equipment. This is an unforeseen expen-
diture; homever, one that is considered necessary.
It is recommended that the Public Morks Department be
authorized to prepare specifications and seek bids for a
twelve cubic yard drag pah. At such time as bids have
been received, we will return to City Council requesting
necessary approval and appropriation of funds.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the folloming report recommending
the renemal of a lease betmeen the City of Roanoke and the Federal Aviation
Administration of a remote radio transmitter located along the east boundary of
the Roanoke Municipal (Moodrun) Airport property on approximately one quarter
acre of groundo for un annual rental payment or $1,00 to the city:
*June 26,. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanokeo Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Federal Aviation Administration - Lease of Airport
Property
Since 1954, the City of Roanoke and the Federal Aviation
Administration have had various leases for property at Roanoke
Municipal Airport on which exists FAA Radio Facilities. The
particular facility in question is a remote radio transmitter
located along the east boundary of the Airport on approxi-
mately one quarter acre of ground. This facility handles all
radio transmissions from the Airport control tower.
The existing ten-year lease expires June 30 of this
year, and FAA has requested that the City grant another simi-
lar lease. The terms of the lease include a $1.00 annual
payment to the City. These facilities are necessary and
important both to the Federal Aviation Administration and
to the City and the renewal of this lease would be recom-
mended to City Council
Copies of the lease have been forwarded to the City
Attorney for his review and preparation of the necessary
papers.
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 that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(u20332) AN ORO1NAN~R authorizing and directing the granting of a license
to the United States of America to install,, operate and maintain an ultra high
frequency remo~e transmitter facility and necessary control facilities upon n
parcel of land containing 0.253, acre located at the Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum)
Airport.
WHEREAS, by. Ordinance No. 14777, adopted by this Council on the ?th day
of May, 1952, the City of Roanoke granted a license to the Federal Aviation Agency
of the United States of America, being License No. FA-EA-2792, pursuant to which
said Agency is presentl~ operating an ultra high frequency remote transmitter
containing 9.253 acre situate at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport, the original
term of which license is renewable annually on~y until the 30th day of June, 1972;
and
MHEREAS, the aforesaid Federal Aviation ~gency, now Federal Aviation
Administration, desires that the aforesaid License No. FA-EA2~92 be cancelled
and superseded by License Contract No. DOT-FA?SEA-GO1?, effectiv~ from July 1,
1972, which shall remain in force until June 30, 1973, and which may thereafter.
at the option of the Government, be renewed from year, to year in consideration
of mutual benefits accruing, provided that no such renewal shall extend the
~eriod of occupancy beyond the 30th day of June, 1982; the superseding license
)ming otherwise substantially upon the same terms as the license hereby cancelled;
nod
i
i
i
WR£REAS. the City Manager and the Manager of the Airport have both
rea,amended the adoption ef this ordinance, in uhich recommendation this
Council concurs.
THEREFORE. DE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
1, That License No. FA-E~2792 be, and said license is hereby, can-
celled and that Ordinance Noo14777, authorizing and directing the 9ranting of
said license be, and said ordinance is hereby, repealed.
2. That the City Manager be, and he Is hereby, authorized and directed,
for and on behalf of the City of Roanoke. to execute Contract No. DOT-FA?3£A-
6017, as prepared by the Federal AviatiOn Administration. granting unto said
Administration the right to continue the operation end maintenance of an ultra
high frequency remote transmitter facility and necessary control facilities upon
the 9.253 acre parcel of land therein described situate at the Roanoke Municipal
(Woodrum) Airport for annual periods ending each succeeding June 30th but may be
extended annually, at the option of the United States Government, provided that
no renewal shall extend the period of occupancy of the premises beyond the 30th
day of June. lgfl2.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubarde Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Mayor
Webber .... 7.
NAYS: None ......... Oo
RADIO-TELEVISION: The City Maoager submitted the following report in
connection with a request from MBRA-TV that the City of Roanoke serve as the
funding agent in connection with the development of a series of programs which
proposes to televise during the fall relating to valley correctional needs
and programs, advising that NDRA wishes to make application to the State Division
of Planning and Economic Development for urban incentive funds, that they have
been advised by that office that such an application for this purpose would
receive consideration, however, such funds can only be disbursed to a local unit
of government and the local unit of government becomes the handling agency for
the monies, relaying it on to the functioning unit and being responsible to the
State Fund for the administration of the monies, that it is felt that the possi-
bility of receiving such monies inot the area for this purpose would be advantageouI
and recommending that Council, by Resolution, concur in the application and indicat~
the willingness of the city to serve as the receiving agency for these monies:
*June 26, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Special Television Programming
MBRA educational television has approached the City'on
a proposal for the City to serve as the funding agent on a
project which they are considering. I will forward to you
prior or over the ueehend i more detailed description of the
application proposal. However, basically, it involves their
consideration of the development of · series of programs which
they gould televise this fall related to the valley correc-
tional needs and programs. A part or the background material
would be from the corrections study of the Fifth Planning
District with the use of material from tbst study plussu
snnlysla of the various operations nnd activities in the Valley
area uhlch s~e'releted to corrections end then say projections
ss to programs that might be under active consideration ut the
time that the television series ia presented. It is under-
stood that they ere considering between eight and ten such
progrnua ns u part of the series.
They uish to mshe application to the State Division of
Planning end Economic Development for urban incentive funds.
They have been advised by thee office thee such an application-
for this purpose gould receive consideration. Such funds,
however, can only be disbursed to e local unit of government
and the local unit of government becoues the handling agency
for the nonims relaying it on to the functioning unit nnd being
responsible to the State Fund for the administrntion of the
monies. From a City budget standpoint this would be shoun as ·
an expenditure offset by 100 percent revenue. The station
advises in their application that they mould propose to develop
the material for the series in coordination with a committee
made up of local persons interested or related to the correc-
tions program.
It is felt that the possibility of receiving such monies
into the area for this purpose would be advantageous and it is
recommended that the City Council by a resolution concur in
the application and indicate the Cityts willingness to serve
as the receiving agency for these monies.
This application must be conveyed to the Fifth Planning
District nnd it is advised by the staff of the District that
they would favorably recommend it to the Commission for trans-
mittal. The deadline for thc receipt of this application in
Richmond is July IS.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. BirSt
Julian F. flirst
City Manager"
Mr. Link 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 Mr. Thomas and unanimously
adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY~SERAGE TREATMENT PLANT: The City Manager submitted a
written report advising that the city is in possession of an option agreement
ifrom James E. Almond and Larmie G. Almond for the conveyance of two lots near the
Sewage Treatment Plant, in the amount of $2,900.00, advising that this sum is
consistent with independent appraisals and recommending that the City Attorney
be authorized to prepare the appropriate documents for the acceptance of this
option.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20333) AN ORDINANCE exercising the right to purchase two parcels of
land situate in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, adjacent to the existing Citl of
Roanoke Sewage Treatment Plant, and needed for said plant's expansion, upon cer-
tain terms and provisions; providing for notice of the City's exercise of a writ-
ten purchase option; providing for payment of the purchase price thereof upon
delivery to the City of a deed and for recordation of such deed; and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, page 477.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adopti'on of the Ordinance. The motion Was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber~-~ ............. ----7.
HAYS: Hone .......O.
BRIDGES-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted o
written report transmitting the following memorandum mritten to Elm from Mr.
Samuel H. McGhee, Ill, City Engineer, pertaining t~ the H.orwich Bridge, racom-
'mending that Council authorize exec~tion of a change order to Miley H. Jackson
Company increasing the contract payment by $5,223.40 and further recommending
that an additional payment be authorized to Rayes, Seay. Mattern ~ Mat~ern,
Architects and Engineers. of $985.00:
"DATE: May 24, 1972
TO: Mr. Hirst
FROM: Mr. McGhee
SUBJECT: Norwich H~idge
You mill recall that this bridge was dedicated and opened
to traffic on December 6, lgYl. At that time, though, the
contractor still hod various minor items of work to complete
in order to finish the job.
All of this work has now been accomplished and the contracto~
through Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern has submitted his
request for final payment. This payment request is based on
actual 'as built* quantities rather than on estimated quanti-
ties as had been previous billings. In some instances, less
than the estimated quantities were installed or constructed,
and in other instances, more than the estimated quantities
w~re installed or constructed. The net result of the differ-
ence betmeen the *as built' quantities and the estimated
quantities is an increase in the Work done which amounts to
$5,223.40. The original contract amount was $243,372.60.
Mith this increase in the contract cost, the total contract
amount would now be $24B,596.00.
It is my recommendation that City Council be requested to
approve a change order in the amount of an increase to the
contract of $5,223.40 in order that this final bill be paid.
There are sufficient funds within this account to provide
for this payment.
Another matter concerning this project has been brought to
our attention hy Ifayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern. Their
firm*s original proposal for furnishing professional services
for this project was submitted on August 1, 1069, and was
approved by City Council on October 6, 1960. Construction
on the project was not begun until March of lgYl. some eighteen
months after the original proposal was submitted. Their review
of shop drawings and periodic visits to the site as covered
under their proposal was accomplished during the period of
time beginning a year and a half after submitting their pro-
posal and endin9 approximately two and one half years after
submitting their proposal. They have advised us that their
actual costs of performing these services were in ~xcess of
the $2,650.00 which sas specified as the fee in the agreement
for this Work. They have requested thatthts portion of the
fee be increased $985.00 to a total fee of $3,635.00 for per-
forming this work. (It should be pointed out that if the
actual 96 hours of time times the payroll times the payroll
multiplier is used in computing the fee for this work, the
total cost would he approximately $4,141.00 or $506.00 in
excess of that which they are'actually requesting.)
It is my recommendation that City Council be requested to
approve the payment to Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern of
an additional $90S.00 for their providing professional ser-
vices for this project.
The only Item still outstanding at this 'time with respeot to
this project isthe c'ost=of the services performed by the
Norfolk and Nesters Railway Company, re have been advised
that it alii be several more months before their dots is com-
plete and can be formarded to us for payment but that their
estimate of their cost is between $7,000 and $9,000, ' Funds
available within this account at this time amount to
Assuming a final total payment to ~ile~ N. Jackson of $28,148.38
(which includes the $5,223,40 as outlined above) and assuming,
the additional payment to Hayes, Seay, Msttern and #attern
of $985.00, there would remain $8o319.62 In this account which
mould be for payments to the Norfolk and Masters Railway
Company. If the Norfolk and ~estern Railway Compony's bill
is for less than this amount, then there would be funds re-
maining in the account. If the Rallroad*s bill is for more.
than the $8,319.62. then an additional appropriation or trans-
fer to this account would be required.
Please let me know if I can provide any additional information
with respect to this matter."
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the City
Manager and offered the following Resolution authorizing and directing payment to
Miley N. Jackson Company, Contractor, of an additional sum of $5,223,40 in full
!and final payment to said contractor for the construction of the new Norwich
Bridge. in addition to the original contract amount of $243,372.60:
(#20334) A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the payment of an
additional sum of $5,223.40 for the construction of the new Norwich Bridge.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book c36, page 47H.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber ........................
NAYS: None ......... O,
Mr, Lisk then offered the following Resolution authori, zing and directing
payment to Hayes, Seay, Mattern ~ Mattern, Architects and Engineers, of an addi-
tional sum of SgO5.00, os additional compensation for professional services in the
form of construction supervision provided in connection with tbs construction of
the new Norwich Bridge:
(~R0335} A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the payment of an addi-
tional sum of $9B$.00 for professional services in connection with the construction
of the new Norwich Bridge.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book =36, page 478.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution, The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber
NAYS: None O.
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting copy of a.commoaicatiou from Mr, Harold I, Haumes, Executive Director
of the Virginia Municipal League, dated June 20, 1972, extending the init'iai notice
of the Institute for Mayors and Councilmen at'the 1972 Local Government Officials'
Conference at the University of Virginia on Aogust 2§ - 30, 1972.
'i
Mr. Trout moved that the report be-received and filed, The motion was
seconded by Mr, Llsk and unanimously adopted.
CHA#BER OF COMMERCE-PARKS AND PLAYCROI~DS-STATE BIGHMAYS: The City
Manager submitted the following report in connection with a memorial plaque in
honor of the late J.' B. Fishburn to be placed along the new access road from
Walnut Avenue to Mill Mountain, advising that the cost for such installation is
approximately $1,500.OO and suggesting that if Council wishes to proceed in this
matter, that the $1,500.00 be provided for in the 1972-73 budget:
"June 26, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Memorial Plaque
From time to time the Hill Mountain Development Commit-
tee in its presentations before the City Council has mention-
ed their interest in having a memorial plaque to the late
Mr. J. B. FJshburn placed along the new access road from
Walnut Avenue to the Mountain. The area felt to he gen-
erally the moat desirable and best situated is the north-
east area within the'intersection of the access road with
the Mill Mountain Spur.
Me are having a landscape plan prepared for this area
as one or more of the garden clubs have expressed an interest
in its development and beautification.
On investigation of the plaque proposal, we have noted
a stone and bronze memorial to the late Mr. Clarence King
which has been erected at the Blue Hills Golf Course. It
would seem that something similar to this would be a very
desirable memorial marker for Mr. Fishburn. The cost of
such an installation, as provided by Marsteller Stone Cor-
poration, is approximately $1,500. I have photographs of
the marker which can be distributed before the City Council.
This is submitted to the Council inquiring as to your
reaction and with the suggestion that if the ~ouncil ~ishes
to proceed in this manner that the above sum be provided in
the 1972-73 budoet.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Garland moved that the reportbe referred to 1972-73 budget study.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted,
Mr. Trout then moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
proper measure providing for said plaque after the proper inscription has been
worked out. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bubard and unanimously adopted.
RADIO-TELEVISION-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having referred back
to the City .Manager and the City Attorney for preparation of the necessary papers
a report of the City Manager in connection with a lease agreement between the
City of Roanoke and MSLS-TV and the City of Roanoke and MPVR fo*r use of the
tower and building on Mill Mountain for their translator antennas, the Assistant
City Attorney submitted a written report· transmitting Ordinances, which upon
adoption by Council, would provide for the renting of floor and tower space in
the transmitter building atop Mill Mountain to Roy D. Park Broadcasting of
Roan,he. Incorporated. und to James L. Gibbons. trading us Jim Glbbont Radio
(WFVR). for a basic monthly rental of ~50.00 plus $2.O0 per month c~urge for
electricity, payable quarterly. .*
In. this connection, the City Manager verbally requested that action on
the report of the Assistant City Attorney be deferred one u~ek..
#r. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
that action on the report be deferred until the regular meeting of Council on
=Wednesday. July 5. 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted,
BUDGET-TAXES: At its regular meeting on Honday, June 19, 1972, Council
nstructed the City Audltor to meet math the City Treasurer and such other city
ersonnel as he deems necessary and prepare and submit a detailed wFitten report
to Council on Ronduy. June 26, 1972, prior to the public hearing on the matter
of proposed tax increases, said report to set forth in detail und with particu-
larity the exact status of the current revenues of the city, that said report
project the future revenue for 1972=73o that said report include an explanation
of the purported $2 1/2 million discrepancy alleged hy tho City Treasurer and
~that copies of said report be formaFded to the numb*Fa of Councillor considera-
~tion and revUes prior to said Council meeting, the City Auditor submitted the
itl*Il*sing report advising that it is his opinion that the $1.000,000.OO cash sur-
lplus estimate is as sound tod~y as it sas shun it was given to Council. taking
~ '
into consideration that the r~venue collections nay vaFy causing the surplus to
go up or down and that the expenditure~ may be lot§er or smulle£ than estimated,
again causing the surplus to go up or down:
"June 26, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Centlemen:
At the reRular meeting of Council of the City 'of Roanoke
held Monday, June 19, 1972, the Council instructed thc City
Auditor to meet with the City Treasurer and submit a detailed
written report to the Council, said report to set forth in
detail the exact status of the current revenues of the City.
of Roanoke and to include u projection of revenue for the
1972-73 fiscal year and the report to explain a purported
$2,500,000~00 discrepancy as to the estimate of the cash
balance in the city treasury at the end of this fiscal
year. This discrepancy arose as a result of the disclosure '
of the City ~reasurer of an estimated cash surplus of
$~,500,000.00 as compared to an estimated cash surplus of
$1.000,000.00 made by the Cit[ Auditor.
The City Treasurer has stated publicly that the City will
have a cash surplus of $3,000,000.00 us quoted by one news
story and $3,$00o000.00 as quoted by another news story. Mr.
Johnson indicated in the sews story, dated Friday. June 16,
1972, that the City of Roanoke has available Sb,O00,O00.O0 in
the treasury at that date and was expected to collect an
additional $1,000,000.00 from the State for various taxes and
grants, ~iving an available cash position of $7,000.000.00.
Accordi~ to Mr. Johnson, this would ~ive the City $3,500,000.00
in available funds after bein~ reduced by $2.000.000.00 short
term loan payment and $1,500,000.00 for payroll obligation;
thus, arriving at a cash balance of $3.500,000.00
At the meeting held with Mr. Johnson and his assistant,
Mr. Peters. it was p~inted out to him that as of the end of
the day, Friday, June 16, 1972, the City of Roanoke had
II
unencumbered funds in the amount of $S,h4OtO00.00. The
present estimate of collections ut the end of the fiscal
lear would be approximately $800.000.00, giving on available
cash of $6,440,000.00. The payroll that Mr. Johnson has
given us being $1,500,000.00 should total $2,500,000.000
made up of the School Board payroll of $2,000,000.00 and
General Fund Payroll of $500.000.00. The loan of $2,000,000.00
end debt service of $160,000.00 will give a total of
$4,h60,000.O0 in expenditures that are presently known to be
required. Reducing the available cash by these expenditures
will leave · balance of $1,780,000.00. It Is estimated by
this office that the School bills and General Fund bills.
other than payroll, will amount to approximately $flO0,O00.OO,
leaving on estimated cash surplus at the end of the fiscal
period of $9fl0,000.00. The following tabulation would per-
haps be more explicit:
BASIS FOR ESTIMATE BASIS FOR ESTIMATE
BY CITY AUDITOR BY CITY TREASURER
Available Funds June 16, 1972 $ 5,640,000.00 $ 6,000,000o00
Collections to End of Fiscal
Year 800.000.00 !.000.000.00
Available Funds to End of
Fiscal Year 6.440.000.00 7.000.000.00
School Board Payroll 2,000,O00.00 1,000,000.00
General Payroll 500,000.00 500,000.00
Loan Due June 22, 1972 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00
Debt Service 160,000.00 - 0 -
Estimated Bills Other Than
Payrolls 8OO.O00.O0 - O -
Total Expenditures to End of
Year Estimated 5,460,000,00 3.500.000.00
Estimated Cash Surplus
June 30, 1972 $ CAB.COO.OB $ 3.500.000.00
took issue with the School Board payroll of $2,000,000,O0
Approximately $840,000.00 of the $2,O00,000.00 is for those
teachers who have elected to be paid on a 12 month basis
rather than on a IO month basis, this procedure being esta-
blished some years ago. It was pointed out to Mr. Johnson
that this was the procedure in past years and had to be taken
fiscal year in question. As to the estimated $800,O00.00 for
the general bills, other than payroll, Mr. Johnson had not
included these in his calculation.
As to the discrepancy as reflected by the comparison,.
future collections or expenditures for the balance of the
fiscal year might prove his estimate to be correct or at
I inquired of Mr. Johnson as to the present situation in
his office pertaining to any tax payments that had not been
processed and deposited and he informed ne that his office
had processed all payments except those needing administra-
It is the opinion of this office that the $1,000,000.O0
given to Council, taking into consideration that the revenue
collections may vary causing the surplus to 9o up or down and
that the expenditures may be larger or smaller than estimated,
again causing the surplus to go up or down.
As was held in the reportmade by Councilman Thomas to
the Council, the City Treasurer is responsible for collection
and custody of funds received and has no other duty concern-
lng these funds. It.mould seem that the reporting of esti-
mates of cash surpluses by any official of the City of Roanoke
other than the City Auditor would be based at best on incom-
plete information and as such could do no worthwhile service
to the City of Roanoke or to the taxpayers.
In concluslon~ I can only say that this office has given
the Council as much information as has been available to the
office concerning finances, Ina timely fashion. This is to
say, that, as revenues increased beyond estimates, as has
been.the case in this particular fiscal year, X have reported
to Cocncll~cnd have updated my revenue estimates, both as it
pertains to the current fiscal, year and to the fiscal year
for which the City is preparing a budget, I believe that the
budget revenue estimate which has been submitted to Council
for the 1972-73 fiscal year is s fair reflection of the
revenue that the City of aoanote con expect to receive, based
upon the bestinformation available at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ A, N. Gibson
A. N. Gibson.
City Auditor"
In this connection, the following communication from the City Treasurer
advising that his estimate was.based partly on past history relating to previous
years ~udget study performances and the balance is based on available cash and
~ifixed expenditures, pointing out that the City Auditor is encumbering approximately
$1 million out of this fiscal year budget to pay the salaries of school teachers
for the months of July and August, who are on a twelve-month pay basis and that
he understands the School Board is requesting that the same funds be appropriated
in their 1972-73 fiscal year budget and that in other words, this $1 million has
been provided for in two places to meet only one pay period:
'THE TREASURER'S REPORT TO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL
Based on the limited information available to me I recent-
ly projected the City would have a fiscal year-end surplus of
approximately $3 million. My estimate was based partly on past
history relating to previous years budget study performances.
and the balance is based on available cash and fixed expendi-
tures. In the early budget study stages, there has always
been a projected deficit and at the end of the period there
always seems to develop a sizable surplus.
As ~f today there is a $6 million ~alance in the General
Fund Account and there should.be an additional $500,000.00
collected by the end of June, making a total of $6=1/2 mil-
lion. The fixed items to be deducted from this amount are:
$6,500,000.00 Funds available
- $2,000,000.00 to pay off a temporary loan
- $1.000,000.00 to meet City School Payroll
- $ 500.000.00 to meet City Payroll
- $ 160.000.00 for debt retirement
$2,GdO,O00.O0 balance subject to increases or decreases
The City Auditor is encumbering approximately, S1 million,
out of this fiscal year budget to pay the salaries of school
teachers for the months of July and August, who are on a
twelve-month pay basis, and I understand the School Board is
requesting that the same funds be appropriated in their 1972-
73 fiscal year budget. In other words this $1 million has
been provided for in two places to meet only one payperiod.
Zhc funds estimated to be collected by June 30 and other funds
estimated to be spent by June 30 can vary considerably in
either direction.
Since the Civic Center Bank deposit incident the tax-
payers have been constantly making inquiries to my office
relating to City money matters, and the City Finance Com-
mittee has not met to discuss such matters. TheCommtttee
is composed of three members, the Mayor, City Auditor and
City Treasurer.
During the fiscal year 1971-72 I made written requests
to members of City Council for permission to meet with them
in private to discuss matters pertaining to the operation of
my office and I have received no response, therefore, I used
the media which mas the only channel of communication left
open for me to respond to the many inquiries taxpayers have
made relating to their interest in the financial status of the
City.
Severol years ago, when the City was operating on an
annual budget, the City Auditor mould contact nad discus's
moth the City Treasurer during the budget study months of
October, Novembor sad December the omount of revenue the
Treasurer was expecting to be able to collect through the
December 5 deadline mail poyment dates. The City Auditor
mould also discuss uitb the Treasurer mhnt effect Ordinance
changes mould have on tax collections, No contacts have
been mode In recent years, therefore, such matters hare not
~een discgs~ed. I will entertoi~ e proposal that
meeting be :scheduled coeposed of the Mayor, members of City
Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Auditor, Dad with
any other Department Beads mhD are commected in any way with
City finances, auditing procedures, tax assessing and tax
collection for the purpose of becoming more familiar with
each others problems and thereby being better able to serve
Roanoke citizens.
S! Johnny H. Johnson
Johnny H. Johnson, City Treasurer
June 22, 1972"
In this connection, Mr. Thomas questioned the encumberance of approxi-
mately $1 million out of the budget to pay salaries of school teachers for the
months of July and August mhd are on a twelve month pay basis advising that the
city should disengage 'such procedures and that this is not the type of thing
that should be done on a cash basis.
After a discussion of the two reports, Mr. Thomas moved that the report
of the City Auditor and the report of the City Treasurer be referred to 1972-73
budget study for further discussion. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and
unanimously adopted.
HUDOEY-SCIIOOLS: The City Auditor presented a communication from the
Roanoke City School Board requesting that $16.S37.GTbe transferred from Section
~9000, 'Schools - Food Services,* to SectiOn ~8000, ~Schools - Fixed Charges,~
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the reque~st of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the followin9 emergency Ordinance:
(~20336) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section 3~OOO, *Schools -
Food Services,~ and Section ~6000, *Schools - Fixed Charges,* of the 1~71-72
Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook z35, page 479.)
Mr. Lisk moved the ~doption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
Mebber
NAYS: None
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISRED BUSINESS:
ZONING: Council having deferred action on a recommendation of the City
Planning Commission in coniection with the request of Hodges L;mber Corporatio~
that property located at the intersection of #minus Rill a~d Laurel Street, S. E.,
described as Lots 12, 13 a~d 14. Rlock 20, Roanoke Uas and Mater Company Map,
Offlcinl Tax Nos. 4041001 nnd 4041002, be rezoned from RG-I, General Residential
District, to RG-2, General Residential District and the City plnnnlng commission
having previouslyrecommended that th~ request be denied, the matter nas again
before the body.
In this connection, Mr. Jach fl. Coulter, Attorney, representing Hodges
Lumber Corporation, eppesred before Council and verbally advised that his clients
desire s public hearing un the request rot reznning.
Mr. Llsk m~ved that a public bearing be held on the request for rezoning
at 7:30 p,m., Monday, July 31, 1972. The notion uss seconded by Mr. Hubard and
unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: None.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
BURRELL MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: Ordinance No. 20327 granting revocable,
:non-transferable authority to Harrell Memorial Hospital to maintain certain
directional signs on th~ right of way of Orange Avenue, N. W., at the intersec-
tions of Sth Street and Oth Street, N. N., 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:
(#2032?) AN ORDINANCE granting revocable, non-transferable authority
to Barrel1 Memorial tlospital to maintain certain directional signs on the right-
'of-way of Orange Avenue, N. M.. at the intersections of 5th Street and Oth Street,
N. M., upon certain terms and conditions.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 475.)
Dr. Taylo; moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr, Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, LaRk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None O.
BUDGET-CITY AUDITOR: The City Auditor submitted a certificate advising
that in accordance with paragraphs (h) and (i) of Sec. 25 of the Charter of the
City of Roanoke, 1952, he certifies that funds required for the 1972-73 General
Fund, Rater Fund, and Sewage Treatment Fund and Civic Center Fund budgets are
or will be available for appropriation.
Mr. Thomas moved that action on the certificate of the.City Auditorbe
ldeferred until the end of the Council meeting. The notion was seconded by Mr. Lisk
and unanimously adopted.
I BUDGET: An Ordinance making appropriations from the General Fund of
Ithe City of Roanoke for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1972, and ending June 30,
1973 was before Council. '
Mr. Thomas moved that action on the Ordinance be deferred until the end
of the Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
J
BUOG£T-WATER DEPARTH£NT: An Ordinance making appropriations from the
Water General Fund and the #eter Replacement Reserve Fend for the City of Roanoke
for the fiscal leer beginning July 1, 1972, and ending June 30, 1973, mas before
Council.
Rt. Thomas moved that action on the Ordinance be deferred until the
end of the Council meeting. The motion mas seconded by Hr. Llsk and unanimously
adopted.
RUDG£T-S£#£RS AND ~fORH DRAINS: An. Ordinance making appropriations
from the Sewage Treatment General Fund and the Sewage Treatment Replacement
Reserve Fund for the City of Roanoke for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1972,
and ending June 30, 1973, mas before Council,
Hr. Thomas moved that action on the Ordinance be deferred until the
end of the Council meeting. The motion was seconded by Hr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
COUNCIL-CITY EMPLOYEES: A Resolution discharging the Council's Salary
Committee os heretofore established and constituting the Rayor and Members of the
CitI Council as a Committee of the Mhole to consider and recommend the annual
salaries of the city's unclassified personnel, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that action on the Resolution be deferred until the
end of the Council meeting. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Liskand unanimously
adopted.
PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOy£ES: An Ordinance fixing the annual compensation
of certain unclassified officials and employees of the City of Roanoke, was before
Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that action on the Ordinance bo deferred until the
end of the Council meeting. The motion was seconded bI Hr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
PAY PLAN-CITY ERPLOYEES: An Ordinance udoptiog and providing a new
SyStem of Pay Rates and Ranges for the employees of the City of Roanoke, effective
July l, 1972, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that action on the Ordinance be deferred until the end
~f the Council meeting. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
MOTIONS ARb BISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
~RIDGES-STATE HIGHMAYS: The Reverend Calvin R. ~ulton appeared before
;ouncil on behalf of the residents of the Riverdale section of southeast Roanoke
~nd called attention to the Buzzard Rock Ford Bridge, advising that the bridge
been closed since the recent flood and recommending that Council take advantage
~f the federal aid program to be used toward the.construction of a new bridge
Father than trying to make repairs to the old bridge, Reverend Fulton further
~eques~in9 that loth Street, S. E., be opened from Riverdale Road to Rutrough
toad, S, E., and that a 9raveled roadmay be constructed.,
With reference to the Buzzard Rock Ford Bridge, the City Manager sub-
mitted the following report Jn~onnectlon with the design element which'has
developed in the Route 115 - 116 highway project as it relates to the Buzzard
Hock Ford Bridge area, advising that the revision which the Highway Department
has developed provides that the rO'adway would follow ISth Street soutbbard from
Dale Avenue, transition eastward to 14th Street and u't the point where the
railroad line is close on the bank of the river, the highway would bridge over
both the railroad and the river in a single structure coming down into Bennlngton
Street in front of the Sewage Treatment Plant, advising that it is his opinion
that the new alignment would not be desirable primarily'because of the relation-
ship of the roadway to the Sewage Treatment Plant and all of the investment that
the city has in that facility and will have forthcoming and that he would like
to advise the Highway Department of such a reaction so they can proceed with
expediting the total highway project:
*June 26. 1972
Nonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Route 115 - 115 Project
This is to supplement a request which I have placed
for your consideration on your Agenda thisdate, June 25,
1972, for presentation under Hearings of Citizens. A
design element has developed in the 115 - 116 highway pro-
ject as it relates to the Buzzard Bock Ford Bridge area,
Early this calendar year, representatives of the Highway
Department conferred with staff of the City on u possible
location change over that us had been originally contemplat-
ed in this project.
Zhe original alignment considered that the new roadway
would extend along 13th Street, S. E., from Dale Avenue,
southward to Tayloe Street. From there it would cross over
the ~orfolk and Restern Railroad tracks, then in a second
bridge crossing would go over the Roanoke River, intersec-
ting with Bennington Street, then follow Bennington Street
southward. The revision which they developed would provide
that the roadway would follow 13th Street southward from Dale
Avenue but then transition eastward over to 14th Street
and at the point wher~ the railroad line is close on the bank
of the river, the highway would bridge over both the railroad
and the river in a single structure coming down into Bennington
in front of the Sewage Treatment Plant.
The advantages as advanced by the Highway Department
were that the project csuld not affect all of the p*roperties
along one side of 13th Street for its entire length, would
make use of some vacant property between 13th and 14th
Streets, but would in particular result in a single bridge
structure in lieu of two separate bridges; This they ~ote
would produce a Cost savings of approximately $1.5 million.
Re have been earnestly studying this since that time in
an attempt todetermine what should be the recommended posi-
tion of the City. Our main problem has been the affect on
the Sewage Treatment Plant because the project would come
into the front portion of the circular d~i~eway in front
of the main plant building and then Would touch u portion of
the area presently proposed for the expansion of the plant
within the next two years. All of this has involved our
efforts to determine what will be required of plant expansion
which is a matterthat is concurrently running and our con-
cern that the plant not be tied in in space in view of all
that is now involved with the facility and may later become
additionally necessary. On March $0, the State Highway
Department forwarded results of their survey of this new
alignment and since that time we have continued in our con-
sideration of just what is the best thing to be done.
It Is our feeling non that the nam alignment would not
be desirable primarily because or the relationship or the
roadway to the treatment plant and all of the investment that
the City has in that facility and will have forthcoming. The
City's Consulting Engineers, Alvord, EurdJck and Hanson, racom-
wend against the second alignment. To take this position
involves, as stated, an additional highway construction cost
of approximately $1.5 million. This in turn to the City
represents approximately $225,000 in the 15 percent basis.
Ye would like to go ahead and advise the Highway Depart-
ment of such a reaction so that they can procerd with expediting
the total highway project,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst-
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager#
Rt. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SERERS AND ~'[ORM DRAINS: The City Reneger submitted the following
report in connection with revised applications, in three phases, for Federal
Grant for sewage treatment works, including the provision for a retention-
equalization basin, filed with the Virginia State Nater Control Board under date
of June 23. 1972:
"June 26, 1972
Honorable gayor end City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Geotlemen:
Subject: Sewage Treatment Plant
This supplements the report which has been forwarded to
you requesting this matter as one of two items to be presented
to you at yoor meeting this date under Hearing of Citizens.
As advised to you last week, June 19. we have forwarded
to tbs State Mater Control Doard, consistent with the date
that they requested it be handled, on June 23. 1972, new
applications for Federal Grant funds for the expansion and
upgrading of the City's Sewage Treatment Plant. The revision
and new applications are in accordance with the request of
the staff of the Board as made verbally in a meeting in
Richmond on June 15, 1972. at which time representatives of
the City were advised by the Executive Director and staff
members of the Board that the Mater Control Board's funding
program for the State of Virginia had been foun'd unacceptable
by the Environmental Protection Agency of the Federal govern-
ment; therefore, the Board mas requesting new applications
from various of the applicants within the State.
The City*s application has been broken down into three
separate applications. They are designated as phases. On
the basis of the discussion at the meeting on JunelS, it
would be intended that funding for Phase I and Phase II
would come within fiscal year 1971-72 and funding for Phase
III would be within fiscal year 1g72-73.' The description of
the three separate applications is as.fgllows:
Phase I Chemical Feed Facilities, Sludge Lagoons
and 14 MGD Primary Expansion.
Estimated Project cost $2,319,920
Estimated Eligible Cost 2.164.920
Grant Request 1,092,460
Phase II 30 MGD Retention-Equalization Basin
Estimated Project Cost $4,542,400
Estimated Eligible Cost 4.542,400
Grant Request 2,271,200
Phase III 14 #GO Expansion of Secondary Facilities
end Advanced Waste Treatment Facilities for
35 RGD flow,
Estimated Project Cost $13,504,960
Estimated Eligible Cost 13,504,960
Grant Request 6,752,4B0
'It will be noted that one of the applications comprises
the retention/ballast or. equalization basin. Notice to be
made of the estimated cost of this facility, A considerable
portion of the cost is found in the Judgment that a 48-inch
to 54-inch pipeline mill be required 'into the retention
basin, This to be connected to the main interceptor leading
Into the plant and mould hove to be constructed through the
present plant system, This portion of the facility mould
require for itself rakes, chlorination, sludge remsvalo a
large pumping and piping system for both intake and gu,feed,
aeration, solids handling capacity, etc. It would be 'almost
equivalent to a small treatment plant.
Re are advised by a letter of June 20, 1972, from Mr,
C, R, Nauso Assistant Director, Pollution Abatement Division,
that they nos wish this facility to be built in compartments
so that while it is serving ss a ballast pond, there would
also be another compartment that coold serve as a detention
basin. This is a variation from the original intent which
mas that there would be a single unit facility serving as a
detention basin until the plant expansion would be completed
and then it would serve as a ballast or equalization basin.
These new instructions however mould require that it be built
in compartments and serve a double purpose. Mr. Maus in his
letter alsoproposed that the basin be designed to serve for
emergency detention for effluent from the various processes in
the various stages through the plant where there might be any
off-~tuality during operation, I will not go into description
of what this involves or signifies but at the moment it is
stretching our imagination as to how it might physically and
operationally be done.
Friday. June 23, we discussed at length with Mr. Howson
of Alvord, Burdick and Honson the detention-ballast basin. As
has been stated, it presents space and operational problems
but it is being proceeded with. The firm advisei that they
would anticipate that they could have a report prepared within
the week of July 4 to be forwarded to us which we in turn
wouid transmit to the State Nater Control Board. They esti-
mate at this time a design time of tmo months after State
approval of the project and funding approval. Then they esti-
mate ten months construction time after bidding and approval
of bids by the State Mater Control Roard and EPA. All of
this we will transmit on to the Board.
Ne have submitted these applications under the previous
resolution of the City Council mhich authorized the applica-
tions that we submitted on February 29, 1972. The City
Attorney is giving consideration to the preparation of a
resolution which would directly relate to these new appllca-
tigris. Because of our oma admJstrative time situation, se
have not been in a position to give him sufficient time to
prepare a resolution for this meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the r~port of the City Manage?
and offered the following Resolution:
(m20337) A RESOLUTION ratifying and confirming the Clty*s revised
applications, in three phases, for Federal Grant for Semage Treatment Morks,
including provision for a retention-equalization basin, filed with the Virginia
State Mater Control Roard under date of June 23, 1972.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~36, page 4BO.)
Mr. Thomas moved the ndoption of the Resolution. The motion was second-
ed by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the followlngvote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, flobard, Lisk, Taylor, Thouas. Trout and Mayor
Mebber ............... ~----T,
NAYS: None~ ~0.
ROANOEE VALLEY: Mayor Webber advised the members' of Council that he
has had the City Attorney prepare a measure concurring in the recognition that a
major disaster has occurredin the Roanoke Valley area as a result of the recent
extended rainfall and resultant flooding of the streams in Roanoke Valley and
calling upon the State and Federal government to take steps to afford to the
communities thereiu mud to the persons mud business coucerns and other orgaoization~
and agencies suffering injury and damage from said flood maters all public aid and
assistance as is necessary and appropriate to meet the emergency; whereupon, Mr.
Lisk offered the following Re~olut~on.
(u2033H) A RESOLUTION concurring in the recognition of the occurrence
of a disaster in the Roanoke Valley area, and in the extension of Federal
disaster relief aid to the Roanoke Valley communities suffering such disaster.
(For fall text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book n36. page 482.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by'the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ...........O.
COUNCIL: Mr, Garland moved that the City Attorney be directed to pre-
ipare the proper measure amending The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended.
to provide that the last Monday of each month shall be observed as a night meet-
ing of the Council of the City of Roanoke. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard
and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET: Mr. Hubard presented the folloming communication making
various recommendations in connection with the 1972-73 fiscal year budget:
"To: The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor, June 23. 1972
City of Roanoke, and Members of
Roanoke City Council
1972-73 Budoet. City of Roanoke
The present form of the 1972-73 Budget before us shows
estimated revenues of $44.276,226.00, assuming the imposi-
tion of certain new taxes and fees but with Re increase in
Ihs $3.45 tax rate and no moving up of tax payment date~.
When the estimated June 30. 1972, surplus of $1,000,000.00
is'added, we have available funds for the next fiscal year
of $45,276,226.00.
Also, our current budget recap for FY 1973 shows esti-
mated expenditures of ~46.340.791.21, or $46.780,791.21 if
$440°000.00 for the remodeling of the former Reid ~ Cutshall
property is added.
If we ultimately decide on a policy of no increase in the
$3.45 tax rate or not to invoke the '*windfall*. then we would
be faced with a deficit of $1,504,565,21. I would respect-
fully suggest that we adopt this policy and balance next
year's budget by making the following adjustments:
(1) AdJnst the proposed $300.000,00 servieecherge on
formerly tex-ex~mpt properties to $325.000.00° The City '
Real Estate Assessor adrises that he has revised upward his
estimates of assessed value on this property.
As you hnow, considerable concern has bee's e~pressed es to
the imposition of service charge. I share these concerns.
Haunter, there is a clear need for additional City revenues,
and the question is where do ue derive the additional revenues.
Our tax rate or $3.45 is high and should be held if reason-
ably feasible. The windfall approach would be, at this time,
an undue burden on our citizens and doubtful in concept.
It appears to be for more equitable to ash some of oar
agency citizens, who currently pay no real estate taxes, to
pay o portion of the cost of the City*s providing serYJces
to them for fire and police protection and refuse collection.
Some of the reasons for this conclusion are:
(a) The cost of rencering these services bas been esti-
mated to be $2.00 per $100.00 assessed value, whereas
the proposed service charge is only $1.38 per $100,00
assessed value.
(b) These agencies currently pay for the CJty*s supplying
water and sewer service, The cost of police and fire
protection and refuse collection is just as real and
the cost as readily determinable. If some services are
paid for fully, why not pay in part for other services?
(c) These agencies have never in the past paid for the
aforementioned three services, They have benefited
greatly thereby, and no retroactive charge will he
made.
(d) easy of the persons served by these agencies, likely
over 50 percent by some, are nonresidents of our City
and surely should be {tlling to contribute to the
substantial costs of our City services.
(e) It is difficult to grasp the equity of taxing fully some
functions, currently not tax exempt, while fully exempt-
lng these functions when performed hy tax-exempt agencies.
For example, why should an aged person pay full real
estate taxes on a modest home owned by that person, hut
pay no taxes when living in a tax-exempt home for the
elderly,
I came to this conclusion reluctantly, but thoroughly
convinced that this is the only fair approach. To exempt
any of these agencies while taxing others would surely eventual-
ly erode substantially'this new source of revenue.
N ow. a mord about the continuing tax-exempt status of our
houses of worship and homes for clergymen, In my opinion these
should have been made subject to the new service ~harge just
as have our hospitals, etc. Unfortunately, the General Assem-
bly did not deem it advisable to do so at this timel Were
they subject to this charge, it mould result in an additional
$125,000.00 of income to the City in FY 1973. I know that
many congregations are willing, even anxious, to pay their
fair share of the services rendered to'them by the City. If
we adopt this service fee, I strongly urge that a communica-
tion he sent to each congregation in our City advising it of
its fair share of our providing it with police, fire, and
refuse collection services and stating that any contribution
to the City, in partial payment, for these valuable services
rendered will be appreciated. It is my judgment that sub-
stantial voluntary contrihutisns will be made by such congre-
gations. I do not suggest that we inclode any estimate qf
such contributions in our r~venue estimates for next fiscal
year.
(2) In a communication dated May 24, 19~2, to the City
Auditor from theCtty Real Estate Assessor, a request was made
for authority to employ an additional tax assessor to work
mainly in the area'of assessing new construction under .build-
Jag permits in the City~ It was estimated that this would
result in a net increase in real estate taxes of approxi-
mately $100,000.00. I strongly recommend that this new employee
be obtained and so assigned. ~
(3) I am advised that a substantial portion ~f the tax-
able personal property in the City is not currently assessed
for taxes, perhaps as much as 20 percent; and furthermore
that a large percentage of owners o! motor vehicles, subject
to the City*s motor vehicle license rea, do not purchase the
required docalso perhaps as much as 15 percent,
#ith an increase in the stuff or the Commissioner of
Revenue°s Office. through n new or borrnued employee, and the
increased attention of the Police Department, a substantial
increase in these taxes and fees could be realized, I am per-
sonally aware of a family now living in our City which pur-
chased out-of-state authomblle license tags for at least
five ~ars, while resfd/ag fa our City, for one or more CUrs
used in the City, and parked nightly on City streets,
· The obtaining oft and intensified use of. lists from
the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles of motor vehicles
showing a Roanoke situs could assist greatly in this endeavor,
I suggest that the City Manager and City Auditor be re-
quested to confer with both the Commissioner of Revenue and
Chief of Police to determine whether or not substantially
increased personal property taxes and city motor veblcle fees
mould not be obtained in FY Ir?3. I predict that such a
course would result in an increase in these two revenue
sources of $200,000.00
(4) I recommend that Mr. Carland'n suggestion of an
admissions tax be levied on all entertainment events in out
City. 1 mould.suggest that a 5-percent levy be adopted.
Although it is quite difficult to estimate the amount of new
income generated by this tax, I estimate that it would generate
new income to the City in 1973 of at least
(5) I recommend that the proposed 'Commercial Garbage
Collection Service Charge* be eliminated as Expected Revenue
in next year*s budget. Real estate taxes, in theory, are
levied to cover refuse collection in addition to other City
services.' However, if it can be clearly documented that cer-
tain types of businesses require refuse collections far in
excess of what is deemed reasonable, then I would consider
voting for such a service charge. Dowever, Council has not
been provided with any substantiating data upon which to make
a sound judgment on enacting such a levy. I suggest that
the City Manager make a study of this matter and give an early
report and recommendatiou to Council.
Furthermore, i suggest that serious consideration be
given to requiring our citizens to separate their refuse.
i. e. glass, metal, paper, etc. I would predict that this
would surely save our City more than the $100,000.00 esti-
mated income from the proposed 'Commercial Garbage Collec-
tion Service Charge**
(6) Approximately 60 percent of our Roan.he City public
school teachers are paid on a 12-month pay basis, September 1
to August*31, rather than the traditional 10-month pay basis.
Thus. they receive 10 months* pay in one fiscal year and 2
months* pay in the next fiscal year. This percentage is
increased each year. I understand that in many jurisdictions
in our State, includlu~ Roanoke County, all such teachers are
paid on a 12-month basis. If all Roanoke City school teachers
were paid on a 12-month basis in the next school year, approxi-
mately $1;400,000.00 of their salaries would he paid in FY
1974 thought under current accounting practices, chargeable
to FY 1973.
I would strongly urge that a request be made to the
Roanoke City Public Schools that all our public school teachers
be placed on a 12-month pay basis, and that we accordingly
reduce our appropriation to the Public Schools by $1,dO0,O00.o0.
subject to a more exact determination of the exact amount.
This amount would thus be paid in FY 1974 and c~arged to the
Budget for that year.
Further. it is noted that on page 20 of the report of
the Roanoke City Public Schools. entitled 'Schools For Our
Children 1972', it is estimated that savings of $216,390.00
could be realized if Addison Hi9h School students were reas-
signed to tbe other three City high schools. I recommend
this change so that we may realime the attendant savings in
FY 1973,
(?) I recommend that the'budgetary appropriation of
$440,000,00 for the remodeling of the former Reid & Cutshull
property be removed from the FY 1973 Budget. Csuncil has
appointed committees to study the feasibility of u regional
courthouse and a regional Jailo respectively. Until these
committees'have reported to Council on the feasibility end
locution of such regional facilities, I believe that it
would be a g~oss misapplication of taxpayer funds to spend
approximately $770.000.00 on the remodeling of several old
buildings mithout regard to uny overall plan for City court-
house and ?il facllities~
There is no question that the conditions in the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court facilities on Rorer Avenue are
deplorable and mustbe corrected in the very near future.
However. this does not justify the squandering of over three-
fourths of a million dollars.
Council has available approximately $33§,000,00 for this
remodeling, A portion of this could be used to provide
quarters in the old Reid ~ Cutshall buildingsfor our
Police Department, mhose quarters are deplorable. I feel
that the remodeling for these quarters should be done as
economically as possible, as consideration ~hould he given
to providing permanent quarters for the Roanoke Police De-
partment adjacent to a regional cSurthouse and jail complex,
if that is built in or near the center ~ Roanoke.
There should be ample room to move the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court into the old Courthouse Building on
the first and second floors when the Police Department moves
out. There likely could be some real economies effected in
combining~ to some extent, the clerical staff of that court
with the staff of the Municipal Court. In any event, the
Juvenile and'Domestic Relations Court shosld be housed in a
regional courthouse if it is built in the near future. If
that courthouse is not built in the immediate future, then
the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court can be placed in
the old Reid ~ Cutshall building as originally planned or in
the remodeled City Courthouse.'if that is the ultimate reso=
lution of our courthouse building crisis.
With these adjustments, our Budget for 1972-T3 would be
udjusted as follows:
Estimated Revenues and Surplus
Additional Revenues
Item I $ 25.000.00
Item 2 100.000.00
Item 3 200.000.00
Item 4 150.000.00
$45,276,22fi,00
475.000t00
$45.751,226.00
Less Item 5 -100,000.00
Revised Funds Available $45,651,226.00
Estimated Expenses $46,780,~91.21
Less Item 6 $1.400.000.00
Less Item 7 i 440.000.00
-1.840.000.00
$44,'940.7~1.21
Excess of funds available over expenditures
$ 710,434.79
Obviously the entire $1,400,000.00 available from the
adjustment in the method of accounting for school teachers
salartes--a windfall if you will--should not just be cranked
into the Budget. The above figures indicate that about half
of this amount would be so applied. However, from the balance,
I recommend that this be used partially to increase the dis-
gracefully low salaries of a number of our professional
staff, with the remainder to be 'used to fund the most press-
lng of the Capital Improvement Program projects recommended
by the City Manager as his first priority projects.
The application of this umojnt Of approximately $1/2
million to Our immediate and pressing capital needs would
give Council time to study the near-term capital needs 5f
the Roanoke Public Schools recently identified in its report
to which I have previously alluded. For this reason, I
suggest that we not commit to a submission of a capital bond
issue referendum at this time.
i!study for
i~adopted.
There is nn obvious lack of coordination nmong the various
finnncial offices serving our City0 and there arise nlmost
daily finnncial matters of interest or concern to Council. I
strongly recommend that Council consider the establishment of
a Finance Committee, from among its members sad the City Ball
staff, to assist in the courdinntion of the City*s finan-
cial affairs and to advise Council as to the many financial
matters before it. This committee also could study the fensJ-
bJlity of modifications in our financial procedures. For
example,, it could study and report to Council the legal and
practical nspects of establishing a Department of Finance
for the City, which could include most of the current finan-
cial operations of our City. I would not suggest that this
committee have the primary obligation for preparing the City
Budget.
I recommend that Council adopt the tax relief for the
elderly ns earlier considered by it, i.e. freezing of the
realestate tax at January l, 1972. rate on residences of
City residents 65 years of age and older, with assets of
$20,000°00 or less (excluding value of residence) and
annual income of less than $6,000.00.
Finally, I would be less than frank if I didn't
observe that my clear impression of City Budget making
after less than a month on Council is that it is somemhnt
less than n precise science. Before one infers that I
cast aspersions on Council or our City Hall staff, 1
quickly admit ny inadequacies in the budgeting process.
Houever, I would strongly urge that our City Manager
arrange, at an early date, for a seminar on municipal
budgeting, either instructed by his staff or qualified
outsiders, and issue invitations to Council and others in
our City government, mbo are interested, to attend. I am
confident that many would benefit greatly from this exper-
ience,
S/ Xm. $. Bubard
Member, Roanoke City Council"
Mr. Bubard moved that the communication be referred to 1972-73 budget
discussion. The motion was seconded by Mr, Thomas and unanimously
CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Hubard offered the followin9 Resolution pertainin9
I to the imposition of a moratorium on the employment of new personnel in the city
igovernment administration during the fiscal year 1972-73:
(~20339) A RESOLUTION imposing a moratorium on the e~ployment of new
!personnel in the city 9overnment aduinistration during Fiscal Year 1972-73.
(For full text of Resolution, see as recorded in Ordinance Book
u36, page 463.)
i Mr. Hubard moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was second-
!~,ed by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the
following
vote:
!i AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
![ Mebber .......................... T.
NAYS None' 0
iof the recipients under tbe old Police and Fire Pension Program up to a living
#JuDe 23, 1972
Roaoruble Bnyor and Members
of Roenohe City Couocil
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Ulth reference to the Police and Fire Pension Plan. I
would lik~ to request that Council appropriate $39.7?7.72
which would bring all of the recipients under the' old Police
and Fire Pension Program up to a living wonthly pension that
is only reasonable for these people, to receive.
In the past we have made several small attempts to make cer-
tain adjustments but this uould be the first time for bring-
ing all of the total recipients up to a fair and reasonable
monthly pension. This amount would be a decreasing expendi-
ture since many of the recipients are over 70 years of age.
The cost per month would amount to $3.314.81.
! am enclosing a detailed breakdown of all those indivi-
duals that will be covered under this plan to be kept in the
Clerk*s Office and recorded with the minutes of the meeting.
I would instruct the City Attorney to prepare the necessary
papers for the expenditure of this amount for the 1972-73
budget which would amount to
S/ David K. Lisk up
David K. Lisk"
Mr. LJsk moved that the matter be referred to 1972o73 budget study and
to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure amendlngthe City Code
to become effective as of July 1, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland
and unanimously adopted.
COMMITTEES: Mr. Lisk presented the following communication in connectiot
with procedural recommendations for the Council's appointment of committees'and
recommendations for restructuring and defining responsibilities of each of the
committees appointed by Council:
"Juno 22, 1972
To: The Honorable Roy L. lebber, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Re: Boards, Authorities. Commissions and Committees
Appointed by Roanoke City Council
Roanoke City Council has the privilege and responsibi-
lity to appoint approximately 31 permanent boards, autho-
rities, commissions, and committees and numerous other ad
hoc committees. Unfortunately, it has no written policy or
guideline governing the appointment, guidance, or accounta-
bility of such bodies.
It is suggested that it would be most beneficial for
Council to have such a policy or guideline statement. Such
statement should cover, among other things: (1) the size
of the appointed body. (2) its purpose and operational guide-
lines, (3) qualifications and requirements for membership, and
(4) method of appointment of members. Existing law may cover
numbers (1) and (2) for many bodies, or even number (3) for
some.
Currently. members on some such bodies appointed by Coun-
cil apparently have accepted such appointments merely for the
honor of membership and have very poor records of attendance
and/or contribution. An annual report of attendance, as a
segment of a report of activity, would be helpful in identify-
lng members who may not be making significant contributions
to the worh of such groups. Furthermore. it would be very
beneficial to have a number of these bodies meet with Council
ou au ouauol or biannual basis.
It is suggested that the City Attorney be reqnusted to
prepare, for Council*s consideration, an Ordinance setting
forth such u statement of policy or guidelines. It would
seem that such on Ordinance could be prepared within n month
and should be available for Couucll°s consideration at its
July 24, 1972, meeting, A draft of a statement of guidelines
-is attached as un aid to the City Attorney in preparing such
an Ordinance. Undoubtedly, the City Attorney will require the
assistance of tbe City Clerk in completing the necessary
schedules to these guidelines,
Rasher0 Roanoke City Council"
"STATEMENT OF POLICY
ON
APPOINTgENT$ BY ROANOKE C 1TV COUNCIL
TO
BOARDS, AUTHORITIES, COHM1SSIONS AND COMMITTEES
I. POLICY
lJth the ever-increasing scope of operations of the
Government of Roanoke City, it is obvious that the level and
quality of service by the city to its people cannot be of the
quality and quantity which is both expected and deserved by
the people without the active support of many of its quali-
fied and concerned citizens. One of the best ways of involving
such persons in the promotion of the best interests of the
City of Roanoke and its citizens is to invite them to share
some of the responsibilities and opportunities by serving on
one or more of the several boards, aathorities, commissions
and committees appointed by Roanoke City Council.
In order to obtain the best qualified and dedicated per-
son to serve on such bodies, it is eucumbent upon Council to
maintain a close relationship with them and to 9ire careful
and thoughtful consideration to advice and recommendations
coming to it from such bodies. There is no surer may to
destroy the effectiveness of such a body than to receive, file
with thanks, and neglect a recommendation from it.
II. COMHITTEE$
Council does hereby establish or re-establish such
permanent and ad hoc bosrds, authorites, commissions and
committees as are set forth in schedules attached hereto.
The permanent committees are identified as "Class I and lA
Committees," "Class II Committees," and "Class II1 Commit-
tees."
The membership, purpose, and terms of membership of
these bodies ,shall be as set out in these schedules, or as
from time to time ameoded by Council. The terms of all
members of ad hoc committees, or of permanent committees not
stated otherwise, shall expire on September I following the
appointment of such members. These schedules shall also set
forth any special requirements, by law or otherwise, which
are applicable to a particular body.
III. REPORTS
Each such permanent board, authority, commission or com-
mittee shall make a written report to Council, at least once
in each fiscal year of the City of Roanoke, in such form as
such body selects. However, such report shall include there-
in a report on the attendance of its membership at regular
or special meetings of such body for the 12-month period pre-
ceding the date of such report.
111 ad hoc committees shall make periodic report to
Council as to the progress of their assigned responsibilities.
IV. MEETINGS M1TH COL~ClL · ~ .
Each such permanent board, authority° commission, or
committee set forth in the attached schedule entitled
'Cltss I and IA Committees' shall meet with Council, in n
Joint session, ut least once in each fiscal year of the City
of Roanoke. Each such permanent board, authority, commission -
or committee set forth in the attached schedule entitled
· Class II Committeesb shall neet with Council, in a Joint
City of Roanohe. Schedule of these meetings will be attached
to this policy guide.
V. MEMBERSHIP
Appointments by Council to such boards, authorites, com-
missions and committees shall be based upon qualifications
acquired through experience, training and education, interest.
willingness to serve, and dedication to promoting the best
Interest of all persons in the city and the Roanoke Valley.
Membership shall not be restricted by race,' creed, color,
sex or religion; however, it will be intended to have a
munity., Rembership, except where required by law, shall not
be restricted to residents of the City of Roanoke. Unless
otherwise provided by law, or specified by Council, each such
body shall select its own chairman.
VI. METHOD OF APPOINTMENT
Members to such boards, authorities, commissions and
committees shall be made by nomination by the Mayor or a
member Of Council and election by Council upon on affirmative
vote by at least four members of Council. In making such a
nomination, it shall be stated that the nominee has been con.-
suited and is willing to serve if elected. An appointment to
a Class IA Committee shall be made only after the appointee
has been interviewed by Council.
VII. MEETINGS
Such bodies shall meet at such times and places os re-
quired by law or as they may determine. It shall be the duty
of the City Clerk to provide for the recording of the minutes
of any such body which meets in the City Hall during the time
when the City Clerk's Office is open, provided such body has
not otherwise arranged to have its minutes recorded.
VIII. REPEAL OF PREVIOUS RULES
All previous Ordinances, Resolution, or other actions
of Council relating to such boards, authorities, commissions
or committees which are inconsistent With the Policy herein
stated are hereby revoked.
July 10, 1972 Respectfully submitted.~
Mr. Lisk verbally advised that in compiling this information and setting
lup the proposed guidelines, it was not his intent to usurp the authority of any
lindividual on Council.
After a discussion'of the communication, Mr. Lisk moved that the matter
be referred to Council acting as a Committee of the Mhole for review. The motion
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Ltsk offered the folloming Resolution establishing
Monday. July 3, 1972, as a legal holiday for the current year only:
(~20340) A RESOLUTION establishing Monday, July 3, 19?2.'as a legal
holiday for the current year only.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Hook z36, page 484.)
.I
Mr. Llak moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion Mas seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the fokloulng vote:
AYES:' Ressrs. Garland, Eubard, Lish, Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber ...................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
Mr. kisk then offered the folloming Resolution changing the date of a
regular weekly meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke from July 3, 1972,
to July 5, 1972, at 2 p.m** in the Council Chamberx in the Municipal Building:
(m20341) A RESOLUTION changing the date of regular weekly meeting of
the Council of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book u36. page 4B4.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ...........O.
V1RGIN1A MUNICIPAL LEAGUE-LEGYSLATION: Mr. Trout offered the following
Resolution commeoding the Honorable Richard B. Poff and the other representatives
from Virgilna in the House of Representatives for their support before that body
of certain revenue-sharing legislation pending in the Congress and calling upon
the Senators from Virginia to support speedy enactment Of such legislation in the
United States Senate:
(#20342) A RESOLUTION comnendiog Congressman· Richard B. Poff and Other
representatives from V~rginia in the House of Representatives for their support
before that body of certain revenue-sharing legislation pending in the Congress,
and calling upon the Senators from Virginia to support speedy enactment of such
legislation in the United States Senate.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book u36, page 465.)
Mr. Trout moved t~e adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland. and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Nehher ......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
Mr. Thomas moved that the meeting be recessed until 7 p.m. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Ltsk and unanimously adopted.
At 8:15 p.m.. Council reconvened in the Executive Session Conference
Room, with Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Nilliam S. Hubard, David N. Lisk,
Noel C. Taylor, Hampton W. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Webber .... 7.
ABSENT: None .................................................. O.
OFFICERS PRESENT:
Clark, Assistant City Manager;
Gibson, City Auditor; and Mr. John N. Mitchell, Assistant City Auditor.
BUDGET~ The Cit~ Auditor submitted n certificate advising that in
accordance with paragraphs (h} and (i) of Sec. 25 of the Charter of the City of
Roanoke, 1952, he certifies that~funds required for the 1972-73 General Fund,
Water Fund, Sewage Treatment Fund and Civic Center Fund budgets are or mill be
available for appropriation**
Mr. Trout moved that the certificate be received and filed.. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: Council having previously discussed the salaries of
school teachers who are on a tmelve month pay basis, Mr. Thomas moved that Mayor
iWcbber be requested to discuss, mJth the Roanoke City School Board, the possibi-
lity of removing summer salaries from the 1972-73 budget, thereby reducing the
personal Services account of the budget of the Roanoke City School Board by
$1,000,000.00 and that mheu the July and August, 1973, payments are due, they
will hare to be appropriated out of the 1973-74 fiscal year budgeto The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-AIRPORT: With reference to the enplaning tax at Roanoke Munici-
~pal (Moodrum) Airport, Dr. Taylor moved that the Ordinance be amended to provide
that said tax apply to all commercial tickets. The motion mas seconded by Mr.
Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Dr. Taylor then offered the following emergency Ordinance, as amended,
establishing and fixing a sue and service charge for certain enplaning passengers
i!utilizing premises or facilities at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport, codifying
the provisions as Chapter 5.1 of Title VIII, of The Code of the City of Roanoke,
,~195h, as amended, and providing that the Ordinance take effect upon and after
September 1, 1972:
(#20343) AN ORDINANCE establishing and fixing a use and service charge
for certain enplaning passengers utilizin9 premises or facilities at Roanoke
IMunicipal (Woodrum) Airport; codifying the provisions hereof as Chapter 5.1 of
Title VIII, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 195b, as amended; providing for
lan emergency; and providing for the effective date of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see as recorded in Ordinance Book
#3b, page 485.)
Dr. Taylor mo~cd the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber 7.
NAYS: None O.
BUDGET-TRAFFIC-POLICE DEPARTMENT: Mr. Lisk offered the following
emergency Ordinance amending and reo'~dainiog Sec, 92. Duties of police officers
in r~gard to meters; penalty for unlawfui parking; payment; and Sec. 151, FeRal-
ties~ Chapter 1, Traffic Code, Title XVIII, of The Code Of the City of Roanoke,
1956,'as amended~ by increasing, in certain Instances. the penalties for violation
of pr~vi~io~s of said Ordinance and providing that said Ordinance be in full force
and effect u~on September 1, 1972:
(n20344) .AN ORDINANCE suending end reordaining Sec. 92, Duties 9~
eollce officers la renard to meters: oeasltv for nnlawful osrkinn: navm~t; nad
Sec. 151. Penalties, of Chapter 1, Traffic Code. Of Title XVIII, of the Code of
the City of Roanoke, 1956, ns amended, bi increasing, in certain instances, the
penalties for violation of provisions of said chapter; providing rot an emergency,
and providing for the effective date of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #36, page 4§0.).
BF. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was se~nded
i by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and R3yor
i Nebber .......................... 7,
NAYS: None ...........O.
BUDGET-TAXES: Nith reference to the admission tax, Rt. Garland moved
that the five per cent tax.be deleted and that a ten per cent tax be inserted.
Mr. Lisk offered a substitute motion that the five per cent tax be left
in the proposed Ordinance as written. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas
and adopted, Mr. Carload rotAn9 no.
Rr. Link then offered the following emergency Ordinance amending Title
VI. Taxation, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 19S6, as amended, by the addition
thereto of a new chapter, numbered 5.1, levying an admission tax on persons paying
an admission charge or who are admitted free when an admission charge is paid by
others to places of amusement or entertainment, defining admission charge and place
of amusement or entertainment, fJxin9 the amqunt of said tax, and providing that
said Ordinance take effect upon and after September 1, 1972:
(#20345) AN ORDINANCE amending Title Vl. Taxation, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the addition thereto of a new chapter, num-
bered $.1.. levying an admission tax on persons payin9 an admission charge or who
are admitted free when an admission charge is paid by others to places of amuse-
ment or entertainment, defining admission charge and place of amusement or enter-
tainment, fixing the amount of said tax, providing for the collection thereof,
prescribing penalties for its violation; providing for an emergency; and provid-
ing for the effective date of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u36, page 491.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Rt. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber .?.
NAYS: None O.
BUDGET-LICENSES-TAXES: Mr. Hubard offered the following emergency Ordi-
Inance amending and reordainJng subsection 1, Passenger motor vehicles for hire;
subsection 4, Private passenger motor vehicles, utc,, subsection 5. Trailers or
semitrailers designed for human use by human beings; and subsection 6, Motorcycles.
motor bikes and tFlmo~orcycles, Article IV, Licenses, Chapter 1, Traffic Code,
title X¥IIl, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, lgbb, os amended, providing for
certain increases in the city°s annual license fees to be levied on certain motor
'ehicles for the license year commencing May 1, 1973:
(#20346) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain subsection l,.Possenaer
imntoF vehicles for hire: subsection 4. Private nussenaer motor vehicles: etc. sub-
isection 5. Trailers or semitrailers d?sianed for human use by human beinos; and
subsection 6. Motorcycles, mgtoF b~kes and trimotorcvcles, of Article IV. Licenses,
Chapter 1. Traffic Code. Title XVIlI, Code of the City of Roanoke. lgbh, as amended
iprovJdJng for certain increases in the City*s annual license fees to be levied on
certain motor vehicles for the license year commencing May I, X973; and providing
ifoF an emorgency.
(For ful~ text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u36. page 496.)
Mr. Hubard moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber .........................
NAYS: None ........... O.
BUDGET-TAXES: Mr. Hubard offered the following Ordinance amendinR Title
¥1. Taxation. of The Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, by the addition
!of a new chapter thereto, numbered 12. imposing a service charge upon the owners
:of certain dwellings for police and fire protection and for the collection and dis-
posal of refuse.
The Ordinanca died for lack of a second.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the Ordinance be referred to Council acting as
a Committee of the Whole and to the City Manager for the purpose of working out
a different type of formula to be used in connection with said tax. The moLion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-HEALTH DEPARTMENT-GARBAGE REMOVAL: Mr. Thomas offered the fol-
ilowing emergency Ordinance amending Chapter 3. Sanitary Regulations. Title XIII,
Health, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the addition of a
~new section thereto, designated as Sec.. 5.2, which would provide for the collec-
tion of bulk. trash container units at any location and for certain charges in cer-
tain instances for such coils.calan and providln9 that the Ordinance be .in full
iforce and effect upon and after August 1, 1972:
(~20347) AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 3. Sanitary Reaulations, of Title
XIII, ~ealth, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, bythe addi~
tion of a new section thereto, designated Sec. 5.1, mhich would provide for the
collectionof hulk trash container units at any. location and for certain charges
!in certain instances for such collection; providing for an emergency; and providing
!'for the effective, date of this ordinance.
(Forfull text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book gsa, page 498.)
t
Hr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas second-
ed byMr. Garland and adopted by the f. Il,ming vote:
~¥ES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Nayor
Webber ...............................
NAYS: Mr. Hubnrd 1.
Mr. flubard advised that he would like to know more about what can be
done in revamping the whole system.
BUDGET-TAXES: Mr. Thomas moved that the City Auditor and the City
Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure providing for a five per cent
discount to taxpayers who pay their entire yearly real estate tax during the first
quarter of payment in any given year. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and
unanimously adopted.
At this point, Mayor Nebber declared the meeting recessed until ? p.m.,
Wednesday, June 20, 1972.
At 7 p,m,, Wednesday, June 28, 1972, Council reconvened in the Executive
Session Conference Room with Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, William S. Hubard, David K.
iLisk, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L.
[Webber ..............................?.
i ABSENT: None ............. O.
OFFIEERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. William F.
{Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; Mr. A..
Gibson, City Auditor; and Mr. John N. Mitchell, Assistant City Auditor.
BUDGET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Mr. M, Carl Andrews, Chairman of the Mill
Mountain Dpvelopnent Committee, appeared before Council and presented a communica-
tion from Ken Wilson Associates, Developer of Groundho9 Mountain, advising that it
is their collective opinion that a feasibility type study should he prepared as a
basis for serious negotiations and commitments to develop Mill Mountain, pointing
out that khis study, upon completion and contract fulfillment, would be. the pro-
perty of the City of Roanoke, Mr. Andrews advising that this tentative proposal
involves the city committing itself to $12,500.00 to provide funds for said feasi-
bility study and that it is the recommendation of the Mill Mountain Development
Committee that said feasibility study be undertaken, Mr. Andrews further pointing
out that Men Milson and Associates is on the verge of committing itself to invest-
lng on Mill Mountain if the economic study shoms development is justified.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that $12,500.00 be
included in the 1972-73 fiscal year budgetto provide funds for an economic
feasibility study of the potential of Mill Mountain and that the details of the
proposed study, be referred to the City Manager for study, report mud recommenda-
tion to Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: Judge Lawrence L.
K,,mtn of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court, appeared before Council and
advised that he has four Probation Officers who have worked at the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court for the last tun and one-half lears under n federal
Igrnnt fund sad requested that he be'gives permission to retain these employees.
After a discussion of the matter, Hr. Lish moved that Council concur.in
the request of Judge Koontz and that the four probation Officers be retained in
the budget of tho Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. The motion wos seconded
bi Hr. Garland and unanimousll adopted.
In a further discussion, Judge Noontz requested that Council include in
ilthe 1972-73 budget an assistant to the Clerk of the Juvenile and Domestic Relatlons~
!!Court and that tun additional Clerh-Tlpist positions and one Clerh-Stenographer
ipositioa also be provided for.
Hr. Link moved that Council concur in the request of Judge Koontz for
lan assistant to the Clerk of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court at Range
15 in the Pay plan, and for the establishment of tug Clerk-Typist I positions, at
Range O in the Pay plan. The motion was seconded by #r. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
Mr. Lisk further moved that the mecessary office equipment and automobile
allowances also be provided for. The notion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unani-
mously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: Council having previously discussed postponing appro-
priation of teachers salaries for the summer of 1973 until the 1973-74 fiscal
year budget, mhich would result in a one-time windfall of $1,000,000.00,
Samuel P. McNeil, Chairman of the Roanoke City School Board. and Mr. M. D. pack.
Assistant School Superintendent for Finances, appeared before Council and advised
that they are milling to cooperate in any way possible but questioned the legality
of sugnJng contracts uhen the money has not been appropriated by Council.
After a discussion as to the possible nam contracts promising ten months
of pay with the other two months depending on appropriation, Mayor #ebb~r requestedl
that Rr. McNeil contact the Attorney General to get a legal ruling on the matter
~ and that Mr. McNeil report back to Council at its special meeting on Friday. June
30, 1972.
Mr. Garland then moved that the matter be taken under consideration
liuntil Friday, June 30, 1972, at 2 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-TAXES-AUDITORIUM--COLISEUM: The City Manager advised that at a
~=later date he would like to review with Council how, and in what area, Council
llwould like. to review with Council how, and in what areas. Council would like to
ilappll the admission tax at the Roanoke Civic Center, advising that the tax can
!!bear on the total revenue at the Civic Center.
Mayor Webber then requested that the CitI Manager report to Council on
, how the admission tax will affect revenue at the Roanoke Civic Center, and, also,
i!hom said admission tax will be charged on season passes.
:!
II
BUDGET-SENAGE TREATMENT PLANT: Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in
the recommendatl~ of the City Manager for the establishment of a Laboratory
Technician in Range 14 Of the Pay Plan at the Sewage Treatment Plant. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bubord and nnanimonsly adopted. '
BUDGET-AIRPORT: Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommenda-
tion of the City Manager that the position of Assistant Airport Manager be raised
from Range 21 to Range 23, with a starting salary of $9,350.00. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-BUILDING DEPARTMENT: Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the
recommendation of the City Manager that the position of Clerk-Stenographer I in
the Department of Buildings be changed to Clerk-Typist I, thereby, causing a reduc-
tion from Range 10 to Range O, with a starting salary of $4,440.00. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Mr. Trout moved that $1,500.00 be
included in the 1972-73 budget for the J. B. Fishburn Memorial Plaque - Mill
Mountain Road. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
BUUGET-SERERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mr. Hubard moved that Council approve
the combination of Account No. 67, "Sewer Maintenance." and Account No. BO, "Se~er
Construction." The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT: Mr. Trout moved that $400.00 be included in
the 1972-73 budget for insurance cost of the Auxiliary police Organization. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUDLIC RELFARE: Mr. Lisk moved that Council
approve an additional 15 posit.ions for the Department Of Public [elate, at a total
cost of $101,784.00, with the local share being $20,355.D0. The motion #as second-
ed by Mr. Hubard and adopted, Messrs. Garland and Thomas voting no.
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in a
report of the City Manager in connection with evaluating personnel requirements
particularly as to grades and positions in the Civic Center budget for 1972-73.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-MARKET-PLANNING: Mr. Lisk moved that an account be established
within the Capital Fund for the Municipal parking Garage. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
- DUDGET-ASSESSOR OF REAL ESTATE: Mr. Charles S, McNulty, Real Estate
Assessor, appeared before Council and requested that an additional appraiser be
included in his 1972-73 budget, and made reference to the fact that his yearly
salary his been cut by
Mr. Bubard moved that Council approve the establishment of an additional
appraiser for the Real Estate Assessor's Office, at $9,360.00, plus necessary
office furniture and travel expense. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
82
BUDGET-CITY ATTORNEY'CITY EMPLOYEES-PAY PLAN: Mr~ James N. Kiaceuon,
City Attorney, appeared before Council and made reference to a commnfllcatiom
ten by him to the members of Council pa'training to an adjustment in the salaries
of his assistants.
Mr. Trout then moved that C~macil meet in Executive Session to discuss
the salaries of the unclassified employees of the City of Roanoke. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
After the Executive Session. Mr~ Trout offered the following emergency
Ordinance. fixing the annual compensationof certain unclassified officials and
employees of the City of Roanoke:
(a20349) AN ORDINANCE fixing the annual compensation of certain unclass-
ified officials and'employees of the City; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n36, page
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, ~isk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout'and Mayor
Webber ......................... 7.
NAYS: None ...........O.
Zn this connection, ~r. Lfsk moved that the City Manager be authorized to
set up a system of merit salary raises for persons employed in the city government
mbo are under the unclassified pay ranks and report his recommendations to Couu-
cil at a later date. The mbtion Mas Seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BI. GET-COUNCIL: Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution fixing the
date of a Special Meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke for June 30,
at 2 p.m., in the Council Chambers. for the purpose of consideringand adopting
the annual appropriation Ordinance for the Fiscal Year 1972-73 and revenue and
other Ordinauces incident thereto, and for such other matters ns may be brought
before Council:
(#20349) A RESOLUTION fixing the date of a Special Meeting of the Coun-
icil of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see O~dinaece Book n36. page SOl.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:'
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout, and Mayor
Mehber -?.
NAYS: None .......... O.
There being no further business. Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED
Mayor
I
COUNCIL, SPECIAL REETING,
Monday, June 2h, 1972.
oat that the garage will handle 14 to 15 cars entering per minute, that automatic
signals will indicate a full circuit or a full garage, that the garage can be
operated by two cashiers and a manager daring peak hours of the day. that a secu-
rity guard is needed in some cities, but each level is open to the street and
sound can be monitored in the elevators. Mr. Devlin further pointing out that the
garage could be set back from Church Avenue to provide for future widening qith
the upper floors extending over the sidewalk and that this would create an attrac-
tive arcade ~ith an interesting design for shops.
Mr. Milliam R. Rill, Executive Director. flomntown Roanoke. Incorporated,
appeared before Council and advised that Downtown Roanoke is very pleased with the
design and design alternatives and that they continue to be most interested in
how to proceed with the parking garage at the most rapid pace.
Mayor Mebber them asked the City Manager to brief Council on the pro-
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in special meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, June 2h, 1972, at ? p.m.', with Mayor
Roy L* Robber presiding.'
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Rllliam S. Nubard. David K.
Lisk, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton W. Thomas. James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L.
Mebber ................................. T.
ABSENT: None ................Oo
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Dirst, City Manager; Mr. Milliam F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Klncanon, City Attorney; and Mr. Au
Gibson, City Auditor.
MARKET-TRAFFIC-PLANNING: Mayor Rebber advised that the special meeting
of Council was called for the purpose of receiving formal report of representatives
of National Garages. Incorporated, and of considering alternate arrangements in
design and review of the proposed parking garage and for the purpose of taking suchI
action in the premises as Council may then be advised.
In this connection, Mr. Ceorg~ Oevlin, representing National Garages.
Zncorporated, appeared before Council and explained Phase II of the report, advis-
ing that the nine story garage is designed for a fifty to fifty ration for all day
parkers and for transient parkers, that the interior concept provides for 400 car?
on each circuit and will provide for only four and one-half complete turns through
the garage, recommending that the first floor be devoted to retail stores, pointing!
cedure to be followed from this point on.
The City Manager replied that the city is fast approaching the point
where the method by mhich the garage is to be handled becomes a matter of determi-.
nation and of ~hether to create an authority to own and operate the garage or to
retain city ownership with operation by a commission or city department.
After a discussion of the proposed plans, Mr, Llak moved that the matter
be referred to the Central Roanoke Development Foundation, a committee composed of
Messrs. John #. Chappelear, Jr., president, John M. Eure, Janes E. Jones, Arthur
T. Ellett* Robert L. Lynn, David K. Link, Mllllam $. Hubard, Noel C. Taylor. Julian
F. Hirst, and A. N. Gibson, for study, report and recommendatlonto Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.·
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
I
COUNCIL, SPECIAL MEETING,
Friday, Juno 30, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in special meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Friday, June 30, 1972, at 2 p.m.o math Mayor
Roy L. lebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Mllliam S. Bubasd, David K.
Lisk. Noel C. Taylor. Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L.
Mebber ................................. 7.
ABSENT: None ................ O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Ilirst, City Manager; Mr. Mllliam F.
[Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; Mr. H. Ben
~Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney; Mr. A. N. Gibson, City Auditor; and Mr.
,John N. Mitchell, Assistant City Auditor.
BUDGET: Mayor Mebber advised that the special meeting of Council was
icalled for the purpose of adopting the 1972-73 fiscal year budget of the City of
Roanoke.
BUDGET-AUDITORZUM-COLISEUM: Mr. Sam R. Craver, Operator, Grandin, Jeff-
ierson, and Lee Theaters. appeared before Council and requested that Council reconsid-
ier its action in connection with the enactment of an admissions tax.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: The City Attorney subnitted the following report in
connection with the question, "May a school board legally enter into a teacher's
!contract providing for an agreed amount of compensation to be paid the teacher
over a period overlappin9 two fiscal years, without there havin9 been appropriated
and made available to the School Boart at the time of the contract funds sufficient
to pay the full compensation due under the contract,* the City Attorney advising
ithat his answer to the question is now in the affirmative, provided Council give to
the School Board its formal consent to the execution of such teacher contracts:
"June 29, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Honorable Samuel p. McNeil, Chairman
Roanoke CitI School Board
P. O. Box 677
Roanoke. Virginia 24004
Gentlemen:
In connection mlth the Council's formulation and adoption of
a City Budget for Fiscal 1972-73, including sums to be appro-
priated thereunder for public school purposes, and, specifi-
cally, with regard to amounts needed to be appropriated by the
Council for the purpose of paying salaries to become due pub-
lic school teachers under contracts entered into between the
School Board and teachers mbo desire their salaries paid in
twelve monthly increments, you have, at the Council meeting
held last night, requested a formal opinion on what I would
understand to be the following question:
May a school hoard legally enter Into a teacher*s
contract providing for an agreed amount of compen-
sation Lo be paid the teacher over a period over-
lopping ama fiscal years, uithout there having been
appropriated and mode available to the School Board
at the time of the contract funds sufficient to pay
the full compensation due under the contract?
Hy ansber to thc question is now in the affirmative, provided
tbs City Council give to the School Board its forpal consent
to the execution of ouch teacher contracts.
Section 22-217.2 cf the Code of ¥1rgJnia requires that, ulth
certain minor exceptions, mritten contracts be made by the
S~hool Board mith all tehchers before the~ enter upon their '
duties, the contracts to be in form prescribed by the Superin-
tendent of Public Instruction. ~ectlon 22-57.2 of the Code
provides that School Boards ma~ ~dopt rules and reguiatio~s
for the payment of teacher contract salaries in equal monthly
installments not exceeding twelve, irrespective of the actual
contra~t mprk; no payment to be made, however, mhich mill
exceed the net unpaid earnings of the employee to the date of
each paymeot. It is apparent,'therefor~, that twelve month
teacher contracts have the effect of overlapping into two
fiscal years, since such twelv~ month contracts are made to
commence in August or September 9f each calendar year.
Section 22-120 of the Code of Virginia provides in part, as
follows:
'**~No county or city school board shall expend, or
contract to expend, in any fiscal year, any sum of
money in excess of the funds available for school
purposes for that fiscal y~ar, without the consent
of the tax levying ~ody. Any member of a county or
city School board, or any division superintendent,
or other school officer violating or causing to be
violated, or voting to violate, any provision of this
section shall be guilty of malfeasance in office and
shall be removed from office by the circuit court of
the county or corporation court of the citt. upon
proper proof of such violation." (underscoring
supplies.)
The mords "without ~he consent of the tax levying body~ are,
in my opinion, the key words in the aoswer of the abovestated
question.
I understand it to be the desire and millingness of both bod-
ies. the Council and the School Board. that there be included
in appropriations made in thc fiscal 72-?3 Budget for public
school purposes, an amount sufficient to pay all school employee
salaries as they become due under employment contracts made by
the School Board up to and including June 30. 1973, hut that
there not be included in the 72-73 Budget amounts which would
become due for school session as become due after June
1973, and continue for two months into the next fiscal year.
The Attorney General of Virginia, in an opinion rendered
December 7, 1970. upon somewhat similar facts stated, in part
as follows:
"l am of the opinion that a school boar~ may not
legally issue contracts to teachers unless suffi-
cient funds have been appropriated to meet such
contracts by the tax levying body or the tax levy-
in9 body has consented to such contracts.~
In my opinian0 the consent of the Council of the City of Roanohe,
it being the tax levying body referred to in the statute, to
the school Board's execution of teacher contracts which would
provide for payment of salaries to certain teachers beyond the
fiscal year embraced by the ?2-73 Budget mould clearl~ autho-
rize the execution of such contracts by the School Board and
meet all of the requirements of Section 22-120, abovenoted.
I have therefore, prepared a formal resolution of the Council
by which the Council may evidence its consent to the School
Board's execution of teacher contracts for the 1972-73 school
session providing for puynent of contruct salUFJes in equal.
monthly installments nat exceeding twelve nnd way evidence ils
intent to provide Jn lhe Clty*s 1973-74 appropriation ordl-
nunce a sum sufficient lo pay those salaries which nature for
payment under suid contrncts after June 30, 1973.
Respectfully,
S! J. N. Kincanon
J. N. Kincanou"
Hr. Thomas moved that the report of the City Attorney he received and
filed. The motion was Seconded b? Mr. Trout and nnanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas then offered the following Resolution consenting to the
execution by the School Board of the City of Roanoke of certain contracts with
teachers for the 1972-73 school session providing for payment of their salaries
in not exceeding twelve monthly installments, irrespective of the actual contract
work period and stating the intent of Council to provide in the 1973-74 appropria-
tion ordinance of the city an amount not exceeding $1.000.000.00. with uhich to
make payment of such salaries that become due for payment after June 30. lg73:
(#20350) A RESOLUTION consentin9 to the execution by the School Board
Of the City of Roanoke of certain contracts with teachers for the 1972-73 school
session providing for payment of.their salaries in not exceeding twelve monthly
installments, irrespective of the actual contract work period; and stating the
intent of the Council to provide in the 1973-74 appropriation ordinance of the City
an amount not exceeding $1,000,000, with which to make payment of such salaries
that become due for payment after June 30, 1973.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book u37, page 1.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by tho following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ....................... 7.
NAYS: None ......... O.
In this connection Mr. Samuel p. McNeil, Chairman of the Roanoke City
School Board, appeared before Council and advised that the School Board is delight~
ed that Council has been able to work out this problem and that the School Board
will cooperate in any way possible.
Mr. Thomas moved that the 1972-73 budget of the Roanoke City School
Board be reduced, in the appropriate category, by $1.000,000.00. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted..
Mr. Trout then moved that $1,000,000.00 be transferred out of the sur-
plus account to the General Fund. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unani-
mously adopted.
BUDGET-TAXES: Mr. Trout called to the attention of Council the possibi-
lity of increasing the cigarette tax from two cents per pack to five cents per pack
Mr. Garland advised that he would not be in support 0£ such a tax unless
all the valley governments go along with it.
Mr. Garland then moved that the Mayor appoint u representative to call
Roanoke County to oscert~n what their position mould be on such a tax. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted .
Mayor Webber then requested that Mr. Garland contact Mr. J. Thomas
Engleby, Ill, Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, to ascertain
what the position of Roanoke County mould be toward such u tax,
BUDGET-MUNICIPAL COURT-PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC
RELATIONS COURT: Mr, Thomas moved that the question of increasing the salary of
the Clerk of the Municipal Court be taken under advisement until such time as
Council can explore the possibility of a combination Clerk to serve both the Muni-
cipal Court and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court with adequate deputies
to handle the morkload, The motion mas seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
Mr. Thomas then moved that the City Manager be requested to include the
matter in his study of a system of merit salary valses for persons employed in
the city government under the unclassified pay ranks. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-UOMMISSIO~ER OF THE R£¥ENUK: Rro Lisk moved that Council rein-
state $1.360.00 in the budget of the Commissioner of the Revenue to he used for
postage. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-~IT¥ TREASURER: Dr. Taylor moved that $1RO.O0 he added to the
Travel account of the City Treasurer, The motion was seconded by Mr. Rubard and
unanimously.adopted,
BUDGET~ CLERK OF THE COURTS-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Thomas moved that Coun-
cil concur in the request of the Clerk of the Courts that an additional Clerk and
Court Reporter be reinstated in his 1972-73 budget, at an annual salary of $6,150,
and that necessary equipment in the amount Of $3R0,00 also be included. ¥he motion
was seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SHERIFF-CITY EMPLOYEES: . Mr, Trout. moved that Council approve the
employment of an additional deputy in the office of the Sheriff, said employee
having already been approved by the State Compensation Board, at an annual salary
of $b,432.00, The motion was seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously adopted,
BUDGET-AIRPORT: Mr, Thomas moved that $300,000,00 be appropriated to
Airport Capital Improvements to be offset by anticipated revenue of an equal
amount from the airport boarding tax.. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES-COUNCIL: . Mr, Trout moved that the City
Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure discharging the Council's
Salary Committee as heretofore established and constituting the Mayor and Members
of Council as a Committee of the Mhole to consider and recommend the annual
salaries of the unclassified personnel, The motion was seconded by Mr, Thomas
and unanimously adopted,
l
BUDGET-PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Lisk offered the following emergency
Ordinance adopting nad providing a new system of pay rates nnd ranges for the
employees of the City of Roanoke effective July 1, 1972:
(n20351) AN ORDINANCE to adopt and provide a new System of Pay Rates
and Ranges for the employees of the City of Roanoke effective July l, 1972; and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~37, page 2.)
Mr. Llsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout. and Mayor
Mebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ...........O.
BUDGET-TAXES: Council having previously referred a proposed Ordinance
relating to a service charge on certain tax-exempt properties to Council acting
as a Committee of the lhole and to the City Manager for the purpose of working
out n different type of formula to be used in connection with said charge, Mr.
Hubard offered the following Resolution establishing a "FAIR SHARE," guideline
for tax-exempt real estate for contribution to support the services of the City
of Roanoke. The proposed Resolution nas seconded by Mr, Lisk.
'A RESOLUTION establishing a 'FAIRSHARE' guideline for tax-
exempt real estate for contributions to support the services
of the City of Roanoke.
lfHEREAS, the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia provide
to certain owners of real estate located in the City of Roanoke
complete or pnrtial exemption from real estate taxes; and
I~HEREAS, the City of Roanoke provides substantial and
valuable services to the owners of all such tax-exempt real
share' toward the cost of such services, but' there currently
does not exist any guideline for such contributions.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
(a) that it' establishes as a 'fair share' contribution for
ered by the City of Roanoke to such real estate, an amount equal
(1) the actual pro rata cost of providing police
(2) 40~ of the real estate tax which the City of
Roanoke would levy against that real estate if
the City of Roanoke on such real estate; and
(b) that the Real Estate Tax Assessor maintain in his office
a record of such *fair share' suggested contributions for the
wish to make voluntary contributions to the City of Roanoke; and
(c) that the Commissioner of Revenue be requested to nail
"90
Mr. Thomas expressed the op'inlon that before such a Resolution is offi-
cially adopted by Council, more exploratory u,th should be done and offered a
substitute motion that the ordinsnce prepared by the city Attorney in connection
with amending Title VI, Taxation, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 195&, as
amended, by the addition of a new chapter thereto, numbered 12. imposing a service
charge upon the *mn*rs of certain dwellings for police mid fire protection and for
the collecti~n and disposal of refuse, and the Resolution prepared by Mr. Hubard
establishing a "FAIR SHARE" guideline for tax-exempt real estate for csntributious
to support the services of the City of Roanoke be referred to the Revenue Study
Commission, a commission composed of Messrs. James E. Cart,' Chairman, Lacy M,
Hanson. M, Vernon Hicks. percy T, Keeling, James R. Sprinkle, A. N. Gibson and
J. S. Homard, Jr., for study, report and recommendation to Council as early as is
convenient. The n,rio* mas seconded by Mr, Garland and adopted, Mr. Hubard voting
no,
BUDGET-COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr, Hubard moved
that the City Auditor, the City Treasurer and the Commissioner of the Revenue
be requested to work together in an effort to impose a better system of assessing
for taxes on automobiles and in their system of selling city decals, The ~otlon
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: Mr.
Hubard recommended that the budgetary approprintioh of $440,000°00 for the remo-
deling of the former Reid 5 Cutshall Building be removed from the 1972-73 fiscal
year budget, advising that Council has appointed committees to study the feasi-
bility.of n regional courthouse and a regional jail, that until these committees
ihave reported to Council on the feasibility and location of such regional faci-
lities, he believes that it mould be a gross misapplication of taxpayers funds to
spend approximately $??H,O00.O0 on the remodeling of several old buildings without
regard to any overall'plan for city courthouse and jail facilities.
Mr. Hubard then moved that the budget item of $440,000.00 be transferred
from the Reid and Cutshall remodeling account to sewer and sanitary.drain construc-
tion account.
The motion failed for lack of a second,
Mayor Rebber advised that Council has a moral obligation to put the
police Department and the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court in the old Reid and
Cutshall Building and that he is mot in favor of any change in arrangements.
BUDGET-TAXES: Mr, Bubard offered the following emorgency Ordinance
amending Chapter 1. Current Taxes, Title VI, Taxation of The code of the City of
Roanoke, 195b, as amended, by the addition of one new section thereto, providing
certain tax relief for certain elderly persons, upon certain terms and conditions,
repealing Ordinance No. 16225. adopted January 25, 1965, relating to tax credits
on realty owned by certain elderly persons and providing for the effective date of
the Ordinance:
(a20352) AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 1. Current Taxes, Title VI.
~UxstJon. of the cede of the City of Roanohe, 1956, as amended, by the addition
of one (1) new section thereto, providing certain tax relief for certain elderly
ipersons, upon certain terms and conditions; repealing Ordinance No. 16225,
adopted January 25, 1965. relating to tax credits, on realty ouned by certain elder-
ly persons; providing for an emergency; and providing for the effective date of
this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see ordinance Book #3?, page fl.)
Rt. Nubard moved the adoption of the ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the follouin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Ilnbard. Link, Taylor. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
!Webber .........................
~ NAYS: None ...........O.
i BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT-PENSIONS: Mr. Link moved that
i the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure amending The Code of
the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, which would bring all of the recipients
under the old police and Fire Pension Program up to a living monthly pension that
is only reasonable for these people to receive and that $39.??T.T2 be included in
the 1972-73 fiscal year budget for this purpose. The motion ~as seconded by Mr.
Trout and unanimously-adopted.
BUDGET-AUDITORIUM-COLISEUH: Mr. Thomas offered the following emergency
Ordinance making appropriations from the civic Center Fund of the City of Roanoke
for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1972, and ending June 30, 1973:
(~20353) AN ORDINANCE making appropriations from the Civic Center Fund
of the City of Roanoke for the fiscal year beginning July ~ 1972. and ending
June 30, 1973; and declaring the existence of an emergency.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~37, page 10o)
Mr..Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Dubard, Link. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber ...................... 7.
NATS: None .......... O.
BUDGET-WATER DEPARTMENT: Mr. Thomas offered the following emergency
Ordinance making app[opriations from the Mater General Fund and the Rater Replace-
ment ReServe Fund for the city of Roanoke for the fiscal year beginning July
1972, and ending June 30, 1973:
(~20354) 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, 1972, and ending June 30. 1973; and declaring the existence of
an emergency..
(For full text of Ordinance, see 0rd/nanceBook ~37, page 13.)
Mr. Thomas muved the ~doptJon of the ordinance. The motion was seconded
by #r, Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: #essrs. Garland, flubard, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
liehber ......... ? .............7.
I NAYS: Nome ..........O,
I BUDGET-SE#ERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mr, Garland offered the following
[iemergency Ordinance making appropriations from the Sewage Treatment General Fund
land the sewagp Treatmpnt Replacement Reserve Fund for the City of Roanoke for the
ifiscal year beginning July. l, 1972, and ending June 30, 1973:
(m20355) AN ORDINANCE making appropriations from the Sewage Treatment
irGeneral Fund and the Sewage Treatment Replacement Reserve Fpnd for the City of
!Roanoke for the fiscal year beginning July 1. 197~, and ending June 30, 1973; and
ideclarin9 the existence of an emergency.
(For ful~ text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook ~37, page
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded!
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Ilubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
webber ............. T ............ 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING: Mr. Garland moved that.$25.O~O.O0 be included in
the 1972-73 fiscal year budget to cover t~e cost of the relocation of the private
iburglar alarm equipment. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted, Mr,
LiSk voting no.
BUDGET-HEALTH DEPARTMENT-GARBAGE REMOVAL: Mr. Garland moved that Coun-
cil defer action on the question of appropriating funds for the continuing pro-
gram for the clean up of the Roanoke River hanks us requested by the Southeast
!Civic League.until certain matters with regard to the recent flood have been taken
care of. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted,.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: Mr. Lisk moved that the question of appropriating
$bO,O00.O0 to convert from coal to oil in heating certain s~hool buildings be
ireferred back to the Roanoke City School floard fo~ further consideration. The
imotion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously pdopted.
BUDGET-LIBRARIES: Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request
:of the City Manager to increase Section 264. "Maintenance of City property,- by
;875.00 to cover painting the Roanoke public Library Auditorium ceilin9 as
!requested by the Roanoke Fine Arts Center. The nation was,seconded by Nr. Hubard
land unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-PARES AND PLAYGROUNDS: Dr. Taylor moved that $9,980.00 be
included in the 1972-73 budget to provide funds for certain improvements to Kennedy
!park. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted..
BUD~ET-TAXE~: Earlier in the meeting, Mayor Nebber appointed Mr. Garland
las a representative of the CitI of Roanoke to contact Mr. J. Thomas Engleby. III.
Chairman of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, to nscertain mbat the posi-
tion of Roanoke County would be toward a five cents cigarette tax, Mr. Garland
pointed out that Mr. £ngleby advised him that Roanoke County would be Interested
in such a tax, however, it would take thew until approximately October I to work
nut some type of mechanical detail.
Mr. Garland then offered the following emergency Ordinance increasing
the tax on c.igarettea' to five cents per pack in the City of Roanoke, effective
October 1o 1972:
(uR0356) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordalning Sec. R. Kate. o~ Chapter
6. ~i~arette Tax. of Title VI, ~axotion, of the code of the City of Roanoke, 1956,
us amended, increasing the rate of tax imposed upon each and every sale of cigaret-
tes within the City; providing for an emerRency; and providing for the effective
date of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see ordinance Book =3?, page IT,}
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Rt. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Bubard, LJsk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout, and Mayor
Webber .......................... ?.
NAYS: None ..........O.
BUDGET-GARBAGE REMOVAL: Mr. Garland moved that $10,000.00 be included
in the 1972-T3 budget for the bulk refuse site in the Mill Mountain Area in order
to commence developing the site into a park area and improving the roadway access
off Riverlaud Road, S. E. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
BUOGET-JUYENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURt: Mr. Bubard moved that
$350.00be included in the 1972-73 budget for the purchase of a lannmomer to be
used by the Juvenile Detention Home. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and
unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: RF. Thomas moved that $250.00 be in-
cluded in the 1972-73 budget for the purchase of one manual typewriter to be used
at the Sewage Treatment plant. The motion nas seconded by Mr. Hubard and unani~
mously adopted.
BUDGET=~ITY MANAGER-SCHOOLS: Mr. Garland moved that the City Manager
be directed to red~ce his 19T2-7~ fiscal year budget by $250,000.00 and that the
Roanoke City School Board also be requested to reduce its 1972-73 fiscal ~r
budget by $250,000.00. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor Rebber ....
NAYS: messrs. Hubard and Llsk
Mr. Trout moved that the City Auditor be authorized to increase certain
accounts to offset the $10,000.00 leeway. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk
and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout then offered the follouing emergency ordinance making appro-
priations from the General Fund of the City of Roanoke for the fiscal year begin-
ning July 1, 1972, and ending June 30. 1973:
(u20357) AN ORDINANCE making appropriations'from the General Fund of
City of Roanoke for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1972, and ending June 30,
19731 nod declaring the existence of an emergency,
(FaF full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Gook La?t page
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Garland end adopted by the follouln9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor. Thomas. Trout and aay~or Mebber .... 5.
NAYS: Messrs. Dubard and Lisk ....~ ............................... 2.
BUDGET°CITY EMPLOYEES-PAY PLAN-COt~CIL: Mr. Lisk offered the folloming
Resolution discharging the council's Salary Committee as heretofore established
and constituting the Mayor and Members of Council a Committee of the whole to
coosider and recommend the annual salaries of the unclassified personnel of the
City of Roanoke:
(#20356) A RESOLIiTION discharging the Council*s Salary Committee as
heretofore established and constituting the Mayorand ~embers of the City Council
a committee of the mho]e to consider and recommend the annual salaries of the
city's unclassified personnel.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book u3?, page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber ~ ?
NAYS: None ................................... ~ ............... O.
i There being no further business, Mayor webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
· ~ APP-ROVED
ATTEST:
Deputy city Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, BEGULAB MEETING,
~ednesdsy, July S, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
ichamber In the Municipal Bufldin9, Mednesday, Jul), 5. 1972. at 2 p.m** with Mayor
troy L, tfebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland. tfilllam S. tlubard. David K. Lisk.
Bampton W. Thomas. James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. t~ebber ....
ABSENT: Councilman Noel C. Taylor ............... 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Ilirst, City Manager; Mr. James N.
Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Councilman Robert
IA. Garland.
IlEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
CITY EMPLOYEES~MUNICIPAL COURT: A communication from Judge Beverly T-
Fitzpatrick. Ch~if Judge of tko Municipal Court, requesting that the moratorium on
~eplacement of employees be lifted so that he may employ a replacement for one of
his assistant clerk,s Mrs. Frances Smiley, ~ho. under the City Code. must retire
On July 13. 1972, was before Council.
In u discussion, tlr. Huburd advised that as far as he is concerned the
intent o[ the moratorium was that it would apply only to those positions under the
Jurisdiction of the City Manager.
Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that his interpretation of the moratorium
~as that it would apply to the entire city administration and that all requests
{enid be referred to the City Manager for study, report and recommendation to Coun-
ci 1.
Mr. Thomas then moved that the request of Judge Fitzpatrick be referred
to the City Manager for Study, report and recommendation by the next regular meet-
:
i~g of the body on Monday, July 10, 1972. ~he motion ~as seconded by Mr. Hubard
and unanimously adopted.
TAXES: A communication from MrS. Virginia Dusk, 1553 Abbott Street, N.
e?pressing her Opposition to an increase in the real estate tax and requesting that
C~uncil not pass such a tax. mas before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-CITY TREASURER: Copy of a communication from
the State Compensation Board, addressed to Mr. Jo B. Johnson, City Treasurer, advia-
in~t that the Compensation Board has approved the promotion of tits. May S. van Clear
to succeed Mrs. Helen C. Ninlnger, retired, at an annual rate of $f),200.O0, effective
July 1, 1972, was before Council.
Mr, Thomas moved that the communlcution be referred to the City Manager
for study~ report and recommendation to Council, The motion was seconded by Mr,
iGarland and unanimously adopted,
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
HEALtH'DEPARTMENT-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: The City Manager sub-
'mitred the folloming report recoemending that the City of Roanoke enter into agree-
!merit with Tomers Hospital in Charlottesville, virginia, for the provision.of ser-
Ivices under the StatS-Local Hospitalization plan to provide hospitalization and
treatment of indigen~ or medically indigent persons, at the rate of $54.50 per
~ntient day. and SO.O0 per visit for out ~atient and/or emergency room Service,
ifor the period from March 1, 1972 - December 3'1. '1972:
'Jul~ 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and city Council
Roanoke, VirRinia
Gentlemen:
Subject: State - Local Hospitalization Contract
Doctor Fagan, Health Director, has recommended that the
City of Roanoke enter into an agreement with the Tomers
Hospital in charlottesville, Virginia, for the provision of
services under the State-Local Hospitalization plan to provide
hospitalization and treatment of indigent or medlcally indigent
persons. This is the standard form agreement which the City
has with number of other hospitals and involves the addition
of the facilities of this particular facility. The per patient
day rate is $54.50 and the outpatient and/or 'emergency room ser-
vice is at $8.00 per visit. These rates and fees are consistent
with our other hospital agreements. The term would be from
March 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972. It does not involve any
retroactive patient care.
It is recommended that the City Council by appropriate
resolution authorize the entering into of an agreement with
this facility.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F- Hirst
Julian F. Dirst
City Manager-
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
(#20359) AN ORDINANCE authorizing a contract to be entered into with
Towers Hospital, in charlottesville, Virginia, relating to hospitalization and
treatment of indigent or medically indigent patients; fixing the rates to bo paid
said hospital for such services us are provided; and providing for an emergency.
(For ~ull text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book · 37, page. 41.)
Mr. Thomas moved the ado;tion of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
~y Hr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
E AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
!iMebber .... -~ ...... ~ ..........
NAYS:' None ..........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUm: The City Manager submitted the following report
In connection mith payment on the Roanoke civic Center. advising that on June 21,
1972, there nas issued for the city and delivered throuth the City Attorney's
toffice a capital fund warrant to Nello L. Teer Company for final payment of the
Roanoke CIvic Center, in the amount of $363,953,1~, advJsin9 that considerable
credit is due to the City Attorney's office for the amount of time and mork that was
involved in negotiations with the Company in bringing about final payment and to
Mr. John W- chappelear, Jr** project Director, and his associates in Associated
Architects and Engineers of Roanoke:
"July 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: civic Center
This is to advise that on June 21. 1972, there was issued
for the city and delivered through the City Attoruey*s office
a capital fund warrant to Nello L. Tear Company in final pay-
ment of the Roanoke Civic Center construction contract. The
fianl payment mas in the amount of
of summary information, the original contract sum for the
project was $11,075,000. There were 11 change orders issued
during the course of construction and up to the final settle-
ment. These represented additions to the contract of $flg,B48.86
and deductions from the contract totalling $102,912.43.
The total value of work completed by the contractor,
including the final payment was $11,061,936.431 From this
amount and from the final payment the City deducted $D2,000 fo'r
delay in completion of the work, for liquidated damages, making
the total gross payments to the contractor of '$10,979,93b.43.
Special credit is due to the city Attorney*soffice for
the very considerable amount of time and work that mas involved
in negotiations with the Company in bringing about the final
payment. The Company accepted the final payment with the con-
dition that such mould not be construed to prejudice certain
claims which the Company had previously made. credit is also
due to Mr. 3ohn R. Chsppelear, Jr., project Director, and his'
associates in Associated Architects and Engineers of Roanoke,
for their extensive work in bringin9 about a completion of
the facility and in assisting in resolving this final payment.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. H,rst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
:seconded by Rr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted a written report recbmmendiug that
iCounci! authorize him to eater into lease with the Federal Aviation Administration
ifor an additional 145 square feet in Building No. ! at the Roaoohe Municipal
i(Moodrum), Airport, in the amount of $3.$4 per square foot, t~ be used by the FAA's
!Assistant Sector Manager's Office.
Mr. Trout moved that Councl! concur in the recommendation of the City
iRauager and that the fo!loming ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(a20360) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for execution of a sup-
plemental agreement to the City's lease agreement dated August 26, 19690 mlth the
united States Government, Federal Aviation Administration. providing for the leas-
ing of additional space in Ruilding al at Roanoke Municipal Airport, in Roanoke
MHEREAS. by ordinance No. 18778. adopted July 7. 1969, the Council auth-
!orfzed the execution of a lease of certain space at the Roanoke Municipal Airport
ito the Federal Aviation Administration; and
IHEREAS. the Federal Aviation Administration has requested that the city
!lease to ti by supplemental agreement made to said lease, certain ~dditlonal space
in Building #1 at the Roanoke RunlcJpal Airport. upon certain terms and conditions,i
in mhich request, the council concurs; and
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
offer of the united States Government, Federal Aviation Administration. to lease
145 additional square feet. knomn as ROOm lOB, at the Roanoke Municipal Airport.
at the rate of $3.54 per square foot be. and the same is hereby ACCEPTED; and the
City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized and directed to execute and to
seal and attest, respectively, on behalf of the City. a supplemental agreement to
said lease agreement dated August 26, 1969, said supplemental agreement to amend
said lease in the follomin9 respects and in these, only, viz:
1. Effective as of September 1. 1971. paragraphs 1, 3 and 9, of said
lease dated August 26, lqGg, are deleted and the follomin9 substituted therefore:
1. The city hereby leases to the Government the following described
premises:
Approximately 319 square feet of floor space located in 'Airport Building
No. 1, Roanoke Municlpal Airport, Roanoke, yirginia, described as
follows:
Room 209 containing approximately 174 square feet of floor space to
be used aa the Federal Aviation Administration*s FSS Ready ~ Trainln9
ROOm. Room No. 108, containing approximately 145 sqhare feet of floor
space, to be used for the Federal Aviation Administratlbn's Assistant
sector Manager's office.
3. The Government shall pay the city annual rent of $061.30 at the rate
i of STI.?O per month retroactive in effect to september 1, 1971.
: 9. This lease may, at the option of the Government, be renewed from year
ii to year at an annual rental of $861.30 and othermise upon the terms and
~ conditions herein specified. The Government's option shall be deemed
exercised and the lease renewed each yea~ for one year unless the Govern-
meat 9ives 30 days notice that it will not exercise its option, before
this lease or any renewal thereof expires; PRO¥1DED. that no reuemaI
thereof shall extend the period of occupancy of the premises beyond the
30th day of June. 1979; and PROVIDED FURTHER. that adequate appropria-
tions are available from year to year for the payment of rentals.
2. All other terns nad conditiona of Lense No. DOY-FATOEA-5261 are
hereby rntified and, except ns herelnabove nmended, shrill be end remnin the snme.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. LJSh and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Hessrs. Garland, Hubard. LJsk. Thomas. Trout and Mayo~
webber ........................ 6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
In this connection, Mayor lebber advised that he is appointing Mr.
David K. Lisk as n member of the Airport Advisory Commission to fill a vacancy
on said Commission created by the death of Mr. Francis X- Carroll.
Mayor Mebber further advised that he is appointing Mr. James O. Trout
aa chairman of the Airport Advisory Commission and that he would like to retain
the services of Mr. vincent S. Mheeler as a member of said Commission.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PRODRAM-ML~ICIPAL BUILDING: The City Manager sub-
mitted the following report in connection with the employment of Hayes. Seay.
Mattern ~ Mattern, Architects and Engineers, for remodeling of the Courthouse
Building, said contract not to exceed the gross sum of $190,Ouu,O0 without prior
approval of Council expressed by Ordinance or Resolution.
*July 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City.Council
Roanoke, virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Courthouse Building Renovation
City Council has previously authorized and directed that
consultants proceed mith plans and specifications for pro-
posed remodeling to the City courthouse building. This work
has been proceeding and 9oDd pr.grams is being made.
Negotiations have been had with the consultants, Hayes.
Seay, Mattern and Mattern, to formalize a contract for necessary
engineering and architectural services. There is herewith
forwarded for Council's consideration a proposed agreement fol-
lowing the standard form used by the American Institute of
Architects. The basic provisions of this contract provide
for the architectural and engineering services to be accom-
plished based upon a multiplier times the firmOa expenses
related to the preparation of plans and specifications. It is
difficult to estimate or determine the dollar value of the
architectural services. This will depend upon the renovation--
construction contract. That in turn will have been previously
related to the final decisions of the City council as to the
scope Of the project before it is suet out for bids. Thus the
amount to the architects--engineers could vary over a consid-
erable rangein final cost. In order to cover at this time
against,what must be the absolute maximum, we are makin9
allowance for a range between $175.000 and $200.000 and pro-
viding in the attached ordinance the amount of $190,000.
The City Attorney has prepared an ordinance whereby Coun-
cil could authorile the execution,of this agreement. If there
are further questions concerning this matter, we would be
pleased to discussthem with council.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian g. Hirst
City Manager*
Ina discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that
Hayes, seay, Mattern ~ Mnttern, have been employed by the City of Roanoke since
1967 and have been working uithont any guidance from council ns to which way the
city is going to proceed regarding the Reid and Cutshali Building and the Court-
house Building, that council has failed to look at the matter of mhere it Js
going with regard to the Jail and courthouse in a realistic manner and that once
and for all Council should sit domn with the affected parties and decide mhat Jt
is going to do with the facilities in relationship to the amount of monies avail-
able.
Mr. Bubard expressed the opinion that Council should reguest the Regional
Jail Study Committee of the Fifth planning District Commission and the Regional
courthouse Study Committee to submit their recommendations to Council before
~makin9 any further decisions on the matter.
Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that Council should defer action on the
~matter until something is clearly defined as to the direction which is to be
Mr. Lisk then moved that the matter be deferred until the regular meet-
::in9 of council on Monday. July 17, 1972, and teat in the meantime ~ayor webber be
i~requested to call a meeting of Council acting ~ a Committee of the Whole to dis-
i Mayor webber expressed the opinion a
that
Council
has
obligation
!ire the police Department and to the Juvenile and Domestic Relations COUrt to relo-
i!cate them in the old Reid and Curshall Building.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the fol-
iDepartment as of May 31. 1972:
'July 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: personnel Changes - police and Fire Departments
Listed below is the status of the police and the Fire De-
partment as of May 31, 1972:
"police.Department ~ired 8esi~ned
Robert R* Rimmer, police officer May 8, 1972
Nancy Ann wilmer, clerk-Stenoo July 12, 1971 May 12, 1972
Debra Smith Arthur, clerk-steno. May 22, 1972
Lilburn C- ollie, Airport police May 22, 1972
Benjamin L. Carr, police officer April 19. 1971 May 16, 1972
Milton M. Smith. Jr., police officer April 25. lgbO May 30. 1972
Roy Lewis Riggs, police officer May 30, 1972
*Ending May 31, 1972 - (11) vacancies.'
*Fire Department
S. D. Anderson May 1, 1972
M- M- Hanks May 1, 1972
C. E. Guthrie, Jr. May 1, 1972
g. M. Mlllismso III Hay 5, 1972
D. L. Deck May O, 19T2
G. N. Smanson Ms? 1§, 1972
F. H. Adams May 22, 1972
*There are no vacancies at this time**
gespectfull? submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager"
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
Mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ANN£XATION-CONSOLIDATION: The City Attorney submitted the following
report advising of the filing in the Supreme Court of Virginia of the City of
Roanoke*s petition for appeal of the Final Order of Annexation entered February
29, 1972:
"July 5, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, virginia
Re: Appeal of Final order of Annexation
Gentlemen:
please be advised of the timely filing in the Supreme Court
of Virginia of the City of Rounoke*s petition for appeal of
the Final order of Annexation entered February 29, 1972,
notice of appeal having heretofore been filed as authorized
by the Council.
Similar petitions for appeal to the Final Order have also
been filed in the Supreme Court of virginia on behalf of
the City of Salem and by the petitioners involved in the
Mindsor Hills and in the Municipal Airport area cases.
Respectfully,
S/ J* N. Kincanon
J. N- Kinca~on"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT'CITY EMPLOYEES-PENSIONS-
INSURANCE: Council having previously requested the city Auditor to furnish them
:with a cost breakdown in connection with allowing the minimum service retirement
age for all municipal employees to be at age 55 or the date prior thereto when an
employee completes 25 years of service, the City Auditor submitted the following
report transmitting copy of a study from George B, Buck Consulting Actuaries con-
cerning the matter and a computation of the cost of changing the Employees* Retire-
ment System to a non-contributory system which is to say that the city would bear
the total cost of the retirement system:
101
.o2
'July 5, 1972
Honorable Hayor and City council
Roanoke. virgin
Gentlemen:
At its meeting of Ha~ 22, 1972, the council requested the
City Auditor to furnish Council with a cost breakdown in con-
nection with allowing the minimum service retirement uge for
all municipal employees to be at age 55 or the date prior there-
to when an employee completes 25 years of service as a member
of the Employees* Retirement System of the city of Roanoke.
I contacted the George H. Buck Consulting Actuaries,
actuary for the Employees* Retirement System, and requested
that a study be made to determine the additional contribu-
tions that mould be required if any or all provisions of
the study were instituted by the city of Roanoke. I am
attaching a copy of this study.
tJune 22, 1972
Mr. A. N* Gibson, City Auditor
Employees' Retirement System of the
city of Roanoke
P. O. Box 2865, Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mr. Gibson:
la accordance with your request, we made special
calculations to determine the additional contribu-
tions required of the City to provide certain im-
provements in the benefit and contribution provisions
of the Roanoke Retirement System.
our calculations were based on the data submitted to
uS for the regular annual actuarial valuation as of
June 30, 1971. ~hese data included 1,314 general
employees with annual compensation of $7,655,802
and 341 policemen and firemen with annual compensa-
tion of $2,751,303.
~he regular actuarial valuation repared as of June
30, 1971, indicated that the contributions required of
the city to support the present benefits of the System
and administrative expenses are met by normal contri-
butions at the rate of B.73% of payroll for general em-
ployees and 12.18% of payroll for policemen and firemen.
Since the accured liabilities of the system are fully
covered by the assets in and, only normal contribu-
tions are payable by the city.
Additional actuarial calculations were made to deter-
mine the cost for certain improvements in the system
and the results are presented below.
1. Minimum ~ervice Retirement ~e at Age 55 or the
~ompletion of 25 years of Service
under the present provisions of the system, the
minimum service retirement age is age 60 or the date
mhen a member completes 30 years of creditable service,
whichever occurs first, zhe first proposal is to
change the minimum service retirement age to age 55 or
the date when a member completes 25 years of credit-
able service, whichever~curs first.
If the ordinance governing the operation of the
system is amended to adopt this proposal, the normal
rate of 8.73% for general employees would be increased
to 9.57%, or an additional normal rate of 0.64% of pay-
roll for this group; the normal rate of 12.16% for
policemen and firemen would be increased to 14.07%,
or an additional normal rate of 1.69% of payroll for
this group. In addition, an unfunded accrued liabi-
lity would be incurred amounting to $2,086,092, which
consists of $695,983 for general employees and $1,390,109
for policemen and firemen.
~ccrued liability contributions equal to 0.53 per
cent of payroll for general empIoyees and 2.92 per cent
of payroll for policemenand firemen mould be required
to amortize the unfunded accrued liability over a period
of 30 years. The following ~able I shoms the additional
annual contributions as a result of the adoption of this
proposal.
TABLE 1
ADDITIONAL ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
FOR CHANGE IN MINIMUM SERVICE
RETIREMENT AGE
CONTRIBUTION ~ OF AMOUNT
: PAYROLL :
General Employees:
Normal : 0.84~ $ 64,309
Accrued Liability : 0.53 :40,57b
:
Total : 1.37X : lO'aB85
policemen C Firemen: : :
Normal : 1.89% : 52,000
Accrued Liability 2.92 80,338
Total : 4.01% 132,338
2. Ghanffe in ~inimun Service ~etirement A~e and Benefit
Rate
Under the present provisions of the systems
the service retirement allowance is equal to 1/70 of
the member's final compensation multiplied by the nun-
bar of his years of creditable service. It is propos-
ed that, in addition to the proposed change in minimum
service retirement age described above, the service
retirement allowance be changed to 1/60 of tho mem-
ber's final compensation multiplied by the number of
his years of creditable service.
If the ordinance is amended to include both
changes,-the total increase in costs would be as
follows:
(a) The normal rate of 8.73% of payroll now
applicable to general employees would be increased to
11.38%, or a total additional normal rate of 2.65% of
apyroll for general employees; the normal rate of
12.18~ now applicable to policemen and firemen mould
he increased to 1b.40%, or a total additional normal
rate of 4.22%o[ payroll for policemen end £iremen; and
(b) A total unfunded accrued liability of
$4,413,923 would be incurred, which consists of
$2,205,616 for general employees and $2s20D.307 for
policemen an? firemen.
Accrued liability contributions equal to
of payroll for general employees and 4ob4% of payroll
for policemen and firemen would, be required to amortize
the unfunded accrued liability over a period of 30 years.
The following Table 2 shows the uddltJona] annual con-
tributions which would be payable b~ the city on account
of the adoption of these two changes on the basis of
the June 30, 1971, valuation payroll.
TABLE 2
ADDITIONAL ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS
FORCHANGE IN MINIMUM SERVICE
RETIREMENT ABE AND
BENEFIT RATE OF
: % OF :
CONTR IBUT ION pAyrOLL AMO~
General Employees: :
:
Normal : 2.~S~ :$ 202,87~
Accrued Liability :. 1.67 · 127.952
Total : 4.32~ :. 330.731
103
104
TABLE 2 CONTINUED
: % OF :
~0NTRIBUT]ON PAYROLL AMOUNT
policemen nad Firemen: :
Normal 4.22% :$ 116.105
Accrued Liability :.4.64 ; 127t6hO
Total ; 6.66% ; 243,765
3. change to Non-~ontributor! ~ssis
It is proposed that no further contributions are
to be made to the system by members, end past contribu-
tions made by them, with Interest. are to be refunded
to them at the time of retirement without any reduction
In the allowance*otherwise poyable. If the ordinance
Is amended to provide that no further contributions ere
to be made to the system by members in the future, addi-
tional normal contributions equal to 2.02% of payroll
for general employees and 2.74% of payroll for police-
men and firemen would be required of the city. Addi-
tional accrued liability contributions would be pay-
able if the accumulated cpntributJons credited to mem-
bers as a result of contributions made by them to date
are refunded to them either in the form of a lump sum
payment or as additional retirement benefits at the
time of retirement. The unfunded accrued liability
mould an.ant to $3.802.91S which consists of $2.551.262
for general employees and $1,251, 653 for policemen and
firemen.
Accrued_liability contributions equal to 1.93% of
payroll for general employees and 2.b3% of payroll for
policemen and firemen would be required to amortize the
nnfunded accrued liability over a period of 30 years.
The following Table 3 shows the additional annual con-
tributions which would be payable by the City on the
basis on the June 30, 1971 valuation payroll if no
further contributions to the system are made by members
and their accumulated contributions are refunded tp .
them at the time of retirement.
TABLE 3
ADDITIONAL ANNUAL CONTRIBLTEIONS
FOR ELIMINATION OF CONTRIBUTIONS
BY MEMBERS
CONTRIBUTION % OF AMOUNT
: PAYROLL :
General Employees:
Normal : 2.02% $ 154,647
Accrued Liability 1.93 147,757
Total : 3.95% 302,404
policemen and Firemen:
Normal 2.74% . 75,386
Accrued Liability : 2.63 : - 72~359
Total 5.37% : 147,745
The additional cost to the city for eliminating
future contributions by members and refunding past
accumulated contributions is independent of the bene-
fits payable under the system. Hence, the coats pre-
sented in this letter for shifting to a non-contribu-
tory basis are in addition to the costs presented above
for improving the benefit provisions of the system.
· The calculations were based on an interest rate of
4% per annum, compounded annually, and the service and
mortality tables used in thepreparation of the regular
annual actuarial valuations.
Very truly yours,
$/ Nathaniel Gaines
Hathaniel Gaines
consulting Actuary'
In addition to the requested information, the actuary also
included a computation of the cost of chumming the Employees'
that the city would bear the total cost of the reitrement
system.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ A* N. Gibson
A. N. Gibson
City Auditor-
Mr. Trout moved that the report be taken under advisement sad · at the
City Manager be requested to furnish Council mith a report es to what other major
cities in the State of Virginia are doing in respect to this matter. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Rubard and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: The city Auditor submitted the folloming report advising that
the Roanoke city Teachers Federal credit colon has an office of its own situate
on real estate owned by the credit anion and is served by a computer and Other
modern equipment owned by the credit union, that the office is centrally located
and is open at regular hours and will be able to extend, on a businesslike basis,
the benefits of credit union membership to all city employees and pointing out
that this report is for the information of Council:
"July 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and city Council
Roanoke, virginia
Gentlemen:
About 1965 the Roanoke police Federal credit union,
which served most Of the city employees, other than the Fire
Department. went out of existence, since that time the city
employees have not had this service available to them.
There has been considerable interest expressed in start-
lng another credit union but due to the difficulties involved,
such as, lack of space and the lack of experienced personnel
to operate a credit union, nothing has been done.
Recently, through the efforts of Mr. paul Caldwell,
Secretary-Treasurer of the Roanoke city Teachers Federal
Credit union, the field of membership of this credit union
has been extended to include all of the city employees
except employees of the Fire Department, which has a credit
union of its own.
The Roanoke city Teachers Federal credit union has an
office of its oma situated on real estate onned by the credit
union and is served by a computer and other modern equipment
omoed by the credit union. The office is centrally located
and is open at regular hours and will be able to extend on
a businesslike basis the benefits of credit union membership
to all City employees.
This report is for information purposes as members of
council have indicated from time to time that they would like
to see tee city employees have the benefits of a credit union.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ A. N. Gibson
A. N- Gibson
City Auditor"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
105
~106
L~FINISHED BUSINESS:
RADIO-YELE¥ISION-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having deferred action
on a report of the ASsistant city Attorney transmitting ordinances uhich~ upon
adoption by Council. would provide for the renting of floor and tower space in
the transmitter building atop Rill Mountain to ROy H. park Broadcasting of
Roanoke, Incorporated, and to James L* Gibbons. trading us Jim Gibbons Radio (RPYR)
for a basic monthly rental of $S0.00 plus $2.00 per month charge for electricity.
payable quarterly, the matter nas again before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that the follonin9 ordinance authorizing rental of four
square feet of floor space in the main equipment room of the transmitter building
and, outside, on the antenna tower atop Mill Mountain to ROy B. park Broadcasting
of Roanoke, Incorporated. for use, upon certain terms and conditions, be placed
upon its first reading:
(n203hl) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the rental of four (4) square feet
of floor space in the main equipment room of the transmitter building and, outside,
on the antenna tower atop Rill Mountain to Roy B. park Broadcasting of Roanoke.
inc., for use. upon certain terms and conditions.
MHEREAS, the City Manager has advised the council that ROy H. park
iBroadcasting of Roanoke. 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
itower, and said corporation 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 Roy Ho park Broadcasting of Roanoke. ~nc., four
(4) square feet of floor space in the main equipment room of the transmitter
building atop Mill Mountain for said corporution~ use for the placement and opera-
tion of a television translator, mith assocaited equipment, and, also, space on
ithe tower adjacent to said building for their antenna, to be connected by'coaxial
cable to the radio equipment in said building, upon the following.terms and condi-
tions:
1o That the right of such use shall commence during the calendar
year 1972, on or after July 1, in said year; .
2. That the term of said agreement shall be from month to month with
the right in either party to terminate said agreement upon 30-days' written notice
to said other party;
3. That Roy H. park Broadcasting of Roanoke, Inc., pay.to.the city the
sum of $624.00 per year, payable in equal quarter-annual payments of.$156.00
each;
4° ~hat ~he City supply without additional charge therefor, hear, light
and water, but not ~lephone service, reasonably n.ecessary for the operation of the
aforesaid television translator equipment;
$. That authorized represnetntives or employees of said corporation
bite a /Fee right of Ingress and egress to and /rom the oforesnld premises ut all
translator equipment;
6. That the television translator and other equipment installed on
the city*s premises pursuant hereto be located in such place er places and be of
such type as is specified or approved by the Clty*s chief Communications officer;
?. That the City reserves the right to terminate the aforesaid agree-
ment at any time on 30-days' prior notice in writing by the city Manager to said
corporation should the City Manager determine a need for the City's ann use of
the space or premises hereinabove mentioned or should the city Manager determine
that said corporation*s equipment interferes, by its operation, with the operation
of the Clty*s radio or communications equipment, OF the operation of any other
lessee of the city.
BE 1T FURTHER ORDAI~£D that the agreement herein authorized to be
entered into on behalf of the City may be effected by the city's execution of a
webber ........................
reading and final adoption:
(For ful! text of ord]uance, see ordinance Book ~37, pnge 40.)
108
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the ordinance. Th~ motion mas' seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted b~the £ollomlng rote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubsrd, LJsk, Thomas, Trout end Mayor
lebber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
COUNCIL: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the pro-
per measure amending and r~ordainin9 Rule I of section 2, Chapter 4, of Title II.
of The code of the city of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to the regular
meetings o~Council, he presented sane; whereupon, Mr. Garland offered 'the fol-
lowing emergency ordinance:
(#20362) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Rule I of Section
chapter 4, of Title II of The Code of the city of Roanoke, 1956, as amended.
relating to regular meetings of the city Council; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~37, page
Hr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion Was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by tee following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard~ Lisk. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Mebber ..........................
NAYS: None ........... O.
RAOIO-TELE¥1SION: Council having directed the city Attorney to prepare
the proper measure authorizing the filth9 of an application for urban assistance
incentive funds by the city for the Blue Ridge ETV Association (~BRA-TY) and
indicatin9 Council*s willinRnes~ to serve as the receiving agent for such funds,
he presented sane; whereupon. Mr. Lisk offered the followin9 Resolution:
(~20363) A RESOLUTION authorizing the filing of an application for urban'*
assistance incentive funds by the City for the Blue RjdRe ET¥ Association (~RRA-TV)
and indicatiog Council's willingness to serve as the receivlog agent for such
funds.
(For full text of Resolution, see ordinance Dook ~?, page 43.)
Mr. Lis~ moved the adoptlon of the Resolution. The moti~n was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Bubard, Lisk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber .......................
NAys: None .......... O. (Dr. Taylor ~bsent)
AUDITORIUM-COLISEUM: council havin9 directed the City Attorney to pre-
pare the proper measure authorizing the City Ravager to enter into agreement ~ith
Local No. 55, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees and Moving
picture Machine operators, relative to services of such organization at the Roanoke
civic Center, upon certain terms and conditions, he presented same; whereupon,
Rt. Thomas offered the following emergency ordinance:
'1
(u20354) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the city Manager to enter, into agree-
ment with Local No. 55, International Alliance o~ Theatrical Stage Employees nnd
Moving picture Machine Operators. relative to servicea of such organization at
the Roanoke Civic Center, upon certain terms and conditions; nnd providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of ordinance, see ordinance Rook ~37, page 43.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Bubard. Lisk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber .......................... b.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Or. Taylor absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
ROANOKE VALLEY-MATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written
report transmitting a Resolution which would authorize the cnited States Corps of
Engineers to proceed math contract work for the cleanup of the Roanoke River
through the city which was a result of the flood on June 21, 1972.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the city Manager
and offered the following Resolution:
(n20365) A RESOLIrrlON requesting the office of Emergency preparedness
to arrange to have appropriate Federal Agencies remove debris mithin the City of
Roanoke, upon certain terms add conditions.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~aT, page 44°)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Link and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, uubard, Lisk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Rubber ......................... 5.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
ROANOKE VALLEY-HATER DEPARTMENT: Mr. Trout presented a prepared state-
ment in connection with the recent overflowing of Roanoke River, advising that
several years ago the entire community became excited upon learning that there
was going to be a flood control study by the corps of Engineers with the possible
construction of a dam or dams west of salem, that after much inquiry into the
status of this project, he has not been able to develop any positive position of
the study or results of the same and moved that the city Manager be requested to
develop a report with regard to this matter. The motion mas seconded by Mr.
Garland and unanimously adopted,
In this connection, Mr. Bubard presented a communication written to
him as president of the Kiwanis Foundation of Roanoke from Mr. C- S. Reals, Jr..
vice preaidnet, virginia Electric and power company, advising that several months
ago the Virginia Electric an{ power Co~pany completed the preliminary explnratorT
work at the poor Mountain site which they mere investigating for possible develop-
ment as a pumped storage power project and expressing appreciation for the manner
in which they were received in the South Fork area and the cooperation they
received from him and other landowners, was also before council.
109
110
Hr. Trout moved that the cemmunicntion be received and riled, The
motlom was seconded b~ Mr. Gar]and amd mnamimousl, adopted.
PLANNING: Mayor webber called to the attention or Council that there
ia a vacancy on the Firth plnnning District Commission created by the resignation
of Mr. Vincent $. wheeler and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.-
Hr, Lisk placed in nomination the name or Dr. Noel C. Taylor.
There being no further nominations. DF. Noel C- Taylor was elected as
member or the Fifth planning District Commission to replace Mr. Vincent $.
heeler roF a term or three years ending June 30, 1975, by the following vote:
FOR DR. TAYLOR: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, LiSk, Thomas, Trout and
ayor webber .............................. 6. (Dr. Taylor absent)
There being no further business, Mayor Nebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
~TTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, July 10, lgYZ.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Coun-
cil Chamber tn the Municipal Dullding, Monday, July 10, 1972, at Z p.m., the
regular meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Mllliam
Lisk, Noel C. Taylor, Ilampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L.
Mebber ................................. 7.
ABSENT: None ................
OFFICERS PRESENT:
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, city Attorney Mr. Ednnrd
A. Matt, Assistant City Attorney. and Mr. A. N, Gibson, city Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Mr. charles j.
Mhitacre, Director, Offender Aid Restoration of Roanoke.
BEARING OF CITIZENS L~ON PUBLIC MATTERS:
PARKING: Council having continued a public hearing on certain amend-
ments to the off-street parking requirements under Section 7, Minimum off-street
parking and loading requirements in RG-I and RG-2, General Residential Districts,
and Sections 8 and 9, c-l, office and Institutional District, and C-2, General
Commercial District. of chapter 4.1. Title XV, of The Code of the City of Roanoke,
1956. as amended, the matter was again before the body.
In this connection, the city planning Commission submitted the follow-
in9 report recommending that the existing minimum off-street parking requirements
in the medium (RG-1) and high (RG-2) density residential areas be amended so as
to provide one parking space for each efficiency or one bedroom apartment, and
one and one-half parking spaces for each tmo or more bedrooms and that this amend-
ment become effective as of October 1, 1972; further recommending that the existing
minimum off=street parking requirements in the c-l, office and Institutional
District be increased from one parking space per 400 square feet of gross build-
in9 area to one parking space per 200 square feet of gross building area; and
,that in the General Commercial District. (C-2)0 the existing minimum off-street
iparking requirements be amended as recommended by the planning Director except
that furniture stores be excluded from the retail store category, with an effec-
~tive date of January 1, 1973:
"July 5. 1972
The Bonorable Roy Lo Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City COUnCil
Roanoke, virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited petition has been considered by the city
planning Commission on numerous occasions. (see Enclosed
material.) On June 190 1972, the City Council again referred
this entire matter bach to the planning Commission for general
review and reconsideration end specifically to provide for e
greater and more detailed breakdomn of commercial uses in the
C-2. General ~ommercial District, with correspondingly appro-
priate off-street parking requirements,
At the July 5th meethg of the planning CommisSion, the
planning Director presented certain amendments to the planning
Commission members pertaining to the C-2, General Commercial
pistrict, providing for a greater breakdown of specific com-
mercial uses with corresponding off-street parking require-
ments. These are as folloms:
Automobile service stations which
also provide repair
Hotels, rooming houses
Motels
similar uses
Bowling alleys
Dance floors, skating rinks, exhibi-
tion halls, and other places of as-
sembly without fixed seating
Auditoriums, sport arenas, theaters,
and similar uses
Retail stores
wholesaling and distribution opera-
tions
All other permitted uses
.One for each two pumps
and two for each ser-
vice bay
One space for each
2 rental units
One space for each
One for each RO0 sq.
Five spaces for each
alley
Oce for each 100 sq.
including bench
One for each 40g sq.
ft. of floor area
One for each 400 sq.
Mr. Quick, representing the Board of Realtors, appeared
before the planning commission. He generally concurred mith
the recommended amendment to the C-2. General Commercial Dis-
tric~, but noted that furniture stores (classified mith retail
stores) did not require aa much parking as other retail stores
and recommended that the off-street parking for this specific
use be amended to one parkio9 space per 400 square feet of
gross floor area.
Additionally, Mr. Quick noted that the City's tax base
is constantly diminishing, and that the tax base has run
people and business out of the city of Roanoke. He stated
that the City of Roanoke should give people the incentive
to build office buildings ie the GitI of Roanoke and they
should not 9et within I 1/2 miles of downtomn and restrict
office buildings to the parking requirements that have been
recommended by the plannin9 Commission.
Mr. Fralin appeared before the planning Commission concur-
ring with the recommended amendments to the ~-2, General ~om-
mercial District. but pointed to the need for specific off-
street parking requirements for the elderly. It mas noted
that the off-street parking requirements for the elderly had
been reduced considerably in the case of high-rise structures.
~he planning Commission members generally.discussed the
off-street parking requirements for the apartment district,
(RG-I and RG-2), and commercial districts, (C-1 and C-2).
It mas generally agreed that the apartment districts parking
requirements recommended earlier by the planning Commission
represented viable standards, similarly, it was agreed that
the off-street parking requirements of 1 parkin9 space per
200 square feet of gross floor area, also recommended earlier
by the planning commission, represented a reasonable standard
Accordingly, motion uus 'made, duly seconded und unsni-'
mously approved to recommend to city Council that the existing
minimum off-street parking requirements, in the medium (aG-I)
and high (aG-2) density residential ureas be amended so us to
provide I parhing space for each efficiency ur I bedroom, and
I 1/2 parhing spaces for each 2 or more bedrooms and that
this amendment become effective as of October 1, lg?2; that
the existing minimum orr-street purking requirements in the
C-l, office und institutional district be increased from 1
purklng space per 4DO squarn feet of gross building area to
I psrhing space per 200 square feet of gross building area:
and that in the general commercial district. (C-2), the
existing minimum off-street parking requirements be amended
as recommended by the planning Director except that furniture
stores be excluded from the retail store category, mith an
effective date of January 1, 19T3.
sincerely,
creed K. Lemon, Jr. by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
chairman-
In this connection, Hr. R. Ro Quick, Realtor, appeared before the body
and advised that he would like to reiterate his previous remarks made to council,
pointin9 out that the city of Roanoke ia in a very competitive situation with
anyone outside the corporate limits of the city. that the recommendations of
the City planning commission are over restrictive, that the restrictions are
bein9 increased bylO0 per cent, that no one other than the planning Commission
is makin9 a mandate that the restrictions be changed, that it is incumbent upon
to Council to further development, not hinder it, that the economics have not
been taken into consideration, and that it narrows dorm to the question of
whether Council wants to stop gronth or does it want to encourage it.
In a discussion of the matter. Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that
more thought should be 9ives regarding the restrictions on retail stores, that
he would like to see a realistic ordinance which is in keeping with other cities.
but he also masts to follow good and sound planning practices.
Mr. Lothar Mermelstein, planning Director, advised that in the C-2
classification, the restrictions are in keeping with local, state and national
status.
After a further discussi on of the matter, the city Manager verbally
advised that the question of retail area versus non-retail area should be resolved
before the matter proceeds any further, whereupon, Mr. Lisk moved that the matter
be referred back to the city planning Commission for further study, report and
recommendation to Council mith regard to certain requirements for retail stores.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Or. Taylor then moved that the public hearing be continued until 2
p.m., Monday, July 24, 1972. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unani-
mously adopted.
ZONING: Council havin9 set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Ronday, July
10. 1972, on the request of Roanoke Development Corporation that '5.3?? acres of
land. more or less, located on the south side of shenandoah Avenue at peters
Creek, and also. n tract of land containing 2.257 acres, more or less located
at the south side of shenandoah Avenue and Hiller street, be rezoned from RS-3,
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 follouing
report recommending that the request for rezoning be granted:
-June 6, 1972
The Honorable ROy L* Mebbero Mayor
and Members of city COUncil
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request Mas considered bi the city ~lan-
ning Commission at its regular meetings of May 3 and June 7,
1972.
At the May 3, 1972 planning COmmission meeting Mr. John
Apostolou, representing Roanoke Development COrporation,
appeared before the planning Commission and noted that the
character and nature of this entire area lends itself to a
commercial designation, particularly in light of the apart-
ments developments along Hiller Street. He noted that he is
requesting that both sides of Miller Street be rezoned to a
C-2 designation and thereby Mill not entail any residential
uses being located across from a commercial development.
The planning Director noted that the general area west
of Miller Street requested for rezoaing b prone to flooding
(100 year frequency). In addition, it pointed out that the
petitioners had not presented.any site plan delineating his
plans for these parcels of land.
The planning Commission members qenerally concurred that
the petitioner should present a site plan Mith the petition
so t~at the members may be better able to evaluate this peti-
tion.
At the Jane 7, 1972 meettfl9 Mr. John L. Apostolou again
appeared before the planning commission and presented a
sketch site plan delineating the uses proposed for the area.
The planning Commission members Mere generally amenable to
the plans and thought the project Mould be an asset to the
city.
After due consideration of this request, a motion was
made, duly seconded mud unanimously approved to recommend to
city COuncil to grant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ creed Ko Lemon, Jr., by LM
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
chairman"
Mr. John L. Apostolou. 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. Link
moved that the following ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~20366) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV, chapter 4.1, secti'on 2, of
the code of the city of Roanoke. 1955, as amended, and ~heet NO. 272, sectional'
1965 Zone Map, city of Roanoke, in relation to zoning.
MHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the city of
Roanoke to have '5.377 acres of land, more or less, located on the south side of
Lshenandoah Avenue at peters Creek, and also, a trac't of land containing 2.257
acres, more or less, located on the south side of Shenandoah Avenue and Miller
Street. and bela9 official Tax Numbers 2720701 end 2720§02. respectively, rezoued
from RS-3, siogln-Family Residential District, to C-2, Ceeernl Comsercinl District
mud
WHEREAS, the mrftten notice end the posted sign required to be published
add posted, r~apectivelyo by Section 71. Chapter 4.1o Title X¥. of the Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1956. ns amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
posted as required and for 'the time provided by said section; and
WHEREAS. the hearJn9 as provided for in said notice mas held on the
10th day of July. 1912. et 2 pome, 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. ~fter considering the evidence as herein pro-
vided, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land shoold 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. 272 of the Sectional 1956 zone Rap.
City of Roanoke, be amended in the folloming particular and no~her, viz.:
property located on the south side of shenandoah Avenue at peters Creek,
containing 5.377 'acres of land, more or less. and also, a tract of land cootainin9
2.257 acres, more or less. located on the south side of shenandoah Avenue and
Miller Street, and being designated on sheet 272 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map,
City of Roanoke. as official Tax NOS. 2720701 and 2T20b02, respectively, be, and
is hereby, changed from RS-3, single-Family Residential Distr~ct, to
Commercial District, and that Sheet No. 272 of the aforesaid map be changed in
this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr, Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. carland, Hubard. Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
webber ......................
NAYS: None
ZONING: Council having set a public hear. ing for 2 pom.. Monday, July
10. i972, on the request of Mr. James W. Belcher that property located at 412
walnut Avenue, So E., described as the easterly portion of LOtS 1, 2 and 3, Block
23, Map of Roanoke Cas and Water company, official Tax No. 4031116, be rezoned
from RG-I, General Residential District, to RD, Duplex Residential oistrict, the
matter was before the body.
In t his connection, the City planning Commission submitted the follow-
ing report recommending that the request be granted:
-June 8, 1972
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 meetings of May 3 and June 7, 1972.
115
· Hr. James ~. Belcher, appeared-before the planning Commis-
sion nad stated that thc property he is requesting to be
rezoned is located at 412 snlnut Avenue,'S, E. Be noted that ,
this is · fifty year old house and he is requesting this re-
zoning in order to put four apartments in there. Hr. Belcher
noted that there is nn alley in the buck and there is enough
space for ample parking in the back yard, He also stated that
this structure nos abandoned before he knew anything about it
and mom he is trying to put it back. This area ·lready has
one RG-R designation in the block, he noted, and this change
would nike better economic nsc of this property nad mould be
In keeping with the general trend of the area. Finally, he
s~ated that there are no objections to this resorting from the
neighborhood.
The planning Director pointed out that this parcel is
located near the downtoun area, fronted o~ a major street.
and any decision to rezone it to a RD-2 design·tion mould
mean that the entire ·rea mould be prone to this higher den-
sity. It uss noted that this lot mas located a block amay
from the Bodges Lumber petition to rezone also a parcel of
land from a RB-I to · RD-2 designation.
Mr, parrott, planning Commission member requested ~hat
a land use study be mode of this entire area so that a reason-
able determination could be mode with respect to the
resorting petitions.
At the June ?, 1972 meeting. Mr. James M. Belcher
appeared before the planning commission and stated that he
had intended to get this property rezoned to RD-2 but in
viem of the planning Department*s Malnut Hill study, he is
· requesting that his lot be rezoned to · RD designation. He
iy approved recommending to city council to approve the RD
rezoning request in lieu of the original RD-2 petition.
sincerely.
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr., by LM
Mr. James M. Belcher appeared before COUncil and requested that the
rezoning be approved.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezoning. Mr. Thomas
moved that the following ordinance be placed upon its first readlng:
(~20367) 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. 403. Sectional
lgb6 zone Map, city of Roanoke, in relation to zonin9.
MHEREAS, application has been made to the council of ,the city of
Roanoke to have 412 Malnut Avenue, 5. E., described as an easterly portion of
LOtS 1, 2 and 3, Block 23, accordin9 to the Map of Roanoke Gas and Mater company,
and being designated as official Tax No. 4031116 rezoned from RD-I, General Resi-
dential District, to RD-2, General Residential oistrict; and
RHEREAS, the city planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from RD-I, General Residential District, to RD,
Duplex Residential District; and
MHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
and posted, respectively, by section TI, 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 r~quired and for the time provided by said section; and
MREREAS, the heaving ms provided for in said notice was held on
the lOth dny of July, 19720 st 2 p.m., before the Council of the city of Roanoke,
at Mhich hearing nil parties in interest nnd citivens Mere given on opportunity
to be heard, both for and against the proposed fez*ming; and
WHEREAS, this council, after considering the evidence os herein pro=
vided, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be fez*ned.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council Of the City of Roanoke that
i Tltle XV, chapter 4.1, section 2. of The code of the city of Roanoke, 1956, as
i amended, relating to zoning, and sheet No. 403, of the. sectional 196b Zone Map,
City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
property located at No. 412 walnut Avenue, S. E., described as an east-
!erly portion of Lots 1, 2 a~d 3. Block 23, according to the Map of Roanoke Gas
and ~ater Company, and being designated as official Tax NO. 4031116, designated
on Sheet 403 of the sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be, and is hereby,
changed from RG-I, General Residential District, to RD, Duplex Residential District,
and that Sheet No. 403 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. Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Mayor
~ebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... 0.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m.. Monday. July
10. 1972, on the request of Roanoke NeMs Agency, Incorporated, that property lyin9
and being on the east side and the Mest side of 9th Street, S. E., and north of
the Norfolk and Mestern Railway company property line, described as official Tax
Nos, 4240~01 and 4142631, be rezoned from RD, Duplex 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 recommending that the request be granted:
~June 0, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. ~ebber, 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 June 7, 1972.
Mr. Laurence L. Tapscott, Attorney, representing
Roanoke News Agency, Inc., appeared before the planning com-
mission and stated that these two parcels Of land are zoned
for a RD designation and his client has no present plans for
redevelopment of the property at this time. He noted that
the petitioner plans to relocate the industrial park sign to
that portion Of the parcel requested to be'fez*ned on the
easterly portion Of 9th St. Additionally, he noted that the
petitioner Mlshes to eliminate the non-conforming status
Of the parcels, so that at some future date he could expand
his operations. Finally, he stated that the use of the
property will not be detrimental in any way to the neighbor-
hood.
The planning Director noted that the commercial us~ is
in keeping mith the remainder of the. utes fronting on 9th
Street but suggested that the petitioner Submit a site pisa.
Donever, since the petitioner nas not clear on his plans for
these parcels, the planning Commission members did not feel
a site plan uss In order for this petition,
Accordingly, motion was made. duly seconded and unani-
mously approved recommending to city Council to grant this
request.
sincerely,
S/ Creed E. Lemon. Jr., by LM
creed E. Lemon, Jr.
chairman-
'Mr, Lawrence L. Tapscott, 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, Dr. Taylor
moved that the follomlng'ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~203bD) AN ORDXNARCE to emend Title XVo chapter 4.1, section 2, of The
code of the city of Roanoke, 1950, as amended, and Sheets No. 414 and 424, sec-
tional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to zoning.
WHEREAS, application has been mad~ to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have that certain parcel of land lyin9 at the southwest ~ntersection of Buena
vista Boulevard and 9th Street, S. E,, and north ~f the Norfolk and western Rail-
way property line. being the remaining westerly p~rtions of LOtS I through ?,
inclusive. Block 4, and Lots 7 and O and the easterly portion of Lot G. Block $,
according to the Rap of Rivermont Development Corporation, and designated as
official NO. 4142631 On the Tax Appraisal Rap of the city of Roanoke; and, also,
that certain 2.24D acre parcel, more or less, lyin9 east of 9th street, S, E.,
north of the Norfolk and ~estern Railway property line, west of Morningside par~
and south of Rorga~ Avenue, S. E., and being designated as official No. 4240101 on
the Tax Appraisal Map of the city of Roanoke, rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential
District, to C-2, General commercial District; and
MHEREAS, the city planning commission has recommended that the herein-
after dencribed land be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District. to C-2,
General Commercial District; and
MHEREAS. the written 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, 1956. as amended, relating to zoning, have been published and
iposted as required and for the time provided by Said Section; and
~HEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice mas held on the
10th day of July, 1972, at 2 p.m., before the Council of the City Of Roanoke. at
;which hearing ali parties in interest and citizens mere given an opportunity to
'be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this COUncil, after considerin9 the evidence as herein pro-
:vided, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the council o4 the City of Roanoke that
Title XY, chapter 4,1, section 2,. of The Cod~ of the city of 'Roanoke, 195b, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and sheets No, 414 and 424 of t'he sectional 1965
zone Hap, ci.ty of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other,
pvopnrty located at thn southne~t intersection Of Dunna Vista Eoulevard
and 9th Siren,. S. E. and north of the Norfolk and Western RalluaT property line.
described as the remaining westerly portions of Lots I thFough 7. inclusive.
flleck 4. and Lots 7 end 0. and the eustnrly portion of Lot .h. HI,ok $. according
to the Hap of Rlvncmont Development COrporation. designated on Sheet 414 Of the
Sectional 1966 zone Rap, city of Roanoke, as official Tax N~* 4142631, and, also,
that certain 2,248 acre parcel, more or less, lying east of 9th street, S, E.,
north of the 'Norfolk and ~estern Railway property line, west of Morningside park
and south of Morgan Avenue, S. Re, designated 5n Sheet 424 Of the Sectional 1966
Zone Map, city of Roanoke, as official Tax No. 4240101, be, and is hereby, changed
from RD* Duplex Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, and
that Sheets No. 414 and 424 of the aforesaid map he changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Hr, Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
webber ....................
NAYS: None .......... O.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 ~.m., Monday. July
lO. 1972, on the request of Messrs. Elmer M, COX and ~awrence E. 'peters that
properties around and adjacent .to 1714 ~edwood Road. S. E.. in the vicinity of
Redwood Road and Dundee Road, S. E., described as LOtS 3, 4, 5, 6. 11, 12, 13 and
14. Section 4, Map of Rosewood park Corporation, official Tax Nos. 4440722-
4440725, inclusive and 4440703 - 4440706, inclusive, be rezoned from RD, cuplex
Residential District, to RG-1, General Residential District, the matter was before
the body.
In this connection, the city plannin9 Commission submitted the following
report reoommendin9 that a RG-1. rezonin9 be approved in lieu of the original
RG-2 rezoning request:
"June B. 1972
The Honorable Roy L. webber, M~yor
and Nembers of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cite~ request was considered by the city
planning C~mmission at its regular meeting~ of April
and June 7, 1972.
On April 5, 1972, the planning commission unanimously
recommended a RG-I rezoning approval of this petition in
lieu of the original RG-2 petition (see enclosed letter).
on May 25, 1972 the city Council referred this item back to
the planning Commission for rehearing and further recommenda-
tion to the city Council. The reason for this action was to
pernit certain affected residents in the area to voice their
opposition to the petition.
119
120
on June 7, 1972, this matter was again considered by the
planning Commission, Mr, John M, Taylor. attorney for the
petitioners, appeared before the planning commission and stated
that he uss representing Mr. COX and Mr. peters in tkls razes- ·
lng petition. He then presented some nam information relating
to this petition: Dundee Road will be opened to extend to
Redwood Road; the sewer and water lines will be brought up
to oundee Road; and the semer lines extended on Redwood Road.
Mr. Taylor presented photographs to the planning Commis-
sion members depicting the nature and character of the area
and noted that there alii be 1.5 parking spaces per unit, and
that the petitioners plans to construct 32 apartment units
on this unimproved parcel of land, Additionally, h~ noted
that the apartments mill not be subsidized apartments, and
they have provided for 48 parking spaces.
Mr, J. ~. Hogan appeared before the planning Commission
and stated that he. lives at 1704 Redmood Road and opposed this
rezoning petition becuase the hem apartments mill cromd the
neighborhood, He noted that they have already enough existing
problems in 'this area math the cars continously running up and
down the street, presenting a serious danger to the children
· in the neighborhood.
Mr. lalter Trout appeared before the planning commission
and stated that he lives at 1638 Redwood Road and he mas
opposing to this rezoning.
Mr. Hoynton, planning commission member, raised the
question about the location of the play area. lie noted
that the building and the parking lot mi~l take up the
bulk of the land. The petitioner noted that adequate atten-
tion has been given to the play area, and presented the site
plan delineating the areas to be utilized for play area. *
Upon reconsideration of thin request, a motion mas made,
duly seconded and approved with a vote of 4 ayes and 2 nayes
to recommend to city Council to approve the RG-I 'rezoning in
lieu of the original RG-2 rezoning request,
sincerely,
S/ creed K. Lemon, Jr., by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
chairman"
Math reference to 'the matter, Mr. Jerry ~, Hogan, 1714 Redmood Road,
S. E., appeared before council in opposition to the request, advising that 10th
street is a smal~ narrow street and that he does not feel the street can take care
of any more traffic which mill be generated by the proposed apartments, that a
Ipetition has previously been presented to council which states that there E 100
per cent opposition to the resuming by residents in the area and that the-neighbor-
hood is presently over crowded due to apartments which were constructed by the
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
Mr. Dan D. Baldwin, 1713 Redwood Road, S, E., appeared before council
in opposition to the request for rezoning and made further reference to the traf-
fic that mill be generated on loth Street.
Mr. John ~. Taylor, Attorney. representing the petitioners, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his clients.
In a disucssion, Hr. Garland questioned Mr. Elmer M. Cox as to whether
or not he could live with anything less than 32 apartment units, whereupon. Mr.
COX replies that in his original request he asked for authorization to build 40
iapartment units,' he has reduced this request to 32 apartment units and that
that
he feels he has already reduced his original request by at least fifty per cent.
Dr. Taylor raised the question as to whether or not there will be a
playground area in the proposed apartment d~velopment.
Mr, Cox answered in the affirmative, mhereupon, Dr. Taylor advised that
he is of the opinion that the play area should be made u definite part Of the pro-
posed plans.
Mr. Lisk advised that he would be willing to go along with the rezoning
if it called for less than 32 apartment units and questioned Mr. Taylor ss to
mhether or not his client would be willing to withdraw the request for rezoning
at the present time and come back to Council at a later date in order to ask for
something less than the 32 apartment units,
Mr, Thomas moved that the ordinance rezonin9 the property to RG-I,
General Residential District, be placed upon i'ts first reading. The motion
'failed for lack bfa second.
Mr. Taylor the'n verbally requested permission to withdraw the request
for rezoninq.
Mr. Lisk moved taut Council concur in the request of Mr. Taylor for per-
mission to #lthdraw the petition for rezoning. The notion was seconded by
Mr. Garland and adopted, Mr. Thomas voting no.
SI'ATE H1GNMA¥S: COUnCil buying set u public hearing for 2 p~m.. Monday.
July 10, 1972. on the adoption and approval of the Roanoke valley Area
Thoroughfare plan for 1965, as modified, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the city Manager submitted a written report trans-
mitting copy of a communication from Mr. Robert M. Shannon, Executive Director,
Fifth planning District Commission, recommending that the local governments delay
action, including public hearings, on said Roanoke Valley Area ThOroughfare
plan for 1985. until completion of tae Water Quality Management plans khich
are due on January 1, '1973.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be taken under advisement and that the
public hearin9 be continued indefinitely. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor
and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS-BUSES: Council having set a public hearin9 for 2 p.m., Monday,
July 10, 1972, on the adoption and approval of an Urban Area Transit Study made
by Milbur smith ~ Associates, the matter mas before the body.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted a written report trans-
mitting copy of a communication from Mr. Robert M. shannon, Executive Director,
Fifth planning District Commission, recommending that the local governments
delay action, including public hearings, on said urban Area Transit Study,
until completion of the Mater Quality Management plans which are due on January
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be taken under advisement and that
the public hearing be continued indefinitely, The motion was seconded by Dr.
Taylor and unanimously adopted.
PLANNING: Council havin9 set a public hearing for 2 p,m., Monday,
July IO, 1972, on the adoption and approval of a land use plan entitled Gromth
and Development, A Land use plan for the Fifth planning District, dated March,
11972, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted a sritten report trams-
'sitting copy of n communication from Mr, Robert M, shannon, Executive Director,
Fifth planning District Commission, recommending that the.,l°cal governments, delay
!action, including public hearings, on said urban Area Transit study, until com-
l!pletion of the Mater ouality Management plans shich ace due on january 1, 1972.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be taken under advisement and that the
!public hearing be continued indefinitely. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor
:and unanimously adopted.
PLANNING: council having set a public hearing for 2 p.m., Monday,
, July 10, 1972, on the adoption and approval of a land use plan entitled Growth
:end Uevelopment, A Land use plan for the Fifth planning District, dated March,
1972, the matter mas before the body.
In this connection, the city Manager submitted n written report trans-
mitting copy of a communication from Mr. Robert M. shannon. Executive Director,
Fifth planning District Commission, recommending that the local governments delay
action, including public hearings, on said Land Use Plan for the Fifth Planning
District, until completion of the Mater Ouality Management Plans which are due on
January 1, 1973.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be taken under advisement and that
the public hearing be continued indefinitely. The motion was seconded by Dr.
Taylor and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
5~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, 1972, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication and list be received and filed.
!The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-ROANOKE VALLEY-MATER DEP~RTMENT: A communication
from Mr. W. G. Buchauan complimeutiug and expressing appreciation to four
employees 'of the Department of Parks aud Recreation iu conneotion with their
removal of a scale model of a steam locomotive in the Roanoke Transportation
Museum dura'n9 the recent flood, said locomotive having been hand made by his
father, the late Nilliam Gordon Buchanan, Sc., was before Council.
Mr. Garland 'moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC N~LFARE: A communication from Mr. Cecil Simmons
complaining about the small amount of money he receives as a recipient of public
elfare was before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the commu~cation be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
TAXES: A Resolution adopted by the Council of the ·City of Salem on
June 26, 1972, requesting that the'City of Roanoke, the County of Roanoke and
the Town of Vinton appoint committees to determine if u mutual agreement on a
cigarette tax can be reached and to recommend to the valley governments an
equitable distribution for said tax, was before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that Mayor Mebber be requested to appoint a committee
to represent the City of Roanoke. The motion uaw seconded by Mr, Lisk and unani-
mously adopted.
Mayor Rubber then appointed Messrs. Robert A. Garland and Hampton M.
Thomas as members of a committee to represent the City of Roanoke.
At this point, Mr. Trout left the ne*ting.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: A communication from Mrs. Llnda Huffman advising
that on June 29. she attended a pony league baseball game at Maher Field, that at
11:45 p.m., the fifth inning was over and the umpires walked off the field,
that a game of this type is played through six innings and requesting that the
City of Roanoke check into the matter of whether these umpires can leave the field
before a game is completed, was before Council.
Hr. Thomas moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
for study and report to Council. The notion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and
unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
SEMERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
advising that he would like to have Mr. Joseph Drawer, Acting Director of Public
Works, make a presentation before Council on the infiltration correction program.
In this connection. Mr. Brewer appeared before Council and presented
written report in con'action with the process Of the infiltration program,
advising that in September, 1971, Council approved the purchase of an in-line
television inspection and repair unit for use in the program of infiltration
abatement, that along with this was approved the purchase of a hydraulic sewer
cleaner to supplement this program, pointing out that the program he is mom using
consists of running a hydra'ulic sewer cleaner through the sewer line, that after
the line is cleaned, the in-line television camera is inserted, next the
camera is followed with a packer that uses a ia. Il type fluid to pack and
seal those joints that can be sealed, that. if. by inspection with the television
camera by itself, it is found that the line is fractured beyond repair, the area
is noted and placed on a replacement Ii.st, that the end result of the Infiltra-
tion program will g~ve the city a truer picture of actual flow conditions to the
Sewage Treatment Plant, that there is much work that must be done from a mainte-
nance standpoint to the existing lines and there are many lines that must be
replaced in total.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
~23
:t24
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following
report in connection with the overall Batter of the City of ROnnohe and the State
Water Control Board, advising that in order to get the situation bach into what
·
he believes should be its proper channel and et the sOme time achieve what is the
objective, is going to take concentrated time and effort, that to attempt this
will necessitate his attempting to bear as much full time ns he can possibly put
together for an indeterminate period of time, that' it Mill take some new and
some fact gathering and a range of discussions
unusual
approaches,
some
traveling,
and meetings, thai this type' of concentration on a single thing is difficult in
his situation because of the maze of items which he seems to become involved and
because of the diversions which effect each and every work day and that he is
requesting the indulgence of Council and many others while he tries to allocate
the time and movement to see if this matter can be brought into its proper and
logical perspective.
"July 10, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Sewage Treatment Plant
Request was respectfully made on City Council Agenda
for this date to include two items relating to the above ',
subject. It had been intended to have the two separate
·
reports prepared to go to you with the agenda; hosever,
developments were such that this could not be done as planned.
One of the two items coocerned a proposal of an Ordinance
that would protect and assure payment to English Construction
Company for certain equipment th.ay have already ordered, and
in some cases delivered to the site, for the chemical feed
facilities at the treatment plant. As you know, this project
continues to await approval and funding.' English Construc-
tion Company has been cooperative in ordering certain major
equipment items, to minimize delays in this regard, gad they
have doge So on verbal request from the City. However, the
details of the Ordinance have not been completely resolved
so this item will be held and brought to you when prepared.
The second item is in regard to the overall matter of
the City of Roanoke--State Water Control Doard. The purpose
of the item is not to go into all of the ramifications of
the situation. They have become voluminous. They have
become mentally and physically time consuming. But more
particularly many of the ramifications have become diver-
sionary from what Should he the major and single effort--
namely, to design and construct a reasonable, practical and
functional enlargement, for quantity and quality, of the
!
City's treatment facility.
As is more than obvious, I have been thrust as a prin-
cipal actor in the situation and its complexities. I
neither sought nor rehearsed for the role. I do not enjoy
this position. It is equally obvious that this is no way
to build a sewage treatment plant. In like vein, it is
questionable that this is the most advantageous way for a 'm I
regulatory agency to achieve a program of pollution abatement.
!
I
In order to get the course of this Situation back into
what I believe ~hould be its proper channel, and at the same
time achieve what is the objective, is going to take con-
centrated time and effort. This I want to do and to
attempt it sill necessitate my attempting to bear os much
full time as I can possibly put together for an indeterminate
period of time. It is going to take some new and unusual
approaches, some traveling, some fact gathering and a tonga
of discoussions and meetings. The only way to do it i'm to
try to go at it full scale to the exclusion of many other
things.
This type of concentration on a shgle thiug is difficult
in my situation, because of the maze or items uith mhicb I
seen to become involved and because of the diversions ubich
effect each and every work day.,
What I am ashing is tbs indulgence o! City Council and
many others while I try to allocate the time and movement
to see if this matter can't be brought into its proper and
logical perspective.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Blrst
City Manager'
Mr. Carland expressed the opinion that possibly the city has reached
aa impasse with the State Mater Control Board, that it might be to the advantage
of the city to have an arbitrator betmeen the City Manager and the Board to try
to resolve this matter, that it appears to him that the city is getting nowhere
and that there appears to be some type of conflict between the City Manager and
the Cbairnan of the State Mater Control Board.
The City Manager replied that he hopes the city's difficulties with
the Board are not a result of any personality clash between himself and the
Chairman of the Uoard.
Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that he does not feel it is a person-
ality clash between the City Manager and the Chairman of the Board but that it is
a lack of communication between the Board, the Staff and the City, that as ~r
as Council is concerned, the number one priority is the liftin9 of the sewer
ban and suggested that the City Ranager appoint a member of his staff to act as
coordinator to communicate ~ith tbs Roard on a daily basis and that the problem
is not so much a personality clash but the fact that the information has not
always matched up.
Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that he would like for the City Manager
to report back to Council with recommendations as to how the sewer ban might
be lifted, that there were set out three items that the city needs to do in order
to have this ban lifted, that he would like to know what these three items are
and that the city and the State Water Control Board have got to get together Jn
an effort to discuss the matter in order to get the sewer baa lifted.
The City Manager replied that he has no qualms about meeting with the
State Mater'Control ~oard to discuss the problems but he would like to get himself
better prepared for such an occasion.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report Of the City Manager be received and
filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTy-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted
the following report advising that the city has a signed option for the purchase
of a house at 1450 Brownies Avenue, S. E., owned by Mr. and Mrs. O. L. Lee,
pointing oat that the property mas appraised by an independent appraiser at
$B,450.00, that the omners declined the offering, that after several meetings and
negotiations, the owners agreed to a figure of $9,717.50 and recommending that
Council approve and authorize the preparation of the necessary papers to indicate
tbs acceptance of the option;
125
126
'July 10. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council.
Roanoke, Vlrgi~a
Gentlemen:
SubJect: Property Purchase Optibn Agreement-
Seuoge Treatment Plnnt Expansion
The City has in hand a signed option for the purchase
of a house ut 1450 Bromnleee Avenue, S. E., being the property
of Mr. and Mrs. O, L, Lee. This property is one Of those
needed for the sewage treatment plant expansion. The property
vas appraised by an independent appraiser at $B,450. The
owners declined the offering. After several meetings and
negotiations, the omners agreed to a figure of
This is the amount stipulated in the option. The sum was
determined by a 15~ increase.
It is recommended that the City Council approve and
authorize the preparation of the necessary papers to indicate
the Ctty*s acceptance of the option.
The reasoning for increasing the appraised value in an
offering is that this property has been the home of its
owners for 44 years. They ~re retired and had never expected
to live any other place then this. The home is mell main-
t ahed and well taken care of and the family is in the situation
of incurring considerable medical and hospital bills. The
family does not wish in any may to leave the property and
their agreement to sell comes mitb n great deal of reluctance.
In considering the appraised value plus the expenses which
this family will incur in locating new shelter, it is felt
that the revised offering is fair and reasonable.
This is submitted with a copy to the City Attorney for
the preparation of the necessary papers inviting the City
Council's approval.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. Hubard moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
i=203bg) AN ORDINANCE exercising the right to purchase a parcel of
land situate at 1450 Brownlee Avenue, S. E., being Official Tax No. 4330614, in
the City of Roanoke, upon certain terms and provisions; providing for notice of
the City's exercise of a certain mritten purchase option for said land; provldfn9
for payment pf 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 m 3?, page
Mr. Hubard moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Br. Taylor and adopted by the folloming vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, and Mayor
Mebber ....... ~ ..............
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Trout absent)
MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: The City Ranager sub-
mitted the folloking report idvising that ihe'plans and specifications for the
Third Street building renovation sill be ready within one or two weeks for final
review with the Police Department, the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court'and'
any other offices of the city'as are related to this project, that.as soon as
review is completed and any changes have been made, the plans and specifications
sill be submitted to, Council, end further advishg of various ronrrengments that
will have to take place uhen it is authorized to proceed as to advertisement, otc:
'July 10, 1972
Honorable Hayer and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
SubJect: Third Street Building Renovation
AS a matter of status information, we are advised as a
result of a meeting with representatives of Sowers, Redes and
Whitescarver and Gregory and Associates that the plans and
specifications for this building will be ready within the next
one to two weeks for final review with the Police Department.
the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and other offices
of the City as are related to this project. As soon as this
review is completed and any changes as necessary have been
made. the plans and specifications will be submitted to the
City Council.
In connection with the project, when it is.authorized to
proceed as to advertisement, etc., it will be necessary to
make certain rearrangements within the building of the exist-
ing police department occupancy, to roll up the carpet and
pad on both floors of the old portion ~ the building to
enable prospective contractors to inspect the condition of
the existing concrete floor, to remove the ceiling tile in
the top floor of the old section of the building for a close
evaluation of any repair work on the buildlng's roof and
remove certain fistures within the building for reuse in
any other Citylocations. It is anticipated that major
portions of the carpets and carpet pad can be reused in the
building. Prior to the award of any contract, the two
rows of parking spaces immediately adjacent to the buildin9
will have to be relocated to another area and this will
result in a rearrangement of parkin9 within the municipal
parking lot on Third Street with the necessity of requiring
that some vehicles who are using this lot will have to park
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Birst
City Manager-
Mr. Lish moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
econded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
In this connection. Mayor Hobber called an informal meeting of Council
tin9 as a Committee of the Whole for Monday, July IT, 1972, at ? in the
p.m.~
iCouncil Chamber. for the purpose of discussing certain plans regarding the remo-
tdeling of the Courthouse Ruildiag.
SEWERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following
ireport in connection with the request of Smith's Transfer Corporation for the
lextension of a sanitary semer line to serve their property located on the north
side of Peters Creek Road, east of Interstate Route 581, advising that the Engineer-
ing Department has worked with Smith*s Transfer Corporation in ~esignJng this
sanitary sewer exten~on which would connect to the existing tea-inch sanitary
sewer line stub which was installed under State Route 117 at the time that road
was widened and recommending that Council permit the execution by the city of. a
contract for sewage service with this corporation which would in turn permit them
ko construct this sanitary sewer line extension:
;t27
128
"July 10, 1972
Honorable Hayer and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
GenIlemen:
Subject: Sanilary Sewer Line Rxtension--
Smith*s Tranafer Corporation
Some months ago the City received a request from
Snith*s Transfer Corporation for the extension of a sani-
tary sewer line lo serve their property which is located
on the norlh side of Peters Creeh Road, easl of Interstate
Route 581. This property and th~ Company's new facilities,
which I might add constitutes un industrial use, is
immediately adjacent to the north clear zone property of
the Airport. The Company and their requested line extension
are Jn Roanoke County and the Roanoke Public Service
Authorit7 is unable to provide services to them. The
arrangements for this took place prior to the execution
of the new sewage treatment contract between Roanoke
County and the City of Roanoke.
The City*s Engineering Department has worked with
Smith's Transfer Corporation in designing this sanitary
sewer extension. It would connect to the existing lO-
inch sanitary sewer line located on Virginia Secondary
Road No. 626 adjacent to Interstate 581 and would extend
through the Airport property to the exlstin9 ID-inch sani-
tary sewer line stub which was installed under State Route
117 at the time that road Was widened,
Plans for this project were submitted to the State
rater Control Board and the Virginia Department of ltealth
for approval. This approval from the State Water Control
Board was received under letter of June 16, 1972.
Smith*s Transfer Corporation has submitted to the City
executed copies of the standard contract for sewer service
with the City and is proposing to construct this sewer line
extension at no cost to the City. Their new terminal has
been completed, they are occupying it and utilizing a tem-
porary disposal facility for their sanitary waste.
It is recommended that the City Council have prepared
by the City Attorney and approve a resolution or ordinance
which would permit execution by the City of a contract for
sewage service with this corporation which would in turn per-
mit them to construct this sanitary sewer line extension.
There is attached a copy of a plan for the project. This
line would become the property of the City at such time as
it has been built.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr, Lisk moved that the report be referred to the City Attorney for
study and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unani-
mously adopted.
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager submitted a written report
advising that the project for the installation of baseball-football field lights
in Preston Park was completed on June 23, lq?2, transmitting a breakdown of the
cost of the project, and pointing out that the price the city paid for fixtures
this year, while higher than last year, is slightly lower than fixture cost
averaging over past years and that it is believed that the figure used this year
of $83.75 per light is still reasonably sound for establishing baseball-football
field light installations.
Mr. Lisk moved that-the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Carland and unanimously adopted.
I i
I/
HOUSING°SLUM CLEARANCE: The City Manager submitted a written report
~fth reference to the' matter of underground utilities - versus overhead utilities
for telephone and electric service in the Kimball Project, said matter having been
referred to Council for consideration during budget study, advising that in the
absence of any inclusion bJthin the 1972-73 budget, unless otherbJse advised by
Council, he mo~ld be in order to advise the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority that the utilities may be designed and proceeded with on an
overhead basis,
In this connection', the City Attorney verbally advised that in the most
recent franchise with the Che~apeahe and Potomac Telephone Company there is a
provision which provides that the installation of ney telephone lines, shall, at
the discretion of Council, be put underground and that the City Charter gives
Council the authority to require that all lines be placed underground,
Mr. Hubard moved that the matter be referFed to the City Attorney for
a legal opinion pertainin9 to underground wiring versus overhead wiring in the
Kimball Redevelopment Project and that the City Manager be requested to furnish
Council with a report on the costs involved. The motion was seconded by Mr,
Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BRIDGES-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-PARKING-SALE OF PROPERTy-S~REETS AND
ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a written report advising that he has been
informed by the Virginia Department of Highways that they have received approval
from the Federal Highway Administration to proceed with preliminary engineering
on the Jefferson Street Bridge project and that the Department is at the present
time negotiating for this engineering work.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. Price H. Durst, Jr,, that
property located at 2052 Berhley Avenue, S. M.. described as Lot l, Section 4,
Block 6, Virginia Heights Map, Official Tax No. ~430901. be rezoned from RD,
Duplex Residential District, to RG-I, General Residential District, the City
Planning Commission submitted the following report recommending that the request
be denied:
~July 5, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke~ Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Plan-
ning Commission at its regular meeting of ~uly 50 1972,
Mr. Jack B. Coulter, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that this property
would be used as a proposed multiple unit apartment building
containing b units, De noted that at present there is located
on this lot a house facing Derkley Avenue that would be modi'-
f/ed and added to would be 5 units, with I 1/2 parking spaces
provided for each unit. This would be a town house type of
apartment with two stories he stated.
129
130
A site plum was ~omn to the Planning Commission by Mr.
Coulter delineating the proposed apartment building. He
stated thor this request did not vary appreciably rrnm the gen-
eral character of the neighborhood, since it is already zoned
fur two-unit apartments and would not, therefore, be harmful
to the orate
MFS. Evelyn Mills, 2101Herkley Avenues, S. ~** appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that she is opposed
to the rezoning because of the danger to the young children
and elderly people living on this street and also voiced
opposition to the additional traffic that this apartment
building mould'generate on this already heavily traveled
street.
Mr. R. P. flurks, 2102 Berkley Avenue, S. W., appeared
before the Planning Commisiion and stated that he is opposed
to the rezoning because of the resultant increase in taxes,
as the property would he assessed higher by the real estate
tax assessor than nom because of the rezoning. He also stated
opposition because of the traffic congestion that this Would
cause and the danger to the children because of the use of
the streets for play areas. He noted that if this lot is
allomed to be rezoned, this will enable more and more lots on
this street to be rezoned and the entire neighborhood will
be a congested area of traffic.
Mrs. Metz, Denniston Avenue, S. W., appeared before the
Plannin9 Commission and stated that she and her husband are
opposed to the rezoning because of the drainage problems this
proposed apartment structure will result in with water running
off the parking area into her back yard where a drainage pro-
blem already exists.
A petition mas presented to the Planning Commission con-
raining the signatures of SS property omners of adjacent
properties 'genuinely' opposed to this rezoning.
The Planning Commission numbers generally concurred that
the area remain in its present RD designation since an apart-
neat designation ~as not in keeping with the character of
the area.
Accordingly, notion was made, duly seconded and unani-
mously approved to recommend to City Council to deny this
request.
Sincerely. ~
S/ Creed K. Lemo~ Jr., by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
In this connection, a communication from Mr. Jack B. Coulter, Attorney,
representing the petitioners, requesting permission to mithdraw the putt*on for
rezoning, was also'before Council. -
Dr. Taylor 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 ar. Ltsk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. Sam H. £11iott, et. ax., that
property adjoining the east side of 2?22 Sweetbrier Avenue, S. ~., described as
part of Lot 5, Block 7, Map of Corbieshaw, Official Tax No. 1651102, be rezoned
from RS-2, Single-Family Residential District, to RD, Duplex Residential District,
the City Planning Commission submitted the following report recommending that the
request be denied.
Mr. Lisk moved that action on the report of-the City Planning Commission
be deferred one meek in order for Mr. Edmard S. Kidd. Attorney, representing the
I
petitioners, to determine mbether or not his clients desire n public hearing on
the matter. The motion was seconded by DF. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Commission for study, report and recommendation a request of Mr. Raymond Ilall.
President of the Southeast Civic League. that the athletic field in Jackson Park
be numed 'The Alvin A. Akers Athletic Field,~ the City Planning Commission sub-
mitred the following report recommending that the request be granted:
'July 5. 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Centlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by the City Planning
Commission at its regular meeting of July 5. 1972.
The Planning Director appeared before the Plannin9 Commission
and stated that Mr. Akers is a prominent figure in the community
and has done much for the betterment of the City of Roanoke.
having been active in the Citizen's Advisory Committee and
instrumental in getting picnic shelters built in both Fallon
and Jackson Parks. and playing a vital role in the development
of the athletic field in Jackson Park. It mas, therefore.
suggested that the athletic field in Jackson Park be appro-
priately nan~d after Mr. Akers, although it has not been a
practice of the City to name athletic fields contained within
an already named park. Finally, it was suggested that an
appropriate sign be placed in the athletic field so desig-
matin9 it.
After much discussion, it was agreed that this action, in
designatin9 the athletic field in Jackson Park as ~The Alvin
A. Akers Athletic Field", was most appropriate.
Accordingly, motion uss made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council that the athletic field
in Jackson Park be named 'The Alvin A. Akers Athletic Field'.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr.. by LM
Chairman"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the rocommendatioo of the City
Planning Commission and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Carland and
unanimously adopted.
connection with a request from the Building Commissioner to amend Section 20 (G)
of the Zoning Ordinance relating to the storage of flammable materials and recom-
mending a certain amendment to the Zoning Ordinance in connection with the matter
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Planning
Commission and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation
of the proper measure. ~he motion was seconded by Mr. 6arland and unanimously
adopted.
S~REET NAMES: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission
for study, report and recommendation the request of Miss Carrie Chittum that the
name of 12 1/2 Street. S. W., bounded on the south by Kerns Avenue, intersecting
Hoebert Avenue on the north, crossing Hamilton Avenue and Valley Avenue and
131
132
parallel to Brighton Road on the nest, be changed, the City Planning Commission
snbmJtte~d the folloMJng report recommending that the street name be changed to
Oak Park Street. S. M.:
"July 5, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Robber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City
Planning Commission at its regular meeting of July $, 1972.
The Planning Director stated there are now two existing
streets named 12 1/2 Street, S. N.. one near ~asena Park and
the other iDeated in the Meat End neighborhood. Be noted the
existing confusion resulting from this situation and recom-
mended that the 12 1/2 Street. S. a., in the [asena Park area
be changed since only two residences front on this very short
street. This.would be in keeping with the request of the peti-
tioner, Miss Chittum, in that the name of 12 1/2 Street, S. M.,
bounded on the south by Kerns Avenue, intersecting Howbert
Avenue on the north, crossing Ilamilton Avenue and Valley
Avenue and parallel to Brighton Road on the west, be changed.
The Planning Director noted that he had obtained from
the Fifth Planning District come possible street names to
re,lace this specific 12 1/2 Street designation. After some
discussion by the Planning Commission members, it was agreed
that Oak Park Street represented an appropriate name for this
street. The Planning Director noted that he was assured by the
Fifth Planning District that thls mas the.only Oak Park Street
designation In the entire region.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unani-
mously approved to recommend to City Council that the above
cited 12 1/2 Street, S. N., bounded on the south by Kerns
Avenue, intersecting Howbert Avenue on the north, crossing
Hamilton Avenue and Valley Avenue and parallel to Brighton
Road on the west, be changed to Oak Park Street, S.M.
Sincerely.
S! Creed K. Lemon, Jr.. by LR
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
Chairman"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the report of the City Planning
Commission and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation
of the proper measure. ~he motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously
adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
BUILDING DEPARTMENT-ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR-PLUmBERS: Council at its meet-
lng on June 26, 1972, having deferred action with regard to certain revisions to
~he Electrical Code of the City of Roanoke and of the administration of electrical
,~nspections, the matter was again before the body.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally advised that he has talked
briefly with Mr. Jack B. Coulter. Attorney, representing the electrical contrac-
tors in the area, pertaining to the matter but there are still certain matters
mhich need to be discussed and requested that action on the matter be deferred
until he has met further with Mr. Coulter.
Hr, Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager,
The motion nas seconded by Mro Link end unanimously adopted,
CITY EMPLOYEES-MUNICIPAL COI~T: Council, ut its lost regular meeting.
having requested a report from the City Manager regarding the request of Judge
Beverly T,.Fitzpatri. cko Chief Judge of the Municipal Court, that the moratorium
on replacement of employees be lifted so that he may employ a replacement for
one of his assistant clerkso Mrs. Frances Smiley, who under the City Code, must
retire on July 13, 1972, the matter mas again before the body.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally advised that he has
several requests to bring to Council relating to the moratorium and that he mould
like to present all these requests at the same time at a later date.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the verbal report of the City
Manager. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
AIRPORT: Ordinance No. 20360. authorizing and providing for execution
of a supplemental agreement to the city*s lease agreement dated August 2b. 1959,
with the United States Government, Federal Aviation Administration, providing
for the leasing of additional space in Building No. I at Roanoke Municipal
(Noodrum) Airport. 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:
(~20360) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for execution of a
supplemental agreement to the City's lease agreement dated August 25, 1969,
with the United States Government, Federal Aviation Administration, providing
for the leasing of additional space in Building :1 at Roanoke Municipal Airport,
in Roanoke County.
(For full text of Ordinance. see as recorded in office
of City Clerk in Ordinance Book u 370 page 45.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas and Mayor
Mebber ......................... 6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Trout absent)
RADIO-TELEVISION-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Ordinance No. 20361. authoriz-
in9 the rental of four square feet of floor space in the main equipment room
of the transmitter building and. outside, on the antenna tower atop Mill Moun-
tain to Roy B. Park Broadcasting of Roanoke. Incorporated, for use. upon cer-
tain 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:
(n20361) AM ORDINANCE authorizing the rental of four (4) squar~ feet
of floor space in th~ ma~n equipment room of the~transmitter building and, out-
side, on the antenna tower atop Mill Mountain to Roy D. Park Broadcasting of
Roanoke, Inc., for use, upon certain terms and conditions.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u37, page 47,)
Hr. Lisk moved the adoptlon of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Bubard and adopted by the following vote~
AYES: MeSsrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor
Webber ......................... 6,
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Trout absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS HUSINESS:
BRIDGES-STATE HXGHWA¥S: Mr. Liskrequest~d that the City Manager inform
the menber~ of Council as to what Council can do to expedite, with the State
Highway Department, the Route 115 - ll6 Project beginning with the bridge that
has been proposed by the Sewage Treatment Plant.
In a discussion of the matter, the City'Manager pointed out that it
has been the position of the consulting engineers and the staff that in view of
what the city has invested in the Sewage Treatment Plant it is questioned if
it would be advisable to put ~ four lane highway in the front door of the main
plant building, that he is scheduled to meet with Mr. L. O. Holton of the State
Highway Department during the hast week of July and that he will report hack to
Council pertaining to the results of their discussion.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the City Manager be directed to report back to
Council. after meeting with Mr. Rolton. with bis recommendations on the matter.
The mot;ion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
A~TEST: ~.
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED
Mayor
t
COUNCIL, MEGULAM MEETING,
Monday, July 17, 1972,
The Council of the city of ROanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building. Monday. July 17. 1972, at 2 p.m.. the regnlar
meeting hour. mits Mayor Roy L. lebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Milllam S. Nubard. David K. Lisk,
Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas and Mayor Roy L. Mebber ..........6,
ABSENT: Councilman James O. Trout ........................O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, city Manager; Mr. Nilliam
Clark, Assistant City Mnnager; M~. H, Ben Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney;
Mr, Edward A. Natt, Assistant City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson, City Auditor,
INVOCATION: The meetin9 was opened mith a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor,
iMember of Roanoke City U.ascii.
MINIrIES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
June 19, I972, having been furnished each umber of COuncil. on motion of Mr.
Lisk, seconded by Mr. Garland, the reading thereof was dispensed with and the
minates approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: Mr. Garland presented
the f. Il,win9 communication with regard to a complete reflection on certain past
actions of Council relative to remodeling the old Courthouse Building as well as
other action previously taken by Council which would certainly be affected if any
serious consideration is to be given to a complete relocation of the Courthouse,
expressing the opinion that the City Manager has presented a reasonable, accept-
able and adequate plan for the old Courthouse Building which the city can afford
and one which has already been approved, that he cannot see the necessity for
rehashin9 all of this over again, that Council has made the decision and it should
live by and proceed as expeditiously as possible and that the other governing
bodies should be informed that the City of Roanoke has definitely decided to
remodel its own courthouse and use that facility for its own purposes, accordingly,
the Regional Courthouse Committee should be discharged with the city*s thanks:
'13 July 1972
Mayor Roy L. Nebber and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Gentlemen:
Since a meeting has been called for 7 PM, Monday, July 17,
1972, for the purpose of a further discussion of the plans
for the old Courthouse Building, a complete reflection should
be made on certain past actions by this Council relative to
this remodeling as well as other action previously taken by
this Council which would certainly be affected if any serious '
consideration is to be giveu of a complete relocation of the
The matter of the~renovation nnd remodeling of the old Courthouse
fluilding has consumed hundreds of hours of the ndministrntlon*s
time nnd energy as well as this Council and other interested
and involved citizens. The City has already spent sizeable sums
of money in this study, in the drawing of the plans and in archi-
tect and consultant fees. The City #snsger on February 3,
gave the city Council, the press nnd other interested citi-
zens, · very elaborate and detailed presentation* in which he
delineated for the benefit of all those present, several plans
mhich he had designated as plan A, plan H-I, plan B-2, and
plan 8-3° As my memory serves me, plan A contained and called
for a hem public safety building, a neu courthouse as well ns
plans for the juvenile and Domestic Relations Court. No serious
consideration was given this plan at that time and we passed on
to the plans 8. These plans. ! believe contained three possi-
ble alternatives for floor arrangements for the old courthouse
building. After much discussion and deliberation, the Council
agreed to plan 8-2, end instructed the city Manager to pro-
ceed forthwith on that basis. ~o subs*artiste this decision
and as a result of that meeting, the Council passed Resolution
No. 20093 on February 7, 1972 by unanimous vote. For your care-
ful perusal, I quote you the preamble to that Resolution,
Resolution approving, in general, a recommendation of certain
extensive renovations to the Courthouse Building of the City;
approvilg, in general, a schematic ~lan presented by the city
Manager for such renovations, if the same be similarly approved
by others in authority having power of approval; and direct-
lng the city Manager to determine mhether said general plan
will provide suitable space and facilities for the Courts and
public offices for mhich the city is responsible, and to make
further report thereon to the council."
At our meeting of July $, 1972, the city Manager gave a report
in connection with the employment of Bayes, Seay, Ma*tern and
Mat*em for remodeling of the courthouse Building, said contract
not to exceed the gross sum of $1qO,O00 without prior approval
of COuncil. Included~thin our agenda was an ordinance giving
him this authority. I mas completely dumbfounded when the
question was raised by several members of the Council as to
whether or not this decision had been made and even implying
that thisCouncil was still seriously considering the Regional
Courthouse as expressed in Resolution No. 20093 was only tenta-
tive, that maybe this was not our intentions at all. As one
member of the Council, there has been no question whatsoever
in this writer's mind as to the intent of Resolution
20093.
For this council to continue to vacillate, hedge, equivocate
and further delay this project on the premise of getting
ge*her with the other valley governments on a Regional Court-
house concept is unthinkable, ludicrous and ridiculous. It
reminds me of a Laurel and Hardy Comedy or the Keystone COpS of
yesteryear. It is inconceivable to me that seven responsible
men could give serious consideration to this after all that has
been said and done. All we would have to ask ourselves, "Mould
it be possible to agree on a site, on the financing, on pro-
portionate shares, on layout or any number of other details?"
Rhea we, ourselves, cannot agree on plans, when one looks at
the history of the sewer negotiations, the battle between
Salem and the County on the school contract, without being
pessimistic, it would be extremely doubtful that agreement
would be possible on such a complex issue. In this instance,
Consolidation would be the only answer. We, therefore, should
not pretend to ourselves, to the other governing bodies or to
our citizens that me are seriously considering a joint venture,
Our previous actions indicate that me have no intentions, that
me have, in fact, agreed to proceed with the remodeling and
renovation of the old Courthouse building.
For this Council to continue to resurect this question and even
other, once a decision is made, can only lead to chaos and lack
of confidence in the Council. This is not to mention the
quandary and the state of confusion that such indecision leads
to as far as our own administration is concerned, Quite natu-
rally the Manager is hesitant in proceeding with this project
as well as others when he gets the impression that the council,
itself, has not made up its mind.
1 t~ink that it would be fair to st'ate that the old Courthouse
Building is structnally sound; unfortunatelyt the same cannot
be said of the electrical and plumbing systems. However, the
Council has been made to understand that it will be necessary
to replace all of that. However, it would appear that after
i I
ell of this remodeling° renovstion end replacement is accom-
plished tbet we will bare a building that is sound, ssfe end
adequate for many years to cone particularly when you take into
consideration the projected population trend for the City of
Roanoke.
Another factor that must necessarily be considered and most
definitely cannot be o~erlooked is the recent action taken by
the Council r~latlve to the construction of the perking Gar-
age on Church Avenue, said locution being less than one block
from the old Courthouse Building. The expressed purpose of
this project was for providing un impetus to Bountown Roanoke
and to prevent uny farther deterioration of that area as well
es to increase the traffic so as to enhance business activity.
For the council to consider removal of the Courthouse from
Donntown Roanoke after taking this action, simply amazes and
astounds me. The two ideas are at cross purposes and in con-
f]ict with one another. In one breath, we are willing to spend
three million dollars to boost that area and in the next breath
consider the removal of the Courthouse facility to al.cation
outside of the business district. It does not made sense, it
is unrealistic and besides we cannot afford it.
It would be fine and dandy to have a new jail. a new Courthouse,
a hem public Safety Building and unlimited Municipal parking
areas. However, those advocating such a project Should examine
the costs involved. A conservative estimate would be twenty
million dollars. Mith our debt limit now seriously impaired
by projected school and other capital improvements, it would
be insane at this point to consider such an elaborate and
expensive project. We simply do not have the necessary leeway
in our bond limitations nor can we continue to impose extra=
ordinary taxes upon our citizenry. Me must realize that there
is a limit to that which we can do or what our taxpayers will
tolerate or can afford. One could use the analogy Of a com-
pact car with a Rolls Royce or having a champagne appetite with
a ginger ale pocketbook.
Mister Mayor and gentleman of the Council, the Administration
(Mr. Hirst) has presented n reasonable, acceptable and adequate
plan for the old Courthouse building and one which we can afford
and even have already approved. I cannot see the necessity for
rehashing all of this over again, we have made the decision
and I believe o wise one and one we should live by and proceed
as e~peditiously as possible, we should inform the other
9overnin9 bodies that the City of Roanoke has definitely
decided to remodel our own Courthouse and use that facility
for our own purposes. Accordingly. the Regional Courthouse
Committee' should be discharged with our thanks.
For the City Council to continue to reconsider, refer, re-
refer matters back and forth between the Administration and the
Council or the planning Commission and the Council er other
Committees and the Council will earn us the name end one which
we would richly deserve, 'The Council of Indecision.-
Respectfully Submitted for your consideration.
S/ Robert A. Garland
Robert A. Garland-
Mr. Lisk moved that action on the communication be deferred until the
informal meeting of Council acting as a Committee of the whole at 7:00 p.m.,
Monday, July 17, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously
adopted.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A communication from Mr. Russell R. Henley.
Executive Director of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority,
in connection with the development of BO dwelling units located on ~ise Avenue,
S. E., advising that the Authority*s estimate of the annual amount of payments in
lie. of taxes on the Wise Avenue project is $2,500~00 and of the annual an.ant of
taxes which would be levied were the property privately owned is $20,000.00 and
that the property at present, assuming all taxes paid, is producint $268.00 per
annum in taxes, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: council, at its special meeting on Friday, June 30.
1972. hsvfeg .requested that the City Ms~ager reduce the 1972r73 fiscal year
budget by $250.000.00 and having also requested that the Roanohe City school Board
reduce its 1972-73 fiscal year budget by $250,000.00, the city Manager submitted
a written report transmitting a list of proposed reductions.
In this connection, the Roanoka City s~hool Board also submitted a
list Of proposed redaction for the 1972-73 fiscal year badger.'
Dr, Taylor moved that th~ reductions be referred to the city Auditor for
his information in connection mith adjusting figures in the 1972-73 fiscal year
~dget, The notionmas secondedby Mr. Bubard and unanimously adopted.
RAOIO-TELEVISXON-pARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: The City Manager submitted a
mritten report advising that the Ordinance which had previously been before coun-
cil, mhich he asked to be delayed, in regard to the contractual authorization to
radlostatJon MPVR to mount a translater on the Mill Mountain Tower, is now resub-
mitted and with recommendation for Council's adoption.
Mr. LiSk moved that COUncil concur in the report of the City Manager
and that the following ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(u20370) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the r~ntol of four (4) squar~ feet
of floor space in the equipment room of the transmitter building atop Mill Moun-
tain to James L. Gibbons, trading as Jim Gibbons Radio (MPVR) for use, upon cer-
tain terms and conditions.
MRER£AS, the City Manager has advised the Council that Jim Gibbons Radio
(WPYR) desires to ~nt certain space in the equipment room of the City*s trans-
mitter building atop Mill Mountain for use of a FM translator and associated
equipment and, also, certain outside space on the antenna tower, and said James
L. Gibbons is agreeable to the terms and provisions hereinafter contained.
YHEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINEB by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
said City doth hereb~ agree to rent to Jim Gibbons Radio (MPVR) four (4) square
feet of floor space in the'equipment room of the transmitter building atop Mill
Mountain for said proprietor's use for the placement and operation of a PM
translator, with associated equipment, and, also, space on the toner adjacent to
said building for their antenna, to be connected by coaxial cable to the radio
equipment in said building, upon the following terms and conditions;
1. That the right of such use shall commence during' the calendar y~ar
1972, on or after July 1, in said ~eur;
2. That the ter*m of said agreement shall he £rom month to month with the
right in either party to terminate said agreement upon 30-days* written notice
to said other party;
3, Zhat the proprietorship pay to the City the sun of $624.00 per y~ur/
payable in equal quarter-annual' payments of $15b.00 each;
4. That the City supply without additional charge therefor, hear, liqht
and water, but not telephone service, reasonably necessary for the operation of
the aforesaid radio equipment;
~, That authorized representatives or employees of said proprietorship
have u free right of ingress and egress to and from the aforesaid premises ut all
reasonable times in and about the operation and maintenance of said radio equip-
ment;
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
7. That the City reserves the right to terminate the aforesaid agreemen~
at any time on 30-days' prior notice in writing by the City Manager to said James
L. Gibbons trading as Jim Gibbons Radio (RPVR), addressed to P. O. 8ox 151,
Frederick, Maryland, 21701, or to such location in the City of Roanoke at which
said proprietor shall maintain an office or studio, should the City Manager deter-
mine a need for the City*s omu use of the space OF premises hereinabove mentioned
or. should the City Manager determine that the aforesaid radio equipment inter-
fares, by its operation, with the operation of the City's radio or communication
equipment, or the operation of any other lessee of the City.
RE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the agreement herein authorized to be entered
into on behalf of the City may be effected by the City's execution of a mrit-
ten lease agreement embodying the terms herein provided, approved as to form by
the City Attorney.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by .the following
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Oubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor
Webber .........................
NA¥S:. None ........ -0. (Rr. Trout absent)
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having referred to the City Manager for
investigation and report a communication from Mrs. Linda Uuffman expressing con-
cern as to the termination Of a pony league baseball game during the fifth inning
at Maber Field. the City Manager submitted a written report advising that the
Constitution and By-Laws for the Sandlot Baseball Leagues, City of Roanoke, which
are approved by the managers at the beginning of the season, states under Article
VII. Section D, *Any team that is ahead by ten or more runs after five innings
will be declared the winner and the 9ama terminated," pointing out that it would
appear that the game was properly bandied and that the termination of the game
was in order.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
RATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report advising
that Mr. Kit R. Eiser, Manager of the Water Department, has successfully passed
the second and last part of a two-part series examination for certification as a
Professional Engineer in Virginia and pointing out that the.achievement by Mr.
Kaset is commendably reflective upon the city in having this accreditation on
the city's staff.
136
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed, The. motion mas
seconded by Dr, Taylor and unanimously adopted,
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the roi-
laming report on the status of personnel in the Police Department and the Fire
Department as of June 30, 1972:
'July 17, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Personnel - Police and Fire Departments
Listed belom is the status of the Police and the Fire
Department as of June 30, 1972:
'Fire Department
"Daring the month of June 1972, there mere no changes in Fire
Department personnel. There is a full complement assigned
at this time.
'Police Department
Name Hired
*Fred S, Cruser, Jr., Police Officer June 12, 1972'
*Cyril J, Goens, Jr., Police Officer June 25, 1972'
*Endin9 June 30, 1972 (9) vacancies.'
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Hubard moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Council having requested that the City Attorney
render a legal opinion pertaining to underground wiring versos overhead miring in
the Kimball Redevelopment Project, the Assistant City Attorney submitted a writ-
ten report of the City Attorney advising that an opinion will be forthcoming by no
later than July 31, lg72.
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attor-
ney. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted, Mr. Hubard rotan9 no.
In this connection, the City Manager resubmitted a mritten report trans-
mitting the following communication from Mr. Russell R. Itenley, Executive Director
of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment end Dousing Authority, in connection with the
costs involved in the project:
"April 12, 1972
Mr. Julian F. Hirst RE: U~ILXTIES
City Manager KIMBALL PROJECT
City of Roanoke PROJECT R-46
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Julian,
This replies to your letter of January 7, 1972, concerning
underground utilities in the Kimball Redevelopment Project,
Project R-46.
I regret the delay ia respoodiog to your letter which has
been due to the complexities of financing, particularly
because of pooling credits os a part of financing *be Kimball
Project, the Downtown East Project and now the Goinsboro
Neighborhood Development Program,
Due to the urgency end the need for on early decision on this
mutter of underground utilities, since we have begun grnding
operations, it has been necessary to compute the finances re-
lated specifically to the present approved financing in the
Kimball ProJect, except donation of the incinerator mhlch bas
been considered. This does not include current updated fore-
casts of additional grading and site improvement costs which
will occur, nor does it include an increase in had disposition
proceeds which will occur,
For your information we now have sufficient developers' interest
to sell all the land in the Kimball Project once we have read-
ied it for sale.
Reflecting the costs to the City of Roanoke based on a net cost
of ($356.400 less $22,600) $333.600 for electrical distribution
and ($158,045 less $7.495) $150.5S0 for telephone distribution
lines would add a.total additional expenditure to the Project
of $484,350.00. Applying the one-third City's cost nad two-
thirds Federal cost to the $484,350 but considering adjustments
on pooling credits, the additional cost In cash to the City of
Roanoke would be $65,300. This would require an approved Amend-
men* to the Loan and Grant Contract with the Federal Govern-
ment requiring an additional Federal Grant of $41g,050.
For your lnformation.l enclose your memorandum to City Council
and copies of letters from both the power company and telepho~
company.
An early reply as to City Council's decision in this matter
will be appreciated.
Sincerely yours.
S/ Russell R. Henley
Russell R. Renley
Executive Director"
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland.
Hr. Hubard offered a substitute notion that the City Attorney be directed!
to prepare the proper ~ asure amendin9 the city budget to fund the installation of
underground wiring in the Kimball Redevelopment Project. The motion wes seconded
by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
After a discussion regarding the placin9 of all telephone and electric
wires underground, Mr. Garland moved that the City ganager be instructed to meet
with the Appalachian Power Company to work out an arrangement which will be
mutually acceptable to the Power Company and to the City of Roanoke regarding the
future policy of underground wiring and report back to Council accordingly, The
motion was seconded by Mr. Huburd and unanimously adopted.
PENSIONS: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure in connection with certain amendments to the Police and Fire
Pension System. the Assistant City Attorney submitted the following.report advis-
ing that together with the City Auditor, he has prepared a form of Ordinance
which would amend Sections 5 and ~, Chapter 2, Title III, of the City.Code, that
said Ordinance is prepared for Council*s recommended adoption as an emergency
measure, the provisions of which would take effect retroactive to July 1. 1972:
137
188
~July 17, 1972
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Council previously has referred to this office the matter
of preparing the necessary amendments to the Police and Fire
Pension System which would accomplish the following increases
in benefits to certain pensions under said system:
n.) Provide for a minimum pension of $1S0.00
per month, irregardless of .length of service
to the City;
b.) Provide that in addition to the minimum
pension, above, or such other pension
as may be due under a formula presently
provided in the City Cede, an additional
sum of $15.00 per month for each year
of service to the City in excess of twenty-nine
(29) years, with a maximum of $300.00 per month
total pension;
c.) Provide that widows of deceased pensioners
recceive a minimum pension of $100.00 per
month.
The City Auditor and the undersigned have. together, prepared
a form of ordinance which mould amend Sec. 5 and Sec. ho of
Chapter 2. of Title III, os the City Code in a manner to incor-
porate the above amendments, said ordinance being prepared for
Council's recommended adoption, as an emergency measure, the
provisions of which would take effect retroactive to July 1,
1972.
Respectfully,
S/ H. Ben Jones, Jr.,
Assistant City Attorney"
In this connection, the Assistant City Attorney verbally requested that
the proposed Ordinance be referred to a committee for further consideration and
report to Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the Assistant City
Attorney and that Mayor Webber be requested to appoint a committee to study the
)reposed Ordinance and that the committee report its recommendations at the next
regular meeting of Council on Monday. July 24..1972. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
I Mayor Mebb~r then appointed Messrs. David K. Lisk, Chairman, James O.
Trout, A. N. Gibson and H. Ben Junes, Jr., as members of the committee.
SALE OF PROPERTy-STREETS AND ALLEYS: The Assistant City Attorney sub-
mitted a written report ~ecommending that the City of Roanoke accept an offer of
tho City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Rousing Authority to convey two parcels of
land containing a total of 12,120 square feet, situate on the northerly and south-
erly sides of Hunt Avenue, N. M., between 8th Street and 9th Street, R. M., for
the sum of $10.00, cash, said land being dedicated to the city for public street
purposes.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Assis-
tant City Attorney and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
!J
(20371) AH OROINANCE providing for the acquisition of tn, Rarcels of
land containing a total of 12,920 square feet. ndJacent to Hunt Avenue, N. Moo
be,mean 8th Street, N. M., and 9th Street, N. M., for public street purposes; and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook #37, page 53,) ·
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr..Lisk and adopted by the roil,ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Rubard, Llsk. Taylor. Thomas. and Mayor
Webber ..........................
NAYS: None .......... O. (Mr. Trout absent)
ELECTIONS: The Assistant City Attorney submitted the following report
transmitting a Resolution mhicb would give consent to the assignment by the
Shoup Voting Machine Corporation to Mellon National Rank and Trust Company of such
funds as may become due for payment by the city under the contract for 65 voting
machines, but which would reserve the city*s right to cancel the contract pur-
suant to provision~ as set out in said report:
"July 17, 1972
To the Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
fly contract dated August 1, 1966, the City purchased eighty-
five (05) voting machines from Shoup Voting Machine Corporation.
The contract provided.for payment of the purchase price of
the machines, plus interest, to the corporation by the City
over a period of ten (10) years. The last installment pay-
ment due under the contract matures in 1975. The terms of the
contract provide that said corporation may assign monies due
it by the City pursuant to said contract, but such assignment
would not become binding upon the City until ratified by the
City. By the contract, the City reserves the right to cancel
the contract at the end of any one-year period and return the
machines to Shoup Voting Machine Corporation.
On March 16, lgYl, said corporation assigned its rights under
its contract with the City to Mellon National Hank and Trust
Company, but without notice, So far as is known, to the City.
Ry letters dated June 1 and June 15, 1972, Mellon National Bank
and Trust Company has requested the City to ratify this assign-
ment.
The tota! "Principal Balance* doe to Shoap Voting Machine
Corporation for said voting machines at the present time is
$55,080.00. Ry the contract, the City reserves the right to
receive title to said machines at an earlier date than 1975
by paying to said corporation on the date any installment is
due, the remaining *Principle Ralance* with no interest
penalty.
I have prepared and transmit herewith for the Council*s con-
sideration, a Resolution which would give consent to the
assignment by Shoup to said Rank of such funds as may become
due for payment by the City under the contract, but which
monld reserve the City*s right to cancel the contract pur-
suant to the provisions hereinabove mentioned.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Edward A. Natt
Edward A. Natt,
Assistant City Attorney"
139
140
Dr, Taylor moved that Council concur in the report of the Aasistant
City Attorney and offered the following Resolution:
(u20372) A RESOLUTION consenting to the assignment- to Mellon Natibnal
Bank and Trust Company of the sum to become due Shoup voting Machine Corporation
es the purchase price for certain voting mOcbJnes, upon certain terms and condi-
tions. "
(Fur full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Oook a37, page $4,)
Dr, Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution.· The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:·
AYES: HeaRtS. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor
Mebber .......................... 6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Trout absent)
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
SALE OF PROPERTY: The Real Estate Committee submitted a mritten report
recommending that the offer of Mr. John R, Newbill to purchase city-owned pro-
perty located on Raymood Avenue, S. #., designated as Parcel No, 1, Official Tax
No. iO?ODO0, for the sum of $1.000.00. be accepted.
In this connection, Mr. David K. Lisk, Chairman of the Real Estate
Committee. verbally requested that action on the report he deferred ontil the next
regular meeting of Council on Monday, July 24, 1972.
Mr. Lisk then moved that Council concur in the request. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: Council having pre-
-viously deferred action on a report of the City Manager in connection with the
employment of Hayes, Seay, Mattern ~ Mattern, Architects and Engineers, for remo-
deling of the Courthouse Building. said contract not to exceed the 9ross sum of
$190,000.00, without prior approval of Council expressed by Ordinance or Resolu-
tion, the matter was again before the body.
Dr. Taylor moved that action on the matter be deferred until the informal
meeting of Council acting as a,Conmittee of the Rhole at 7:00 p.m.. Monday, July
17, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bubard and unanimously.adopted.
ZONING: Council having'previously deferred action on a report of the
City Planning Commission in connection with the reqeuet of Mr. Sam B. £11iott,
et mx., that property adjoining the east side of 2?22 Sweetbrier Avenue, S.
described as part of Lot S. Block ?, Map of Corbieshaw, Official Tax No. 1651102,
be rezoned from RS-2, Single-Family Residential District. to RD, Duplex Residen-
tial District, and the City Planning Commission having recommended that the reques
be denied, the matter was again before the body.
In tAis connection, a communication, from Hr, Edmsrd S, Kidd, Jr,, Attor-
ney, representing the petitionerse adyising that bis clients desir~ a publi~ hear-
inK. on the request, mas. also before Council,
Hr. Lish moved that o public hearing on the. request for rezoning be
held at 2 p,m** Monday, August 14, 1972. The motion uss seconded by Dr, Taylor
and unanimously adopted,
CONSID£RATION OF CLAIRS: NONE.
INYRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20366, resuming 5.3?? acres of land, more or
less, located on the sooth, side of Shenandoah Avenue at Peters Creek, .and also.
a tract of land containing 2.257 acres, more or less, located on the south side
of Shenandoah Avenue and Killer Street, from RS-3, Single-F~mily Residential Dis-
trict, to C-2, General Commercial District, having previously been before Council
for its first reading, read and laid over, pas again before the body, Hr. liubard
offering the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(m20366) AN O~D1NANCE to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of
the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and .Sheet No. 272. Sectiona.l
1966 Zone gap, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook · 3?, page 49.)
Mr, Bubard moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr, Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None O. (Mr. Trout absent)
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20367, rezoning property located at 412 Walnut
Avenue, S. E., described as the easterly portion of Lots 1, 2 and 3, Block 23,
Map of Roanoke Cas and Water Company,. Official Tax No. 4031116, from RG-I, Gen-
eral Residential District, to RD, Duplex Residential District, .having previously
been before Council for i~s .fir,st reading, read and. la.id over, was again before
the body., My. ~arluad offering the following for its second reading and final
adoption:
(m20367) 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 m37, page SO.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None O. (Mr, Trout ab.sent)
ZONING: Ordinance No. 2036B, rezpnin9 property lying and being on the
east side and on the west side of 9th Street, S. E., and north of the Norfolk and
Western Rnilusy Company property line, described us Official Tax Nos, 4240101 and
4142631, from RD, Duplex Residential District, to C-2, General Commericul Districto
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 read-
ing and final adoption: ' '
(n20360) AN ORDINANCE to emend Title XV, Chapter. 4.1, Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheets No, 414 end 424,
Sectional 1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #37, page SI.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iby Mr. Lisk and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Masers. Garland, Hubard. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None ........ -0. (Mr. Trout absent)
STREET NAMES: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure providing that the name of 12 1/2 Street, S. W., from Kerns Avenue,
S. W., to RoMbert Avenue, S. W** in the City of Roanoke, be changed and renamed
Oak Park Street, S, N., in order to provide a unified street name system, he
presented same; whereupon, Mr. Ilubard moved that the following Ordinance he placed
upon its first reading:
(#20573) AN ORDINANCE changing the name of a certain street within the
corporate limits of the City of Roanoke in the Was*nd Park area in order to pro-
vide a unified street name system.
NOEREAS, the City Planning Commission has reported to Council under da~
of July 5, 1972, that said Planning Commission recommends changing the name of a
certain stree~ in the Was,nd Park area so as to provide for a more unified name
system for the streets in the City of Roanoke.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
ithe name of 12 l/2~Street, S. W** from Kerns Avenue, So W., to Howbert Avenue.
S. M., in the City of Roanoke be changed and renamed Oak Park Street. S. W.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that the City Engineer be, and he is hereby direct-
ed to cause the above street name to be appropriately noted on all maps and plats
llodged in his care; that the City Manager be,. and he is hereby authorized to
cause the placement of appropriate street name signs on said new street; and that
the City Clerk transmit to the Postmaster at Roanoke six (6) attested copies of
this ordinance, in order that said Postmaster be apprised of the aforesaid street
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. ~arland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None. O, (Mr, Trout absent)
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS:' Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure naming the athletic field in Jackson Park *The Alvin A.
Akers Athletic Field" in honor of the contributions of Hr,-Akers to the develop-
sent of the city*s perks, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Link offered the fol-
lowing Resolution:
(#203?4) A RESOLt~ION naming the athletic field in Jackson Park 'The
Alvin A, Akers Athletic Field'.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance B, oh #37, page
Hr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland,' Rubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, and Mayor
Webber .......................
NAYS: None ..........-0. (Mr. Trout absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
CROSSOVERS-GOODWILL INDUS'fRIES: Mr. J. A. MacFarlane, Jr., General
Manager, 6godwill Industries, Inc., and Mr. L. B. Cadd, 2B23 Franklin Read, S.
appeared before Council in connection with the employment of handicapped people
and requested that a crosswalk be constructed in front of the 6godwill Industries
located at 3125 Salem Tornpike, N. W.
After a discussion of the request, Mr. Lisk moved that the question of
a crosswalk be referred to the City Manager for investigation and recommendation
to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr~ ,shard and unanimously adopted.
Mith reference to the matter, Mrs. F, G, Longnecker, a member of the
Woman's Auxiliary to the Goodwill Industries, Inc., appeared before Council in
support of the request and expressed appreciation to Council for any consideration
that may be given to the matter.
~REES: Mr. Garland presented the following communication in connection
with the initiation of a tree Ordinance:
"13 July 1972
Mayor Roy L, Webber and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Gentlemen:
Back last year, the Roanoke Valley Couucil of Garden Clubs
invited the City Council to their offices for the purpose of
acquainting us with certain aspects of the environment with
special emphasis being placed on the conservation of trees
within the Roanoke Valley. At that meeting, they presented
to each of us, o copy of a proposed tree ordinance which hope-
fully would be considered by 41 of the governing bodies within
this Valley.
Accordingly, I think it would be appropriate for this Council
- to initiate this study and I would therefore propose that this
matter be referred to our Planning Commission for study, report
and recommendation.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Robert A, Garland
Robert A, Garland"
143'
.44
Mr, Garland moved that the matter be referred ~o.the City, Planning
Gommission for studye report~ and recommendation to Council,. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
tLE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY: Mr. Hubard pr~ented the following
communication recommending that the City Planning De.partment make an invent.ory
of clty-ow~ed realty., identifying each such parcel as to its current use, its
best use by the city, mhet~er or not such real .e.state should, be retai~ed by the
city, and sn indication of the time of disposal of any real estate which the
Department would suggest that the city dis.pose of,. such an .inventory to exclude
the lOS parcels shown on the list dated June 9, 1971, which has been identified
by Council as surplus city real estate to be sold:
"July 12, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. ?e~ber,,
Mayo[
Members of Roanoke, City .Council ..
Gentlemen:
Over the ninety odd years that Roanoke has been in eixstence,
it has acquired many and varied parcels of real estate located
in all sections of our city. Title to these properties have
been acquired throw9h purchase0 condemnation, gift and perhaps
even by devise.
No careful inventory of the realty owned by the city of Roanoke
has ever been taken, and it is doubtful whether any one person
or office in the city is amare of precisely what real estate
is owned by the city. The nedd for the taking of such inven-
tory seems obvious, as is the determination by Council of the
need or desirability of eithdr retaining the current owner-
ship or use of a number of such parcels of real estate owned
by the city. Thereford, it is recommended that Council request
the City Planning Department to make such an inventory of such
city-owned realty, with that Department identifying each such
parcel as to its current use, its best use by the city, and
mba*her or not such real estate should bd retained by the city,
with an indication of the time of disposal of any real estate
which it would suggest that the city dispose of. Sgch an
inventory should not include the 105 parcels shown on the
list dated June 9, 1971, ~hich bas been identified by Council
as surplus city real estate to be sold.
It is suggested that in the event that such an inventory is
taken and any identified surplus city real estate i'm sold, the
funds received from such sales should be set aside in a sepa-
rate account and designated for the future purchase of real
estate to be used for future requirements of the city.
Sincerely,
5/ Nm. So Hubard
MiXliam $..Hubard
Councilman"
Mr. Hubard moved that the matter be referred to th~ City Planning Depart-
ment for preparation of such an inventory. The motion~as s~conded by Mr. Garland
and unanimously ~dopted.
ROANOKE VALLEY: Mr. Thomas presented the following communication in
connection with a Resolution endorsing the establishment of a Citizens Committee
on Envoronmental ~uality as proposed by the Environmental Stud~ .Committee of the
Roanoke Council of Community Services:
"TO: MAYOR end COUNCIL July 17o 1972
RE: Resolution endorsing establishment or a citizens Committe~
on Environmental Quality as proposed by the Environmental
Study Committee of the Roanoke Council of Community
Services
Each member of Council has received a copy of the report
of the Study Committee on Environmental Quality, which was
released for publication last week. This committee was ap-
pointed by the RVCCS In January, 1972. It has spent tko past
six (6) months compiling, analyzing and reviewing data per-
taining to environmental problems in air and water quality.
noise abatement, solid waste disposal, conservation and pop-
ulation,
The report which is the work product of this committee's
activities provides a thorough analysis of the factors affect-
lng Environmental Quality in the Roanoke Valley area. It can
serve as a catalyst to generate citizen concern and citizen
action to cope with existing environmental problems and thereby
alleviate future problems.
One of the recommendations of the committee is for the
establishment of a Citizens Council on Environmental Quality,
I believe this is a particularly significant and timely
recommendation and one which should bear the endorsement of
this Council and other governing bodies in the Roanoke Valley
area.
The purpose and objectives of the Citizens Council are
well documented in the report:
'A citizens council on environmental quality,
as recommended in this report, could provide the
catalyst necessary to make the Roanoke Valley a com-
munity to be proud of, It could educate the public,
It could serve as a lobbying force with government
and industry, It could help to coordinate environ-
mental quality activities. It could set up a means
to measure environmental quality and keep the public
inforned as to progress.'
Therefore, I move that Roanoke City Council direct the City
Attorney to prepare a Resolution as follows:
(1) We commend RVCCS and the Study Committee for
its report;
(2) We endorse the concept of the establishment of a
Citizens Council on Environmental Quality and
encourage other governing bodies in the Roanoke
Valley area to endorse the concept; and
(3) We offer as a 9overning body to assist the RVCCS
in accomplishing the objectives of this most
worthwhile endeavor.
S/ Hampton M. Thomas*
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Mr. Itubard and
unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL: Mr, Lisk moved that Council meet in Executive Session regard-
lng a litigation matter, The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously
adopted,
COMMITTEES: Mr. Ltsk moved that Council meet in Executive Session to
discuss procedural recommendations for the Council's appointment of committees
and recommendations for restructuring and defining responsibilities of each of
the committees appointed by Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard
and unanimously adopted.
1~t5
There being no further business, Hayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned,
APPROVED
ATTEST: ~
)eputy City Clerk, Rayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, July 24t 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke Bet iu regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Buildingt Monday, July 24. 1972, at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, William S. Hubard, David K. Lisk
Noel. C. Taylor, Hampton Mo Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Webber ....
ABSENT: None. -0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Ilirst, City Manager; Mr. William F.
Clark, AssAm*ant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon. City Attorney; and Mr.
Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened sith a prayer by the Reverend
Arthur P. Cooley, Pastor, Huntington Court United Methodist Church.
MXNtTfES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
June 26, 1972, h~ving been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
Trout, 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:
AIRPORT: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids for the recon-
struction of a roadway at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport consisting of a
loop in front of the Terminal Building, said proposals to be received by the City
Clerk until 2 p.m., Monday, July 24. 1972, and to be opened before Council at that
hour, Mayor Webber asked if anyone had any questions about the advertisement for
bids and no one present raising any questions the Mayor instructed the City Clerk
to proceed with the opening of the bids; whereupon, the City Clerk opened and read
the following bids:
John A. Hall ~ Company, Incorporated. - $ 149,696.95
Adams Construction Company, Incorporated - 156,957.10
No ~ S. Construction Company - 159,479.75
Virginia Asphalt Paving Company,
Incorporated - 158,957,00
Mr. Thomas moved that tho bids be referred to a committee to be appoint-
ed by the Mayor for tabulation, report and recommendation to Council, the City
Attorney to preparq 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. William F. Clark, Chairman, J. Ii. Brewer
and Samuel H. McGhee, III, as members of the committee.
ZONING: Council having continued a public hearin9 until 2 p.m., Monday,
July 24, 1972, on the off-street parking requirements in the RG-I and RO-2. Gen-
eral Residential Districts, the C-l, Office and Institutional District, and the
C-2, General Commercial District, the matter was again before the body.
147
148
· In this ~onnection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follow-
lng report.recommending that the existing minimum off-street parking requirement
for the retail stores category in the C-2, General Commercial District, be
amended to read os foil*ms:
Retal~ ~toren (Except Fornitnre)
I for each 200 sq, ft. Qf retail sales and display floor area
plus I for each 400 square feet of floor area utilized for the
storage and marehousin9 of goods and merchandise related to
the primary retail use,
*July 14, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Nebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited petition bas been considered by the City
Planning Commission on numerous occasions. On July 10, 1972
the City Council referred this matter back to the Planning
Commission for reviem and reconsideration and specifically
to determine the validity of providing for differing parking
requirements as it pertains to the retail sales and display
floor area and the storage area of retail establishments.
At the July 19th meeting of the Planning Commission0 the
Planning Director presented an amendment to the Planning Com-
mission members pertaining to the retail store category in the
C-2. ~eneral Commercial District, providing for a separation
betmeen sales and display floor area and storage and mar*hans-
in9 with corresponding off-street parking requirements. This
is as follows:
Retail Stores (Except Furniture)
I for each 200 sq. ft. of retail sales and display
floor area plus I for each 400 square feet of floor
area utilized for the storage and warehousing of
9gods and merchandise related tothe primary retail
The Planning Director noted that he felt that this mas
a valid recommendation as the storage and warehousing portion
of a retail establishment did not necessilate nor generate as
much parkin9 as the retail sales and display area of a retail
establishment.
Accordingly. motion mas made. duly seconded and unanimously
approved to recommend to City Council that the existing minimum
off-streetparking requirements for the retail stores category
in the.C-2, General Commercial District be amended to read
as follows:
R~tail Stores (Except Furniture)
I for each 200 sq. ft. of retail sales and display
,floor area plus I for each 400 square feet of floor
area utilized for the storage and warehousing of 9gods
and merchandise related to the primary retail use.
Sincerely,
.S/ ,Creed K. Lemon, Jr** by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr..
Chairman"
No 'one appearing in opposition to the proposed amendments, Mr. Trout
moved that the following Ordinance amending and reordaining the subsection
entitled Minimum off-street parking and loading requirements, of Section 7, HG-1
and RG-2, General Residential Districts, Article IV, Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of
The Code of the CitI of Roanoke, 195b, as amended relating to Zoning, increasing
in certain instances the number of parking Spaces per d~elIing unit in said
districts and providing for the effectire*date o£ the Ordinance, he placed upon
its first reading:
(n20375) AN ORDINANCE amending and ~eordaing the subsection entitled
Minimum off-street osr~ina and londina reoulr~uents of Sec, 7. RC-I nad RG-2
genera! residential districts, of Article lYt Chapter 4.1, Title X¥, of the Cede
of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended relating to Zoning, increasing in certain
instances the number of parking spaces per dwelling nnit in said districts; and
providieo for the effective date of said a.mendment,
MHEREAS, the City Planning Commission on its own .motion directed to the
City Council, and after due consideration of the proposal has recommended to the
Council, an amendment of the district zoning regulations hereinafter set out and
provided; and
MHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Sec', ?0 and Sec, ?1, Chapter 4ol,
of Title XY of the Code of thc City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and after due
publication of written notice in a newspaper having general circulation in the
City more than fifteen days prior to the holding of n public hearing on the
question, a public hearing ~an held before the Council on the 19th day of June,
1972, in accordance .with said notice, on the recommendation of the Planning
Commission as aforesaid, at which public hearing all persons in interest and
citlzens were afforded an opportunity to be heard on the question; and
MHEREAS, upon the Council's due consideratien of the recommendation of
said Planning Commission, the Council is of opinion that the subsection of Sec.
?, RG-I and RC-2 aenera! residential district~, of Article IV, Chapter 4.1,
Title X¥, relating to Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as
amended, which relates to minimum off-street parking and loading requirements.
should he amended as recommended by said Planning Commission as hereinafter pro-
vided; said amendments to become effective on the dote hereinafter set out.
THEREFORe, BE 1T ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as fol-
lows:
That the subsection entitled Minimum off-street narkinfl and ioadinq
reouirements of Sec, 7. RC-I and RC-2 oeneral residential districts, of Article
IV, Chapter 4.1, Title XVt of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
relating to Zoning, he, and said paragraph is hereby amended and reordalned to
read nad provide as follows:
Minimum off-street oarkino and loading reouirements:
off-street parking:
As for RS districts, except that I space shall be required
for each efficiency or one-bedroom apartment and 1o5 spaces
shall be provided for each two or more bedroom apartment,
provided, however, t.hat not more than 50% of any front yard
can be used for parking and accessways. Should the amount
of spaces required hereunder result .in a fraction of a space,
then one full space shall be provided for such fractional
space. A plnnting area of at least 6 feet width adjoining
any street right-of-way line or any lot zoned for residential
uses shall be maintained at all times.
"149
Perking for multiple-family dwelling shall be on the same
lot as the principal structure,
For additional uses: I space for each 3 boarders. 1 space
for each 150 square feet of ground floor area for assembly
facilities, private clubs. Nhere parking areas far mare then
3 automobiles in this district have spaces facing ad2oining
RS and RD residential districts, and any part of such spaces
is within 25 .feet of the residential district boundary,
masonry wall not less than $ feet high shall be erected
between the spaces and the residential district boundary.
DE IT Ft~THER OROAINE0 that the provisions of this ordinance shall be
in full force and effect from and after October 1, 1972.
The motion was seconded by Nr. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Nayor Webber 7.
NAYS: None O.
Hr, Trout then moved that the following Ordinance amending and reordain-
in9 Section 8, C-l, Office and Institutional.District, and Section 9,
General Commercial District, Article fY, Chapter 4.1. Title XV, of the Code of
the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning, increasing in certain
instances the number of parking spaces required in said districts, and providing
for the effective date of said amendments, be placed upon its first reading:
(~20376) AN ORDINANCE amending end reordaining Sec, 8, C-1 office
institutional district, and Sec. 9. C-2 general commercial district~ of Article
IY in Chapter 4.1, Title XYt of the Code of the City of Roanoke. 1956t as amended.
relating to Zoning, increasing in certain Instances the number of parking spaces
required in said districts; and providin9 for the effective date of said amend-
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission on its own motion directed to the
City Council, end after due consideration of the proposal, has recommended to the
Council, an amendment of the district zoning regulations hereinafter set out and
provided; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 70 and Sec. 71, Chapter 4.1,
of Title XV, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and after due
publication of written notice in · newspaper havlag general circulation in the
City more than fifteen days prior to the holding of the public hearing on the
question, a public hearing was held before the Council on the 19th day of June,
1972, in accordance with said notice, on the recommendations of the Planning
Commission as aforesaid, at which public hearing all persons in interest and citi-
zens ~ere afforded an opportunity to be heard on the question; and
NHEREAS, upon the Council's due consideration of the recommendations of
said Planning Commission, the Council is of opinion that the subsections of Sec.
D. C-] office and institutional district, and Sec. 9. C--2 general commercial
district, of Article IY in Chapter 4.1, Title X¥, relating to Zoning,'of the Code
of the City of Roanoke, 1956, us amended, which subsections prescribe minimum
orr-street parhing and loading requirements in said districts, should be amended
ns recommended by said Planning Commission nnd as heroinnrter provided, said amend-
ments to become effective on tho date hereinafter set out,
TH£REFORE, RE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
lo That the subsection entitled ~inim9~ gff-street narkin~ and loodino
,.reouirements of Sec. O. ~-1 office and ins,trw,lanai di. strict~ Of Article I¥ in
Chapter 4.1, Title X¥, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, feint-!
!lng to Zoning, be, and said subsection is hereby amended and reordoined to read
land provide as folloms:
~lnimum off-street narktnfl and loadinfl requirements:
Off-street parking:
For residential useS: As for RG Districts.
For additional uses: I space for each 300 square feet
of 9ross building area. Hot more than 60% of any front yard
may be used for parking including areas for ingress and egress.
A planting area of at least 5 feet width, measured from the
street right-of-way line toward the lot, shall be maintained
and landscaped at all times. #here parking areas for more than
3 nutomobiles in this district have spaces facing adjoining
residential districts, and any part of such spaces are within
25 feet or the resldentiml district boundary, a masonry wall
not less than 5 feet high shall be erected between the spaces
and the residential district boundary. No part of any park-
in9 space (exclusive of accessways) may be located within 5
feet of a side lot line. Parking areas for adjacent uses
may be provided on a joint basis, provided that within such
joint parking areas the spaces required for each of the parti~
cipating uses shall be marked and maintained as allocated to
the individual use.
Off-street loading:
Ail permitted uses requiring loading space for normal
operations shall provide adequate off-street loading space
behind the rear line of the required front yard, and there
shall be no loading in connection with normal operations
on the street in front of the premises, in any alley adjoin-
ing the premises, or in any required front yard,
2. That the subsection entitled ~inimum off-street oarkinQ and loadin~
refluirements of Sec. 9. C-2 oeneral commercial district0 or Article I¥ in Chapter
4.1~ Title X¥, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, lg$6, as amended, relating to
Zoning, he, and siad subsection ia hereby amended and reordained to read and pro-
vide os follows:
Minimum off-street parking and loading requirements:
Off-street parking:
Automobile service stations which also provide repair:
One space for each two pumps and two spaces for each service
bay.
Hotels, rooming houses: One space for each 2 rental
Motels: One space for each rental unit.
Restaurants, night clubs, and similar uses: One space
for each 200 Sqo it. of floor area.
Bowling alleys: Five spaces for each alley.
Dance floors, skating rinks, exhibition halls, and other
places of assembly without fixed seating: One space for each
100 sq. ft. of floor area used for the activity.
One space for each 5 seats including bench seating areas,
Retail stores (except furniture stores): One space for
each 200 sq. ft. of retail sales and display floor area plus
one space for each 400 sq. ft. of floor area utilized for the
storage and warehousing of goods and merchandise related to
the primary retail use,
Wholesaling-and distribution operations: Oue space for
each 400 sq. ft. of floor area.
All other permitted uses: One space rot each 400 sq,
ft'. of floor area.
Off-street loo~ing:
Ail permitted or permissible uses requiring loa~lng
space for normal operations shall provide adequate loading
spsce so that no vehicle being loaded or unloaded in con-
nection with normal operations shall stand in or project
into uny public street, walk, alley or way.
RE IT FUDTDER ORDAINED that the provisions'of thi~ o~dinance be in full
force and effect fr~om nn~ after January 1, 1973.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsh and adopted by the 'following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Nuhard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout nnd Mayor
Webber ......... ?.
· NAYS:None
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
'BUDGET-SCHOOLS-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: A communication ~om the Roanoke
City School Board, requesting that $3,505.00 ~e transferred from the Jefferson
High School Improvement Account. CIP 40, to the Jefferson Hioh School Field Douse
Account, ?2-3, of the 1972-73 budget, to provide funds which will be used to pur-
chase lockers nad other furnishing~ not included in the construction contract for
the field house, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20377) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #89, "Transfers to
Capital Improvements Fund," of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergeocy.
(For full text ~f Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #3?, page
Dr, Taylo~ moved the adoption of the Ordinance~ The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubord. LIsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayo~
Webber ........
NAYS: None
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City Schooi Board,
. requesting that $35.Tab. O0 be appropriated to Section ~RCO0, "Insurance," of the
· 1972-73 budget of the Roanoke City School Board, advising that a check in the above!
amount for the refund of unearned premium from the Viro~nia Insurance Placement
~ Facility will be deposited with the City Treasurer and that the appropriation is
necessary in order for the.~chool Board to have sufficient funds available to pay
fire insurance premiums for 1972-73, ~as before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that Council c~ncur in the re~uest of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered ~he following emergency Ordinance:
(~2037~) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #8000, "Schools -
Fixed Charges," of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, a~d p~oridiag for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =3T, page 58,)
* Hr, Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion wes seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland, Bubard, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Webber ?
NAYS: None ~..
BUBG£T-SCNOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that Council reappropriote the unexpended balances remaining in various
tfederal programs as of June 30, 1972, was before the body,
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
~School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#203?9) AH ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book rS?0 page 59.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion mas seconded
by Mr, Lisk and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber
NAYs: None .......... O,
BUDG£T-SCBOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that $59,751.00 be appropriated to Section nB2000, *Schools - Work
Incentive Program,# of the lgT2-?3 budget of the Roanoke City School Board, advis-
ing that the School Board will be reimbursed lO0 per cent of actual expenditures
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:
(z2OSBO) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section no2000, "Schools
Work Incentive Program,* of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and provtdin9 for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book nS?, page
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubardt Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None -- O.
RAOIO-TRLEVISION: A communication from Mr. Alexander N. Apostolou,
concernin9 his interest in being an applicant for the cable television franchise
for the City of Roanoke, advising that he would like to formalize his request for
~consideration of the franchise for the City of Roanoke and would like for his
oppllcationto be forwarded to the approprtete channels in order for Aim to
receive consideration at the proper time, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to the CATV Committee
~for its information in connection with its study of a cable television franchise
ifor the City of Roanoke, The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
,,adopted.
154-
CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Msk~ger submitted n uritten rep~t in c;n~ec-
tion with the personnel moratorium, bdvislbg that the occupant of the Clerh-
Stenographer II position in the Building CommissiOner's Office mili'retire on
July 28t 1972, and that it is considered desirab~b to refill this position in
order to'maintain that which 'is considered to be the numbe~ of clerical and
stenographic personnel required in this office.
Br. ~ubard noted that there are ten requests on the agenda from various
municipal departments for filling vacanices and pointed out that in sponsoring the
adoption of Resolution No, 20399 imposing the moratorium it was not his intent
that the moratorium apply to promotions and transfers of present personnel.
The City Manager explained that in promoting or transferring employees,
a vacancy J~ left in a lower position which would still require the authority of
Council to fill and that h~ is administering the provisions of Resolution No.
2039g in accordance with the legal advice of the City Attorney.
Mr. Hubard moved that the City Manager be instructed to report at the
next regular meeting of Council on Monday, July 3~, 1972, as to how the moratorium
may be amended or intFepreted so it will be workable in the administration of city
government. Tbs motion was seconded by Mr. Trout.
Mr. Thomas o'ffered a substitute motion that Resol~tio~ No. 20399 be
rescinded. 'The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout.
Upon~ roll call, tbs substitute motion of Mr. Thomas that Resolution No.
203~9 be rescinded was lo~t by the following vote:
AYES: BF. Thomas and Mayor Nebbez '-2.
NAYS: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lish~Taylor and Trout ...... 5.
The' motion of Mr. HubaFd was then adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Eubard, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas nad Trout~.
NAYS: Mayor #sOber ..... 7------ .................. 2~1.
In a discussion of the mattert various questions were raised by members
of Council with regard to ~nterpretation of the provisions of the mnra~orium and
specific incidences where the moratorium would apply.
Mr. Trout asked th~;Cit7 Attorney as to whether o~ not Council has the
authority to impose a moratorium on the personnel'of th~ constitution~ offlceFs.
The City Attorney replied that it is questionable as to whether or not
the moratorium cab be enforced'in the constitutional offices.
Hr. Garland then moved that Council reconsider the substitute motion
o~ Mr. Thomas. The motion was seconded by Hr. Thomas and adopted by the follow-
ing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Thomas, Trout and Bayor ~ebber
NAYS: MessrS. Bubard, Lisk and Taylor
Mr. Gurlund moved t~ut Resolution No. 20399 be abolished. The motion
uss seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the follouing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Thomas, Trout and Mayor Mebber ..... 4.
NAYS: Messrs. Hubard,. Llsk and Taylor
lsteps Mr. Thomas then moved that the Ctty Manager be instructed to initiate
t°
institute an independent end complete management study of all administra-
ltive and operational practices of the 'City of Roanoke and that the City Manager be
idirected report regualr meeting on Monday, August
to
bach
to
Council
at
its
1972, of steps he proposes to take in this regard. The motion was seconded by
iDro Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Llsk, ~aylor, Thomas, Trout and
iMayor Mebber ?
Upon a question raised by Mayor Rabbet, the City Manager s,tated that he
!is confident he sill he able to submit the report requested by Council at its
next regular meeting on Monday, Ju~y 31, 1972.
SEMER$ AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting copy of the following communication from Mr. A. W. Badder, Director,
~Enforcement Division of the State Mater Control Board, in connection with clearing
up any misunderstandings there m~y be with regard to the ban on building construc-
;tion uhich will impose additional loads of sewage upon the seuage treatment faci-
lities of the City of ~oanoke and the ban on any further connections to the collec-
tion systems serving these facilities:
"July 13, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Nebber
Mayor, City of Roanoke
Municipal Building
- Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Dear Mayor Mebber:
The purpose of this letter is to clear up any misunderstandings
that there may be with regard to the ban on building construc-
tion which will impose additional loads of semage upon the City's
sewage treatment facilities and the ban on any further connec-
tions to the collection systems serving these facilities.
This ban was invoked by the Board on March 13, 1972, against
the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem and the Roanoke County
Public Service Authority.
The Board has indicated that it will employ two criteria by
which to judge when this ban can be lifted. First, the Board
must receive fro~ the City of Roanoke a firm, clear and un-
equivocal commitment and schedule for constructing a suitable
raw sewage overflow retention basin of about 30-35 million
gallons capacity and a similar commitment and schedule to ex-
pedite the constructioe of the additional 14 MGD capacity
primary treatment facilities, including provision for addition
of chemical feed for coagulation in the primary treatment
facilities, Second, the City must operate its sewage treat-
ment facilities mithin the performance levels promised in
the City"s interim plan which was adopted by the Board on
July 26, 1971.
Nith regard to the first criterion, it should be noted that
the Board has ordered the City of'Roanok~ to provide by
December 1, 1972, #a suitable retention basin or some other
methods by which the bi-passing of raw sewage from
the treatment facilities can be eliminated,' The Staff
bna received Zrol the Cft~ a resolution of Council which
provides for the construction of the aforesaid basin,'and
the staff has also received and transmitted to the Environ-
mental'Protection Agency the City°s application for grant
funds to build, among other tbingso the basin nad the expan-
Sion of the primary treatment facilities,- However, at this
date the stuff hms not received from the City an acceptable
schedule for the Construction of this basin and the expan-
sion of the primary treatment facilities, This schedule must
be submitted to the staff promptly. The staff will do every-
thing possible to aid the City in the formulation of such an
appropriate scheduler and the stuff stands ready to meet with
representatives of the City to discuss whether the December
1, 1972, deadline is still feasible of attainment.
It should be further noted that the Board's criterion mith
respect to the ban only requires the commitment to build the
basin and to expand the primary treatment facilities with pro-
vision for chemical feed and the schedule for the construc-
tion of these facilities. This Board criterion does not
require that these facilities must be built before the ban
can be lifted.
For the past several months the City has had little success
in meeting the performance levels promised in its interim
plan. The staff strongly recommends that the City procure
expert advice on process control as it relates to proper
semage treatment plant operation. Such advice will enable
the City to meet the levels of performance of its interim
plan within the shortest possibletime. The staff under-
stands that the City has bad a representative fram Roy F.
Weston and Associates and the superintendent of the City
of Milwaukee's semage treatment plant visit the City*s faci-
lities. It is requested that the City submit to the staff
any reports that these parties prepared for the City as well
as any intention on the part of the City to retain assis-
tance in solving process control problems.
The staff of the Board mill provide whatever assistance that
it can to the City to help it meet these performance levels,
and the staff will request the staff of the Dealth Department
to continue to provide such assistaooe to the City. If you
feel that another meeting would be helpful in the City's
formulation of the required plans and schedules, please advise
us at your earliest convenience.
Yery truly yours.
S/ A. N. Budder, Director
A. W. Budder, Director
Enforcement Division"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
requesting to include.on the agenda a report relating to sewage treatment.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally advised that the report
iwiil not be ready for distribution until Tuesday, July 25, 1972, and that copies
ilwill be forwarded to the members of Council at that time.
The City Manager verbally advised that the one major problem is the
ilocntion of the retention basin at the Sewage Treatment Plant, that he mill meet
with the staff of the State Water Control Board during the latter part of the week
l!regarding the retention basin, that the removal of the sewer ban narrows down to
two points which are the retention basin end meeting the standards of the State
Mater Control Board for effluent, that the State Water Control Board will not
meet again until September and that during the meanwhile, he would like to mork
mith the staff of the Board on certain matters.
~ith reference to the matter, the Gity Manager verbally recommended
that Council adopt n measure authorizing him to enter lntn ~rltten agreement with
English Construction Company, Incorporated, authorizing them to ~rder all equip-
ment necessary for the chemical feed facilities at~ the Sewage Treatment Plant,
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the verbal ~ecomm~endation of
the City Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n20391) AN OROXNANCE authorizing and directing the City Manager to
enter into written agreement with English Construction Company, Inc., authorizing
~said firm to order all equipment necessary for chemical feed facilities at the
i~CJty*s Sewage Treatment Plant upon certain terms and conditions; and providing
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance nook n37, page bi.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iby Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mas*rs, Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
iWebber ........................
NAYS: None O.
MATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the foll~ing report
radvising that for the past two and one-half years the city has been operating with
temporary prechlorination system at the Carvins Cove Filter Plant to provide
for the removal of objectionable taste and odors which occasionally develop within
the city's water systems that funds are included in the 1g72-73 budget for a new
permanent chlorine system installation, that the city has secured from Alvord,
Hurdich and Ham*on, Consulting Engineers, a proposed asreement providing for the
necessary engineering services'required for this installation,'in the amount of
$2,750.00, and recommending that Council authorize the proposed agreement with
Alvord, Burdick and How*on, Consulting Engineers:
"July 24, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council.
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Engineering Agreement - Alvord, Bnrdick and How*on -
Chlorination System at the Carvtns Cove Filter Plant
For the past two and one-half years, the City h~s been
operating with a temporary prechlorination system at. the Car-
yin* Cove Filter Plant to provide for the removal of objection-
able taste and odors which nccasionally develop within the
Clty*s water system. Funds are included within the 1972-73
budget for a new permanent chlorine system installation, We
hove secured from thc City Mater Department's consultants,
Alvord, Burdick and Howson of Chicago, Illinois, a proposed
agreement providing for the necessary engineerin9 services
required for this installation.
It is recommended that City. Council authorize this pro-
posed agreement with Alvord, Burdlck and Howson in order that
we may proceed to implement, these needed improvements. Fol-
lowing the preparation of necessary plans and specifications,
the proJeot Mill be advertised for bids to be opened before
City Council, If there are questions from Council concern-
ing this pr*ia*t, we will be pleased to elaborate at your
meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hits,
Julian ~. Bits,
City Hanager'
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. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
BRIDGES: The City Manager submitted the following report in connection
with the Walnut Avenue Bridge. recommending that Council authorize an agreement
mith Hayes, Seay, Ma*tern ~ Mattern, Architects and Engineers, for their services
in connection with investigation and repair of the #ainu* Avenue Bridge abutment,
advising that following thepresentation of appropriate plans and specifications
and the securing of proposals for this work, he will return to Council with a
recommendation on the award of a contract for the repairs: ·
"July 24, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Malnut Avenue Bridge
During the course of routine maintenance wor~ by City
forces on the easterly abutment of the Walnut Avenue brid§e
over Roanoke River, we discovered conditions which suggested
additional investigation by persons knowledgeable in bridge
structures. Contact mas made with representatives of the
engineering.firm of Hayes. Seay, Mattern and Mattern who
performed a preliminary investigation and have ascertained
that some further maintenance repairs should be accomplished.
The extent of such repairs will require even further investl-
9ative work.
The easterly abutment or support from the Walnut Avenue
bridge over Roanoke River is of st*me masonry construction
reportedly built prior to 1900. ,In approximately 1926 the
bridge mas raised approximately one foot by placing a new
concrete back wall and a concrete pedestal under each truss
bearing on top of the capstones. This masonry abutment is
composed of limes**me and/or dolomite building blocks with
average size stone approximately one and one-half feet by
two feet. It is estimated that the abutment is two to three
feet thick. Upon removal of the mortar surrounding these
stones, largevoids were observed to exist between and behind
the atones. Humerous cracks were observed in the stones also.
It is suggested that ~he Cityts Bridge Maintenance crew
under the supervision of Hayes, Seay, Ma*tern and Mattern
would perform additional investigative work to ascertain the
condition of the fill behind this abutment. Based on such
investigation there would be prepared by the consultants*
necessary plans and specifications for corrective repairs by
appropriate contractor. It is presently anticipated that low
pressure grouting will be required to fill the voids around
and behind the abutment stones. We have received a proposal
from Hayes, Seay, Ma*tern and Ma*tern where their services
would be provided on the basis of 2.2 times payroll costs
plus all direct expenses. The present estimate for these
services is approximately $9,000 although the actual sum will
obviously be dependent upon the extent of time involved.
There is at this time no way to estimate the cost of construc-
tion to repair this abutment.
~It is recommended that City* Council, autboriz~ an agree-
went with Hayes, Sanyo Uattern and Mattern for their seE--
vices'in connection with investigation wnd repair of this
bridge abutwent. Following the preparation of appropriate
plans end specifications and the securing of proposals for
the worho we would return to Council with a recommendation
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
'' Julian F. BlEst
City Homager"
Mr. Hubard moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
:Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(n20362) AN ORDINANCE authorizin9 the employment of the professional
=services of certain engineers to perform necessary engineering work in connection
with the rehabilitation of the east abutment of the Walnut Street Bridge spanning
~the Roanoke River, in the City of Roanoke; and providing for an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #37, page 62.)
Mr. Hubatd moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the foil,ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carla,d, Ilubard, LEak, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Mayor Webber ...................
NAYS: None ........ -Oo
SALE OF PROPERTY-ZONING-STATE HIGflMAYS-INDUSTRIES: The City Manager
submitted a wirtten report advising that the Virginia Department of Highways mill
receive bids on August 9, 1972, for the industrial access road off Tenth Street,
N. N., to serve the Macke Vending Machine Company and other industrial properties
in that vicinity, pointing out that construction on the project is expected to
istart shortly after August
!set at go calendar days and that Council will be kept advised of the progress of
!!the highway improvement project.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
!seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimousl~ adopted.
BUDGET-CITY ATTORNEY: The City Attorney submitted a written report
~reguesting that $540.00 be appropriated to Extra Help under Section =4, 'City
!Attorney,* of the 1972-73 budget, to provide funds for clerical assistance during
:iperiods of vacation entitled to be taken by the Two Clerk-Stenographers working in
ibis office.
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=20383) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =4, *City Attorney,"
ilof the 1972-T3 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~3T, page 64.)
Mr, Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas second-
!led by ir. Lisk and adopted by the foil,ming vote:
AYES: aessrs, Garland, aubard, Llske Toylor, Thomas, Trout end
mayor Webber=~:~ ....... ~
IttYS: None--m -0,
DRUGS: The City Attorney submitted n uritten report advising that Mayor
Webber has been approached by the Executive Director of the Roanoke Area Drug
Abuse Control Council for endorsement by Council of RADAUCes ~pplication for
federal fonds available under Public Lam 91-513, with which to c~ndact a compre-
hensive treatment and rehabilitation program for drug abusers uithin the area
represented by the Fifth Planning District Commission and transmitting' such a
Resolution by mhich Council may indicate its endorsement and support of RADACC°S
application for federal funds,
Hr. Garland moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following Resolution:
'(n203~4i A RESDLUTION endorsing a program of the Roanohe Area Drug
Abuse Control UouncJl~ (RADACC).
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance ~ook ~37, page ~$.)
Mr. Garland eared the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas
seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the ~ollowing vote:
AYES: HessrSo Garland. Dubard, ~isk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and
Hayor Webber 7.
~AYS: None, ' o.
UOUSI~G-$~UM CLEARARC£: The City Attorney submitted the follouing
report Jn connection with the installation of underground~ rather than overhead
wtrlng of electrlce telephone and other public utilities in the streets to be
provided within the hounda£y of the Kimball Redevelopment Project now being
developed by the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, pointing
out that corollary to the question is that of payment o£ the cost of such under-
ground facilities as might he fnstalled by public s~rvice companies owning and
operating the same ~n the public streets within the pvo~ect oren, advising that
~having carefully studied the 1au opplichble to the questions presente~, he is of
the opinion that the citye acting through its C~ty Council and in reasonable
exercise of the cit7*s police power, may require thut all telephone and telegraph
wires and all wives and Cables carrying electricit~ installed in public streets
and places o~ the city be placed in underground conduits and that, so ordering,
the cost o~ all such underground installation in the public streets and ~laces
should be home by the public service companies owning and operating s~ch foci-
"July 24~ 1972
Th~ Ronorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke CftyCouoctl
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Council, on July 10th, directed me to submit an opinion
pertaining to the Cfty's right to require the installation of
underground, rather than overhead wiring of electric, telephone
and other public utilities in the streets to be provided with-
in the boundary of the Kimball Urban Renewal Project now being
developed by the Ronnohe Redevelopment and Housing Authority,
Corollary to the question is that or payment of the cost of such
underground facilities ns might be installed by public service
companies owning and operating the same in the public streets
within the project area,
Having carefuXly studied the law applicable to the questions
presented. I am of opinion as follows:
a, That the Cityt acting through its City Council
and in reasonable exercise of the ~ity*s police
power, may require that all telephone and tele-
graph wires and all wires and cables carrying
electricity installed in public streets and places
of the City be placed in underground conduits.;
b. That, so ordering, the cost of all such underground
installation in the public streets and places should
be borne by the public service companies omning and
operating such facilities.
Section 0. Article VII of the Virginia Constitution provides that
no street railway, gas, water, steamer electric heating, electric
light or power, cold storage, compressed air, viaduct, con-
duit. telephone, or bridg~ company, nor any corporation, asso-
ciation, person, or partnership engaged in these or like enter-
prises shall be permitted to use the streets, alleys, or pub-
lic 9rounds of a city or town without the previous consent of
the corporate authorities of such city or town. The courts
have held this power absolute because no limitation is impos-
ed upon it, and that, consequently, a municipality may impose
any condition it chooses upon its consent aforesaid.
Subsection (12). ~ 2 of the Roanoke City Charter. setting out
the power of the City with respect to its public highways,
streets, alleys, boulevards and parkways, parks, playgrounds
and other public grounds, expressly empowers the City to pre-
vent the obstruction of such streets and highways and to require
all telephonesnd telegraph wires and all wires and cables car-
tying electricity to be placed in conduits underground and to
prescribe rules and regulations for the construction and use of
such conduits; nnd to do all other things whatsoever adapted
to make said streets and highways safe. convenient and attrac-
tive.
~he Supreme Court of the United States in ~stern Union Tele-
granh Com~anv v. City of Richmond. 178 F. 310, nffSd 224 US
16, 56 L.Ed. 710, 32 S.Ct. 449. many years ago upheld an ·
ordinance of the City of Richmond which, among other regula-
tory requirements, ordered that the public service company*s
wires and installations installed in a prescribed area of the
City of Richmond be placed in underground conduits.
It would appear that the present situation was foreseen by
the City of Roanoke in advertising and awarding the franchise
for the existing telephone and telegraph system in the City
when. in the franchise awarded to The Chesapeake ~ Potomac
Telephone Company of Virginia by Ordinance No. 17677, on
August 28, 1967, provision was expressly made that said com-
pany's lines and facilities within the Fire Limit Zone No. 1.
as from time to time amended, be constructed and maintained
underground, with provision being made that existing poles
and overhead lines in the area at the time of the award of
the franchise be allowed to remain but with the following
express proviso:
'~*~ provided further, that any and all major re-
placements or reconstruction or renewal of such
existing overhead facilities in said Fire Limits
area shall, unless otherwise approved bi the City.
be relocated, replaced or reconstructed under-
ground; and. further, that said ~rantee shall, whenever-
reouired to do so by the city. in the reasonable
e~ercise of its police power, remove from the streets,
alleys, hiahwavs or other public places of the said
city, or any cart thereof, its poles, wires and '
other anourtenances, excent such as may be nec-
essary for local distribution, and place the wires
and Other aonurtenances underaround in safe and suit-
able conduits** (underscoring added.)
161
162
Mhat is understood to be the only franchise ever granted by the
City to an' electric light and power company for the' use of the
streets and. alleys of the City for electric facilities con-
ttined the following express provision:
' In locating said poles and mires in and
through the strebts and alleys of said citye
the said company shall be subject to the
direction of the legally constituted oath*-
titles as council for the said city may
direct, and said company shall noir'by such'
location or *th*ruin*, in any wanner inter-
fere mith the free use of said streets Or
alleys, nor obstruct the free passage of
vehicles or street cars through the said
city**
Even in the absence of expresa franchise provisions the fa*da-
mental common-law right applicable to franchises in streets is
that the utility company must relocate its facilities in public
streets when changes are required by necessity, and it is gen-
erally held that a municipality may require a change in the
location of such facilities mb*re public convenience or secu-
rity requires and at the public service company's own expense,
it being elementary that such exercise of the police pomer
must b? reasonable,
Accordingly, and if the Council deems it reasonably necessary
in order to provide streets, sidewalks and other public places
that ar*safe and convenient for travel, free of congestion and
offering 9renter ~afety in case of fire or other emergencies,
thereby enhancing the public melfare, it may lawfully require
the underground'installation of all electric wire and cables
and all telephone and telegraph mires and facilities in any
given area of the City where, in the Councll*s sound discre-
tion, such*demands exist, the cost of which may be required to
be borne by the public service company owning and operating
such facilities.
In order that ~be Council may be in position to implement
its authority ia the premises with respect to the area now
under redevelopment as the Kimball Urban Renewal Project area,
I shall have at the Council meeting set for July 24, Ir?2,
an ordinance to that effect, for the Cooncil*s considera-
tion.
Respectfully,
$! Jo No Kincanon
J. N. Kincanon"
Mr. Link moved that Council con,ur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following emergency Ordinance ordering and requiring that all
telephone and telegraph mires and all mires and cables carrying electricity nom
or to hereafter he installed in the public streets, avenues, alleys, ways and
public places in that area of the City of Roan*he known and described as the
Kimball Urban ~enemal Project be placed in conduits underground, unless otherwise
expressly authorized by Council:
(#20385) Am ORDINANCE ordering and requiring that all telephone and
telegraph mires and ail mires and cables carrying electricity, mom or to hereafter
be installed in the pnblic streets, avenues, alleys, ways and public places in
that area of the City of Roanoke known and described an the Kimball Urban Renewal
Project No. VA-R-45, be placed in conduits oudergroand,, unless othermise expressly
authorized by the Council ~f said Uity; providing that a copy of this ordinance be
transmitted to certain public .service corporations doing business in the City; and
providing for an ~ergen~y.
(For full text of O~dinauce~ see as recorded in Ordinance Book
page 65.)
Hr. List moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Ur. Nubard nad adapted by the following vote:
AYES: HasBro. Garland, Hubard, List. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Unyor Webber
NAYS: None
EQUALIZATION BOARD-BOARD OF ASSESSORS: The City Attorney submitted the
following report recommending the adoption of an Ordinance amending Chapter
Title VI, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, which would makee~
press provision for the annual appointment of a Hoard of Equalization, the con-
tent of which is approved by Judge Stanford L. Fellers,.Judge of the Court of Law
The City of Roanoke providing by ordinance for the annual
assessment of all real estate in the City for taxation, it
Is required by law that there be appointed, annually, a
Hoard of Equalization of Real Estate Assessments to which
property owners feeling aggrieved by change of assessed value
may appeal such assessments, Chapter 584 of the 1964 Acts
of Assembly of Virginia provides, in part and in effect, that
the Court of Law and Chancery of the City of Roanoke, or the
Judge thereof in vacation, shall, annually, at such time as
may be fixed by ordinance of City Couqcj! but not later than
September first each year, appoint a three-member board,
oho shall be freeholders and citizens in the City, and ~hose
terms shall commence on their appointment and expire on the
fifteenth day of October in the year in which they are ap-
pointed, unless such terms are extended by the Court or
Judge. The Act further provides for per diem compensation
of the members of the hoard-for the time actually engaged in
their duties in an amount fixed by the Council. to be paid
by the City. the Council having the right to limit compensa-
tion to such number of days as, in its opinion, is suffi-
cient for the completion of the work of the board.
Ravin9 discussed the matter with the Honorable Stanford Lo
Fellers, Judge of the Court of Law and Chancery of the City
of Roanoke, it is agreed that if would be well te include in
the codified ordinances of the City relating to the annual
assessment of. taxable properties provisions based upon those
contained in the aforesaid Act, so that the current provisions
relating to the Assessor and, as well, the Hoard of Equaliza-
tion of Real Estate Assessments. To that end, I would make
express provision for the annual appointment of a. Hoard of
Equalization, the content of which is approved by Judge Fellers.
Therefore, I transmit herewith a proposed ordinance bearing on
the above subject, prepared as an emergency measure so that it
may take effect prior to August first, this year; and I re-
spectfully recommend its adoption by-the Council.
Respectfully,
S/ J. No Kiflcanon . .
J. N. Kincanon'
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Attorney and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(~20386) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordainin9 Chapter 9, of Title VI
of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by the addition thereto of
a new section, to be numbered §.1., providing for the. annual appointment of a
board of equalization of real estate assessments; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book z37, page 67.)
and Chancery:
'July 24, 1972
The Honorable mayor and Nembers
of Roanote City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
163
,164
Mr, Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion wes seconded
by Dr, Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Nessrs, Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Nayur Webber ................ -7,
NAYS: None O.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Ir, W, H. Jolley, Attorney, that
property located onViewmont Circle, N. W., adjacent to the Roanoke Country Club,
described as the westerly portion of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3, Nap of Country Club
Addition, Official Tax Nos..2660602 and 2660603, be rezoned from ES-3, Single-
Family Residential District, to RG-I, General Residential District, the City Plan-
ning Commission submitted a written report recommending that the request be
granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that a public hearing on the request for rezoning be
held at 7:30 p.m., Monday, August 31, 1972. 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 S. E. Holding Corporation that
properties situate on Jamison Avenuet betwee~ 12th Street and 13th~Street, S. E.,
described as Lots 14 - 23, inclusive, Nap of Oak Ridge Land Company, be rezoned
from 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. Thomas moved that a public hearing be held on the request for rezon-
in9 at ?:30 p.m., Monday, August 31, 1972. 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. Bentley Jo King, et ux., that
property located in the 20th block of Wallace Avenue. N. Eo, between 20th Street
and Osborne Avenue, N. E., described as L;ts 9 - 14, inclusive, Block 13, Jackson
Park, Official Tax Nos. 3330307 - 333031~, inclusive, be rezoned from RD, Duplex
Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential District, the CitI Planning
Commission submitted a written report recommending that a RG-1 rezonin9 be
approved in lieu of the. origlnal EG-2 rezoning request.
Nr. Thomas moved that a public hearln9 on the request for rezoning be
held at ?:30 pom., Mondoy, August 31, 1972. The motion nas seconded by Rfc Trout
and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
PENSIONS: Council having referred a proposed Ordinance in connection
with increasing certain benefits payable to members of the old Police and Fire
Pension System to a committee composed of Messrs. David R. Llsk, Chairman, James
Oo Trout, A. N. Gibson and H, Ben Jones, Jr,, for iurther consideration, the com-
mittee submitted the following report summarizing certain minor revisions to the
proposed Ordinance:
#July 24. 1972
To the Honorable #DiOr and #embers
of Roanoke City Council
Roanohe, Virginl~
Gpu*leman: ~
At your lust wee)lng, you referred the proposed, ordinance
which would increase benefits to the pensioners under the
City's Police and Fire Pension Systew to a committee chaired
by the undersigned,
YOUr committee has discussed certain minor changes in the
ordinance last before you and wpuld submit a revised ordi-
nance for Council's consideration, The minor revisions may
be summarized as follows:
A.) To Section $ of the Police and Fire PePsien
Ordinance would be added language which would
limit the $15,00 per month additional pension
fur years of service in excess of twenty-nine
to. only those years served prier to February 1,
19TO, at which time the City implemented Social
Security benefits,
B.) The language of Section 6 of said Police and Fire
Pension Ordinance limitin9 the right of a widow to
receive a pension would be changed so as to make
clear the existing fact that such widow receives
a pension only so long as she does not remarry pud,
further, would clarify the existing provision
which prohibits a widow from receiving a pension
unless she was married to a pensioner at the time of
his retirement.
The City Attorney has prepared and I transmit herewith, a
revised ordinance, for Council's recommended adoption, which
would reflect the above-noted changes as well as the increased
benefits previously submitted to the Council.
Respectfully submitted,
S! H. B. Jones, Jr.
For David K. Lisk, Chairman*
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the committee and
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20387) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordainin9 Sec. 5. Amount of oen-
sibns and Sec. 6. Widow~, of Chapter 2. Police and Fire Pensions Prior to January
l. 1946, Title III. Pensions and Retirment, of the Code of the City of Roanoke,
1956, as amended; increasing certain benefits payable in accordance with said
chapter; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book z37, page 68.)
Mr. Lisk mo~ed the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted b~ the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland. Hubard. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout and
Mayor ~ebber
NAYS: None-
UNFINISBEO BUSINESS:
S~LE OF PROPERTY: Council, at it s last regular meeting, havin9 deferred
action on a report of the Real Estate Committee that the offer of
~ewbill to purchase city-owned property located on Maywood Avenue, S. W., designat-
ed as Parcel No. l, Official Tax No. IO70800, for the sum of $1,000.00, be accept-
ed, the matter was again before the body.
165
·166
In this connection, Mr, David K, Llsk, Chairman of the Real Estate
Committee, verbally requested that action on the matter be deferred until the
next regular meeting of Council on Mondaye July 31, 1972,
Mr, Llsk then moved that Council concnr in his verbal request. The
motion was seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimobsly adopted,
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
RADIO-TELEVISION: Ordinance No. 203?0° authorizing the rental of four
square feet of floor space in the equipment room of the transmitter building atop
Mill Mountain to James L. Gibbons, trading as Jim Gibbons Radio (MPVR) for use,
upon certain terms and conditions, having previously been before Council for its
first reading, read and laid over. mas again before the body, Mr. Thomas offering
the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(~20370) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the rental of four (4) square feet
of floor space in the equipment room of the transmitter building atop Mill Moun-
tain to James L. Gibbons, trading as Jim Gibbons Radio (WPVR) for use, upon cer-
tain terms and conditions.
(For fall text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n37, page 55.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: ~essrs. Garland, Bubard, LisR, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Mayor Webber .............
NAYS: None O.
STREET NAMES: Ordinance No. 203?3, changing the name of a certain
street within the corporate limits of the City of Roanoke in the Wasena Park area
in order to provide a unified street name system, having previously been before
Council for its first reading, read and lald over, was again before the body, Mr.
;homas offering ~he 'following for i~s second reading and final adoption:
(~20373) AN ORDINANCE changing the name of a certain street within the
:orporate limits of the City of Roanoke in the Masena Park area in order to pro-
vide a unified street name system.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook ~37, page 57.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Mayor Webber
NAYS: None O.
ROANOKE VALLEY: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure commending the Roanoke Valley Council of Community Services
and its Study Committee for its report on Environmental Quality, dated June, 1972,
and endorsing the establishment of a Citizens Council on Environmental Quality,
he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution:
(n203B9) A RESOLUTION commending the Roanoke Valley Council of Commu-
nity Services end its Study Committee for its report ga Environmental Quality,
dated June, 1972, and endorsing the establishment of a Citizens Council un Envir-
onmental Quality.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book mST, page 69.).
Hr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The notion mas second-
ed by Or. Taylor and adapted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Mayor Mebber ................ ?.
'NAYS: None .........-0,
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
JAIL-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: Mr. Bubard verbally reported that
the Regional Corrections Study Committee of the Fifth Planning District Commis-
sion met on Thursday, July 20, 1972, at the Shenandoah Life Company, that he was
elected Chairman of the Committee, that Mr. Lawrence Dodson of Roanoke County
was elected Vice Chairman.of the Committee and that it was generally agreed that
another meeting would be.held on Tuesday, August 15, 1972, to make certain recom-
mendations to the governing bodies.
Mr. Trout moved that the progress report be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: gr. Ltsk advised that
at an informal meeting of Council on Monday, July 17, 1972, a motion was made
concerning the proposed intake center and expressed the opinion that the motion
should once again, be offered in a regular meeting of Council in order for said
motion to be recorded in the official records of Council.
Mr. Lisk then moved that a committee composed of Messrs. Milliam S.
Hubard, Chairman,. John M. Milson, Paul J. Puckett, Julian F. Ilirst, and Beverly
T, Fitzpatrick be directed to study the matter of a feasible location for the
intake center and of the relocation of the jail facilities presently .in the
Courthouse .Building and report their .recommendations to Council at a later date.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
COMMITTEES:, Mr. Lisk moved that Council meet in Executive Session to
discuss a report on procedural recommendations for the Council*s appointment of
committees and recommendations £or restructuring and defining responsibilities of
each of the committees appointed by Council. The motion was seconded by Mr,
Thomas ahd unanimously adopted.
PENSXONS: Mayor Mebber pointed out that the four year term of Mr.
Donald ~, Graham as a member of the Board of Trustees, Employees* Retirement
System, expired on June 30, 1972, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Trout placed, in momination the name of Mr. DonaldM. Graham.
There being, no further, nominations, Mr. Donald M. Graham.Was reelect-
ed as a member of the Board of Trustees, Employees* Retirement System, for a term
of four years ending June 30, 1976, by the following vote:
167
168
FOR MR. GRAHAM: Mesara, Garlande Hubard, Link, Taylort Thomas. Trout and
Rsyor Webber ~,
SCHOOLS: Hayor Webber pointed out that the three year term of Dr.
Wendell H. Butler aa a member of the Roanoke City School Hoard ex,ired on June
30. 1972, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Hr. Thomas placed in nomination the name of Dr. Wendell H. Butler.
There being no further nominations. Or. Wendell H. Butler was reelected
as a member of the Roanoke City School Board for a term of three years, ending
June 30, 1975t by the following vote:
FOR DR. B~FLER: Ressrs. Garland, Buba~d, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout
and Mayor Hebber ................... -?,
FIRE DEPARTMENT: #ayor.Mebber pointed out that the four year terms of
Mr. Robert E. Mullah, Jr., and Mr. William So Kitchen as members of the Board of
Fire Appeals, expired on Jane SO, 1972, and called fOr nominations to fill the
vacancies.
Mr. Rubard placed in nomination the name of Mr. Robert E. Mullah, Jr.
Mr. Oarland placed in nomination the name of Mr. Nilltam S. Kitchen.
There being no further nominations, MT. Robert E. Mullah, Jr** and Mr.
Rlllium 5. Kitchen were reelected as members of the Board of Fire appeals for
terns of four years, each, ending June 30. 1976, by the ~olloming vote:
FOR MESSRS. MULLEN AND KITCHEN: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Link. Taylor,
Thomas, Trout and Mayor Webber ....... ?.
LIBRARIES: Mayor Webber pointed out that the three year terms of Mrs%
Ralph K. Bowles. Dr. Leo Platt and Mr. Jesse T. Meadows as members of the Roanoke
Public Library Board expired om June 30, 1972, and called for nominations to fill
the vacancies.
Mr. Link placed in nomination the name of Mrs. ~alph K., HomieR.
Mr. Garland placed in nomination the name of Mr. Jesse T. Meadows.
Dr. Taylor placed in nomination the name of Dr. Leo Platt.
There being no further nominations. Mrs. Ralph E. Bomles. Mr. Jesse T.
Meadoms and Dr. Leo .Platt were reelected as members .of the Roanoke Public Library
Board, for terns of three years, each, ending June 30, !975, by the foJloming
vote:
FOR MRS. BOWLES, MR. MEADOWS AND DR. PLATT: Messrs. Garland, Hubard,
Lisk,.Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor.Hebber--?.
HOUSING-SLUR CLEARANCE: Mayor Webber pointed out that there is a
vacancy on the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority created by the
resignation of Mr. William $. Hubard for a term endin9 August 31, 1975, ~nd call-
ed for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Link placed, in nomination the name of Mr. Charles R. Merkel.
There being no further, nominations, Mr. Charles R. Rerkel was elected
as a member, of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to fill the
unexpired term of Mr. William S. Hubard, ending August 31. 1975, by the following
vote:
, FOR MR. MEMKEL: Messrs. Gorland, Dubard, Lisk, Taylort Thomas, Trout
and Mayor Nebber ~.
PLANNING: The City Clerk reported that Dr, Noel C, Taylor has qualified
as u member of the Fifth Planning District Commission to replace Mr, Vincent $,
Wheeler for a term of three years ending June 30, 1975o
Mr, Thomas moved that the r~port be received end filed, The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted,
. There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the m~eting
adjourned,
APPRO.V£D
ATTEST: - ~c~d~'
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
169
170
. COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETIHG,
Monday, July 31, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber la the Municipal Ruildlng,. Monday, July 31, 1972, at 7:30 p,m., with
Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, William So Hubardt. David K.
Llsk, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Webber~7.
ADSENT: None O,
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. William F.
Clark. Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; Mr. H. Ben
Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by the Reverend
James A. Allison, Jr., Past*ri Raleigh Court Presbyterian Church.
MINUTES: Copies of the minutes of the special meeting held on June 26,
1972; the special meeting held on Jane 30. 1972; the regular meeting held on July
5, 1972; and the regular meeting held on July 10, 1972t having been furnished
each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Thomas, seconded by Mr. Trout and unani-
mously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with and the minutes approved
recorded.
ItEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m., Ronday,
July 31, 1972, on the request of Hodges Lumber Corporation. that property located
the intersection of Walnut tlill and Laurel Street, S. E., described as Lots 12,
tJ, and 14, Block 20, Roanoke Gas and Mater Company Map, Official Tax Nos. 4041001
'and 4041002 be rezoned from RG-1, ~eneral Residential District, to RG-2, General
District, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request be denied:
'June 6, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Plan-
ning Commission at its regular meetings of May 3 and June ?,
1972.
Mr. Jack H. Coulter, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that Mr. Hodges is
requesting this rezoulug so that he may coustruct a modern and
attractive apartment house on this site. He then presented
plans to the Planning Commission members, first noting the
unimproved nature of the parcel and then presenting the future
plans for this site. Finally, he noted that there is need
for apartments in the City and this use represents the best
use for this parcel of land and would not detract from the
present character and appearance of this neighborhood.
, Hr. Hodges then uppeored before the Planning Commission
and presented photographs of the apartment units he plans
to construct to consisto! about 24 units, He noted that
there will be I 1/2 car spaces per housing unit, and the
estimated rent per month will range from about $135 to $140
per month. Finally, he noted that he would prefer renting
these apartments to single or married people without children.
Mrs. Balender,, appeared before the Plonnlng Commission'
and stated that she owns the property across the street from
the Hodges propertye and she has lived there for 18 years,
She noted that she is against this rezonlng to a RG-2 deisg-
,nation because of insufficient parking and the increase in
traffic generated by this use.
Mrs. DIverst appeared before the Planning Commission and
stated that she lives directly across from the property in
question and she is opposed to the rezoning because of the
traffic problems associated with this use,
Mrs. Mary Hard, appeared before the Planning Commission
and stated that she lives one block from tMs parcel and she
has some serious doubt about this rezoning petition. She
stated that the *family unit* Is an open sore in the neigh-
borhood. She questioned the hind of tenants the petitioner
is 9oing to be able to attract.
Another resident appeared before the Planning Commis-
sion and noted that he-agreed with what Mrs. 8alander had
stated.
The Planning Commission members generally felt that any
reaonin9 to a higher density should await a study by the Plan-
nih9 Department to determine the best use of the lands in
this general area. This land use study would also have a
bearing on the petition of Mr. Belcher to rezone bis lot on
412 Walnut Avenue to a RD-2 designation. - ·
, At the June T, 1972 meeting, Ur. Jach B. Coulter again
appeared before the Planning Commission and spoke about the
transitional tendencies of the area involved, and then
addressed himself to the Planning Department*s report on the
Walnut Hill area; noting generally thathe disagreed with
all the findings and conclusions of the Plonnin9 Department's
land use study, and that all indications point to a strong
demand for apartment units in this area. Additionally, he
noted that he found the study misleading and one-sided.
-Mrs. Sandra Kelly. a resident in the netghborhOod~
appeared before the Planning Commission and noted that she
wanted to object to the traffic+on Walnut Hill. She stated
that the apartments that are already built are an eye sore
to the entire neighborhood.
The Planning Director noted that the Malnut Hill plan-
ning study done by the Planning Department (see enclosed
report), represented a comprehensive, thorou9h, and accurant
study of this area. He then cited some of the major study
findings; that the area is of basically a stable single
and duplex character;.that 91~ of the area zoned for
is still occupied by single andduplexunits pointing clear-
ly to the absence of an apartment demand in this area; that
almost half of the lots are substandard and higher population
density with intensify land crowding; and the development
projects planned for Hill Uountuln strongly indicate that
street traffic should not be further intensified by intro-
ducing higher density residential'development into this area.
After due consideration of this request, a m'otion was
made duly seconded and approved with a vote of 4 ayes and 1
nay to recommend to City Council to den~ this request.
Sincerely,
S! Creed K. Lemon, Jr** by LM
Creed K. Lemon~ Jr.'
Mr. Jach B. Coulter, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client.
171
172
No one appearing In opposition to the request for rezouinge Hr. Trout
moved that the following Ordinahce be placed upon its first reading:
(n20369) AN ORDINANC~ to amend Title X¥o Chapte~ 4.1, Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amendedt.and Sheet N~. 404, Sectional
.966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, fa relation to Zoning.,
MHERE~S, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke
to have property located at the intersection of Malnut Avenue and Laurel Street,
S. E., described as Lots 12, 13, and 14, Ditek 20, Roanoke Gas and #atev Company
Map, official Tax Nos. 4041001 and 4041002 rezoned from RG-I, General Residential
District, to RG-2, General Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended ~hat the hereinaft*
er described land not be rezoned from RG-I, General Residential District, to RG-
2, General Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the uritten 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 be~n 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 31st
day of Julyt 1972, at 7:30 p.m., ~efore the'Council of the City of Roanoke, at
which hearin9 all parties in.interes~ and citizens were given an opportunity to
be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considerin9 the evidence as herein provided,
is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
THEREFORE, BE IT OROAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title X¥, Chapter 4ol, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 404 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Wap, City
iof Roanoke, by amended in the following particular and no other, viz.:
Property located at the intersection of Walnut Avenue and Laurel Street,
S, E., described as Lots 12, 13, and 14, Block 20, Roanoke Gas and #ater Company
Map, designated on Sheet 404 of the Sectional 1966 Zon~ Map, City of Roanoke, as
Official Tax Nos, 4041001 and 4041002, be, and is hereby, changed from
General Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential District, and that
Sheet No. 404 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion was seconded by Mro Link and adopted by the follomin9 vote:
Webber ....... 7.
NAYS: None
ZONINO: Council herin9 set a public hearing for ?:3? p.m., Monday,
July 31, 197~, on the question of amending Section 6?,.of the Zoning Ordinance so
as to provide that petitions for proposed changes in district zoning classifica-
tions be filed-with the City Clerk and be'thereafter ~eferred ~y the City Clerk to
the City Plannin9 Commission'for study, report and recommendation to Council, the
matter was before the body.
Mo one appearing in opposition to the proposed anendment, Hr, Thomas
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first' reading:
(~203g0) A~ OROIMAHCE amending and reoTdaining Sec. 6?, Amenduen~i, of
Chapter 4,1, Title l¥, of the Code of the CitT of' Roan*he, 195b, as amended, re-
lating to Zonlng,. by providing that, in case of petitions for proposed changes in
district zoning classifications, such petitions be filed uith the city Clerh and
thereafter be referred to the CitT Planning Commission for Study, report and
recommendation to the Conncilo
NHRRRAS, the City Council., on its cmn motion, has recommended aa amend-
ment of the City*s zoning regulations hereinafter set out and provided; and
NHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 70 and Sec, ?1, Chapter 4.1,
of Title XV, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,'and after due
publication of written notice in a nemspaper having general circulation Jn the
City more than fifteen days prior to the holding of the public hearing on the
question, a public hearing was held before the Council on the 31st day of July,
1972, in accordance with said notice, on the proposed amendment, at which public
hearing all persons in interest and citizens were afforded an opportunity to he
heard on the question; and
NHEREAS, upon due consideration of the proposed amendment, the Council
is of opinion that the City*s zoning regulations should be amended as hereinafter
provided.
THEREFORE, B~ IT OHOAINRO by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Sec. 67, Amendmeflt~, of Chapter 4.1, Title X¥, of the Code of the City of Roanoke,
195b, us amended, relating to Zoning, be, and said section is hereby amended and
reordained to read and provide as loll*ms:
Seco 6T. A~endments.
Whenever public necessity, convenience, general welfare or good
zoning practice require, City Council may amend, supplement or change
this chapter, including the schedule of district regulations and
the official zoning map, Any such amendment may be imitated by resolu-
tion of City Council, by motion of the planning commission, or by
petition of any property owner. When such amendment is proposed by
petition of u property own*ri such petition shall be in writing,
addressed to the Council, and shall be filed in the Office of the
City Clerk, accompanied by payment of all fees and charges established
by the Council. Upo~ the filing of such petition, and the payment
of the fees and charges al*resold, the City Clerk shah note the filing
of the same and shall immediately transmit the petition together with
the list of property owners hereinafter mentioned to.the City Plan-
ning Commission for study, report and recommendation to the Council,
as provided in Sec. bH of this chapter, mith copy of such petition
mailed or delivered to the Mayor and Members of the City Council and
to the zoning administrator. In addition, and when uoy such petition
by a property owner be for the reclassification or rezoniog of any
property, there shall be attached to such petition the names and
addresses, if knomn, of the omner or owners of the lots or property
included in the proposed change, of the lots or property immediately
adjacent in the rear thereof and of that or those directly opposite
thereto; provided, homey*r, that inaccuracy or inadequacy of any such
list of owners shall not in uny manner affect the validity of uny
proceedings had or taken by the City Council with respect to the
matters contained in such petition.
Except for extension of existing district boundaries, no chaoge
in zoning classification to a commercial or industrial category shall
he considered which involves an area of less than two acres, and no
separate commercial or industrial district of less than two acres
shall be created by any amendment to this chapter. Having once consider-
ed a petition, City Council will not reconsider substantially the same
petition for one year.
174
Webber
The motion mas seconded by Hr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, flubard, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
NAYS: None. O. · ·
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 7:30 pom. e Monday,
July 31, 1972e on the question of amending Section ~1 of the Zoning Ordinance
which would provid? for published legal advertisement of ~1 public hearings to be
held by the City Planning Commission on proposed changes in the district zoning
classifications, the matter was before the body,
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follom~
lng report recommending that the request be grunted:
"June 0,.1972
The Nonorable Roy Lo Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Planning Director presented a report to the Planning
Commission recommending the institution of official, duly
advertised, public hearings to be held by the Planning Con=
mission on all eeaoning petitions {see enclosed report).
The Planning Commission members generally concurred
with the findings and conclusions of the report and
thought the advertised public hearing a good mechanism to
insure that all interested parties in a rezoning case are
made amore of the time. place and nature of the petition.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unani-
mously approved recommending to City Council that the Zoning
Ordinance be amended to provide for the institution of duly
advertised public hearing by the Planniqg Commission on all
rezoning petitions and that the fee structure and procedural
requirement cited in this report be incorporated into this
ordinance.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr., by LM
No one appearing in opposition to the p~oposed amendment. Dr. Taylor
schedule of hearinos, u~d Sec. 71. Notice of heartnos, of ~hapter 4.1, Title X¥,
of the Code of the City of Roanoke, os amended, relating to Zoning, providing for
4.1. of Title XV, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and after
City more than'fifteen days prior to the holdingof the public hearing on the
question, a public hearihg was held before the Council on the 31st day of July.
1972. in accordance with said notice, on the propose~ amendments at which public
MHEREAS. upon due consideration of the proposed amendments, the Council
is of opinion that the City*s zonin9 regulations should be amended ns hereinafter
provided.
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
1, That Seco 70. Public Hearinns. schedule of hearina~, Of Chapter
Title IV, of the Code of the City of Roanoke,' 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning,
be, and said section is hereby amended and reordained to reading and provide as
follows:
Sec. 70, Public He~rinq~,
Prior to making recommendation on any proposed amendment of
district zoning clussiflcation, the City Planning Commission
shall conduct a public bgaring on such proposal after notice of
such hearing given us provided by Sec. TI of this chapter°
Before amendment of any regulation, restriction or district
boundary provided by this chapter, the City Council shall hold a
public hearing in relation thereto, notice of which hearing
shall be given as provided by Sec. b2 of the Roanoke Charter,
1952, as amended, and Sec. 71 of this chapter,
2. That Sec. 71. Notice of Rearina~, of Chapter 4.1. Title IV, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1955, as amended, relatin9 to Zoning. be, and said
section is, hereby amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 71. Notice of Hearinq~. · ·
Prior to conducting any public hearing required by this
chapter or by Sec, 62 of the Roanoke Charter. 1952, as amended,
before the City Council or the City Planning Commission, at
least fifteen days notice of the time and place of such hear-
ing shall~be published in a newspaper of general circulation
in said City at the expense of the petitioner, or in an
official city bulletin as providedin Sec, 43 of the charter
of said City; and. in the case of public hearing before the
City Planning Commission, written notice shall be mailed to
each owner of property shown on the list attached to any
petition filed pursuant to Sec. b7 of this chapter, such
mailing to be certified to the City Clerk by the City Planning
Director, provided, again, that inaccuracy or inadequacy of
any such list of owners or certification shall not in any
manner affect the validity of any proceedings had or taken
by the City Council or City Planning Commission with respect
to the matters contained in such petition or certification.
In addition, when a proposed amendment affects the district
classification of n particular'piece of property, the zoning
administrator shall cause to be erected on the property a
sign, to be posted at least ten days prior to the public hear-
ing before the City Planning Commission, indicating the nature
of the change proposed, identification of the property af-
fected, and the time, date and place of said hearing, Ia
addition, when a proposed amendment affects the district
classification of a particular piece of property, the zoning
administrator shall cause to be erected on the property a sign,
to be pouted at least'lO days prior to the hearing before the
City Planning Commission, indicating the nature of the change
proposed, identification of the property affected, and the
time, date and place of the hearing.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
NAYS: None .... ----0o
ZONING: Council haydn9 set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m., Monday,
July 31. 1972, on the question of amending paragraph 2 of subsection G of Section
20 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to conf~rm the city's standards relating to
175
176
flammable and combustible liquids with those promulgated by the National Hoard
of Fire Underuriterso the matter mss before the body, ·
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the f~llow-
lng report recommending that the Zoning Ordinance be amended h .order to conform
mlth the standards of the Notional Board of Fire Underuriters:
'July S, 1972
The Honorable Roy L, Webber, Mayor
and Members of City CobncJl
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request mas considered by the City. Flan-
ning Commission at its regular meeting of July 5, 1972,
The Planning Director stated that this amendment would
be in conformance with the 1969 Flammable and Combustible
Liquid Code established by the National Fire Protection
Association, Additionally he stated that the amendment would
only entail some minor changes to Section 20 (G) 2 of the
zoning ordinance. Presbntlyo the code reads as follows:
Industries E~gaged A~ove Under-
jq Stor~oe Only Ground Ground
Materials with closed cup
flash point over 187 deg.F. Prohibited 100,000
Flash point 105 deg.F. -
167 deg,F, Prohibited 40,000
Flash point under 105 deg.F. Prohibited
HM DISTRICT
Unrestricted, provided that storage, handling and use
shall be in accordance with 'Standards of National
Board of Fire Underwriters for Storage, Handling, and
Use of Flammable Liquids', National Board of Fire Under-
writers Pamphlet.No. 30, June 1959.
Total CaeacJtv of Flammable Materials Permitted (in ~allons)
Industries Engaged in Above Under-
Utilization and Manufacture' Ground Ground
of Flammable Materials
Materials with closed cup
flash point over 167 deg,F. 50,000 100,000
Flash point 105 deg. - 107
· deg.F. 20.000 40.000
Flash point under 105 deg.F. 5.000 10.000
The amendment would provide for a modification to this table
as follows:
~9tal .Canacitv of Flammable Materials Permitted (in flallons)
LM DISTRICT
Industries Engaged Abov~ Under-
in Storaue Only Ground Ground
Class III Materials Prohibited 100,~00
Class II Materials Prohibited 40.000
Class I Materials Prohibited 20,000
Industries Ear}ged in
Utilization and Manufacture
of Flammable Materials
Class III Materials Prohibited 100,000
Class II Materials Prohibited d0,000
Class I Materials Prohibited 10,000
HM DISTRICT
Unrestricted, provided that storage, handling and use
shall be in accordance with *Standards Of National
Board of Fire Underwriters for Storage, Handling and
Use of Flammable Llquld~, National Hoard of Fire Under-
writers Pamphlet No. 30, 1969 edition.
~ The Planning Director noted that this amendment will.
provide for the establishment of class designations with
.greater flash point refinements than now exist in the zoning
ordinance. The *flash point*, he noted, is an indicator
of the lowest~mperature ut which vapors above a volatile
combustible substance ignite in air when exposed to flame.
He further stated that this amendment would not permit, in
the light manufacutring zone, the above ground storage of.
flammable materials. He stated that this amendment would
not apply to the Heavy Hanufaoturing zoning districts.
Accordingly, notion was made, duly seconded and unani-
mously approved to recommend to City Council that this
amendment to the zoning ordinance relating to the storage
of flammable materials be adopted.
Sincerely,
Creed K. Lemon, Jr** by LH
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman~
No one appearing in opposition to the proposed amendment, Hr. Thomas
moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City Planning Commission
and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(a20392) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordainin9 subparagraph 2. of
paragraph G. Fire and explosive hazards, of Sec. 20. Performance standards, aDo]j-
~ation, of Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, relating to Zoning, SO as to conform the City's standards relating to
flammable and combustible liquids with those promulgated by the National Board of
Fire Underwriters.
WIIEREAS, upon petition made to the Council, and after study by the City
Planning Commission, said commission has recommended to the Council amendment of
the zoning regulations as hereinafter set out and provided; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Sec. 70 and Sec., 71, Chapter
4.1. of Title XV, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and
after due publication of written notice in a newspaper having general circolat~n
in the City more than fifteen days prior to the holding of the public hearing on
the question, a public hearing was held before the Council on the 1st day of
July, 1972, in accordance with said notice, on the. proposed amendment, at which
public hearing all persons in interest and citizens were afforded an opportunity
to be heard on the question; and
WHEREAS, upon due consideration of the proposed amendment, the Council
is of opinion that the City's zoning regulations should be amended as hereinafter
provided.
THEREFORE, [U~ IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
subparagraph 2. of paragraph G. Fire and exnlosive hazards, of Sec. 20. Perfor-
mance standards, application, of Chapter 4.1, Title X¥, of the Code of the City of
Roanoke, 1956, as amended, relating to Zoning, be, and said subparagraph is hereby
amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
2. Regulations and standards applyin9 to LM and HM districts
are as follows:
a. Storage, otilization, or manufacture of solid materials
or products including incombustible to moderate burning is per-
mitted.
177
178
b. Storage, utilization, or manufacture of solid materials
or products including free burning or intense burning is per-
mitted provided that said materials or products shall be stored,
utilized or manufactured within cpnpletely enclosed b.uildings
having incombustible malls and protected throughout by an automatic
fire ~xtingulsbing system, .
n, The storage, utilization, pr manufacture of flammable
liquids, or materials mhJch produce flammable or explosive Vapors
or gasses shall be pernitted in accordance with the folloming table~
exclusive' of storage of finished products in original sealed
containers, mhich shall be unrestricted, Mhen. flammable gasses
are stored, utilized or manufactured, and measured in cubic feet,
the quantity in cubic feet (S.T.P,) permitted shall not exceed
300 tines the quantities listed on the following page, where the
factor 300 is the f.luna in cubic feet occupied by I gallon of
the liquids.
Industries Engaged Above Under~
in St.raft. Only Ground Ground
Class III Materials Prohibited 100,000
Class II Materials Prohibited 40,000
Class I Materials. Prohibited 20,000
Industries Engaged in
Utilization and Manufacture
Of Flammable Materials
Class III Materi~ls . Prohibited 100,000
Class II Materials Prohibited 40,000
Class I Materials Prohibited 10,000
As all such classes of materials are defined and classified
as to flash point in that certain publication entitled
'Standards of National Board of Fire Cndermriters for Storage,
Handling and Use of Flammable Liquids** National Board of
Fire Underwriters Pamphlet No. 30, 1959 edition.
HM District
Unrestricted, provided that storage, handling and use shall
be in accordance math "Standards of National Board of Fire
Uadermriters for Storage, Bandling and Use of Flammable
Liquids', National Board of Fire Uadermriters pamphlet No.
30,1969 edition.
The notion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber ?.
NAYS: None O.
In this connection, Mr. Lisk questioned the City Attorney as to whether
or not this Ordinance will take care of the request of Mr. John J. Hutler, Presi-
dent, Andrews=Pitzer-Butler Fuel Oil Corporation, for him to store additional
fuel oil storage tanks at his property on Virginia Avenue, N, W.
In answer to the question raised by Mr. Lisk,,the Assistant City Manager
replied that the ab.v.described Ordinance, us adopted by Council on its first
reading, will solve Mr. Butler's problem to a degree, but Mr. Butler still needs
the extensio~ of. his pre~ent ~on=conformtng use at 4~13 Virginia Avenue, N. M., in
order to conform to light manufacturing §tandards in a. commercial zone.
Mr. Trout then moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney
to confer with Mr. Butler and for the purpose of preparing the proper measure
authorizing the extension of anon-conforming use to Mr. Butler in order fop him
tO store additional fuel oil tanks at his property on Virginia Avenue, N. W., and
that the City Attorney report back to Councii by the next regular n~etiag of the
body on Monday, August 7, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. ThOmas and unani-
mously adopted,
ZONING: . Council having set a public hearing for 7:30 ~,m., Mondayo
July 31, 19~2, on the q~estlon of a~endJng Section 36 of the Zooin~ Ordinance so
as to permit development Of certain adJaceot nonconforming lots ia conformity mith
the character of the previously developed lots io the neighborhood, the matter mas
bnfore the body°
~ith reference to the matter. Council. ut Its meetio9 on Monday, April
10, 1972, having requested that the City Attorney moth out a procedore ia order
for Council to groat the request of Hr. S. A. Onrbour to develop tmo lots which
are fifty feet by one-hundred and ten feet, running from Valley Avenue on the
south to Nowbert Avenue on the north, Mr° Harbour appeared before Couocll and
advised that the proposed Ordinance is the answer to his problem, that he hopes
Council mill see fit to enact such an Ordinance which mill allow him to develop
his properties and that this amendment mill definitely be a step forward in good
planning practices.
Also, in connection mith the matter, Council. at its meetin9 on Monday,
April 24. 1972, having referred to the City Planning Commission for study, report
and recommendation the request of Mr. J. Ralph Dooley that construction be allo~ed
on a fifty foot lot owned by him on ¥inton Mill Road, Mr. Dooley appeared before
Council in support of the proposed Ordinance and advised that 75 per cent of the
property on Vinton ~ill Road is developed on fifty foot lots.
~r. Lothur ~ermelstein, Planning Director, appeared before Council and
expressed the opinion that if Council adopts the Ordinance as presented, it will
be making a grave error and that Council definitely should not go back to the
fifty foot lot requirements, that he does not feel the city is hindering growth
but requesting that developers conform to certain standards ns set forth.
Mr, N, Heywood Fralin, Attorney, appeared before Council and advised
that there are hundreds of parcels of property in the City of Roanoke that cannot
be developed under the restrictions of the present Zoning Ordinance and Hill never
be developed unless the Zonin9 Ordinance is amended and that until the Zoning
Ordinance is amended developers ~ill continue to go to Roanoke County for further
development.
After a discussion of the matter, ~r. Lisk moved that the Ordinance
amending Section 36 of the Zoning Ordinance so as to permit development of cer-
tain adjacent nonconformin9 lots in conformity with the character of previously
developed lots in the neighborhood, be placed upon its first reading:
(#20393) AN ORDINANCE amendin9 and reordaining Sod, 36. Nonconformino
lots of record, in Chapter 4,1, Title XV. o'f the Code of the City of Roanoke,
lg56, as amended, relating to Zoning, so as to permit development of certain
adjacent nonconforming lot~ in conformity ~ith the character of previously
developed lots in the neighborhood.
#HEREAS,' upon petition made to the Council, and after study by the City
Planning Commission, said commission has advised against amendment of the district
zoning regulations hereinafter set out and provided; and
179
180
'MHER£ASt pursuant to the provisions of Sec.' 70 and Sec. ?1, Chapter
4.1, of Title XV, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, asumended, and after
due publication of ~rJtten notice in n newspaper having general circulation In the
City more than' £ifteen days prior to the holding of the public hearing on the
question, a public hearing was held before the Council on the 31st day of Julyt
1972, in 'accordance ~lth said notice, on the proposed amendment, at which public
hearing all persons in interest and citizens were afforded an opportunity to be'
heard on the question; and
WDEREAS, upon due consideration of the proposed amendment, the Council
1s of opinion that Sec. 36. Nonconforming 'lots of record~ of Chapter 4.1, Title
XV, relating to Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended,
should be amended as hereinafter provided.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Sec. 26° Nonconforming lots of record, of Chapter 4.1, Title XV,' of the Code of
the City of Roanoke, 1956, an amended, relating to Zoning, be, and said section
is hereby amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 36. Nonconforming lots of recor'd.
In any dist'rict in which single-family dmellings or duplex
dwellings are permitted, a single-family dwelling or duplex
dwelling, as the case may be, and customary accessory buildings
may be erected on any single undeveloped lot of record as of
August 29, 1'966, provided that such lot cannot be combined with
another adjoining undeveloped lot or lots under the same owner-
ship in order to establish a lot or lots conforming to the '
requirements of this ordinance; provided, further, that in any
block ~htch mas subdivided and of record as of August 29, 1966,
the lots in which block on any one street were, at that time,
fully developed except for not more than two adjacent nonconform-
ing lots under common ownership, such two adjacent nonconforming
lots on said street may be developed in conformity with the
character of the previously developed lots on said street and
shall not be required to meet the area and width requirements
applicable within the zoning district. Except for area and ~idth
requirements, nothing contained in this section shall be 'con-
strued to permit lowering or decreasing compliance with setback
or any other requirements of the district zoning regulations.
Otherwise, and if more than two undeveloped lot~ or com-
binations or portions of lots with continuous frontage under
single Ownership are of record as of August 29, 1966, and if
any of the lots do not meet the minimum requirements for lot
width and area established for the zoning district, such lots
shall be considered an undivided parcel for the purpose of this
chapter, and none of such lots shall be used or developed or 'sold
in a manner to diminish compliance with the requirements of
this chapter as to lot width and urea, nor shall any resubdivi-
sion of such parcel be made mhich leaves remaining, in single
ownership, two or more lots or combinations of lots with continuous
frontage, any of which has less than the width or area required
of lots in such subdivision, unless a waiver of such require-
ments be made by the Subdivision Agent, upon application made
and for good cause shown pursuant to the City*s land subdivision
regulations.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor
Rebber 5.
NAYS: Messrs. Hubard and Trout 2,
TRAFFIC: Mrs. Floreuta C. Napier, Parent Educater, Total Action
Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, appeared before Council and again expressed
the concern of TAP for the installation of a traffic light at the*intersection of
7th Street and *Shenandoah Avenue, N, M., in front of the London Day Care Center
and presented copy of a petition signed by approximately 370 citizens requesting
the installation of said traffic light~
After a discussion as to the type of light which is needed, Dr. Taylor
moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for stn~y, report and recom-
mendation by the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, August 7, 1972. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Approximately 50 people were in attendance at the CounCil me*tin9 relatin
to the matter.
PETITIONS AND CORRUNICATIONS:
TAXES-LEGISLATION: Mr. Garland presented ~he follouin9 communication
in connection with Ordinance No. 20356, which increased the tax on cigarettes
from two cents per pack to five cents per pack, advisin9 that it appears that
Roanoke County cannot enact such a tax without enabling legislation from the
General Assembly and recommending that Council instruct th~ City Attorney to pre-
pare the proper measure rescinding Ordinance No. 20356 and that the city continue
with the present tax Of two cents per pack until such time as an agreement can be
reached with the other governing bodies and further recommending that the City
Attorney be directed to prepare a measure encouraging the city*s representatives
in the General Assembly to support a measure which would allow Roanoke County to
impose a cigarette tax:
'22 July 1972
Mayor Roy Lo Mebber ~nd
Members of Roanoke City Council
Gentlemen:
The City Council passed an Ordinance Number 20356 prior to the
adoption of the 1972-73 budget, which raised the tax on cig-
twenty cigarettes (One pack). This Ordinance was to become
effective October 1, 1912. This action taken by *.he Council
was in antigipation of the other governing bodies doing like-
wise and simultaneously, which in effect would have given
the entire Roanoke Valley a uniform cigarette tax.
Now that it appeqrs that Roanoke County cannot do this witho~
enabling legislaiion from the Oeneral Assembly, I would make
the motion that we instruct the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure that would rescind Ordinance No. 20356 and that
the City continue it's present tax of two cents per pack until
s~ch time that an.agreement can be reached with the other
governing bodies.
'~urtheriore, in 'order 'to enhance the possibilities of the
passage of the proper legislation, I would make the motion
requestfon the City Attorney to prepare a Resolution encour-
aging our representatives in the General Assembly to support
this measure that would allow the County of Roanoke to impose
Since it appears that the County of Roanoke as well as the
City of Salem will impose a tax that will parallel and equal
any such.tax that the City.might impose, which in effect will
9iv* no merchant within the Valley an unfair advantage over
another, such an arrangement being fair and equitable, every
effort should be made by this body to promote uniformity of
181
182
However, until such time thst the General Assembly meets, it
mac felt!by the writer after being in consultation with the
Chairmen of the Hoard of Supervisors of Roanoke County, that
no useful purpose would be gained by holding s Valley wide
meeting on this subject ss has been proposed by the City of
Salem and which this Council appointed Councilman Hampton
Thomas end the writer to pursue this matter. Accordingly°
it is my recommendation thut the City stand pat until it is
ascertained shat action that the General Assenbly tabes on
~his matter.
Respectfully submitted for your careful consideration,
· S! Robert A. Garland
Robert A, Garland"
Rt. Garland moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
proper measure rescinding Ordinance No. 20356. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Garland then moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
~roper measure encouraging the city*s representatives in the General Assembly to
Jsupport a measure which would allow Roanoke County to impose a cigarette tax. The
motion was seconded by Hr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-SCO00LS: A communication from the Roanoke
;ity School Board transmittin9 a priority list of the capital improvement projects
!proposed for the next decade as approved by the Hoard at its meeting on July 25,
tg72, and further, transmitting a design and construction time schedule as pre-
Pared by Frantz and Chappelear, Consultieg Engineers, and a communication regarding
projected construction cost increases during the next ten years, was before Council.il
Mr. Lfsk moved that the communication be taken under advisement and that
iayor Webber be requested, within the next two months, to extend an invitation to
the Roanoke City School Board to meet informally with the members of Council to
~iscuss the situation in reference to the school capital improvements program and
the city capital improvements program. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
inanimously adopted.
PENSIONS: Mrs. Ethel A. Osborne appeared before Council in connection
~ith an increase in her pension as a former employee of the Roanoke City School
Hoard, requesting that sh~ be given the same consideration which was given to
firemen and policemen and that any consideration given to her application for an
increase in her pension be made retroactive to July l. 1972.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. W. Albert Coulter, Director
of Personnel of the Roanoke City Publfc Schools, advising that Mrs. Osborne sas a
rery capable employee and did a good job during her years Of empl~ymeut with the
;ity of Roanoke, that if there is any way she can be allowed a more generous pen-
sion, he believes it would be deserved, was before Council;
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager and the
;ity Auditor for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted
NARKRT-TgAFFIC-PLANNIHG: A Joint comnunicutiou from Hr. Henry
Jr., end Hr. Jo~n C. Glnsgow urging that Council proceed with pious to construct
the proposed parking facility ns soon os possible, was before the body.
Hr. Themes moved thnt the communication be referred to the Central
Rosnoke Development Foundation in connection with their study of the proposed
Oonotown goanohe Purhing Garage. The motion was seconded by Hr. Lish und ununi-
mously ndopted.
ZONING-$TgERTS AND ALLEYS: A cemmuuicntiou from Hr. John $. lfenritze,
ndvising that when the Americun Theuter wes built in 192§, they were allowed to
build on the present building line. which mnkes Kirk Avenue ? 1/2 feet narrower
than the remninder of the block and expressing the opinion that other buildings
should ulso be subject to this set buck, wus before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
and the City Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council.
The motion was seconded by Hr. Ilubsrd and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-CITY TREASURER: Copy of a communication from
Mr. J. H. Johnson, City Treasurer, addressed to the State Compensation Board,
advising of the necessity of shifting the duties and responsibilities of several
employees in his office in order to maintain au efficient and balanced operation,
was before Council.
In this connection, copy of a communication from the State Compensation
Board, addressed to Mr~ J. H. Johnson, City Treasure, with reference to the above
communication from Hr. Johnson, advising tbat the Board will need more specific
information before it can approve the requested promotions, was also before the
body.
Mr. Yhomss moved that the communications he received and filed. The
motion mss seconded by Mr. Yrout and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Hr. Douglas M. Kielkopf, Attorney, repre-
senting Hessrs. M, L. Foley and R, A, Foley, requesting that property located in
~he 3500 Dlock of Barberry Avenue, H, M., described as Lots 3 and 4, Dlock 3,
~evised Map of Mestwood Annex, Official Tax No, 2630610, be rezoned from RS-3,
~ingle-Family Residential District, to RG-1, General Residential District, was
)efore Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the request for rezoning be referred to the City
?lannin9 Commission for study, report a~d recommendation to Council, The motion
~as seconded by Hr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Alex A. Naldrop, A~torney, representing
;arvin Development Corporation, requesting that property facing t~e 1500 blocks of
~aldwin Avenue and Keswick Avenue, N. E., described as Lots 12 - 16, inclusive,
~ection 5, Map of Jackson Park, Official Tax Nos. 3210912 - 321091~, inclusive, be
~ezoned from LH, Light Manufacturing District, to HO-l, General Residential Dis-
~rtct, was before Council.
'183
.184
Mr, Garland 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, Thomas and unanimously adopted,
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
flUDGET-~US~INGS COURT-COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY: The City manager sub-
mitted the folloming report in connection mith the employment of a lam clerk to
serve the Hustings Court of the City of Roanoke, the Commonwealth's Attorney of
the City of Rpanoke and the Commonwealth's Attorney of Roanoke County and recommen¢
lng that Council appropriate $2,400.00 to the 1972-73 budget for this project with
corresponding entry of revenue by federal grant:
"July 31, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Justice and Crime Prevention Grant
Grant ~uthorization has been requested and it is under-
stood has been approved for a project of supplying law clerk
assistnat to the Iluatings Court of the City of Roanoke and to
'the Commonwealth*s Attocney*s offices of Roanoke City and
Roanoke County. The project involves a law clerk, full tine,
ten weeks for forty hours per.week at $3.00 per hour to
tlustings Court and a law clerk, part time, ten weeks for
twenty hours per week at $3.00 per hour for the City Common-
wealth's Attorneynnd the same for the County Commonwealth's
Attorney. The total cost is $3,202 of which $2,400 will be
provided by the State Division of Justice and Crime Preven-
tion and the $802 mill be provided by in-kind matching money
for in-kind services by personnel of those offices.
In order to consolidate the project and to handle it,
pursuant to State and Federal regulations through u.local
government, a single application grant is being made through
the City of Roanoke which would include not only the one and
a half times personnel for the City but also the half timo
personnel for the County Commonwealth's Attorney.
· hese personnel have ~ready been working for about four.
Jo five weeks and the delay in the matter now coming before
the City Council .is not a matter with the City but has been
involved in the working out of the situatiou between the
offices directly involved, the Fifth Planning District and
the State Division of Justice and Crime Prevention.
It in recommended that the City Council appropriate
$2,400 to the 1972-73 budget for this project with a corres-
ponding entry of revenue by Federal grant and that with this
appropriation and the papers on the application having been
forwarded that the City would then be in a position to make
payment to the two law clerks who have been serving for their
compensation up to this time and on a regular basis here-
after.
If the City Council mould have any questions with respect
to this, I would be glad to advise.
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;
(#20394) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~15, ~Hustings Court
of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~3T, page 74.)
(i
ar. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion mas seconded
by Hr, Lish nnd adopted by the foil*ming vote:
AYES: Hessrs, Garland, Hnbard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and #ayor
Webber 7
HAYS: None,
SALE OF PROPERT¥-SENERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted
the following report in connection with options for properties needed With regard
to the expansion of the Sewage Treatment Plant. advising that option has been
secured from Mrs. Georgia M. Heptinstall, in the amount of $1.4§0.00. that options
have been secured from Mr. and Mrs. H. L. Dodd, in the amount of $4.350.00. and
for a duelling owned by the Dodd's at 1446 BrownleeAvenue,'S.E., in the amount
of $11.710.00. and recommending that these options be accepted:
"July 31. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Acquisition of Property
Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion
You will recall that the City is in the process of
acquiring certain properties in the vicinity of the Sewage
Treatment Plant within the block bounded by Brownie* Avenue.
Underhill Avenue, flennington Street and Kindred Street.
Recently City Council authorized accepting an option which
had been secured for property in that area.
Me have again secured options for property needed for
the expansion of the Sewage Treatment Plant. Option has been
secured from Mrs. Georgie M. Heptinstall owner of Lot 10,
Dloch 4. Map of East*var Place. Official Tax No. 4330610.
The price which Mrs. Heptinstall has agreed to sell this
unimproved lot to the City is the appraised value of $1.450.00.
Me have also secured two options from Mr. and Mrs. H
L. Dodd. The first is for unimproved Lots Nos. 28. 2g and
30, Block 4. Map of East*var Place in the name of Mr. Dodd
only at the appraised value of $4.350.00. The second option
is for the Dodd*s re§tdence dwellin9 at 1446 Brownlee Avenue.
S. E.. Lots 12 and 13, Block 4. Map of East*var Place. in
the negotiated amount of $11,T10.00. The sum of the two
options is 10~ above the appraised value of the combined
parcels of land and improvements. This sum has been agreed
upon following numerous negotiations between representatives
of the City and Mr. and Mrs. Dodd. This couple is retired
and has lived in their home for 39 years never expecting to
live elsewhere and reluctant to move at all. The Ctty*s
n~ed for these properties, along with the willingness of
Mr. and Hrs. Dodd to cooperate even though they really prefer
not to move. suggest that the City should accept this nag*-
tinted settlement.
The City Attorney's office has been furnished copies
of all of the above mentioned options and requested to prepare
appropriate papers. It is recommended that City Council
approve the acceptance of these options and the purchase of
subject properties.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Htrst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
ianager and offered the following emergency Ordinance exercising the right to
nrchase a parcel of land presently owned by Mrs. Georgia g. Beptinstall:
185
(~20395) AN ORDINANCE exercising the right to purchase ~.certnin parcel
of lend situate in the City o! Roanoke, Virginia, adjacent to the existing City
of Roanoke Sewage Treatment plant, npd needed, for raid plant*s expansion, upon
certain terms and provisions; providing for notice of the City's exercise of a
mritien pruchsse option; providing for payment of. the purchase price thereof upon
delivery to the City of n deed and for recordation of such deed; and providing for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance B,oh nS?, page ?4.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by #r. Trout and adopted by the f,Il,ming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber ...................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
Mr. Thomas then offered the folloming emergency Ordinance exericising the
right to purchase certain land presently owned by Mr. and MFS. H.. L. Dodd:
(#203gb) AN ORDINANCE exercising the right to purchase five parcels of
land situate in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, adjacent to the existing City of
Roanoke Sewage Treatment Plant, and needed for said plant's expansion, upon cer-
tain terms and provisions; providing for notice of the City's exercise Of written
purchase options; ~roviding for payment of the purchase price thereof upon delivery
to the City of a deed and for ~ecordation of such deed; and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ord'inance Book' u37, page 76.)
Rr. Thomas moved the adoption of the OrdinanCe. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland 3nd~dopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Ilubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout an~ Mayor
Mebber ....................... ?'.
NAYS: N,ua ......... O.
SEWERS AN, STORM DRAINS: At thp lest regular meeting of Council on
Monday, July 24, 1972, the City Manager ~erbally reported on certain matters at the
Sewage Treatment Plant and advised that he would have his remarks put in writinR
for the record, the City Manager submitted a written report transmitting a 21 page
Special Report on Sanitary Maste Treatment under date of. July 24, 1972; Plant
Data, Addendum to Special Report; Operational Schedule May and June, 1972; Copy
of a communication from Roy F. Meston, Incorporated; and a Report on April
1972, Investigation of the Sewage Treatment Plant.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SEMERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following
report in connection with a complaint from Mr, Hillard M. Jones, 3509 New Sprlo9
Branch Road, S, E., concerning sanitary uewer difficulties i~ that neighborhood,
I
I
I
transmitting copy of a co~muaicition written to Mr. Janes by the Assistant City
Manager, pointing out that'there are knomn difficulties in the Garden City area
with the sanitary namer system, that there is a need in this particular neighbor-
hood for complete reconstructing of segment's of lines and such is included in 'the
list of capital improvement need~ mhich were forwarded to Council earlier this
year and assuring Council of his interest in correcting the conditions mhich
periodically occur in various segments of the sanitary sewer system nnd that empha*
sis is given to the more troublesome areas such as Garden City in an effort to
completely remedy the situation in the shortest reasonable ~ime:
"July 31, 1972
Honorable Hayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen=
Subject: Letter of Complaint - Garden City Sanitary Sewer
The City Hanager*s office has received a letter of complaint
from Mr. Hillard H. Jones at 3509 Ne~ Spring Branch Road, S. E..
concerning sanitary sewer difficulties in that neighborhood.
Attached for your information is a letter dated June 27 rrna
Mr. Jones and a reply dated June 30 from Assistant City
Manaoero William F. Clark. Mr. Jones has since corresponded
a desire that this matter be brought directly to City Council's
attention and the matter is therefore included on your Agenda.
It is true that there are known difficulties in the Garden
City area with our sanitary sewer system. With our increased
preventative maintenance program the City is continuously
seeking sources of storm water infiltration into the sanitary
sewer system and making corrections. There is a need in
this particular neighborhood for certain complete reconstruc-
tion of segments of lines and such is included in the list of
capital improvement needs forwarded to City Council earlier
this year and presently under consideration. It should be
noted also that even with a completely new sanitary sewer
system some line obstructions cannot be anticipated and com-
plete assurance cannot be given that occasional backups will
not still occur. Such is true with anygravity sewer system.
With this report, we assure City Council of our interest in
correcting the conditions which periodically occur in various
segments of the City's sanitary sewer system and our continual
pursuit into problem areas. Me do give emphasis to the more
troublesome areas such as Garden City, in an effort to com-
pletely remedy the situation in the shortest reasonable time.
If Council has further questions concerning this subject, we
will be pleased to elaborate at your meeting.
Respectfully subnitted~
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The not/on
was seconded by Mr. Zhomas and unanimously adopted.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING: The City Manager submitted a written report advis-
ing that t~e City has received from the federal government a proposed ,agreement
extendin9 the lease on the Social Security Administration Offices in the former
Reid and Cutshall Building for another three year period ending July 31, 1975.
and recnmmendin9 that Council give approval to the execution of this lease.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the folloming Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
187
'i88
(s20397) AN ORDINANCE agreeing to the continued occupancy ~ntil July
31, 1975, by the Gorernment of certain ground floor space ia the premises known
ns the Reid ~ Cutshnll Building at the corner of Campbell Avenue and Third Street,
S. l., in the City, held under Lease No. GS-O3-B-4925 dated July 30, 1962, us
amended by Agreement No. I dated December S, 1966.
NHEREAS. by deed dated December 23, 1969, the City of Roanoke acquired
the fee simple title to certain real estate in the City of Roanoke on which premisei
knomn as the Reid ~ Cutshail Building is located, said deed expressly being made
subject to an unrecorded lease in writing~ated July 30. 1962, between Reid ~
Cutshall, lac** and the United States of America for a term of year commencing
August 1, 1852, and terminating July 31, 1972, as said lease had theretofore been
amended by written agreement made between the Government and Ried ~ Cutshall. Inc.,
under date of December 5, 196b. said lease and amendatory agreement providing for
the payment by the Government of $16,B00.00 per annum as rental under said lease
and for reimbursement to the lessor for certain overtime services ut said premises
after 6:00 p;mo on week days and on Saturdays and Sundays ut a rate Of $2.50 per
hour; and
RHEREAS, said Government has proposed that it be agreed between the
~arties that the Government*s occupancy of said premises be continued, for a
~eriod beginning August 1, 1972, and ending July 31, 1975, thereby extendin~ the
lease term provided in Lease No. GS-O3-B-4B2S, as amended by the wirtten agreement
dated December 5, 1966, aforesaid; which said proposal, being recommended by tho
City Ranager, is agreeable to this Council.
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
the City of Roanoke hereby agrees to estend for an additional period .beginning
August 1, 1972, and ending July 31, 1975, the term of the United States of
America's lease of approximately 5400 square feet of 9round floor space in the
premises known as the Reid ~ Cutshall Building, on the southwest corner of Campbell
Avenue and Third Street, S. W., in the City of Roanoke, under Lease No; GS-O3-B-4825
dated JulI 30, 1962, between Reid ~ Cutshall, Incorporated, and the United States
of America. as amended in sriting by Amendment No; 1, made between said parties
under date of December 6, 1966. upon the same terms, provisions and conditions and
upon the same rental and operating service charges cont ailed and. set out in the
iaforesaid written lease of July 30. 1962, and amendatory Agreement No. 1, dated
Decmeber 5, 1966; and doth hereby authorize, empower and direct, the City Manager
to execute written Supplemental Agreement No. 2 on GSA form DC 68-1176. to be
dated July 31, 1972, on behalf of the GitI of Roanoke and with the United States
of America, agreeing that the Government's occupancy of the aforesaid premises be
extended for the period hereinabove provided upon the terms, provisions, rental
and service charges hereinubove set out or referred to; the form of the a~resaid
Supplemental Agreement No, 2 to be first ~pproved by the City Attorney.
.I
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs~ Garland. Hubard. LJsh. Taylor, Thomas, Trout end Mayer
iebber ........................ ?.
NAVS: None ......... --0.
BUDGET-ROANOKE VALLEY: The City Manager submitted a mrltten report
advising that he has been advised by the federal government that funds will be
available for the employment of temporary personnel under the Public Employment
Personnel Program to carry out flood cleanup, that under the procedure both the
federal government and the city must Jointly authorize such personnel employment
by August I and provide the necessary allocations, that appropriations uill be
refunded by the Department of Labor, that the city must supply ten per cent inkind
to be made up of F.I.C.Ao, supervisory support, miscellaneous telephone expense
and other expenses, that he is proposing 34 workers for tmo months to include
one Equipment Operator, four Laborer ll's and ~g Laborer l's, that the total
salaries and expenses will be $24,748.00, that F.I.C.A. for this amount mill be
$1,361.14, that these personnel will be distributed among the Civil Defense.
Public ~orks and Parks and Recreation Departments and recommendin9 the amendment
of the budget to provide a special account for these funds out of which payment
will be made for the wages and an off-setting revenue item as stated above would
be anticipated.
~r. Garland moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
~anuger and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating $24,748.00
to Personal Services under Section ~70, "Flood Damage," of the 1972-73 budget:
(~203gB) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =70, "Flood Damage."
;of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and prnviding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =37, page 7?.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
i;by Mr. Trout and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: ~essrs. Garland, Hubard, task, Taylor, Thomas° Trout and ~ayor
~Nebber
NAYS: None .........
Dr. Taylor then offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
!i$1,361.14 to Social Security under Section =13, "Retirements," of the 1972-73
ilbudget:
(~20299) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~13, "Retirements,"
!;of the 1972-73 AppropriationOrdinance, and providin9 for anemergency.
(For fall text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook #37. page 77.)
! Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
i!by Mr. Trout and adopted by the felloming vote:
· Mebber ~-7.
NATS: None. g.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted the following report In
connection with appropriating necessary funds to restore ceFtoin areas which mere
damaged by the recent flood end recommending that. Council, by budget Ordinance
amendment, appropriate the sum of $500,000.00 for. said purpose, math an offsetting
revenue item in the some amount, pointing out that all flood expenses mill be
charged to this account including payments which are now needed to ot least one
contractor who has work in progress:
"July 31. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Flood Damage
This is Submitted as a further item of funding ~n' the
matter of procedure and handling the work that has been. is
and will be necessary in the damage resulting from hurricane
Agnes.
Various damage survey reports have been made by teams
including federal, state and local individuals. This has
been an appraisal of work that has already been performed
and is yet to be done. Accurate records are being maintained
by the respective departments and agencies concerned in order
that there can be federal reimbursement and to substantiate
approval by state and federal offices. Certain advanced
requisitions will be made for monies and as the work progress-
es funding is anticipated to be in stages until completed.
As of July 24, the follomin9 is a list of funds that the'
damage survey reports indicate the City will have to spend' due
to the flood.
Transportation Museum $37,600.00
Wasena Park 35,100.00
Victory Stadium 24.000.00
National Guard Armory 71,680.00
Sewage Treatment Plant 99,227.6H
Basement - Victory Stadium 7,§00.00
Traffic Equipment Replacement
Peters Creek and Tinker Creek 26.160.00
Erosion - Landfill 26,H52.00
Debris Removal 18,225.00
Debris Removal 28,400.00
Extra Labor (So far) 1,055,00
$305.701.23
payments will be made by the City with all monies from
the federal and state governments to come in to the City
Auditor as a revenue item. The Auditor will establish a
special account for these funds.
It is recommended that the City C~undil. by budget ordi-
nance amendment appropriate the sum of $500,000 for the above
purpose, with On offsetting revenue item in the same amount.
Ail direct flood exp~nses will be charged to this account
including payments which are now needed to at least one con-
tractor who has work in prooress.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr, Mubnrd moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
iRanoger end that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of
the proper measure. The motion #as seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
WATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a mritten report concurringl
in the following report of a committee recommending that the bids of Badger Meter
Manufacturing Company, Hersey Products Company, and Rockwell Manufacturing Company,i!
for supplying water meters to the Water Department for a twelve month period be-
ginning August 1, 1912, and ending July 31, If?3, be accepted:
*July 27, If?2
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Geutlemen:
After due and proper advertisement, bids were received
in the office of the Purchasing Agent and publicly opened
at 11:00 u.m** July 16, 1972. for supplying water meters to
the Mater Department for a twelve month period beginning
August 1. 1972. and ending July 31, 1973.
As shown by the attached tabulation, bids were received
by four fires mith the low, bid, by size and type. being as
follows:
Approximate Unit Extended
Ouantitv price T~ a~
1.500 5/fl" Cold Water Meters $ 30.00 $45,000.00
Less trade-in of 1,000
Scrap Meters 6.00 6,000,00
$39,000.00
25 1" Cold Mater Meters 67.25 1,601.25
10 I 1/2' Cold Mater Meters 123.31 1,233.10
10 2' Cold Mater Meters 198.98 1.989.D0
Subtotal $43,904.15
10 3/4" Cold Water Meters $ 47.90 $ 479.00
G 6" Detector Type Meters 452.00 2,712.00
4 8" Detector Type Meters 654.00 , 2,616.00
I 10" Detector Type Meter 1,306.00 1.306.00
Subtotal $ 7.113.00
Rockwell Manufacturino Co.. Pittsburoh. Pennsylvania
3' Compound Mater Meters $ 524.00 $ 2,096.00
4* Compound Mater Meters 935.00 3,740.00
6" Compound Mater Meters 1,919.00 3,83B.00
Manifold Compound Unit,
equivalent to 8' Comp. meter 2,733.00 2.733.00
Subtotal $12,407.00
TOTAL $63,424.15
All unit prices reflect a decrease from the previous year's
unit price and this decrease is generally in the five percent range.
The right is reserved by the City to mahe separate awards
on mater meters, therefore it is the recommendation of the
Committee that the lom bids, as outlined above, be accepted
and all other bids rejected.
Respectfully submitted',
S/ Nilliam F. Clark
S/ B. B. Thompson
S/ Mit B. Riser*
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
#monger and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u20400) AN ORDINANCE providing for the purchase of supplies of various
types of mater meters for use by the City*s Nater Department during the period
of time beginning August 1, 1972, and ending July 31, 1973, upon certain terms and
provisions, by accepting certain bids made to the City; rejecting certain other
bids; and providin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #37, page 78.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Yhomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ........................
NAYS: None ........... O.
CITY ENGINEER~GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted a written
report concurring in th~ following report of a committee recommending that the
bid of Carter Machinery, Incorporated, for a crawler-drawn scraper, Model No. 435E,
in the amount of $16,020.00, be accepted:
"July 26, 1972,
TO the City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Tuesday, J~ll 25, bids were received and opened before the
committee whose name appear below for a 12 cubic yard crawler-
drawn scraper'to be used at the landfill of the City of
Roanoke. This unit is to replace an 6 cu yd. scraper that
has structual'damage. It is not feasible to have this unit
repaired.
There were a total of 14 companies that were notified. Seven
responded and of that seven, one submitted a bid. The six
others that responded submitted no bid. The one bid b
Carter'Machinery Co. was for a total cost of
Contact has been made with the companies that submitted no
bids. They were asked their reason for a no bid. The rea-
Son bas the shme from'each company. It was that the type
of scraper requested is not being carried by these companies
any more, that there has been no demand for such a scraper.
Each company mas willing to bid on a self propelled type of
scraper.but was not in u position to bid on mhat we proposed.
Self propelled scrapers depending upon the bize will vary
from $30,000 plus dollars for the smallest to $50,000 plus
dollars for the larger models. The cost for a self propelled
type vehicle in the same cubic yardage area that we desire
mould run approximately $40,000 plus dollars. Ne do not feel
at this time that it is necessary to have a vehicle of this
nature.
The flexibility that a crawler-drawn scraper has is most
advantageous to our operation where we are faced with a
variable type of material that is shale, rock, dirt mixture,
etc.
t!
I
Since these items are no longer being manufactured and stocked,
ne hare been informed by the bidder, Carter Machinery, that
they nafntnfn u parts line for all of their models that are
discontinued and that parts would not be a problem.
A five day delivery has been promised end this would greatly
assist our prograw as we are now renting · piece of equipment
to Baintain our existing landfill trenching operation and this
would sage us $200.00 n week by having this item at OUr dis-
posal immediately.
it is th~ recommendation or this committee that the city
accept the bid from Carter #achinery, Inc.o for the crawler-
drawn scraper 12 cubic yard. Model No. 435£. Funds are
available in CIP-14 Refuse Disposal Facilities.
RECORM£ND£D: S/ Milliam F. Clark
Assistant City Manager
S/ Joseph H', Droner, Jr,
Acting Director of Public ~orks
S/ Rueford B. Thompson
Purchasing Agent
S/ Sam Ho McOhee
City Engineer*
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20401) AN ORDINANCE providing for the City's purchase of one new 12
cubic yardcrawler~rawn scraper for use by the Department Of Public Works at
the City*s sanitary landfill by accepting a certain proposal of Carter Machinery
Company, Inc., of Salem, Virginia, made therefor; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book a37, page 80.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of tho Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Yaylor, Thomas, Trout. and Mayor
Webber ..................... 7.
NAYS: None ......... O.
ZONING: The Assistant City Attorney submitted a written report in con-
nection with Resolution No. 20308 regarding the issuance of a permit to Mr. Edison
F. Shrader for continuance of a nonconforming use and occupancy of premises located
at 814 - 816 Murray Avenue, 5. E., pointing Out that Mr. Shrader later appeared
before Council and requested that the non-transferable proviso be eliminated from
the permit and transmitting a Resolution deleting the proviso regarding the non-
transferability.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the Assistant City
Attorney and offered the follo~ing Resolution amending Resolution No. 20308:
'(o20402) A RESOLUTION authorizing the issuance of a permit to authorize
continuance of nonconforming use of premises located at 814-816 Murray Avenue,
S. E., Official Tax No. 4122535; and repealing Resolution No. 20308.
(For full text o'f Resolution, see Ordinance Book {3T, pa~e Ol.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
193
194
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Llsh, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber '7.
NAYS: None ........
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the City of
Roanoke for the month of Juno. 1972.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
mat seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
RADIO-TELEVISION: Mr. Garland, Chairman of the City of Roanoke CATV
Committee submitted a written progress report of tho CATV Committee, advising that
at a netting mhich mas attended by representatives of the valley governing bodies,
it was generally agreed by those present that every effort should be made to
approach the question ef cable television on a regional concept, that it was felt
the committee lacked the necessary expertise in this complex field, therefore, it
mas decided to contact five Cable TV consulting firms With the idea that a
representative from each of these firms would meet with the Committee for the pur-
pose of a determination of costs and among other things for a feasibility study
and that after these proposals are considered by the Committee, the membership
will then report the findings to each of their respective governing bodies.
Mr. Garland moved that the progress report be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: Council having referred to a committee composed of Messrs.
~William F. Clark, Joseph H. Brewer. Jr., and Samuel H. McGhee, III, for tabulation,
report and recommendation the bids for the reconstruction of a roadway at Roanoke
Municipal (Noodrom) Airport consisting of a loop in front of the Terminal Hnilding,~
the committee submitted the following report recommending that the proposal of
John A. Hall ~ Company. Incorporated. in the amount of $14g,695.gs, be accepted:
"July 26, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
After proper advertisement, bids mere received and publicly
opened and read on Monday, July 24, 1972. for the reconstruc-
tion of the roadway at the Roanoke Mu~cipal Airport, consis-
ting of the loop in front of the Terminal Huildin9,
Four bids were submitted as shown on the attached tabulation
with the low bid In the amount of $149,69b.95 being submitted
by John A, Hall and Company. Inc.
The low bid is well within the City*s estimate for this con-
sturction and the funds available.
It is your' committee's recommendation that:
1. The low bid in the amount of $14g,~96.95 submitted
by John A. Hall and Company, Inc., be accepted and
that a contract for this construction be awarded
to John A. Hall and Company, Inc.
2. All other bids received be rejected,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Milldam F. Clark
Assistant City Manager
S! Joseph H. Brewer, Jr.
Acting Director of Public Murks
S! Sam H. McGhee, 1II
City Engineer#
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the oomnitte~
and offered the followin9 emergency Ordinance:
(#20403) AN ORDINANCE accepting the proposal of John A. Hall C Company,
Inc., for the reconstruction of the loop roadway in front of the terminal building
at the Roanoke Municipal Airport; authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the reqaisite contract; rejecting certain other bids made to the City; and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #37, page B2.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion Has seconded
by Mr. Link and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Link, Taylor. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber .........................7.
NAYS: None ...........O.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
SALE OF PROPERTY: Council havin9 deferred action on a recommendation
of the Real Estate Committee that the offer of Mr. John R. Newbill to purchase
city-omned property located on Maywood Avenue, S. I.. designated as Parcel No. 1.
Official Tax No, 1070800, for the sum of $1,OO0.00. be accepted, the matter was
again before the body.
In this connection, Mr. Oavid K. Link, Chairman of the Real Estate
Committee,'verbally requeste~ that action on the nat*er be deferred un'il the
next regular meeting of Council on Monday, August ?. 1972.
Mr. Link then moved that Council concur in his re~uest that action on
the matter be deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday,
August 7. 1972. The motion sas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20375, amending and reordainin9 the subsection
entitled Minimum off-street parking'and lundin9 requirements of Sec. 7. RG~I and
RG-2, Ceneral Residential Districts, of Article IV, Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, relating to Zoning. increasin9
in certain instances the number of parkino spaces per dwelling unit in said
districts; and providing for the effective date of said Ordinance, having previous-
ly 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:
195
-196
(s20375) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordainJng the subsection
~-~ q~nernl residential districts, Of Article I¥, Chaptee 4.1o Title XV, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended relating to Zoning, increasing in
certain instances the number or parking spaces per dwelling u~it in said districts;
and providing for the effective date of said amendment.
(FOr full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a37, page ?0.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lish and adopted by the follQwing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ....................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20376. amending and reordaJning Sec. 6. C-l.
Office and Institutional District, and Sec. 9, C-2o General Commercial District,
lof Article IV of Chapter d.1, Title XV, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956,
i, ns amended, relating to Zoning, increasing in certain instances the number of
!iparking spaces required in said districts and providing for the effective date of
~the Ordinance, having previously been before Council for its first readin9, read
~and laid over, was again before the body. Mr. Lisk offering the following for its
second reading and final adoption:
(#20376) AN ORDI~ANCE amending and reordainin9 Sec. B. C-I office and
!~nstitutional district, of Article IV in Chapter 4.1. Titl~ X¥, of the Code of
~ithe City of Roanoke, 195~ as amended, relating to Zoning. increasing in certain
instances the number of parking spaces required in said districts; and providing
~for the effective date of said amendments.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ua?, page ?2.)
Mr. kisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
b~ Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, Link, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber
NAYS: None ......... O,
BUDGET-CITY ERPLOYEES: Council having directed the ~ity Attorney to
prepare the proper measure repealing Resolution No. 20399, adopted June ~6, 1972,
imposing a moratorium On the employment of new personnel in the city government
administrat~n, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Thomas offered the following
Resolution:
(n20404) A RESOLD~ION repealing Resolution No. 20399, adopted June
26, 1972, imposing a moratorium on the employment of new personnel in the city
tovernment administration; and directing the initiation of a management study of
all administrative and operational functions and practices Of the City.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~37, page 83.)
[I
il
Mr. Thomas 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 and Mayor Mebber
NAYS: Messrs. Hul~ard and LJsk ...... ~ ........................... 2.
In this connection, a communication from Sheriff Paul J. Puckett, re-
questing that his office be removed from t~e restrictions imposed by the morutorJul
was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
SERERS AND SYORM DRAINS: Council having*directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure authorizing the C~ty Manager to enter into written
contract with Smith*s Transfer CorporntJon providing for the city's transmission
and treatment of certain sewage and wastes from an area under development in
Roanoke County on the north side of Peters Creek Road, east of Interstate Route
5B1, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution:
(u20405) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to enter into
contract mith Smith's Transfer Corporation providing for the City's transmission
and treatment of certain sewage and wastes from an area under development in'
Roanoke County.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ua?, page 04.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Hubard and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: M ....~* ~oriand, Bubard, Lisk, Yoylo~, Th .....Trout and Mayor
Mebber .................................................................. 5.
NAYS: None ......................................... ~--~ ...... O.
MATER DEPARTMENT: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure authorizing the employment of the professional services of
certain consulting engineers to provide all necessary engineering services and
drawings and specifications for and providing general supervision and inspection
of and performin9 other related services in connection with the design and con-
struction of a prechlorination system at the city's Carvius Cove Filter Plant,
upon certain terms and conditions, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. ~homas
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=20405) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the employment of'the professional
services of certain consulting engineers to provide all necessary engineering
services and drawings and specificat(ons for and providing general supervision
and inspection of and performing other r~lated services in connection with the
design and construction of a prechlorination system at the City*s Carvins Cove
Filter Plant. upon certain terms and provisions; and providing for an emergency.
{For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a37, page BS.)
Mr. Thomas moved t~e adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
297
198
AYES: Messrs. 'Garland. Hubard, Llsk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout 'and Rayor
Webber
NAYS: None o.
BUDGET-BRIDGES: Council having directed the Cit~ Attorney to prepare*
the proper measure appropriating $9,000.00 to Maintenance of Buildings and Pro-
perty under Section #64. *Maintenance of City Property** Of the 1972-73 budget, to
provide funds in connection with the employment of Hayes, Seay.'Rattern and
Mattero, ArChitects and Engineers, to perform necessary engineering wsrk in
connection mlth the rehabilitation of the east abutment if the Walnut Avenue
Bridge spanning the Roan.he River. Mr. Lish offered the following emergency Ordi-
nance:
(n20407) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section =64, *Maintenance
of City Property,# of the 1972-?aAppropriution Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Gook n37, page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland aud adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, HubaFd. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout, and Mayor
Webber .......................... ?.
NAYS: None .......... O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: Mrs. N. G. Nelson~ Jr** appeared
before Council and presented the foil.ming petition signed by five residents of
· 3rd S~reet. $. N., in connection with Youth Haven located at 1325 3rd Street,
S. M.. requesting that the lease of Youth Haven. which expires this fall, be
terminated and the facility discontinued or moved to a more compatible, less
expensive non-residential area and further requesting that the taxpayers be
informed of the financial setup of Youth Haven showing the budget for the two-
year trial period of its existence and ~1 sources from which funds have been
derived.
Mr. Trout moved that the petition be referred to the City Nannger for
investigation and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Nr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
DRUGS: Mr. Harry Hnusman, General Manager of NTOY Hadio Station,
appeared before Council in connection with the problem of drugs and the drug
pusher and requested that Council discuss, with the Chesapeake and Potomac Tele-
phone Company. the possibility of the installation of a deadend telephone or
hot line in the Police Department whereby citizens may call the Police Department
anonymously to identify drug pushers and that the city promote an advertising
campaign t~ solicit public cooperation in this regard.-
Mayor Mebber requested that Mr. Hausman put his request in ~ritin9 and
~lace it on a regular agenda of Council in order for necessary action to be taken.
IJ
COUNCIL-CITY MANAGER: Mr. Thomas advised that he realizes the City
Manager has a number of items referred to him each and every week for report back
to Council and pointed out that some time ago, the City Manager periodically
forwarded to the members of Council a list of,the status of items which had pre-
viously been referred to him, Mr. Thomas pointing out that the status report
proved to be extremely helpful to him and expressed the opinion that there should
be some arrangement established either by the City Manager*s Office or the City
Clerk*s Office to keep Council up to date on the status of items which are refer-
red to the City Manager for report,
In this connection, Mr. Thomas requested that the City Ranager give
a status report on the service center.
The City Manager replied that this matter has been left open in order
to meet with the members of Couacil and the proposed consultin9 engineers and
that he would like to meet informally with Council and the consulting engineers at
a time mutually agreeable to the members of Council.
Mr. Thomas then moved that Mayor Webber be requested to call an informal
meeting of Council to discuss certain matters relating to the proposed service ·
center. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Webber called an informal meeting of Council for 4 p.m., Monday~
August 7, 1972.
INDUSTRIES-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Hubard presented the following communica-
tion in connection with assigning a member of the City Manager's staff the responsi
bility of attracting new businesses and industries to the City of Roanoke and to
address his main attentions to the servicing of existing businesses and industries
in the city:
· July 28, 1972
~he Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor, and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Gentlemen. one Of the many crises facing Roanoke as n central
city is the capacity to attract business and industry in order
to maintain a satisfactory balance in its real estate tax
structure. At first blush it would appear to be desirable for
the City to employ u full-time industrial development firm.
However, mith the exceedingly limited land area available in
our City for industrial sites, this does not seem economically
feasible. (See discussion of this in the City's appellate
petition in the annexation suit.)
Rhat does seem eminently sound economically is to assign a
member of the City Manager's staff the responsibility to
attract new businesses and industries to our City, but to
address his main attentions to the servicing of existing busi-
nesses and industries in the City. Me have many and varied
outstanding commercial citizens in our City which contribute
substantial revenues to our City. Some of our businesses have
moved from our City in recent years, and aa. doubt we will suffer
such losses in the future. One of the best ways to retain
these firms is.to offer assistance in improving City services,
receive and resolve complaints, etc.
A notable example of how such a staff person could have assisted
a City business, and at the same time have saved Council much
valuable time, is the recent request by Mr. Robert Stone of
Transmission Products. Inc. ~his firm desires to move its
operations from Mime Avenue, $. E., to llth Street, N. E. He
199
2OO
called several Conacllmenasking for assistance in having sewer
not that the City had turned doan his request, but that he bad
gotten the Impression that our City Administration cared
little whether his firm remained in the City. Happily, later
he was assured of sewer serivce, and it appears that his firm
will remain in tomn and an additional firm will come into
town at the llth Street site.
I cnn foresee such n staff man regularly calling on City
businesses to offer assistance such as mentioned above, as
well as to look forward to identify future problems,
solutions for some, end to Just plain express appreciation for
the fact for example *that Norfolh ~ Western Railway Company
has been n responsible and supportive citizen of Roanoke since
Its inception*. This man would surely pay hfs uny many times
over.
In addition to these duties, this staff person could be given
additional duties in the area of public information, or vice
versa a public information office could be given the premen-
tinned duties.
S/ ~mo S, Bobard
Councilman"
Mr, Hubard moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
study, report and recommendation in bis management study of all administrative
operational practices of the City Of Roanoke, The motion was seconded by
Rr, Garland and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mr. Lisk advised that ho is in receipt of
a telephone call from certain members of the State Mater Control Board advising
that they would be willing to meet informally with the members of Council and the
city administrative staff on Monday night, August 7, 19.72, to discuss certain
isewage treatment matters and raised the question as to whether or not the City
Manager would be interested in having such a matting.
The City Manager replied that he did not want to put himself in a posi-
tion of publicly denying such a meeting, that if Council would like to confer with
the three members of the State Rater Control Board. it would be acceptable to him.
however, he would like to meet with the staff of the State Mater Control 6nard
before such a meeting is held.
Mr. Lisk pointed out that in bringing this matter to the attention of
Council it is not his intent to try in any may to usurp the authroity of the
City Manager, that if this informal meeting is held, the City Manager will have
the advantage of attending the meeting of the State Water Control Board knowing
what the position of at least three of its members will be.
Mr, Lisk then moved that Mayor Webber be requested to extend an invita-
tion to the three members of the State Mater Control Board to meet informally
with the members of Council and the administrative staff Of the City of RoanokE,
The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard,
Mayor Webber raised the.question of what could possibly be discussed that
would be beneficial without a full complement of the State Mater Control Board
and its staff being present, that the City Manager has carried the ball this
and that Council should be hesitant to get involved at this point.
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that such a meeting would be meddling
into administrative matters,
Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that he is opposed to piecemeal meetings
with the State #ater Control Board especially without the presence of the Chairman
of the Board and that such a meeting could create more problems for the city.
MFo Trout oftered a substitute motion that the City Manager be allowed
to continue In his development of a timetable tora meeting with the State
Mater Control Board on his recommendations a~ter he gets sufficient information
on data at the Sewage Treatment Plant. The motion uss seconded by Mr. Garland
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor Mebber
NAYS: Messrs. Bubard and Lisk ..................................... 2.
There being no further business, Mayor Bebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
201
202
COUNCIL. REGULAR MEETING,
Monday. August T. 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met In regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, August 7, 1972, at 2 p.m** the regular
meeting hour. with Mayor Roy Lo Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, William S. Hubardo David N. Lisk,
Noel C. Taylor. Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Webber ..... 7.
ABSENT: None .................................. ~ .................. O.
OFFICERS pRESENT: Mr. William F. Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr.
James N. Klncanon. City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend Frank
E. Eakin. Retired Bapt'ist Minister.
MINLrIEs: Copy o~ the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday.
July 17. 1972. 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: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES. INCORPORATED-HEALTH DEPARTMENT~-GARBAGE REMOVAL: A
!communication from Goodwill Industries. Incorporated, r~questing the stoppage of
city trash collection at Goodwill Industries. Incorporated. and that the Goodwill
Industries be exempt from a recently passed Ordinance in connection with certain
lrates charged for the pick up of refuse, pointing out that until such time as the
lpresent decision is reversed in regard to Goodwill Industries. they will be forced
tto find means, other than city collection, to handle their disposal of refuse, was
before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication he referred to the City Manager
for consideration and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Rubard and unanimously adopted.
CITY EMPLOYEES: The following communication from Councilman Robert A.
Garland advising that since the moratorium Resolution has been rescinded, thereby
lrestoring the city's normal hiring practices, he hopes and expects that the admini-
stration will still be 9overned by the intent and purpose of the moratorium Reso-
lution, and that in essence, the revocation of the moratorium Resolution is a vote
of confidence in the City Manager and bis administration:
'26 July 1972
Julian F. Hirst. Esquire.
City Manager.
City of Roanoke.
215 Church Avenue, S. M.
Roanoke. Virginia
Dear Mister Hirst:
Now that the City Council has rescinded the Moratorium Reso-
lution thereby restoring the City's normal hiring practices. I
would hope and expect that the Administration would still be
fi
governed by the-intent nnd purpose' of that Resolution. As
you are nmare, the Mriter hsd eluded to the passage of such a
measure long before serious consideration uss given to it,
Laching support within the Council at that time, I dropped the
notion realizing some of the problems that it might Create.
Moreover, as a former entrepreneur. I could see that this would
hamstring and handicap you to a great extent by not allowing
you a free hand and with the creation of certain vacancies
could be very impractical, if not unworkable. For that reason.
among others. I did not pursue the matter further.
If there are to be savings within Municipal Government. it is
going to have to be done by streamlining our procedures, eli-
mination of red tape and duplication, reduction of voluminous
reports and the combining or pooling of certain Jobs or even
the complete elimination of non essential personnel, parti-
cularly when such a job is vacated. But more than any of
that. we must expect more of our existing personnel. For
instance, when vacations, illnesses or accidents occur within
the ranks, then it should be expected that the remaining
personnel absorb and accomplish that work created by the absence
of another. In business or industry, when these temporary
vacancies occur, the work load accomplished by that ~erson
that is away from the Job is normally and usually done by
those remaining. Hardly ever is part tine personnel brought
in to fill this temporary 9ap. In your own case, should
something unfortunately beset you temporarily. 1 for one.
would expect Mister Clark to fulfill your duties until you
returned.
As the chief administrator of the City, you should be and I'
believe that you are, for the most part, ever mindful of the
tax burden that our citizens are asked to bear. 1 believe
that we have reached a point at every level of government
where we should see how little that we can spend rather than
how much. Me should not continue to subscribe to programs
even though they may be completely funded if in the finality.
the end result is Of oo avail or useless infornotion. The
taxpayer, generally speaking is pretty-fed up with the present
system of taxation and we should strive to give them sixty
seconds worth of distance rum for every minute. It would set
a good example and be pleasing and satisfuin9 to our taxpayer
if this Administration was showing evidence of economy in
the operation of our Municipal Government.
In essence, the revocation of the Moratorium Resolution is a
vote of confidence for you and your administration. I hope'
that you will accept this action in the spirit and the intent
in which it was taken.
.Most csrdially yours,
$/ Robert A. Garland"
Mr. Garland moved that the communication be referred to the City
Manager for his information in connection with future employment practices. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting that $14.400.00 be appropriated to Section ~83000, "Schools - Adult
Hasic Education." of the 1972-73 budget, advising that this federal project will
require $2,250.00 in local matching funds which may be transferred from the 11100
series of the School Board budget and that matching funds in the required amount
were included in the School Board budget for this purpose, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(z20406) 'AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book z37, page 93.)
Mr. LJsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
203
2O4
AYES: #essrs, Garland, Buhsrd, LJsk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout and Rayor
Webber ........ -?---~ ............
7.
NAYS: None ..........O,
BUOGET-S~HOOLS: A communlcatl'on from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting that $23,~00.00 be appropriated to Section nB4000, "~hools - Direct
Instruction for Adult ~earning.~ of the 1972-73 budget, advising that this federal
~roJect mill require $3,500.00 in local matching funds which may be transferred
from the 11100 series of the School Board budget and that matching funds in the
required amount mere included in the School Board budget for this purpose, was
before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(#20409) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n37, page 94.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the follomin9 vote:
AyEs: Messrs. Garland. Hubard. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
~ebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
STREET LIGHTS: Copy of a communication from the Appalachian Power Com-
pany, transmittin9 a list of street lights installed and/or removed during the
month of July. 1972. Has before Council.
Rr. Thomas moved that the communication and list be received and filed.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
STATE COMPTROLLER-LA~ AND CHANCERy COURT: A communication from the Offic
of the Comptroller advising that as required by Section 14.1-33, Code of ¥irginia,
1950, the Comptroller has apportioned between the counties and cities comprising
each judicial circuit of the Commonmealth of Virginia the salary of the judge
thereof and that the part of the salary of the judge of t.he Law and Chancery Court
mhich has been apportioned to the City of Roanoke for the fiscal year July 1, 1972,
through June 30. 1973, is $12,075.00, and requesting payment on or before September~
l. 1972, mas before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion nas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPTROLLER-CIRCUIT COURY: A communication from the Office of
the Comptroller advising that as required by Section 14.1-33, Code of ~irglnia,
1950, the Comptroller has apportioned between the counties and cities comprising
each judicial circuit of the Commonwealth of Virginia the salaries of the judges
thereof and that the part of the salaries of the two judges of the Circuit Court
mhich has b~en apportioned to the City of Roanoke for the fiscal year July 1, 1972,
through June 30, 1973, is $12,260.94, and requesting payment on or before September
1, 1972, mas before Council.
Mr**Thomas moved that the communication be received nnd iiied. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPTROLLER-HUS~INOS COCRT: A communication from the Office of
the Comptroller advising that ss required by Section 14.1-33, Code of Virginia,
1050, the Comptroller has apportioned between the counties and cities comprising
each Judicial circuit of the Commonwealth of Virginia the salary of the Judge
thereof and that the part of the salary of the judge of' th~ Hustings Court which
has been apportioned to the City of Roanoke for the fiscal year July 1, 1072.
through June 30, 1073, is $12.O75.00, and requesting payment on or before September
1, 1072, mas before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed, The
motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
TAXES: A communication from Mr. James £, Cart tendering his resignation
as a member of the Roanoke Tax Study Commission mas before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the resi0nation be accepted with regret. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
RADIO-TELEVISION: A communication from Mr, Charles H. Osterhoudt,
Attorney, representing Continental CATV of Virginia, advising that Continental
CATV of Virginia is interested in seeking a cable television franchise from the
City of Roanoke and requesting hformation of any actions he might undertake to
follow the franchise application procedures mbich will be established, was before
Council.
Mr.'Trout moved that the communication be referred to the CATV Committee
for its information in connection ~ith its study of the question of permitting
the constructisn of a community antenna television system in the City of Roanoke.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
JAIL: Copy of a communication from Mr. R. P. Mason, Jails Superinten-
dent, Department of Helfare and Institutions. in connection'wJtb a routine inspec-
tion of the city jail on July'lO, 1072. was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted,
STATE COMPENSATIO~ BOARD-SHERIFF: Copy of a communication from Mr. Paul
J. Pnckett, Sheriff. addressed to the State Compensation Hoard, listing ten em-
ployees in his office who have been on the payroll for some ~ime making less than
the minimum and requesting that the Compensation Ho~rd consider revising these
salaries to the new wage minimum, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas mSved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Alex A. Waldrop, Jr.. Attorney, repre-
senting Mr. Linwood E. Hush, .requesting that 0.13 acres of land situate on the
north side of Rutrough Head, S~ E., west of Hrookside Lane, S. E., described as
Official Tax No. 4450105, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to
RG-2, Heneral Residential District. was before Council.
205
:206
Mr. Thomas moved that the r~quest for rezoning be referred to the City
)leaning C~mmiaeJon for atady, report and reoosmendatloe to Council. The motioe
was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
SIGNS-TRAFFIC: Council having referred to the Gity Manager for study,
report and recommendation t~e request of the London nay Care Parents and Citizens
Group for the installation of a traffic light at the intersection of ?th Street
and Shenandoah Avenue. N. #.. in front of the Loudon Day Care Center. the Assis-
tant City Manager submitted the following report pointing out that it should be
understood that a traffic signal is not the only remedy, nor is it necessarily
ithe correct solution to the perplexing problem of traffic conflicts between
vehicles and children, transmitting four traffic control measures which have been
applied to ~he TAP Center and are in effect at the present time. expressing the
opinion that the intersection of Shenandoah Avenue and Seventh Street~ N. W.o is
not an appropriate location for a traffic signal and suggesting that TAP recognize
its responsibility and reinstitute its uniformed crossing guard or that TAP
relocate the day care center into the former Moore's Super Stores building on the
north side of Shenandoah ~venue which would eliminate the need for pre-school age
children to cross t~is street:
"August 7, 1972
Bonorable Raver and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Request for traffic Signal - Shenandoah Avenue and Seventh Street, N.
At your meeting on Monday, July 31, a request was sub-
mitted by the London Day Care Parents for a traffic signal
installation at Shenandoah Avenue and Seventh Street, N.
The City Manager*s office was directed to promptly investi=
gate and report On this matter.
The problem at this location is premarily the result of
the arrangement of.facilities owned by Total Action Against
Poverty (TAP). The day care center and offices are on the
south side of Shenandoah Avenue while the playground and park-
ing lot ore on the,north side of the street. This condition
was recognized.clearly by all parties mhen the TAP center
first established at this location and TAP employed the first
school crossing guard in the City of Roanoke. Funds for this
employee were deleted from federal allocations to this agency
and thus the current request for a traffic signal,
It should be understood that a traffic signal is not the
only remedy, nor is it necessarily the correct solution, to
the perplexing problem of traffic conflicts between vehicles
and children. Brief periods during which the hazards are
unduly high are often better handled by officer control or
adult crossing guards. In some circumstances the child's
response to traffic signal indications is so inadequate that
the signal can become a contributory factor in increasing
rather than decreasing accidents. The response to officer
control or adult crossing guards is less uncertain, With
both child and adult there needs to be stressed the fact
that a traffic signal is not a safety device and neither can
blindly cross a .street on'a green signal and assume at all
times they mill not be struck by a vehicle. Recently we had
u pre-school age child .struck in front of Oakland School in
which the facts point out the child had the green light while
the vehicle operator went on through the red. Would this
have happened with n crossing guard on duty? Experience has
taught that.it would have been less likely;
There have bee· quite · feb suggestions made os to the
type of pedestrian crossing device which could be used at this
location. The City Code provides for all traffic control
devices to co·form so far os possible to. the system adopted
by the State Highway Commission. State leu requires that ufMr
January 1, 1969, all local sir·al installations sh~ll co·form
to standards of the State Blghxay Department. The State uses
the Uniform Ms·ual of Traffic Control Devices which specifics
double indication in all vehicular directions, This would
require slx (6) traffic-actuated sir·al heads at the subject
intersection, a 3-phase controller, and pedestrian walk .
indicators, all for an estimated cost of $10,000--$11,000.
The City has no spare equipment which could be used for this
purpose and no funds in the current budget other than for
msim.ems·ce of existing equipment, The traffic sir·als at
certain doxntoun intersections involving one-way streets,
nhich have bee· suggested as available, serve as pedestrls·
lights and could not be removed without affecting those
intersections.
Traffic control measures applied to the TAP Ce·.er and in
effect at the present time include:
l. No parking on north side of Shenandoah Avenue.
2.Restricted parking and a bus stop in front of the
TAP properties.
3. Painted zebra striped crossxalk at Seventh Street
primarily to designate crossing point betxeen the
Center and north side of street to move children
between day care center and playgrounds on north
side of Shenandoah Avenue.
4. School crossing signs and flasher covering the TAP
properties. This flasher has been re-activated.
The basic problem involves moving snail children across
the street. There is no substitute for adults to accomplish
this. Children can break away from an adult and run off. This
scares the adult. It is thus natural to want a means or device
that is infallible and will stop all vehicualr traffic nhen
such crossings are takln9 place. When shch crossings are
periodic and the numbers snail, the problem is best handled
by a policeman or adult crossing gusrd. [hen ~e crossings
are reoular and numbers large, a traffic signal supplemented
by odult supervision becomes necessary. A traffic signal is
silent and does not think. There is no substitute for adult
crossing supervision in either instance, The crossing guard
should be reinstituted.
The protection of children at street corssin9 sites is
an emotionally charged subject. If all the demands of parents
and others were met, virtually every crossing point within the
City would qualify for special consideration for some reason
or another. In addition to our schools, there are a number of
day care centers at other locations in Roanoke with traffic
problems waiting for a precedent to be established; so far
there have been none. One such location is the Creenvale
Nursery on Westside Boulevard. Me try to follow established
engineering practices and employ sound reasoning in conduct-
in9 traffic studies and reasoning in conducting traffic stud-
ies and reachin9 conclusions on which recommendations are
made. Insofar as children and street crossings are con-
cerned, institutions should not be located so as to neces-
sitate the crossing of major arterials. Safety education
should start at the earliest practicable moment, It should
relate to the child understanding traffic responsibilities
as well as the adult, points that cannot be overemphasized.
There is no adult crosstn9 guard or electrical or mechanical
device which can assume full responsibility of child protec-
tion.
By allstandards, the intersection of Shenandoah Avenue
and Seventh Street, N. #., is not an appropriate location for
a traffic signal. It would seem proper to suggest that TAP
recognize its responsibility and reinstitute its uniformed
crossing guard. Another possibility would be for TAP to
relocate the day care center into the former Moore*s Super
Stores building on the north side of Shenandoah Avenue which
would elininate the need for preschool age children to cross
this street. Thii suggestion has been discussed with TAP
officials and is already being planned. The delay in imple-
menting Such a move is funds to renovate the facilities.
principally the installation of adequate rest rooms. T~ey
hope to be able to make such a move this year.
207
2O8
If Council his further questions on this matter me mill be
pleased to discuss the subject further at your upcoming meet-
lag.
Respectfully ~ubmitted,
S/ Millism F. Clerk
Milliam F. Clark
Assistant City Reneger"
Mrs. Florenta C. ~apier, Parent Edueater, ?otal Action Against Poverty
n Roanoke Valley, appeared before Council in support of the request of the London
Day Care Parents and Citizens and reiterated their previous request.
Mr. Thomas questioned MFS. Napier as to whether or not she hud been
furnished with a copy of the report of the City Manager, whereupon, Mrs. Napier
replied that she had not.
Mr. Thomas then expressed the opinion that it should be the responsi-
bility of either the City Mannger*s Office or the City Clerk*s Office to see
that citizens are furnished with copies of reports which are presented to Council
when said reports inrolve them.
Mrs. Betty McCeorge, Chairman~ London Parent Organization, appeared befor
Council and made reference to a child who was killed at the intersection of ?th
Street and Shenandoah Avenue some time ago and pointed out that there is a dire
need for said traffic light at this intersection.
In this connection, Mr. Trout presented the following communication
advising of certain locations where there are unneeded traffic lights, expressing
lthe opifliofl that these lights caul? be put to better use in areas where traffic
control signals have been requested, that since the recent request for signals at
7th Street and Shenandoah Avenue. N. M., involve safety for elementary and pre-
school age children, the city should consider placing the lights at the intersec-
!ti .... d:~g~:~a~i:;?;ightsataniat ..... tionwheretheymayb .... dad:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Having observed the unneeded two traffic lights at the
intersection of Second Street and Salem Avenue, I have taken
the time to observe the other intersections in this area.
There are two unneeded traffic lights at the intersec-
tion of Third and Salem Avenue, also, two at the intersection
of Third and Campbell Avenue and tan at the intersection of
Third and Church Avenue for a total of eight unneeded traffic
lights.
I certainly feel that these lights Could be put to better
use in areas that have requested traffic control signals. Since
the recent request for signals at Shenandoah and Seventh involve
safety for elementary and pre-school children I suggest we con-
sider putting the lights at this intersection and the remaining
lights at an intersection that me have'had previous requests.
This could he accomplished by reviewing correspondence to City
Council and referred to the City Manager.
Even if the City Manager decides against usin9 the street
lights at a much needed location then they should at least be
removed and placed in inventory for the parts.
S/ James O. Tro~
James O. Trout"
After a long discussion as to the av. ailsbility of a traffic light to
serve Total Action Against Poverty in Moanoke Valley, Mr. Trout moved that the
Cit~ Manager make sure the school crossing flasher covering the TAP properties Is
reactivated immediately and that representatives of TAP be furnished mith a key
to operate the flasher. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously
adopted.
Mr. Trout further moved that action on the matter be deferred until the
next regular meeting of Council on Monday, August 14o lg?2, in order to discuss
the possibility of Fei*carla9 the day care center to the former Moore's Super
Stores building on the north side of Shenandoah Avenue and that the City Manager
he directed to invite representatives of Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke
Valley, and Mr. J. D. Sinh, Superintendent of Traffic Engineering and Communica-
tions, to be present at the Council meeting to discuss the matter. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout then moved that the City Manager he requested to report to
Council on a procedure to secure funds fur a nam system of synchronizing and
replacing existing traffic lights in the downtonn section of the City of Roanoke
and that he work with the Fifth Plannin9 District Commission in this regard. The
motion was seconded by Mr, £isk and unanlmousl? adopted.
AIRPORT-T~XES-LEGISLATION: The Assistant City Manager submitted a writ-
ten report transmitting copy of the following communication from Mr. M. A. Blackmou
Assistant Vice President, Piedmont Airlines, expressing disappointment in the enact-
ment by Council of Ordinance No. 20343 establishing a boarding tax at Roanoke
Municipal (Mo*drum) Airport and requesting a delay in the effective date of the
Ordinance for certain reasons stated in his letter:
"July 20, 1972
Mr, Julian F. Hirst
City Manager
City of Roanoke
City Rail
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Boarding Tax for certain enplaning passengers utilizing
premises OF facilities at Roanoke Municipal (Mo*drum)
Airport - Ordinance No. 20343
Dear Mr. Hirst:
I attempted to contact you via telephone on July 14, 1972. con-
cerning the above subject and since you were out of the office
I talked to ~r. Ben Jones, AssistmtCity Attorney.
The purpose of my call mas simply to inquire as to whether or
not a 'Boarding Tax* had been adopted by Roanoke City Council.
Mr. Jones advised that Ordinance No. 20343 mas adopted by Roa-
noke City Council on June 25, 1972, mith aa effective date of
September 1, 1972,
Since Piedmont and Eastern had not received a copy of said
Ordinance, Mr. Jones agreed to mail two (2) copies to my
attention and I in turn mould forward one (1) copy to Eastern
Airlines.
It is needless to say that me were disappointed to learn that
Ordinance 20343 had in fact been adopted as we mere hopeful
that action mould be delayed until such time that Congress
could act on proposed amendments to the present Airport
209
210
nnd AJruay Development Act. As you hnou, the proposed amend-
ments mould, among other things. (1) increase the Federnl share
for eligible projects from SO~ to ?S, 60, or 90~ and, (2)
broaden the program in such n manner that OPublJc Space' in
terminal construction projects mould become eligible for
Federal. Funding.
In viem of the above we respectfully request that the effec-
tive date of Ordinance 20343 be delayed until the Congress
has completed its consideration of and acted upon pending
amendments to the present *Airport and Airways Development
Act*.
Favorable consideration of this request is respectfully
requested.
Very truly yours,
PIEDMONG AIRLINES
S/ Nail
N. A. Olackmon
Assistant Vice President"
Mr, ThOmas moved that the report and communication be received and
filed, The motion was seconded'by Mr. Garland and unanimously ~dopted.
ItOUS1NG-SLUM CLEARANCE: ~he Assistant City Manager submitted the
lowing report relating to grading mithin the Kimball Redevelopment Project, recom-
mending that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure agreeing
to reimburse the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for the cost
of the employment of Hayes, Sway, Mattern ~ Mattern, Arc~itects and Engineers,
for a study of the affects mhJch the lowering of Fourth Street might have upon
the arch structure of the Travel Lodge Hotel, said study to amount to $3,500.00:
"August 7, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Kimball Redevelopment Project
For some number of months representatives of.the City .
administrative staff, representatives of the Redevelopment
and Housing Authority staff and consultants have been discuss-
lng a problem which is developing at the intersection of
Fourth Street and Kimball Avenue, N. E.. related to grading
within the Kimball Redevelopment area. As Council will re-
call the original terrain within the Kimball area mas very
uneven which mould have created considerable development
difficulties without fairly extensive grading in the area.
lhe property now occupied by the Travel Lodge Motel
was a part of the original Commonwealth Redevelopment area.
This development of necessity conformed to the existing
grades in that area on Fourth Street, Gilmer Avenue and
Sells Avenue, Mith activity now proceeding on the adjacent
Kimball area, it bas become evident that it is highly
desirable to effect some changes on Fourth Street, N, E.,
in the Travel Lodge vicinity. The desirable lowering of
the grade on Fourth Street may affect the foundations on
the arch structure located, on the east side of the Travel
Lodge Motel building which cannot be ascertained for certain
without more detailed investigations. Since. the Travel
Lodge property is outside the limit of the Kimball project
boundary, any studies of the affects of lowering Fourth
Street and any potential costs for structural alterations
to this arch cannot be included as Kimball project expenses.
The redevelopment and Housing Authority has received
a proposal for services from its consulting engineers, Hayes,
Sway, Mattern and Msttern, for a study of the affects which
the lowering of Fourth Street might have upon the arch
i
structure on the motel, The proposal of $3,500 mould not
only include the study but would include necessary plsns and
specifications for any alterations which might be required.
Since this uorh cannot be included within the expenses of the
MJmball project, the Authority has requested that the City
with the highly desirable development which Is anticipated
in the Kimball area.
Funds are available in Account 55. Object Code 210 tn
cover the expense of this study. Should however construction
become involved me do not have the funds and I think that it
should be understood that the City*s assumption of the full
cost of the study does not necessarily constitute an assump-
tion automatically of the cost of any or all improvements.
It is recommended that the City Attorney be authorized
to prepare necessary ordinance which would agree to reimburse
the Authority the cost of the engineering services proposed.
Folloming the study ii there is required any construction on
the part of the City to support the Travel Lodge arch founda-
tions in conjunction mith the lomering of the grade on Fourth
Street, this mill be duly noted to Council for further action.
If there are additional questions on this subject we will be
pleased to attempt to clarify any items to City Council at
their upcoming meethg.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F, Hirst
Julian F. Nirst
City Manager"
In this conoection, the City Attorney verbally advised that tbs Reso-
lution varies from the report of the Assistant City Ranager ia that it provides
that the City of Roanoke mill commit itself to pay such portion of the cost of
the services of said consulting engineers, only, as may hereafter he determined
upon as being proper and correct under the circumstances of the case.
Mr. Lisk then offered the followin9 Resolution:
(~20410) A RESOLUTION concurring in the employment by the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housin9 Authority of the services of engineering consul-
tants to study certain details of the Kimball Urban Renemal Project and. if neces-
sary. to prepare plans and specifications for eork indicated by such study.
(For full text of Resolution. see as recorded in Ordinance Book
page 95.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Hubard and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout and
Mayor Webber ................
NAYS: None ......... O.
SEWERS ANn STORM DRAINS: The Assistant City Manager submitted the iai-
lomiflg report transmitting certain information from Mr. fl. H, Paessler, Executive
Secretary of the State Water Control Board, mhich refers to the recent revision by
the Board of its state program of allocation of grant funds, the revision having
been made to their allocation program which they adopted in July, 1971, but ~htch
mas not approved by the Federal Environmentnl Protection Agency:
211
212
#Aognst ?, 1972
Honorable Mayor mud City Cooacil
Roou'oheo ¥irginlu
Gentlemen:
Subject: Grant Fnud Priority Program - Sanitary Maste
For the loformatioa and record of the City Cooucil, we
ute advised as follows in n letter of Jnly 31o 1972, from
A. H° Paessler, Execntive Secretary of the State Motor Control
Board. This refers to the very~ recent revision by the Mater
Control Board of its State progrnm of allocation of 9rant fuods0
the revision having been made to their allocation program mhich
they adopted July 1971 bat which was not approved by the Feder~
Envirbnmental Protection Agency.
'The Board, by Letter Ballot No. 260fl. has unani-
mously approved a revised priority program for
Federal/State Construction Grant Funds. In accor-
dance with present Federal requirements, your pro-
Ject has been and will be split into operable units,
Please realize that the 1g72-73 allocation is tenta-
tive In that Congress has not, by either Continuing
Resolution or enacting new legislation, authorized
9rant funds for the fiscal years 1972-73, 1973-74,
and 1974-75o Just as soon as Congress bas acted on
pending legislation and/or throngh Continuing Reso-
lution, we will inform you of the exact amount of
funds which will be recommended for your project.
If you have any questions concerning this matter,
please feel free to call or mirte Robert R, Jen-
oings or E. R. Simmons of the Planning and Grants
Division.'
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 Rr. Trout and unanimo~ ly adopted.
SEWERS A~D STORM DRAINS: The Assistant City Manager submitted the fol-
lowing report advising that he has been advised by the State Mater Control Board
by letter of July 28, 1972, of the grant offer by the Environmental Protection
Agency of funds for the first phase of the construction project at the Sewage Treat-ii
meat Plant. pointing out that the procedural situation on the total matter would
be that following Council's* action, the grant offer will be executed and forwarded
with the Resolutions to the State Mater Control Board. that the city will await
the Board's approval, their notification of approval of the plans for the two
contract projects on the chemical feed facilities' and laRoons, then the city will
receive that mhich is designated as Part B of the offer and acceptance, that Part
B will have to be completed, authorized and returned, that upon its approval.
~resomably all will be' i~ or'er, contracts can be let and work gotten underway:
'August 7. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Mater Pollution Control Plant Grant Application
Me are advised by the State Mater Control Doard by letter
dated July 28, 1972, formally of the grant offer by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency of funds for the first phase of the
construction project at the treatment plant. The advice also
informs of the State grant offer.
The montes involved are as folloms:
Federal funds, including planning funds $3.?00,070
State Funds 1.681,850
City fonds 1.480.480
Total $6,B62,400
The Board has forwarded copies of that mhich is designated
as 'Part A of the offer and acceptance of the Federal grant
for sewage treatment works.' It is now necessarF that the City
by formal action through the City Council accept this offer.
The work to be provided for in the grant applies to the
chemical feed facilities for phosphorus removal and the sludge
lagoons, both of which are the matters of the two pending con-
tracts, the expansion of the primary facilities to 35 NGD
and the 30 million gallon detention basin.
The City Attorney has been asked tO prepare a resolution
by which the Council would accept this offer and designate th~
the same be signed. 1 would recoomend the Council's favorable
action.
Only one question, that we know of at this time. exists
as to the grant offer and that is a qualifying item in the
offer which provides as follows:
*~ssnrance that the entire project, consisting of a
35°0 mgd activated sludge sewage treatment plant,
with A.N.T. facilities, as described in the original
application dated 2/29/T2, and approved by the Virginia
State Nater Control Board on 4/11/T2, will be constructed
in accordance with the June 1, 1974, completion date
shown in the original application. Partial payments
of Federal grant funds will be contingent on adher-
ence to this schedule.'
This particular item presents some questioo because the
grant offer which has been approved is only for Phases I and
I1 of the total project. Phase 1II. which is the project that
would carry to June 1, 1974. is the major expansion of secon-
dary treatment facilities and the advanced waste treatment
facilities. Ne admleistratively feel that there would be a
question of the Citl being held to the June 1, 1974, comple-
tion date. As the completion date is dependent upon approval
and grant of federal and state funds and with the experience
on the more recent grant offer wherein actual approval of
grant funds by EPA was held approximately twelve months,
this could present a problem In this situation. Mr. McGhee.
City Engineer, has discussed with state and federal offices
on this matter and is advised that the federal government
does not feel that the grant offer can be amended. I. there~re.
would recommend that the City Attorney in his resolution inject
the qualifying statement that as to item 10 of the 'conditions
of offer' it would be understood that as a condition to the
acceptance of the grant offer and the completion date of June 1,
1974, that this completion date would be subject to any time
conditions which might be required in securing the approval
and gr~nt of federal and state funds for the construction of
the advanced waste treatment facilities.
The procedural situation on the total matter would be
that following Council's action the grant offer would be
executed and forwarded with the resolutions to the Nater
Control Board. ge would then await their approval, their
notification of approval of the plans for the two contract
projects on chemical feed facilities and lagoons, then we would
receive that which ia designated as Part B of the offer and
acceptance. That will have to be compIeted and authorized
and returned; and upon its approvolo presumably all would be
in order and contracts could be let and work got underway.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. liirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
213
Mr. Thomas moved tbbt Council concur in the report of the City Homager
and offered the following Resolution ratifying end adopting the city°s project
application made to the United States of America, through the State HaLer Control
Roardo for a grant of funds under the Federal Mater Pollution Control Act and
from the Commonwealth of Virginia:
(u2O4ll) A RESOLUTION ratifying and adopting the City*s project appli-
cation uade to the United States of America. through the State Water Control Board
for u 9rant of funds under the Federal Mater Pollution Control Act and from the
Commonwealth of Virginia; accepting a certain 9rant offer in an amount not to
exceed $3,700,O?0.00 made to the City by the United States of America under date
of July 25, 1972, for Project No. C-SI-3?O for construction of chemical feed
facilities, sludge lagoons and a 14 mgd expansion of primary treatment facilities;
also, a 30 u9 retention-equalization basin, at the City's existing 21 mgd Sewage
Treatment Plant; authorizing the City Homager or the Assistnat City Manager to
execute the City*s acceptance of the aforesaid grant offer as evidence of the
City's acceptance thereof, and to enter into u Grant Agreement on behalf of the
ilCity with the United States of America in the premises.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book #37, page 96.)
Mr. Thomas moved the addption of the Resolution. The motion was sec-
onded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Hessrs. Garland, Bubard, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber .........................7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
SEWERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: The Assistant City Manager submitted a written
report advising that it now appears that the meeting with the staff of the State
Mater Control Board will be sometime in the early part of the week of August 14.
1972. advising that they have had to await their o~n review of the concept of the
detention pond and also await the study of the State Health Department and that
the Board*s staff has further been delayed because of various assessmeut work
related to the flood.
Hr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motiou
was seconded by Hr. Trout and uuanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND DRAINS: Tge Assistant City Manager submitted a written
report transmitting copy of a communication from Roy F. Weston, Incorporated,
Environmental Engineers, summarizing their findings as a result of a visit to the
Sewage Treatment Plant on July 17 and lO and advising that the communication will
be formarded to the State Mater Control Board, Alvord, Burdick and Bomson, Consult-
ing Engineers, and others.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report and communication be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
!1
DRUGS: The Assistant City Manager submitted the folloming report in
connection with endorsing a program of the Roanoke Area Drug Abuse Control Council
and their application for public funds, advising that an application has been sub-
aftted to the State Division of Justice and Crime Prevention for funding assis-
tance for a program totaling 9134,402.00 and that at the time it is ndvised that
approval has been given to a grant for this program it will be recomuended to
Council that appropriation be made in the sum of 9100,000.00 with the same to be
offset by a revenue entry:
'August T, 1972
Honorable Hayer and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Roanoke Area Drug Abuse Council
Pursuant to the resolution of the City Council
adopted on July 24, 1972. endorsing the program of the Roanoke
Area Drug Abuse Control Council and endorsing their application
for public funds, an application has been submitted to the
State Division of Justice and Crime Prevention for funding
assistance for a program totaling 9134,482. Of this 9100,000
mill be federal funds and $34,482 will be local funds. Of
the latter, $10,660 will be in-kind contribution and $23,822
will be cash money acquired by the Drug Abuse Council.
At the time that it is advised that approval has been
given to grant to this program it will be recommended to
the City Council that appropriation be made in the sum of
9100.000 with the same to he offset by a revenue entry.
These funds will be administered through the City of Roanoke
for the program which will apply to the Fifth Planning Dis-
trict area. Should there be any change in grant funds or
change in auditing by the State Division of Justice and Crime
Prevention on the 9rant application then the above amounts
may be subject to change.
This is submitted as information.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hicst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
DRUGS: The Assistant City Manager submitted the following report in
connection with a proposal from Mr. Harry Hausman, General Manager, JgTOV Radio
regarding a telephone arrangement as a part of the drug control program,
Station,
advising that the proposal made by Mr. Hausman has been under consideration for som!e
period of time with the Police Department, that the last handling was one of
several discussions with the C ~ P Telephone Company, ~hat he is awaiting their
response, that if this can be worked out and should there by any cost outlay to
the city. there would be an application made to the Virginia Council on Criminal
Justice for a possibility of funding:
215
:2~.6
'August 7,1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Rounohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Proposal - Mr. Harry Hausman
At your last meeting Mr. Harr~ Ilausmano MTOy, appeared
before Council in regard to a proposal of a telephone arrange-
ment as a part of the drug control program. The City Council
requested that .he submit his statement bach to you at this
coming meeting in a mrltten letter.
To perhaps minimize our exchan9e of correspondence in
this, I mould advise that the proposal which he made of the
telephone line connected into a taped reception at the police
department, has been under consideration for some period of
time with the police. The last handling mas one of several
discussions with representatives of the Chesapeake and Potomac
Telephone Company as to a method of providing this type of
facility here in the City. He are waiting their response.
If this can be moried out and should there be any cost
outlay to the City, there would be an application made to
the Virginia Council on Criminal Justice for a possibility
of ~unding.
If, procedurally, you would wish to refer this matter
to me, it would appqar to be in order; and in viem of this
report, unless the Council would wish othermise, I would
not respond until there is some definite conclusions or
action needed.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F..Hirst
Julian 2. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be referred back to {he City Manager
:for further consideration and that the City Manager be requested to report to
Council as to how he would like to handle this matter. The motion was seconded
by*~r. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
TAXES-PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Yhe Assistant City Manager.submitted the
follomiag report in connection with the admissions tax as it relates t5 the
Children's Zoo and the Roanoke Transportation Museum:
"August 7. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Admissions Tax - Children's Zoo and Transportation
In connection mith adoption o~ the new 1972-73 City bud-
September 1, 1972. This tax would be understood to corer
missions at the Children's Zoo and Transportation Museum faci-
lities.
During 1971 City Council adopted'an ordinance pertainin5
to admission at the Children's Zoo and Transportation Museum
New turnstiles were purchased for each facility for the par-
to minimize the handling of money by City personnel.
The new five percent admission tax mould increase the fee
for admission to the Children's Zoo and Transportation Museum
to twenty-six cents. The recently required turnstiles could
not be reasonably adapted to these coins. We prefer to use
.!
turnstiles to minieize employees handling cash, It is believed
that a preferable procedure would be tn change the admission
charge at these tug City facilities to twenty-four cents such
that with the new admission tan the total sum would continue
to he tmenty-five cents. Based on' past records, the total at-
tendance at the Chlldren*a Zoo and Transportation Museum is
somewhat less than 100,000 people per year mhlch mould mean an
aeonnt Of $1,000 is affected by this one-cent admission tax.
It is not considered that this sum of money is sufficient to
Justify the complications which would be related to adding
the one-cent to the tmenty-five cents.
I~ is recommended that the City Attorney be requested to
prepare appropriate papers to amend the previously adopted
ordinance setting attendance fees at the Children*s Zoo and
Transportation Museum.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian Fi Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur h the report of the City Manager
and offered the following Resolution 'changing the charge for admission at the
Hill Mountain Zoo and the Transportation Museum from 25 cents to 24 cents:
(#20412) A RESOLtrIION changing the charge for admission at the Mill
Mountain Zoo and the Yransportation Museum from 25 cents to 24 cents.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Rook #37. page MB.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption Of the Resolution. Yhe motion Was
seconded by Mr. Hubard and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Link, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and
Mayor Webber .................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
AIRPORT-GARBAGE REMOVAL: The Assistant City Manager submitted the fol-
lowing report recommending the adoption of a Resolution concurring in the filing
on behalf of the City of Roanoke of an application to the Board of Supervisors
of Roanoke County for a sepcial use permit under the County*s Zoning Ordinance to
use the central portion of Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport north clear
zone for disposal of certain solid waste and materials and of other nonputrescrible
materials such as wood. grass, etc.:
"August 7, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Landfill
The City Council some several weeks ago concurred in a
proposal by your Landfill Committee to (1) use a portion of
the Fallon Park area adjacent to #ise Avenue for a sanitary
landfill and (2) a portion of the north clear zone for bulk
material disposal. The latter material being rabble, wood,
etc. all mhicb is described as nonputrescible. Both of these
recommendations mere made in viem of the City having no alter-
native but to terminate the areas which had been used and
having no other sites mithin the City.
The Fallon Park area was proceeded with and has been
in use.
The portion of the north clear zone was that which the
City had previously designated for that particular purpose.
Though in Roanoke County, a number of prior indications had
led us to believe the County had no objection ot the parti-
cular unterlal, In addition there existed the opinion that
the Countyes Zoning Ordinance did not apply to such land use,
I had reflected that opinion.
The clear zone area was prepared for that purpose and we
schedule commencement of use for August 1.
On July 27. I wrote Mr, Paul Matthews, Ezecutive Officer
of the Countyo describing the use and the controls that would
be applied, On then hearing indirectly that Mr, John Lumpros,
Coumonuealth*s Attorney for the County. was concerned about
the Cityes disposing of material, I on July 29 urote Mr.
Matthews for a Certificate of Occupancy. which his office
would issue, if that be required.
On July 31, Mr. Lampros telephoned me that for the city
to so dispose of material at the clear zone area would be in
violation Of the County ordinance and that he was conferring
with the Sheriff and would issue warrants to any drivers dump-
ing in the area and to the City's equipment operators.
As the great majority of users of such a disposal area
are industries, businesses and private citizens. I was con-
cerned that private individuals would be so subjected to Roanoke
County legal action and prosectuion. Accordingly, 1 took
the action that the area would not be opened the following
day, August 1.
The intent of the Commonwealth's Attorney was shown to be
confirmed as. at dawn on the morning of August 1, the Sheriff
massed his forces on the north side of Feters Creek Road at the
entrances to the clear zone.
Since then as result of conferences with the City Attor-
ney*s office, the City Attorney has prepared a petition to the
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors requesting a Use Permit~
A resolution has been prepared and is herewith submitted
authorizing and directing the application. The Resolution
is recommended.
The petition of application has been received by the mem-
bers of your Landfill Committee.
Space limitations are such that we are unable to take
this material at Fallon Park.
In the meantime, private persons having such material
are being asked to make other arrangements or they are being
advised of a privately-owned area on U. So 460 just outside
the City where for a nominal charge, the material may be
dumped and apparently without a permit.
Me are also advised by the County that the City may use
the Dixie Caverns area.
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 Resolution:
(a20413) A RESOLtrflON concurring in the filing on behalf of the City
Roanoke of an application for a special use permit (conditional) to use a central
portion of the Roanoke Municipal Airport north clear zone for disposal of certain
inert solid waste and materials and of other nonputrescible materials such as
wood, grass, et cetera.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book a37, page 99.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. lhe motion was second~'!
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
1
AYES: BeastS. Garland, Huhard, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout nnd
Mayor Webber .........~- ........ ?.
NAYS: .None ........... O.
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOE-SUILDI~GS-PLUMflEES: The Assistant City Ranager
submitted n written report advising that he has met with Mr. Jack B. Coulter.
Attorney, representing certain electrical contractors lo the area, In reference
to various items relating to the Electrical Code, that they ~re in agreement on
all matters, that minor adjustments are being made Jn the Ordinance as last sub-
mitted to Council and this will be brought back to Council at its next regular
meeting on Monday, August 14. 1972.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, the Assistant City Attorney submitted a written
report advising that inasmuch as the public hearing was continued and inasmuch as
the Ordinances revisin9 the Electrical Code have now been prepared and are ready
for the consideration of Council, it is recommended that the public bearing be
scheduled for Monday, August 14,1972, at which time Council may act on said
Ordinances.
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur lathe recommendation of the
Assistant City Attorney and that the public hearing he continued until Monday,
August 14, 1972, at 2 p.m. The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously
adopted.
FIR£ OEPARYMENT: The Assistant City Manager submitted the £ollowin9
report in connection with the annual report of the Fire Department for the
calendar year 1971, advising that the report furnishes a statistical summary of
the activities amd of the complement in equipment and personnel of the department:
'August 7. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, ¥trginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Roanoke Fire Department Annual Report - 1971
The members of the City Council have been directly for-
warded a copy of the annual report for the Fire Department.
for the calendar year 1971. ay this I take note of this
transmittal and forward a copy for the records of the Clerk of
the Council.
This is n very good report' furnishin9 a statistical sum-
mary of activities and of the complement in equipment and per-
sonnel of the deportment. I would pnrticualry note the work
of the Fire Prevention Bureau. This unit increases in its
activities and forms a Service that is both essential and
valuable. Each year we wish it were possible to increase
the staffing of the Fire Prevention unit as it is a confirmed
fact that ,there is a direct relationship between the success
of fire prevention work and reduction in actual fires.
The loss of 16 lives during the year is regrettable and
is an unfortunate statistic. This number is higher than it
should be and although there are always individual circum-
stances relating to each situation, nevertheless this is a
type of fatality that public information and strong fire pre-
vention work can benefit in total numbers as might occur
in the future of the City.
219
'220
Hotm is also tnhen of the continuing high le.vel of
false alarms particularly ~rough the street boxes, It is
hoped that within a short time we can Submit to City Coun-
cil a program that mill attempt to minimize this situation,
If there would be additional info~mation regarding the
Fire Department's activities or the operation of the department,
we would be glad to advise the City Council,
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. Lish and unanimously adopted.
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAOUE-COUNCIL: The Assistant City Manager submit-
ted a written report transmitting copy of the preliminary notice of.the Virginia
Municipal League Convention to be held in Richmond, Virginia, on October 1, 2o and
3. advising that it is hoped that the members of Council can attend this conven-
tion in order for various reservations to be confirmed.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
RADIO-TELEVISION: Mr. Garland. Chairman of the CATVCommittee, submit-
ted a verbal report of the CATV Committee, advising that Momars. Alfred T.
Becklye, William F. Clark, Noel C. Taylor and Robert A. Garland visited a CATV
operation in Pulaski, Virginia, during the week of August ?, 1972, and that
the trip proved to be very interesting to all who attended.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
SALE OF pROPERTY: Council having deferred action on a report of the
Real Estate Committee that the offer of Mr. John R, Newbill to purchase city-owned
property located on Maywood Avenue. S. M., be accepted, the matter was again be-
fore the body.
In this connection, Mr. David K. Lisk, Chairman of the Real Estate
Committee, requested that action on the matter be deferred until the regular
meeting of Council on Monday, August 14, 1972.
Mr. Lisk then moved that Council concur in his verbal request. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20389, rezoning property located at the inter-
section of Malnut Hill and Laurel Street. S. E., described as Lots 12. 13, and 14.
Block 20, Roanoke Cas and Water Company Map, Official Tax Nos. 4041001 and
4041002, from RD-l, General Residential Oistrict, to RD-2, Oeneral Residential
District, having previously been before Council for its first rending, read and
laid over, was again before the bcdI.
I% this connection, Mrs. Richard Ballander, 530 Malnut Avenue, $.
appeared before Conncil i~ opposition to the fez,ming, pointing out t~at she
objects to high density apartments in a residential neighborhood, that there 'is
already one apartment in the neighborhood which is an eyesore and that residents
in the area did not kuom that the petition would *come back to Council for final
disposition after it had been denied by the City Planning Commission.
Mr. Preble Mare, 1201 Ivy Street, S. E** appeared before Council in
sJtion to the fez,ming and made r~ference to a petition signed by seventeen pro-
perty owners in opposition to the request for fez,ming, Mr. Mare pointing out that
the type of people moving into the proposed apartments will he detrimental to
residents of the neighborhood.
After certain accusations that the Building Commissioner had not properly~
posted the property advising of the Fez,ming, Mr. Lisk questioned the Commissioner
of Buildings as to whether the property had been posted as set out in the City
Code.
The Building Commissioner replied that his records ~dicate the property
was not properly posted.
MAth reference to the matter, Mayor Webber called attention to a com-
munication from Mr. Jack B. Coulter, Attorney, representing Ilodges Lumber Corpor-
ation, advising that after the request was granted on first reading on Monday,
July 31, 1972. and allowing time through Mednesday for any opposition to develop,
he completed plans on Tbursday morning for a business trip to Mashington, D. C.,
that will take him out of the city the first three days of the seek of August ?,
1972, and that if Council is inclined, after hearing Mrs. Dalander*s argument, to
reconsider the matter, that Council not reverse itself without giving him an
opportunity to be heard once again.
Mr. Trout moved that action on the second reading of the Ordinance be
deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, August I4, 1972, in
order for Mr. Coulter to be present at that meeting. The mution was seconded by
Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
ZONINO: Ordinance No. 203g0, amending and reordatntng Section 67,
Amendments, of Chapter 4.1, Title 1¥, of The Code of the City of Roanoke,
as amended, relating to Zoning. by providing that. in case of petitions for propos-
ed changes in district zoning classifications, such petitions be filed with the
City Cl~rk and thereafter be referred to the City Planning Commission for study,
report and recommendation to the Council, having prevlousXy 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 adoptinn:
(=20390) AN ORDINANCE amendin9 and reordaintng Sec. 67. Amendments,
of Chapter 4.1. Title XV, of the Code of the City of Roanoke. 1955. as amended,
relating to Zoning. by providing that, in case of petitions fo; proposed changes
in district zoning classifications, such petition's be filed with the City Clerk and
thereafter be referred to the City Planning Commission for study, report and recom-
mendation to the Council.
'221.
222
(for full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ua?, i~ge
Nr. Thumaa moved the e~optlon of the Ordlnance~ Ybe motion was seconded
hy Mr. Lish and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Nessrs. Garland. Bubard. Lish, Taylor. Thomas, Trout and
Mayor Nebber .................... ?.
NAYS: None ........... O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20391. amending and reordainJng Section ?0, Pub~
Ifc hearings, schedule of hearings, and Section TI, Notice of hear{rigs, of Chapter
4.1, Title X¥, of The Code of the City ~ Roanoke, 1956. as amended, relating to
Zoning, providing for published legal advertisement of certain public hearings
to be held by Council and the City Planning Commission and for other notice to
property omners adjacent to'property proposed to be retched, having previously
been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over. mas again before
the body, Mr. Thomas offering the following for its second reading and final
adoption:
(=20391) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Sec. 70. Public Nearinos,~:
§,~edule of hearinas, and Sec. 71. Notice of hearinfls, of Chapter 4.1, Title XVt
of the Code of the City of Roanoke. 'as amended, relating to Zoning. providing
for published legal advertisement of certain public hearings to be held by the
Council and the City Planning Commission and for other notice to property owners
adjacent to property proposed to be rezoned.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =37, page 09°)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Mayor Webber .................... T.
NAYS: None ..........O.
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20392, amending and reordaining subparagraph 2.
of paragraph G. Fire and explosive hazards, of Section 20, Performance standards.
application, of Chapter 4,1, Title XV, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956.
as amended, relating to Zoning so as to conform the city*s standards relating to
flammable and combustible liquids with those promulgated by the National Board of
Fire Underwriters, having previously been before Council for its first reading,
read and laid over, ma~ again before the body, Dr. Taylor offering the following
for its second readin9 and final adoptiou:
(n20392) AN ORDINANCE amendin9 and reordainin9 subparagraph 2. of
paragraph G. Fire and exolosive hazards, of Sec. 20. Performance standards, anoli-
cation, of Chapter 4.1, Title XY, of the Code of the City of Roan~he, 1956, as
amended, relating to Zoning, so as to conforn the Clty"$ standards relating to
flammable and combustible liquids with those promulgated by the National Board
of Fire Underwriters.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a37, page 90.)
~Dr, Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion mas seconded
by Hr. Thomas and adopted by the follomiug vote:
AYES: #essrs, garland, Hubard, Limb. Taylor, Thomas~ Trout and
Hayer Webber ...................70
NAYS: None ...........
Mr. Garland then offered the follouing Re~olution authorizing the
issuance of a p~rmit~ Andrems-P!~zer-Butler Fuel Oil Corporation to authorize
increase of nonconforming use of premises located ut 4213 Virginia Avenue, N.
Official Tax Nos. 2760109, 2?60110 and 2760111, the improvements thereon consist-
ing'of underground fuel oil storage tanks:
(z20414) A RESOLUTION authorizing the issuance of a permit to authorize
increase of nonconforming use of premises located aL 4213 Virginia Avenue. N.
Official Tax Nos. 2760109, 2760110, and 2760111.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book z37, page 100.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Br. Llsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Bubard, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Rayor Webber .................... T.
NAYS: None ...........O.
ZONING: Oridnance No. 20393, amending and reordainin9 Section 36,
Nonconforming lots of record, in Chapter 4.1, Title XV, of The Code of the City
of Roanoke, 1956. as amended, relating to Zoning, so as to permit development of
certain adjacent nonconforming lots in conformity with the character of previously
developed lots in the neighborhood, havtn9 previously been before Council for its
first reading, read and laid over. mas again before the body. Mr. Thomas offer-
in9 the following for its second reading and final adoption:
(~20393) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordainin9 Sec. 36. Nonconforminu
Lots of record, in Chapter 4.1. Title XV. of the Code of the City of Roanoke,
1956, as amended, re~ating to Zoning, so as to permit development of certain
adjacent nonconforming lots in conformity with the character of previously develop-
ed lots in the neighborhood.
(For full text of Ordinance, see as recorded in Ordinance Book
page 92.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Rt. Lisk and adopted by the Yollowln9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas and Mayor Webber .... 5.
NAYS: Messrs. Hubard and Trout ................................ 2.
MUNICIPAL BUILDING: Ordinance No. 20397, agreeing to the continued
occupancy until July 31, 1975. by the Government of certain ground floor space in
the premises known as the Reid and Cutshall Building at the corner of Campbell
Avenue and Third Street, S. W., in the city, held under Lease No. 65-03-8-4825.
dated July 30, 1972, as amended by Agreement No. I dated December 5, 1966. having
previously been before Council for its first reading, read and laid over, was
again before the body.
223
'224
la this connection, the Assistant City #manger submitted a ~ritten report
regarding the matter, advising that h~ has contacted representatives of the General
Service Administration and is discussing the possibility o~ an increase in the
rental rates under this lease and that if CouncJ~ desires that this matter be
pursued, it is recommended that Council defer action on the second reading of
Ordinance No. 2039T,
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Ranages
and that the second reading of Ordinance No. 2039? be deferred pending a report
from the City Ranager regarding the possibility of an increase in rental rates
under this lease~ The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
TAXES: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the pro-
per me~sure amending and reordainin9 Section 2. Rate, of Chapter 6. Cigarette Tax,
of Title ¥I, Taxation, of The Code ~f the City of Roanoke. 1956, as amended fix-
ing the rate of tax imposed upon each and every sale of cigarettes within the
city and repealing Ordinance No. 2035b, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Garland
offered the follomin9 emergency Ordinance:
(#20415) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordainin9 Sec. 2. ~atg, of Chapter
6. Ciaarette Tax, of Title ¥I. T~ation, of The Code of the City of Roanoke,
19S6, as amended, fixing the rate of tax imposed upon each and every sale of
cigarettes within the City; repealing Ordinance No.' 20356; and providing for an
iemergency.
(For full text ~ Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #37, page 101.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: R~ssrs. Garland, llubard. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout and
Nayor Webber .................... ?.
NAYS: None ........... O.
In this connection, Council having also directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure urging the support of the city's representatives in the
General Assembly of legislation which would enable the County of Roanoke to impose
a tax upon the sale of cigarettes within said County, h~ presented same; whereupon,
Mr. Garland offered the following Resolution:
(#20416) A RESOLUTION urging the support of the City's representatives
in the General Assembly of legislation mhich would enable the County of Roanoke to
impose a tax upon the sale of cigarettes within said County.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~37, page 102.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was sec-
onded by Rr. LiSk and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Zrout and
Mayor Webber 7.
NAYS: None .........O.
I
BUDGET-ROANOKE VALLEY: Mr, Lisk offered the following emergency Ordi-
nance appropriating $500,000.00 to Section uTO, 'Flood Damage," of the 1972-73
budget, to provide funds in connection with flood cleanup:
(~20417) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u?o, "Flood Damage,"
of the 1972-73 Approprialion Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book ua?, page 103.)
Hr. Llsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion uss seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Mayor Mebber .................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
MOTIONS AND #ISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
CITY MANAGER-CITY ERPLOYEES: Dr. Taylor presented the following ccm-
munication recommending the creation of an Office of Ombudsman or City Service
Official, advisin9 that this mould be an office mhich mould try to help the average
citizen with problems involving the 9overnment and durther recommending that one
of the responsibilities of the Assistant to the City Manager be to serve as a
City Service Official or Ombudsman:
'August 3, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. ~ebber, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
MunicipaI Building
Roanoke. ¥irginia
Gentlemen:
I wish to recommend the creation of an office of
Ombudsman or City Service Official. Many citizens feel that
government too often responds to powerful pressures and
sometimes it does not respond, either for average citizens
or for pressure groups. All of us know that government is
becoming increasingly complicated and there should be an
office or agency able to cut the bureaucratic red tape and
get something done.
Many cities and universities have created the suggested
office, as have some industrial plants. Simply stated, this
would be an office which would try to help the average citizen
with problems involving the government, In Roanoke the office
wouId be mostly a Service Office which helps people who don't
hnow where to turn as they face the 9overnment, which frequently
does not seem to be theiT government in time of need.
Perhaps gO% of governmental decisions today are admini-
strative decisions from which there is no court appeal. The
understandable tendeecy for those in charge Of any department
is to back up the people under them. Ibis hacking-up process
is somewhat understandable because employees must feel their
superiors have confidence in them, and those in charge of any
office do not have time to review every decision in great
detail.
We have become more and more aware that government too
often is slow to respond to people's problems. Meeds sometimes
are immediate, but government is not geared to instant response.
But somewhere there must be a public service official--or
Ombudsman--mbo will ask the top person in a department to
review a case and make sure that a review does take place.
Therefore, I recommend that one of the responsibilities of the
Assistant to the City Manager will be to serve as a Citizen
Service Official or Ombudsman.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Moel C. Taylor
Noel C. Taylor~
225
226
Dr. Taylor verbally ~vised that in making this recommendation it is
not his Intent to Influence the Job description of the Assistant to the City
#snager in any uny,
Dr, Taylor then moved that the communication be referred to the City
Mansger for atudy, report end recommendation to Council. The motion mas seconded
by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
In this connection~ Mr. Thomas called to the attention of ConncJl that
it has been almost tmo years since Council authorized the establishment of the
)osition of Assistant to the City Manager and moved that the Assistant City
lanuger bring Council up to date on the status of filling this position and that
a copy of the suggested~b description also be formarded to the members of Council.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
PENSIONS: The City Clerk reported that Mr. Donald M. Graham has quali-
fied as a member of the Board of Trustees, Employees' Retirement System, for a
term of four years ending June 30, 1975.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: The City Clerk reported that Mr. Charles R.
Merkel has qualified as u Commissioner of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Milliam S. Rubard, resigned,
/
~ndin9 August 31. 1975.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
~econded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
tdjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
teputy City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL° REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, August 14, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke mot in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber In the Municipal Building, Monday, August 14, 19~2, at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour, uith Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESEHT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Willinm S. Hubard, David ~. Lisk
Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout end Mayor Roy L. Webbor
ABSENT: None ........................................................ O.
OFFICERS pRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst. City Manager: Mr. ~illiam F.
Clark. Assistant City ~uaagor; Mr. James N. Klncanon, City Attorney; and
Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor,
Member of Roanoke City Council.
M1NUIES: Copy of the minutes of tho regular meeting hold on Monday,
July 24, 1972, and the regular meeting held on Monday. July 31, 1972, having been
furnished each membor of Council, on motion of Mr. Trout, seconded by Mr. Thomas
and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dispensed with and the minutes
approved as recorded.
BEARING OF CITIZENS L~'ON PUBLIC MATTERS:
SIDEWALK. CURD AND GU~TER: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for
bids on the construction of concrote curb and gntteF and concrete sidemalk at
various locations in the City of Roanoke, said proposals to be recoivod by the City
Clark until 2 p.m., Monday. August 14, 1972, andto bo opened at that hour beforo
Council, Mayor Webbor asked if anyone had any questions about the advortisemont
and no representative present raisin9 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:
S. R. Draper paving Company - $34,650.O0
H. ~ S. Construction Company - 35,102.50
Mr. Thomas moved that the bids be reforred to a committee to be appointed
by the Mayor for tabulation, roport and recommendation to Council. the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure in accordance with the recommendation of
the committeo. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Mebber appointed Messrs. William F. Clark, Chairman, and Samuel
H. McGhee, III, us members of the committee.
ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR-PLUMBERS-BUILDING DEPARTNENT: Council having con-
tinued a public hearing until 2 p.m.. Monday, August 14, 1972, on certain amond-
ments to the Electrical Code, the matter nas before the body.
In this connection, Mr. Jack B. Coulter, Attorney, representing certain
electrical contractors in the area, appeared before the body and advised that his
clients nra totally satisfied with the amendments as presented to Council.
227
228
Dr. Taylor then offered the foil,ming emergency Ordinance amending and
reordnlnin~ Section 7, Board of Examiners - Creation. composition and appointment;
Section B, Same - Duties; Section 9. Electrical contractors; examinations nnd
certificates of competency; fee; Section 10, Electricians' examinations and
certificates of ~ompetency; fee; Section 13, Same - Inspection fee; and Section
15, Standards of moth, Chapter 2, Electrical Code, Title XY, Construction, Altera-
tion and Use of Land, Buildings and Other Structures, of The Code of the City of
Roanoke, 1956, as amended, adding new sections relating to pomers, duties and pro-
ceduFe of and appeals for the board of examiners:
(~2od18) AW ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sec. 7. Board of Examiners -
Creation. como,slalom and aD~ointment: Sec. 8, ~ame - Duties: Sec. 9. Electrical
co,tractors' examinations and certificates of comoetencv: fee;.Sec, 10o Electrician
examinations and certificates of competency: fee; Sec. 13. Same'- lnsnection fees:
and Sec. 16. Standards of work, of Chapter 2. Electrical Code, of Title XYo Con-
struction. Alteration and Use of Land. Ruildinas ~nd Other Structures, of the Code
of the City of Roan,he, 1956. as amended; adding nam sections relating to pon,rs.
duties and procedure of and appeals from the board of examiners; and providing for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book =37, page 105.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinauce. The motion Mas seconded
by Mr, Garland and adopted by the foil,sing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk,'Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Mayor Webber .................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
Mr. Garland offered the foil,ming emergency Ordiuance amending and rear-
daining Section 14, Inspections - Generally, Chapter 2, Electrical Code, Title
Construction; Alteration and Use of Land, Buildiugs and Other Structures, of The
Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by providing for the delivery by
the electrical inspector to the local electric utility of the certificate of
inspection authorizing connection the electrical service:
(~20419) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sec. 14. Inspections -
iGenerallv, of Chapter 2. Electrical Code, of Title XV. Construction. Alteration and
Use of Land. Buildinfls and Other Structures, of the Code of the City of Roan,he,
1956~ as amended, by providing for t~e delivery by the electrical inspector to
the local electric utility of the certificate of inspection authorizJ~g connection
to the electrical service; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #37, page IO9,)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard,'Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and
Mayor Webber .................... 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
!
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 2 p,m., Mend.ay. August
14, 1972. on the request, of #r. Sam H. Elliott, et ux., that property adjoining
the east side of 2722 Sweetbrier Avenue. S. M** described os port or Lot S, Block
7, Map of Corbieshou, Official Tax Ho. 1651102. be rezoned from RS-2 Single-Family
Residential District, to RD, Duplex Residential District., the matter uss before
the body.
In this connection, the City. Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the request for rezoning be denied:
*Joly 5, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Plan-
ning Commission at its regular meeting of July S, 1972.
Mr. Zdmard S. Kidd, attorney for the petitioner, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that this lot was
50 X 120 feet and the owner proposed to build a two family
brick duplex on this property. He noted that the petitioner
also owns the corner lot and stated that there are existing
duplexes on Rt. 221 and commercial property located in the
vicinity of this lot.
A letter wasread to the Planning Commission fram Mr.
Lester B. Holyfield, ouner of the remaining 1/2 of Lot 5, in
opposition to the reaonJng of this lot.
Also, toe Plannin5 Director stated that the RS-I and
RS-2 residential districts required ?O and 90 foot lots,
respectively, and that this lot. which is 50 feet, is s~b-
standard.
The Planning Commission members generally concurred that
the area remain in its present single-family designation.
Accordingly, motion mas made. duly seconded and unani-
mously approved to recommend to City Council to deny this
request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Kemon, Jr** by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman*
Mr. Edward S. Kidd, Attorney, representing the petitioners, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his clients, and advised that his
clients desire t'o construct a duplex on this property and pointed out thnt if the
land is rezoned to RD, Duplex Residential District, the property ~ill become a
standard size lot.
~r. Samuel D, £11iott also appeared before Council and advised that he
has had no opposition from property owners in the area to his proposal to construct
a duplex and raised the question os to why he cannot construct aduplex on his
property when there are already many duplex apartments in the vicinitl.
Mr, Lothar Mermelstein, Plannin9 Director. appeared before Council and
advised that there are two prime reasons the City Plannin9 Commission is recom-
mending the denial of this request:
229
230
1'. the neighborhood is a prise residential area and
2. the lots are substandard at the presen't time.
After a discussion of the matter. Mr. Link moved that Council concur
in the recommendation of the City Planning Commission that the request for rezon-
lng be denied. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
TAXES: A communication from Mr. J. Thomas Englebyo III, Chairman of the
Roanoke COunty Board of Supervisors, advising that on duly 25° the Board of Super-
visors was advised that they cannot impose a tax on cigarettes withou~ legislative
authorization, that on August B they intend to adopt h Resolution asking the County
representatives to the General Assesbly to promote legislation authorizin9 Roanoke
County to impose a five cents per pack tax on cigarettes and requesting that the
Council of the City of Roanohe officially endorse this effort and request their
representatives in the General Assembly to support the County's efforts, mas befo~
the body.
Mr. Garland moved that the communication be received and filed. The mo-
tion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
RADIO-TELEVISION: A communication from Mr. G. Frank Clement. Chairman
of the Board and President of Shenandoah Life Insurance Compony,'pointin9 out that
when Clearview Corporation made application to the City of Roanoke for a franchise
to operate a cable television business in Roanohe, Shenandoah Life Insurance Com-
pany was identified as a stockholder in that Corporation. advisihg that Shenandoah
Life Insurance Company has sold all of its stock interest in Clearvlew Corporation
and at this time has no financial interest in any of the applicants for a cable
television franchise, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be referred to the CATV Committee
for their information in connection with their study of the question of permitting
the construction of a community antenna television system in the ~ity of Roanoke.
{he motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-MUNICIPAL COURT: A communication from Mr. 3oseph S. Janes,
Auditor of Public Accounts in connection with an audit of the accounts and records
of Mr. Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Chief Judge of the Municipal Court, for the calendar
year lgT1, advising that the audit disclosed that full accounting had been made
for all funds of record comin9 into the custody of the Court. and that the records
had been prepared in good order, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: A communication from Miss Dorothy L. Gibboney tendering her
resignation as a member of the Board of Virginia Mestern Community College since
she has accepted an appointment to the State Council on Higher Education, sas before
;ouncil.
Mr. Lisk moved that the resignation be accepted with ferret. The motion
nas seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
STREET LIGHTS-SIGNS-TgAFFIC: The City Homager submitted the following
report in connection with the request of the Loudon Day Care Parents for a traffic
signal installation at Shenandoah Avenue end Seventh Street, N. H,. advising that
the matter has been discussed with Hr, James H. Stamper, Director of Program Plan-
ning. Total Action Against Poverty. and he has agreed to be present at the Council
meeting to discuss the prospects of relocating the Day Care Center into a building
acquired by TAP on the north side of Shenandoah Avenue, that Hr. Stamper is investi
gating the possibility of reinstituting the uniformed crossing guard with existing
TAP personnel or possible part-time employees, that the blinker lights are now
set to operate between 6:30 a.m.. and 8:45 a.m.. and again between 2:30 p.m.. and
5:30 p.m., and that TAp has again been furnished with a hey to the control box for
these blinker lights and instructed on how to override ~he time sequence on the
blinkers so as to place these lights in operation during the day when groups of
children are crossing Shenandoah Avenue to the playground:
'August 14,
Honorable Hayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Request for Traffic Signals -
Shenandoah Avenue and Seventh Street,
At your meeting on Honday, August ?. Council again con-
sidered the request from the London Day Care parents for a
traffic signal installation at shenandoah Avenue and seventh
Street, N. M. This matter has taken under advisement and
will again be an item on your agend at the upcoming meetin9.
Me have again discussed this matter with Hr. Jim Stamper
of Total Action Against Poverty andhe has agreed to be pre-
sent at your upcoming meeting to discuss the prospects of'
relocating the Day Care Center into a building acquired by
TAP on the north side of Shenandoah Avenue. Mr. Stamper has
also indicated that he will be investigating a possibility of
reinstituting the uniformed crossing guard with existing TAP
personnel or possible part time employees. The existing
school crossing blinker lights are now set to operate between
6:30 a.m. and 8:45 a.m. and again between 2:30 p.m. and
5:30 p.m. Additionally. we have again furnished TAP with a
key to the control box for these blinker lights and instructed
certain TAP personnel how they can manually override the time
sequence on the blinkers so as to place these lights-in opera-
tion during the day when groups of children are crossing
Shenandoah Avenue to the playground.
ReSpectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
In this connection, Mr. James H, Stamper appeared before Council in con-
nection with the matter and advised that at one time there was a school crossing
guard at this location, however, the federal government deleted this position from
the budget of TAP based upon the fact that law enforcement is a local municipal
responsibility, and that it is proposed to move the day care center to the north
side of Shenandoah Avenue some time in the future but at this point he does not
hn~w when it will be since there are certain mechanical matters to be worked out.
231
232
The City Manager pointed out that if Council decides to tahe any action
on the matter or invests any money Jn the request he mould prefer that it be in
the form of a crossing guard rather tban u signal,
Mr, Llsk then moved that the City Manager be instructed to report to
Council on the costs involved in connection with hiving a school crossing guard
to be utilized by Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley by the next
regular meeting Of Council on Monday. August 21, lg?2, and that'the City Attorney
be directed to prepare the proper measure in accordance with the report of the
City Manager, The motion was seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimously adopted,
ZRAFFIC: Council having requested that the City Manager submit a report
on the question of upgrading the traffic signni system in the downtown section of
the City of ~Sanoke, the City Manager submitted the following report advising that
there are forty intersections which would be involved and the cost of a modern
signal system will he more than one million dollars and that if Council desires
to proceed with a study of the downtown traffic signal system at this time, it is
recommended that the City Attorney be authorized to prepare the.appropriate measure
requesting the Highway Department to program such a project:
*AuguSt 14, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: TOPICS - Downtown Signal System
At your meeting on Monday. August 7. Council referred to
the City Manager's office the question of proceeding with up-
grading of the traffic signal system in the downtown section.
The existing facilities have been in operation for more than
20 years and unquestionably are obsolete and in need of replace-
ment.
Upgrading and replacement of the traffic signals system
in the downtown area is included in the TOPICS plan for the
Roanoke area, We have discussed the possibility of proceed-
ing on this project with representatives o£ the State High-
way Department in Rich~ond who advise that they would be
receptive to receiving a formal request from the City that this
item be programmed for funds. Such a study mill no doubt be
rather involved and will likely Involve the use of special
traffic engineering consultants by the Highway Department,
There are 40 intersections which mould be involved and the cost
of a modern signal system will be more than one million dollars.
Funds for the City"s share of such a project, which would be
153 under TOPICS, are included in the new capital improvements
program previously submitted to Council and presently under
consideration for a possible bond referendum,
If City Council desires to proceed with a study of the
'downtown traffic signal system at this time, it is recommended
that the City Attorney be authorized to prepare appropriate
resolution requesting t~e Highway Department to program such
a project.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F, Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
anager and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure
ccordingly. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
GOODMILL INDUSTRIES-HEALTH DEPARTMENT-GARBAGE REMOVAL: Council having
referred to the City Manager for consideration and recommendation the request of
Goodwill Industries, Incorporated, that they be exempt from the servicecharge
mhich is now in effect for city pick up of bulk refuse contnfnerso the City Manner
submitted the follomJn9 report advisin9 that Goodwill Industries is the most
affected by the new service charge and transmitting a list of those tax-exempt
properties in the City of Roanoke who are now receiving bulk container service
from the city along with the weekly charges which apply:
#AuguSt 14, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, ~irginia
Geutlemen:
Subject: Goodwill Industries, Incorporated ~
Refuse Collection Service Charge
At your meeting on Monday, August 7, a letter was received
from Goodwill Industries, Incorporated, concerning the service
charge for bulk refuse container service. Goodwill has request-
ed that they be exempt from the service charge which is now in
effect for City pick up of such ccntainers. This matter mas
referred to the City Manager's office for investigation and re-
ply.
As Council will recall there was adopted ia connection
with the 1972-73 budget a $5 service fee, effective August l,
1972, for the pick up of bulk refuse containers for all such
service desired above a limit of 3 pick-ups accomplished with-
out churoe. For your information there is attached a listin9
of those tax-exempt properties in the City of Roanoke mbo are
nam receiving bulk container service from the City along mith
the weekly charges which apply. It is clear that Goodmill
Industries is the most affected by the nam service charge.
To a large extent the volume of waste materials resulting
from the Goodmill operation cmo be attributed to the fact that
they mill pick up virtually any item which a citiaen calls and
volunteers to donate. In a significant number of instances
these are morthless items which Goodwill also cannot use and is
thus providing a pick up and disposal service for the individ;1.
It should also be noted that these citiaens are not limited to
the City of Roanoke but throughout the Roanoke Valley. It sill
be ackuomledged that Goodwill does haul to the City*landfill
in their own trucks certain bulky items such as furniture.
This information is submitted for Council's consideration
of the request from the Goodwill Industries and representatives
of that organization will be present at Council*s meetiu9 if'
there are questions.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Hr. Hubard questioned the City Manager as to whether or not he recommends
that the Goodwill Industries be exempt from the provisions of the recently adopted
Ordinance.
The City Manager replied that if the city waives the requirements for
one group, it mill be.opening the door for other requests of this nature and that
he does not recommend that the Goodwill Industries be exempt from the provisions
of the Ordinance.
Mr. Garland moved that the report,of the City Manager he received and
filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
233
'234
GOODMILL INDUSTRIES. INCORPORATED-CROSSWALKS: Council baying referred
to tbe Clly Manager for Investigation the possibility of constructing u pedestrian
crosswalh in front of the Goodwill Industries. Incorporated, at 3125 Salem Turn-
pike, N. N., the City #shader submitted the following report advising that there
Is now scheduled the painting of n zebra stripped crosswalk On Salem Turnpike in
front of the Goodwill Industries, supplemented with pedestrian crossing signs in
advance of the location:
"August 14,
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Request for Pedestrian Crosswalk -
Goodwill Industries
At your meeting on Monday, July 17, 1972, City Council
received a request for n pedestrian crosswalk In front of
Goodwill Industries at 3125 Salem Turnpihe, N. M, This
matter was referred to the City Manager*s office for study
and report with recommendations.
The Traffic Engineering Division of the Department of
Public Marks performed an eleven-hour pedestrian count and
crosswalk 9ap study at the subject location on August 1,
Id?2. It was found that insufficient gaps in vehicular traf-
fic to facilitate safe pedestrian crossings do occasionally
occur, particularly during the afternoon rush period between
3:30 p.m. - 6:00 p.m. Also contributing to the potentially
hazardous conditions in the area is the lack of sidewalks
and curbing to define the location of intersecting s~reets
where motorists would normally anticipate pedestrian cross
movements.
There is now scheduled the ~ainting of a zebra stripped
crossbalk on Salem Turnpihe in front of Gooawill Industries,
supplemented with pedestrian crossing signs in advance of
the location. It would be well to note that such pavement
marking and signs will not eliminate the need for due caution
by both motorists and pedestrians to avoid an unfortunate
accident at this location.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Htrst
Juliah F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr.,Hubard moved that the report be received and filed. The motion Mas
seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimoasly adopted.
PAY PLAN-CITy EMFLOYE~S: The City Manager submitted the following report
transmitting a draft of a proposal or proposed outline for a Hanagement Study,
advisin9 that in a sense, this report is preliminary because he ~ould lihe to
have the benefit of any comments or suggestions the Mayor or Members of Council
aould care to make:
'August 14. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Management Study Outline
I attach o draft of a proposal or proposed ~utltne for the
conduct of a Management Study. In a sense, this is preliminary
as we would like to have the benefit of any comments or sugges-
tions that the Mayor or meabers of Council would want to make
and Our Planning Department will need to review this again.
The steps to be wade ere as follons:
1. Decision by the City us to the outline and content of
the proposal for the Ranagenent Study,
2. Submission to HUD of on outline, including the above
material and certain other recognized information, to
secure D~D approval under the 701 funding.
Reviem of any recommendations by RUD ur changes pro-
posed by them,
4. Final approval with HUD.
$. Engagement of consultants by a selective process as
mould be agreed to or requested by City Council,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian Fo Hirst
City Manager'
*Management Study Outline
The purpose of this study is to improve the over-
all management capabilities of City operations so as
organizational and procedural innovations. A major
goal of the study is to improve and streamline the
delivery of essential and necessary public services
to all the citizens of Roanoke and to improve top
management control by determining the staff activi-
ties necessary to support the basic line operations,
The study mill focus on the administrative and
management components of the City*s organizational
structure. It Js proposed that tbe thrust of tbe
study mould be conducted by consultants commissioned
for the purpose. A major criteria in the selection
of a consultant shall he the requirement that they
be experienced in problems of operations management
and cost reduction and in developing for implementa-
tion planning and control systems and organizational
changes to improve performance.
Operating department units, which deliver essen-
tial public services (line operations), mill be
examined to determine their most effective internal
organizational structure, necessary management capa-
bilities and major operating processes so as to pro-
vide maximum service delivery capabilities within the
total framework of the governmental structure. The
issues surrounding the line operations are concerned
with teproving-service delivery mithin overall City
management effectiveness through present alignment
of any realignment of activities and through the best
'coordinating of services for special area needs,
The structural components of departments which
perform staff activities in support of the Clty*s
line operations and top management such as personnel,
planning, purchasing and others will be examined so
as to provide for any necessary restructuring or
reorganizing to promote maximum support to the basic
line operations and to improve management control.
Also, n determinatiou mill be made of necessary addi-
tional staff capabilities, the distribution of cen-
tralized and decentralized staff activities, and means
of improving staff effectiveness by revising present
administrative procedures.'
Also. the City Mnnager*s office mill be examined
to determine the most effective role of the City
Manager. This determination shallinclude recommen-
dations of the immediate staff support necessary to
ensure the effective execution of that role.
Activities performed outside the direct control
of the City bat critical in their direct impact on
City operations mill be studied. This aspect mill
235
236
entail nn examination of tun a~ditionel levels or
orgnnizntion, constitutional nnd council-appointed
offices. They will be studied es to the organization
end the ra~ionele for their present operations end
determination made ns to the best formation end posi-
tioning of these units within the purpose of ~his
study.
S~ch agencies or functions as the Roanoke City
Pablic School system, the Courts of Record. Roanoke
Redevelopment nnd Housing Authority and others of '
similar establishment will be subject to appropriate
analysis to the extent that these'hgencles~or func-
tions may be a part of t~e purposes of the municipal
government and to the extent that analysis and re-
commendations thereto may contribute to the objectives
~f the study. It is not intended to have performed
sa Jrt-depth study of these agencies or functions but
rather to review, report ned recommend upon their
position in the proper development in the overall
improvement of the government of the City,
The components of the government related to'
finances shall be included for study for the pur-
pose of determining the best organizational
structure suitable to the functions of these com-
ponents and to the obJecgves of desired controls of
revenues and expenditures, procedures of budgeting
and administration of budgeting and public response
and service.
This study will also include a brief revleu of
existing boards and commissions to determine their
necessity and their proper roles and scope of authority.
This study mill not consider transferring activities
outside the City structure; will not evaluate the pre-
sent form of election for or composition of the City
Council; will not consider any other form of City-
government other than the present City Couhcfl-
Manager form; will not consider future changes in
City boundaries: and, will not evaluhte individual
personnel within the present City organization.
Functional and area responsibilities will be
defined or redefined where necessary, the grouping
and regrouping of operating activities and cross
functional coordinative activities and accountabi-
lity systems will be examined so as to improve the
efficiency of operating activities and provide for
maximum citizen imvolvement and total program
delivery in an effective and efficient manner.
Mhile the study is not intended to include a
comprehensive review of the City's Charter or Code
of Ordinances, reference nevertheless should be
made, where necessary, to both of these as they may
relate to .the purposes or recommendations of this
study.
The Ranagement Study mill take into considera-
tion the adaptation of the basic and traditional
elements of municipal government to adequately
respond to (1) new trends and new concentrations in
urban communities today and (2) flexibility and
control and operation to meet the requirements of
day to day operations as well as changing modes and
emergency needs and performances.
The study shall be sensitive to social, econo-
mic and political conditions, locally, within the
area and within the State, The purpose of making
reference to such sensiti{ity is not 'to suggest the
rejection of desired recommendations uhich relate to
these cotillions nor to curtail ianovativemess but
rather to effect that there can be practical appli-
cation of recommendations within this study.' For
example, while the report may take cognizant of
matters ~f unification of one or more governments
or one or more units of functions of governments with-
in the Roanoke Valley, with any obser~tions thereto,
it must recognize, at the same time, that there are
practical aspects of such an arrangement or arrange-
ments ~htch may not easily or readily result their
achievement. The objective of this study is to
develop 8 msnsgement onolysis of the existing com-
ponents and responsibilities of the Roanohe City
government within the present geographical and poli-
tical boundaries of the City.
Wheh delineated, the diagnostic sur~ey and ana-
lysis of the present governmental organization will
identify specific organizational problems existing
within the present structure. This. then will pro-
vide the basis to determine how the City can exercise
greater control over activities critical to the City,
reduce administration costs, and of bom major ~nblic
service and staff activities and. the City Manager*s
office should be organized and structured to improve
management effectiveness and service delivery. Or-
ganizational criteria will be developed to provide
a basis for evaluating the present organization as
well as proposed alternative structures. Addition-
ally, analysis of organizational and operational
trends at city. state nod federal levels mill be
made to provide a basis for comparing, identify
major trends, and learning from the experience of
other cities. Finally, major organizational alter-
natives will be developed, evaluated and discussed
with City administration officials.
Major responsibilities for this management study
will rest with the consultant. Assistance will be
provided by all offices, department agencies and
personnel In the dissemination of information and
data to the consultants.
There will be appointed a Citizens* Review Com-
mittee consisting of five persons of the City. Ap-
pointments to the Committee will be based on tho
persons having skill through training and/or work
experience in business, industrial ~ professional
organizational management or personnel administra-
tion.
The purpose of this Committee shall be twofold:
1. to serve, where necessary, os an advisory
community group to the consultants and to
the personnel of the City during the course
of the study.
2. to provide a group independent of the City
gorernment and qualified m/thin the private
sector in the matter of the study, who may
lend support to the.study and/or present
objective considerations of matters within
or without the Study report.
The consultants to the study shall meet at least
twice with the Committee. once at the outset when the
co2sultants shall review their intent and procedure
and then upon completion by the consultants of their
report and prior to its being put in final.presen-
tation form. Mithin that period the consultants
and the Committee may meet upon such other times as
mutually agreed. Assistance by all offices, agencies
and personnel of the City government shall be made
available to thJsCommittee. Upon presentation by
the consultants of their final report, the Committee
shall submit a report in such content as it may deem
to apply. Zhis Committee will be discharged of its
responsibilities upon the final reporting.
In the course of the Management Study, the con-
sultants may make interim reports either to advise
as to the status Of /ts progress or to present re-
commendations or determinations'that would assist
the City government in a particualr situation of im-
mediate need of consideration. Neither the consultants
nor the committee shall be called upon to fragmentize
their study by preliminary presentations on specific
matters otherwise. It is recognized that to be cunt
structive such a study as this must have benefit of
thorough evaluation of al~ elements of the City*s
government and then to be effectively understood and
accepted, all findings and conclusions must be brought
together in a'singie presentation.
237
238
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the preliminary report of the
City Manager and taut the City Manager be authorized to continue exploration of
HUD approval in this regard, The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
In this connection, Mr. Thomas presented the following prepared state-
ment regarding · management study for the City of Roanoke proposing the following
three divisions for study and implementation; vax: an independent management
istudy of the administrative and operational functions of the City of Roanoke
which the City Manager had already been directed to initiate; the appointment of
a 15-member citizens committee to study the procedures and functions of the offices
of the City Attorney, the City Auditor and the City'Clerk of the City of Roanoke;
and a complete and comprehensive independent audit of the books and accounts for
the City of Roanoke at the earliest feasible date, the Mayor to forward a letter
to the Roanoke Public Accountants Society requesting their advice and counsel as
to the most feasible and best means Of obtaining an audit Of the records of account
i o£ the city and the approximate cost of same:
"TO: MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL August 14, 1972
FROM: HAMPTON M. THOMAS, COUNCILMAN
SUBJECT: MANAGEMENT STUDY FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE
On several occasions during recent months the Council
has made known its strong desire to effect substantial econo-
mies in the operation of our City government on a day-to-day
basis. Last week it was pointed out by a member of Council
that if me could save but one penny per second in oar daily
operat~ns we would effect a savings of better than a quarter
million dollars annually. Certainly a concerted effort must
be mode in this direction as a prerequisite to further in-
creased taxation of our citizens. I submit that such an ef-
fort must be made now and that the effort has got to be more
than just conversation and promises at budget study time and
election time,
Personally, as a member of this Council, I am distrubed
that the efforts of Council to effect such economies in our
operation do not seem to be received by the administration
in the spirit in which they are given; nor has the adminis-
tration responded with alternate suggestions on its own.
Each year we receive a dramatic budget from the administration
that has grown in four years from $30 million to near $50
million dollars, Department budgets continue to increase,
personnel continues to grow at an alarming rate; all at a
tiaa when our population is decreasing and technological
advances, such as computerization, are made available to
our administration to enable it to do a more effective and
efficient job at less cost to our citizens.
I am certain that our administrative leaders and our per-
sonnel are dedicated hard-working people, mbo are.interested
in giving our citizens full Value for their dollar. Govern-
ment today for the City of Roanoke is 'bi9 business' and we
must provide the leadership necessary if we are to expect
our administration to respond to the needs of our citizens
and at the same time cope with the tremendous problems posed
by the handling of a near $50 mi lion dollar annual budget.
It has been frustrating-to observe the following matters
before this Council recently:
1. The moratorium on personnel mas.well-intentioned;
however, it was obvious that it was doomed to fai-
lure from the beginning. Instead of a vehicle for
effi?lency and economy, it became a receptacle for
red tape and a vessel for confusion. Obviously it
mas an idea whose time had not come, as far as the
administration mas concerned.
2. Time and again on every agenda we find items that
are precisely handled, as far us Councilis con-
product of our adwinistration, only to find that
the citizen or group affected have not been provided
with copies of this detailed documnt. This results
stration, nil of which is time consuming and costly.
end unduly costly. ~e must respond in this instance
cost to a project that has been pending five
is well under way.
As suggested h my original report to Council - and as
study of the subject offices.
239
-240
I am advised that the books nnd accounts of the City of
Roanoke hove not been independently audited for more than ·
quarter of · century. I find this astonishing in light of the
fact that nt least three (3) auditors have served during that time
period plus the office has experienced some degree of employee
turnover. It would appear that bonding requirements - If
nothing more - would require such a procedure, especially in
viem of the Civic Center operation which is responsible for
hundreds of thousands of dollars annually.
I an persuadedthat an audit at this time is needed to
ascertain more than Just matters of financial accuracy. It
can point out areas of lact of communication, excessive costs
on a departmental basis, comparative ratios of employee
benefits to salary costs and provide much more in the way of
necessary information to complement a thorough Management
Study such as the Council proposes to undertake.
It is my proposal that the aforesaid Committee be authorized
and formulated at once.
It is my further proposal that the Mayor be requested to
formard a letter to the Roanoke Public Accountants Society
requesting their advice and counsel as to the most feasible
and best means of obtaining an audit of the records of
account of the City and the approximate cost of same.
The suggested audit is recommended as an integral part
of the over-all Management Study. Perhaps subsequent audits at
a five-year level, or more frequently if possible, mould be
worthy Of comsideration by the Council."
Mr. Thomas moved that his statement be received and filed. The motion
nas seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
Hr. Thomas then moved that the question Of a study of the procedures
and functions of the offices of the City Attorney, the City Auditor and the City
Clerk of the City of Roanoke be referred to the City Manager for coordination
with his management report and to report back to Council at its next regular
meeting on Monday, August 21, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard amd
unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas further moved that a complete and comprehensive independent
audit of the books and accounts for the City of Roanok8 b~ accomplished at the
earliest feasible date and that the Mayor be requested to forward a letter to the
Roanoke Public Accountants Society requestin9 their advice and counsel as to the
most feasible and best means of obtaining an audit of the records of accounts
of the city and the approxima~ cost of the some. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mr. Trout made reference to Title 5, Chapter 4.1,
of The Code of the City of Roanoke wherein it provides for the establishm nt of
an audit committee to be composed of three members of Council, appointed by the
Mayor. who shall act in an advisory capacity to Council, the City Auditor and the
City Manager in matters relating to the city*s finances and to that end shall have
the right to have immediate access to all records and reports relating to financial
matters and transactions of the city or of matters and th~ngs affecting such
finances.
Mr. Trout then moved that Mayor Webber be requested to appoint on
audit committee composed of three members of Council pursuant to Title 5, Chapter
4,1, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1955. as amended. The motion ~as
seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas and Trout .....6.
NAYS: None ................. ~ ......~ ............................ O.
(Mayor Yebber ~ot voting)
Mayor #ebber then appointed Messrs. Milliam S. flubard,. Chairman, Robert
A. Garland and Hampton M. Thomas as members of the audit committee.
DRUGS: The City aanager submitted the follouing report In connection
with the request of Mr. Barry Hausman, General Manager, Y & D Broadcasting.
Incorporated, that a telephone line be connected into a taped reception at the
Police Deportment as a part of the drug control program, advising that the Ghesapea
and Potomac Telephone Company has advised that there will be a cost involved and
that it will be necessary for someone to assume the expeuses connected therewith:
"August 14, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Proposal - Mr. Barry Hausman
On Monday, July 31, Mr. Barry Hausman, I~OY, appeared
before Council in regard to a proposal of a telephone arrange-
neat as a part of the drug control program. At your last
meeting, Council again considered this matter and referred it
to the City Manager's office for information regarding the
costs of such an installation.
City representatives have been in discussion with Mr.
C. L. Rhitehurst, C ~ P Telephone Company, concernin9 the
possible installation and maintenance of a telephone record-
ing device in the City Police Department to receive and record
confidential information electronically. Mr. Mhitehurst
advises that the telephone company cannot provide such u
facility without cost and it would be necessary for someone
to assume the following expenses,
Telephone Line at $16.75 per month
plus $25.00 for one-time installation fee
Recording Device at $18.75 per month
plus $15.00 one-time installation fee
Total cost $35.00 per month
plus $40.00 one=time installation fee
The Police Department did not anticipate this expen-
diture and thus present budget appropriations would need to
be supplemented .if the City were to assume this cost.
If the Council is desirous of proceeding with this pro-
' gram. we would consider it desirable to institute these faci-
lities on a trail period, three months for example, to see
if the public would really use the system. Such a trial
would cost ~146.50 for installation and service charges for
the facilities.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager'
In this connection, Mr. Barry fiausman appeared before Council and
advised that it ia his understanding that there are federal and/or state funds
available if the City of Roanoke runs into a funding problem insofar as installing
and leasing necessary equipment and that he would like to have this proposed
"hot line" in operation by September 4, 1972.
241
242
Mr. Llsk moved ~hat the matter be referred back to the City Manager
to confer mith Mr. Hausman and Mr. John A. Sebesn, Executive Director, RARACC,
with a view of securing federal funds to pay the necessary expenses, The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ROANOKE VALLEY: The City Manager submitted the folloming report in
connection mith updating the members of Council on the status of the Corps of
Engineers work on the Roanoke River and advising that as soon as additional
information is received on this progress, he will advise Council:
"August 14, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Flood Control - Roanoke River
At your meeting on Mednesday, July 5, Vice Mayor Janes
O. Trout, raised question as to Flood control studies by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on the Roanoke River. The matter
mas referred to the City Managerts office for investigation and
reply as to the status of such studies.-
We have been in contact with the Fifth Planning District
Commission and inquired as to the status of such flood control
studies by the Corps of Engineerso Reportedly such studies mill
occur over a five-year period and the Corps. is now in its second
year of the project. This is a major river basin study and will
consider not only the Roanoke River but also its major tribu-
taries. As to the question of any flood control dams on the
Roanoke River, mesa of Salem. such will not be known until the
conclusion of the Corps studies and the report which results.
therefrom.
This report is intended to update Council on the status
of the Corps. of Engineers work on the Roanoke River and as
additional information is received on this progress, we will
advise Council.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be referred back to the City Hanager
for the purpose of securing information from the Corps of Engineers as to the tine-
table for construction of a dam or dams on Roanoke River. The motion was seconded'
by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
ZONING-S'fREETS AND ALLEVS: Council having referred to the City Manager
for study, report and recommendation a communication from Mr. John S. Henritze
expressing the opinion that any future development on the 'site of the present
American Theater Building should be required to set back along Kirk Avenue in
conformance with other buildings on that street, the City Manager submitted the
following report advising that plans for the proposed office building on the Ameri-
can Theater site provide for a set back from the existing right of way line of
approximately two feet, that the domntown development plan previously prepared for
the city and downtown Roanoke business interests by outside consultants envisions
a pedestrian mall along Eirk Avenue, that if this plan is carried out ns presently
proposed, there would be a questionable need for additional right of way width on
Kirk Avenue and that this interim report is not submitted as a c;nclusive recom-
mendation with respect to the situation:
'August 14, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
SubJect: Eirk Avenue Building Setback -
American Theater Building
At your meeting on Monday. July 31, Council received n
communication from Mr. John S. Henritze expressing the opinion
that any future development on the site of the present Ameri-
can Theater Building should be required to set bock along
Eirk Avenue in confovmance with other buildings on that street.
Council referred this matter to the City Planning Commission
as well ns the City Manager's office for study, report and
recommendation.
This is intended as an interim report to Council on the
matter in question. At the present time there is no estab-
lished setback line on Eirk Avenue other than the existing
right of way line. Adjacent to the American Theater property
the right of may of Kirk Avenue is 32~ feet wide. Thkough-
out other sections of Eirk Avenue the right of may width is
40 feet. Architects for the developers of the proposed
office building on the American Yheater site have advised
that their present plans provide for a setback from the exist-
ing right of way line of approximately 2 feet. They further
advise that any additional setback required would have serious
affects upon the development contemplated. The domntown
development plan previously prepared for the City and Downtown
Roanoke business interests by outside consultants envisions
a pedestrian mall along Eirk Avenue. If this plan is carried
out as presently proposed, there mould seemingly be a ques-
tionable need for additional right of way width on Eirk
Avenue.
This interim report is not submitted to Council as a
~onclusive recommendation with respect to our analysis of
the situation. As above ooted the City Planning Commission
is also studying the matter and as me develop additional
thoughts on the subject, me will no doubt share them mith
the Planning Commission. If City Council bas comments on the
subject, me would be pleased to know of them during our
analysis Of the Subject.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. H.rst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Mr. LJsk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Zrout and unanimously adopted.
CITY MANAGER-CITY EMPLOYEES: ' Council having previously requested a
status report on filling the position of Assistant to the City Manager, the City
Manager submitted the following report advising that he is in the process of check-
lng references and backgrounds on certain applicants preparatory to the beginning
of interviews, said interviews to begin shortly, and transmitting copy of the pro-
posed job description:
*August 14, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Assistant to the City Manager
As is well known there is included within the current 1972-
73 budget a new position of Assistant to the City Manager. At
your meeting on Monday, August T, the City Manager's office
was requested to provide Council with a status report on
filling this position.
243
244
In the eleven months since the 'Community Assistant' eon-
cept was introduced ue have had ever five dozen applications
rot the position, As of the present date, through loss of
interest, the securing of other Jobs. a gradual defining of
characteristics required and/or uther reasons not as easily
defined, the collection of applications has been reduced to
a primary group of eighteen and n similar secondary group.
We are In the process of checking references and backgrounds
on these persons preparatory to the beginning of interviems;
such interviems wall begin very shortly.
Attached for your informatio~ is a c~py of the classi-
fication description designed originally for the 'Community
Assistant" and modified slightly for the "Assistant" posi-
tion, This description is still subject to further refine-
mens as the intended duties for this position become nora
definite. Any suggestions which members of Council have with
respect to this description mould he most appreciated.
This report is intended as a status briefing for Council
and we will keep you advised as the process of filling this
position continues. If Council would have further questions
on the subject, we would be pleased to discuss the matter at
your upcoming meeting.
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. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the following report in
connection mith payment to tmo police officers who were injured in the line of
duty:
*August 14, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virglnla
Centlemen:
Subject: Police Officers Injured in the Line of Duly
Patrolman Victor L. Hamblett mas injured in the line of
duty on February 25, 1972, while carrying a stolen television
set out of a ditch where it had been discarded. After other
treatment failed, Officer Hamblett was admitted to the hos-
pital for surgery for a herniated disc on May ?. 1972. Of-
ricer Hamblett had missed 60 days on June 4, 1972. He will
return to work on August 14, 1972.
Patrolman Milliam L. Bowling was injured by gunshot
mounds in the line of duty while handling a complaint on
May 27. 1972. He had missed 60 days on July 26, 1972. No
date has been established for his return to duty.
In accordance with Ordinance No. 4746 policemen and
firemen can receive, under conditions of injury ondnty,
their regular salary for a period of 60 days without any
special permission. This 60-day period has expired for both
of the above named City employees. It is recommended that
the City Council by appropriate ordinance authorize the payment
to Officer Howling of his salary for an additional 60-day
period and if such proves inadequate, me will again return to
Council for appropriate extension of time. It is also recom-
mended that approval be given topay Officer Hamblett for the
period of time between June 4 and August 14.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julain F. Hirst
Julia~ F. H~rst
City Manage~M
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Homager
and allured the follouing Resolution directing that Patrolman Milliom L. Bomling,
u member of the Police Deportment injured in line of duty on May ?, 1972, and
hospitalized rot same, be paid his regular salary rot the 60-day period commenc-
Ing July 26, 1972, and that Patrolman Victor L. Haublett, a member of the Police
Department injured in line of duty on February 25, 1972. be paid his regular
salary commencing June S, 1972, until August 14, 1972:
(s20420i X RESOLUTIO~ directing that two certain members of the Police
Department. injured in line of duty, be paid their regular salary for certain
periods extending beyond that fixed by Resolution No. 4?46,
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Rook m37, page
Mr. Lish moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Rebber ..........................
NAYS: None ........... O.
BUGGET-DEPARYMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City Auditor submitted a
monthly statement of expenditures for public melfare for the month ended July 31.
1972, advising that appropriations for the General Relief and Aid to Blind
categories have been reduced in this report to the amount approved by the State
Department of Public lelfare and transmitting budget Ordinances which will
reduce the appropriations of the City of Roanoke to this level.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally advised that the decrease
in the Aid to Blind category does not present any problems but he would like to
study, in detail, matters relating to the General Relief category and the Emer-
gency Assistance to Needy Families category.
Mr. Trout then moved that Council concur in the verbal request Of the
City Manager and that the Ordinances in connection with the General Relief cate-
gory and the Emergency Assistance to Needy Families category be taken under
consideration pending a report from the City Manager. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Dr. Taylor then offered the following emergency Ordinance decreasing
the Aid to Blind category of the public assistance budget by $7.6~6.00:
(~20421) AN ORDINANCE to amend and ceordain Section #37, "Public
Assistance." of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book m37, page 111.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Nebbec ........................
NAYS: None ......... O.
'245
246
STATE CORPORATION COMMISSION: The City Auditor submitted a communication
transmitting 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 lg?l-?2.
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received end filed,' The motion
was seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the City of
Roanoke for the month of July, 1972.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a communication forwarding
a report on an examinationof the Mllllam Fleming Iligb School Activities Fund for
the year ended June 30, 1972, made by the firm of Kennett and Eennett, Certified
Public Accountants. under the direction of his office, advising that the report
states that it represents fairly the financial condition Of the fund at the end
of the audit period.
Or. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The notion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
SALE OF PROPERTY: Council having deferred action on a recommendation
of the Real Estate Committee that the offer of Mr. John R. Neubill to purchase
city-owned property located on Maywood Avenue, S. W., designated as Parcel No.
Official Tax No. 1070800. for the sum of $1.000.00, be accepted, the matter was
again before the body.
In this connection, Mr, David K. Lisk. Chairman of the Real Estate
Committee, requested that action on the matter be deferred until the next
regular meeting of Council on Monday, August 21, 1972.
Mr. Lisk then moved that Council concur in his verbal request. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20389, rezoning property located at the inter-
section of Malnut Hill and Laurel Street, S. E., described as Lots 12, 13, end 14,
Block 20, Roanoke Gas and Mater Company Map, Official Tax Nos. 4041001 and
4041002, from RG-1, General Residential District, to RG-2. General Residential
District, having previously been before Council for its first rending, read and
laid over, was again before the body.
Council, at its last regular meeting on Monday, August?, lg?2, having
deferred action on the second reading of the abovedescribed Ordinance until Mr.
Jack D. Coulter, Attorney, representing Bodges.Lumber Corporation, could be pre-
sent at the Council meeting, Mr. Coulter appeared before the body in support of
the request of his clients and advised that there ave numerous duplexes in the
meat structure which will be two and one-half stories high end will provide one
and one-half off-street parking spaces per apartment unit. that financially, it
will be better for the City of Roanoke if this vacant lot is put to use. that un
Mr. Louis J. Raase. 503 Camilla Avenue. $. E., also appeared before
and final adoption:
(n20389) AN ORDINA~%C~ to amend Title X¥, Chapter ~.1. Section 2, of
~ebber ,~.
247
248
exceed $25,600.00, he presented sine; whereupon, Hr. Lisk offered the following
emergency Ordinance:
(n20422) AN ORDINANCE nuthorizing employment of certain professional
architecture engineering plnnning services for preparation of n comprehensive
master program and plan for the CJty*s Public ~orks service center facilities at
icost not to exceed $2s,6oo; nod providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordina.nce.. see Ordinance Book =37, page 11!.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
y Mr. Bubard and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Dubard. LIsR. Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
BUDGET-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: Mr. List
offered the following emergency Ordinance trausferring $222,697.54 from Remodel
Court Douse to Court House Annex under Section =89, "Transfers to Capital Improve-
ments Fund," of the 1972-73 budget:
(=20423) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n69, "Transfers to
Capital Improvements Fund," of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book e3T. page 113.)
Mr. Ltsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iby Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber ........ ~ ............................ 6.
NAYS: Mr. Hubard ...................1.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
AIRPORT: Mr. George McKay, President of the Roanoke Tower Local,
'Professional Air Traffic Control Organization." appeared before Counc.il and read
the following prepared statement in connection with certain plans to collect a
$5.00 deposit on each key required to operate the automatic gate at the airport
parking lot at Roaneke Municipal (Noodrum) Airport and requested that employees
at the airport not be charged a $5.00 deposit for a gate that benefits no one
except the Airport Parking Company and that they be given parking quarters
closer to their working quarters:
'Moodrum Airport
August 8, 1972
Op~latjons Directive
To: All persons employed at Noodrum Airport and authorized
to use the employee's Pa~hing lot.
From: M. L. Harris, Airport Manager
Effective August 14, 1972 the electric entrance 9ate to
the Employee's Parking Lot will be activated and require a
key to open the 9ate and enter the lot. Exit from the lot
will be thru the same gate but will* not require the key-
simply drive slowly approaching the gate, outbound, and
your car will activate and open the gate.
Keys for authorized employees mill be svalleble from
Clarence Arthur, Airport Parking Co. Hsnager, on Thursday
and Friday, August 10 end 11, 8-AM to 4-PMo sad week days
only. thereafter. A $5.00 refundable deposit will be charged
for each key. Please get your heys early.
M. L. Harris,
Airport Manager*
'August 14o 1972
Mr. Mayor, Gentlemen of City Council,
My name is George McKay, I am president of the Roanoke Tower
Local, *Professional Air Traffic Control Organization. I
thank yon for the opportunity to present our viems on the park-
ing situation at the Roanoke Municipal Airport.
The $5.00 key asked for by the Airport Parking company of
each airport employee (except a certain few) is to pay for
the gate placed at the airport employees parking lot by the
forementioned company. The amount of money that would be
derived from diverting any illegal parking in this lot
mould never pay for the cost of this gate.
Also without conclusive proof, except common sense, it appears
as Just another form of harrsssment to people who Moth at the
airport as there just isn*t that much illegal parking in this
lot.
Me tbs FAA employees have not asked for this gate. However
we do not object to it as long as we are not asked to pay
for it. There is already a sign at the entrance to the park-
ing lot that says Employee Parking only all unauthorized
vechiles will be towed away at owners expense.* There is a
small contingent of police assigned to the airport only,
however this notice of illegal parking is never enforced.
All the Government employees have ever asked for is to be
placed closer to the terminal building so that we would not
have to work in wet clothes and shoes when it is raining or
All me have ever received is a parking place that has been
inadequately lighted (until the past 4 weeks) and in summer
cleaned or plowed when it snows and is always full of
chuck holes, This lot is unpaved and in atrocious conditions,
very littl~ or no regard for the mell being of people who
work at the airport. Of course this is to be expected as
some Airport personnel park close to the Terminal buildin9
under a shed that we understand was built to shelter the
fire truck at the airport. There a few other people that
are given preferential parking and this should be looked
ters between tbs FAA and Airport management written in the
past year that indicate that Federal Funds would be with-
held under the Airport Development Program unless Federal
Employee Parking had been satisfactorily resolved. In con-
clusion me are asking that we not be charged $5.00 to pay
for a gate that benefits no one except the Airport Parking
Company, and also that me be given parking closer to our
working quarters so that we will be able to work in a more
healthy situation and not in wet clothes and shoes. We do
sonable distance Requested by the Government from Parking
Lot to quarters is 500*. The present parking lot is Twice
that far 1000' from ou~ quarters.
George McKay - President
PATCO-MEBA (AFL-CIO)*
has been advised by businesses and users of Roanoke Municipal (~oodrum) Airport
of certain plans to collect n $5.00 deposit on the required number of keys to
operate the automatic gate at the airport parking lot and recommended that Council
defer any action on this procedure and allow him to place this matter on an agenda
249
250 -
of the Airport Advisory Commission rjr review and hearings whereby all parties
involved can appear in connection mith the matter',
Mr, Trout then moved that the matter be referred to the Airport Advisory
Commission for the purpose of meeting with involved parties and report their re-
commendations to Council, The motion was seconded by Mr, Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
TAXES-LICENSES: Mr, Garland presented 'the following communication in
Tu
connection mith the simplication of payment of personal property taxes and pur-
chase of local automobile decals:
"10 August: 1072
Mayor Roy L, #ebber and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Gentlemen:
Every effort should be made to simplify and make more con-
venient the payment of local taxes, Much criticism has been
heaped upon the City because of the procedures and confusion
involved that. requires the taxpayer to go to several locations
in the payment of certain taxes, The payment of the personal
property tax is a prerequisite to the issuance of the city
automobile vehicle decal. The present method to accomplish
this is unbelievable and should not be further tolerated by
our citizens nor by this Administration. Presently
requires the citizen to go to the Treasurers office to pay
his personal property tax. He then must go to the Commissioner
of Revenue office and present that receipt mhich will issue the
decal. Ne then must 9o back to the Treasurer's office to pay
for the decal. During busy periods, it would be possible to
have to stand in line on three different occasions thereby
consuming much time. Surely these two transactions can be
combined into one step and these taxes be paid simultaneously.
It would appear to me that one tax bill should be sufficient
and one payment made either by mail or in person at the
Treasurerts office, This would result in an immense saving
of time and effort for the taxpayer as well as for the City
employees that are involved in these transactions.
Another area that deserves some study, thought and consideration
is the sale period of the local automobile decal.. Since the
state tag is put on sale on March 15th., it would seem that the
city tag should correspond to this. Under the present system.
tho local decal is put on sale on April 15th. Ail of this,
I believe is very confusing and frustrating to the taxpayer,
not to meutionthe inconvenience. It would be even more
desireable if the personal property tax. the state automo-
bile license .tag and the city automobile decal, be accomplished
in one single transaction and simultaneously mith one another.
If there could be some way that the state and city tags be
tied together, it would appear that this would assure the
city of everyone purchasing a decal that is required to do so.
There has been much evidence to suggest to us, that many city
residents that own automobiles are not purchasing the city
decal, thus deprivi!g the city of much needed revenue which
is properly due us. This does not set ~ell with other well
meaning and prompt taxpayers to allom many to evade this tax
but to use our streets and facilities that are being paid for
by others. Accordingly, I would therefore suggest to the
Administration that a consorted drive be undertaken to require
purchase of the local decal by bonafide residents of the City
that have not done so and to inform those that are in ~lola-
tion through the news media of the City*s intention to pursue
this course to the Courts if necessary to bring them into
compliance.
Respectfully submitted for your consideration.
S/ Robert A, Garland
Robert A. Garland"
!
Mv,~Gavland moved that the communication be referred to n committee
composed ~f Messrs, A. Mo Gibson, Chairman, James H. Klncanon, J. S. Howard, Jr.,
and J. H. Johnson for study, report and recoMMendation to Council. The motion
mas seconded by HFo Llsk ond unanimously adopted.
COLWelL: Mr. Trout moved that Council meet in Executive Session to
discuss a personnel matter. The motion mas seconded by Mr, Hubard and unanimously
adopted,
TAXES-AIRPORT: Mr. Trout presented a communication in connection with
the proposed enplaning tax. advising that at this late date it may not be possible
to have an orderly procedure worked out betueen the city and the airlines for
establishment of criteria for collecting the boarding tax by September 1, that if
this tax brings about bad public relations he would 'suggest that Council delay it
for one month and that information from conversations with Roanoke's two Senators
leads him to believe that this bill will be struck and Jn place of the boarding
tax cities will he given additional revenue.
In this connection, Mr. Arthur M. Whittaker, Roanoke Station Manager,
Piedmont Airlines, appeared before Council and advised that the airlines are not
~-t in disagreement with the fact that additional funds are needed at the airport but
that the Ordinance as adopted by Council does not clearly answer some of the
questions they have insofar as collecting this tax is concerned.
In a discussion, Mr. Lisk pointed out that Council acted in good faith
mhen it adopted the' enplaning tax Ordinance with the idea that the revenue mould
be put to use at the airport, that he has given second thoughts to the Ordinance
as presently adopted, that il such an Ordinance is going to be enforced then it
should apply to everyone enplaning flights at the airport.
After a long discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the ques-
tion of whether or not a service charge for certain enplaning passengers utiliz-
ing premises or facilities at Roanshe Municipal (Moodrom) Airport can be imple-
mented by September l, 1972, and the recommendation of Mr. Lisk that the enplan-
ing tax apply to all users of the airport and not just to commercial aircarft be
referred to the Airport Advisory Commission for study, report and recommendation
to Council by the next regular meeting of the body on Monday, August 21, 1972.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Nebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
251
252
COUNCIL. REGal. AR MEETING,
Monday. August 21, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, August 21, 1972, at 2 p.m., the regular
meeting hour, uith Mayor. Roy L. #ebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Milliam S. Nubard, David K. Lisk,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Mebber .......... 6.
ABSENT: Dr. Noel C. Taylor ..................~ ........... 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Mr. Mllliam F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. N. Ben Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney; and
Mr. A. N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened mith a prayer by t%e Reverend
MJlliam R. Klein, Pastor, Second Presbyterian Church.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
SCROOLS: Rr. Roy R. Kinsey, representin9 Elnsey, Shane ~ Associates,
and Or. Harold H. Hopper, President, Virginia Western Commuoity College, appeared
before Council and advised that the Master Plan for ¥irginia Western Community
College envisions a building-bridge spanning Colonial Avenue, that at the present
time the campus of ¥irginia Western Community College is physically divided by
Oolcnial Avenue, that it is further divided by the topography, that in the interest
of safety, combined with a desire to physically connect the campuses, it is pro-
i posed that the *air-rights" over Colonial Avenue be utilized for the construction
of a building that would join the campuses, that this building would house faculty
offices, instructional spaces and student activity areas and requested the permis-
sion of Council for the use of these air rights.
In this connection, Mr. Kinsey presented sketches of the proposed plans.
After a discussion of the request, Mr. Trout moved that the matter be
referred to the City Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to
Council and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure in
accordance with the request. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unani-
mously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
SCHOOLS-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY IN ROANOKE VALLEY-ARMORY-STADIUM:
A communication from Mr. George E. Franklin, Executive Director. Opportunities
Industrialization Center, requesting that the City of Roanoke become the receiver
for the Law Enforcement Assistance Act Grant Application, advising that the objec-
tives of said grant are to develop a twelve month community based correctional
program and services.for twelve inmates of Camp ~25 in the area of vocational
guidance and skill training in auto mechanics, weldln9 and retail sales, was before
Council.
Hr. Thomas moved that the request be referred to the City Manager for
consideration and recommendation to Council and that the City Attorney be directed
to prepare the proper measure accordingly. The motion nas seconded by Mr, Trout
and unanimously adopted.
RADIO-TELEVISION: A communication from Hr. B. Caldmell Butler. Attorney,
representing Valley Cable Vision, Incorporated, advising that the Corporation is
very much interested in obtaining a franchise from the governments of Roanoke
Valley for the operation of a c~ble vision system, was before Co'uncil.
Mr. Llsk moved that' the communication be referred to the CATV Committee
for their information in connection with their study of the question of permitting
the construction of a community antenna television system in the City of Roanohe.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
DOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A communication from Mr. Russell R. Henley.
Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Ilousing Authority, in con-
nection with the development of 72 dwelling units located on Bluestone Avenue,
N. E., advising that the estimate of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Hous-
ing Authority of the annual amount of payments in lieu of taxes is $2.250.00 and
of the annual amount of taxes mhich mould be levied were the property privately
owned is 919.500.00 and that the property ut present, assuming all taxis paid,
is producing $321.00 per annum in taxes, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the Communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimousl~ adopted.
ZONING: A communication from Mr. Rumford E. McK~nney requesting a non-
conforming permit in order to remodel an existing maid*s quarters on his pro-
perty at 2307 Lincoln.Avenue, 5. H.. was before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the request be referred to the City Planning
Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-SHERIFF: Council having received and filed a
communication from Sheriff Paul J. Puckett, addressed to the State Compensation
Board, listing ten employees in his office who have been on the payrol~ for some
time making less than'th~ minimum salary requirements and requesti~9 that th~
Compensation Board consider revising these salaries to the new wage minimum, a
communication from the State Compensation Board advising that the Board is of
the opinion that the duties of jailors and matrons are not ~be same even though
the courts, in some cases, have ruled otherwise, therefore, the Compensation Board
cannot comply with Sheriff Puckett*s request, particularly in view of the fact
that a starting, or minimum, salary of $5,g08.00 has been established for Jailors~
based upon his request, mas befsre Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication bl received and filed~ The motion
was seconded by Br. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE: Copy of a com-
munication from the State Compensation Hoard, addressed to Mr. J. S. Howard. Jr..
Commissioner of the Revenue~ u~visin9 that the Compensation Board concurred in
'253
25'.4
the action of City Council and approved an additional position of Auditor-Inspector
at an annual rate of SB,O00.OO, effectiv~ September 1, 1972, and that various other
salary changes warn approved for the Office of the Commissi'oners of the Revenue,
effective September l, 197~, ~aa before the body.
Mr. Lisk movad that the mmmunication be receivad and iliad. The motion
was seconded by ~r. Garland and unanimously adopted.
TAX~SoLEGISLATION: A communication from Br. C. Lawrance Dodson, Tam-
porary Chairman, Roanoka County Board of Supervisors, advising that the represanta-
tives of Roanoka County in the General Assambly have advisad the Board of Super-
visors that a Resolution requesting them to work for authorization for the County
to impose a cigarette tax would have no significant effect, as other counties seeks]
lng special authority to levy a tobacco tax were recently defeated, that the Board
took no action in namin9 two members to serve mith the City of Roanoke and the City
of Salem on a tobacco tax committee due to the opinion that such a committee mas
rendered superfluous in light of their representatives' advice and thanking the
City of Roanoke for its support in the matter, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The motioi
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUSES-TAXES: The City Maoager submitted a written report transmitting a
communication from Mr. J. W~star Stowe, President, Roanok~ City Lines, Incorporated
requesting the opportunity of appearing before Council to apply for relief from
the burden of their gross receipts tax.
In this connection, Mr. Stowe appeared before the body and made reference
to certain tabulations which give a brief description of the operations of Roanoke
City Lines, lncorporated~ and the financial difficulty they continue to experience,
advising that these continuing deficits compel them to request relief from the
burden of their gross receipts tax.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to a committee composed of
Messrs. Robert A. Garland, Chairman, Julian F. Hirst and A. N. Gibson for study,
report and recommendation to Council in connection mith their report on the overall
transportation study of the City of Roanoke. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk
and unanimously adopted.
With reference to the matter, Mr. Garland called attention to the fact
that there is a vacancy on the committee created by the resignation of Mr. Vincent
S. Wheeler and requested that Mayor Webber fill said vacancy.
Mayor Webber then appointed 'Mr. Hampton W. Thomas to fill the position
~acated by Mr. Vincent So Wheeler.
SE~RS AND S~ORM. DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
tdvising of a meeting of directl~ concerned personnel of the City of Roanoke, the
;onsulting Engineers, the Town Manager of Vintoo, Virginia, and representatives of
,he 'Roanoke County 'Public Service Authority. with Mr. A. W. Hadder and several of
;he staff of the State Water Control Board and a representative of the Attorney
Generel*s Office, nt mhich time the status of the treatment pleat grogram, the
retention basin and treatment quality results* were discussed, nnd transmitting copy
of a communication uritten by him to Mr. Hsdder advising that the City of Roanoke
wishes to be present at the meeting of the State Water Control Board on Tuesday,
.September 19, 1972, to report on the developments, progress and status of its pro-
gram of improvement of pollution abatement and to recommend relief of the sewer
connection bun as has been imposed upon the city, pointing out that should it be
the opinion of Council that this communication to Mr. Haddar mbo'mid be withheld
or handled otherwise such can be done.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur, in essense, in the report of the
City Manager insofar as a meeting with the State ~ater Control Roard is concerned
and that certain aspects of the ballast pond/retention basin be discussed in
Kxecutive Session. The motion was seconded by MFo Trout and unanimously adopted.
After a lengthly discussion as to the delay in receiving funds which are ·
idue the City of Roanoke for expansion amd improvements at the Sewa;e Treatment
Plant, Mr. Lisk moved that the City Manager be directed to explor the feasibility
of having the State Nater Control Board and City Council resolve certain financial
arrangements of implementing the program at the Sewage Treatment Plant. The
motion was seconded by Rt. Bubard and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND b~FORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following repot
recommending that Council authorize a firm offer to be made to Mrs. Viola £.
!Anderson, of the appraised value of $12.000.00, for the purchase of property
~locatedat 1502 - 1504 Bennington Street, S. E., described as Lots 15 and
~Block 4, Map of Eastover Place, Official Tax Nos. 4330615 and 4330616, needed for
the expansion of the Sewage Treatment Plant, and if a negotiated settlement can-
not be made within a reasonable period of time, that the City Attorney be autho-
rized to institute necessary legal proceedings to acquire the property:
"August 21, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Nater Pollution Control Plant - Property Acquisition
Over the past few months the City has been acquiring addi-
tional properties in the area bounded by Underhill Avenue.
Bromnlee Avenue, Kindred Street and Bennington Street. City
Council has previously authorized the acquisition of several
properties in the area.
Representatives of the City Engineering Department have
been negotiating for the purchase of property of Alfred B.
Anderson (deceased) and Viola £. Anderson located at 1502 -
1504 Bennington Street, S. E.. Lots 15 and 16, Block 4. Map
'of Eastover Place, Official Tax Nos. 4330615 and 4330616.
Seemingly We have reached a point in the negotiations where
the City and property owner are so far apart in their esti-
mate of value of the property that agreement on the matter
seems unlikely. The appraised market value of the Anderson
property as established by independent real estate appraiser
is $12.000.
It is recommended tbut City Council authorize e firm
offer to be extended to Mrs. Anderson in the amount of
the appraised value; and furthermore, if u negotiated settle-
ment cannot be made within n reasonable period Of time, the
City Attorney be authorized to institute necessary legal
proceedings to acquire the property, Me mill certainly
continue every effort to conclude this transaction amiably
und satisfactory to ali concerned.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager'
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(uRO424) AN ORDINANCE providing for the City*s acquisition of certain
property wanted and needed for the purpose of the enlargement of facilities at
the City's Sewage Treatment Plant, and providing for an emergency'.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #3?, page 113.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Carland, Hubard, Lisk. Thomas, Trout and Mayor Webber---6
NAYS: None ............................................................Oo
(Dr. Taylor absent)
BUDGET-STREET LIGHTS-SIGNS-TRAFFIC: Council having requested that the
City Manager report on the cost of employing a school crossing guard to be
utilized by Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley at the Loudon Day
Care Center, the City Manager submitted the follomtn9 report advising that report-
edly the periods of heavy pedestrian movement are 7:00 a.m.. to 11:30 mom., and
2:20 p.m., to 5:00 p,m., that the hourly rate of pay for Grade 7 personnel is
$2.03, that a uniformed crossing guard at the stated situation and rate would
cost from September 1, If?2, to the balance of the 1972-73 fiscal ~ar
plus uniform cost of $260.00, makin9 a total of $$,315.00, that allowing time for
necessary preparation it would be mid-September when the guard could be stationed
at this location, that he feels the responsibility for this should not be held on
the city but should be otherwise assumed, nevertheless, if Council feels the city
should act in this matter, it would be recommended teat the handling be by the
crossing guard:
~August 21, 1972
Honorable Mayor and ~ity Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Shenandoah Avenue-and Seventh Street, N. M.
This is a continuation of the matter previously before
City Council as to the request from the Loudon Day Care
Parents for a traffic light, or other pedestrian'safeguard.
at Shenandoah Avenue and Seventh Street, N. W.
We have discussed with representatives of Total Action
Against Poverty the hours during mhich a uniformed crossing
guard would be useful at this location. Reportedly the
periods of heavy pedestrian movement are 7:00 - 11:30
and 2:30 - 5:00 p.e.. or T hours each day. The hourly rate
of pay for the City's Grade ? personnel is $2.03. Presently
school crossing guards receive $100 per month for marking
2-3 hours per school day, which is generally comparable to
this hourly wsge. These persons ere not full time City
employees but receive compensation from extra help funds
budgeted in the Police Department account.
For purposes of com~utation, the uniform crossing guard
at the above situation and above rate mould cost from September
1, 1972. to the balance of the 1972-73 fiscal lear $3,005,
(Account 45-101). Additionally, the cost or uniform would be
$260, (45-30~. This iS a total of $3,315,
Allowing time for receipt of applications, for inter-
views and investigation plus one week training, and assuming
a satisfactory applicant may be employed, it mould be near
eld-September when the guard could be stationed at this lacs-
Hay I make these comments. As has been previously
stated on several occasions, a traffic signal cannot be
~stified at this location for various reasons. The alterna-
tives, other than leaving the matter as it nam is, are (1)
to have an individual connected with the school carry some
form of sign o£ identification as a msrnin9 when the children
are corssing; (2) the installation of a blinker light, mhicb
is not too satisfactory at best; (3) the use of n swinging
gate or drop bar. which under this particular situation we
would prefer not to get into; or (4) the use of uniformed
crossing guard. It seems to me that when ~e Federal
government or TAP, whichever the case may be, establishes a
the center itself is on one side of n busy street and the
small playground, which is an integral part of the center,
children to and from the playground is u direct part of the
of the facility. This is why I feel the responsibility for
this should not be held on the City but should be otbermise
assumed. It is hastily added, in defense of Mr. Stamper who
we asked to appear at the last City Council meeting, that he
is not responsible for the physical establishment of the
facility.
Nevertheless, if the City Council feels that the City
should act in this matter, it would be recommended that the
handling be by the crossing guard. If this is done. addi-
tional funds would be necessary to the budget but in view
of the status of the budget as adopted, I an not in the
position to make this recommendation of supplemental
appropriation.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hir;t
City Uanager'
appropriating $3,05S,~0 to Persoaal S~rvices and $~60.00 to Clothing and personal
Supplies under Section ~45, ~Police Department," of the 1972-73 budget, to pro-
vide funds for said school crossing guard:
(n20425) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~dS, "Police
Department," of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordieance Book ~37, page 114.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance, The motion was second-
ed by MC. Lisk and adopted by ~he following vote:
257
258
AYES: Messrs. Garland, flubnrd, Llsk, Thomas, Trout iud Mayor #ebber---6.
NAYS: None .........~ ..................... ~-~ ............. ~ ............ O.
(Dr. Taylor absent)
0RUGS: Council having requested,that the Cit~ Manager confer with
Barry Hausmsn, General Manager~ #TOY Radio Station, and Mr. John A. Sabena,
Executive Director, RAGACC, with a view or securing federal funds to pay the
necessary expenses in connection with a taped reception.at the Police O~partment
as apaFt of the drug control ~rogram, the City Manager submitted n ~rttten
repoFt advising that he has discussed the matter with MF. Sabena but has not been
able to wrap up all of the contacts sufficiently and recommending that the matter
be carried over math a report to be submitted as soon as all information is in
ihand.
Mr. Trout moved ~hat Council concur In the recommendation of the City
Manager. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OFPUBLIC NELFARE: Council baying deferred action on
an Ordinance appropriating $11,079.29 to Emergency Assistance to Needy Families
and another Ordinance decreasing the General Relief Account by $143,763.00 in the
1972-73 Public Assistance budget pending a report from the City Manager with refer-
ence to the two Ordinances. the City Manager submitted the following report in
explanation of said Ordinances:
~August 21. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Public Assistance'
The City Council had o~ the Agenda at your last meetin9,
August 14, 1972, three ordinances relating to amendments to
appropriations for Public Assistance in the Department of
Public #elfare. They were:
1. Aid to Blind. Decrease by $7,686 to
This was adopted. It ia lO0 percent reimbursable.
'Increase
2. Emergency Assistance to Needy Families.
by $11,07g.29 to $261,O?g.2g. It is 100 percent
reimbursable.
3. General Relief. Decrease'of $143.763 from $288,540
to $144,777. This is 62°5% reimbursable.
Some explanation on the latter two should be given'plus
a summary of a question relating to No.
(2) Emergency Assistance to Needy Families is a new
program just put into effect:with federal funding. Thus
there has been no previous experience on which to accurately
develop budget figures. Some indications of what is taking
place though may be of interest. Based on best estimates, the
projected budget was calculated at $250,000 for the current
fiscal year. This program opens up opportunities to clients
to obtain many types of items which they previously could
not obtain assistance or a larger opportunity toobtain,
items which in recent years have become available through pub-
lic welfare. This program is primarily used by families under
Aid to Dependent Children classification. They obtain fur-
niture, mattresses, stoves, refrigerators, washing machines
and the such. These have been possible in limited quantitits
only in the past. In addition, the S}ate has recently added
living room furniture as an eligible underwritten welfare
grant and this is a category which has never been brought
before through department funds.
There ere currently approximately 1,650 cases nnder' ADC.
The department hms approved 236 of these cases for special
grants under the Emergency Assistnnce Program** The total
cost related to these cases has exceeded more than the 1/12
division of the original appropriation of $250,000, This is
the cause 0f the increase in expenditure in the first month.
There is the feeling that this milllevel off as furnishings
are bought and that we are rather experiencing something of a
rush under the nam program, Aclient can get this emergency
assistance funds only once in a year. The situation is that
if they are eligible for it, they are eligible and, therbfore,
must be granted money for the purchases. It is difficult in
situations such as this to pace the allocation of these funds
on a monthly or 1/12 basis as the federal government and state
government do not pace their program' or authorization of
grants. It is felt, though, as stated, that this will generally
level off; however, it will be necessary for the departmbnt to
closely observe rates of application nnd expenditures.
(3) The General Relief situation does present a problem,
The City Department of Public Yelfare proposed a budget of
$288.$40 and this amount was approved by City Council in its
budoet. However. the State reduced this to $144,777 because
of u limited availability of state matching funds throughout
the Commonwealth.
Ceneral Relief is used principally for (a) clients or
would be clients who are pending inclusion in an established
program; (b) persons who are not eligible in a program but
who have medical disabilities; and (c) persons who are in
low paying jobs who become ill and have no resources for
particular costs attached to their illness or disability or
who lose their employment because of this illness.
General Relief is never used for employable persons.
Primarily it applies to persons who are too disabled to work
but not so much as to be eligible under Aid to Permanently
and Totally Disabled.
Based on past experience the monthly expenditures have
been averaging about $1g,O00 to $20,O00. It mas this on which
the budget was developed. With the reduction in the budget by
the State and the overexpeuditure in the first month, a divi-
sion of monies remaining for the balance eleven months of the
year would make available about $11,O00 per month. This
becomes insufficient to maintain the averages that have been
previously experienced. Miss Jones and Mrs. Gott of the
Welfare Department have had various conversations with offi-
cials of the State Repartment of Welfare and Institutions who
have advised, and confirmed by letter, that there are not
additional funds available and that they are unable to give any
assurance that there would be additional funds available later
in the year to supplement this account.
One additional comment on the program Of Ceneral Relief.
The term under which persons may continue under General Relief
varies with individual situations. For some it may be only a
month or two months. For others their condition or eligibi-
lity for grant under General Relief can continue for many
months or a long period of tine. Ail cases are evaluated every
three months as to justification for their continuance. If
persons have dependent children they are not eligible and do
not go into this particular program.
In view of the fund situation, the alternatives of the
City appear to narrow down to the following:
A. The City Council continue the original budgeted
appropriation of 9288,540 and take what would in
effect be u gamble that the State Mould come up mith
all or a portion of their 62.5% of these monies later
in the year. This may mean that the anticipated
revenue of the 62;5~ of the reduction could be con-
tinued as the revenue item although this may be open
to proper question by the Auditor.
B. The City continue the original appropridtion, reduce
its revenue from the Commonwealth by their 62.5% of
the reduction, and assume the total anticipated
expenditure as C~y funds.
259
:260
C, The Department continue to receive case applicants
as eligible with approval to those eligible, but
limiting grants to etch, The dollar effect of this
could he'st be described in that based on the uvernge
case, it would meca that welfare funds could pay
the~ rents but would not be sufficient and there would
have to be eliminated funds for' food and clothing.
This would be nn effort to maintain a reasonable
standard mith all nppllcant~.
O. Accept clients nhb achieve eligibility to the limit
of funds for each month and then deny or decline
acceptance of bthers until the commencement of n
new month. Roth this and C above presents certain
inherent problems,
E. Retain the budget as approved by the State nnd Utah
the best combination of C and O above that can be
worked out, hold within the monthly allotments until
it can be deternined if additional State funds are
available. This one would be my recommendation.
This is submitted for such discussion as City Council
might wish to give to the matter; and if additional informa-
tion can be furnished, the department or I would be glad to
do SO.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
In this connection Mr. Garland offered the following emergency Ordinance
appropriating $11,07g.29 to Emergency Assistance to Needy Families under Section
· 37, "Public Assistance,' of the 1972-73 budget:
(s2042b) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordoin Section u37, 'Public Assis-
tance,* of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book m37, page 115.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Lish and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Thomas. Trout and Mayor Mebber ......... 5.
NAYS: None .......................................................... O.
(Dr. Taylor absent) (Mr. Hubard not iu the Council Chambers)
Mr. Garland then offered the following emergency Ordinance decreasing
the General Relief account by $143,763.00 under Section ~37, *Public Assistance**
of the 1972-73 budget:
(~20427) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u37, 'Public Assis-
tance," of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see asin Ordinance Book m37, page 116.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The moiion was secondei
by Mr. LiSk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Thomas% Trout and Mayor Webber ...... 5.
NAYS: None ............... O.
(Dr. Taylor absent) (Mr. Hubard not in the Council Chambers)
In this connection. Mrs. Corinne fl. Gott, Superintendent, Public Welfare
Department, appeared before Council and ·advised that the recipients of General
Relief are amah9 the poorest and sickest people on welfare, that if this account
is cut it will effect monies they receive for food, clothing smd other personal
needs, that the recipients may get enough money to pay their rent end in some
Instances, there may net be enough money to pay their rent.
Mr. Garland questioned the City Manager as to.h ether or not the reduc-
tion in the General Relief account will reduce the monthly checks of the recipients
who are under this category, whereupon, the City Manager replied that it would.
Mr. Garlnnd then expressed the opinion that it seems the only thing the
City can do ts to allow the budgot to remain as It is and urge the State Depart-
ment of Melfare and Institutinns to cone forth with their proper reimbursement to
the City of Roanoke, that Council cannot take $143.763.00 out of the budget and
ask the Melfare Department to reduce services by fifty per cent in the General
Relief category, that such a reduction would be unworkable and that Council should
retain the $288,$40.00 which was previously included in the General Relief
account.
Hr. Garland then moved that Council reconsider its action with reference
to the adoption of Ordinance No. 20427 which reduced the General Relief account
by $143o763.00. The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the following
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Ltsk. Thomas. Trout and Mayor Mebber ........ 5.
NAYS: None 0
(Dr. Taylor absent) (Mr. Hubord not in the Council Chambers)
Rr. Lisk moved that the City Manager be directed to correspond with the
State Department of Melfare and Institutions to ascertain what they are going to
do to match money appropriated by the City of Roanoke in the General Relief cate-
assigned to the City of Roanoke at a later date. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Mr. ~honas furthe~ moved that the City Auditor be authorized to con-
tinue writing the General Relief checks on the same basis as they have been writ-
mously adopted.
PAY PLAN-CITy EMPLOYEES: Council herin9 requested that the City Manager
member citizen committee to study the procedures and functions of the offices of
the City Attorney. City Auditor and City Clerk in coordination with the management
study, the City Manager submitted the following report in connection with thematter
advising that he is of the opinion that a single study approach at the outset, or
in the first phase as to the total governmental organization, objectives, per-
exacting analysis of inter-relationships than would separate simultaneous studies.
that he does not see how the professional auditing evaluation or study would con-
flict with a management study and that his reaction of HUD ~nd its funding of the
261
262
'August 21, 1912 ,
~ouorable ~syor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Management Study
At your last meeting yau referred to me for reply the
consideration of a proposal for the appointment of u 15-
member committee for study of the procedures and functions
of the offices of City Attorney. City Auditor and City Clerk.
It mould appear that the alternatives of approach to the
concept of a management study breakdumn mould be somemabt, as
folloms:
1. A single study of the total of the City government organi-
zation. Such mould include the above three functions,
plus the City Manager's office and units responsible there-
to. and plus the courts, constitutional offices and simi-
lar units to the extent they are involved in'the total
picture.
2. A two part divided and separate study:
A. City Manager's office and units responsible thereto.
~. City Attorney, Clerk of Council, Auditor.
3. Any of a number of other divided and separate studies
· Of units, functions or combinations thereof.
I am of the opinion {hat a single study approach at the
outset, or in the first phase, as to the total governmental
organization, objectives, performance and service mould be
the desirable route. This mould enable a more elacting
analysis of interrelationships than mould separate simul-
taneous studies. From such a total approach as first phase,
there could then later be developed specific studies of seg-
ments. In effect I am going back to the concept of the out-
line submitted last
Again, when referring to the inclusion of units as Courts
of Record. Schools. etc., the intent is not a refined analysis
of their markings, performance and duties but rather their
position in the total purposes of the government, the
of personuel, papers, etc. between these units and others.
Study objective is to improve efficiency, effect best use of
funds and secure best level of service dud response to respon-
sibilities.
On the question of the professional .auditing evaluation
or study, as City Council has discussed. I mould not see how
this mould conflict:'mith a management study. To express it
another may, such auditing review, if desired by City Coun-
cil, mould be into an aspect that the management study would
not go into, at least at this level as predicted for the
coming yea.r. They could ge simultaneousl[.
As a f~rther point, our reaction of HUD and its
funding of the program would be a preference to the total'
government structure at the outset.
If I can advise further, I will be glad to dos..
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Rirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report he received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Ltsk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Ih*mas further moved that Council proceed along the lines of No. 2
in the report of the City Manager which consists of a two part coordinated study
and that the 15 member citizen committee be appointed at the meeting of Council on
Tuesday, SeptemberS, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard.
Hr. Garland offered a substitute motion that there be one total commit-
tee for the entire management study consisting Of seven members to be appointed by
the Mayor and members of Council and that said committee work in conjunction with
the consultants on the management study of the City Manager*s orrtce and offices
directly under his Jurisdiction and on the offices of the City Attorney, City
Auditor and City Clerk. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and lost by the
following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland and Trout--~ ................................. 2.
NAYS: Messrs. Dubard. Lisk, Thomas and Mayor Mebber .................4.
(Dr. Taylor absent)
The original motion as offered by Hr. Thomas was then adopted by the
following rote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, ~obard, Lisk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor Mebber--6.
NAYS: None ..........................................................
(Dr. Taylor absent)
PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYE£S: Thc City Manager submitted the following report
in connection with the 701 fund allocation program, transmitting certain recom-
mendations for the consideration of Council:
"August 21, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: TOI Program
In reriewfn9 presentations and discnssions to the City
Council on the matter of thc 701 fund allocation to the City
of Roanoke, which discussions hove largely arisen through the
Management Study aspect, I realize that we perhaps have not
summarized for the City Council the nature of this program
funding.
?01 planning assistance funds hare heretofore been appli-
cable only to communities under 50,O0g population. Somewhat
recently the federal government extended this to cities over
50.DOO and through the Planning Department contacts oppor-
tunity was taken to obtain a slgnlficant portion of these
funds to carry out certain City planning activities. HUO
has, as of this date, earmarked $70,D00 for the City. ~he
Planning Department has prepared and forwarded a draft appli-
cation package mhich consisted of a tentative workout line,
a budget summary and statements of compliance relating to
intergovernmental coordination, citizen participation.
economic opportunity and environmental impact.
The City would have to match this 9rant on a one-third--
two-thirds basis. The municipal contribution may be taken fro~
the Planning Department budget and, insofar as we know at this
point, need not represent any additional appropriation of local
funds. The draft application was submitted at the end of
February, 1972.
Specifically to followup on this opportunity, the City
would have to be willing to undertake several projects re-
quired by the federal government as a part of the first
year program. First, the City will have to prepare an
Overall program Demi9n outltnin9 in detail its long term
planning program activity schedule. The OPD is very much
like a workable program and requires a comfortable period
of time for completion, probably about six weeks. Prepar-
ation of the OPD is a legitimate first year expenditure under
this program and the Fifth Planqing District Commission has
been allocated funds by HUD to assist the City*s Planning
Department in completing it. A principal feature of the
OPD mill be a detailed goal and objective study for the com-
munity.
263
264
Second. the City will have to undertuhe u detailed *
housing study. This project mould include un analysis of the
existing housing market and u determination of the means by
mhich existing and anticipated future needs can be met.
Third, HUD has also placed a high priority on manage-
ment studies so that the local interest here on that nspeet,
plus the HUD encouragement makes this an eligible use of
' Overall, houever, HUD'emphasizes that.the City has an
?01 funds, especially once the aboverequlred projects are com-
pleted or are mell underuay. Not all of the funds mill be
utilized for specialized studies and mould probably be
desirable.
of $?0.000 ~nd authorize the Mayor. by name. to
this is being forwarded to the City Attorney.
$/ Julian F. Hlrst
study of the top of Mill Mountain, advising that he has written to Ken Milson end
Associates offering to meet with them at their convenience and is awaiting a
reply from them, and that he has been seeking some additional information from
outside sources in connection mlth the general matter of studies,
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion uaw
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
CITy MANAGER-COUnCIL: Council having previously requested that the
City Manager l~provise some type of system of keeping the members of Council
informed on the status of items which have been~ferred to the City Manager for
report, the City Manager submitted the following report transmitting a proposed
form to be used for u continuing record of Items referred by Council to the City
Manager for which handling, reply and/or simply reference are involved:
"Augsut 21, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
SubJect: Record of City Council Referrals
Attached is a form that we would propose to use for a
continuing record of items referred by the City Council to
the City Manager for which handling reply and/or simply
reference are involved..
The procedure would be that following each meeting a copy
of this form would be numbered and filled out with the sub-
ject matter of the reference. As the various handlings are
given to it the entry would be made. Accumulating copies of
these forms for particular references would be maintained in
a metal post or ring binder and this would be brought to
each Council meeting where it would be available for any
members of the City Council to check through it or to inquire
upon a particular item. It would also be kept available by
the secretaries in my office and anyone telephoning or com-
ing by could check on the status or handling of a particular
item.
If the members of Council would have any suggestions as
to either the form or the handling or availability of it, I
would be glad to adjust this procedure and additionally after
it has gone into effect if changes would appear advantageous,
they can and would be certainly initiated.
The purpose of this is to keep some better continuity
of record for my own office and also to have the informatioa
regularly accessible to the City Council.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City ~anager"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager.
fhe motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the fol-
lowing report on the status of personnel in the Police Department and the Fire
3apartment as of July 31. 1972:
'August 21, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
SubJect: Personnel Changes - Police and Fire Departments
Listed below is the status of the police and the fire
department as of July 31, 1972:
265
!266
'police Deoartment ~ ~Other
'OffiCer O. L. Simmons July 21, 1969 July 9,1972
Officer Clifton M. Mating, Jr. July 16, 1963 July IO, 1972
Officer M. F. Caudy Nov. 24, 1969 July 6, 1972
Officer J. S. Weaver, III Mir. 13, 1972 July 11o 1972
Office~ C. D. ADen July 24. 1972
Officer John M. $1usher J~ly 24, 1972
Officer'Alfred E. Traynham Au0. 16, 1960 Deceased Ju~y 30, 1972
'Ending July, 1972 (12) vacancies.'
'Ernest R. Brown July 3, 1972
Fred H. Laoe July 5. 1972
Captain R. L. Mutter retired Jul
24, 1972
Fire Dispatcher I. E. young transferred to Traffic Enginerring and
Communication July I.
'There were two vacancies in the Fire Department at the end of July,
1972.
Respectfully submitted,
5/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
GARBAGE REMOVAL-AIRPORT: The Assistant City Attorney Submitted a
written report advising that on August 15, 1972. the Roanoke County Planning Con-
mission took formal action recommending to the Roanoke County Board of
that a conditional special use permit be granted the city on its application to
the Board for approval to use a portion of the north clear zone at Roanoke Munici-
pal (Moodrum) Airport for landfill purposes, and that the matter will come before
the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors at its next meeting.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motioo was
Seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY-STREETS AND ALLEYS: The Assistant City Attorney sub-
mitted a written report transmitting an Ordimance which would authorize the accep*
tahoe of a deed from Russell L. and Bennie C. Short conveying to the city O,Tq6
square feet of land located on the westerly sideof Nestside Boulevard, N. N..
adoption of the Ordinance.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Assis-
tant City Attorney and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(a20428) AN ORDINANCE providing for the acquisition of o B,796 square
foot parcel of land on the westerly side of ~estside Boulevard, N. W., north of
Avenue, N. W** for public street purposes; and providing for an emergency
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~3~. page 116.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. 7he notion was seconded
Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, LiSk. Thomas Trout and Hayer ~ebber--6.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
(Dr. Zayoor absent)
BUDGET-CITY G0¥ERN#EN~: The City Anditor submitted a written report
advising that it will be necessary again this year to borrow money on a temporary
basis for the purpose of meeting operating costs for the city government, trans-
mitting a Resolution providing for the borrowing of.a maximum of $4.000.000.00
which is well within the limit provided by the City Charter, submitting a state-
ment coverning estimated revenue to be received and funds to be expended for the
months of August and September indicating a cash weed fn excesa of $500.000.00,
adrisin9 that it is anticipated there will be a need for future borrowing during
the months up to the end of the calendar year. that Council will be inforned from
time to time as such loans are negotiated and mill be requested to appropriate
funds necessary for repayment of the notes and interest thereon.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Auditor
and offered the folloming ReSolution:
(,2o429) A RESOLUTION authorizing the negotiation of short-term loans
for the purpose of paying current expenses or debts of the City.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book u37, page 117.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the follomin9 Vote:
AYES~ Messrs. Garland, Ilubard, Lisko Thomas, T out and Mayor Webber--6.
NAYS: None .......................................................... O.
(Dr. Taylor absent)
ZONING: Council having referred to the Cit~ Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Messrs. M. L. Foley and R. A.
Foley that property located i~ the 3500 block of Barberry Avenue, N. M., described
us Lots 3 and 4, Block 3, Revised Map of Westwood Annex. Official Tax No. 2630610,
be rezoned from R$-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RG-1, Ceneral Resi-
dential District, the City Planning Commission submitted a written ~ port recom-
mending that an amended request to include all of Lots 3 and 4. Official Tax No.
2630610 and part of Official Tax No. 2630604, be granted.
Mr. Trout moved that Council hold a public hearing on the request for
rezoniug at 7:30 p.m., Monday, September 25, lq?2, in the Council Chamber. ?he
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORYS OF 'CORRITTEES:
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JAIL-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: The regional Jail Committee submitted the following report stating that
it was generally agreed by those present at a meeting on August 10, 1972. to
endorse generally the 'Regional Corrections Program for Roanoke Valley, Virginia."
that an acceptable site for the propased regional corrections center would be in
the vicinity of Interstate Route SSi and Bershherger Road, recommending that a
Regional Corrections Board be established to prepare firm recommendations to the
five ~risdictions involved in this study as to the adoption and/or implementation
of the recommendations in maid study:
267
268
"REGIONAL JAIL COMMITTEE (City of Roanoke)
Council Executive Chambers Augsut 10, 1972
4:00 PM - 5:30 PM
Present: Nm, S, Bubard, Chairman
Paul J. Puckett
Beverly To Fitzpatrick
John N. #llson, Jr.
Mm. F. Clark (on behalf of Julian F. Hirst)
Also Present: Ernest M. Ballon
David K. Lisk
A general discussion mas had as to the final *Regional
Corrections Prooramfor Roanoke Valley, Virginia'. It was
generally agreed by those present at this meeting:
(1)To endorse oenerallv this proposed corrections pro-
gram.
(2) Zhat an acceptable site for the proposed regional
corrections center would be the vicinity of 1-581
and Hershberger Road.
(3)'That a Regional Corrections Board be established to
prepare firm recommendations to the five jurisdic-
tions involved in this study as to the adoption and/
or implementation of the recommendations in this
study.
(it was questioned as to Mhether the proposed composition
(P-40) of the Regional Corrections Board mas the fairest
since the largest jurisdiction, mith about 30 times the
population o£ the smallest, mould have onlytwice the
representation as the smallest jurisdiction.)"
Mr. Rubard moved that the report be referred to the City Manager for'
comments and recommendations. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unani-
mously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY: The Real Estate Committee submitted the following
report recommending that the offer of Mr. John R. Stacey to purchase city-omned
property located adjacent to the rear of his property at i16 Ridgecrest Drive,
for the sum of $500.00, be accepted:
~August 17, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Sale of City-Ouned Property
At the last meeting of the Real Estate Committee held
July lB, 1972, the Committee agreed to recommend to the
City Council the sale of a surplus city-owned lot to John R.
Stacy, the said lot being adjacent to the rear of his property
located at 116 Ridgecrest Drive (Roanoke County) for the sum
of $500.
The price of $500 was determined bI the City Real Estate
Assessor*s Office. This surplus parcel was obtained as a part
of the Summerdean Mater Company. Because of its location, it
was not added to the list of *sell' properties to be auctioned,
bnt instead John Ro Garrett, the City's Real Estate Agent was
instructed by the Real Estate Committee to negotiate for its
sale with the adjacent property owner. Mr. Stacy has made a
firm offer of $500 mhich, as stated above, the Committee has
This is submitted with a copy to the City Attorney for the
preparation of the necessary papers inviting the City Council's
approval.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ David K, Lisk, Chairman S/ A. No Gibson
S/ Julian F. Hirst S/ J. N. Kincanon"
-!
Hr, Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Real
Estate Committee and that the follo~lng Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(z20430) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the City's sale
and conveyance of a parcel of land containing S4S0 square feet, more or less. Situ-
ate to the rear of property known as 1116 Ridgecrest Drive in Roanoke County.
Virginia, and being known as Lot IIi, fllock 6, as shown on sap No. 3, Suemerdeaa
Subdivision, upon certain terms and conditions.
RHEREAS, John R. Stacy, owner of an adjoining lot to the northeast, has
offered in writing to the City. through the City*s Real Estate Committee, under
date of June 16, 1972, to purchase and acquire from the City the City's parcel of
land, containing S4SO. squure feet, more or less, situate to the rear of property
known as 1116 Ridgecrest Drive in Roanoke County, Virginia. and known as Lot
Block 0, as shown on Map No. 3, Summerdean Subdivision. for the sum of $S00.00.
cash; and
RBEREAS, the Council's Real Estate Committee has recommended to the
Council that the sale of said parcel be approved and ordered on the terms of said
offer and as herein provided, in which recommendation the Council concurs.
THEREFORE. DE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
the written offer of John R. Stacy to purchase and acquire from the City that par-
cel of land containing 5450 square feet, more Or less, situate to the rear of 1115
Ridgecrest Drive, in Roanoke County. Virginia, knowo as Lot IIi, Hlock 8, as shown
on Rap No. 3, Summerdean Subdivision, and being the some property described in
(Dr. Taylor absent)
269
:,270
charge for certain enplaning passengers utilizing premises or facilities ut
Roanoke Yunlclpal (Moodrum) Airport con be implemented by September 1, 1972, and
to study the question of mhether or not the enplaning tax Ordinance should apply
to all users of the airport instead of Just commercial aircraft, the Airport
Advisory Commission submitted a written report advising that at a called meeting
of the Commission on August 21, 1972, it uss unanimously agreed to recommend to
Council that the existing boarding tax Ordinance be delayed in effective date until
November 1, 1972, at mhich time said Ordinance viii be broadened to include all
boarding passengers.
Mr. Trout moved that Council c0ncuF in the recommendation of the Airport
Advisory Commission and that the matter he referred to the City Attorney for pre-
paration of the proper measure providing for an effective date of November 1,
1972, for implementation of said boarding tax. The motion was seconded by Rr.
Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout further moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare
the proper measure~ to be transmitted to all Virginia Congressmen, encouraging
them not to pass a moratorium on the boarding fee but to support the Senate
version of the airport bill. The notion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unani-
mously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY: Council having deferred action on a recommendation
of the Real Estate Committee that the offer of Br. John R. Newbill to purchase
city-owned property located on Maymood Avenue, S. M., designated as Parcel No. 1,
Official Tax No. 1070008. for the sum of $1,000.00, be accepted, the matter was
again before the body.
In this connection, Mr. Lisk, Chairman of the Real Estate Committee
moved that the matter be removed from the agenda until certain details can be
resolved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rubard and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INYRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
TRAFFIC: Council having directed the CiaI Attorney to prepare the
proper measure recommending and urgin9 the initiation by the Department of Hi9h-
ways of a project to upgrade the traffic control system in the downtown sectioo
of the City of Roanoke; setting out the need therefor; and committing the city to
pay its proportionate part of same, he presented same.
After a discussion as to the proper wording of the Resolution, Mr. Lisk
moved that the Resolution be referred back to the City Attorney for the purpose of
clearly stating in said Resolution that this is a committment for a study and base(
upon the study, the City of Roanoke may make future committments. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
5EMERS AND UTORR DRAINS: Mr. Thomas painted out that there is a vacancy
on the Sewer Committee created by the resignation of Mr. Vincent S. Mheeler, formr
member of Roanoke City Council, and requested that Mayor webber fill said vacancy.
-!
Mayor Yebber then apb*luted Mr. William S, Hubard as 8 member of the
Semer Committee to fill the position vacated by Mr. Vincent S. Wheeler.
INTEGBATION~SEGREGATION-HOUSING-SLUM CLEARNANCE: Mr. Trout preaented
the following communication in connection mith the continnieg decline in the
exterior appearances of various businesses located on First Street, N. M** express-
ing the opinion that it is time for the city to come forth mith some suggestions
in order to stop the reduction of property values on First Street, and recommend-
ing that Council instruct the Community Relations Committee to study the deteriora-
tion problem, compile a report and give recommendations to Council~
~August l?, 1972
Honorable Mayer and Members of City Council:
For same time 1 have been observing the contlnuin9
decline in the exterior appearances of various businesses
located on First Street,
This condition is of great concern to the citizens in
the area and should be a condition that mould be of great
interest to all citizens of our City. After all. most pro-
perty omners in our city are experiencing increasing pro-
perty tax. Therefore. I feel that Jt is most important for
the City to come forth mith some Suggestions in order to stop
the reduction of property values on First Street.
This area is adjacent to our domntown business section
and, therefore, it should be a reflection of the attitude
and concern, not only of the people in the area bat also.
the concern of the entire business community. It greatly
disturbs me that me have not been able to correct this pro-
blem. Therefore, it is my recommendation that City Council
instruct the Community Relations Committee to study the
deterioration problem, compile a report and give recommen-
datioes to City Council.
James O. Trout*
Mr. Trout then moved that the matter be referred to the Community
Relations Committee for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted
TAXES: Council having adopted Ordinance No. 20345, levying an admis-
sions tax on persons paying an admission charge or ~ho are admitted free mhen an
admission charge is paid by others to places of amusement or entertainment, fixing
the amount of said tax and providing for the collection thereof, Mr. Lisk offered
the foil*win9 emergency Ordinance eliminating the applicability of the admissions
tax as to season tickets purchased prior to September 1, 1972:
(~20431) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Sec. I (a) and Sec. 12.
of Chapter 5.1. Admissions Tax, of Title VI. Taxation, of the Code of the City of
Roanoke. 1956, as amended, eliminating the applicability of the admissions tax as
to season tickets purchased prior to the effective date of this ordinance; provid-
ing for un emergency; and providing for the effective date of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book g37. page 119.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Rt. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Lisk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor Webber--h.
NAYS: None
(Dr. Taylor absent)
27~.
272
SCHOOLS: The City Clerk reported that Dr. #endellH. Butler has quali-
fied as a member of the Roanoke City School Board for n term of three years end-
ing June 30, 1975. ·
Rr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor #ebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
COL~CIL, REOULAB MEETING.
Monday. August 28. 1972.
The Council of tke City of Roanoke met lo regular seating in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building. Monday, September 28, 1972, at 7:30 p.m..
with Mayor Roy L. Mebbei presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David N. Lisk, Noel C, Taylor.
Hampton ~. Thomas. James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Mebber ....................
ABSENT: Councilman Mllliam S. Hubard ...............................1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst. City Manager;
Clark. Assistant City Manager; Mr. H, Ben Jones, Jr** Assistant City Attorney;
and Mr. A. N, Gibson. City Auditor.
1N¥OCATION: The meeting was opened with n prayer by the Reverend
Douglas Heidt. Associate Pastor. First Presbyterian Church.
R1NUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Wonday.
August ?. 19;2. having been furnished each member of Council. on motion of Mr.
?homes. seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minutes approved ns recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
ZONING: Council havin§ set a public hearing for ?:30 p.m.. Monday,
August 2B. 1972, on the request of Mr. W. H. Jolly, that property located on
¥iewmont Circle. N. M.. adjacent to the Boauoke Country Club, described as the
westerly portion of Lot 2 end nil of Lot 3. Rap of Country Club Addition,
Official Tax Nos. 2660602 end 2660~03, be rezoned from RS-3, Single-Family
Residentialthe body. District, to RG-I. General Residential District. the matter was before
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follow-
ing report recommending that the request be granted:
"July 19. 19~2
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, ¥irginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Plan-
ning Commission its regular meeting of July i9, I972.
Mr. Jolly, Attorney, appeared before the Planning Com-
mission representing himself and two other individuals, Mr.
Sherill and Mr. Goldsmith. He stated that the parcels in
question would be developed to provide for 10 touo house-
type apart=cut units, and that access would he off of View-
moot Street. AIso, be stated that Roauoke Country Club bas
a contract to sell this property subject to it being rezonedo
Additiooallyo Mr. Jolly noted that there would not be any
federal fuudiog for this project and that these apartments
would rent for approximately $350.0D per month per apartmeut.
He noted this development would only be uttractiYe to people
who wish to utilize the Country Club and that many people
have shown au interest in renting these town houses.
273
27_4'
Hr. Kinsey, Hr, Jollyts architect, presented to the Plan-
ning Commission members both the plot and floor plans for the
.proposed derelopmento including elevations of the proposed
town houses. He stated that each apartment mould have 1800
square feet and would be English Tudor Styled with parking
facilities provided for 20 automobiles. Hr. Kinsey also
noted that each apartment would have an enclosed patio with
complete privacy and n garden urea for entrance to the apartment,
Hr. Jolly stated that he had discussed this development
with the adjoining property owners, Br. Hill, #r. Vines sad
Br. Kountcastle, and that after shaming thew the proposed
plot plan, they had voiced no opposition to it.
Mr. Fitzpatrick, a Board member for the Roanoke Coontry
Club, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that
the Roanoke Country Club bas contracted to sell this property
because they have no need for this property and had not
previously sold it because they wanted to be sure that its
fotura use would be compatible with the Surrounding uses. Also.
he noted that the Roanoke Country Club felt that it would be
in the best interest of all concerned with this property that
,t b ...... ed aod developed ,or towo n
Roanoke Country Club is in accord with he g P *
After u general discussion by the Planning Commission
members, they agreed that this development represented a
viable and compatible use and would blend in with the sir-
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unani-
mously approved recommending to City Couacil to grant this
Sincerely,
S! Creed K. Lemon, Jr.. by LR
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Mr. A. L. Andrews, 3302 Olivet Street, N. N.. appeared before Council
in opposition to the request for rezoning, pointing out that the rezoning will
more than double the traffic on the street and that if this rezoning is approved,
it sill only open the door for more rezonings of this nature.
Mr. N. H. Jolly appeared before Council in support of this request and
advised that he has plans to construct an apartment complex if the property is
Mr. Roy C. Kinsey appeared before Couacil and presented sketches of the
proposed apartments which are proposed to be completed by early spring.
Mr. Earl A. Fitzpatrick, Member of the Board of Directors of the
Roanoke Country Club, appeared before Council in support of the request of Mr.
Jolly, advising that he is of the opinion that the construction of these apart=
mints will be an asset to the community rather than u liability and requested
that Council rezone the property as requested by Mr. Jolly.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that Council concur
in the recommendation of the City Planning Commission and that the folloming
Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(~20432) 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. 266, Sectional
1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
MNEREAS. application has been made to the Council of the City of
Roanoke to have westerly portion of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3. according to the Map
of County Club Addition, Official Tax No. 2660602 end 2660603, situate at the
northerly terminus of Yfemuoot Street, resumed from RS-3, Single-Pumlly Reafdeo-
riel District. to RG-I, Genernl Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from RS-3. Single-Family Residential District.
to RG-I, General Residential District; and
NflEREAS, 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
WHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held un the
20th day of August, 1972, at 7:30 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke.
at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were Riven an opportunity
to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
WHEREAS. this Council, after considering the evidence as herein pro-
vided, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
YHEREFORE, BE XT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section R, of The Code of the City of Roanoke. lgSG, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 265 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map.
City of Roanoke, be amended in tbe following particular and no ~her, viz:
Property located on northerly terminus of Vieumont Street described as
the westerly portion of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3, according to the Rap of Country
Club Addition, as Official Tax No (s) 2660602 and 2660603, be, and is hereby,
changed from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RC-1, Ceneral Residen-
tial District, and that Sheet No. 266 of the aforesaid map be changed in this
respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lish and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor Webber--b.
NAYS: None ........................................................ O.
(Mr. Hubard absent)
ZONING: Council havinR set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m., Monday,
August 2R, lg72, in the Council Chamber, on the request of Mr. Bentley J, King,
et ux.. that property located in the 20th block of Wallace Avenue, N. ED, between
20th Street and Osborne Avenue, No E., described us Lots R - 14, inclusive,
Block 13. Jackson Park. Official Tax Nos. 3330307 - 3330312, inclusive, 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 ~llowinR
report recommending that a RC-I rezoning be approved in lieu of the original
RG-2 rezonJng request:
275
:276
"July 20, 1972
The Honornbie Re, L, Webber,
and ¥cmbers of Cit~ Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Plnnning
Commission at both its regular meetings or Ray 17. 1972 and
July 19, 1972.
At the May 17, 1972 meeting of the Planning Commis-
sion, NFo Leon R. Hytchen, attorney for the petitioners, appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that his clients
are requesting this rezoning in order to construct 24 apart-
meet units on the site. fie noted that there will he ample
space for parking and recreation. Also. Hr. Hytchen noted the
high value or the land dictates this RC-2 rezoning.
Mr. Do~ntono Planning Commission member, raised the ques-
tion of whether he had studied how many units he could con-
struct with a RG-I designation. The Planning Director noted
that he could construct 18 units with a RG-1 reznning and 32
mith a RG-2 designation.
Hr. Kytchen stated that another factor in this petition
is that there is an alley in the back that can be opened.
He noted that this alley is unopened at the present tine and
feels that there is plenty of area there for 24 units. Fin-
ally, he noted that he could get a petition up in that block
and have it rezoned in its entirety.
The Planning Director presented four letters to the
Planning Commission members from local residents who were
opposed to this rezoning. He noted that in terms as the
character of the area. he felt that it should be kept that
way. He also stated that It certainly is not the best use
for the land.
Mr. Coleman, Planning Commission member, felt that this
request should be tabled in order for the petitio~r to have a
chance to come back and ask for a R6-i reaoning.
A motion was made. duly seconded and unanimously approved
to table this request in order to allow the petitioner to come
back and ask for a HC-I reznning.
At the July 19. 1972 meeting of th~ Planning Commission,
Mr. Eytcben, Attorney for the petitioners, again appeared
before the Planning Commission and stated that the petitioners
are now reqnesting a RG-I remoning for the subject propert~
permitting then to construct a~proximotely i8 housing units
as opposed to 32 housing units under the RG-2 designation.
Accordingly. motion was made. duly seconded'and unanimous-
ly approved recommending to City Council to approve the RG-1
rezoning request in lieu of the original RG-2 petition.
Sincerely.
$/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr., by LM
Creed K. Lemon. Jr,
Chairman"
~r. Leon H. ~ytchen, Attorney, representing thepetitiooers, appeared
before Council in support of the request ~f his clients.
~o one appearing in op~osJtion to the request for renonin9 Mr. Trout
hayed that the following Ordinance be placed upon its f~rst reading;
(=20433) A~ ORHINA~C£ to amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 19~bo as amended, and Sheet No. 333, Sectional
1966 Zone Map. Cit! of Roanoke, in relation to ~oning.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of
Roanoke to have that property located in the 20th block of Wallace Avenue, H.
between 20th Street and Osborne Avenue, ~. £.. described as Lots 9'- 14. inclusive
I
I
J
flloch 13, Jackson Purh, Official Tax Nos. 3330307 - 3330313, inclusive, reaoned
from RD. Duplex Residential District, to RG-2, General Residential District; and
#HEREAS, The City planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District, to RG-I.
General Residential District; and
MHEREAS. the mritten notice and the posted sign required to be published
end posted, respectively, by Section 71, Chapter 4.1o Title XV, of The Code of the
City of Roanoke, 1936, as amended, relating to Zoning, have been published and
posted us required and for the time provided by said section; and
MH£REAS. the hearing as provided for in said notice mas held on the
2nth day of August. 1972, at 7:30 p.m., before the Council of the City of Roanoke,
at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens mere given 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 laud should be rezoned.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
Title XY, Chapter 4.1, Section R, of the Code of the City of Roanoke. 1936o us
amended, relating to zoning, and Sheet No. 333 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Rap,
City of Roanoke. be amended in the following particular and no other, rix.:
Property located in the 20th block of Nallace Avenue. N. E.. between
20th Street and Osborne Avenue. N. E., described as Lots 9 - 14. inclusive.
Block 13. Jackson Park, Official Tax Nos. 333030? - 3330312, inclusive, designated
on Sheet 333 of the Sectional 1965 Zone Map, City Of Roanoke, be, and is hereby,
changed from RD, Duplex Residential District. to RG-1, General Residential District,
aud that Sheet No. 333 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Mayor Webber--6
NAYS: None .........................................................
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m.. Ronday,
August 20, 1972, in the Council Chamber on the request of S. E. Nolding Corpora-
tion that properties situate on Janison Avenue, betmeen 12th Street and 13th
Street, S. E., described as Lots 14 - 23, inclusive. Map of Oak Ridge Land Com-
pany, be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District. to C-2. General Commercial
District, the matter ~as before the body
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follow-
ing report recommending that the request be granted:
"July 19, 1972
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 July 19, lg?2.
277
278
Mr, Lutinso attorney for the petitioner, appeared before
the Planning Commission and presented a plat delineating the
subject property and the petitioner's general intent, He
stated the property uould be used rot a variety of business
establishments, but no decision has been made yet by the .
petitioner concerning the exact nature of the businesses,
After discussion by the Planning Commission members, it
mas generally agreed that this request be approved 'since
much of this area is presently'zoned and occupied by commer-
cial establishments,
Accordingly, motion was m~de, duly seconded and unani-
mously approved reconnending to City Council to grant this
request,
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr., by LH
Creed K, Lemon, Jr,
Chairman"
Mr. Harvey S. Lutins, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared
before Council in support of the request of his client.
No one appearing in opposition to the request for rezonin9, Mr. Trout
moved that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(#20434) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet N~. 232, 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 property'located between 12th Street and 13th Street, S. E.. on
Jamison
Avenue, described as Lots 14-23, inclusive, Map of Oak Ridge Land Company, Offi-
cial Tax Numbers 4120514, 4120515, ~4120516. 4120517, 4120516, 4120519 and 4120520.
rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to C=2, Ceneral Commercial District;
and
RHEREAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended ~hat the hereinafte~
described land be reaoned from RD, Duplex ~esidential District, to C-2 General
Commercial District; and
WHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign ~equired 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
,gated 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
lay of August, 1972, at 7:30 p.m,, before the Council of the City of Roanoke, at
which hearing ali parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to
be heard, both for and against the proposed rezonin9; and
WHEREAS. this Council, after considering the evidence as herein pro-
vided, is of the opinion that the hereinafter dexcribed 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 th~ City of Roanoke, 1956, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 232 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City
of Roanoke, be amended in the folloming particular and no other, viz=
Property located on Jamlson Avenue, betmeen 12th Street end 13th Street,
S. E.. described as Lots 14 - 23, inclusive, Rap of Oak Ridge Land Company. ns
Official Tax Numbers 4120514,'4120515. 4120516, 4120517. 4120516. 4120519 and
4120520, be. and is hereby, changed from RD. Duplex Residential DistriCt to C-2.
General Commercial District. and that Sheet No. 232 or the aforesaid map be
changed in this respect.
The motion mas seconded by Rr. Thomas and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout and Mayor #~bber--6.
NAYS: None 0
ROANOKE VALLEy: Mr. Vincent S. hheeler, former member of Roanoke City
Council. oppeared before the body and requested that Council ask the Fifth Plan-
ning District Commission to have the United States Army Corps of Engineers bring
the citizens of the Roanoke Valley up to date on future plans for flood control
and that representatives of the Roanoke Valley ask Congress for necessary funds
to implement these flood control plans.
Mr. Trout norad that the request be referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk
and unanimously adopted.
In thisconnectioo. Mr. Lisk requested that the City Manager also bring
the members of Council up to d ate on the matter of the flood insurance program.
SIDEMALE, CURD AND GUTTER: Mr. Richard L, Meagher, Chairman of the
Architectural Barriers Section Of the Mayor*s Committee for the Employment of the
Physically Handicapped, appeared before Council concerning the possibility of
placing sidewalk ramps at the intersection.of Campbell Avenue and Jefferson Street
as a test project in order that Roanoke may make a start on a continuous project
of this nature as has. been done in numerous cities throughout the United States.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by
Br. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
PETITIOHS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
DUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Doard.
requesting that $32,O55.14 be ap, propriated to Section #B§OO0, *Schools - Vocational
Education for the Handicapped** of the 1972-73 budget of the Roanoke City School
Board. to provide funds, for a program which will provide training for handicapped
persons in maintenance and repair services, office services and home economics,
advising that 100~ of actual expenditures for this project will be reimbursed by
the State Department of Education, was before Council.
Or. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke
City School Hoard and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#20435) AN OEDINANCE to umend nad reordnin Section nSSO00, "Schools -
¥ocntioaal Education for the Handicapped,' of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordiuunc~.
und providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordiuooce Oook u3?, page 121.)
Dr. Tailor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted bi the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garlandt Lisk, Tailor, Thomas. Trout and Haler Mebber--6.
NAYS: None ........................................................... O.
S~REET LIGIITS: Mrs. Ruth L. Anderuon, 1719 Staunton Avenue, N.
appeared before Council and presented a petition signed by 11 residents of
Staunton Avenue, N. M.. requesting the installation of better and brighter street
lights in the 1700 block of Staunton Avenue, N. M.
Mr. Lisk moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for con-
sideration and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-CITY TREASURER: Copy of a communica-
tion from the State Compensation Board, addressed to Mr. J. B. Johnson, City
Treasurer, in connection with his request to promote three employees in his
office, advising that the budget request of Mr. Johnson shows the classification
of these employees as deputy and the promotions would seem to be ~om deputy to
deputy which would not be considered a promotion by the Pay Board, therefore, the
Board is of the opinion that the promotions requested bI Mr. Johnson do not
appear to be bona fide promotions, based upon the information furnished, was baler
Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
S~REETS AND ALLEYS: A petition from Mr. G. Richard Cranwell. Attorney,
irepresenting R* E. Cundiff Company, Incorporated. requesting that a portion of a
I15 foot alley lying between Lots 1, 2 and 3, and Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block
Map of Kenwood Subdivision, be vacated, discontinued and closed, was before Coun-
cil.
Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution appointing'viewers in con-
nection with vacating, discontinueing and closing said alley:
(g20436) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointment of three viewers
in connection with the application of W. E. Cundiff Co., Inc., to permanently
vacate, discontinue and close that portion of a 15 ft. alley lying between Lots 1,
2, and 3 and 120 13 and 14, Block R0 according to Map of Kenwood Subdivision, in
the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book #3?. page
Mr. Thomas moved the' adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconde
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the fo.llowin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor Webber--6.
NAYS: None O.
(Mr. Hubard absent)
'1
Mr. Garland then moved that the petition be referred to the City Plan-
ning Commission for study, r~port and recommendation to Council, The notion mas
seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-PLANNING DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written
report recommending ~hat $1.000.00 be appropriated to Advertising under Section
a63, 'Planning Commission," of the 1972-73 budget, to provide funds for the City
Planning Commission to publicly advertise all hearings on rezoning matters.
Mr. Trout moved that C~uncil COnCUr in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the follomi~g emergency Ordinance:
(~20437) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section n83, "Planning
Commission," of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emer-
gency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~37, page 123.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Link, Yaylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor Mebber--6.
NAYS: None ........................................................ O.
(Mr, Uub~rd absent)
SEMERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following
report in connection with the acquisition of property within the block bordered
by Bennington Avenue, Underhill Avenue, Kindred Street and Brownlee Avenue. S.
required for the expansion of the Mater Pollution Control Plant, advising that
the city's negotiator has reached the point where he Js unable to secure purchase
options from certain property owners in this area for sums of money at least
comparable to the value established by independent real estate appraisal, and
requesting that Council authorize bin to make firm offers to these people and,
if, after a reasonable period of time. he is still unable to reach satisfactory
agreements, that the City Attorney*sOffice be authorized to institute appro-
priate legal action for the purchase of this needed land:
"August 24. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Acquisition of Property -
Mater Pollution Control Plant Expansion
As has previously been reported to Council, the City has
been negotiatin9 for the acquisition of certain properties
within the block bordered by Bennington Street, Underhill
Avenue, Kindred Street and Brownlee Avenue, required for the
expansion of the City's Nater Pollution Control Plant. Sev=
eral properties in this area have already been purchased by
the City.
The City*s negotiator has seemingly reached the point
where he is unable to secure purchase 6ptions from certain
property owuers iff this area. In all cases, Me have attempted
to reach agreement mith property omaers for sums at least
comparable to the value established by independent real
estate appraisal. Nevertheless, in several instances
281
282
property omeers have requested the City paysums considered to
be too far in excess of our appraised values. It is requested
that the City, Council authorize the City Manager'to make firm
offers for the following described parcels of land and if
after a reasonable period of. time me arestill'unsble to .
reach satisfactory agreement with the property ovners, the
City Attorney*s office he authorized to institute appro-
priate legal action for purchase.
A. Lots 1, 2, 3, 17, lB, 19, 20, 21 and 22, Bloch 4, Hap
of Kastover Place, Official Tax Nos. 4330601--3 and
4330617--22, Clyde M. Welch, Sr., and Annie May Welch--
appraised value $26,750.
B. Lots 6, 7, B, 9, 11, 23, 24, 25, 26 and 27, nloch 4,
Map of Eastover Place, Appraisal Nos. 4330606--9,
4330611, 4330623--27, Hugh L. Cearheart and Elizabeth
S. Gearheart--appraised value $26,900.
C.Lot 4, alock 4, Map of Restorer Place, Appraisal No.
4330604. Betty V. Stanley--appraised value $6.300.
D. Lot 5, Block 4, Map of Eastover Place, Appraisal No.
4330605. Dolly Coffey--appraised value Sb.lO0.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Ilirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager and
offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(a20436) AN ORDINANCE providing for the City's acquisition of certain
properties wanted and needed for the purpose of the enlargement of facilities at
the City's Sewage Treatment Plant, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~37, page 123.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
~by Mr. Yhomas and adopted by the following Vote:
AYES: Messrso Carland, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor Webber--6.
NAYS: None ....................................................... O.
(Mr. Hubard absent)
5'IREETS AND ALLEYS-STATE HIGHWAYS: The City Manager submitted the fol-
lowing report advising that as a part of the Southwest Expressway construction
now underway between Elm Avenue and Franklin Road, S. M., Maple Avenue will be
terminated by means of a cul-de-sac just north of Franklin Road. that when this
occurs, traffic northbound on Franklin Road will no longer be able to continue on
Maple Avenue to Jefferson Street. that this situation is necessitated by the Express-
way overpass of Franklin Road and the physical difficulties of continuing this
*y" intersection, that in order to provide for the necessary north-south move-
ments through this part of the city. it will be necessary to convert Moods
Avenue and Walnut Avenue between Maple Avenue and Franklin Road into a pair of
one-way streets andpointlng out that past policy suggests that Council may wish
to give formal approval to the permanent creation of this pair of one-way streets:
"August 28, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Necessary Street Changes Occasioned by
Southwest Expressway Construction
AS a part of the Southwest Expressway construction now
underway between Elm Avenue and Franklin Road, S. W., Maple
Avenue alii be terminated by means of a cul-de-sac Just north
of FrunRlin Road. Nhen this occurs, traffic northbound on
Franklin Road will mo longer be able to continue on Maple
Avenue to Jefferson Street. This situation is necessitated by
the Expressway overpass of Franklin Road and the physical
difficulties of continuing this '¥' intersection.
The time is rapidly approaching when this termination of
Raple Avenue will occur and vehicular use on that street
will be limited to only local traffic. This situation is
expected to come about within the next thirty to sixty days.
This change has been anticipated for some number of years and
is included within the approved regional arterial highway plan.
In order to provide for the necessary north-south movements
through this part of the City. it will be necessary to convert
Woods Avenue and Walnut Avenue between Maple Avenue and
Franklin Road Jato a pair of one-way streets, Traffic will
flow eastbound on Moods Avenue and westbound on Walnut Avenue.
This situation has alas been anticipated and included in the
regional thoroughfare plan.
Past policy suggests that City Council may wish to give
formal approval to the permanent creation of this pair of one-
way streets. It is requested that the matter be considered
at this time in order to provide adequate advanced scheduling
of appropriate traffic signs and pavement markings. If City
Council would have questions as to the details of this proposal.
we would be pleased to discuss it at your upcoming meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. HiFst
City Manager'
Ur. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney to
check into the legal aspects of the matter and to prepare the appropriate
measure if necessary. The motion WaS seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopt-
INDUSTRIES-APPALACHIAN POMER COMPANY: The City Manager submitted a
written report advising that the city has previously submitted to the State
Highway Commission a request for aa industrial access project to serve the new
Appalachian Power Company facilities under construction in the Roanoke Indus-
trial Center off Ninth Street, S. E., pointing out that he has recently been
advised that the Highway Commission has denied this request for an industrial
access project since the hem Appalachian facility is basically an office building
and service center whereas state industrial access funds are intended to serve
manufacturing, processing or research and development facilities, that he will
have further negotiations with Appalachian Power CompanF and Roanoke Industrial
Center on this subject and as additional information is developed, he will advise
Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE-HEALTtl DEPARTMENT: The City Manager
submitted a written report submitting the proposed State and Local Hospitaliza-
tion Plan agreements for provision for hospitalization and outpatient treatment
for indigent or medically indigent persons for the period from July 1, 1972,
to June 30. 1973, and recommending authorization to enter into these agreements.
'283
28zl
Mr, Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance..
(z20439) AN ORDINANCE authorizing c~rtain contracts to be entered
into with certain hospitals to provide hospitalization and treatment of indigent
or medically indigent patients; fixing .the rates to be paid each such hospital
for such services during Fiscal Year 1972-73; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Uooh u37, page 125.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
I AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor Mebber--6;
NAYS: None .......................................................... O.
I(Mr. Hubard obsent)
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE-LEGISLATION: Ihe City Manager submitted the
Ifolloming report advising that on September 8,' the Urban Section o f the Virginia
tMunictpal League will finalize its legislative recommendations for the 1973
session of the General Assembly and that an invitation has been extended to munici-
palities in the state for any additional matters they feel should be considered in
the recommendations by the Urban Section:
"August 28, 19T2
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Urban Section - Virginia Municipal League
Me are advised that the Urban Section of the Virginia
Municipal League Hill on September O finalize its legislative
recommendations for the lg?$ session of the General Assembly.
Those proposals that are approved by the Urban Section will
then 9o to the League's legislative committee.
The League has previously solicited suggestions of
legislative items that, it is understood, has accumulated
some number which are under consideration by the League.
The request to the municipalities in the State is nam
that if there are additional matters which the governing
bodies or other persons of'local government feel should be
considered in the recommendations, there is an invitation
to submit these to the Leagueat this time so they can be
considered by the Urban Section. Additionally, should there
be specific items on mhich local 9overnments or others would
wish to prepare position papers or particular statements for
consideration, these additionally should be forwarded.
Any member of the City Council or other representatives
are invited to attend the Urban Section meeting in Richmond
on the morning Of September O.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that the City Attorney be directed to report on legis~
lative proposals for the 1973 session of the General Assembly in order for said
proposals to be presented to the Urban Section of the Virginia Municipal League
by'the next regular meeting of Council on Tuesday, September 5, 1972. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
i
AIRPORT-TAXES-LEGISLATION: Council having directed the City Attorney
to prepare the proper measure delaying the effective date of* the imposition of
the airplane boarders use and service charge until November 1o 1972, the Assistant
City Attorney submitted a uritten report transmitting said meusure, advising that
Council further directed that the Ordinance be amended so as to broaden the
application of the charge to co~er all persons boarding aircraft at Roanoke
Mu~cipal (Roodrum) Airport. and pay a fare therefor, that certain questions con-
cerning this matter have arisen and have not as yet been resolved, therefore, an
Ordinance accomplishing such broadened application will be submitted to Council I
at a later date and that Council further requested preparation of a form of
Resolution which would endorse the United States Senate's version, rather than
that pending in the House of Representatives, of legislation dealing with the
airport boarders tax, advising that due to lack of specific information concern- I
in9 these bills, he has been unable to prepare such a Resolution for the August
28 agenda and that it is anticipated that this information will be obtained shortly~
and that the Resolution will be available for the agenda of September 5, 1972.
Mr. Lish moved that Council concur in the report of the Assistant City
Attorney and offered the following emergency Ordinance delaying the effective date
of Ordinance No, 20343:
(#20440) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Sec. 1. of Chapter 5.1,
~irolane Roarder*s use and service charge, of Title VIII, of the Code of the City
of Roanoke. 1956, as amended, by delaying the effective date of the imposition
of such use and service charge; providing for an emergency; and providing for
the effective date of Ordinance No. 20343.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Rook n37. page 126.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, ThomaS. Trout and Mayor ~ebber--6.
NAYS: None ...........................................................O.
(Mr. Hubard absent)
In this connection, a communication from Mr. Charles O. Tote, Jr.,
President. Tate*s "Greenbrier Airport, Incorporated," transmitting certain com-
ments in connection with the enplaning tax at Roanoke Municipal (Noodrum) Airport.
advising that he does not believe the City of Roanoke will benefit enough finan-
clally, nor the airport, to mahe up for the bad name it will give Roanoke and
urging that Council think long and hard on the burdens and complexities this
action will cause, was before the body.
Mr. Lisk moved that the communication be referred to the Airport
Advisory Commission for its information in connection with its study of the
matter. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: The Assistant City Attorney sub-
mitred the following report in connection with Ordinance No. 20427. which had
the effect of reducing the General Relief funds available for the Melfare Department
285
'286
by the sum of $143oT63.00, advising thmt Council reconsidered the matter end
exhibited the desire to ~escind its prior a~tio~.'thut councfl may act only by
Ordinance or Resolution. except in matters of ps'filamentary procedure, therefore,
ihe has prepared an ordinance which mill repeal Ordinance No. 2042?. and will
restore the sum of $143o763.00 to Section #37. "Publ'ic Assistunce,~ of the 1972-
73 Appropriation Ordinance:
Mro Lish expressed the opinion that he would lihe to see the city
operate mith the $144o???.00 which is presently appropriated to the General Relief
account, and, if necessary, at a later date, appropriate more money to this
account if the State Department of Melfare and Institutions does not meet its
obligation for funding.
After a discussion mith reference to urging the State Department of
Welfare and Institutions to come forth with its share of monies needed in the
General Relief category, Mr. Oarlaud moved that the Ordifnaace as presented by
the Assistant City Attorney repealing Ordinance No. 20427 be tabled. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Garland further moved that the Welfare Department be authorized
to spend monies on the basis of six months rather than twelve months and that the
matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.
EASEMENTS-WATER DEPARTMENT: The Assistant City Attorney submitted a
written report recommending the adoption of au Ordinance which would authorize
the acceptance of a deed of easement from East Coast Development Corporation,
said deed to convey to the City of Roanoke, for the nomination consideration of
$10.00. cash, a fifteen foot wideeasement across Peters Creek Road and Route 11
in Roanoke County to be utilized in order to provide mater service to development
at this location.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Assis-
tant City Attorney and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20441) AN ORDINANCE providing for the acquisition of a fifteen-
foot wide easemen~ over land situate at the intersection of Peters Creek Road
and Route il in Roanoke County. for the purpose of providing water service; and
providin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #37, page .127.)
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. Trout and Mayor Webber--6.
NAYS: None 0
(Mr. Bubard absent)
SCHOOLS-AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a written report forwarding
a report on un examination of the Jefferson Senior Hi9h School Activities Fund
for the year ended June 30, 1972, made by the firm of Andrews, Burket and Com-
pany, Certified Public Accountants, under the direction of his office, advising
that the report states that it represents fairly the financial condition of the
fund at the end of the audit period.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. Th~ motion mas
seconded by Hr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS-AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a written report forwarding
a report on aa examination of the Patrick Henry High School Activities Fund for
the year ended June 30, 1972. made by the firm of Andrews. Hurket and Company.
Certified Public Accountants. under the direction of his office, advising that
the report states that it represents fairly the financial condition of the fund
at the end of the audit period.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF CO~#ITTEES=
GARBAGE RE~OVAL: The Landfill Committee submitted the following report
in connection with extending the use of the landfill in Fallon Park until July.
1973, and summarizing plans for the construction of tennis courts, a picnic
shelter, a baseball diamond, a football field and a track field on top of the
landfill after it has been completed, at a cost of approximately $?0,000.00. to
be accomplished within three budgets:
"August 28, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Landfill and Park Development
Since the start of the use of the northeast corner of
Fallon Park area for the landfill, your committee has been
closely watching the work there. We have been seeing how it
is being used and me have been thinking about the plans for
park development on the landfill area when it is completed.
The more we have looked at it, the more we have realized
that there is an opportunity here to do a really complete
job on park development. The plan. as it now stands, leaves
alone the southeast area of the Fallon Park property alan9
the railroad and Dale Avenue. This is now unimproved, it is
not being used, and there is not much likelihood that it will
be for some years to come.
There is a need for additional recreation facilities in
the Southeast area of Roanoke, It also seems to your commit-
tee that with the work and equipment that is now available
and with the benefit that this type of landfill operation
offers, it would be unfortunate not to improve this unused
land in the park and to try to make a complete pork and play-
ground area.
~ want to propose this idea to the City Council for
your thinking. The Planning Department of the City has
p~epared drawings of a proposal and also an interesting model.
He would like to tell the Council and the public about
this and to explain what we think is an opportunity,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ James O. Trout. Chairman
David K. Lisk
S/ Julian F. Hirst"
287
288
Mr. Llsk expressed the opinion that this mill give the City of Roanoke
a chance to prove to the entire Roanoke Yslley that'such u landfill can be
operated properly, that the concept of a successful landfill is to leave the
property in better condition than it was before it was used for landfill purposes
and that, if given the chance. Fallon Park will be a shomcase area.
Dr. Taylor raised the question as to mhether or not this proposal has
been discussed with residents of the southeast section of the City of Roanoke and
that if the committee has not met with residents of southeast Roanoke, it might be
in the best interests of all people concerned to do so.
In this connection, Mr. Raymond Hall, President of the Southeast Civic
League, appeared before Council and presented a petition signed by 87 residents
of southeast Roanoke in opposition to any extension of the landfill in Fallon
iPark, and expressed the opinion that if Council has $?O.O00.OO to use toward
improving Fallon Park after the landfill has been phased out, why not put this
$?O,O00.OO to use in finding a nors suitable location other than Fallon Park for
i'landfill purposes and that the City of Roanoke has nothing to offer the users of
Fallon Park. in the way of recreational facilities, that is not already
Mr. A. A. Akers appeared before Council in oppositi~n to the proposal
:and expressed the opinion that Fallon Park is one of the most beautiful parks in
ilthe City of Roanoke and that he would hate to see it used for further landfill
purposes.
Reverend Calvin H. Fulton also appeared before Council in opposition to
the extension of the landfill and requested that Council defer any action on the
=imotter for at least two weeks in order for the Southeast Civic League to contact
citizens of southeast Roanoke and review the proposed plans for the landfill.
Approximately 25 people appeared before Council in opposition to the
matter.
After a lengthy discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the
report be referred back to the Landfill Committee to meet with residents of south-
east Roanoke as soon as is feasible and report their recommendations to Council.
~he motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SIDEWALK, CURB AND GUTTER: Council having referred to a committee
composed of Messrs. William F, Clark, Chairman, and Samuel Ho McChee. III. for
tabulation~ report and recommendation the bids received for the construction of
concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk at various locations in the City of Roanoke,
the committee submitted the following report recommending that the bids of S. R*
Draper Paving Company and H ~ S Construction Company for the construction of
concrete curb and gutter and sidewalk at various locations throughout the city be
rejected and that the city staff be allowed time to formulate a progr.am for more
iefficient and effective use of the funds which are available, advising that at such
time as details of a recommendation are available the matter will be returned to
Council for consideration:
'August 28. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: aids for Concrete Curb. Gutter and Sidewalk
On Monday. August 14, bids were received and opened
before City Council for the construction of concrete curb
and gutter and sidewalk at various locutions throughout the
City of Roanoke. Bids were received from S. R. Draper Pay-
in9 Company in the amount of $34,6S0 and Bo E S. Construction
Company in the amount of $3S,162.S0. The sum of $25,000 is
budgeted within Account 58-255 for this construction.
It has been traditional for the City to include funds
within the budget for the installation of these concrete
improvements which are completed on the basis of requests
from property owners. Those requesting such improvements
share the cost with the City on the basis of one-half of the
sum of $100,O0 was normally included within operating budgets;
however, during the past few years these funds have been sub-
stantially reduced to a large degree because of a drop in
property owner interest in the prooram. Based on last year*s
unit prices. We do presently have on hand petitions from
property owners for approximately $26,000 worth of work.
However, it can be seen that more than one-third increase in
cost would result if a contract were awarded to this year's
low bidder.
Me do not wish to infer that the contractors who have
bid to the City for this work have offered unreasonable
prices. To the contrary, the small volume of work involved
and the necessity of moving from place to place throughout
the City on an indefinite schedule make this type of construc-
tion particularly expensive. Me believe it bas reached the
point where it is not economical for the City or the pro-
perty owners involved to proceed with the program as cur-
rently established. There needs to be better procedure
whereby an entire block or sizable portion of a neighbor-
hood can be programmed for these desirable street improve-
ments and sufficient funds appropriated to systematically
schedule efficient installations. Such a program will take
time to develop and certain details resolved concerning its
implementation.
It is recommended that City Council reject both of the
bids which have been received for these concrete curb
gutter and sidewalk Improvements and that the City staff be
allowed time to formulate a program for more efficient and
effective use of the fumds which are available. At such
time as the details of a recommendation are available the
matter will be returned to City Council for consideration.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ William F. Clark
William F. Clark, Chairmen
S/ Sam H. McGhee, III
Sam H. McGhee. III*
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommeudatlon of the commit-
tee and offered the following Resolution.rejectin9 all bids received for said
project:
(#20442) A RESOLUTION rejecting all bids received for the construction
of concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk at various locations in the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Hook a37, page 128.)
~ Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. Zhe motion was seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
289
290
AYES: Messrs. Garland. List, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
· ebber ........................
NAYS: None ......... -0, (Mr. Bubard absent)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDEBATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
SALE OF PROPERTY: Ordinance No. 20430, authorizing and providin9 for
the city's sale and conveyance of a parcel of land containing 5.450 sqeare feet,
more or less. situate to the rear of property known as 1116 Ridgecrest Drive. in
Roanoke County, Virginia, and being known as Lot IIA, Bloch B, as shown on Map
No. 3, Summerdean Subdivision, having previously been before Council for its first
reading, read and lald over, mas again before the body. Hr. Garland offering the
following for its second reading and final adoption:
(a20430) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the City's sale and
conveyance of a parcel of land containing 5450 square feet, more or less. situate
to the rear of property known as 1116 Ridgecrest Drive in Roanoke County, Virginia.?
and being known as Lot IIA, Block 8, as shomn on Map No, 3. Summerdean Subdivision, il
upon certain terms and conditions.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n37, page 120.)
Mr, Garland moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber .........................b.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Hubard absent)
TRAFFIC: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper,
measure recommending and urging the initiation bI the Department of Highways of a
project to study the traffic control system in the downtown section of the City of
Roanoke, setting out the need therefor and committing the city to pay its propor-
tionate part of the cost of such study, the Assistant City Attorney presented samel
whereupon, Mr. Trout offered the followingResolution:
(:20443) A RESOLUTION recommending and urging the initiation by the
Department of Highmays of a project to study the traffic control system in the
downtown section of the City of Roanoke; setting out the need therefore; and com-
mitting the City to pay ~s proportionate part of the cost of such study.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book u37, page 126.)
Mr. 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 and Mayor
Webber ......................
NAYS: None ......... O. (Mr. Hubard absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
TRAFFIC: Mr. Llsk called to the attention of Council thut there ere tmo
vacancies on the Roanoke Bighmay Safet7 Commission and raised the question aa to
mhether or not Council mould lihe to fill these vacancies at the present time.
Mayor Mebber and Dr, Taylor expressed the opinion that it has almays
been the policy o~ Council to act on reappoJntments only when there is s full mem-
bership of Council present.
Mr. Lisk then moved that action on filling said vacancies be deferred
until the regular meeting of Council on Tuesday, September 5, 1972. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout nod unanimously adopted.
There being us further business, Mayor Nebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
A~TEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
291
292
COUNCIL, OMGANIZATION MEETING.
FridSyo September 1. 1972.
The Council of the City of Ronnohe met in the Council Chamber in the
Municipal Building, Friday. September 1. 1972. at 3 p~m.. pursuant to Section 10
~f the City Charter, for the purpose of organization with Mayor Roy L. Mebber pre-
siding.
PMESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Mllllam S. Bubard. Da'vid K. Link,
tanpton N. Thomas and Mayor Roy L, Nebber ...... ~ ..................................
ABSENT: Councilmen Noel C. Taylor and James O. Trout-~ .................
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst. City Manager; Mr. Milliam F.
ilark. Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; Mr. N. Ben
ones. Jr., Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Edward A. Matt. Assistant City Attorney;
nd Mr. A. N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Mayor Roy L. Mebber.
COUNCIL: Mayor Mebber stated that the present meeting of Council is being
eld pursuant to Section 10 of the Charter of the City of Roanoke, at which tine
the newly elected Mayor and Councilmen shall assume the duties of their offices.
At this point, the City Clerk presented a certificate from the Electoral
Board advising that upon examination of the official records deposited in the
ffice of the Clerk of the Hustings Court of the election held on May 2. 1972.
bey certify, dec]are and determine that Roy L. Kebber received the greatest number
f votes cast in said election for the office of Mayor and the City Clerk further
a vised that Mayor Webber has qualified for said office of Mayor for a term begin-
d
Ining September 1, 1972, and ending June 30, 1975; whereupon, Mayor Mebber offi-
CiallyItook the Chair for said new term.
The City Clerk presented a further certificate from the Electoral Board,
idvising that upon examination of the official records deposited in the office of
the Clerk of the Bustings Court of the election held on May 2, 1972, they certify,
declare and determine that David K. Lisk, James O. Trout and Milliam S. Hubard
~received the greatest number of votes cast in said election for the office of City
ouncil, the City Clerk advising that Messrs. Lisk, Trout and Nuburd have quali-
fied for said offices for terms beginning September 1, 1972, and ending June 30.
t976.
t In this connection, the City Clerk also advised that it appears from the
bo '
s vedescribed certificate from the Electoral Board that Mr. David ~. Lisk received
fha largest number of votes in said election held on May 2, 1972, whereupon, Mr.
ihomas offered the folloming Resolution declaring David K. Lisk to be the Vice Mayor
f the City of Roanoke for a term commencing the first day of September, 1972, and
continuing for u period of two years or until his successor shall have been
lected and qualified:
(m20444) A RESOLUTION declaring David M. Lisk to be the Vice-Mayor of
the City o[ Roaaohe.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book aS?, page I2g.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion nas seconde¢
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the follouin9 vote:
AYES: Nessrs. Garland, flubard, Thomas and Mayor Yebber ....... 4.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Mr. Lisk not voting) (Messrs. Taylor and Trout absent)
Mr. Thomas then moved that the certificates from the Electoral Board be
received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopte
Mr. Lisk moved that Council instruct the City Attorney to prepare the
proper measure expressing appreciation to Mr. James O. Trout for his services as
Vice Mayor. The notion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business. Mayor Nebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
293
1294
COUNCIL, REGULAR RENTING,
Tuesdoy, Sept.ember 5, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Runlc. ipnl Building, Tuesday, September S, 1972, at 2 p.m,o the re-
gular meeting hour, mith Nayor Roy Lo Rebber presiding.
· PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, William S. Hubard, David E. Lisk
Hampton W. Thomas, Jones O. Trout and Rayor Roy L.. Webbe~ ........... 6.
ABSENT: Councilman Noel C. Taylor ........................ 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Hr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager; Rr, #illiam F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; and Rt. A, N.
Gibson, City Auditor,
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend
Charles G. Fullter, Pastor, First Baptist Church.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
August 14. lg72. having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr.
Trout, seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was dis-
pensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
CITV AUDITOR-COUNCIL-ACTS OF ACKNOHLEDGERENT: Council having extended
an invitation to Mr. Vincent S. Wheeler, former member of Roanoke City Council,
and to Mr. J. Robert Thomas, former City Auditor. to be present at the Council
of receiving certain presentations by Mayor Roy L.
meeting
for
the
purpose
Mebber on behalf of Council, Rr. #heeler and Hr. Thomas appeared before the body.
In this connection, Mayor Hebber presented Mr. Wheeler with a silver trayi
in recognition of his service to the City of Roanoke os a member of City Council,
Vice Mayor and Mayor.
Mr. Thomas then offered the following Resolution recognizing and reward-
in9 Nr, Wheeler for his outstanding services as a member of the Council of the
City of Roanoke, expressing the pleasure of the members of Council of having
served with him in such capacities and wishing for him the continued success and
satisfaction in accomplishments to which his past efforts and contributions have
so mall entitled him:
(#20445) A RESOLUTION relating to the HONORABLE VINCENT S. WHEELER, a
former Mayor of the City and member of the City Council.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book #37, page 133.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the follouing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Lisk. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ....................... b.
NAYS: None ......... O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
In this connection, Mayor Webber presented a 35 year service button to
Mr. J. Robert Thomas for 35 years of loyal service to the City of Roanoke.
REARING OF CITIZENS U~ON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
PLANNING-HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Mr. Persey T. Keelingo Secretary,
Program Area Citizens Board of Directors appeared before Council and presented
the folloming Resolution of the PAC Board of Directors mith reference to the Gains
boro Neiohborhood Development Program and requested that Council consider this
Resolution before taking final action on the Gainsboro Redevelopment Project:
"TO: HONORABLE MAYOR ROY L. MEBBER. CITY MANAGER, JULIAN F. HIRST
AND MEMBERS OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION OF TIlE PROGRAM AREA CITIZENS BOARD OF
DIRECTORS DAINSBORO NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT
PROGRAM
The Program Area Citizens Board of Directors in its official
capacfty as spokesman for the Citizens mhd comprise the Cains-
boro Neighborhood Development Program, do hereby submit the
following to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority:
WHEREAS, the Program Area Citizens officially elected
lB new members to the Board of Directors in a mass meeting
held August, If?l, and on April 24, 1972, 14 additional
members mere added to the Board of Directors to better serve
and represent the Program Area Citizens.
WHEREAS, the Program Area Citizens Board Of Directors
have been involved in all phases of planning and decision
making for the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Programo
WHEREAS, the Program Area Citizens and Board of Direc-
tors have met mith planners, engineers, architect representa-
tives and consultants at intervals since February 17, 1972.
WHEREAS, the Program Area Citizens Board of Directors
have received technical memos, economic survey reports, copies
of NDP 4Bi Application for 1972-73, grievance guidelines, and
various mritten materials to assist them in making their deci-
sions.
WIIEREAS, the General Land Use Proposal was approved by
the Program Area Citizens with reservations for changes on
May 10, lg?2, in a joint Board of Directors and Program Area
Citizens meeting. An Activity Area has been selected by
PAC for the Activity Tear 1972-73.
RESOLVED THAT the Activity Area for the Tear 1g72-73 will
begin at Peach Road betmeen Peach Road and RcDomell Avenue,
3rd Street to RcDowell South, South on Peach Road to Rutherford
Avenue, North side of Rutherford-Peach Road beck to Chestnut
Avenue to alley, extend Madison Avenue orer to alley leading
into Second Street on the East Of Peach Road. Include South
side of McDowei! between 3rd and 5th Street. Line Madison
Avenue on the East with Madison Avenue on the West. Also,
line McDomell Avenue on the East with gcDomell Avenue on the
West,
RESOLVED THAT the City of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority furnish the PAC group a
MaSter Plan for the Gainsboro Area showing specific areas to
be developed as commercial, multi-family and single familT
housing, and stipulate the boundary lines, and that lots be
divided into small parcels so that they can be purchased by
minority businessmen, and that local minority contractors be
· given priority in developing all laud in the area. Also,
that if it is necessary to remove any present community
institutions like the Y.M.C.A., the T.M.C.A., Medical
Buildings, Library, etc., that these institutions be relocated
at the Roanoke City Redevelopment and Housing Authority's
expense and that funds be made available to rebuild these
institutions to the needs of the area, and if these institu-
tions are not destroyed by roads, that these institutions be
brought up to the standards of similar institutions in
accordance with community desires.
295-'
'296
RESOLVED THAT the Wells Avenue, Gainsboro-Peuch Road he
n tmo-lune improved street with the roadbed not to exceed 30
feet and delete the proposed interchange at Orange Aveuue nnd
Peach Road.
RESOLVED T~AT homes or units not contain over four (4)
families per building, and no more than two (2) stories high
mith ample recreation facilities, such ns swimming., pools,
tennis courts, etc.
RESOLVED THAT the ratio formula proposed be an eight
(8) to twelve il2) ratio formula. For every 2-4 family units,
there should be twelve (12) single-family units in the same
area. We do not feel that u mass~nglomeration of people in
a given area would be to the best interest of the Gainsboro
Neighborhood.
RESOLVED THAT the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority do a feasibility study of where black
businesses should be located in the area.
RESOLVED THAT the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Hous-
ing Authority in conjunction with the PAC Committee make u
study of available temporary housing specifically for hard-
ship cases and that this be done mithin 30 days after Eity
Council*s approval of the G~DP.
RESOLVED THAT crlteria be established for the selection
of persons, groups, businessmen, etc.. to do the actual
develmpuent of the area, and Black businessmen be ~
first rights of development Of all properties acquired.
rtt sad ho
RESOLVED THAT the Program Area Committee Citizens
through its Hoard of Directors intend to participate to the
maximum degree possible according to Department of Housing
and Urban Development Regulations, and that the NDP 401
Application be submitted to the Department of Housing and
Urban Development by the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority.
~OR. THEREFORE BE IH RESOLVED THAT, the Program Area
Citizens Hoard of Directors, in our awareness of the need to
rebuild and rehabilitate the Bainsboro Heighborhood, to pro-
vide decent standard housing, improve streets, public faci-
lities, recreational areas, to create employment and business
opportunities for the residents, etc.. we the members of the
Program Area Citizens Hoard of Directors do hereby petition
the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
to commence at the earliest possible date to implement the
Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Program, conditioned on
· RESOLVED THAT, the foregoing resolutions are duly pre-
sented and adopted by the Hoard of Directors in a Program
Area Citizens Board of Directors meeting on the 24th day of
AuguSt, lg?2.
S/ Ernest O. Greene
Chairman, PAC Board of Directors
S/ Persey To Keeling
Secretary, pAC Hoard of Directors"
Mr. Hrout moved that the Resolution be referred to the City Manager
and to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for study, report
and recommendation by the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, September 11o
1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the following
report in connection with the Dainsboro Neighborhood Development plan and trans-
mitting a Resolution adopting the Gainsboro Redevelopment Flan as part and portion
of the City's Land Development Plan and %he Majmr Arterial Highway Plan, thereby
establishing specific conformity of the City*s General Plan to the Gainsboro
Redevelopment Plan:
#AugsutSl, 19T2
The Honorable Roy L. Webber. Bayor
and Members of City Council
Roaaohe, Virginia
Gentlemen~
The above cited petition mas considered by the City Plan-
ning Commission at its regular meeting of July 19, 1972, .
Hr. Roy Henley. Hxecutive Director, Roanohe Redevelopment
and Housing Authority, appeared before the Planning Commission
and stated that the Neighborhood Develop=ant Program
planning began approximately six months ago. He stated that
all during this time period his organization in collaboration
with the consultants. Sarcou. O°Leary and Associates. has
worhed and planned with the citizens in the Gainsboro Commun-
ity.
Mr. Douglas Porter of Marcoao O'LeaFy and Associates,
first presented to the Planning Commission members the original
City*s land use plan for the Dainsboro area, and then the more
recent plan for the proposed Dainsboro Redevelopment Plan
developed by his organization. He noted that one of the main
changes in the plan was the lignment of 5th Street. Mr. Porter
noted that the citizens of the community had worked with the
Authority on the alignment of this arterial and a change had
been made to the plan showing the realignment of this arterial
from 3rd Street to GaJnsboro and Peach Roads. lie noted that
there would be much less cut and fill for the 3rd Street realign-
ment and that it mould leave much of the neighborhood in tact.
Be further noted that the Redevelopment Plan would take the
neighborhood commercial area along 1st Street and place it
further into the neighborhood. He pointed out on the land use
map the medium density area where 15 units per care would be
built and also the lomer density area where 10 units per acre
would be built. This would accommodate any type of housing.
single-family, duplexes, apartment buildings, and town houses.
He stated there would be a motel site left on Orange Avenue
which would back up to a ridge and which the people manted in
the area. He further stated that parks and playgrounds would
be spread throughout the area as the Authority felt that a
series of smaller parks would be. much better than just
one large park.
Mr. Boynton brought up the question as to whether there
would be a bridge built over the railroad at 3rd Street and if
so. would this bridge replace the Sth Street Bridge or would
they leave this one up also.
Rt. Porter stated t'hat there had been no definite decision
made as to the placement of the bridge over Srd Street and the
replacement of the bridge at 5th Street. He also stated that
there is some problem with the crossover at the 591 exchange
but that the obligations of the Authority is for the development
of the neighborhood. He stated that the Authority*s Plan was
for the rehabilitation of the buildings worth saving and rede-
velopment where the buildings were not. Additionally, he
noted that they planned to put in tmlce as many houses as
would be taken Out in the first year, thereby, the people
should be able to relocate in the area easily.
Mr. Henley stated that there will be a considerable amount
of federal grants to the homeowners but could not say exactly
how much a typical lot would sell for in the residential area.
that it would be a compatible and feasible figure.
Mrs. Zeaobia Ferguson, who lives at dO2 Chestnut Avenue,
N. N.. appeared before the Planning Commission representing the
Program Area Citizens Board of Directors. She stated that this
in the area or others who have businesses and property in the
area. She stated that she is both a resident and business
woman in the neighborhood. She stated that this Board was
broken up into committees and has had meetings with the
citizens to find out with what they really wanted so that they
could do the best for the most citizens. She stated that the
main concern of the citizens of the area has been fear of their
homes being razed causing relocation for the citizens. She
noted that the Board had found that there are many homes in the
area that have been condemned and also a number of vacant lots.
297
298
referred
Mr. Gerguson noted that the floord has chose· · design·ted'
are· in the extreme west et 5th Street, Rutherford Azenue and
#edison Are·aa end the auotb aide of ¥cDowell Avenue which con-
tiles numerous vacant lots and co·damned homes for the Autho-
rity to begin uorh. It feels, she noted, that starting in this
location wo·ld distrub the least amount of people. Also, the
Hoard has met with Maroon, O'Leery end Associates, and citizens
and come up with · land ·se map which has bee· pr·se·ted today
uith reservations for changes to he done on · year by year
basis. .MFS. Perguson stated that many citizens are cancer·ed
about the width of the Jamor arterial highway but that the
Authority had changed the Jells Avenue road because of the
citizen*s requests. She stated that the Board members want the
new development plan. They feel, she added, that the new
physical aspect mill upgrade the area culturally and economi-
cally but they do not want to lose the c·ltural institutions
they have now such as the library, YMCA and YMCA. She stated
the citizens want something for the young but also for the
aged and would like to see a fine arts center built in this
area.
Mr. Henley stated that they do plan to start at the
masterly portion of the subject to give the citizens time to
start a program near the arterial plan. He also stated that
there is a time limit for this plan to be approved and it does
need approval by September 1, 1972. He noted that this appro-
val mould be only for the first year*s activity of working
around 5th Street. putting together sites for residential
homes. He stated that later there will have to be public .
housing constructed but that for the first year it mill be
single-family residential housing.
Mr. Sam Stewart, who resides at 119 Wells Avenue, N.
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that he
lives in the immediate area and will be affected by this pro-
gram. He noted that he had attended quite a few meetings to
decide m/th the people in the area the best possible plan and
that the people in the area wanted the plan that Mrs. Ferguson
had explained.
The Planning Director noted that the Department supported
the HDP concept, but pointed to some specific problems. He
noted that the 1985 Major Arterial Highway Plan will have
to be modified and that there would be excessive traffic and
noise and that a great deal of care should be exercised in the
alignment Of the streets. He stated that he felt that the
arterial plan should be aligned to conserve the cultural
institutions of this area.
Mr. Re·ley stated that the road,'as presently shown,
mould allom the City library to remain. Ho stated that the
YMCA has been considering moving for about three years and
that the money paid ~o them by the Authority mould enable them
to make this move. He noted that the YRCA located at Orange
Avenue would actually be the only thing affected. He stated
that the YWCA and the library were not old buildings and that
the only culturally old bnildiog sas the YICA and they had
already planned to move. He further stated that his Authority
only develops the area and that the City designs the thorough-
fare plans.
After discussion by the Planning Commission members, it
Was generally agreed that the first year*s activity be approved,
and that a resolution be formarded to City Council so stating
this concurrence, by the Planning Commission.
Accordingly, motion was made, d~ly seconded and approved
with a vote of four ayes and one nay, recommending to City
Council that the Planning Commission Resolution be adopted.
Sincerely,
$] Creed K. Lemon. Jr., by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman~
Mr. Trout moved that the report of the City Planning Commission be
to the City Manager for study, report and recommendation to Council.
The motion failed for lack of a second.
Mr. Llsk then moved that the report and Resolution of the City Planning
Commission be tabled temporarily. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unani-
mously adopted.
With further reference to the matter, the following communication from
Mr. John F. Hewsow, Jr., Chairman, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Rousing
Authority, transmitting certain documents in connection with the GaJnsboro Heigh-
borhood Development Program and requesting and recommending that Council approve.
as expeditiously as possible, the Redevelopment Plan and the feasibility or reloca-
tion of the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Program, Program Ho. VA. A-6~
"August 31, 1972
Honorable Mayor
and
Rembers of City Council
City of Roanoke
Municipal Rullding
Roanoke, Virginia
RE: Gainsboro Heighborhood Development
Program, Program No. VA A-~
Dentlemen:
Ne enclose herewith the following documents:
1. Activity summary of the Dainsboro Neighborhood Develop-
ment Program, Program No. VA. A-~
2. Map of the CaJnsboro Program Area
3. Financial Summary of the Cainsboro Program
4. Copy of the approved Redevelopment Plan with Certified
Resolution by the Commissioners of the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and ~ousiug Authority passed off August
14, 1972, approving same
5. Copy of approved General Relocation Plan
b. Proposed Copy of Resolution by the City Council approving
the Redevelopment Plan and Conditions Under Rhich Reloca-
tion Payments Mill Re Made, Dainshoro Neighborhood Devel-
opment Program, Program No~ VA. A-5
The City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority held
a public hearing on July 5, 1972. The Redevelopment Plan was
then approved by the Authority on August 14, 1972, for the
Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Program, Program ~o.
VA. A=5. An Affidavit of Publication and a copy of the actual
Notice for this public hearing is enclosed.
Due to the nature of the Gainsboro ~elghborhood Development
Program, it most be funded on an annual basis. This year*s
application should be submitted to HUD by September I or
shortly thereafter; thereofre, We Mould recommend and
respectfully request that City Council approve as expedi-
tiously as possible the Redevelopment Plan and the feasi-
bility of relocation of the Gainsboro ~eighborhood Develop-
ment Program, Program No. VA.
Sincerely yours,
S! John F. Newsom, Jr.
John F. Nemsom, Jr.
Chairman~
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be taken under advisement until the next
regular meeting of Council on Monday, September 11, 1972. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
299
300
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: A communication from the Reverend George K.
Somers, Pastor, Saint Mark's Lutheran Church, requ'estJng permission to use four
vacant lots on the southeast corner of Rorer Avenue and 9th Street, 'S. W** to
make a temporary playground for the blach children in that area until such time ns
the omners of the lots desire to use said ~ts for building purposes, mas before
;ouncll.
Mr. Garland moved that the communication be referred to the City Man-
ager and to the City Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to
Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT-JAIL-RUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVERENTS
PROGRAM: A communication from Sheriff Paul Jo Puckett expressing his thoughts
in connection with the construction of a correctional facility for the Roanoke
Valley area, advising that as Sheriff he finds himself in a minority position
where discussions of this nature are concerned and Js of the opinion that his
thoughts should be expressed to Council before a'ny definite decisions are made,
was before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that tho communication be referred to a committee com-
posed of Messrs. William S. Hubard, Chairman. John g. Wilson, Paul J. Fuckett,
Julian F. Birst and Beverly T. Fitzpatrick for their information in connection
with their study Of the matter. The motion was seconded by Hr. Trout and unani-
mously adopted.
S~REETS AND ALLEYS: A petition from Mr. Jo D. Logan. III, Attorney
representing E, H. WJmmer, Grace M. Kimmer, Alex-Nimmer Tire Service, Incorporated,~i
and Industrial and Mill Suppliers, Incorporated, requestin9 that that portion of
an alley 15-feet wide lying parallel to South J~fferson Street running northerly
from the northerly line Of Mhitmore Avenue at the southmesterly corner of Lot 11
to the terminus of the alley and lying behind Lots b - 11. inclusive, Section 5,
of the Pleasant Valley Land Company Map. be vacated, discontinued and closed, was
before Council.
Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution appointing viewers in con-
nection with closing the alley:
(#20446) A RESOLOTION providing for the appointment of five viewers,
any three of whom may act. in connection with the application or petition of E. H.
Mimmer, et als. to vacate, discontinue, and close that portion of an alley 15-
feet wide lying parallel to S. Jefferson Street running northerly from the north-
erly line of #hitmore Avenue at the southwesterly corner of Lot 11 to the alley's
terminus and lying behind Lots 11. 10, 9, 8, 7 and b, Section 5, of the Pleasant
Valley Land Co. Map, ua provided by Section 15.1-364 of the 1950 Code of Virginia.
as amended to date.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~37, page 134.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
I
AYES: MesSrao Garlaud, Hubard, Lish, Thomas, Trout end Mayor
Mebber .......................... b.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
Mr, Garland then moved that the petition be referred to the City Plan-
ning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT: The City Manager submitted the following
report recommending that $5,000.00 be appropriated to Fees for Professional and
Special Services under Section ugo, "Sewage Treatment Plant." of the 1972-73
budget: -
"September 5. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
S~bject: Sewage Treatment Fund
Yhe budget of 1972-73 carried $1,250 in Account 90-210
Sewage Treatment, Fees for Special Services. This account
has been overdrawn through services from the Roy F. Meston
Company.
July Expenditure $ 841.04
July Expenditure 1,072.11
This account is no~ $663.15 short from this invoice.
At $534.00 a meek for testing, we need $1,068.00 additional
for two weeks of testing, while the State is sampling the
plant.
It is recommended that $5,000.00 be added to this account
by appropriation from the Sewage Treatment Fund.
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:
(n20447) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reorduin Section agO, "Sewage
Treatment ~und," of the 1972-73 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance, a~
providing for an emergency.
(For ~ull text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n37, page 135.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard. tlsk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber .......................... 6.'
NAYS: None .......... O. (Dr. TayIor absent)
SEMER5 AND STORM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Manager to
explore the feasibility of having the State Mater Control Board and City Council
resolve certain financial arrangements of implementing the program at the Sewage
301
'302
Treatment Plant° the City Manager submitted the following report advising that the
participatiun by otheru fu helping to seek a Resolution of financial or other
strative personnel but would get into those involvements mhich seem over and in
udditon to sduinistrative activities which uae sufficiently cumplfcnted mlthfa
themselves:
WSeptember 5, 1972
~onorable Bayov and City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
SubJect: Stare Mater Control Doard
The City Council on August 21, 1972, referred to me a
question of the feasibility of having the State Muter Control
Board and City Council resolve certain financial arrangements
of implementing the program at the Sewage Treatment Plant.
It appears that the total subject, encompassing every-
thing that bas been involved in treatment plant development.
the Valley situation, the sewer lines , the ban. the posture
of the State Board. finances, the Lake--everything spoken
and unspoken--goes beyond normal administration, normal
technical matters, normal financial procedures and normal
engineering issues. This is not a new appearance; it has
prevailed from the beginning but is more pointed now. In
fact even administrative, technical, financial and engi-
neering matters have proceeded along non-normal lines and the
procedure has become accepted practice.
Mithin this situation, 1 would welcome any activity
by the City Council or other parties in the matter.
In my interpretation, the Board has sought to establish
itself ia a position, with the original ban order and sub-
sequent comments and writings0 wherein it could, within its~
judgment, continue the ban on for an indefinite period of
time, even beyond the time of full completion of the expan-
sion of the treatment plant. That statement is not intended
to be a legal analysis nor is it intended to reflect a posi-
tion by me or the City in acceptance of the Doard*s action
or judgment.
Therefore the participation by others in ehlping to seek
a resolution of financial or Other matters does not trespass
upon the prerogatives or area of operation of administrative
personnel but would get into those involvements which seem .
over and in addition to administration activities, which are
sufficiently complicated within themselves.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. H~ st
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.
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
requesting to reserve spa~e on the agenda for a matter ~ training to program
scheduling on the sewerage system.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally requested permission to
withdraw the report.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the verbal request of the City
Mm ager. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SENERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following report
in connection With several phases of combined sewer elimination within the limits
of the Southwest Expressway Project. and recommending that authorization be given
to proceed with receiving bids for the construction of the projects at an estimated
cost of $21,000.00:
#September S, 1972
Honorable Hayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
SubJect: Southwest Expressway - Storm Drainage Facilities
As the City Council is aware from past reports and actions,
the City now has under construction the Albemarle Avenue storm
drain which, in conjunction with the reconstruction of various
sanitary sewer lines by the Virginia Department of Highways,
will eliminate an area of combined sewers. The work on this
storm drain is virtually complete, with the final completion
being dependent upon progress in the highway bridge construction
at Albemarle Avenue and Third Street.
Additionally, there are several other phases of combined
sewer elimination within the limits of this Southwest Express-
way project. These have been previously mentioned but in
view of the situation at this time merit being again reported
upon.
One of these additional phases is the construction of the
Malnut Avenue outfall from the Roanoke River to the intersec-
tion of Jefferson Street and Walnut Avenue. This section of
line is under contract by the State Highway Department and is
a part of the Expressway construction. It is expected that
the State will soon be billing the City for 50 percent of the
cost of that llne. The cost is estimated to amount to
$62,007 based on the unit prices bid. Funds have not yet
been appropriated for payment of the City*s share of this line
COSt.
A second of the addiLional lines is the extension of this
Malnut A?e~ue outfall of Jefferson Street at Malnut. aloe9
Nalnut Avenue to Maple Avenue at First Street. Plans and
specifications are nearly complete for this section of storm
drain. It appears from observation that the construction of
the outfall drain from Jefferson Street to the river will be
completed within the next several weeks. It then will be
necessary for the City to construct the remaining portion which
will be the above referred to extension of the line along
Halnu~ Avenue. This will eliminate the combined sewer faci-
lities in this area.
A third section of additional line that should be built
would be a short line at the intersection of'Jefferson Street
and Elm Avenue.
It is recommended that authorization be given to proceed
with receiving bids for the construction of these last two
projects which carry an estimated cost of
None of the above three projects have been funded and '
they are indicated in the first priority storm drain construc-
tion projects which was included in the capital project re-
port submitted to the City Council on Hay 1, 1972. They
were itemized as project 72-1, 72-2 and 72-4.
After completion of the above projects, there remains
hut one major storm drain outfall to construct and this would
be in Mhitmore Street, S. M., adjacent to Roanoke City gills.
This would eliminate the combined sewer facility in that area.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julain F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
303
304
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be referred to the City Attorney for
)reparation of the p~oper measure appropriating the necessary funds. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
S-fATE HIGUMAYS: The City Manager submitted the ~llowing report
transmitting certain revisions in the Federal Aid Urban System for the City of
Roanoke, advising that the bulk of changes involved consists of removing certain
!minor arterial mileage from the urban system and placing it in mhat mas originall]
the Federal Aid System, that these changes are considered beneficial to the city
and principally mork tomard putting certain streets in better categories for
funding on construction programs and recommending that Council authorize the
City Attorney to prepare the appropriate measure which would signify the accep-
tance of Council of this plan for the Federal Aid Urban System:
"September 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Bentlemen:
Subject: Federal Aid Urban System
The City of Roanoke. ns the other Valley 9overnments
and the Fifth Planning District, has received from the Virginia
Department of Highways a revision in the Federal Aid Urban
System for the area. This of course includes the City of
Roanoke. Alterations to the former Federal Aid Urban System
were necessitated by comments of the Federal Highway Adminis-
tration om the original submittal of the Roanoke Urban System
by the State Highway Department to FHA in August, 1971.
The bulk of changes involved consists of removing cer-
tain minor arterial mileage from the urban system and plac-
ing it in what was originally the Federal Aid system. The
Highmay Department has completed these revisions and the map
which has been forwarded represents that completion. ~he
next step is for approval by the local 9overning bodies.
The following revisions are those changes which Mere made:
~ 1. Sou~h Salem Circum. - Route 685 to S.C.L. Salem -
dropped from Urban System, added to FAP.
2. lOth Street Extension - E.C.L. Roanoke to East Int.
Route 460 - dropped from Urban System, added to FAS.
3. Boulevard Roanoke/Rout'e 742/Shenandoah Drive - Route
460 (Main St.) to Franklin Road Extension - dropped
from Urban System, placed in rAP Type II.
4. 24th Street/Draodin Road Ext. - Melrose Avenue to Route
11 - dropped from Urban System; the segment from Melrose
to Patterson placed in FAP Type II.
5. 5th Street - Franklin Road Ext. to Route 115 - dropped
from Urban System; the segment from Burrell Street to
Route 115 placed in rAP Type II.
loth Street Ext./Route 653 - East Int. Route 460 to
Route 24 - dropped from Urban System.
7. Franklin Road Extension - Franklin Road to Sth Street -
dropped from Urban System.
These changes are considered beneficial to the City and
principally work to putting certain streets in better cate-
gories for funding on construction programs.
It is recommended that City Council authorize the City
Attorney to prepare an appropriate resolution which would
signify the Council's acceptance of this plan for the Federal
Aid Urban System.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
CdtI Manager"
Mr, Llsk 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. Garland and unanimously adopted.
ROANOKE VALLEy-STADIUM-ARMORY: The City Manager submitted the following
report in connection with flood damage repairs to the National Guard Armory,
advising that there is necessity to expedite this matter since all work of this
type must be completed mithin six months following the date of the flood, that
bids are due to be received on Mednesday. September 6. 1972. at 2 p.m., in Room
157 of the Municipal Building and that in order to permit this project to proceed
as rapidly as possible it is recommended that a committee be appointed to review
the bids and report back to Council with a recommendation at the regular meeting
of Council on Monday, September 11. 1972, and further recommending that Mr.
David B. Day of Smithey ~ Boynton. Architects. be included ns a member of the
"September 5, 1972
Bonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Flood Damage Repairs
National Guard Armory
Plans and Specifications have been completed for neces-
sary repairs to the City*s National Guard Armory to correct
damages incurred during the hurricnn Agnes flood emergency.
A major component of this work is replacement of the gymnasium
flooring which was totally destroyed when the first floor
of the Armory building was under three feet of water, The
project has been advertised and bids are due to be received
on Mednesday, September 6, 1972, at 2 p.m., in Room 157 of
the Municipal Building.
Nhile this work is necessary to correct flood damages
and funds have previously been appropriated by City Council,
it has been assumed that Council would desire to have .the
bids brought to their attention prior tonuard of a contract.
There will, however, be some necessity to expedite this matter
since all worh of this type must be completed mithin six
months following the date of the flood. The specifications for
the project allow sixty working days to complete the job and
if the work can be gotten underway by the middle of Septem-
ber the completion date should be very close to the time
deadline. In order to permit this project to proceed as
rapidly as possible it is desirable that a committee be
appointed to review the bids and report back to Council with
a recommendation at your regular meeting on Monday, September
11, 1972. If this procedure can be followed and acceptable
bids ~re received on September $o we should be able to com-
plete the work within the time deadlinE.
It is recommended that City Council appoint a committee
for the purpose of revieming the bids received for the proposed
repairs of the National Guard Armory who will then report
with recommendation to the City Council at your meeting on
Monday, September 110 1972. It is further recommended that
Mr. David B. Day of Smithey ~ Boynton, which firm
completed the plans and specifications for this work.
he included as a member of this committee.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Birst
City Manager~
305
'306
Mr, Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the
City Manager, The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lish'and unanimously adopted,
Mmyor Webber .then appointed Messrs, Samuel H, McGhee, III, Chairman,
David H. Day, Major C, C. Knowles and Warren E. Trent as members of the committee,
MATER DEPARTRENT: The City Manager submitted the following status
report with regard to development of a mater system for the New Hope area within
Roanoke County, advising that a satisfactory Resolution of how such service might
be provided into this system from the City of Roanoke has not been worked out as
yet and that the matter continues to be under consideration:
"September 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Geotlemeo:
Subject: Proposal for New Hope Mater System
This matter which has been before the City Cuuncil on
several occasions in the past still is in discussion amd
consideration.
There is understood to be a positive need for some form
of water service in this area and apparently the County of
Roanoke and its Authority have taken no interest whatsoever.
Mr. Joseph Van Deventer and his organization hare made
a number of efforts as to methods of obtaining mater including
the drilling of three, now, unsuccessful wells. I do not feel
that we here have yet been able to work out a satisfactory
resolution of bom such service might be provided into this
system from the City. I think that it is no problem to the
City's willingness to sell the water and to make some adjust-
ments in trying to accommodate the need of these Roanoke County
residents. However. we do get into variances from established
and justifiable policies on individual metering, line owner-
ship, system control, etc.. that we have not yet heeo able to
find a may to handle. One difficulty in the situation is that
the ratio of potential users to total system reduces financial
opportunity benefit to a private developer. This same charac-
teristic serves to limit the extent to mhich the City itself
might be interested in constructing and operating the system
with its own capital.
This is written to advise you of the status of this matter
and that it continues under consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
In this connection, Mr. J. H. VanDeventer, Executive Director, Demon-
stration Water Project, Incorporated, appeared before Council and requested that
Council make a decision as to whether or not it will sell water to the residents
of the Nem Hope area at a bulk rate similar to the arrangement between the City
of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton.
Mr. Thomas pointed out that Council cannot make a definite decision on
the matter until it gets a recommendation from the City Manager and moved that the
status report of the City Manager be received and filed and that the City Manager
be requested to furnish Council-with his final recommendations on the matter as
soon as possible. The notion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted u written report transmitting data
in connection with activity at Roanohe Municipal (Moodrum) Airport, advising that
comparisons by Mr. Marshall L. Harris, Airport Manager, shous that for July. 1972,
compared to July, 1971. air carrier activity at the airport is up six per cent,
airline passengers on and off are up 27 per cent, airmail on and off in pounds is
up 25 per cent, air express on and off Jn pounds is up ten per cent and air cargo
on and off in pounds is up nine per cent,
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed and that the City
Clerk be requested to transmit copies of said report to the members of the Airport
Advisory Commission for their information. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas
and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mr. Garland requested that the City Manager report t¢
Council on the hours that the airport restaurant is open for business.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE-NEALTH DEPARTMENT: The City Manager sub-
mitted a written report transmitting copy of a program report for 1971-72 on the
state-local hospitalization program as prepared by the City Health Department.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
LIBRARIES: Zhe City Manager submitted a written r~port advising that
advice has been received and confirmed that Mrs. Rebecca Sullivan Cooper, Librarian
at the Uainsboro Branch Library, has been awarded the Fellomship at Case Western
Reserve University in their Institute on Public Library Service to the Urban Dis-
advantaged , that thisis one of 15 fellomshtps awarded by Case Mestern Reserve
University in n two-year graduate program in librarianshJp leading to a Master*s
Degree, that this is a high honor for Mrs. Cooper, that it reflects on the excel-
lent reputation of the Roanoke Public Library system and is a credit to the Gains-
borg Branch Library.
Mr. Carland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
BRIDGES~ PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS-TRAFFIC-SALE OF PROPERTy-STREETS AND
ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a written report advising that Council previous
ly, by formal Resolution, requested the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of
Highways, to program a TOPICS project for street improvements on 24th Street, N. W.
from Shaffers Crossing to the intersection of Melrose Avenue and Lafayette
Boulevard, that he has been informed by the Highway Department ~at the Federal
Highway Administration has concurred in the request of the city for a TOPICS pro-
ject in this area and that surveys and plans will proceed a~ soon ~as possible and
that he will keep Council advised as to the status of the project.
Mr, Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
3o?
3O8
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC NELFARE: The Assistant City Attorney submitted the
following report in connection with un oral month-tom,nth lease agreement for
certain properties adjacent to the Surplus Comuodity Food Distribution Center to
be used for parking and to facilitate the movement of vehicular traffic at the
Commodity Food Center:
"September 5. 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Ylrglnia
Gentlemen:
. The Council, on May 15, 1972, adopted Ordinance No, 2o26e,
authorizing and providing for the lease to the City of cer-
tain properties adjacent to the City*s Surplus Commodities
Food Center. to be used for parking and to facilitate the
movement of vehicular traffic at said Commodities Food Cen-
ter.
Since that time. the City has entered into a lease agree-
ment with Gibson Melding Company pursuant to the provisions
of the obovenentioned ordinance. However. certain diffi-
culties have arisen in regard to the other lease with John
T. Morgan. owner, and Ueorge M. Martin. tenant, of pro-
party situate to the rear of the Food Center.
The ordinance provided for year-toyear lease to be executed
by both the owner and the tenant. However. Mr. Morgan and
Mr. Martin have only on oral month-ton,nth lease arrange-
ment. and Mr. Morgan prefers not to execute any written lease
agreement with the City. but has expressed concurrence in
as to provide for a month-to-month lease with Mr. Martin.
I have prepared and transmit herewith, for the Council's
Respectfully submitted.
5/ Edward A. Matt
Attorney and offered the foil.win9 emergency Ordinance:
(~2044B) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Ordinance No. 20269,
adopted May 15. 1972. providing for the City"s lease from George M. Martin of a
portion of Official No. 1111908. upon certain terms and conditions; and providing
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u37, page 136.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the foil,wing vote:
Webber ........................
NAYS: None ........... O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
BUSES-TAXES: Council having referred to a committee composed of Messrs.
Robert A. Garland. Chairman. Hampton N. Thomas. Julian F. Hlrst and A. N. Gibson
President, Mounoke City Lines, Incorporated, transmitting tabulations which give
a brief description Of the operations of Roanoke City Lines, Incorporated, and the
financial difficulty they continue to experience, advising that these continuing
deficits compel them to request relief from the burden of their gross receipts
tax, the committee submitted the folloming report advising that the committee
feels there is justification in this request on the basis of the operating defi-
cits experienced by the Company and recommending that the gross receipts tax for
franchised bus conpanies be established, by Ordinance, at $1.00 per year and that
the Committee is taking steps for further exploration and study of the situation
of Roanoke City Lines and of public transportation as provided by buses generally
and Council will be advised as significant information, conclusions or recommenda-
tions occur:
'September 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:*
Subject: Report of Transportation Committee
The City Council referred to the Transportation Com-
mittee the request, presented before the Council by Roanoke
City Lines, for relief from the gross receipts tax. Your com-
mittee met on the afternoon of August 29 with full membership
of the committee being present. The committee heard the pre-
sentation by representatives of the bus company and discussed
at length with them the financial and operational situation
of the company and its bus system.
The committee feels that there is justification in this
request on the basis of the operatin9 deficits being exper-
ienced by the company and makes the recommendation to the City
Council that the gross receipts tax for franchised bus com-
panies be established by ordinance at $1 per year.
Your committee is taking steps for further exploration
and study of the situation of Roanoke City Lines and of pub-
lic transportation as provided by buses generally. The City
Council would be advised as significant information, conclusions
or recommendations occur.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Robert A. Garland, Chairman
S/ Hampton M. Thomas
S/ Alfred No Gibson
S/ Julian Fo Hirst'
Mr. Garland moved that the report be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure amending the contract of Roanoke City Lines,
Incorporated. The motion was seconded by Hr° Thomas and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTy: Council having referred to the Real Estate Committee
for study, report and recommendation the offer of Mr. Paul M. Jones, Presidnet,
Men-Don Corporation, to purchase city-owned property which adjoins his property
located at 1016 4th Street, $. E., the Committee submitted the following report
recommending that the offer be accepted:
309
r310
'August 31, 1972
Honorable ~nyor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
SUSJECT: Sale of City-Owned Property
Mr. Paul ~. Jones. President of the Wen-Don Corporation
has been negotiating for some time for the purchase of an area
of City-owned property which is adjacent to the south of hfs
property at 1018 Fourth Street. S. E., Roanoke, Virginia.
(See attached nap) Mr. Jones explains that he needs this land
for the expansion of his facilities which manufactures and
markets cleaning chemicals. As noted on the mpa. the only
way this is possible is to expand south, thus utilizing City
property.
The City property is known generally as the City of
Roanoke Asphalt Plant and is located on the northeast corner
of the intersection of Albemarle Avenue and 3 1/2 Street,
S. E.. the legal description being Tax No. 4021915, Official
Survey, S. E. - 3. Part of Lot 2, Block 12. The members of
the Real Estate Committee have viewed this site and agreed to
recommend to the City Council, in order that he may extend his
building, sale of a small portion of this parcel measuring
approximately 154.25' x 70' and containing 10.798 square feet.
more or less, to Mr. Jones for a nominal sum of $100.00. The
Assessor*s Office determined this figure and Mr. Jones has
made an offer in this amount. The subject land is mostly a
rock cliff of seemingly almost no value to anyone else. Its
sale would have little, if any. effect on the usability of
the large remaining residue thereby not at all reducing its
economic value.
This is submitted with a copy to the City Attorney for the
preparation of the necessary papers inviting the City Council's
approval.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ David K. LiSL, Chairman
S/ Julian F. Hirst
S/ A. N. Gibson
S/ James N. Kincanon"
Mr. LJsk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Real
Estate Committee and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:!
(nRO4dg) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the City*s sale and
conveyance of a parcel of land containing 10;500 square feet.-more or less. situate
adjacent to the south line of property known ns 1019 Fourth Street, S. E** in the
City of Roanoke. and being a northeasterly portion of Lot 2. Block 12, according
to Sheet 3 of the Official Survey of the City of Roanoke. Southeast, upon certain
terms and conditions.
WHEREAS, officials of Wen-Don Corporation, owner of adjoining property
the northeast, have offered in writing to the City, throw9h the City's Real
Estate Committee, uoder date of June 13. 1972, to purchase and acquire from the
City a parcel of land. containing 10.500 square feet. more or less. situate adja-
to the south line of property known as 1018 Fourth Street. S.'E., in the City
of Roanoke, and being a northeasterly portion of Lot 2. Block 12, according to
Sheet 3 of. the Official Survey of th~ City of Roanokq. Southeast, for the sum of
$100.00. cash; and
WHEREAS. the Council's Real Estate Committee has recommended to the
Council that the sale of said parcel be approved and ordered on the terms herein
provided, in which recommendation the Council concurs.
I
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Cauncil of the City of Roanoke that
the written offer Of Men-Dom Gorporatiom to purchase amd acquire from the City
that certain parcel of laud containing 10,500 square feet, more or less, situate
adjacent to the south line of 1018 Fourth Street, S. E** in the City of Roanoke,
bearing dimensions of 150 feet. more or less, by 70 feet. more or less. and
being a northeasterly portion of Lot 2, Block 12, according to Sheet 3 of the
Official Survey of the City Of Roanoke, Southeast, further being a portion of
Official Tax No. 4021015, for a consideration of $100.00, cash, to be paid to the
City upon delivery of the City*s deed of conveyance, be, and said offer is hereby
ACCEPTED; such sale and conveyance by the City of the fee simple title to such
property to carry with it n right to use the existing railway siding as it mould
abut the masterly 70-odd foot line of the lot; that such deed of conveyance be mad,
upon express condition that there be constructed on the land conveyed and within
tm, years from the date Of such conveyance permanent improvements, other than
excavation or grading, costing the landowner not less than $10,000.00, failing
in Which construction within such time. title to the land to be made subject to
re-conveyance to the City on demand and Mithout reimbursement of the purchase
price.
BE IT FURTIIER ORDAINED that, upon payment to the City of the sum of
$100.00. cash. as aforesaid, the Mayor be, and he is hereby authorized, empowered
'and directed to execute, for and on behalf of the Uity, the City's deed tm Wen-
Don Corporation, drawn upon such form as is prepared and approved by the City
Attorney; granting and conveying to the City's aforesaid purchaser, with Special
Marranty of title, title to the above described parcel of land containing 10,500
square feet, more or less, and that the City Clerk be, and is hereby authorized
and directed to affix to the aforesaid deed of conveyance the City's seal, and
to attest the same, the signatures of the Mayor and of the City Clerk to be
acknowledged by each of them asprovided by law.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ........................ b.
NAYS: None O. (Or. Taylor absent)
IINFINISHEB OUSINESS:
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE-LEGISLATION: Council baying previously
requested that the City Attorney submit a report on legislative proposals for
the 1973 session of the General Assembly in order for said proposals to be pre-
sented to the Urban Section of the Virginia Municipal League, the matter was
before the body.
In this connection, the City Attorney advised that he has not had the
~pportuntty of meeting Mitb the Councilts Leg~lative Advisory Committee and that
as soon as such a meeting is held he will furnish Council with the requested
report.
311
312
ZONING: Council having taken under advisement u report of the City
~lnnning Commission recommending that the request of Dr. James C. Garst that
property located on the west side of Rldgeffeld Street, No E.o described as Lot 9,
Official Tax No. 3131104, E, J, Parker Rap, be renoned from RD, Duples Residen-
tial District, to RG-2, General Residential District. be denied, the matter was
again before the body,
In this connection, a communication from Mr. Richard C. Pattlsall,
Attorney, representing the petitioner, reguestlng that Council set a date for a
public hearing cn the request of his client, uas before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that a public hearing on the request for rezonlng be
held at 7:30 p.m., Monday, October 30, 1972, in the Council Chambers. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20432. rezonin9 property located on Viewmont
Circle, N. M.. adjacent to the Roanoke Country Club, described as the mesterly
portion of Lot 2 and all of Lot 3, Rap of Country Club Addition, Official Tax
Nos. 26bOb02 and 2660603, from RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to
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:
(#20432) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title X¥, Chapter 4.1, Section 2. of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Skeet No. 266, Sectional
1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke. in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book n37, page 130.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinaoce. The motion was secooded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the follouing vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Dubard. Lisk. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber .........................
NAYS: Non~ O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20433. rezoningproperty located in the 20th
Block of Mallace Avenue, N, E,, between 20th Street and Osborne Avenue. N. E..
described as Lots 9 - 14, inclusive, Block 13, Jachson Park, Official Tax Nos.
3330307 - 3330312, from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RG-1. General Residen-
tial District. having previously been before Council for its first reading, read
and laid over. nas again before th~ body, Mr. Garland offering the following for
its second reading and final adoption:
(#20433) AN ORDINANCE to amend Title XV. Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, ~956, as amended, and Sheet No. 333, Sectional
1966 Zone Rap, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #37, page 131.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the follomio9 vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Hnbard, Lish, Th,nas, Trout and Hayer
· ebber .......................... 6.
NAYS: None ........... O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
ZONING: Ordinance No. 20434, fez,ming properties situate'on Janison
Avenue, between 12th Street and 15th Street, S. E., described as Lots 14 - 23,
inclusive, Official Tax Nos. 4120514 - 4120520, inclusive, Map of Oak Ridge Land
Company, from RD, Duplex Residential District, to C-2, General Coanercial 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 readin.
and final adoption:
(~20434) AN ORDINANCE to amendTltle XV, Chapter 4.1, Section Z, of
The Code of the City of Roanoke, lg56, as amended, and Sheet No. 232, Sectional
1966 Zone Rap, City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Dook #37, page
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the foil,win9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lish, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber .........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper.measure ratifying and adopting the city's application made to
the United States of America Department of Il,using and Urban Development for a
grant of funds under Section 701 of the Oousing Act of 1954, as amended; accept-
ing a certain grant offer in an amount not to exceed $70,000.00 made to the City
of Roanoke by the United States of America, Department of Housing and Urban
Development for Grant Award No. CPA-¥A-03-36-1006 (G) for a housing study and
management study; authorizing the City Manager to execute the city*s acceptance
thereof and to enter into a Grant Agreement on behalf of the city with the United
State~ of America ia the premises; and approving, by reference certain study out-
lines, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Llsk offered the following Resolution:
(~20450) A RESOLUTION ratifying and adopting the City*s application
made to the United States of America Department of Rousing and Urban Development
for a grant of funds under Section 701 of the Housing Act of 1954, as amended;
accepting a certain grant offer in an amount not to exceed $700000.00 made to the
City by the United States of America, Department of Housing and Urban Development
for Grant Award No. CPA-VA-03-36-1006 (G) for a housing study and a management
study; authorizing the City Manager to execute tbe City*s acceptance thereof, and
to enter into a Grant Agreement on behalf of the City with the United States of
America in the premises; and approving, by reference, certain study outlines.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book n37, page 137.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
313
314
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Habard, Llsk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber ........................6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEODS BUSINESS:
DRUGS: Rr. Daffy Hausmsn. General Manager, ar'roY Radio Station, appeared
before Council and requested information on the status of the 'hot line" proposal
to be used in the apprehension of drug pushers in the Roanoke Valley.
The City Manager advised that he has received a communication from Mr.
John Sabean, Executive Director, RADACC, in reference to matters relating to
funding, and that he mill submit a report to Council in the near future.
SIDEMALK. CURB AND GUTTER: Mr. Lisk called to the attention of Council
a matter mith reference to damage to the curb in front of the residence of Mrs,
Anne M. Foster, 2322 Oakland Boulevard, N, M., and raised the question as to
mhether or not it mould be good public relations for the City Manager to have city
forces repair the damage to the curb.
Mr, Lisk then moved that the City Manager be directed to investigate
the coodition Of the curb in front of the residence at 2322 Oakland Boulevard,
N. R., and report back to Council as to the costs involved in repairing same. The
motion mas seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
TRAFFIC: Mr. Trout read the following prepared statement in connection
storage of vehicles for the purpose of selling spare parts, expressing the opinion
that the citI should consider an inventory tax on the automobiels based on $2.00
to replace the "Grandfather Clause," which allows these establishments to be
operated in violation of the Code:
"Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council:
Some time back the Council was provided with ordinances
storage of vehicles for the purpose of selling spare parts.
The whole community mas overjoyed with the thought that
we were going to go forward with a plan to remove the unsightly
Homever. most citizens were greatly disappointed when
this program was postponed and mas referred back to the Plan-
ning Department. Realizing that this mas some time back, I
think it is now tine for Council to take further action in
order to bring about a workable plan. I have received many
telephone calls from citizens that muuld like to w ark on a
communities whereby the City Attorney and the Planning Depart-
correcting this problem,
Frankly, I think me should consider very strongly
an inventory tax on the automobile based on something like
$2.00 per car per year. This would accomplish tmo things.
One, the City is short on its projected revenue and it
would also force a turnover in the storage of these vehicles.
Also, I think the City Council should consider requesting
the General Assembly to replace the 'Grandfather Cluuse~
which allows these establishments to be operated in violation
of our new Code.
I unuld llhe to see the above suggestions be referred to
the city Manager and City Attorney for their recommendations.
S/ 3ames O. Trout"
In this connection, Rrs. Garvin Stanley, President, Roanoke Valley
Region Antique Automobile Club of America. appeared before Council and advised
that the Automobile Clubs depend on these non-operable cars which are kept in
backyards as their source oi supply ior replacing ports on antique cars, that
they do not feel it is fair to penalize them for keeping cars for sentimental
purposes and requesting that Council consider, when it adopts the new Ordinance,
the people who are interested in the vintage and outstanding body styles of cars
of the 1930's, lg40's and 1950's.
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager and the
City Attorney for the purpose of working out certain guidelines in connection
with the matter and to report back to Council accordingly. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted. [
AIRPORT: Mr. Trout presented a prepared statement advising that in the ]
near future he plans to reorganize tho Airport Advisory Commission as outlined in I
the Ordinance which established said Commission, that the success of any committee
depends on its members being actively involved in committee assignments, there-
fore, he feels it is most important for the Commission to receive the specifica-
tions for the development of a General Aviation Terminal, that once the specifi-
cations are completed for bidding purposes, he will assign this matter to the
Revenue Committee and the Capital Improvements Committee. which are sub-committees
of the Airport Advisory Commission, for study and recommending that the City
Manager develop this information as soon as possible in order to assign it to
the Airport Advisory Commission for their study and recommendations.
Mr. Trout moved that the statement be referred to the City Manager for
his information in connection with securing said specifications. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
TREES: Mr. Trout presented a written statement transmitting a communi-
cation and a draft of an Ordinance from the Roanoke Council of Garden Clubs.
Incorporated. with reference to the adoption Of a tree Ordinance for the City
of Roanoke. recommending that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation.
In this connection. Mr. Lothar germelstein, Planning Director,
appeared before Council and odvised that ~is matter has previously been referred
to the City Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation and that
the Planning Commission will hold a hearing on Wednesday, September b, 1972,
with reference to the matter,
315
"316
POLICE DEpARYMENT-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: The Deputy
City Clerk reported that Mr. Msyne R. LaPierre .has qualified as u member of the
Youth Commission for · term of two years ending April 30, 1974.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed, The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
There .being no further business, Mayor Mehber declared the meetin9
!adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST: (?a~-L~,~
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, September 11, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanohe met In regular meeting in the
Council Cbnmber in the Municipnl Building, Monday, September 11, 1972, at 2 p.m,,
the regular meeting hour, mith Mayor Roy L, Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Milliam S. Hubard, Noel C.
Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas and Mayor Roy L. Mebber .............................5.
ABSENT: Councilmen David K. Lisk and James O. Trout ................
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hits., City Manager; Mr. Milliam F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr, James H. Elncanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A.
Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: Yhe meeting was opened mith a prayer by the Reverend
Milliam raw, Pastor, Central Church of the Brethren.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the regular meeting held on Monday,
August 21, 1972, having been furnished each member of Council, on motion of Dr.
Taylor, seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof was
dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC RATTERS:
MATER DEPARTMENT: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids on the
construction Of roof, gunite interior malls, patch exterior malls and related
work for the Falling Creek Filter Plant Finish Water Reservior. said proposals to
be received by the City Clerk until 2 p.m.. Monday. September 11. 1972. and to be
opened at that hour before Council, Mayor Webber asked if anyone present had any
questions about the advertisement for bids 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 advised that no bids have
been received on the project.
Mr. Uubard moved that the item be deleted from the agenda and that the
matter be referred back to the City Manager for handling administratively. The
motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
TRAFFIC-STREETS AND ALlEyS: Mr. W. Nolan Teague, Executive Secretary.
Towers Mall Merchants Association, appeared before Council and presented a Reso-
lution adopted by the Towers Mall Merchants Association requesting that Council
provide a lead green light westbound on Brandon Avenue. S. M., into Colonial
Avenue and that Colonial Avenue between 23rd Street and Broadway, S. M.. be widened
to four lanes at the earliest possible date and prior to the opening of the Tangle-
wood Mall.
In this connection, Mr. R. R. Quick. Realtor. also appeared before Coun-
cil and expressed the opinion that these two requests are long overdue and requeste,
that Council give the matter immediate attention.
Also mitb reference to the matter, a communication from Miss Katherine
¥. Kerr concurring in the request of the Towers Shopping Center merchants and
317
318
requesting that something be done as soon ns possible to correct the situation,
!mas also before the body.
Mr. Garland moved that the request be referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Hubsrd and unanimousl~ adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: .
STREET 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 August, 1972. mas before Cguncil.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication and list be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by DF. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-ELECTIONS-REGISTRAR: A communication from the Chairman Of the
Electoral Board requesting that $378.40 be transferred from Extra Help to Overtime
under Section #6~, "Electoral Board," of the 1972-73 budget, to provide funds to
cover overtime worked by Mrs. Nell C. Irvin, General Registrar, in preparing for
elections, was before Council.
Mr. Garland moved that Council c~l~cur in the request of the Electoral
Board and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance:
(#20451) AH ORDINANCE to amend and reordoin Section u85, "Electoral
Board." of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see OrdinanceBook #37. page 140.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Habard and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard. Taylor, Thomas and Mayor Nebber .......5.
NAYS: None ........................................................ O.
{Messrs. Lisk and Trout absent)
ELECTIONS-REGISTRAR: A communication from the Electoral Board advising
~hat Mrs. Nell C. Irvin, General Registrar. will retire on September 16. 1972, that
the Electoral Board has appointed Mrs. Katherine M. Poole as the new General
legistrar, recommending that there be two full time Assistant Registrars who will
he appointed by Mrs. Pools as required by law and requesting certain budget real-
!locations in order to accomplish thio reorganization, was b~fore Council.
· Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
~or study, report and recommendation to Council az to ham the reorganization of the
~egistrar*o Office will fit into the City Pay Plan. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, Mayor #ebber presented the followin9 communication
from Mrs. Irvin advising of her retirement on September 18, 1972:
"Mr. Roy L. Nebber September 11, 1972
Mayor, City of Roanoke
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear ROT:
It is with regret that I leave all my friends of over 17
years in the Courthouse and Municipal Building to retire on
September 18, 1972. Dot it ia with a glad feeling that I om
gain9 home to take cave of my husband of 46 years who has
been paralyzed fay over nine years.
I came to mark os General Registrar for the City of Roanoke
on August 1, 1955. after being appointed by the Roanohe City
Electoral floard with Hr. T. Howard Hoyero Chairman: My.
Nalter ~. Rfdgmay, Secretary and Hr. Nilliam Hclndoe. Member.
I con truly soy I have enjoyed my mark and my association math
the personnel of the City. Having been re-qppointed each
time my term expired made me feel grateful end helped me to
improve my worh under each appointment. My appointments mere
under the Electoral Hoards appointed by Judge Hyrk Kirk,
Judge Richard Edmards and Judge Ernest Halloo.
I have also been very fortunate to have such monderful
assistants and extra help that my work seemed to become
easier as the years moved forward and now that these assis-
tants move up to my position and that of the others, I*m sure
this will be one of the best offices in our City for years to
come.
A period of service, homever ~ng, ultimately reaches its
· terminal point. That is my situation with respect to my
tenure of service to our country, our state and our city.
I cannot close this letter without expressing to you my deep
appreciation of your many kindnesses throughout the past 17
years and I shall always cherish the privilege of having been
a part of our outstanding administration.
I am also grateful to all the Presidents. Governors. Senators.
House of Delegates, Rayors. Members of Council, City Managers,
Electoral Hoards and Candidates who have evidenced confidence
in me by all the help they have given me.
I have sought to ahieve, for the public good, all the new
laws pertaining t~ registering and voting properly in our
wonderful City under the guidance of the present Electoral
Board, Mr. Andrew Thompson, Chairman: Hr. B. A. Bruhbs.
Secretary and Mr. James H. Evans, Member.
With deep regrets but with pleasure knowing you have a fine
staff to take my place for they were by staff also and will
carry on in the future as they have in the past.
Sincerely,
S/ Nell C. Ivrin
Nell C. Irvin'
Pt~NNING: A memorandum from the Fifth Planning District Commission trams~
itting a proposed charter and a proposed Resolution, which, if adopted will estab-
lish a forensic laboratory in the Fifth Planning District, advising that the lab-
oratory will he named the Western Virginia Bureau of Forensic Science, that it will
be established in the Fifth Planning District Area near the Medical Examiner's
Office. that it will he used for the benefit of the governments of the district
and that in order to receive funds, the local board must he formed by October I,
1972. was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
~reparation of the proper measure. The motion was seconded by Or. Taylor and
~nanimously adopted.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A petition signed by five residents of Walker
%venue, Gregory Avenue and Cainsboro Road, N. E., requesting that Council ride
~hrough their neighborhood and view the conditions there and pointing out that they
Ire making this request because they are 100 per cent in favor of the Gainsboro
~eighborhood Development Project, was before the body.
319
320
Mr, Garland moved that the petition be referred to the City Manager for
investigation and report to Council. The motion mas seconded by Mr, Hubard and
unanimously adopted,
COYPLAINTS: A communication from Mrs, Ruby Richie, 331 Patton Avenue.
N, M., complaining of the condition o~ a vacant lot next to her home, was before
Council,
Mr,.Darland moved that the communication be'referred to the City Manager
for investigation and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hnbard
and unanimously adopted,
STREETS AND ALLEYS-TRAFFIC: A communication from MFS, F. L. Cox in con-
nection with trucks turning into and leaving Houbert Avenue, S. M** off Main Street
advising that the street is naFFom, that cars are parted on both sides of the
street and that these large trucks hardly have enough room to get through without
having an accident and requesting some relief mith reference to the matter, mas
before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
for investigation and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland
and unanimously adopted.
ItOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: The following communication from Mr. R. R.
Henley, Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housin9 Authority,
)gin.lng out that in accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 36-22, the
%uthority is required to advise Council of any changes in the maximum income
limits at least thirty days prior to the effective date, end advising that effective
November 1, lg?2, certain annual maximum income limits as set out in the communi-
cation are established for. Highland Manor and the Leased Housing Project to be
managed by the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority was before
the body.
*September 6, 1972
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
This Authority is currently operating its homeownership pro-
gram..Highland Manor. Project VA. 11-4, mith income limits as
indicated below:
Continued
No. of Persons Admission Soecial Occuvancv
One or two persons $4,200 $4,600 $4,600
Three or four persons $5,100 $5,800 $5,800
Five or more persons $5,900 $6,600 $6,600
In accordance with the Code of Virginia, Section 3b-22, the
Authority is required to advise the City Council of any changes
in the maximum income limits at least thirty (30) days prior to
the effective date.
This is to advise that effective November 1, 1972, the following
annual maximum income limits are established for Highland Manor
and the Leased Housin9 Program to be managed by the City of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, in Roanoke, Vir-
ginia, as folloms:
One or two persons $4,800 $5,103 $5,103
Three or Four persons $5.800 $6,197 $6.197
Five or more persons $6.600 $7.168 $7,168
NO?R: $100 will be exempted from net family income for each
minor other than the head of the family and his spouse for tho
purpose of determining eligibility of a family for admission.
The special limits apply only to families for admission who
renewal or redevelopment projects.
S/ Russell a. Henley
annual salary of $5.552.00, was before Council.
(u20452) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointment of five free-
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
321
322
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Council having referred to the City Manager nnd
to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for study, report and
recommendation a Resolution adopted by the Program Area Citizens Board of Direc-
tors in connection with the Bainsboro Neighborhood Development Program, the City
Manager submitted the following report advising that he feels the program as has
been presented by the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority on the
first phase, and with the consultation of the PAC Hoard of Directors and other
citizens, is the best that can be made at this time for the firm first year step
and the planning for the second year step, that relocating persons should be
done to the minimum extent absolutely necessary and with the fullest consideration
for those persons mhd may be directly involved, that he feels the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority has and will make proper arrangements for
accommodation of relocations, that as to the Resolution of the PAC Board of
Directors he thinks its members should be commended on their interest and welcomed
in the expectation that this interest will continue to the revitalization of the
Gainsboro area, but expressing the opinion that certain provisions of the Resoln=
tJon go into aspects of the program that are not to be met at this time and can be
more fully handled, studied and responded to in the second, third, etc.. year of
the program, that several provisions of the Resolution go beyond commitments which
the government Of the City of Roanoke, or the people of the area can bind themselves
to legally and morally, and even if they could be feels they would stifle and unduly
restrict the program development, and, in summary, he recommends, by whatever
process would be most suitable and most expeditious, that the PAC Board of Directors
review their Resolution and adapt it to leave out, at this tilme, those things
that are involved in later planning processes and also leave out those things
which improperly bind the development program but which can be expressed wording
of intent and objective:
"September 11, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Gainsboro - NDP
On September 5, 1972, the City Council received the pre-
sentation from the Roanoke Redevelopment and Itousing Authority
on the first phase of the 6ainsboro Neighborhood Development
Plan. You also received a resolution from the Program Area
Citizens (PAC) Board of Directors. The latter matter was
referred to the Redevelpment and Housing Authority for com-
ments to you and both matters were referred to me for comment.
I do so as follows:
As brief history, which most if not all of the members
of City Council are familiar, the NDP idea came about as a
federal program some four years ago. It appeared interest-
In9 and ue set out to pursue it. The concept was to take a
small area of the city and under a year by year, step by
step, program develop and rehabilitate the area. Selection
was made of the Bainsboro area, as is now defined, after much
study~ the consideration of many alternatives and meetings
involving not only local persons but federal representatives
as well. NDP is not the urban renewal type of program with
which all are familiar; that is, it does not acquire all
of the property and level the land and undertake a complete
rebuilding. Rather its objective is to tahe that which is
there and attempt to stabilize St and then build upon it.
Significantly, its main principal is that those people in those
businesses who are in that area will undergo only minor
relocation uith the'purpose that the area is stnblized and
rye continue therein.
Gainsboro mss selected as the beginning point of NDP
in Roanohe bacause it constituted a long established area of
the Ctty. it had nut regressed to the point that there mas no
hope nad there mas much in it that physically could and should
be retained and the area built from thereon. The citizens of
the Gainsboro area constituted an integral part of the com-
munity and mere entitled to and should receive a reconsider-
ation in retaining their life and their pursuits in this area,
plus there being the potential that the upgrading of the
community would be such that it would be attractive to others
to come in.
It had been hoped, and it is still the hope, that the
~ainsboro ares mould constitute the first geographical area
of the community that this approach could be tahen in and then
as time progresses that it mould move on to encompass other
parts of the city. It was realized then, and it is even more
so realized nam, that under ~OP a long-tine wise process is
involved not only in the initial area but especially in the
hope of progressin9 to other sections. Planning and all the
steps of accomplishment contribute to tine and money becomes
au integral issue in this part of the analysis.
Historically, after about a year or so of mark and initbl
planning, the Federal government shelved NDP as one of its
programs. This mas of much disappointment here because of all
that had gone in to the local situation. Then, about a year
and half ago, with almost a suddenness, the Federal govern-
meat brought back NDP. With the background that me had had
in Roanoke, me mere in good position to move forward with it
and to pick up on the prograB. This was done.
The Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority selected
to administer to the program. This was done because the
Authority was considered to have the staff and the expertise
in this type of programming as well as the fact that it con-
stituted the agency through which federal funds of this nature
must pass. There has been a constant emphasis to the Authority
and mithin and among everyone concerned that there is a
conspicuous difference betmeen urban renewal and NOP and that
in both thlnkin9 and in application the difference should be
understood and the approach and handling should be consistent
with those purposes.
I have bad, from the beginning, a cmsiderable interest
in NHP. In my limited judgment the program constitutes in
theory the best approach that anlonu has come up with yet as
to meeting the stabilization and upgrading requirements pre-
valent in so many center city areas in the urban communities
of the country. As me have been learning in our current
experiences with one of the state agencies, the theory is
successful only mhen it is blended with and becomes
adjusted to practicalities. An understanding aL a tolerance
for and an adjustment to those practicalities dictates the
success of theory.
A major thrust of NDP is citizen participation. Itere
in Roanoke and with the Gainsboro community, we actually com-
menced with citizen presentations and involvement, starting
with the absolute beginning of the .thinking of the program
some four years ago. This approach has continued on through
with the formation of a PAC committee to represent the citi-
zens and participate in the planning. Citizen participation
has constituted one of the problems and I hastily add that
such is not in any way a reflection upon the people in the
Gainsboro community. Rather it is a commentary that I
think would prevail in any area selected for ~DP or this type
of programming because of the very considerable difficulty of
citizens suddenly adjusting themselves to having a role in
the actual planning of the development of their communitI.
It is an enviable position because very few people have such
a chance. Nevertheless. it is not mithout its problems.
The PAC committee for Gainsboro has had its ups and damns as
I thinh everyone mill readily admit; let through it all. there
has been a hard and a sincere dedication by many people in
the community tomard the ultimate 9aa1. This has been patti-
alit because,of a recognition by what I think is a majority
of the Gainsboro citizens that something of this nature is
needed to help their community area and also because many have
melcomed the opportunity to participate in actual planning.
323
324
Unfortunately, in all of this, there have been outside
influences that, again in my Judgment, hare not been con-
structive to the objectives of the program.' The fact that
there has been disagreement is not the paint because disagree-
ment and discussion and questioning help to contribute to a~
successful undertaking. Rather the concern has been as to
those persons or agencies that hare sought to undermine the
program for reasons best known to then and this has made the
may more difficult and has caused some at times to feel like
throning up their hands and forgetting the whole business.
I feel that the program as has been presented by the
Authority on the first phase, and with the consultation with
the PAC Committee and other citizens, is the best that can be
made at this tine for the firm first year step and the planning
for the second year step. I uill not go into its details
because that has been explained to City Council. In going
over this first year program with the staff of the Authority
on several occasions and more recently within the past ten
days, I have looked at it with the strong questioning as to
the necessity of relocations of persons. I think that this
should be done to the minimum extent absolutely necessary and
with the fullest consideration for those persons who nay be
directly involved. I think also that the program approach
shoold be evaluated as to the maintenance, to every extent
possible, of those physical faciIities already in the area and
that are durable for the future.
As the Authority indicates certain relocations are neces-
sary within this first phase and apparently this is essential
in order to get the first step moving and to provide for
housing mud other essentials for the following steps. I feet
that the Authority has and will make proper arrangements for
accommodation of relocations. At the same time, it should be
added that this type of hard analysis shouls be made to each
year*s program or each step in the NDP process bi the PAC
Committee, by the Authority and by the general government of
the CitI.
As to the resolution of the PAC Committee. 1 think that
its membership should be commended on their interest and
welcomed in the expectation that this interest w/Il continue
to the revitalization of the Gainsboro area. At the same
time, I must express the opinion that certain provisions of
the resolution go into aspects of the programming that are
not to be met at this time and can be more fulll handled,
studied and responded to in the second, third, et cetera
year of the program. To tie the plan down and to bind the
first step on such future situations is not in order at this
time and can only serve to handicap this initial effort.
Additionally, I feel that several provisions of the reso-
lution go beyond commitments which the government of the City,
or in fact the people of the area, can bind themselves to
legally and morally and even if they could I think that they
would stifle and unduly restrict the program development.
In these regards, I Would generally concur with the
response of the Redevelopment and Housing Authority to the
resolution as set forth in writing which they prepared.
In summary, I would recommend, by whatever process would
be the most suitable and the most expeditious, that the PAC
Committee review their resolution and adapt it to leave out at
this time those things that are involved in later planning
processes and leave out those things which improperly bind
the development program but which can be expressed by word-
ing of intent and objective.
If I can add to this or respond in more detail, I
would be glad to do so.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager"
In this connection, Hr. George W. Harris, Jr., Attorney, appeared before
Council on behalf of the Program Area Citizens flosrd of Hirectors, and advised
that the PAC Board of Hlrectors would like to wlthdram the Resolution which mas
previously filed with CouncJlm Tuesday, September 5o 1972, and in its place sub-
mit a hem Resolution and pointed out that the Housing Authority will later concur
in the Resolution with the exception of the following paragraph:
RHSOLYEH that the Wells Avenue, Gainsboro-Peach Road be a two-
lane improved street with the roadbed not to exceed 30 feet and
delete the proposed interchange at Orange Avenue and Peach Road.
Mr. R. R. Henley, Executive Director of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority appeared before Council in support of the request of the
Authority and ansmered certain questions raised by the members of Council.
Mr. Hubard moved that the report of the City Manager be received and
filed. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Hr. Hubard then offered the folloming Resolution approving the Redeve-
lopment Plan and the Feasibility of Relocation for the Gainsboro Neighborhood
Development Progra. m, Program N.
(=20453) A RESOLUTION approvin9 ~he Redevelopment Plan and the Feasi-
bility of Relocation for the Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Program, Program
i No. VA. A-5.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Hook a37, page 142.)
Mr. Hubard moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Taylor. Thomas and Mayor Mebber ....5.
NAYS: None 0
(Messrs. Lisk a~d Trout'absent)
MAT£R DEPARTHENT: Council having previously requested that the City
Manager transmit his recommendations in connection with the request of Demon-
stration Mater Project, Incorporated, for development of a water system for the
Hew Hope community in Roanoke County, the City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting his recommendations in connection wltb the matter.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally requested that action on
the matter be deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday. Septem-
ber lB, 1972, in order for representatives of Demonstration Mater Project.
Incorporated. to be present ut the meeting.
Mr. Hubard moved that Council concur in the verbal request of the City
Manager and that action on the matter be deferred until the next regular
meeting of Council on Monday, September lO, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Garland and unanimously adopted.
DRUGS: Council having referred to the City Manager for study, report
and recommendation a proposal involving the installation of a telephone recording
deride in the Police Department which could receive aud record confidential infor-
mation electronically in order to identify and discourage the users and suppliers
of illegal drugs in the community, the City Manager submitted the following report
advising that the possibility has been pursued with the C 6 P Telephone Company
and with the Roanoke Area Drug Abuse Control Council. that there is some
325
'326
favorable anticipation that such electronic facilities could prove useful to the
iPolJce Department. that the cost of installation and serylce charges eyer an
experimental period Of three months would be $14b.50, and if Council is agreeable
to such a trial, It would be recommended that said amount be appropriated to the
communications account in the budget of the Police Department:
*September II, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
*Gentlemen:
Subject: Dru9 Hot Line Telephone
City Council has previously considered a proposal involv-
ing the Installation of a telephone recording device in the
City Police Department mhich could receive and record confi-
dential information electronically. This proposal is gener-
ated by a program to identify and discourage the users and
suppliers of illegal drugs in the community.
Ne have previously pursued the possibility with
C ~ P Telephone Company of their providing such an installa-
tion and determined that this could not be done without
cost. Ne have also pursued the possibility with the Roanohe
Area Drug Abuse Control Council of their having funds to
provide such facilities. Since their program is largely one
of education rather than law enforcement RADACC has deemed
that they do not have funds for this purpose.
There is some favorable anticipation that such electronic
facilities could prove useful to the City"s Police Department,
The extent to which the public wouldindeed avail themselves
of this means to assist in the identification and apprehen-
sion Of drug violators is uncertain and would suggest that
a t~ial period would he beneficial. The cost of installation
and service charges over an experimental period of three months
would be $146.$0. If City Council is agreeable to such a
trial, it would be recommended that this sum of money be
appropriated to the Police Department Communications
Account No. 45-220.
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 appropriating the necessary funds
.
llowing the installation of the proposed "hot line" for a three month experimen-
Lal period:
(~20454) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~45, "Police
Department." of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency.
I text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Hook ~37, page 146.)
(For
full
I Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas
Seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Hubard, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor 'Mebber .... 5.
NAYS: None ................................................. O.
iHessrs. Lisk and Trout absent)
TREES: The City Manager submitted a written report reserving space on
he agenda for a presentation or comments in connection with the tree Ordinance.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally advised that he would lihe
o submit his comments on the matter at the same time the City Planning Commission
327
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the verbal request of the City
Manager that he be permitted to transmit his comments on the matter at the same
time the City Planning Commission reports its recommendations to Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting the fallowing copy of a communication under date of September 1.
lg?2. from the United States Environmental Protection Agency with reference to
Contract A. Divisions I and II of the Mater Pollution Control Plant project:
"September 1, 1972
Mr. Julian F, Hirst, City Manager
City of Roanoke
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mr. Birst:
approved plans for Contract A, Divisions I and II of the referenc-
ed project. Also forwarded is a set of specifications tenta-
tively approved pending incorporation of an addendum setting
forth the U. S. Department of Laborts Wage Determination under
privisions of the Davis-Bacon Act of Rarch 3, 1931, and the
Contract Provisions for Work Under the Federal Water Pollu-
tion Control Act. as amended. An identical set of the approved
plans and specifications mast be available at the project
site at all times when construction is under way. The
plans should be kept current with all minor changes indicated.
Revised plan sheets should be submitted on all major changes
and when approved filed with the original plans.
A Wage Determination for the project was forwarded to you on
May 4, 1972, and should be prepared as an addendum to the
specifications along with the Contract Provisions. This
should be submitted to this office in triplicate through the
State agency. Before this addendum can become a port of the
specifications, it must have the prior approval of the Virginia
State Mater Control Board and this office. Receipt of an
approved copy of the addendum from this office mill constitute
full approval of the specifications.
Should you have any questions regarding the above, please
contact us.
Sincerely yours,
S/ Fred B. Grant, P. E.'
Fred B. Grant, P. E.
Chief, Facilities Support Section"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
In this connection. Mr. Thomas advised that representatives of the City
of Roanoke will appear before the State Water Control Board on September 19, 1972,
at mhich time they will request that the Board lift the sewer ban which is pre-
sently imposed upon the Roanoke Valley; mhereopon, gr. Thomas offered the follow-
ing Resolution respectfully requesting and urging revocation by the State Water
Control Board of Requirement Number 1 heretofore invoked against the City of
Roanoke and other Roanoke Valley governmental omits:
(~20455) A RESOLUTION respectfully requesting and urging revocation
by the State Mater Control Board, at its meeting to be held September 19, 1972,
of Requirement Number I heretofore invoked against the City of Roanoke and other
Roanoke Valley governmental units,
328
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Bosh u3T, page 146.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution, The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the follomlng vote:
AYES: Messvs, Garland, Hubard. Taylor, Thomas and Mayor ~ebbev ....
NAYS: None ...................................................... O.
(Messrs. Llsh and Trout absent)
~lth reference to the matter, MF. C. Richard Cvonme11, Attorney,
appeared before Council and requested that copies of the above measure be formavd-
ed to the local valley governments as soon as possible.
Rt. Thomas moved that attested copies of the above Resolution be
f'oruard-
ed to all local governing bodies as soon as feasible. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Hubard nod uuanimously adopted.
S~REETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning Com-
mission for study, report and recommendation the request of #. E. Cundiff Company,
Incorporated, that a portion of a 15 foot alley lying between Lots 1, 2. and
and Lots 12, 13. and 14. Block H. Rap of Kenwood Subdivision, be vacated, dis-
continued and closed, the City Planning Commission submitted a written report
recommending that the request be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council set a public hearing for 7:30
Ronday, October 30, 1972. in the Council Chamber on the request for vacating,
discontinuing and closing said alley. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and
unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Carvin Development Corporation
that property facing the 1500 block of Baldwin Avenue and Eesmick Avenue, N. E.o
described as Lots 12 - 16, inclusive, Section 5, Map of Jackson Park. Official
iTax Nos. 3210912 - 3210glb, inclusive, be rezoned from tM, Light Manufacturing
District, to RO-I, General Residential District, the City Planning Commission sub-
mitted a written report recommending the request be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m., Mon-
day, October 30. 1972, in the Council Chamber on the request for rezoni~g. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS: Council having referred to the ~ity Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Dr. Harold H. Hopper, President,
Virginia ~estern Community College. to utilize the "air rights" over Colonial
Avenue, S. ~., for the construction of u building that would join the campuses,
the City Plannin9 Commission submitted a written report recommending that the
request be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council set a public hearing for ?:30 p.moo Mon-
day, October 30, 1972, in the Council Chamber, on the request for utilization of
said "air-rights". The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously
adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Hr. Re,fore E. WcKinney for a non-
conforming permit in order to remodel existing maid's quarters on his property
at 2307 Lincoln Avenue, S. W., the City Planning Commission submitted a written
report recommending that the request be granted.
Mr, Thomas moved that Council set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m.,
Homdey, October 300 1972, in the Council Chamber, on the request for said non-
conforming permit. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubardand unanimously adopted.
HOUSING-SLL~ CLEARANCE: .The City Planning Commission submitted a
written report recommending that the request of the City of Roanoke Redevelop-
meat and Housing Authority to amend the Kimball Redevelopment Project by expanding
its eastern boundary, be granted.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m..
Monday, October 30, 1972. in the Council Chambers on the request. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
ROANOKE VALLEY: Council having previously appointed a committee com-
posed of Messrs. Samuel H. McChee, III, Chairman, David B. Day, Major C. C.
Knowles and Marren E. Trent to tabulate bids received for repairs to the National
Guard Armory due to flood damage, the committee submitted the following report
recommendin9 that the proposal of Hodoes Lumber Corporation for furnishing all
labor and materials necessary for repair of certain flood dama9e to the National
Guard Armory on a base bid in the amount of $55,000.00, be accepted, and that the
bid of Hodges Lumber Corporation for £urnishin9 ail labor and materials necessary
for the painting of certain other undamaged areas in said National Guard Armory,
under Alternate No. 1 of the specifications for said work, at a cost of $2,875.00,
be accepted:
"September 11, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
After proper advertisement, bids for the flood damage
repairs to the National Guard Armory were received and pub-
licly opened and read by your committee at 2:00 p.m.. Wednes-
day, September 6, 1972. in the Civil Del,ace Operations room.
Four bids were received as itemized on the attached
tabulation. Hodges Lumber Corporatioo submitted the low
base bid io the amount of $55,000. This bid is within the
cost estimates for this work as prepared by both the Corp
of Engineers and Smithey ~ Boynton.
Hodges Lumber Corporation also submitted the low bid of
$2.8?5 for Alternate Number One of the specifications. This
alternate provided for the painting of public areas such as
corridors, the gymnasium, the kitchen, and rest rooms above
the portions of the walls of these rooms which were damaged
by the flood. In these areas the City will be reimbursed for
painting from the floor level to the top of the wainscoting
only as this was the area which was damaged. It is your
committee's opinion that the additional painting above this
point should be done in these public areas at the City's
cost in order to have a more satisfactory appearing area for
the public.
To date, $3,518,?0 has been billed to the City by
SnJthey ~ Boynton for the preparation of the plans and
specifications. They estimate that the total cost of
their services includi'ng the above fee plus approval of
materials and methods of work accomplishment and routine le-
spectJon visits to the site of the work will amount to $7,100.
They alii, or course, be paid based on a payroll multiplier,
and actual costs incurred.
It is your comnittee*s recommendation that:
(1) The los bid submitted by Hodges Lumber Corporation be
accepted by the City and that a contract be entered
into betueen the City and Rodges Lumber Corporation for
this work.
(2) That Rodges Lumber Corporation also be awarded a contract
for the performance of the extra painting in the amount
of $2,875 as outlined in Alternate Number One.
(3) That all other bids received be rejected.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Sam H. McGheeo III, Chairman
City Engineer
S/ ~arr~n E. Trent
S/ David R. Day
S/ Major C. C. Knowles"
Mr. Hubard moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the com-
mittee and offered the following emergency Ordinance accepting the proposals of
Hodges Lumber Corporation:
(u20456) AN ORDINANCE accepting the proposal of Rodges Lumber Corpor-
ation for furnishing all labor and materials necessary for repair of certain flood
damage to the City*s National Guard Armory on a base bid iu the amount of $55.000.0
such costs to be wholly or partially reimbursed to the City by other governmental
agencies; accepting the proposal of Rodges Lumber Corporation for furnishing all
labor and materials necessary for the painting of certain other undamaged areas
in said National Guard Armory. under Alternate No. I Of the specifications for
the firstmentioned work. at a cost of $2.R75.00. to be paid wholly by the City;
authorizing the proper City officials to execute requisite contracts for the
aforesaid york; rejecting certain other bids made to the City therefor; and pro-
riding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book #37. page 14B.)
Mr. Hubard moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Taylor, Thomas and Uayor Webber ....5.
NAYS: None ............... ; ......................................O.
(Messrs. Lisk and Trout absent)
After a discussion with reference to the architectural fees, Dr. Taylor
moved that the City Manager and the City Attorney be directed to straighten out
the legal aspects with reference to the employment of Smithey ~ Boynton. Archi-
tects, in connection with preparation of plans and specifications for certain
repairs to the National Guard Armory. The motion vas seconded by Mr. Hubard
and unanimously adopted.
RUSES: Mr. Robert A. Garland, Chairman of the Transportation Commit-
~ tee, submitted copy of a communication written by him to Mr. C. P. Rrumfield,
Director of Program Planning and Evaluation, Total Action Against Poverty in
Roanoke Yalley, advising that the Transportation Committee authorized him to
accept the offer of Mr. arumfield to investigate the possibilities of federal
and/or state aid for the transit system of the City of Roanoke and advising that
he assumes Hr, Brnnfield sill also study the governmental apparatus that could
best accomplish this and at the ~ast trouble and expense to the municipality.
Mr, Garland saved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
U~FINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
SALE OF PROPERTY: Ordiuauce No. 20449, authorizing and providing for
the city*s sale and conveyance of a parcel of land containing 10,500 square feet,
more or less, situate adjacent to the south line of property known as IOIB
Fourth Street. S. E., in the City of Roanoke, and being a oortheasterly portion
of Lot 2, Block 12, according to Sheet 3 of the Official Sorvey of the City of
Roanoke, Southeast, upon certain terms and conditions, 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:
(a20449) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the Gity*s sale
and conveyance of a parcel of land containing 10,500 square feet, more or less,
situate adjacent to the south line of property knomn as lO1B Fourth Street. S.
in the City of Roaooke, and being a northeasterly portion of Lot 2, Block 12,
according to Sheet 3 of the Official Survey of the City of Roanoke. Southeast, upol
certain terms and couditions.
(For full text of Ordinance, see as in Ordinance Book ~37, page 13B.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, Taylor, Thomas aud Mayor ~ebber ....
NAYS: None ........................................................O.
(Messrso Lisk and Trout absent)
STATE HIGHWAYS: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure approving and adopting a certain interim Federal Aid Urban
System Raps dated June. 1971. developed and proposed by the Fifth Planning Dis-
trict Commission. and authorizing the City Manager to sign said Map, indicating
[he city's approval thereof, he presented save; ~hereupon, Mr. Garland offered th~
following Resolution:
(~20dS?) A RESOLUTION approving a~d adopting a certain interim Federal
Aid Urban System Map. doted June 1~?1, developed and proposed by the Fifth Plan-
ning District Commission, and authorizing the City Manager to sign said Map,
indicating the Eity's approval thereof.
(For full text of Resolutiou,'see Ordinance Book #3?, page
331
332
Hr. Garlnnd moved the adoption of the Resolution. Th~ motion oas
seconded by Mr. ~ubard sad adopled by the follnming vote:
AYES: Ressrs. Garland, Hnbnrd, Taylor, Thomas ond Mayor Mebber ....5.
NAYS: None ....................................................... O.
(Messrs. Lisk and Trout absent)
BUSES: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper
measure conditionally amending paragraph number (1) of a contract dated August 1,
1951, between the City of Roanohe and the Roanoke Railway ~ Electric Company
and Safety Motor Transit Corporation, to reduce the sum payable to the City of
Roanoke in lieu of privilege or license taxes, he presented same; whereupon, Mr.
Garland offered the following Resolution:
(~20459) A RESOLUTION conditionally amending paragraph number (1) of
a contract dated August 1, 1951, betmeen the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke
Railmay £ Electric Company and Safety Motor Transit Corporation, to reduce the
sum payable to the City Jn lieu of privilege or license taxes.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book #37, page 150.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Hubard and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Taylor. Thomas and Mayor Webber ....
NAYS: None ....................................................... O.
(Messrs. Lisk and Trout absent)
JAIL-POLICE DEPARTMENT-PLANNING-MUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
PROGRAM: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure
endorsing, generally, a proposal made by the Regional Corrections Steering Com-
mittee for the establishment of a regional corrections center pursuant to the
provisions of Chapter 7.1, Title 53, of the 1950 Code of Virginia, as amended,
and a regional corrections program for the Roanoke Valley; and requesting the
Regional Corrections Steering Committee to prepare a form of agreement to be
entered into in the premises by localities participating in such regional facility,
he presented same; whereupon, Dr. Taylor offered the folloming Resolution:
(=20459) A RESOLUTION endorsing, generally, a proposal made by the
Regional Corrections Steering Committee for the establishment of a regional
corrections center pursuant to the provisions of Chapter ?.1, Title 53, of the
1950 Code of Virginia, as amended, and a regional corrections program for the
Roanoke Valley; and requesting the Regional Corrections Steering Committee to
prepare a form of agreement to be entered into in the premises by localities
participating in such regional facility.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book n37, page 151.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The m~tion was
seconded by Mr. Hubard and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor Mebber .... 5.
NAYS: None ................................................ O.
(Ressrs. Lisk and Treut absent)
BUDGET-STATE HIGHWAYS-SENERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having directed
the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure appropriating $62,887.00 to
Southwest Expressway Storm Drains under Section s69. 'Transfers to Capital
Improvements Fund,~ of the 1972-73 budget, to provide funds in connection uith
certain storm drain projects in the vicinity of the Southwest Expressway, Mr.
Thomas offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#204bo) AN OROINANCE to amend and reordain Section n6g. #Transfers
to Capital Improvements Fund,~ of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance. and pro-
viding for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance ~ook #3?, page 153.)
Hr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Hubard and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Borland, Hubard, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor Mebber ....
NAYS: None ........................................................ O.
(Messrs. LIsk and Trout absent)
COUNCIL: Hr. Carload offered the following Resolution changing the
date of n regular weekly meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke from
September 25. 1972, to September 2b, 1972, at ?:30 p.m., in the Council Ch3mbeFs
since various members of Council will be attending a presentation by Senator
HUFFy F. Byrd. Jr** at the Roanoke Civic Center:
(u2Od~ll A RE~OLUTION changing the date of n regular weekly meeting of
the Council of tbs City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book =3?, page 153.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Taylor, Thomas and Mayor Nebber .... S.
NAYS: None ........................................................ O.
(Messrs. Lisk and Trout absent)
MOTIONS ANO MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
COUNCIL: Mr. HubaFd moved that Council meet in Executive Session for
the purpose ef discussing certain personnel matters. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayer #ebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Mayor
333
334
COUNCIL, SPECIAL MEETING,
Thursday, September 14, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met 'in special meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Thursday, September 14. 1972. at 2 p.m., with
Mayor Roy L, Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, RJlliam S. Hubard, David K.
Llsk, Noel C. Taylor, Ilampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L.
Webber ................................. 7.
ADSENT: None ................ OD
OFFICERS pRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Dirst, City Manager; Mr. Mllliam F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager, Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; Mr. H. Ben
Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney; Mr. Edmard A. Natto Assistant City Attorney,
and Mr. A. No Gibson. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting ~as opened with a prayer by Mayor Roy L. Webber.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Mayor Webber advised that the special meeting of
Council was called for the purpose of discussing matters in connection with the
disposal of refuse of the City of Roanoke, landfill operations and all other
matters pertaining to trash disposal.
Mr. Trout moved that Council meet in Executive Session to discuss the
fill matter since a real estate question is involved. The motion was seconded by
Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
After the Executive Session, Mr. Carland moved that the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors be invited to meet with the Council of the City of Roanoke
on the 28th day Of September, 1972, at 7:30 p.m., at a location to be decided
upon by the Board of Supervisors, for the purpose of discussing landfill problems.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Mebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
ATTE ~:~/~-~(X~-I-~-~
Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED
Mayor
-!
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, September 18o 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanohe met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber In the Municipal Building, Mondoy, September lB, 1972, at 2 p.m., the
regular meeting hour. mith Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Milliam S. Bubard, David M.
Lisk, Noel C. Taylor. Banpton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Mebber--7
ABSENT: None---~ ..................................................... 0
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F, Hirst, City Manager; Mr. Rilliam F.
i Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr, A. N.
i Gibson, City Auditor,
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened mith a prayer bY Mr. Terry B.
Foster, Minister of Education, Belmont Christian Church,
MINUTES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meetin9 held on August
28, 1072, the Organization meeting held on September 1, 1972, and iheregular meeth,
held on September 5, 1972, having been furnished each member of Council, on
motion of Mr. Trout, seconded by Mr. Rubard and unanimously adopted, the reading
thereof was dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
BEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
CITIZENS* ABV1SOR¥ COMMITTEE-STATE BIGHMAYS: Mr. C. B. Mood, Second
Vice President of the liverdale Civic League, appeared before Council and pre-
sented a communication from the Reverend Calvin B. Fulton. Vice President of the
Riverdale Civic League requesting detailed reports on the progress of the bridge
over Roanoke River at the Sewage Treatment Plant and on the final plans for State
Route 115 - 116.
The City Manager advised that the delay has been with the City of
Roanoke and not with the Ilighway Department, that the entire matter is dependent
upon the expansion program at the Sewage Treatment Plant. that he will be in more
of a position to make recommendations on the matter after the meeting mith the
State Mater Control Board on Tuesday, September 19, 1972, and mill possibly have
a report for Council at its next regular meeting on Tuesday, September 26, 1972.
Mr. Lisk moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for report
The motion Has seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board,
requesting that $2,035.50 be appropriated to In-Service Training under Section
{2000, "Schools - Instruction," of the 1972-73 budget, advising that this amount
will be received as revenue from the State Department of Education as the state's
fifty per cent matching share of a pilot study in the amount of $4,071.00 for
Teacher Self-Renemal and that the School Board's matching share of $2,035.50 will
come from funds previously appropriated in the 1072-73 budget, was before Council.
335
33.6
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Oosrd and offered the foil.ming emergency Ordinance:
(u20464) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Sectton n2000o "Schools
Instruction," of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emer-
gency. ' '
(For fall text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u37, page
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Thomsa and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Nebber ........................7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
DUDGET-SCROOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting that $1.g38.07 be appropriated to Maintenance of Transportation
Equipment under Section ~5000, "Schools - Pupil Transportation," and that
be appropriated to Replacement of Vehicular Equipment under Section ~?000,
"Schools - Maintenance of Plant and Equipment," of the 1972-73 budget, advising
that these amounts will he additional revenue that will be deposited in the City
Treasury, Mas before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20465) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~37, page 157.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption Of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Mebber ........................7.
NAYS: None ...........O.
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting that $532,363.95 be appropriated to Section =06000, "Schools - Project
Second Step," of the 1972-73 Budget, advising that 100~ of actual expenditures
mill be reimbursed by the State ,apartment of Education from P. L. 8~-10, Title I
funds, was before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#20466) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~86000. "Schools -
Project Second Step," of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =37, page 158.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Mr.. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
Ii
AYES: Nessrs. Garland, flubnrd. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Nayor
Nebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None---~ ....... O.
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTNENT-JAIL-NUNICIPAL BUILDING-CAPITAL'INPROVENENTS
PROGRAN: Dr. John J,rko appeared before Council and presented a communication
proposing the combination of the functions of the Regional Crime Detection Lab-
oratory, the Bedicsl Examiner's Office, the Police Department and the Jail into
a single building located on city-owned property next to the Courthouse and
requested that the members of Council take this proposal under consideration and
9ire it serious thought.
Mr. Thomas moved that the proposal be referred to a committee composed
of Nessrs. Nilliam F. Nubard, Chairman, John N. #ils,n, Paul J. Puckett, Julian
F. Nirst and Beverly T. Fitzpatrick for study, report and recommendation to
Council. The motion mas seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-COMMISSIONER OF TIlE REVENUE: Copy of a com-
munication from the State Compensation Board addressed to Mr. J. S. B,ward, Jr..
Commissioner of the Revenue, advising that the Compensation Board is approving the~
employment of a new clerh at an annual rate of $4,431.00 to fill the position
vacated by Mrs. Peggy Overstreet, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The mo~c~
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-COMMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE: Copy of a com-
munication from the State Compensation Board addressed to Mr. J. S. Il,ward, Jr.,
Commissioner of the Revenue, in reference to his July, 1972, expense voucher,
advisin9 that the State's part of claim for distribution of connection cost and
telephoueoperator's salary on his telephone expense for $104.00 has been dis-
allowed because the state does not share in the cost of such expense and that
the remainder of the voucher has been approved for payment, mas before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-CITY TREASURER: Copy of a communication from
the State Compensation Board addressed to Mr. J. H. Johnson, City Treasurer,
advising that the Compensation Board is approving the employment of Mrs. Peggy
C. Overstreet, at an annual rate of $5,200.00, effective September 1, 1972, to
fill the position formerly held by Mrs. May S. Van Clear and therefore, the
salary for Mrs. Overstreet sill have to be charged to the salary allowance
originally approved for Mrs. Van Clear, mas before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-SHERIFF: Copy of a communication from the
State Compensation Board addressed to Mr. Paul J. Puckett, Sheriff, with refer-
ence to his July, 1972, expense voucher, advising that the State*s part of claim
for distribution of connection cost and telephone operator's salary for his
telephone bill for $209.94 has been disallowed because the state does not share
in the cost of such expense, was before Council.
337
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimously 'sdoptedo
SEWERS AND S~ORM DRAINS: Copy of Resolution No. 520 adopted by the
Tomn Council of the Toun of Vinton requesting the State Water Con'roi hoard to
lift the sewer connection ban on the Roanoke Valley and especially the Vim.on
area, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITY TREASURER-BUDGET: A communication from Mr. J, H. Johnson, City
Treasurer. advising that mhile attending the Local GovernmentOfficials* Annual
Converence at the University of Virginia. hewas advised in a finance meeting of
the restrictions which the Federal Internal Revenue Department has placed on
;tote and local governing bodies who borrow money, at a low tax exempt interest
rate, that is not needed Jmmeiately for the operation of their government, that
the Treasurers were advised to be on guard against investing such funds at a
higher rate of interest uhen other funds are available, and that the Federal
Government could restrict a locality from selling bonds with tax exempt coupons
attached if. and when, found guilty of any such violations, pointing out that
on September O the City Auditor borrowed $2.000,000.00 at 2,67% interest when at
the same time the City Treasurer had $1,300,000.00 of General Fund money invested
at 4.50% interest due September 29, 1972, that the General Fund cash balance
as of September 12 was $3,009,423.05 which includes the $2,000,000o00 borrowed
on September 6, and there is an additional $1,300,000.00 of Gmeral Fund monies
invested at 4.50% interest, making a total of $4,309,423.05 available in the
General Fund account as of September 12, 1972, was before Council.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
MATER DEPARTMENT: Council having deferred action on a report of the
City Manager transmitting certain recommendations in cohnection with the ~equest
of Demonstration Mater Project, Incorporated, for u water system for the New Hope
community in Roanoke County, the matter mas again before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that action on the report be deferred until the next
regular meeting of Council on Tuesday,'September 26. 1972. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted,'Messrs~ Garland and Lisk voting no.
Mr. Lisk raised the question as to mhat the a~titude of the people in
the New Hope Community would be toward becoming residents of the City of Roanoke,
then it mould be the obligation of the City of Roanoke to supply them with the
necessary water supply.
Mr. J. D. Vanheventer. Executive Director, Demonstration Mater Project,
Incorporated, replied that he is not in a position to answer this question on
behalf of the residents of the Nam Hope community.
BUSES: The City Manager submitted a written report transmitting copy
of the following communication aoder date of September 12o 1972, from Mr, J.
MJstar St*we, President, Roanoke City Lines, Incorporated, regarding the stated
decision of said Company to discontinue its operations as of December 31, 1972:
*September 12. lg?2
Mr. Julian Hirst, City Manager
City of Roanoke
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mr. Hirst:
Al you are aware, our Company is experiencing continual
financial difficulties in the operation of transit service
in Roanoke.
Nith rising costs and declining revenues, we have reached
the point that we can no longer operate without a sizeable
deficit. A loss of $B4,600.00 was experienced in
and $g?,428.00 for the first seven months of 1972. It is
obvious that operations cannot continue on this basis.
For your information, we are attaching operating statement
of our Company for the first seven months of 1972. along
with tabulation showing payroll costs. Monthly operating
statements have been furnished the City Auditor on a regu-
lar basis.
Ne have made our operational losses known to you, your court-
cji and the transportation committee from time to time. You
will recall that I was in your office in September of last
year at which time we discussed our problems and possible
solutions including:
(1) Municipal ownership and operation
(2) Municipal owflership with operating compnay
and management fee.
Re have tried since that time to reduce our losses but
they continue to worsen. Even thou9h council has agreed to
some changes that have been helpful, they were not suffi-
cient to offset the continuing losses in revenue and
increases in costs.
In view of the above described circumstances, we see no
alternative for our Company but to discontinue operations.
Me herewith serve notice on you and the City of Roanoke that
we will discontinue our bus service ia the City of Roanoke
as of close of business, December 31, 1972.
Yours very truly,
ROANOKE CITY LINES. INC.
S/ J. Ristar St*we
J. Ristar St*we
President."
Mr. Thomas moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager, the
City Attorney and the Transportation Committee for study, report and recommenda-
tion to Council at the earliest possible date. The motion was seconded by Dr.
Taylor and unanimously adopted.
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE-LEGISLATION: The City Manager submitted a
written report transmitting copy of the following communication from Mr. John
B. Boatwright, Jr., Director of the Division of Statutory Research and Drafting,
in regard to legislation and charter changes in the upcoming Session of the
General Assembly:
339
340
'September'7, 1972
To the key official of the Hanicipnlity addressed:
The Virginia MnnJ~ipai L~ague and the municipalities
generally have been of great help in expediting the work of
the General Assembly and I request again the fine coopera-
tion which you have extended us in the past.
The Session or the General Assembly which convenes in -
January, 1973, is supposed to last for thirty days. If your
locality has charter bills or other bills for special forms of
government, I urgently request that you arrange to have them
drawn and approved locally forthwith. Mhen so approved they
should then be prefiled.
The Commission On the Legislative Process has requestedt
that I bring to your attention that the deadline for filing
chacter bills and so-calJed government bills has been reduced
from the first t'e n days to the first seven days of the Ses-
sion. Further, bills which are prefiled are referred to
mittees may begin consideration of such measures immediately
upon receipt of printed copy from the Clerks of the Houses.
The benefits to the localities should be many.
Also, the Commission hopes that if a locality desires
to amend several sections of its charter or form of govern-
ment that they all be incorporated in one bill. This will
expedite the work of the committee and should
reduce the demands upon your time.
In closing, I wish to express my appreciation for the
many courtesies extended this office by the League and by the
localities. Without it our task would have been much harder.
If we con.mist in any way please let me know at once.
Sincerely,
S/ John B. Boatwright. Jr.
John H. 8oatwright, Jr.
Director*
Ur. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: The City Uanager submitted a written report in connection with
the hours of operation of the restaurant at Roanoke Municipal (#oodrum) Airport,
advising that the restaurant opens at 6:00 a.m., and closes at 9:30 p.mo. and that
ion a few occasions where illness, severe weather and equipment failure present a
roblem they are allomed to close not sooner than 7:00 p.mo, provided all persons
Wrking in the terminal are notified by 5:30 p.m.
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Lis k and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following report
in connection with the advisability and necessity of the establishment of indus-
trial wastewater standards applicable to the Roanoke Valley public sewer system
as ultimately receives treatment at the City of Roanoke wastewater treatment plant,
advising that he has discussed this matter with representatives of Roy F. #eston,
Incorporated, Environmental Scientists and Engineers, that resulting from these
discussions has been a proposal from said firm and transaitting copy of said pro-
)osal. advising that he does not seek the adoption of the proposal at this parti-
:ular meeting, anticipating that Council may wish to study it and give thought to
any suggestions or questions with respect to it, that based on the reaction of
of Council he would propose to formard copies of this proposal to the valley
governments so that they might be aware of that which is under consideration and
should everything appear to be in order it would be proposed that the city accept
the offer of Roy F. Weston, Incorporated, for such a study:
"September 18, 1~72
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
SubJect: Industrial Nastewater. Survey
On several occasions there has been cited the advisabi-
lity and the necessity of the establishment of Industrial
wastemater standards applicable to the Roanoke Valley pub-
lic sewer system as ultimately receives treatment at the
City of Roanoke wastewater treatment plant. This mas
particularly discussed durin9 the stages of contract
negotiations between the Valley governments and the
application of such standards was referenced in the con-
tracts themselves. The matter is also referred to in a
recent detailed report on the City*s wasteuater situation
as prepared by me. The approach to implementation neces-
sitates: first, an area survey mhich constitutes an
analysis of what are the actual situations, secondly, a
determination of requirements both related to the existing
situations within the Valley and the City, us well as the
levels of treatment at the plant and the standards to which
the plant must hold to both for infloent and effluent and,
thirdly, the determination and establishment of rules through
ordinances for adoption by the City and the other Valley
governments or by such ordinance procedure as would be
appropriate.
Me have discussed this with representatives of Roy Fo
Weston, lac.. Environmental Scientists and Engineers, who
have high competence in the field and who have been
associated on several occasions and through several
studies with the Roanoke treatment plant.
Resulting from this has been a proposal, which we re-
quested of that firm, and I attach that proposal being a
letter of August 20, 1972, with attachments.
This is submitted for review and consideration by the
City Council.
We do not seek your adoption at this particular meeting,
anticipating that the City Council may wish to study this
and give thought to any suggestions or questions with respect
to it. Rased then on your reaction, we would propose to
forward copies of this proposal on to the other Valley 9overn-
meats so that they might be aware of that which is under
consideration and should then all appear to be in order it
would be proposed to Council that the City enter into an
acceptance of this firm*s proposal for such a study.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be taken under advisement. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SENERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmittin9 copy of a communication written by him to Mr. A. H. Paessler. Execu-
tive Secretary of the State Mater Control Board, forwarding the following letter
from Mr. M. L. Howson of Alvord. Rurdick and Bomson. Consulting Engineers, in
connection with plans for the secondary and tertiary treatment at the Roanoke
341
.342
mustewater plant, advising that the city concurs in the approach of Alvord,
Burdfck nad Bowman and requesting that the letter be considered as a summary of
procedure proposal from the City of Roanoke:
'September 6, 1972
Mr. Julian F. Birst
City #unager
BunicJpsl Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24007
RE: Plans for Secondary and Tertiary Treatment
Dear Hr. Birst:
Under date of October 6, 1971, the State Water Control
Board issued a 'Special Order to the City of Roanoke' in
which it was stated that all treatment facilities should be
constructed and put in operation within 32 months of the
date of the order but in no case later than June 1. 1974.
That order further shamed under a heading °Work to be com-
pleted* five steps in the program. The first three items
are proceeding under the scheduled *Time for Completion,*
The fourth item, covering the design of secondary and tertiary
treatment plants, is scheduled for completion in IR months,
with the fifth item - the construction of these facilities
to be completed in 20 additional months which would be
June 1, 1974.
This letter relates to Item 4 - the design of plant
additions scheduled for completion 12 months after October
6. 1971.
I Within the next three weeks, or approximately by
September 15, ue will have prepared outline drawings suffi-
cient to present to the State Water Control Board for their
approval. These drawings will be sufficient to determine
the functional capabilities and be such that upon approval
they could be augmented and completed without delay. By
this preliminary submission and, hopefully, the approval
of the Board. time would be saved and the work thereon pro-
ceed with assurance that when completed it would be ready for
submission to bidders.
These dromin9s would show the basic design, capacities,
etc. They would be accompanied by a brief description of the
functions each port would per£orm and. taken as a whole,
would be designed to meet the previously stated effluent
requirements of the Board. These would be sent to the
Water Control Board in advance of the October 5. 1972, date.
We have commenced and will be proceeding mith the de-
tailed drawings and specifications during the submission and
approval period. We would wish to aviod, as we feel the City
and State Board likewise concur, the possibility of extehsive
revisions in the detailed drawings should the State Board have
question or recommendations. This method should assist all
parties and minimize expense, time and delays in accomplishing
revisions.
If consideration and approve, can be received from the
State Water Control Board in reasonably expeditious time, the
detailed drawings can be completed sufficient that bids can.
be taken and the facilities built by the completioh date of
June 1, 1974.
We hope that this method of procedure will have your
approval and would appreciate your advice as to this pro-
cedure in any event.
Very truly yours,
ALVORD. BURDICK ~ BORSON
By Si L.. B.' No'son
L. RD Howson'
Br. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
mas seconded by Br. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
I
In this connection, Wr. Thomas offered the folloming Resolution addressed
to the State Water Control Board, relating to the city's program 'for abating
pollution of the eaters of Roanoke River to the levels established by the State
Mater Control Board:
(n20462) A RESOLUTION addressed to the State Water Control Board relat-
ing to the City's program for abating pollution of the waters of Roanoke River
to the levels established by the State Water Control Board.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book #37, page
Rt. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Hubard add adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber .......................... ?.
NAYS: None ...........O.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmittin9 copy of the following communication written by him to Mr. A. B.
Paessler, Executive Secretary. State Water Control Board. summarizing and confirm-
ing the scheduling elements of the expansion of the primary facilities of the
Roanoke Rastewater Treatment Plant and of the design, construction and scheduling
of the retention basin or ballast pond:
"September 14, 1972
Rr. A. H. Pamssle~
Executive Secretary
State Mater Control Board
P. O. Box 1143
Richmond, Virginia 23230
Dear Mr. Peassler:
Subject: Roanoke Wastewater Treatment Plant -
Primary Expansion and Retention Basin
At the most recent meeting between representatives of
the staff of the State Water Control Roard and representatives
of the City and its engineers, on September 1, 1972, it was
recommended by the Board staff that the City administratively
submit a letter summarizing and confirming the scheduling
elements of the expansion of the primary facilities of the
plant and of the design and construction and scheduling of
the retention basin or ballast pond. This is herewith done.
Primary Expansion
Contract B - Equipment
Consistent with the recommendation of the Board that the
procedures of equipment for construction projects be implemented
in advance of the facilities construction themselves, the City
forwarded the specifications for the equipment of the primary
expansion to the Virginia Department of tlealth on June
1972.
Review and approval by the State Water Control Board
was advised to the City on September 6, 1972.
It was advised that the specifications were t~en trans-
mitted on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), by
Alvord, Burdick and Howson on September 6, 1972.
The City will advertise and receive bids within 30 days
after EPA gives approval to advertise.
Bids will be submitted promptly upon receipt to the
SMCB and EPA for approval.
3~.3
'344
Upon advice from gPA of approval of. bids, contrsct mill be
awarded.
Contract documenls schedules equipment delivery uithi~
200 days,
Contract C - Construction of Primary Facilities
Plans and specifications were transmitted to the Virginia
Department of Health on August 17, 1972.
Steps are:
VDH, SNC~ and EPA approval.
Within 30 days after EPA approval, advertisement and
receipt of bids.
EPA approval of bids and award.
Following final EPA permission, construction is
scheduled within 300 days.
It is noted that under Contract C.' as above indicated, to
the information available to the City, the plans and specifi-
cations are currently with the Virginia Oepartment of Health.
RETENTION BASIN
The Roanoke City Council by Resolution No. 20337 of June
2b, 1972. mhich resolution was forwarded to the State Water
Control Board confirmed its intent to provide and construct
a retention basin/ballast pond as a part of the treatment
plant construction programs
The first engineering report on the basin proprosal,
entitled 'Report Upon Bypassing,' uss dated April 7, 1972.
The second engineering report entitled'Report on 30
Million Gallon Basin' was dated July b, 1972.
Most recent meetings between staffs regarding the
retention basin/ballast pond were on August 15, 1972 and
Septmber 1, 1972.
There herewith is attached and forwarded a summary report
prepared by Alvord, Burdick and Howson entitled *Summary Report
Upon Bypassing and 30 MG Basin.* This report is dated Septem-
ber O. 1972. and follows and is based upon the staff meeting
of September 1, 1972. In principal concept this would con-
stitute a 8 MG concrete storage basin both for overflow of
raw sewage at the ~take to the plant and for permanent bal-
last pond. It would additionally include a 22 MG basin for
overflom and additional ballast capacity if necessary. The
22 MG basin would emboyd earth embankment and be concrete
liled. A concrete lining is considered desirable; however,
if questionable, can be deleted. Estimated construction cost
would be ~l.HSO,O00.
The staff instructed the City on September 1, 1972, to
proceed with the gesign of this basin.
The programming concept of tbe retention basin is con-
sidered and mould be handled for contract in two divisions.
Division II is hereby described initially:
Division II
Following approval of the su=mary report of Septem-
ber 8. 1972, plans and specifications, currently in progress.
would be completed and submitted within two months for approval.
Steps required:
Approval of plans and specifications by VDH, WCB and EPA.
30 days for advertisement and receipt of bids.
Approval and permission to award contract by NUB and EPA.
Prompt award of bid for construction.
Construction time estimated at seven months.
345
At the staff meeting of September 1, 1972, the point mss
discussed of sludge pumping facilities for the basin. It was
agreed that such facilities could be added. However. dependent
upon mhen determination might be made that such should be
added, there could be an effect ranging betmeen 30 days and
60 days on design time.
Division 1: Site Preparation
Core borings ore in progress and mill be completed
September 15, 1972.
There mill be necessary the removal of sludge material in
the present sludge ponds. The effective method for this
removal will be by contract. The conditions of the contract
will include those requirements of the City, the State Water
Control Hoard and the Virginia Department of Health.
Thirty days, from the date of this letter, are required
for collection and computation of data as to volume, depth
and consistency of the sludge for inclusion within the specifi-
cations in order to fairly afford contractors a basis for bid-
ding.
Two weeks for preparation of plans and specifications.
Approval of plans and specifications by VHIJ. WCBo and EPA.
30 days for advertisement and receipt of bids after EPA
approval.
Approval and permission to award contract by WCD and EPA.
Prompt amard of bid upon receipt of permission.
Three months estimated time for contract removal of
sludge.
We thank you for the opportunity of submitting this infor-
mation, me assure your staff and the Board of our interest in
continuing with these projects as expeditiously as possible and
in corrdination with your staff; and if me can supplement this
information, discuss it further or advise further, we would
certainly be 91ad to do so.
Sincerely yours.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager-
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the communication from the
City Manager as transmitted to the State Water Control Board. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting copy of the following communication written by him to Mr. A. H.
Paessler, Executive Secretary. State Water Control Board, in connection with the
matter of the metering of total flow into the Roanoke Hastemater Treatment Plant
to the end purpose of accomplishing the recorda~on of bypass quantities and sum-
marizing the eIements of bypass metering:
"Mr. A. H. Paessler
Executive Secretary
State Water Control Board
P. O. Box 1143
Richmond. Virginia 23230
Dear Mr. Paessler:
Reference: Roanoke Treatment Plant - Metertn9
At the meeting on September 1, 1972, of representatives
of the Staff of the State Water Control Hoard and members ~
3~16
the staff und engineers of the City, one of the suggestions
discussed it lengtbwus the mutter of the metering of total
flow Jato the Roanohe unnte treutment plunt lo the end pur-
pose of accomplishing the recordation of bypuss quuutities.
As u result of that meeting, it wus concluded thut ue should.
utile to you in sommary of the matter. · It is to be recalled
that the determination of bypass quuntfties have been discussed
from time to time both ut staff level and at hearings of the
8oard. In response to the conclusion from the September 1
meeting. I summarize the elements of bypass metering as fei-
Since January 1, 1971, the City has been gaging flows
in the bypass line, In this period of 623 days, there has
been a total of 61 days upon which.any bypassing has occurred.
A bypassing day should be explained aa any 24-hour day period
during which there mas an incident of bypassing. This could
vary from a 15-minute period of bypassing which would therefore
designate that incident as one day to a flood condition
necessitating a full 24-hour bypassing period. For simplicity
of this explanation, the term days is used, mJth the above
definition, Father than entering into the refinements of
· Of the aforementioned 61 days, 49 of those days were
such that gage readings as taken can be considered accurate
and their use in the computation of bypass flows would be a
reliable factor.
During the remaining 12 days. the stream elevation nas
of such level as to create a surcharge on the bypass line.
This means that the use of gage readings would not be reli-
able or proper for the determination of bypass flow quantity
on those 12 days only.
Of the 12 days. three represent the period of the
flood of June 21 during which time any practical metering
would have been inefective.
Translating the above days into a percentage of total
time and recognizing that even the total days as a time
facet can be reduced further to portions of days or hours,
it is felt that the bypass periods have constituted a very
small percentage of operation time and of plant flom. The
point here is not to raise issue over the principle er
practice of bypass but rather to ascertain the significance
of all data that would be procured by any alternative meter-
ing arrangement in contrast to present procedure. ·
The bypass operates under two different conditions. One
condition is open channel flow. The other condition is when
the outfall is under pressure.
To the fullest of our knowledge and investigation, there
are no meters available or today manufactured on the commer-
cial market which would measure flows under both conditions.
This has been substantiated by engineer's studies and manu-
facturers' correspondence. The easiest flow to measure is
the open channel. Therefore the City and its engineers first
investigated various ways in which we could obtain open
channel metering conditions for all bypassing. Initial
investisation mas as to the possibility of raisin9 the outfall
end of the 54-inch bypass pipe in order to have discharge
above hi9h water stream elevations. The open channel condi-
· tion could not be met by just raising the outfall end. High
water river elevations during the past one and one-half years
mere considerably above the highest elevation that could be
obtained for the outfall pipe.
Consideration then was given to raising the entire out-
fall pipe. This study indicated that as soon as the pipe was
raised sewage would be bypassed in other locations on the
upstream interceptor system. If sealed manhole covers or
other line restrictions were applied on the interceptor
system, the practicality was apparent that back flooding
into buildings connecting to the sewers would occur.
Investigation next was made of other locations for by- ·
passing and the possibility of meterin9 at such other points.
Ne could not find such alternate locations wherein open
channel flow conditions could be met, either upstream or
downstream of the existtn9 bypass.
In discussions on September 1, 1972, with the Bosrd
staff regarding the matter of metering, one suggestion mas
made mhich the City bad not previously considered, and that
was the possibility of un adjustment in the river by louerlng
the Surface level in the vicinity of the Sewage Treatment
Plant. This would be considerably complicated because of the
limits of channel depth and the existence of the Nlagra Dam
Immediately downstream, which dam is not readily subject to
water level adjustment. Our conclusion on this point has
been that it would not be feasible for the purpose sought,
A second means of metering has also been investigated.
This would involve a pressure discharge. The City*s engineer
determined that the proper meter for this purpose, end one
which would give it most consistent accuracy, would be a
magnetic meter installed in the bypass line. The estimated
cost of this meter is $15,000 with total installation of the
meter and discharge basin estimated at $54,000. Oesign.
delivery and construction time on such a unit ~ estimated
at 6 1/2 months.
As has been felt previously and as further discussed at
the September I meeting when the factors of tlme. cost
effectiveness, and data value in relation to bypass per-
centages and present majoring capabilities, it is our Judg-
ment that such metering installation would not be justified.
The factor of surcharge would also be considered in this
determination.
An element of the expansion of the primary facilities is
an additional meter on the discharge side of the raw sewage
pumps. This additional metering capacity, when added to
the existing meter at the plant will allow for measuring
all sewage up to IOO million gallons per day. Math increased
safe pumping capacity of 60 million gallons per day and a
total pumping capacity of 07 million gallons per day. it is
apparent that all flows which are delivered to the Sewage
Treatment Plant would be metered at such time as the primary
facilities are expanded.
If We can provide additional analysis or discussion on
this matter we would be glad to do so. It is our objective
to respond with such information capabilities os would
adequately reflect plant requirements.
Sincerely yours,
S/ Julian F. H'irst
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.
Mr. Thomas further moved that Council concur in the communication from
the City Manager as transmitted to the State Water Control Board. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
LEGISLATION-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the
following report recommending that Council urge our representatives and senators,
at the federal level, to support the Water Pollution Control Act presently bean9
considered by the Senate and House of Representatives:
"September 18, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Water Pollution Control Plant Expansion .-
Federal Grants
As is well known, Roanoke is embarking upon a multJmll-
lion dollar expansion and upgrading of the Clty.'s water pol-
lution control facility. Much has been said about this pro-
ject, portions of which are presently under construction with
other improvements to be implemented over the next couple
of years.
347
348
The first two phases o! the Clty*s program have received
allocation of State and Federal funding, mhich Include such
facilities ss sludge lagoons, chemical storage and handling
facilities, a retention basin/ballast pond. and expansion of
the plant primary facilities. The major portion of the plant
Juprov~ment program, however, has not received an allocation
of State and Federal funds since the Federal government has yet
to conclude necessary legislative action. This latter phase
of work mlll include expansion of the plant*s secondary
facilities as nell construction of tertiary treatment works.
The estimated total cost is approximately 13 1/2 million
dollars and we have submitted a grant application for Federal
funds involving more than ? million dollars.
#e have recently received a letter from the State #ater
Control floard Executive Secretary requesting the Cityts sup-
port for passage of the Federal Mater Pollution Control bill
in order that the Stateuide program, including Ronnoke's
efforts, can remain on schedule, The State advises that no
action can be taken on pending grant applications until
Federal legislation has been passed and grant funds released.
This potentially could affect the City's progran of plant
expansion and upgrading. It is recommended that City Council
urge our representatives and senators at the federal level to
support the #ater Pollution Control Act presently being con-
sidered by the Senate and House of Representatives.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Ilirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City*
Manager and offered the following Resolution strongly urging enactment prior to
adjournment of the Congress of proposed amendments of the Federal Mater Pollution
Control Act which, if enacted, would make available to states and localities sorely
needed federal funds for the improv;ment of local anti pollution faci~ties:
(=204~3) A RESOLUTION urgently seeking support of proposed amendment
by the Congress to the Federal Mater Pollution Control Act.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Hook =37. page 155.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber .........................?.
NAYS: None ......... O.
MATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report concurring
in the following recommendation of a committee that all bids received on cleaning
and painting the interior and exterior of the 2,000,000 gallon steel water storage
standpipe on Carroll Avenue. be rejected, and that the work be read{ertised at a
later date:
"August 31, 1972
Honorable Mayor ~ City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Bid Opening - Cleaning ~ Painting 2.000,000
Gallon Standpipe, Carroll Avenue
Bids were received in the~fice of the Purchasing Agent
until 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, August 29, lq72, a~d publicly
opened by the undersigned Committee for cleaning end painting
the interior end exterior of the 2,000,000 gallon steel mater
storage standpipe on Carroll Avenne.
As shown on the attached tabulation, two bids mere
received, uith Dominion Tank ~ Iron Company declining to bid.'
The Committee has decided that the leu bid of $16,400.00 '
submitted by L. R. Hromn, St,. Paint Company, Roanoke,
Ylrginie. is excessive for the work to be performed and that
this murk should be readvertised at a later date.
It is the recommendation of this Committee that the
bids be rejected.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Milliam F. Clark
S/ Kit H. Kiser
S/ Sam H. ~cOhee Ill
S/ B. B. Thompson"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Reneger and offered the followin9 Resolution:
(=20467) A RESOLUflON reJectin9 all bids received for cleaning and
painting of the City's 2,000,000 9allen water storage standpipe on Carroll Avenue.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Dook ~37. page 159o)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Dubard. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
~ebber ........................... 7.
NAYS: None ............O.
CITY PROPERTy: The City Reneger submitted a written report concurring in
the following recommendations of a committee that the proposals of L. R. Drown,
Sr.. Paint Company and Hundley Painting and Decorating Company. for painting various
city-owned buildings, totaling $24.357.00. be accepted:
"September 18, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, ¥irginia
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 I1:00 a.m.. August
29. 1972. for the painting of various city-owned buildings.
As shown by the attached tabulation, bids were submitted by
two firms.
According to the specifications, the City reserved the right
to award n contract based on the lowest alternate (lump sum)
bid. or to make,erda based on the lowest bid for each loca-
tion or group of locations on which bids were requested.
Therefore. it. is the recommendation of the committee to award
contracts based on the lowest bid for each location or group
of locations as follows:
A. Juvenile Detention Home:
Interior and exterior
B. City Nursing Home:
Interior at nursing home )
Exterior at caretaker*s house)
and workshop )
L. R. Drown. Sr. Hundley Paintin9
paint Company ~ Oecoratinq Co.
$4,575.00
$1.147.00
C. Fire Department:
Interior end exterior ~t #3
Station
Exterior ut uS Station
D. Airport:
'Interior at Building Zl )
Exterior ut Building alO )
Exterior of rental property)
on Dent Road )
£. City Market~
Exterior
F. Parks ~ Recreation:
GrandJn Court Recreation Center:
Exterior
Preston Park Recreation Center:
Interior and exterior
Flshburn Home ~ Others:
Exterior
Buena Vista Recreation Center:
Interior
Miscellaneous structures:
Golden Park Shelter - Int. ~ Ext.)
Fallon Park Shelter - Int. ~ Ext.)
Fallon Park Toilet -lnt. ~ Ext. )
Thrasher Park Shelter - Int. )
Lake~ood Park Toilet -IS. ~ Ext. )
Senior Citizen*s Center - Ext. )
Eureka Park Recreation Center -
Exterior
G. Libraries:
Raleigh Court Branch Library:)
Exterior )
$1,995.00
975.00
$2,370.00
$ 750.00
$1.150.00
$4,225.00
$1,505.00
$1,500.00
$1,9T0.00
975.00
Jackson Park Branch Library: )
Interior ) ~!,220.00
$16,040,00 $8,317,00
The above prices, totaling $24.357.00, are within funds allocated in
the 1972-T3 budget of tho Maintenance of City Property Division.
Account 64-255. for the accomplishment of this work.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ #illiam F. Calrk
S/ Sam H. McGhee III
S/ B. B. Thompson"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendations of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(u204bO) AN ORDINANCE awarding contracts for the paintln9 of the inter-
ior and exterior of specified public offices and buildings in and/or belonging
to the City; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book :37, page 159.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Hubard and adopted by the £ollo~in9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
#ebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ........... O.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: The Assistant City Attorney submitted a writ-
ten report advising that at the meeting of Council on September Il, 1972, Council
received a report from the City Planning Commission recommending amendment to the
Kimball Redevelopment Project so as to include in the project boundaries an addi-
tional 24.350 square feet. that' at said meeting Council set a public hearing for
October 30. 1972. on the matter, that officials of the City of Roanoke Redevelop-
ment and Housing Authority have advised him that progress toward disposition of
this amendment, as well ns other related matters, will be delayed until action on
the amendment is formally taken by Council and further advising that a public
hearing on this proposed amendment is not legally necessary and that Council nay
act upon the requested amendment at its pleasure.
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The notion Was
seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follow-
tho report recommending that the request of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority to amend the Kimball Redevelopment Project by expanding its
eastern boundary, be granted:
"September 7, 1972
The Honorable Roy Lo Webber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City
Planning Commission at its regular meeting of September 5,
1972. (See enclosed letter and map.)
Mr. Roy R. Henley appeared before the Planning Commis-
sion and stated that this petition to expand the Kimball
Project on the southeastern boundary by an additional 24,305
square feet was necessitated by the closing of Patton Avenue
and the need thereby to improve access to the Cas Company
property, lie noted that the Cas Company would convey to the
Authority their 1/2 frontage of Patton Avenue equaling
24,305 square feet, and the Authority would convey to the
Gas Company an equal amount of land located immediately west
of and adjacent to the Roanoke Gas Company with frontage
on Street Ho. 6,
Accordingly, notion was made. duly seconded and unani-
mously approved recommending to City Council to grant this
request.
Sincerely.
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr., by LM
Creed K. Lemon. Jr.
Chairman"
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
With further reference to the matter, a communication from Mr. Russell
R. Henley, Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
requesting official action by Council approving Amendment H~. 3 to the Kimball
Redevelopment Project, Project So. VA. R-4b. advising that it is the opinion of
the Authority that a public hearing on this Amendment is not required, therefore,
in order to resolve a problem to produce desirable disposition of parcels in a
timely manner, the Authority respectfully requests City Council approval of this
Amendment at its September 16, 1972, meeting, was before the body.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority and offered the following Resolution approving
Amendment Ho. 3 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Kimball Redevelopment Project:
(~2046g) A RESOLUTIOH approving a certain amendment', being Amendment
No. 3, to the Redevelopment Plan for the Kimball Redevelopment Project, Project
351
352
No. VS. R-46, located in the northeast section of the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book a37, page 161.)
Mr. LJsk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Hubard and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisko Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
NAYS: None ........... O.
TRAFFIC: The Assistant City Attorney submitted the folloming report
.ronsmitting certain enabling legislation in connection mith licensing and regu-
Lation of inoperable automobiles and automobile graveyards and junkyards, advising
that his office will be happy to prepare Ordinances which will implement any or
all of the regulations permitted by the described enabling legislation, but, befor(
so doing, would seek direction regarding the extent to which Council ~ay wish to
impose such regulations within the city and that Council may, further, wish to
have appropriate city persons comment upon the revenue aspects Of any such
regulations as well as problems which may be encountered in their enforcement:
"September lB, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
In May Of 1970~ the City Attorney reported that the 1970
Session of the General Assembly enacted certain enabling
legislation to amend Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia to
contain the following provisions:
(1) '§15.1-11.1 Authority to restrict keeping of inoper-
ative motor vehicles, etc., on residential or commercial
property; removal of such vehicles. -- (a) The govern-
Jug body of any county, city or town may, by ordinance,
provide that is shall be unlawful for any person, firm
or corporation to keep, except within a fully enclosed
building or structure, on any property zoned for ·
residential or commercial purposes any motor vehicle,
trailer or semitrailer, as such are defined in §dS.l-l,
whose, condition is such that it is economically impract-
ical to make them operative; provided, however, that
the provisions of this. act shall not apply to a licensed
business which on June twenty-six, nineteen hundred
seventy, is regularly engaged in business as an auto-
mobile dealer, salvage dealer or scrap processor**
(2) '§15.1-27.1 Ordinances imposing license taxes on
owners of certain automobiles. -- The governing body
of any county, city or town in this State may adopt an
ordinance imposing alicense tax, in an amount not
exceeding ten dollars annually, upon the owners of
automobiles which do not display current license plates
and which are not exempted from the requirements of
displaying such licnese plates under the provisions of
§ ~ 46.1-42 through 46ol-4g and 45.1-119 and 4b.1-120,
are not in a p~blic dump, in an 'automobile graveyard'
as defined in S 33 -27g.3 or in the possession of a
licensed junk dealer or licensed automobile dealer.
Nothing in this section shall be applicable to any
vehicle being held or stored by or at the direction
of any governmental authority, to any vehicle owned
by a member of the armed forces on active duty or to
any vehicle regularly stored within a structure.'
Section 15.11-11.1 was further amended by Chapter 572 of'the 1972
Acts of Assembly so as to provide as follows:
~15.1011.1 (b) The governing body of any county,
city or town may, by ordinance, further provide: (1)
that the owners of property zoned for residential or
commercial purposes shall, at such time or times as
the governing body may prescribe, remove therefrom
any such inoperative motor vehicles, trailers or
semitrailers that are not hept within a fully enclosed
building or structure; (2) that the governing body
fo such county, city or town through its own agents
or employees may remove any such inoperative motor
vehicles, trailers or semitrailers, whenever the owner
of the premises, after reasonable notice, has failed
to do so; (3) that in the event the governing body
of such county, city or town, through its own agents
or employees, removes any such motor vehicles, trailers
or semitrailers, after having given such reasonable
notice, such county, city or town may dispose of such
motor vehicles, trailers or semitrailers after giving
additional notice to the owner of the vehicle; (4)
that the cost of any such removal and disposal shall
be chargeable to the owner of the vehicle or premises
and may be collected by the county, city or town as
taxes and levies are collected; and (5) that every
cost authorized by this section with which the ownwr
of the premises shall have been assessed shall consti-
tute a lien against the property from which the vehicle
was removed, the lien to continue until actual payment
of such costs shall have been made to the county, city
or town.*
As the Council has been earlier advised, couples together, these
provisions, mhen enacted as local ordinances would appear to pro=
vide a salutary means of regulating and, to a large extent, elim=
lasting the objectionable pructice of allowing unused automobiles
to remain for long periods of time on private residential and
commercial properties in the City.
Additional enabling legislation, existing in one form or
another for some time, codified as Section 15.1-28, presently
would permit regulation end taxing of automobile graveyards
and junkyards as follows:
*~15.1-28. Ordinances taxing and regulating 'auto-
mobile graveyards* and 'junkyards*o -- fa) The 9ovum-
lng body of each county, city and town in this State
may adopt ordinances imposing license taxes upon and
otherwise regulating the maintenance and operation of
places commonly known as automobile graveyards and
junkyords and may prescribe fines and other punishment
for violations fo such ordinances,
No such ordinance shall be adopted until after
notice of intention to propose the same for adoption
shall have been published prior to its adoption once a
week for two successive weeks in some newspaper publish-
ed in such county or city or, if there be no newspaper
published therein, then in some newspaper having general
circulation in such county or city and no such ordinance
~ shall become effective until it shall have been publish- ed in full for two successive weeks in a like newspaper.
As sued in this section the terms 'automobile grave-
yard' and *junkyard' shall have the meaning ascribed to
them in ~ 33-279.3. '
.(b) any ordinance adopted by soy couoty, city or
town which Was enacted in vonformity with § 33-2?9°3 as
it existed prior to April four, nineteen hundred sixty-
six. is hereby validated.'
This office would be happy to prepare ordioances which would
implement any or all of the regmlatioos permitted by the above-
quoted enabling legislation, but, before so doing, wauld seek
directiom regarding the exteet to which the Council may wish
to impose such regulations within the City.
The Council may, further, wish to have appropriate City persons
comment upon the revenue aspects of any such regulations as well
as problems which may be encountered in their enforcement.
Respectfully,
S/ H. Ben Jones, Jr.,
H. Ben Jones, Jr..
Assistant City Attorney*
353
3§4
Mr, Hubnrd moved that the report be referred to the City Manager for
the purpose of requesting the Planning Director to prepare a form of Ordinance
to be considered by the members of Council. The motion was seconded by Mr, Trout
and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL-CITY ATTORNEY: The City Attorney submitted a written report
requesting the opportunity to discuss mlth the members of Council. in Executive
Session. a personnel matter,
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC MELFARE: The City Auditor submitted a
monthly statement of expenditures for public welfare for the month e~ded August
31, 1972.
Mr. Thomas moved that the statement be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-SCBOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report forwarding
a report on an examination of the accounts and records of the Roanohe City School
Board for the year ended June 30, 1972, made by the firm of Andrews, Burhet and
Company, Certified Public Accountants, under the direction of his office, advising
that based upon the report, it is his opinion that the funds of the School Board
mere properly handled and accounted for.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed and that a copy
faf said report be forwarded by the City Clerk to the Audit Committee composed of
Messrs. ~illiam S. HuDard, Chairman, Robert A. Garland and Hampton W. Thomas for
their information. The motion was seconded by Rt. Lisk amd unanimously adopted.
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the City of
Roanoke for the month of August, 1972.
Mr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: ·
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Mr. James O. Trout, Chairman of the Landfill Commit-
tee. moved that Council meet in Executive Session to discuss certain landfill
matters. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
After the Executive Session, Mr. Trout advised that it is the opinion
of Council that action on the matter with reference to the landfill should be
deferred until the regular meeting of Council on Monday, October 9, 1972. pointing
out that it is the intent of Council to meet with the Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors on September 2~, 1972, to see if certainlandfill arrangements can be
orked out and it is hoped that, some alternate site can be found in order for the
landfill to be phased out in Fallon Park as originally planned.
Mr. Trout then moved that action on the matter be deferred until the
regular meetio9 of Council on Monday, October 9. 1972, awaiting the outcome of
the meeting with the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County. The motion was
secoeded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Rr. Raymond Hall. President of the Southeast Civic League, appeared
before Council and requested that Council try its best to phase out the landfill
operations In Fallon Park as soon as possible and to consider other possible sites
and presented a petition signed by 1,$34 southeast residents in opposition to any
extension of the landfill in Fallon Park.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONK.
UONSXDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
COUNCIL-ACTS OF ACKNOMLEDGERENT: Council having directed the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure commendin9 Mr. James O. Trout for his
energetic and devoted service to the City. and extending to Mr. Trout the warmest
sense of appreciation of the Council of the City of Roanoke and that of the citize~
City for the exemplary manner in which he has fulfilled the duties of the
of
the
office of Vice Mayor, he presented same; whereupon. Mr. Lisk offered the follow-
in9 Resolution:
(~20470) A RESOLUTION relating to the HONORABLE JAMES O. TROUT, a former
Vice-Mayor of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book #37. page 163o)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Ilubard and adopted by the loll,win9 vote:
AYES: Messrso Garland. Hubard. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas and Mayor
Mebber ..........................
NAys: None ...........O. (Mr. Trout not voting)
GARBAGE REMOYAL: Mr. Lisk offered the following Resolution requesting
the Chairman and Members of the Board of Supervisors of Roanoke County to meet
with tRe Moyor and Members of the Council of the City of Roanoke on the evening
of September 28. 1972, at 7:30 p.mo. ut a location to be decided upon and speci-
fied by suid B,,rd or its Chalrmoo, to discuss urgent problems relating to refuse
disposal i, the Roanoke Valley community:
(~204T1) A RESOLUTION requesting the Choirman and Members of the Board
of Supervisors of Roanoke County to meet with the Mayor and Members of the Coun-
cil of the City of Roaooke to discuss urgent problems relating to refuse dispo-
sal in the Roanoke Valley community.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~37. page 164.)
Mr. Lisk moved the odoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Gorland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard. Lisk. Taylor. Thomas. Trout and
Mayor Mebber ..................7.
NAYS: None ..........-0.
PLANNING-POLICE DEPARTMENT: Council havin9 directed the City Attorney
to prepare the proper measure appointing Mr. Richard Lee Lawrence. Commonwealth*s
Attorney. and Mr. M. David B,,per. Superintendent of Police. to the Board of
355
356.
Directors of the ~estern Virginia Bureau of Forensic Scle~ceo he presented sane;
whereupon. Hr. Thomas offered the following aesolutJ'on:
(n20472) A RESOLUTION appointing certain city officials to the Board of
Directors of the Mestern Virginia Bureau of Forensic Science.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book #37, page 164,l
Mr. Thomas mored the adoption of the Resolution, The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Llsk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber ........................7.
NAYS: None ............ O.
ROTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
ANIMALS-COUNCIL-GARBAGE REROVAL: Mr. Russell Potter. 1722 Memorial
Avenue, S. ~., appeared before the body and proposed that Council consider a com-
plete recycling center for the City of Roanoke. that now is the time for the city
LO get away from landfills and garbage dumps and check into the recycling concept.
Rt. Potter also appeared before Council in connection with certain
inadequate facilities at the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals.
!~ointin9 out that the SPCA is very much understaffed, that there should be a city
)rdinance requi~in9 cats to receive ruble shots and that the functions of the
SPCA and those of the City of Roanoke Dog Pound should be combined in order to
prevent duplication of services.
Br. Potter further spoke on the matter of the reorganization of City
;ouncil structure, expressing the opinion that a city the size of Roanoke should
)e operated by a full time Council, that the backgrounds of certain present and
)asr CityCouncilmen do not represent the middle or lower class of citizens, Br.
otter expressing the opinion that Council refers too many items for study, report
Lad recommendation to an already over-morked and understaffed City Manager and
[hat Council should assume more responsibility of this nature rather than trans-
f ' g t to the City Manager.
Since Mr. Potter did not have a mritten statement, Mayor ~ebber requested
;hat he put his remarks into writing, and that they be formardod to the City Clerk
|n order fo~ the City Clerk to transmit a copy of said statement to the City
ianager and the members of Council for their information.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the verbal remarks of Mr~ Potter be received
lad filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adol~ed.
BONDS-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-SCHOOLS: Mr, Lisk called to the'atten
Lion of Council that at a regular meeting of Council on Monday, July 31, 1972.
the Roanoke City School Board submitted a priority list of the school capital im-
provencal projects proposed for the next decade a~ approved by the School Board at
its meeting on July 25. 1972o t~at they further transmitted a design and construc-
tion time schedule as prepared by Frant~ and Chappelear, Consulting Engineers,
and a communication regarding projected construction cost increases during the
text ten years, that Council made a motion that the communication be taken under
advisement and that Bayor ~ebber be requested, mithin the next two months, to
extend an invitation to the Roanoke City School Board to meet informally mlth the
members of Council to discuss the situation in reference to the school capital
~improvements program and the city capital improvements program, Hr. Link pointing
lout that time is drawing near and that Council needs to make a decision as to
~mhether or not it ia going to have a bond referendum in the November 7, 1972.
lelectfon and requested information from the City Nauager as to whether or not he
!ihas completed his five million dollar priority list of proposed capital improve-
i~ments and what his recommendation mould be toward including the bond referendum
~for capital improvements and school improvements in the November 7, 1972, election.
The City Manager replied that his five million dollar priority list is
not complete as yet. that the majority of his time during the last few months
:i
~has been allocated to matters relating to sewage treatment and landfill questions.
i
that if Council is interested in holding a bond referendum in the November 7
~election he can proceed with a fast moving program in order to compile his
priority list but that he does have some question pertaining to a November
referendum.
Several members of Council expressed the opinion that the most appro-
iprlate time to have the referendum mill be at the November election, that since
it is a Presidential election there will be a greater number of people at the
polls and that if Council waits another year to hold the referendum it will cost
the taxpayers additional money.
Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that it is time for Council to go on
record as to whether it does or it does not want the referendum to be included
in the November 7 election and urged that the members of Council discuss this
matter as a Committee of the Thole and come back with recommendations, that there
,'should be continued monitoring of all capital improvement projects either by a
committee appointed by Council or by Council acting as a Committee of the Whole
~so that Council will always be aware of the scope of its capital improvement
iprojects.
,!
Mr. Garland expressed the opinion that he does not see any advantage
?in holding a special election on the bond referendum and that the November 7,
1972, election is the time to put the capital improvements question to the
iqualified voters of the City of Roanoke.
After a very lengthy discussion of the matter, Mr. Lisk moved that the
,[City Attorney be instructed to prepare the necessary papers and develop the neces-
i~sary procedures to hold a ten million dollar bond referendum in the November 7,
I~1972, election, that the City Manager be instructed to prepare a five million
~dollar capital improvements program, that the Roanoke City School Board be directed
.
~to reaffirm its prtority program for its five million dollars and that Council
meet with the City Manager and the Roanoke City School Board to review said
priorities in order for the matter to be placed on the agenda of Council for
i:Tuesday, September 26, 1972, for necessary action. The motion was seconded by
~r. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS-SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: Mr. Lash questioned the City Manager
as to the status of providing a sanitary sewer system to serve the Huff Lane
Elementary School and further questioned the City Manager as to what the city can
do to provide a sanitary sewer system for the school regardless of whether or not
the residents in the area hook onto the system.
The City Manager pointed out that on March 13, 1972, he presented a
report to Council transmitting five recommendations as to bom the matter might be
handled, that at that time Council concurred in his report and the matter mas
referred to the City Attorney to investigate as to the city proceeding under the
process of holding a public hearing after the plans have been completed and
establishing an assessment with one-half of the cost on the property owners and
report his recommendations to Council, that on June 5, 1912, Council referred
to the City Manager for study, report and recommendation a petition signed by
37 property owners of the Dorchester Court area in opposition to theJnstallation
of the sanitary sewer system in their area, the City Manager pointing out that
the matter has not progressed any further than the petition as referred to
above.
The City Manager further pointed out that one problem has been with
reference to crossing the Iluff Farm property and that installation of the sewer
lines comes down to the following three alternatives:
1. whether or not the City of Roanoke wants to assume the total
cost of installing the sanitary sewer line;
2. conferring with the Roanoke City School Board in order to work Out
some type of financial ratio; and
3. the assessment of all affected property o~ners of one-half of
the cost of a complete sanitary sewer system.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Lisk moved that the City Manager
be directed to explore the financial aspects in connection with the City of
Roanoke assuming lO0 per cent of the costs involved with regard to providing a
sanitary sewer line from Interstate Route 561 to the Huff Lane Elementary School
and that the City Manager further be directed to explore the possiht~ity of the
assessment of all affected property owners in the area in order to anatolia
complete sanitary se~er system at a total coat of approximately $71,0~0.00, with
a definement of costs involved to each individual property owner and report his
recommendations to Council accordingly. The motion Has seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL: Mr. Rubard moved that Council meet in Executive Session to
discuss certain personnel matters. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
A~'/E ST:
COI~/CIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Tuesday. September 2&, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the.Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Tuesday, September 26, 1972, at ?:90 p.m.,
the regular meeting hour, With Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT:. Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Webber .........................................
ABSENT: Councilmen William S, Bobard and Hampton M. Thomas ..........2.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julain F. Hirst, City Manager, Mr. William F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager, Mr. James N. Mlncanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A.
Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting mas opened with a prayer by the Reyerend B. P.
Edwards, Pastor, First Christian Church.
MIN~ES: Copies of the minutes of the regular meeting hied on Monday,
September 11, 1972. and the special meeting held on Thursday, September 14, 1972,
having been furnished each member of Coaocil, on motion of Dr. Taylor, seconded
by Rt. Trout and unanimously adopted, the readin9 thereof was dispensed with and
the minutesapproved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
DUDGET-SCDOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting that $12,200.00 be appropriated to Section uByO00, "Schools - Artist-
In-Resldence Program," of the 1972-73 budget of the Roanoke City School Board, to
provide funds for a program which is to determine if the practicing artist influence
and enriches the aesthetic and cultural environment of the schools and community,
advising that this program is totally funded by the United States Office of Edu-
cation. Arts and Humanities Division, through the state disbursing agency, the
Richmond Intercultural Center for the Humanities, was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the Roanoke City
School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20473) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section nB7000~ "Schools -
Artist - In-Residence Program," of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and pro-
viding for an emergency.
(For full text of. Ordinance, see Ordinance Book m37, page 165.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by tbe following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor Webber--5.
NAYS: None ............................................... O.
(Messrs. Dubard and Thomas absent)
AUDITS-JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIONS COURT: A communication from Mr.
Joseph S. James. Auditor of Public Accounts, in connection with an audit of the
359
360
accounts and records of Laurence L. Koontzo Jr** Judge, Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court, for the calendar year 1971, udrlsing that the examination re-
vealed that full accounting bad been made for all receipts of record, was before
Council.
Mr. Garland moved that the communication be received und filed. Tbs
motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk end unanimously adopted,
TRAFF1C-EYREETS AND ALLEYS: A communication from Mrs. W. B. Friend,
837 Hombert Avenue, S. #., complaining about the heavy truck traffic on Houbert
Avenue, advising that cars are parked on each side of the street and it is almost
impossible for big trucks to get through, that sometimes they have to back out on
Main Street tying up traffic Jn order to make a second attempt at getting through,
and requesting that something be done about the situation, mas before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to the City Manager
for investigation and report to Council. The notion mas seconded by Mr. Garland
and unanimously adopted.
TAXES: A communication from Mrs. John A. Moses. 3422 Rosewood Avenue,
S. M.. advising that on September 2. 19T2. She mailed to Mr. J. H. Johnson. City
Treasurer, a check for 3rd quarter real estate taxes in the amount of $53.64, and
also on the same date, in a separate envelope she mailed a check to Mr. Johnson
for estimated State Income Tax in the amount of $66.75, that on September 13, she
received a letter from Mr. Johnson stating that her check for real estate taxes
mas not mailed until September 8 and she mas due to pay a penalty of $5.35, that
she called the Treasurer*s Office and was told that her check for the estimates
State Income Tax went through the register on September T, Mr. Johnson explaining
that this was because his office had over two thousand payments to process after
the Labor Day weekend, expressing the opinion that our postal service has der*ri*r,
ated bat that the general public should not be penalized for their inefficiency.
advising that Mr. Johnson was very understanding about her problem but explained
he had to abide by the law as set forth by City Council and that he had a flood
of complaints in regard to late payments for 3rd quarter taxes, and inquiring if
there would be any grace period in a situation such as this. was before Council.
Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney, advised that he has read the com-
munication from Mrs. Moses, that Jt was similar to many other complaints receiv-
ed from taxpayers during the early part of September. that he has confirmed with
Mr. Johnson the actual post marks, that the City Treasurer does not have the
authority to naive the penalty for late payment, that he has checked with the Post
Office to see if there was any delay in the mail and there was none, that he-
would like to see Jf he can come up with an Ordinance to amend the penalty for
late payment, that when taxpayers make their payment by mail and it arrives late
they should be required to make a mritten affidavit that the payment mas put
into the mail before the deadline, and that any extension of time before re-
quiring a penalty for late payment be limited to five to ten days.
In answer to on inquiry from Mr. Lisk as to whether the waiver would
provide proper control since deadlines sould apply to everyone, Mr. Eincanon
stated be does not believe people would lie if they iud t~ swear to an affidavit
under oath.
After a discussion of the matter, Hr. Trout moved that the matter be
taken under consideration in order for the City Attorney to work on on appropriate
Ordinance to amend the penalty for late payment. The motion was seconded by Dr.
Taylor and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITIZENS* ADVISORY COMMITTEE-STATE HIGHWAYS: The City Manager submitted
a written report on the Route 115-116 Project in regard to the Sewage Treatment
Plant, stating that he is writing to the State Highway Department recowmendJng
that the sloped easement for the proposed roadway, if it should be situated on
the east side of Roaoote River in front Of the Plant, be not closer than 200 feet
the face of the Plant headquarters building at the front doorway, that this
has the effect of shifting the roadway approximately 72 feet from the building
opposite the front door. that the extent of shift reduces southward and would
presumably increase northward.
In answer to an inquiry from Mr. Lisk us to what the timetable would be
in getting an answer back from the Ilighway Department and a decision made on the
matter, the City Manager replied that he could possibly get an ansmer this coming
week while he is in Richmond and that he will come back to Council with a status
report.
Mr. Charles R. Merkel appeared before Council and advised that he wants
see the project get underway as soon as possible.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Trout moved that the report be
received and filed. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
SE#AGE TREATMENT PLANT: The City Manager submitted a written report
requesting to include on the agenda a report w/th regard to such matters as may
be appropriate for presentation relating to the subject of sewage treatment.
In this connection, the City Manager verbally requested that the report
be withdrawn.
Mr. lrout moved that Council concur in the verbal request of the City
Manager that the report be withdrawn. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and
unanimously adopted.
GARBACE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted a written report adrisin9
that he has been'informed by the owner of the land east of the city limits on
U. S. Route 460 upon which the city is temporarily disposing of certain forms of
refuse and to which private firms and individuals have been directed to carry
their material, since the necessary closing of the Mill Mountain area. that the
charge for disposal at this site will be increased from $1.00 to $2.00 per load,
effective October 1, 1972.
362
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by Nr.'Lisk and unanimously adopted.
MATER DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a written report advising
that it was scheduled to return to the agenda a report in connection with the
request of Demonstration Mater Project, Incorporated, for water service to the Nam
Rope community in Roanoke County, houevero Mr. J. H. VanDeventer has requested that
the consideration be extended until the next regular meeting of Council and that
it is respectfully recommended that this matter be so scheduled.
Mr. Link moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and that the matter be delayed until the next regular meeting of Council.
The motion mas 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 Reverend George K. Boners, Pastor, St. Mark*s Lutheran Church, requesting per
mission to use four vacant lots on the southeast corner of Rorer Avenue and gth
Street, S. M., to make a temporary playground for the black children in that area
until such time as the owners of the lots desire to use said lots for building
purposes, the City Manager submitted a mritten report advising that the decision
to use these particular lots for a playground and the decision as to mhether or
not to so establish such a program would rest math the church and the owners of
the property, that the determination of satisfaction of zoning is a matter upon
which the City Planning Commission mould report, that other than the above matters
he mould have no reason to otherwise object to this proposal, understanding that
it is a totally private project and recommending that the complete area be fenced
)referably with a chain link fence of approximately eight feet in height for
)rotectJon of the area from the heavy flom of traffic on the tmo adjacent streets.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follow-
ing report recommending that Council issue a variance for a period of one year
to allow the Reverend George K. Bowers, Pastor. St. Mark*s Lutheran Church, to
use the above-mentioned four vacant lots for a temporary playground for children
in the area:
"September 21, 1972
The Honorable Roy L, Mebber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Plan-
ning Commission at its regular meeting of September 20. lg?2.
Reverend George K. Bowers appeared before the Planning
Commission and stated that the lots in question are individually
owned and with the owners* permission, his church would like
to use them until the land is built upon. He further stated
that this neighborhood is chiefly occupied by black people
and there are many black children in the area that have no
place to play except in the streets math the nearest public
park, Manana Park. over a mile away. He noted that this dis-
tance was too far for the small children to go and the young
people in his congregation had taken an interest in the black
young people of this community.
363
He further noted that the church has taken a special
interest in a black deaf girl and was sponsoring her education,
Reverend Rowers stated that the young people of his church will
be working in cooperation with the young people of the area and
that they planned to clear and clean off the lots themselves.
He further stated that this park would be temporary and the
arrangements are rot a one year time limit with, hopefully, an
option to continue on a year to year basis until the owners
of the property wish to build on the lots.
The Planning Director appeared before the Planning Com-
mission and stated that under the residential and apartment
zoning designations, land could he used as a public park but
not as a private park. He further states that one of two
things could be done in this situation, either the Planning
Commission could recommend that City Council issue a temporary
variance for a period of one year or the Planning Commission
could Initiate a change in the zoning ordinance permitting pri-
vate parks in apartment zones.
The Planning Director recommend that the zoning ordinance
text be changed so as to permit public and/or private parks in
residential and apartment zones with the stipulation that they
can be operated only by a non-profit organization, and the
private parks by subject to final approval by the City Planning
Commission.
Mr. Lawrence. Planning Commission member, stated that
he felt a zoning text change of this nature might cause
opposition by residences of a residential area if private use
parks mere allowed by everyone.
A letter by Mrs. Catherine Roses, a business woman in
the oeighborhood, was presented to the Planning Commission
stating her opposition to the use of this land as a private park
noting that it would bring more corruption and vandalism to
this area.
After a discussion by the Planning Commission members, it
was agreed that the proposed use of this land as a temporary
park was in keeping mith the general character of the area.
Accordingly, motion mas made, duly seconded and unanimously
approved recommending to City Council to issue a variance for a
period of one year to allow Reverend George K. Dowers. Pastor,
Saint Mark*s Lutheran Church to use four vacant lots on the
make a temporary playground for the children ia that area.
Sincerely.
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr., by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
Mr. James N. Kincanon. City Attorney. advised that he has discussed the
~atter with Mr. Lothar Rermelstein, Planning Director, and that this is something
that should he handled by the Board of Zoning Appeals by way of the Church applying
for a variance for operation of the playground.
In answer to an inquiry from Dr. Taylor, Mr. Kincanon and Mr. N. M.
Griffin, Assistant Planning Director, advised that the church would be responsible
for the upkeep of the playground once it is established.
Mr. Trout moved that the City Clerk be instructed to advise St. gark*s
Lutheran Church to apply to the Board of Zoning Appeals for a variance for opera-
tion of the palyground on Rorer Avenue, S. M. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk
and unanimously adopted.
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City Manager submitted the following
report in explanation of an overexpenditure of $29.945.91 in ~he Emergency Assfst~c,
Needy Families account under Section ~37, 'Public Assistance** of the 1972-73
364
Appropriation Ordinance. advising that this is u new category end by the fact of
its newness and its porticuler intent, there Js no reasonable way to estimate the
amount of money that uould be required to carry out this program, that it is felt
that after approximately six months of operation there should be some criteria of
determination as to what the expenditures might be for the balance of the fiscal
year, that this category is 100~ reimbursable but the State does not divide the
total appropriations Jato monthly allotments and takes the position on un account
such as this that they do not wish to appropriate additional funds until the
account is almost depleted, that it is the type of account which is put to uses
for which it is very difficult under guidelines and regulations at the present
time to effect any reasonable curtailment in expenditures or requests, that under
the present procedure it would be anticipated that this account would perhaps con-
tinue to exceed the appropriation for the remaining of the first six months and
just prior to that time he would return to Council with a report and simultaneousl
request additional funding on the part of the State through the 100% funds, and
that it is further anticipated there will be some tapering off in expenditures
under this account as the clients accumulate the various items that are provided
for within this new program of funding:
"September 26, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke,.¥irginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Welfare Funds
At your meeting on September 18 you received a monthly
report of the status of the expenditure of funds of the Mai-
fare Department and it was noted that to the end of the month
of August there was an overexpeoditure of ~29,945.91 in
Object Code 2?8, Emergency Assistance to Needy Families.
RI waI of additional explanation, this is a new category
and bi the fact of its newness and its particular intent,
there is no reasonable way to estimate the amount of money
that would be required to carry out this program. It is
felt that after approximately six months of operation there
should be some criteria of determination as to what the
expenditures might be for the balance of the fiscal year.
This category is 100~ reimbursable, but the State does not
divide the total appropriations into monthly allotments and
takes the position on an account such as this that they do not
wish to appropriate additional funds until the account is
almost depleted. It ts the type of account mhich is put to
uses for which it is very difficult under guidelines and
regulations at the present time to effect any reasonable
curtailment in expenditures or requests.
lherefore under the present procedure it would be anti-
cipated that this account would perhaps continue to exceed
the appropriation for the remaining of the first six months
and just prior to that time we would return to City Council
with a report and simultaneously request additional funding
on the part of the state through the 100~ funds. Me further
anticipate, as previously advised, that there will be some
tapering off in expenditures under this account as the
clients accumulate the various items that are provided for
within this new program of funding.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. H!rst
City Manager~
Hr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion uss
seconded by #r. Trout and unanimously adopted.
ELECTIONS-REGISTRAR: Council having referred to the City Banager for
study, report and recommendation as to bom the reorganization or the Registrzr's
Office ulll let into the City Pay Plan. the City Bsnager submitted the following
report advising that the proposal has been reviewed and is recommended to Council
for such measures as would favorably bring about the adoption, that it is necessary
that the Personnel Board handle the establishment of the Job description and
classification position for Assistant Registrar Ii and for Assistant Registrar I,
that upon confirmation of their handling of this matter, it would then be in order
for Council to adopt an Ordinance amending the personnel budget and the budget of
the Registrar*s Office to effect the establishment of these positions and the
deletion of the three present Assistant Registrar positions, two of which are
classified:
"September 25° 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Registrar's Office
The City Council on September 11 referred to this
office for study, report and recommendation the proposal of
the Electoral Board for certain reorganization within the office
of the General Registrar. This proposol has been reviewed and
is recommended to the City Council for such measures as mould
favorably bring about the adoption.
It is necessary that the Personnel Board handle for the
establishment of the job description and classification
position for Assistant Registrar II and for Assistant Regis-
trar I. Hpon confirmation of their handling of this. it would
then be in order for the City Council to adopt an ordinance
amending the personnel budget and the budget of the Registrar's
office to effect the establishment of these two positions and
the deletion of the three present Assistant Registrar posi-
tions, two of which are classified..
Several questions were reviewed in our study of this pro-
posal and found to be in order. One particular one related
to the proposed establishment of an Assistant Registrar II
and an Assistant Registrar I. It is felt that as a general
principal that it is not desirable to set up two different
classification positions when only two individuals are involved
and when their duties are so comparable with their being very
little differentiation between the two. However, it is under-
stood that the requirements Of the Code of Virginia, under new
legislation, requires the designation of Assistant Registrar
for certain duties and, therefore, it would appear that there
would be no alternative to this.
Respectfully submitted.
$/ Julian F. Hlrst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout stated that he feels with the additional duties of the new
classifications the salaries should be increased and moved that the matter be
referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measures amending
~he Pay Plan to carry out the request. The motion was seconded by Rr. Lisk and
unanimously adopted.
365
'366
COMPLAINT~: Council having referred to the City Manager fo~ investiga-
tion and report n communication from .Mrs. Ruby Rlchle, 331 Patton Avenue, H.
complaining of the condition of a Vacant lot nextto her home, the City Manager
submitted the following report advising ~hat the property in question has been
known to him and to the Health Department ~r some time, that the Health Department
has been pursuing attemPtS to obtain compliance by the owners, that they have been
unsuccessful in obtainiog the whereabouts of the owners even though they know
their names, that in compliance with the ,city*s weed Ordinance the property has
now been posted and the time limit for complying with the Health Department*s
order expired on August 31, 1972, accordingly, an order has been issued by the
Health Department to the Director of Public Works to cut the weeds on this
property and that with the help of the City Attorney's Office he attempts to
secure reimbursement from the property owner of any funds expended in these
efforts:
*September 26, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Vacant Lot - 300 block Patton Avenue. H. M.
At your meeting on Monday, September 11, 1972, City
received a communication from Mrs. Ruby Richie. 331 Patton
Avenue, H. N., complaining of the conditions of a vacant lot
next to her home. Council referred this matter to the City
~nager's office for study, report and recommendation.
The property in question has been known to us and the
Health Department for some time and they have been pursuing
attempts to obtain compliance by the owners.. We have been
unsuccessful in obtaining the whereabouts of the owners even
though we know their names. In compliance with the City's
week ordinance the property has now been posted and the time
limit for complying with the Health Department's order
expired August 31. 1972. Accordingly. a order has been
issued by the office to the Director of Public Works to
cut the weeds on this property--otherwise clean it up.
It mould he well to note at this point that similar
action is being taken on other properties throughout the
City where we have been unable to obtain compilance with the
City's weed ordinance. Obviously we have to pursue appro-
priate steps in the ordinance so as to give property owners
legal notice and these actions take a certain period of tine.
#hen it is necessary for City forces to engage in this type
of work we are attempting to do so on an overtime basis so
as not to unduly affect oar capability to properly maintain
the City*s own properties. It may at some time in the
future be necessary to approach City Council for supplemen-
tary funds to our overtime account if the extent of such work
seriously depletes available funds. Math the help of the City
Attorney*s office, we do attempt to secure reimbursement from
the property owner of any funds expended in these efforts.
This overall program however is a difficult one for the City
to maintain because of limitations on personnel and the
absence of what might be termed a specific crew or unit of
the Public Works Department that could solely confine itself
to this work during the growing season.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Rlrst '
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received nad filed, The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland end unanimously ndopted,
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the following report advising that
the City of Roanoke is required to submit application to the United States Depart-
went of Transportation for certification of the Roanoke Municipal Airport, that
this certification becomes an extensively involved matter which is considerably
more complicated and detailed than have been past certification requirements of
airports, that he desires to employ the firm of Talbert, Cos and Associates for
this project, that he has a communication from them mhereby payment for their ser-
vices would be on a time card basis, that is payroll costs plus 150%, plus travel
expenses, that based on post estimates at this time the cost should not exceed
$5,000.00 and recommending that Council authorize him to accept the proposal of
this firs in order that they may promptly proceed with this project:
*September 26, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Airport Certification
It is required that the City of Roanoke submit applica-
tion to the United States Department of Transportation for
certification of the Roanoke Municipal Airport. This is a
procedural requirement of all airports at this particular
time. This certification becomes an extensively involved
matter considerably more complicated and detailed than have
been past certification requirements of airports. The
specifics prima~ly consist of the requirement that there be
developed aa Operations Manual for the Airport. This encom-
passes every element of the Airport operation in the form of
a comprehensive manual and includes the most recent require-
ments pertaining to airport security. The extent of this
work is such that we do not feel that it can be done mithin
the City*s organization and put together with local staff
work.
#e desire to employ the firm of Talbert. Cos ~ Asso-
ciates for this project. They, as City Council is amore.
have done the master plan study for the field and are fairly
mall acclimated to the Airport and. thereby, it is felt they
could handle the preparation and compiling of the manual
much easier than could anyone else. Ne have a letter proposal
from them of August 29. 1972, whereby payment for their ser-
vices would be on a time card basis, that is payroll costs
plus 150% plus travel expenses. Based on best estimates at
this time the cost should not exceed $5,000. It is apparently
difficult to specifically determine on a precise quote basis
the estimate for developing the manual inasmuch as guide-
lines are now continuing to be prepared by the Department of
Transportation and changes are anticipated between now and
the date requiring the submission which is Hovember 18, 1972.
It is recommended that the City Council. by such measure
or action as would be appropriate, authorize my acceptance
of the proposal of this firm in order that they may promptly
proceed mith this project.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
367
368
After a discussion or the matter, Mr. Trout moved that Council concur
in the report of the City Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(aR0474) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to employ the ser-
vices of Talbert, Cox ~ Associates, to prepare an Operations Manual rot the Roanok
Nunicipal Airport, as well as related documents, necessary to submit an applicatiol
to the Federal Aviation Administration for Airport Certification, upon certain
terns and conditions; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book u37, page 166.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Rr, Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor Mebber--S.
NAYS: None ...................................................O.
(Messrs. Hubard and Thomas absent)
ANNEXATION-SCHOOLS: The City Manager submitted a written report advisin
that in 1966 there were several areas within Roanoke County which petitioned for
annexation to the City of Roanoke. that pe~tions were developed and submitted to
the Court and have become tied up in very lengthy processes of the Court and
have fell victim of the~forts of the Roanoke County 9overnment to forestall any
annexation by the cite with the result that the petitions became and are involved
in the current litigation, that at the time of the petitions it was recognized
by Council that one of the p[oblens in annexation was the transition of students
between the school districts of the County and the City, that in order to facili-
tate this and made the situation easier Council on August 22, 1966, took action
which permitted County students in the pe~tioned areas to attend City schools,
that Council by Ordinance No. 17167 adopted August 22, 1966, appropriated
$7,000.00 to cover tuition grants for these students within the 19~6-67 fiscal
year, that this practice has continued through the years up to the present time
while everyone was awaiting action on the petitions, that to the best of his
knowledge there were no further appropriations of funds for this purpose, that it
is estimated that 45 to 50 County students are presently attending City schools
and not paying tuition since thee reside in the areas which petitioned for
annexation, that it is recommended that this practice should be reviewed and in
the absence of any other approach, it is suggested that some reasonable date be
established whereby either the admission or the no tuition, or both. should be
terminated:
"September 26, 1972
Honorable Mayor and Cite Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: City School Attendance by County Students'
In 1966 there were a series of several areas within
Roanoke County which petitioned for annexation to the City
of Roanoke. These petitions cane about on behalf of the
interest of those respective citizens in becoming · part o£
the City of Roanoke and the petitions uere developed end sub-
mitted to the court with high interest and high anticipation.
However, as is a matter of history, these petitions became
tied up in very lengthly processes of the court end fell
victim of the efforst of the Roanoke County government to
forestall any annexation to or by the City of Roanoke with
the result that the particular petitions became and are
involved in the current litigation.
At the time of the petitions it was recognized by the
City Council that one of the problems in annexation nas the trens-
tion of students between the school districts of the County
and the City. In order to facilitate this and to nuke the
situation easier, in mhat nas then some optimism as to the
annexation, the City Council on August 22, 1966, took action
mhich carried the weight of permitting County students in
the petitioned areas to come to the City schools. The Council
by Ordinance No. 17167 of August 22, 1966, appropriated
$7,000 to cover tuition 9rants for these students within the
1966-67 fiscal year.
As is also history, this opportunity to come into the
City school system mas generally melcomed by these areas
with the result that students commenced into the City schools.
The practice continued through the years in which everyone
was awaiting action on the petitions and has continued up to
the present time. To the best of ny knowledge there were no
further appropriations of funds which means that such an
item, again to the best of my knowledge, is not specifically
identified within the budget, and further means that the
County students are coming to the City schools and incor-
porated into the Roanoke City support of the school system.
It is estimated that 45 to 50 County students are pre-
sently attending City schools and not paying tuition since
they reside in areas which had petitioned for annexation.
The School Board has continued to accept those students.
However. as noted, the Council's authorization was only the
budget appropriation in 1965 although the intent has appar-
ently been to optimistically continue the practice.
It is recommended that this policy or practice should
be reviewed and in the absence of any other approach, it is
suggested that some reasonable date be established whereby
either the admission or the no tuition, or both, should be
terminated,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
In this connection, the City Manager submitted an additional mrltten
report stating that the City Attorney has advised him with regard to the appeal
status on annexation and recommending that consideration of this matter be held up.
Mr. Carland moved that Council concur in the additional report of the
City Manager and moved that consideration of this matter be held up. The motion
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager submitted a written report
transmitting copies of the proposed Maternity Leave Procedure and the proposed
Grievance Procedure which will be submitted to Public Hearing by the Personnel
Board on September 28, 1972. at 2:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber.
In answer to an inquiry from Mr. Lisk as to what further action is
expected from Council on this matter before it is finally adopted, the City
Manager advised that if Council does not wish to make any changes or revisions to
the proposed procedures, the Personnel Board will proceed as it sees fit.
369
:370
Dr. Taylor moved that-the ~eport be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having referred to the City Planning Commission for
study, report and recommendation the request of Mr. ~inwood E. Bush that 9.13 acres
of land situate on the north side of ~utrough Road, So £.o west of Brookside Lane,
S. E** described us Official Tax No. 44501D6. be renamed from RD. Duplex Residen-
tial District, to AG-2. C~neral Residential District, the City Planning Commis-
sion submitted a written report recommending that a RG-I renaming be approved
in lieu of a AC-2 renaming.
Mr. Lish moved that Council set a public hearing for ?:So p.mo. Monday,
October 30, 1972. in the Council Chamber on a RG-I rezoniug. The motion nas
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
STREET NAMES: The City Planning Commission submitted the following
report recommending that the unnamed street running between Read Road, N.
and Liberty Road, N. £.. be named Norton Avenue, N. E.. and that the portion of
this same street extending from Read Road to Blueston Avenue berenamed from Blue-
stone Avenue to Norton Avenue:
*September 21, 1972
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 September
1972.
The Planning Director noted that both the Planning
Department and Engineering Department recommend that this
unnamed street between Bluestone Avenue and Liberty Road,
as delineated on the attached map. be named Norton Avenue.
Also. that the portion of this same street extending from
Read Road to Bluestone Avenue be renames from Bluestone
Avenue to Norton Avenue. This action will provide for a
uniformity and continuity in the street deisgnation system;
Nortion Avenue will begin at Ridgefiled Street and terminate
at Liberty Road.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unani-
mously approved recommending to City Council that the unnamed
street running between Read Road, N. E. and Liberty Road,
N. E. be named Nortion Avenue, N. E., and that the portion
of this same street extending from Read Road to Bluestone
Avenue be renamed from Bluestone Avenue to Norton Avenue.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr** by LB
Creed K, Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Planning
Commission and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(#204?5) AN ORDINANCE changing the name of a certain street and fixing
the name of a certain unnamed street within the corporate limits of the City of
Roanoke in the Bluestone Avenue area in order to provide a unified street name
system.
371
#HE'REAS, the City Planning Commission hss reported to Council under date
o£ September 21o 19720 that said Planning Commission recommends a certain change
end renaming of 8 street end a certain name for an unnoned street in the Bluestone
Avenue area so as to provide for n more unified name system for the streets in
the City of Roanoke.
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAINED by the Coancil of the City of Roanoke that
the name of Bluestone Avenue. from the east line of Read Road, N. E.o to the presenl
line of Bluestone Avenue, N. E., in the City of Roanoke he changed and
renamed Norton Avenue, N.
BE IT FURTIIER ORDAINED that the unnamed street extending from the pre-
east line of Bluestone Avenue. N. E., to the west line of Liberty Road,
N. E., in the City of Roanoke be designated and named Norton Avenue, N. E.
BE IT FINALLY ORDAINED that the City Engineer be. and he is hereby
directed to cause the above street name to be appropriately noted on all maps
and plats lodged in his care; that the City Manager be. and he is hereby authorized
to cause the placement of appropriate street name signs on said new street'; and
that the City Clerk transmit to the Postmaster ut Roanoke six (5) attested copies
of this ordinance, in order that said Postmaster be apprised of the aforesaid
name.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. garland, Lis k, Taylor, Trout and Mayor Mebher--5.
NAYS: None .............~ .......... ~ ......................... O.
(Messrs. Hubard and Thomas absent)
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
RARKET-TRAFFIC-PLANNINg: Council having erferred the proposed plans for
the Downtown Roanoke Parking Garage to the Central Roanoke Development Foundation
for study, report and recommendation, the Central Roanoke Development Foundation
submitted the following report regarding the employment of consultants to advise
acquisition of site construction and operation of the Municipal Parking Garage:
'September 21, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
gentlemen:
As directed by City Council on June 26. 1972. the Central
Roanoke Development Foundation has been investigating the
various financial and operational aspects of the proposed
downtown parking structure. There are, of course, many items
that require the Trustees* very careful study and evaluation
before presenting Council uith realistic recommendation for
implementing the construction and operation of the facility.
After a number of meetings, and many hours of discussion, the
Foundation Trustees have concluded that there are some highly
specialized areas that require detailed investigation in order
for us to prepare a valid report for Council. In very general
terms, some of the most important areas are:
1. Study of the various types of bonds that can be used
for financing.
2. Tbe effect of the rations types of bonds on the City's
bonded indebtedness,
3. Mhat type of bonds would be most attractive ~ lenders,
and the projected market conditions.
4, Mhat guarantees would be required if the bonds are
not backed by the full faith and credit of the City,
Analysis of anticipated interest rates for v~rlous
types of bonds and the effect on construction cost
and revenues.
b~Examination of alternative methods of operation and
the estimated cost and revenues.of each.
T. Review and analysis of land appraisals..
The investigation and analysis of these, and many other related
items, requires immeidate concentrated attention and profes-
sional expertise. Consequently, the Central Roanoke Develop-
ment Foundation recommends that City Council appropriate
$10,000 for consulting services and authorize the City Man-
ager to retain a consultant or consultants to obtain the neces-
sary information on the financial and operational alternatives
for construction and operation of the parking garage, which
City Council expressed its intention to build by Resolution
20206 adopted on April 10, 1972, with the stipulation that
the consultants* work he completed and the data be presented
to the Central Roanoke Development Foundation Trustees not
later than October 31. 1972.
This supplementary information, along with the project
feasibility study already received by Council, will give the
Foandation professional guidance in developing final recommen-
dations for execution of the project in the most efficient and
economical manner.
Sincerely,
S/ John M. Chappelear, Jr.
John M. Chappelear, Jr., President
CENTRAL ROANOKE DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATIONs*
Messrs. John M. Chappelear. Jr., President of the Central Roanoke
Development Foundation, and ~illiam R. Rill, Executive Vice President of Downtown
Roanoke. Incorporated, appeared before Council in connection with the Foundational
report.
After a discussion of the matter, Dr. Taylor moved that the report be
referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measures authorizing
hiring a consultant or consultants to obtain necessary information on the finan-
cial and operational alternatives for construction and operation of the parking
garage. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
AIRPORT: Mr. James O. Trout, Cbairman of the Airport Advisory Com-
mission, submitted a written report of the Commission recommending that Council
include, within the proposed municipal bond referendum, funds sufficient for
Roanoke Municipal (Noodrum) Airport to provide (1) expansion and enlargement of
the termianl building, including a second floor, in addition to those funds
already available for those facilities, and (2) runway strengthening and roadways
necessary for new and improved general aviation facilities, and advised that the
proposed second floor will be totally for use of the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion, that hopefully this will make for better communication between Council and
the F. A. A., and that this will be the last major expansion at the airport,
After a discussion mith Br, J, Stuart Franklin, Jr,, representing
Sherertz and Franklin, Architects and Engineers, concerning the square footage
involved in the nam plan for the Terminnl Building and the canopied area In front
of said building, Br, Trout moved that Council neet. in Executive Session to discuss
the possibility of including the expsnsion at the Airport and also developnent offmis
general aviation in the proposed bond referendum. The motion was seconded by Br.
Taylor nnd unnnimoUsly adopted.
Upon returning from Executive Session, and 9ermaln to the request there-
for, Mr, Trout offered the folloming Resolution fixing the date of a special meet-
in9 of Council for 2 p.m., Thursday, September 26, 1972. for the purpose of con-
sidering and providing for the issue of general obligation bonds of the City of
Roanoke to provide funds to defray the cost to the City of certain needed public
improvements and providin9 for the holding of an election in said city on November
?, 1972. to determine ahether the qualified voters of the city will approve the
issuance of such bonds and for such other matters as may then be pending before
Council:
(u20476) A RESOLUTION fixing the date of a Special Reetln9 of the
Council of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book u37, page 167.)
Mr. Yrout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Trout and Mayor Webber--5.
NAYS: None ...................................................O.
(Messrs Rubard and Thomas absent)
AIRPORT: Mr. James O. Trout. Chairman of the Airport Advisory Commis-
sion, submitted a written report of the Commission recommending that Council sub-
nit an inquiry to the banking institutions having principal offices in the City of
Roanoke ns to whether such banks mould be interested in bidding upon the situa-
tion of a service bank facility in the expanded airport terminal building and
that dependent upon the nature and extent of replies to that inquiry, the City
Council establish a procedure for selection of a bank with which the city might en-
ter into a lease for space within the proposed expanded terminal building.
Mr. Namer N. Ualhouse. Senior Vice President - Marketing, First National
,Exchange Bank. appeared before Council and advised that it mas the original idea
of First National Exchange Bank for the facility, that such a facility would be
iof great service to airport employees, Piedmont Aviation employees and the gen-
eral traveling public commuting through, to and from the city via the airport.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
L~FINISHED BUSINESS:
ZONING: Council having previously set a public hearing on the request
of Messrs. M. L. Foley and R. A. Foley that property located in the 3500 block of
37'4
Barberry Avenue, N, Mo, described ns all o( L~ts 3 and 4, Block 3. Revised Rap of
Westuood Annex, Official Tax No. 2630610 and part of 2630604. be rezoned from
RS-3, Single-Family Residential District, to RG-I, General Residential District.
the matter was before the body.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. 0ouglas W* Kielkopf.
Attorney, representing Messrs. B,.L, Foley and R. A. Foley, respectfully request-
ing that Council reschedule a public hearing on the matter, was also before the
body.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of Mr. Kielkopf and
that a public hearing be set for ?:30 p.m., Monday, October 30, 1972, in the
Council Chamber, on the rezooing request. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor
and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
BONDS-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS-SCHOOLS: Council having directed the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure providing for the issue of bonds of the
city not to exceed $100000~00,00 to provide funds to defray the cost to the citl
of certain needed permanent public improvements, he presented same.
Rr. Lisk moved that the Ordinance be carried over until the special
meeting of Council on Thursday, September 26, 1972, at 2:00 p.m. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
BONDS-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS-SCHOOLS: Council having directed the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure directing and providing for the holding
of an election in the city on November 7, 1972, to determine whether the
qualified voters of the city will approve an Ordinance providing for the issue
of certain bonds of the city, he presented same.
ar. Trout moved that the Ordinance be carried over until the special
meeting of Council on Thursday, September 28, 1972, at 2:00 p.m. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
COUNCIL: Mr. Lisk stated that since the Virginia Municipal League
will be in session this coming meek that Council might want to reschedule the
regular Council meeting from 2:00 p.m., Monday, October 2, 1972, to 2:00 p.m.,
Thursday, October 5, 1972, and moved that the City Attorney be directed to pre-
pare the proper measure so doing. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
SENERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having taken under advisement a
written report of the City Manager in connection with the advisability and
necessity of the establishment of industiral wastewater standards applicable
to the Roanoke Valley public sewer system as ultimately receives treatment at
the City of Roanoke wastewater treatment plant, advising that he has discussed
this matter Mith representatives of Roy F. Meston, Incorporated, Environmental.
Scientists and Engineers, that resulting from these discussions has been a
proposal from said firm and transmitting copy of said proposal, pointing out that
he~d not seek adoption of the proposnl at the meeting of Council on September
16, IGC2, aaticipnting that CounCil may wish to study it sad give thought to any
suggestions or questions with respect to it, that bused on the reaction of Council
he mould propose to forward copies of this proposal to tho valley governments so
that they might be amare of that mhich is under consideration and should every-
thin9 appear to be in order it mould be proposed that the city accept the offer
of Roy F. Mcstoa, Incorporated, for such a study, the matter was again before the
body.
In this connection, the City Banager verbally advised that he mould like
for Council to authorize preparation of the proper Ordinance to 9o ahead with the
survey and to advise the other ralley governments that the survey is being
authorized.
Mr. Llsk moved that the report be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure authorizing the City Manager to proceed with
the survey. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SE~ERS AND b~ORM DRAINS: Dr[ T~ylor presented the following joint
report from Bessrs. Bamptoa M. Thomas. Milliam S. Rubard and himself requestin9
that Council direct its Sewer Committee and the City Bauager, in his official
capacity, ti immediately undertake certain steps as outlined in the communication
to assure a timely and orderly report to the State Mater Control Board by its
established deadline of October 20, lgT2:
The Bonorable Roy L. Mebber, Bayor and Members of Roanoke
City Council
FROM: Councilmen: Hampton #. Thomas. Noel C. Taylor. and
Nilliam S. Hubard
Upgrading Roanoke Mater Pollution Control Plant
Having appeared at the recent State Mater Control Board
Meeting on September 19, 1972, and realizing time is of the
essence regarding the matters herein set forth, we respect-
fully submit the folloming joint report to Council.
f
Ne request that the Council direct its Sewer Committee
and the City Manager in his official capacity to immediately
undertake the following steps to assure a timely and orderly
report to the State Mater Control Board by its established
deadline of October 20, 1972:
(1) Request an audience for members of the City Administra-
tion, as soon as possible, with the staff of the State
Mater Control Board, accompanied by a representative of
Alvord, Burdick and Homson. and any other persons deemed
appropriate, for the purpose of getting comments on the
'outline drawings* of the design of the secondary and
tertiary treatment plant additions..
(2)Follow same procedure as in (1) with the State Depart-
ment of Health.
(3) Direct Alvord, Hurdick ~ Howson to prepare complete plans
and specifications for the design of such secondary and
tertiary additions for submission to the Nater Control
Board on or before November 6, 1972, with weekly reports
on the progress of this work to be made to Council, the
City Administration, and the State Nater Control Board.
375
'376
(4) Employ on iudependent consulting engineer to edvlse the
City on the matt feasible method of metering presently the
total flow into the plant.
(5) A conference be held es soon aa possible between repre-
sentatives of Alvord, BnrdJck ~ Homson and the Semer
Committee~
(6) Employ an independent consulting sanitation engineer
to undertake n complete design assessment of the long-
range improvements to the plant, with recommendations as
to the adequacy of margins of capacity when the improve-
ments currently under study are completed.
(7) Proceed forthwith with th'e preparation of final plans
and specifications for the retention basin. (Staff
of the Mater Control Board to give the City final
design flow information by September 29, 1972.)
(B) Mhere feasible, while amaitin9 approval of 9overamental
agencies for specific phases of this upgrading of our
plant, to make site preparations for such phases and
to take such other reasonable actions as will expedite
this upgrading*
(9)Have meetings of the Sewer Committee at I p.m. each
Monday to review progress.
(10) Give periodic, at least weekly, written reports to
staff of Water Control Board and Roanoke City Council
on progress on the above and other relevant matters, on
and have personal discussion~ at least weekly, with
the staff of the Water Control Board in Richmond.
September 20, 1972"
After a lengthy discussion of the matter, the City Manager verbally
advised that he welcomes these proposals, that if the city can accomplish its
proposed Sewage Treatment Plant improvement program it will have a most uniqoe
facility, that it will have the first full-scale tertiary treatment plant operat-
ing at full capacity in the country, that there are only four plants in the nation
listed as having tertiary treatment with only one of these in operation at Lake
Tahoe, which plant treats semage only up to one-half of its rated capacity and
receives no industrial wastes, that Roanoke is being required to go to full tertiary
treatment in a two to three year period, the result of which will set the pattern
for meeting federal water quality standards, and that the city's consultants in
Chicago are devoting their entire staff to producing the plans for the plant by
the state deadline of November b.
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the report. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
REGISTRAR: The City Clerk reported that Mrs. Katherine M. Poole has
qualified os General Registrar for the City of Roonokeo ¥1rgicia, to fill the
unexpired term of Mrs. Nell C. Irvin, ending February 2B, 1975.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received nnd filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Clerk reported that Messrs. Milliam S.
Kytchen and Robert E. Mullah, Jr., have qualified as membern of the Board of
Fire Appeals for terms of four years each ending June 30, 1966.
DF. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motion uas
seconded b7 Mr. Trout and unanimously udopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mayor
377
378 ·
COUNCIL. SPECIAL MEETING.
Thursday. September 2~. 1912.
The Council of the City of Roanohe met in special meeting In the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Thursday, September 28, 1972, et 2 p.~., the
regular meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
pRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, William S. Hubard, David £.
Lisk. Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayer Roy L.
Yebher ................................. 7.
ABSENT: None ................ O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager; Mr. Nilliam F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanono City Attorney; and Mr. A.
N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Dr. Noel C. Taylor
Member of Roanoke City Council,
Mayor Webber advised that the special meeting of Council was called for
the purpose of considering and providing for the issue of general obligation
bonds of the City of Roanoke to provide funds to defray the cost to the city of
certain needed public improvements, and providing for the holding of an election
in said city on November 7. 1972, to determine whether the qualified voters of
the city will approve the issuance of such bonds and for such other matters as
may be pending before Council.
PAY pLAN-CITY EMPLOyEES-REGISTRAR: Council having directed the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure amending Ordinance No. 20351, providing a
System of Pay Rates and Ranges for the employees of the City of Roanoke by
addJn9 to said Pay Plan the positions of General Registrar, Assistant Registrar
I and Assistant Registrar II, effective September 23, 1972, he presented same;
whereupon, Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(=20477) AN ORDINANCE to amend Ordinance No. 20351, providing a
System of Pay Bates and Ranges for the employees of the City of Roanoke, by
deleting Code Position 1222 Assistant Registrar and Code Position 1223 General
Registrar and the ranges and pay steps applicable thereto, and by adding to said
System of Pay Rates and Ranges new Code Position 1221 General Registrar, Code
Position 1222 Assistant Registrar I and Code Position 1223 Assistant Registrar
II and the ranges and pay steps applicable to each said new position; providing
the effective date of the changes herein ordered; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =37, page 168.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Nebber ......................... ?.
NAYS: None O.
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure authorizing the City Manager to employ the services of
Roy F. Wes*on, Incorporated. Enylronmental Scientists and Engineers. of West
Chester. Pennsylvania. to conduct an industrial xastewater survey and to prepare
the form of an industrial wastewat~r Ordinance for the City of Roanoke. upon cer-
tain terms and conditions, he presented same.
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that he
is in sympathy with the intent of the Ordinance, that it is a matter which should
be taken care of, however, it pertains to sewage treatment and matters relating
thereto and therefore, should be referred to the Sewer Committee for review as
to the contents of the engineers report and the timetable involved.
Mr. Thomas then moved that the matter be. referred to the Sewer Committee
for study, report and recommendation to Council as to the contents of the engineers
report and the establishment of a timetalbe to be followed. The motion was sec-
onded by Mr. Llsk and adopted, Mayor Webber voting no.
Mayor Webber expressed the opinion that the more Council delays, the
more complicated matters will become at the Sewage Treatment Plant.
WELFARE DEPARTMENT: Mayor Webber called.to the attention of Council
that there are certain vacancies on the Advisory Board of Public Welfare due to
the resignations of Mrs. James Il. Sumpter, Jr., Mr. Claude D. Harrison, Jr,, Mr.
Robert S. Goldsmith. Jr., Mr. Andrew H. Thompson and Mr. Ilerbert H. Moore, Jr.,
and called for nominations to fill the vacancies.
Mr. Lisk placed in nomination the names of Mrs,.Virginia H. Snead, Mrs.
John M, Hudgins. Jr., and Reverend O, Benjamin Sparks,
There bein9 no further nominations, Mrs, Virginia H. Snead, Mrs, John M.
Hudgins, Jr., and Reverend O. Benjamin Sparks were elected as members of the
Advisory Board of Public Welfare for terms of three years each ending November 7,
1974, by the following vote:
FOR MRS. SNEAD, MRS. HUDGINS AND REVEREND SPARKS: Messrs. Garland.
Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor Mebber .......................7,
HEALTH DEPARTMENT: Mayor Mebber called to the attention of Council that
there is a vacancy on the Board of ~ousin9 and Hygiene ~reated by the resignation
af Mr, Morton Boneyman,
Mr, Garland placed in nomination the name of Br, Robert F, Bondurant,
There being no further nominations, Dr. Robert F. Bondurant was elected
as a member of the Board of Housing and Hygiene for a term of two years endin9
January 31, 1974. by the following vote:
FOR DR. BONDURANT: Messrs. Garland, Hnbard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Tro~
and Mayor Webber .............................. ......... . ........ ~ ......... ~---7, ·
CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE: Mayor Mebber called to the attention of
Council that there are two vacancies on the Citizens' Advisory Committee created
379
by the resignations of Mr, James A. Stringfield and Mr. E. L. Bayse and called
for nominntions to fill the vacancies.
Mr. Garland placed In nomination the names of Mr. C, Mack Clark nnd
Mr, T. fl, Kemper.
There being no further nominations. Mr. C. Mack Clark and Mr. To H.
Kemper mere elected as members of the Citizens* Adrisory Committee for terms of
tmo years each ending April 14, 1974, by the folloming vote:
FOR MESSRS. CLARK AND KEMPER: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk. Taylor.
Thomas. Trout and Mayor Mebber ...............................................
JUVENILE AND DOMESTIC RELATIDNS COURT: Mayor Mebber called to the att,n,
tiaa of Council that there is a vacancy on the Youth Commission created by the
resignation of the Reverend F. E. Alexander and called for nominations to fill
the vacancy.
Mr. Dubard placed in nomination the name of Mr. Reginald M. Davis.
There being no further nominations. Mr. Reginald M. Davis mas elected
as a member of the youth Commission for a term of tm, years ending April 30.
1974, by the following vote:
FOR MR. DAVIS: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor,.Thoaas, Trout
and Mayor Webber ...........................................................7.
INOHSTRIES: Mayor Mebber called to the attention'of Council that there
is a vacancy on she Industrial Development Authority created by the death of
Mr. Denton O. Dillard for a term ending October 20, 1973. and called for nomina-
tions to fill the vacancy..
Mr. Trout offered the following Resolution appointingMr. C. E. Hunter.
Jr., ns a.member of the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke.
Virginia, to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Benton O. Dillard. deceased, for a term
ending October 20. 1973:
(#20478) A RESOLUTION appointing a director of the Industrial Develop-
ment Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virg~ia, to fill an unexpired term of
office on its board of directors.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book n37. page 169.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Ga~land~ Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ............................................................
NAYS: None .............................................. O.
STADIUM: Mayor Mebber called to the attention of Council that there are
tmo vacancies on the Stadium Advisory Committee created by the resignations of
Mr. Guy L. Furr, Sr., and Mr. James M. Satterfield for terms endlng December 31,
i1973, and called for nominations to fill the vacancies.
In this connection, Mr. Trout moved that the City Attorney be directed
to prepare the proper measure merging the Stadium Advisory Committee and the
and the Roanoke Civic Center Advisory Commission. The motion was seconded by #r.
Llsk.
After a discussion os to whether or not Jt uouid be more feasible to
dissolve the Stadium Advisory Committee rather than to merge it uith the Roanoke
Civic Center Advisory Commission, R£. Lisk offered a substitute motion that the
City Attorney be directed to prepare the proper measure dissolving the Stadlum
Advisory Committee and assigning the duties of said Committee to the Roanoke Civic
Center Advisory Commission. The motion nas seconded by Mr. Bubard and unanimously
adopted,
AIR POLLUTION CONTROL-FIRE DEPARTMENT: Mayor Webber called to the atten-
tion of Council that there is a vacancy on the Advisory and Appeal Board. Air
Pollution Control, created by the resignation of Hr. Rinston S. Sharpley, for a
four year term ending December 31. 1975, and that there is a further vacancy on
the Advisory and Appeal Board. Air Pollution Control, created by the death of Mr.
Thomas #. Urquhart. for a term ending BecembeF 31, 1974, and called for nominations
to fill the vacancies.'
In this connection, Mayor Rebber also called to the attention of
Council that there is a vacancy on the Board of Fire Appeals created by the
death of Mr. Thomas R. Urqubart, for a four year term ending June 30. 197b, and
called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
RJtb reference to the matter, Mr. Lisk questioned the feasibility of
merging the Advisory and Appeal Board, Air Pollution Control, and the Doard of
Fire Appeals, ind further raised the question as to whether the present members
of the t~o committees should constitute a combined committee.
· Mr. Lisk then moved that the question of merging the Advisory and
Appeal Board, Air Pollution Control, and the Board of Fire AppealS, be referred
to the City Attorney for study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion
was seconded by Hr. Bubard and unanimously adopted.
TAXES: Mayor Webber called to the attention of Council that there is
a vacancy on the Roanoke Tax Study Commission created by the resignation of Mr.
James E. Carr and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Thomas placed in nomination the name of Br. David R. Doode.
There being no further nominations, Mr. David R. Boode was elected as
a member of the Roanoke Tax Study Commission by the following vote:
FOR MR. COODE: Messrs. Garland. Ilubard. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout
and Mayor Nebber .................................................... ?.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Rayor Webber called to the attention of
Council that the terms of Messrs. C. Fred Mangus. William E. Rajors and Edwin L.
Phillips as Commissioners of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority. expired on August 31, 1972, and called for nominations to fill the
vacancies.
382
Hr. Lisk placed in noml~ation the numes of Messrs. C. Fred Mangua,
EdmJn L. Phillips nad Mllllam E. Majors,
There being no further nominations, Messrs. C. Fred aanguso Mllllnm E.
Majors and Edwin L, Phillips mere reelected ns Commissioners of the City or
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority f~r terms of four years each ending
August 31, 1976o by the following vote:
FOR MESSRS, MANGUS, MAJORS AND PHILLIPS: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk,
Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor Webber ........................................ 7.
STATE HIGHWAYS: Mayor Webber called to the attention of Council.that
the terms of Messrs. John C. Clarke, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick. M. M. S, Hutler, III
and Lemis M. Perry, Jr,, as members of the Roanoke Highway Safety Commission
will expire on October 20, 1972. and that there is a further vacancy on the
Roanoke Highway Safety Commission created by the resignations of Mr. Philip E.
Montano for u term ending October 31, lg?4. and called for nominations to fill
the vacancies.
Hr. Lisk placed in nomination the names of Messrs. Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick, M. I. S. Butler, II1, Lemis M. Perry, Jr., and John C. Clarke,
Mr. Lisk further placed in nomination the name of Mr. R. P. Via to
fill the unexpired term of Hr. Philip E. Montano ending October 31, 1974.
There being no further nominations, Messrs. Beverly T. Fitzpatrick,
M. M. S. Butler, III, Lewis M. Perry, Jr., and John C. Clarke were reelected
as members of the Roanoke Highway Safety Commission for terms of four years each
beginning November 1, 1972, and Hr. R. P. Via was elected as a member of the
Roanoke llighmay Safety Commission to fill the unexpired term of Mr. Philip E.
Montano, resigned, for a term ending October 31. 1974. by the following vote:
FOR MESSES. FITZPATRICK, BUTLER, PERRY, CLARKE AND VIA: gessr$.
Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor Webber .................7.
PAY PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES: Council having previously expressed its
desire to appoint a fifteen member study committee to study the procedures and
functions of the Offices of the City Attorney, City Auditor and City Clerk, the
matter was before the.body.
In this conneotion. Mr. Thomas moved that the following per~ons be
appointed by Council as the fifteen member study committee to study the proce-
dures and functions of the Offices of the City Attorney, City Auditor and City
Clerk:
Hr, James M. Burks, Jr** Mr. Murray A. Stoller.
Mr. George W. Harris, Jr.. Mr. Lester H. Hollans,
Mr. Vincent S. Wheeler. Mr. Warner N. Dalhouse,
Mr. J. Robert Thomas Hr. Rushin P. Arnold,
Miss Jacquel~ne Anderson, Mr. James A. Ford.
Hr. Charles F. Macfarlane Mr. Sydnor Mo Brizendine, Jr.
Reverend James H. Stamper, Jr., Mrs. Claudia A, Mhitworth,
Mr. Milliam R. Reid.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mith reference to the matter, Mayor Webber nnd Mr. Thomas expressed the
opinion that Council should define the duties and responsibilities of the com-
mittee, that certain guidelines should be established before the committee begins
its assignment nnd that each member of Council end each member of the flfteeen
member study committee should confer on the matter prior to the commencement of
ithe study.
Mr. Thomas then moved that Mayor Webber be requested to call an infer-
:mai meeting of Council acting as a Committee of the lhole to meet with the fifteen
member citizen committee to discuss certain guidelines to be 'followed by said
committee in their study of the procedures and functions of the Offices of the
City Attorney, City Auditor and City Clerk, and that prior to said meeting,
~necessary guidelines are to be established for the benefit of the committee. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITY ATTORNEY: Mayor #ebber called to the attention of Council that
the two year term of Mr. James N. Mincanon as City Attorney mill expire on Septem-
ber 30. 1972, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Lisk placed in nomination the name of Mr. Janes N. Mincanon.
There bain9 no further n o m i n a t i o n s, Mr. James N. KJncanon
wes reelected ns City Attorney for a term of two years beginning October 1, 1972,
by the following vote:
FOR ~R. K1NCANON: Messrs. Garland, Ilubard. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout
and Mayor Yebber ............................................................. T.
CITY AUDITOR: Mayor Webber called to the attention of Council that the
term of Mr. A. N. Gibson as City Auditor will expire on September 30, 1972, and
called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Trout placed in nomination the name of Mr. A. N. Gibson.
There being no further nominations, Mr. A. N. Gibson was reelected as
City Auditor for a term of two years beginning October 1, 1972, by the following
VOte:
FOR MR. GIBSON: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout
and Mayor #~bber .............................................................. 7.
CITY CLERK: Mayor Mebber called to the attention of Council that the
· two year term of Miss Virginia L. Shaw as City Clerk will expire on September 30,
1972. and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Garland placed in nomination the name of Miss Virginia L. Shaw.
There being no further nominations, Miss Virginia L. Shaw was reelected
as City Clerk for a term of two years beginning October 1, 1972. by the following
vote:
FOR MISS SHAM: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout
and Mayor Webber .........................................................
MUNICIPAL COb~T: Mayor Nebber called to the attention of Council that
~i the four year terms of Mr. James P. Hrice and Mr. Carroll D. Rea as Substitute
Municipal Court Judges, will expire on Septembe~ 30. 1972, and called for nomina-
tions to fill the vacancies.
383
Hr. Hubard placed In nomination the names of Hr. James P. Drice and
Carroll D. Rea.
There being no further noninatiens. Hr. James P, Brice and
Carroll O. Rea mere reelected as Substitute WuaicJpal Court Judges for terms of
four years each beginning October 1, 1972. b7 the follomJng vote:
FOR JUDGE DRICE AND JUDGE REA: #essrs. Garland, Nubard, Lish, Taylor,
Thomas, Trout and Mayor Webber ............................................. 7.
JUVENILE AND DORESTIC RELATIONS COURT: Rayor Webber called to the
attention of Council that the six year terms of Judge Lamrence Lo Koontz, Jr,,
Judge John L, Apostolou and Judge James W. FlJppin mill expire on September 30,
1972, and called for nominations to fill the vacancies.
In this connection, the City Attorney submitted the follomin9 report
advising that the incumbent judge and substitute Judges of the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court mere previously appointed by the judges of the several
Courts of Record in the City of Roanohe prior to lgGB and when the lam provided
for such appointments to be made by the judges of the said Courts of ;ecord, that
by Act of the 1966 Ueneral Assembly of Virginia, the following provision mas
made:
The judge or judges of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court
of any city baying a population of more than ninety-five thousand
but less than one hundred thousand shall be elected by the council
of such city, in the same manner as judges of the municipal courts
of such city,
that this Act of the General Assembly, enacted as Chapter 424 of its 1968 Acts,
appears not to have been codified into the Code of Virginia nor has its legal
effect ever been amended into the provisions of the Charter of the City of Roanoke,
however, it has not been subsequently amended or repealed, and, thus, is now
controlling upon the appointment of judges and substitute judges of the Juvenile
and Domestic Relations Court of the City of Roanoke, that the duty, is therefore,
upon the Council to make appointments, by election held by the Council, of a
judge and of u substitute judge or substitute judges for six year terms of office
to commence October 1, 1972:
*September 27, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Although not heretofore carried on the agenda of the Council
meetings, it has been brought to my attention today that the
terms of office of the present judge and the two substitute
judges Of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of the
City of Roanoke ~ill expire on September 30, 1972, the terms
of office provided by law in each case being for six years.
The incumbent judge and substitute judges in office were
heretofore appointed by the judges of the several Courts Of
Record in the. City prior to 1968 and when the lam provided
for such appointments to be made by the judges of said Courts
of Record.
By Act of the 196§ General Assembly of Virginia, approved
April 2, 1966, the fallowing provision was made:
*The Judge or Judges of the Juvenile and
Domestic Relations Court of any city
having a population of more than ninety-
five thousand but less than one hundred
thousand shall be elected by the council
of such city, in the same manner as judges
of the municipal courts of such city.*
This Act of the General Assembly, enacted as Chapter 424 of its
1966 Acts, appears not ko have been codified into the Code of
Virginia nor has its legal effect ever been amended into the
provisions of the Charter of the City of Roanoke; homever.
it has not been subsequently amended or repealed and, thus,
is now controlling upon the appointment of lodges and substi-
tute Judges of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of
the City of Roanoke, The duty is, therefore, npon the Council
to make appointments, by election held by the Council, of a
judge and of a substitute Judge OF substitute Judges for six-
year terms of office to commence October 1, 1972o
1 am permitted to state that the mithln communication has the
general concurrence of those judges of the City's Courts of
Record with whom I have had, in the short space of time avail-
able, an opportunity to discuss the matter.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
J. N. Kincanon'
Mr. Llsk then placed in nomination the name of Mr. Lawrence L. Koontz.
Jr., as Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Judge and the names of Messrs.
John Lo Apostolou and James W. Fllppin as Substitute Juvenile and Domestic Rela-
tions Court Judges for terms of six years each beginning October 1, 1972.
There being no further noeina~ions, Mr. Lawrence L. Koontz, Jr., was
elected as the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Judge and Messrs. John L.
Apostolou and James W. Flippin were elected as Substitute Juvenile and Domestic
Relations Court Judges for terms of six years each beginnin9 October 1, 1972, by
the following vote:
FOR JUDGE KOONTZ, JUDGE APOSTOLOU AND JUDGE FLIPPIN: Messrs. Garland,
llubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor Webber ...........................
COUNCIL: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare the pro-
per measure changing the date of the regular meeting of Council from October 2,
1972. at 2 p.m., to October 5. 1972. at 2 p.m., he presented same; whereupon. Mr.
Trout offered the following Resolution:
(~20479) A RESOLUTION changing the date of a regular weekly meeting of
the Council of the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Hook n37, page 169.)
:
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk 'and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber ...................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .........................................................O.
ii COUNCIL: Mayor Webber called to the attention of Council that at a
regular meeting of the body on April 5, lgT1. Council adopted a statement from
*~ouncilman Hampton W. Thomas with reference to procedures to be followed on holding
Executive Sessions. Mayor Webber pointing out that these procedures have not been
385
'386
followed as closely as they should have and requested that the City Clerk transmit
a copy of the statement to each member of Council in order that said statement, as
adopted by Council at its meeting on April 5. 1971, may be followed in' the future.
HONDS-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-SCHOOLS: Council, at its meeting on
Tuesday, September 26, 1972o having deferred action on proposal of an Ordinance to
provide for the issue of bonds 'of the City of Roanoke not to exceed $10,000,000.00 ~
to provide funds to defray the cost to the city Of certain needed permanent pub- ~
Ifc improvements and on an Ordinance which would direct and provide for the holdingI
of an election in the City of Roanoke on November 7, 1972, to determine whether the;
qualified voters of the City of Roanoke would approve such Ordinance. the matter
mas again before the body.
In this connection, Mr. Llsk read the folloming prepared statement re-
commending that Council delay the bond referendum for the issuance of general
obligation bonds until the first Tueday in April, 1973, further recce~(adiJ~ that it
be understood that Council, acting as a Committee of the #hole. prepare an inten-
sified list of both school capital improvement needs as well as citycapital
improvement needs that have the highest priorities and present these, needs to the
people not later than February 1, 1973. that it be further understood that Coun-
cil select a citizens committee of not less than thirty citizens to work mith
Council in explaining these needs to the citizens betmeeu February 1. 1973. and
the date of the special election to be held in April, 1973, on the question of a
bond referendum, pointing out that by this time the bond ceiling should be greater
than it is at the present time. and this will allow the city to enlarge the amount
in the bond referendum as needed at that time:
"September 2B, 1972.
Honorable Mayor and Members of
R~ nuke City Council.
Roanoke. Virginia.
Gentlemen:
I wish to make the following statements:
First, it is regrettable that the City Manager has not seen fit
to submit a five million dollar list of priorities for City
Council to use in its proposal like the School Board did so
that we could implement a ten million dollar capital improveL
meat bond referendum in the November 7, 1972, general elec-
tion.
Second, the Management is charged with the responsibility
under the City Charter to recommend funds to carry out all
the necessary needs in our capital program. The City Coun-
cil requested the City Manager to do this during our last
budget study in June of this year. If this had been done
we would hare had sufficient tine to define the needs to our
citizens in order to have had an orderly referendum by the time
the November election took place, which in turn would have
saved the City of Roanoke taxpayers the cost of the special
election at a later date.
Third. the delay of having the referendum in November means
that each month of delay will cost the taxpayers of the City
of Roanoke approximately $125,000.00 per month or $1.2 mil-
lion per year.
Fourth, the last bond referendum passed five years ago for $52
million, we have not kept all of our commlttments and promises
to our citizens end therefore by the lack of this action it
could pat the November bond referendum In serious Jeopardy
which the city and our citizens can Ill afford.
Fifth, by delaying this referendum It will give us sufficient
time to work out the priorities in an orderly fashion es well
as give us the time needed to Justify those needs to oar
citizens as well es gain citizen support for the referendum.
Sixth. by delaying the referendum we could have time to know
exactly where we stand in regards to the revenue sharing matter
pending before the Congress. the busing crisis in onr city. air-
port expansion and pending Congressional legislation for finan-
cial support, regional Jail study which is now pending before
the valley, and the implementation of many of our 19&? bond
promises that we made bat have not yet implemented.
were not passed it would put the City Council in an awkward
position since we are under a court ruling to improve the
Courthouse and this project alone is estimated to cost appro-
ximately $2.$ million.
E~hth. in order to improve our courts we would first have to
relocate our jail and its prisoners and this cost could
amount to as high as approximately $3.2 million.
Ninth, if Council were to follow one of the possible sug-
gestions presented by the City Attorney in proceeding with a
capital program without a referendum, which the law now allows
for the first time we would be breaking away from a tradi-
tion that we have never followed and I think do eot intend to
change at least for now.
$o therefore. I qov~ that the Council has no other choice
but to delay the bund referendum for the issuance of general
obligation bonds until the first Tuesday in April of
Let it be understood that the Council would nova as the Coun-
cil of the Mhole to prepare an intensified list of both the
school capital improvement needs as well as the city capital
improvement needs that have the highest priorities and present
these needs to our citizens not later than February 1. 1973.
Be it further understood that the Council select a citizens
committee Of not less than thirty citizens to work with the
Council in explaining these needs to our citizens between
February 1, 1973. and the date of the special election to be
held in April and the question of a bond referendum. By
this time our bond ceiling should he greater than it is at
the present time, and this would allow us to enlarge the
amount in the bond referendum us needed at that time.
I move the adoption Of this motion.
Respectfully yours.
$/ David K. Lisk mp
David K, Lisk,
Vice Mayor,
City of Roanoke."
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in his prepared statement. The
motion was seconded iby Mr. Thomas.
Mr. Thoma~ pointed out that in seconding Mr. Lisk's motion, he would like
for it to be understood that he is not in complete accord with all of the comments
contained in the statement but that he does not feel it will he wise to proceed
with the bond issue at this late date and take the chance of said bond issue being
'defeated, that if the bond issue does not pass there night be at least a delay of
lone year before these projects can be again voted upon, and that there is no point
!in rushing into a bond referendum until Council knows what it is asking the citi-
,;zens of the City of Roanoke to approve.
387
Mr. Garland spoke against delaying the bond issue, advising tbal he
does not feel the city will have any difficulty coming up with its five million
dollar list of miscellaneous capital improvemenl needs, that the November 7, 1972,
election is the proper time to put the question of the bond issue to the qualified
voters of the City of Roanoke because there will be n greater turnout at the polls
since it will' be n Presidential Election and that to delay this bond issue any
longer will accomplish nothing.
In a discussion, the City Manager pointed out that everything revolves
around the courthouse, that he does not feel Council can go into a bond issue
mithout including at l~ast $2.2 million for the courthouse, that the next matter
which comes to mind is the direction in which the Jail and detention facilities
will take, that he does not feel that Council can separate the jail and courthouse,:
that one has to follow the other, and that this will call for at least another
$3.2 million, making a total of $5.4 million.
Mr. Lisk expressed the opinion that he is not sure the citizens of the
City of Roanoke knom the urgency of some of the projects which will be included
in the bond issue, that he does not want to see Council locked in, that people
may not vote in favor of the bond issue because Council has not fulfilled all of
its committnents on a prior bond issue, that he is concerned over the fact that
the five million dollars which will be delegated to the Roanoke City School Board
will not receive the support it should until the School Board mates known the
location of the new elementary school in southeast Roanoke.
Mr. Darland raised the question as to whether there might be any reason
why the jail allocation could not be reduced to one million dollars rather than
$3.2 million mhich would demonstrate good faith toward jail construction and still
give leeway for inclusion of a few more projects.
With reference to the matter. Mayor Webber called attention to a com-
munication from Mr. Henry W. Crenshaw, Deputy Clerk of the Roanoke City School Rc~rd,
advising that at a called meetin9 of the School Board of the City of Roanoke on
Thursday, September 21, 1972, the following $5.000,000.00 capital improvement
program was unanimously approved as the priority construction program recommended
to City Council for the Roanoke City Schools:
Belmont-Jamison Elementary School $ 2,000.000.00
Hurt Park Elementary School addition 500.000.00
Fishburn Park Elementary School addition 500,000.00
' Vocational-Technical Center 2.000,000.00
With the guidance of Mr. Garland, the City Manager then setout the fol-
lowing list of possible inclusions for the miscellaneous city capital improvements
to he voted upon in the November 7, 1972. election, totaling
Walnut Avenue Storm Drain $ b2,867.00
Extension Walnut Avenue to Maple Avenue
Storm Drain 17,000.00
I Storm Drain Jefferson Street at Elm
:: Avenue. S.E. 4,000.00
ii Storm Drain Springhill Drive, N.W. 10,600,00
Riverland park
Garden City Boulevard
'Bandy Soad. S. B. Storm Drain
Moorman Rood Culvert
Bridge South Jefferson Street
24th Street, H. U. - widening
Campbell Avenue Sanitary Sewer Replacement
Hurray Run Sanitary Sewer
Courth6use
H, W. Fire Station signols C alarms
S. W. Fire Station signals ~ alarms
Replace wall Lick Run, S, E.
Detention facilities
Public Bus System
Airport Terminal Expansion
Washington Park
Huff Lane Area
Downtoun Trunk semers - engineering
$ 20,000,00
10,000,00
27,000.00
20,000.00
225,000,00
112,500.00
110,000,00
100,000,00
2,268,000.00
10,500.00
25,000,00
40,000,00
1o000,000.00
500,000,00
365,474,00
50,000.00
30.000.00
3,000.00
Hr. Garland offered a substitute motion that the shove listed items as
well as the five million dollar priority list submitted by the Roanoke City
School Board be included in the bond referendum to be voted upon at the November
7. 1972, election. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor.
Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that Council has simply pulled figures
out of the air to 9et the five million dollar figure, that if Council adopts the
motion proposed by Mr. Garland, it is committing itself to spend the five million
dollars in this way, that Council is not spending enough time on its
tion of how to spend this money, that the question is not how to spend five mil-
lion dollars but how to most effectively spend the five million dollars within
the list of priorities and that to pull figures out of the air to get the five
million dollar figure is not the right way to approach the matter.
Mr. Garland then reiterated his substitute motion that Council proceed
with the bond issue in the November 7. 1972. election based upon the list drafted
by the City Manager for miscellaneous city capital improvements, totaling $5,010.9b1.00,
and the priority list from the Roanoke City School Board, totaling $5,000,000.00.
The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Taylor, Trout and Mayor Webber ..............4.
NAYS: Messrs. Hubard, Lisk and Thomas ............................. 3.
Mayor Hobber then declared a thirty minute recess in order to give the
Cit~ Attorney sufficient time to prepare the necessary measures.
After the thirty minute recess. Mayor Webber called the meeting to
order.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, #illiam S. Hubard,' David
Lisk, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton #. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L.
Webber ................................................................ 7.
ABSENT: None ...................................................... 0
Mr. Trout advised that since he voted with the majority on the motion
to proceed with the bond referendum in the November 7, 1972, election he would
like to move for a reconsideration of said motion. The motion was seconded by
Ur. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Trout then moved that the $1,000,000.00 mhich was allocated for
jail improvements be deleted from the proposed list of miscellaneous city capital
i
390~
improvements, that $125o000,O0 be allocated for the Peters Creeh Bridge, that
$180,000,00 be allocated ~or the Downtoun Traffic Signals, .that $100.O00.00 be
allocated for the Pedestrian Overpass ut Jefferson St'feet and that the City Ban-
agar be requested to report back to Council with · proposed list of miscellaneous
improvements totaling $S84,039.00, The notion was seconded by BF. Thomas and
unanimously adopted,
Mayor Webber then declared a ten minute recess in order for the City
Manager and the City Attorney to prepare the necessary papers.
After the ten minute recess, Mayor Webber again called the meeting to
order.
pRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Billiam S. Rubard, David K. Link,
Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas. James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Webber ...... 7.
ABSENT: None ....................................................... O.
The City Ranager presented the following list of miscellaneous city
capital improvements to be included in the bond referendum to be voted upon by
the qualified voters of the City of Roanoke in the November 7, 19T2, election.
totaling $5,000,000.00:
Malnut Avenue Storm Drains
Storm Drain Jefferson Street at Elm
Storm Drain Springhill Drive, N. M.
Riverland Park
Cordon City Doulevard
Bandy Road. S. E., Storm Drain
Bridge South Jefferson 5treat
24th Street, N. M. - widening
Murray Run Sanitary Sewer
N. M. Fire Station signals ~ alarms
S. M. Fire Station signals ~ alarms
Replace wall Lick Run. S. E.
Public BUS System
Airport Terminal Expansion
Washington Park
Duff Lane Area
Runway Overlay. 5
Sanitary Sewers
patrick Henry Avenue
N. ~. Branch Library
Bridge Peters Creek
Downtown Traffic Signals
Pedestrian Overpass Jefferson Street
T9,900.00
4,000.00
10,600o00
20.000.00
10.000.00
27,000.00
20,000.00
225.000.00
112,500.00
110,000.00
100,000.00
2.268.000.00
lO,O00.O0
25,000.00
40,000.00
500.000.00
3,000.00
365,000.00
50,000.00
30.000.00
150,000.00
250,000.00
60,000.00
35,000.00
90.000.00
125,000.00
1DO,O00.O0
100,000.00
Mr. Trout then offered the following emergency Ordinance providing
for the issue of bonds of the City of Roanoke not to exceed $10,000,000.00 to
provide funds to defray the cost to the city of needed permanent public improve-
ments, to-wit: for its public schools and for certain other permanent public
improvements including additions, betterments, extensions and improvements of
and to its municipal airport, its public buildings including its municipal court-
house building, libraries and fire stations, its systems of storm sewers, storm
drains and sanitary sewers, its' public streets, highways and bridges, a local
bus system to operate on regular schedules and its parks and other recreational
purposes:
il
391
(n20400) AN ORDINANCE to provide for the issue of bonds of the City of
Ronook'e not to exceed rea Million Dollar, ($10,000,000.00) to provide funds to
defray the cost to the City of needed ~ermanent public improvements, to-uit: for
!ilts public schools and for certain other permanent public improvements including
'additions. betterments, extensions and improvements of and to its municipal air-
~port. its public buildings including its municipal courthouse building, libraries
i. and fire stations, its systems of storn sewers, storm drains and sanitary namers.
:its public streets, highways and bridges, u local bus transportation system to
'operate on regular schedules, and its parks and Other recreational purposes; and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =37. page 170.)
Rt. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion Has seconded
by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the folloHin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Link. Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Ray~
Webber .........................7.
NAYS: None ...........O.
Mr. Trout then offered the folloHin9 emergency Ordinance directing and
providing for the holdin9 of an election in the City of Roanoke. Virginia. to
determine whether the qualified voters of the City of Roanoke will approve an
Ordinance, No. 20480, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on
September 20, 1972. providing for the issue of certain bonds of the City of
Roanoke:
(n20481) AN ORDINANCE directing and providin9 for the holdin9 of an
election in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, to determine whether the qualified
voters of the City of Roanoke Hill approve an ordinance. No. 20480, duly adopted
by the Counci 1 of the City of Roanoke on September 28, 1972. providin9 for the
issue of certain bonds of the City of Roanoke; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n3T. page 171.)
Rt. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
bI Mr. Garland ond adopted by the folloHin9 ~ote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Rayor
Mebber .........................7.
NAYS: None .......... O.
There being no further business, Mayor Nebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
ATTE ST:
APPROVED
COUNCIL, REGULAR MEETING,
Thursday, October S, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the
Council Chamber in the Honicipal Building, Thursday, October S, 1972, at 2 p.m.,
mith Mayor Roy L. Webber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Lisk, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Webber ...... b.
ABSENT: Councilman William S. Hubard ................ 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Hanuger; Wt. William Fo
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon. City Attorney; and Mr.
Wilbur N. Lavinder, Assistant City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by Mr. Charles J.
Whitacre, Director, Offender Aid Restoration of Roanoke.
MINUTES: Copy of the minutes of the re. gular meeting held on Monday,
September lB, 1972, ha~ng been furnished each member of Council, on motion of
Mr. Trout, seconded by Mr. Thomas 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:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting that $23,367.00 be appropriated to Section #ODO00, *Schools - Preschool
Hearin9 Impaired." of the 1972-73 budget of the Roanoke City School Board, advis-
ing that the objective of the program is to prepare Roanoke Valley preschool
children, with hearing impairments, for the first garde by teaching them to talk
properly and that lO0 per cent of expenditures under this program will be reim-
bursed by the State Department of Education, was before Council.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the communication from the Roanoke
City School Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20402) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~08000, "Schools -
Preschool Hearing Impaired," of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook #37, page 175.)
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 and Mayor
Hebber ....................... 5.
NAYS: None ......... O. (Mr. Hubard absent)
AMBULANCES-ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL HEALTH SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL,
INCORPORATED: A communication from Mr. Byron A. Hicks. President, Roanoke Valley
,, Regional Health Services Planning Council, Incorporated. advising that by Reso-
i~ lution No. 20307, Council acknowledged the Emergency Medical Services plan
i developed by a Study Group of the Health Services Planning Council, that two of
il the most important recommendations in that plan mere that local governments should
!/~ develop and pass Ordinances governing emergency ambulance operations in their
393
Jurisdictions nnd that a broadly representative Emergency Medical Services Council
medical services delivery, transmitting · sample Ordinance which the Health
~Planning Council's study group Is recommending to local governments and a list o!
~proposed members for the Emergency Medical Services Council which will be
staffed by the Health P hnning Council and encouraging affirmative action by
Council as soon as possible in approving an Ordinance and in recognizln9 the
Emergency Hedical Services Council membership, was before the body.
In this connectiooo Ur. Franh H. Mays. Executive Director. and Mr,
Hyron A. Ilicks. President. Roanoke Valley Regional Health Services Planning Coun-
cil, Incorporated, appeared before Council in connection with the matter and answer-
ed various questions raised by the members Of Council.
After a discussion of the matter, Mr. Thomas moved that the question of
appointing an Emergency Medical Services Council be taken under consideration
and that the pr.posed samite Ordinance be referred to the City Attorney and the
City Manager for study, rep. Fl and recommendation by the regular meeting of Coun-
cil on Monday. October 16, 1972, or the regular meeting of Council on Monday.
October 23. 1972. The motion was seconded by Or. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
TAXES-AIRPORT: A communication from Mr. and Mrs. George Dummitt.
advising that they are opposed to the enactment of the head tax on airline passengers
arriving or departing local airports, pointing out that this is an unnecessary
burden on an already over burdened public, and that an eight per cent tax is
paid on every tither purchased for the Airport and Airways Trust Fund to provide
matching funds to develop airports along with the federal government program, was
before Council.
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be referred to the Airport
Advisory Cnmmission for their information in connection with their study of the
!matter. The mot/on #as seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SE#ERS AND STORM DRAINS: A Joint communication from Mrs. Jerry Hiller.
President, Huff Lane Parent-Teacher Association. and Mr. Max A. Herman, Chairman
of the Uilliamson Road Area Parent-Teacher Association Schooles ~ommittee, advJs-
ii'tug that they are pleased that Council is now considering the question of provid-
,lng Huff Lane Elementary School with a connection to the city sanitary sewer
~:system and that regardless of what Council decides about the residents in the
area, they urge that Council appropriate necessary funds to See that at least the
iscbool is hooked up to the sewer system since the health and well being of the
students are at stake, was before Council.
Mr. Lish moved that the communication be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
394
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
M&TER DEPARTMENT: Council having previouslF deferred action on n
report of the City Manager transmitting his comments and recommendations in con-
nection with the request of Demonstration Mater Project, Incorporated. for city
water service to the New Hope community south of the City of Roanoke and Jn
Roanoke County. the matter was again before the body.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted the following report
advising that he will be glad to continue to work with Demonstration Mater Pro-
Ject in this regard, however, without significantly new possibilities, he does
not know that he con go a great deal further:
"September 11. 1972
IIonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: New Hope Muter
The matter of the proposal of a water system for the New
Itope Community south of the City and in Roanoke County has
been before the City Council on several occasions. Mr. J. H.
VunDeventer, Executive Director of Demonstration Mater Project,
Incorporated, has appeared before the Council several times
and initially submitted a letter of February 16, 1972. which
was on your Agenda of February 22, 1972, and there was addition-
ally a letter of May 8, 1972, a copy of which is attached for
background.
I will not go into all of the details of this system and
what is proposed except as to the following general items. It
is understood that Demonstration Mater Project has made at
least three efforts to drill sells in the Hew Hope community
but has been unsuccessful in obtaining water thus far.
have had a number of meetings with Mr. VunDeventer and repre-
sentatives of his organization, including attorneys, represen-
tatives of pipe interests and Mr. Kiser, Manager of the Mater
Department, has net with interested parties and has closely
studied the situation.
Mater would be available from a city storage tank in the
Chestnut Ridge area which tank is a part of the City*s system
for service to Garden City. It is felt that we would have
adequate supply there to respond to the needs within the New
Hope area. Their funding would come from the following
sources:
Farmers Home Administration Loan $31.450.00
(Finances over 40 years at 5~ per annum
interest)
Farmers Home Administration Grant 16.870.00
O.E.O.-Demonstration Mater Project Grant 12.580.00
Total Loan and Grant Money $62,g00.00
Mater would be piped from the City's storage tank down to
Virginia Secondary Route 672 and then westward along that route
and Route ?89 to pass through the New Hope community+ It is
estimated that the number of customers will be between 46 and
60. A pumping installation would be necessary in this system.
Our estimate of construction costs based on the Clty*s speci-
fications of materials is approximately $125,000. This esti-
mate breaks down to 10,250 feet of 8-inch pipe,
2.250 feet of 2-inch, $7,675 and a 16-foot by 10-foot pumping
station, $12,500. It is noted that this estimate includes use
of 2-inch pipe which would be installed in private roads and
this within itself would require special approval os a variance
to the rules and regulations of the department.
The difference between the City*s estimate and Demon-
stration Mater Project's estimate is the difference between
using ductile iron pipe and two and four-inch plastic pipe.
I think that we have fairly explored with Hr. VanDeventer
end his group ell forms of alternatives as to bow this wight
be handled to bring the arrangement within City's specifications
both as to material and as to the method of establishing the
system. As I stated in the report to the Council last week,
the economics of this system, when the number of customers and
estimated water use ia related to cost of construction and
maintenance, it is such a system as would not be attractive tm
private investment to construct. At the same time in our
studies of the systew we do not find that the City could on its
own undertake the construction of the system and maintain it
and anticipate coming out over a great many years with a
satisfacsory balance between expenditures and revenue, We hare
additionally considered if Demonstration Mater Project were to
construct the system with the funds that they have and the City
were to subsidize it but this too would not produce reasonable
economics.
It is such a system that its construction and operation
and operation could perhaps only reasonably be brought about
with government subsidizing the construction cost without
anticipating a return on its full investment. The potential
of expansion of the system in future years is very limited
and would not appear to offer the opportunity of revenue growth
of a marked amount. This would be especially true if construc-
tion economics necessitated the use of 2-inch pipe which
limits the volume of water that can be transmitted for area
surface.
We have at no time. and this I emphasize, indicated a
reluctance or hesitancy on the part of the City to mate its
water supply available for this area. I think that the record
of the City in this regard in providing utilities to Roanoke
County bears out this position. The problem has been the
method in this particular situation. As is known, the City
has certain rules and regulations of construction and operation
of utilities connected to its system and for the sale of water.
These have been pretty well time tested and I feel are basically
justified. To vary from them to any great degree not only
raises a question as to precedent in other situations but also
as to whether the variances might be sound.
Essentially, we narrow down to three problems.
1. The first has to do with materials. ~hile we have ques-
tioned the type of pipe material, I think that this office
would be agreeable to an arrangement whereby cast-iron
pipe be used from the reservoir do~n to the roadway and
Demonstration Water Project use its pipe material along
the roadway and this could be done to offer assistance to
the project and to obtain experience. This they have
indicated they would be agreeable to.
2. The finances of the project are such that they feel that
the installation can only be made and maintained under a
bulk sale arrangement. While their feelin9 is understood
within the limits of money immediately available. I do hare
to question the City's entering into an arrangement to sell
water on a bulk basis. This is not good practice under
these circumstances for several reasons.
3. This third item is somewhat related to No. 2 above and
has to do with individual meterin9. The City's rules and
regulations require individual meterin9 for each user.
This is a highly desirable system and preferably should
be held to. Their reasons for not wishing to go into
it are, again, the cost factors of the services and again
back to the hulk proposal~
I do not kno~ how administratively we can go much further
on this unless there might be some other arrangement of which
we are not aware and which would involve additional funding
possibilities.
One other point which, way be a fourth, deals with the
procedures of the City whereby water lines connected to the
CitI's system comes under the City ownership, operation and
maintenance. This has been standard, accepted and successful
practice. While we have not raised this point too strongly it
would be one that would have to be dealt with at some point.
This, it is understood, they cannot do under the federal fund-
ing arrangement and I think perhaps if all other things could
be worked out this might be somewhat possible to resolve. We
would though prefer individual billing to the customers which
would have to be worked out if other parties were to own and
maintain the system.
395
'396
To bring the matter to a head. I can only reconmend to the
Council that the City's position should be tbat nntil this
system can be developed to more closely neet, these procedures
then the City mould be unable to supply water to the area,
~ne additional recomnendation would be that the residents
in the Nen Hope area approach the Roanoke County Hoard of
Supervisors to request supplemental funding on the part of the
County, on top of the Federal' funds, sufficiently to enable
the development of the system and the provision of water to
their needs.
Me will be glad to continue to work with Demonstration
Mater Projects and with Mr. Van Deveeter, nho together with
his staff have been most cooperative in oar efforst in this
regard; however, without significantly new possibilities, I
do not know that we can go a great deal furhter.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. HiFst
City Manager"
At this point. Mr. Hubard entered the meeting.
gr. J. Il. VanDeventer, Executive Director. Demonstration Mater Project.
Incorporated. appeared before Council in support of the request, advising that
there is a definite need for water service in this area, pointing out that the
Roanoke County Public Service Authority has advised that they are not in a posi-
tion to extend water service to the Sew Il.pm community at this tine, that the City
of Roanoke"ha$ a water supply which could be made available to these people, that
they are willing to pay for it at a reasonable rate and requested that Council
take definite action on the matter at this time.
Rt. Thomas udv'iued that the question involved is whose responsiblity it
is to furnish water service to the New Hope area. that he is of the opinion that
it is the prime responsibility of the County of Roanoke and that the City of
Roanoke has no assurancethat any project grant funds will come back to the city.
After a lengthy discussion Of the matter, Mr. Th.has moved that the
report be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. tlsk and unanimously
adopted.
ZONING-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Manager
and to the City Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation a com-
munication from Mr. John S.. Henritze advising that when the American Theater was
built in 1920. they were allowed to build on the present building line. which
makes Kirk Avenue ? 1/2 feet mart,mar than the remainder of the block and express-
lng the opinion that the other buildings should also be subject to this setback
and the City Manager having previously, under date of August 14, 1972, submitted
an interim report advisin9 that plans for the proposed office building on the
American Yheater site provide for a set back from the ex~.~g right of way line of
approximately 2 feet, that the domntown development plan previously prepared for
the City and downtown Roanoke business interests by outside consultants envisions
a pedestrian mall along Kirk Avenue. that if this plan is carried out as pre-
sently proposed, there would be a questionable need for additional right of way
width on Kirk Avenue, mhereupon, the City Manager Submitted n further report under
date of October 5, 1972, advising that the city mas contacted last year by the
National Theater Corporation as to building line requirements and on October 12,
1971. the City Engineer mrote the Corporation on the following points:
1. Based on existing zoning, arterial plans and Downtonn Bnuenk~
plans, a building setback from Jefferson Street or Kirk Avenue
is not required except as stated in No. R.
2. A Visibility at Intersection indentation is required st the
actual intersection of the two streets. This would necessitate
clear visibility area vertically between two nnd one-half feet from
~ ground level to ten feet and horizonally measured a distance of
fifteen feet tram the corner along Jefferson Street and along
Kirk Avenue sad
3. The estimated water demand and sewage discharge requirements
~ should be evaluated for any proposed development in order to
,, incorporate this information into a downtown utility study.
t The CityManager further pointed out in his report that the desirability of
widening of Kirk Avenue and straightening the north right of way alignment is
unquestioned, but at the same tine, based on present Ordinances, he can only
advise developers as above stated, that the developers indicate a reluctance
, because of building plans to release additional building urea and whether any
~: Ordinance change at this time would be effective, proper or legal would of some
!~question to him.
Also, in this gonnection, the City Plannin9 Commission submitted a
!iwritten report transmitting a Resolution recommendin9 that sound plannin9 princi-
ilpals dictate that Kirk Avenue should be a uniform Street.
Mr. J. M. Boswell, Realtor. appeared before Council and advised that
he is of the opinion that the proposed office building on the present Site of the
American Theatre Building should be required to setback alan9 Kirk Avenue as are
other buildings on Kirk Avenue, that the American Theater Buildin9 is one of the
best built and best maintained buildings in the City of Roanoke'and it could
stand for at least another one hundred years, that the new building will be of
a general purpose office building and will possibly stand for one hundred years
and that if no setback line is established there, this new building will serve as
a monument to ~he City of Roanoke in its lack of good city planning.
Mr. Lisk advised that he concurs with the remarks made by Mr. Boswell,
pointing out that the city set the Municipal Building back by ten feet from
Third Street after the plans mere drawn to allow for future widening and that
the City of Roanoke should require others to do the same.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the City Attorney, City Manager and City Plan-
ning Commission be directed to prepare the proper measure which would allow Counct
to create a setback line for downtown Roanoke properties by the next regular
meeting of Council on Monday, October 9, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas and Trout ......
NAYS: Mayor Webber ............................................... O.
39 !
Mith reference to the matter° · communication from Mr, L, M, Peacock,
Secretery-Tre·surer, National Theatre Corporation, requesting that action on the
matter be deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, October
9, 1972, mas ·lan before the body,
Mr, Thomas moved th·t Council concur in the request of Mr, L, R, Peacock
that action on the m·tter be deferred until the next regular meeting of Council
on Monday, October g, lg?2, The motion nas seconded by Mr, Lish and unanlm.ously
adopted.
SEWERS AND STERN DRAINS: The City #aoager submitted the following
report recommending that he be authorized to execute Change Order No, 1, in the
amount of $4,807.00, to the contract uith D. R. Allen ~ Son, Incorporated, In
:connection uith the construction of an earth embankment along the southerly edge
of Roanoke River for the purpose of creating one of the sludge lagoon areas at
;the Mater Pollution Control Plant:
"October 5, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Sewage Treatment Plant - Sludge Lagoons
Durin9 the process of constructing sludge lagoons at
the City's Mater Pollution Control Plant, · construction
situation has developed which results in the need for ·
change in the original plans and a modification to · por-
tion of the facilities. A part of this project includes the
construction of an earth embankment along the southerly
edge of Roanoke River for the purpose of creatin9 one of the
sludge lagoon areas. The most easterly end of this enbankmeht
enclosing lagoon No. 3 recently settled due to unstable sub-
grade conditions, thus necessitating a change in construction
in that vicinity,
The City's Engineering staff and Alvord. Burdick ~
Bomson have negotiated a proposed change order to the contract
with D. R. Allen C Son, Inc., in the amount of $4,807 to
facilitate this change in the original plans. This additional
work and these costs should be eligible for State and Federal
participation similar to the major project of which it is a
part. It should be mentioned at this time that there will
most likely be additional change order at the completion of
this project due to relatively minor changes in construction
conditions which cannot be accurately estimated at this time.
It is recommended that the City Manager be authorized
by ordinance to execute Change Order No. 1 in the amount of
$4~807 with D. R. Allen ~ Son. Inc.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Birst '
City Manager#
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following Resolution:
(~20483) A RESOLUTION approving the City Manager's issuance of Change
Order No. 1. in connection with the City's agreement for the construction of sludge
lagoons at the City's Sewage Treatment Plant.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book #37, page 176.)
399
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
!by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
i AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Llsk. Taylor, Thomos. Trout and Mayor
iiWebber .......................... 7.
I · NAYS: None ..........O.
i COUNCIL-CITY ATTORNEY: The City Attorney submitted a written report
i~requesting an Executive Session to discuss a pending litigation matter.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the
request
of
the
City
Attorney.
iThe motion Mas seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Measrs, Garland, Hubard. Link, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Mebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
AUDITS-SCHOOLS: The City Auditor submitted a written report transmitting
copy of a report of au examination of the Lucy Addision High School Activities
Fund for the year ended June 30, 1972, made by the firm of 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. Llsk moved that the report he received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISItEB BUSXNESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
~fREET NAMES: Ordinance No. 20475 changing the name of Bluestone Avenue,
N. E,, from the east line of Read Road, N. E., to the present east line of Blue-
stone Avenue, to Norton Avenue, N. E.. and naming that unnamed street extending
from the present east line of Bluestone Avenue. N. E., to the west line of Liberty
Road, N. E., Norton Avenue, N. E., having previously been before Council for its
first reading, read and laid over, was again before the body, Mr. Lisk offering
the f,Il,win0 for its second reading and final adoption:
(=20475) AN ORDINANCE changing the name of a certain street and fixing
the name of a certain unnamed street within the corporate limits of the City of
Roanoke in the Bluestone Avenue area in order to provide a unified street name
system.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book n37, page 174.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoptioo of the Ordinance, The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the followin9 vote:
~ AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Rayor
Webber ...................... 7.
!: NAys: None O.
4OU
MARKET-TRAFFIC-PLANNING: Council having directed the City Attorney to
prepare the proper measure appropriating funds in connection with the employment
of certain special consulting services for the proposed municipal parking garage.
the matter nas before the body.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. John ~. Chappelear, Jr.,
President, Central Roanoke Development Foundation, advising that by letter of
September 21. 1972, the Trustees of the Central Roanoke Development Foundation
requested Council to appropriate $10,O00.00 for the special consulting services,
that at the meeting of Council on September 26. the City Manager indicated that
new developments had taken place in regard to this matter that he had not had an
opportunity to discuss with the ~ustees, that at a meeting on September 2g, the
Trustees reviewed the recent events with the City Manager and concluded that the
cost of a consultant for this work probably would not exceed $4,000.00, that the
city has presently budgeted $2.6§0.00 for this project in the 1972-73 budget and
recommending that these funds be used for this purpose, pointing out that as an
expression of their sincere interest in seeing the parking garage project imple-
mented, the Central Roanoke Development Foundation would like to convey to the
City of Roanoke $1.350.O0 to help defray the cost of this study, therefore, they
woulk like to amend the original communication amd request that Council only
appropriate $1,350.00 for the investigation and analysis, with the understanding
that the Central Roanoke Development Foundation will reimburse the city in this
amount, was before the body.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the amended request of the
Trustees of the Central Roanoke Development Foundation and offered the following
emergency Ordinance appropriating $1,350.00 to Municipal Parking Garage under
Section ~6g, *Transfers to Capital Improvements Fund." of the 1972-73 budget, in
connection with the employment of certain specialconsulting services for the
proposed municipal parking garage:
(~20484) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~Dg, ~Trnnsfers to
Capital Improvements Fund.' of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing
for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book a37, page 177.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Dubard and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
~ebber ......................... 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
Mr. Trout then offered the following emergency Ordinance authorizing
and empowering the City Manager to employ for the city. at a cost not to exceed
$4.O00.OO. the consulting services of Thomas R. lirsing, Jr., to investigate and
~ to report to the city on alternatives available to the city for the capital fioanc~
ii lng of the proposed new municipal parking garage and on the alternative methods
and most advantageous method of operatin9 said garage subsequent to its construc-
tion. such report to be made not later than October 31. 1972:
(z20485) AN ORDINANCE authorizing employment of certain special con-
sulting services in connection with the proposed municipal parking garage, and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #37, page 17T.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
.by Nr. Lisk and adopted by the follouing vote:
~ AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubardo Llsk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
i'~ebber ......................... 7.
~ NAYS: None ........... O.
S~REETS AND ALLEYS-STATE H1GHIAYS: Council having directed the City
Attorney to prepare the proper measure closing to vehicular and other traffic a
portion of Maple Avenue. S. N., and authorizin9 and directing the City Manager to
have erected markers and barriers to prohibit the movement of vehicular traffic on
said street, in connection with the construction of the Southwest Expressmay.
he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Thomas offered the following emergency Ordi-
nance:
(u20486) AN ORDINANCE closing to vehicular and other traffic a portion
of Maple Avenue, S. M.. and authorizing and directing the City Manager to have
erected markers and barriers to prohibit the movement of vehicular traffic on
said street; and providing for am emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =37. page 178.)
Mr. Yhomns moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Nebber .......................... 7.
NAYS: None ...........
BUDGET-PAy PLAN-CITY EMPLOYEES-ELECTIONS-REGISTRAR: Council having
directed the City Attorney to prepare the proper measure decreasing the Personal
Services account of the Electoral Board bI $1,698.00 in connection with certain
reorganization of the General Registrar's Office, Mr. Lisk offered the following
emergency Ordinance:
(~20487) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~85, "Electoral
Board," of the 1972-T3 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see OrdinanceOook ~37, page l?g.)
Br. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
i AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
::#ebber ..................... 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: Mr; Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance
~:authoriziog and empowering the City Manager to cause the expenditure of city funds
401
402
not to exceed $1,000,00 in obtaining, in the name of the city and others, options
for ~e purchase of lends suitable for Joint-use landfill and refuse disposal
operations and thereafter end within the limits of the aggregate sum of $3,000.00
appropriated for use of the Landfill Committee for all such purposes, to employ
an appraiser or appraisers of real estate under such option and to employ engineer-
ing firms and consultants to make test borings, soil samplings and other investi-
gations, and to advise the city and others as to the long-range use of and program
for operation of all such land, any or all of uhich aforesaid options, contracts
or agreements so authorized by said Landfill Committee may be entered into by the
city, Jointly uith other political subdivisions of the Roanoke Valley:
(n20408) AN ORDINANCE authorizJn9 certain actions to be taken towards
providing for the City and others a Joint-use sanitary landfill and refuse dis-
posal area; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see as in Ordinance Book ~37, page lflO.)
Mr, Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Link and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Link. Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Mebber .......................... ?.
NAYS: None ........... O.
SALE OF PROPERT¥-IIOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE-GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City
Attorney submitted the following report in explanation of certain wordin9 con-
tained in Ordinance No. 19996 with reference to conveyance of the Muni.cipal Incin-
erator property to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, advis-
ing that it appears that the words *credit in the sum of $120,000.00 toward other
redevelopment or housing projects within the city* may have been inadvertently
used in the Ordinance. inasmuch as it was proposed that the conveyance be made
on an agreed actual value of abO.O00.O0 which would have the collateral effect of
generating Federal Grants to the Authority of the larger amount, namely,
but that the credit to the city on its costs of the Kimball Redevelopment Project
be limited to the appraised valuation of the laud, namely, $60,000.00, and trans-
mitting a clarifying Resolution for the recommended adoption of Council:
*October 5, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke GitI Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Ordinance No. 19998, adopted by the Council on Decem-
ber 26. 1971. provided, in general, for the City's sale and
conveyance to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority of the City*s former Municipal Incinerator property.
the ordinance making reference to the S~ptember 16. 1971 re-
quest of the Authority to donate the value of the Incinerator
property as a part of the financing of the Kimball Redevelop-
ment Project, stating that its donated ~alue would generate
$120,000 in Federal Grants to apply to othpr projects. The
Authority's request further stated that two independent
appraisals ef the property had indicated, upon review, a net
value Of $50,000 for the property, allowing $15,000 additional
us necessary demolition costs, Later the City Msnager"s .
report to the Council reiterated the proposal theretofore made
by the Authority, advising that the Clty°s donation of the land
to the Authority at Its aforesaid appraised value would generate
Federal Grants aggregating $12o,ooo to be applied to other
public projects.
The attorney for the Authority and the undersigned being
now in the process of closing the transaction have noted that
Ordinance No. 19998, abovementioned, employs the following
wording with reference to the consideration supporting the
City"s aforesaid conveyance:
'*&e'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,
It appears that the words "credit in the sum of $120,000.00
toward other redevelopment or housin9 projects within the
City* may have been inadvertently used in the ordinance, in-
asmuch as it was proposed that the conveyance be made on an
agreed actual value of $60,000 which would have the collateral
effect of generating Federal Grants to the Authority of the
larger amount, namely, $120,000.00, but that the credit to
the City on its costs of the MJmball Redevelopment Project
be limited to the appraised valuation of the land, namely,
$60,000.00
In conjunction with the attorney for the Authority
a draft of a clarifyin9 resolution has been prepared for the
Council's consideration and is transmitted herewith. If the
understanding of the Council be as is set out in the clari-
fling resolution and if the City intended to receive an
actual credit for a maximum of ~60.000.00 by reason of the
aforesaid conveyance, it is recommended that the accompanying
resolution be adopted by the Council so that the attorneys
involved in the matter may proceed with closing the above-
mentioned transaction.
Respectfully,
S/ J. N. Kincanon
J. N. Kincanon#
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following Resolution in clarification of the matter:
(~20489) A RESOLtTIION clarifying and stating the true purpose and
intent of certain provisions of Ordinance No. 19998, adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, on the 20th day of December, 1971, providing for the
sale and conveyance of the City's former Municipal Incinerator property to the
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority upon certain terms and con-
ditions.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~37. page 181.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
!by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Yhomas, Trout, and Mayor
iMebber ....................... 7.
~! NAYS: None O,
BONDS-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-SCHOOLS: The City Attorney submitted
:a wrltteo report transmitting a Resolution by which Council would adopt a
i$10,000,000.00 Capital Improvements Program to be accomplished by the proceeds of
irthe sale of bonds of the city authorized to be issued by Ordinance No. 20480, when
ilapproved by the qualified voters of the GitI of Roanoke.
403
404
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and offered the following Resolution:
(z20490) A RESOLUTION adopting u Capital Improvements Program for the
City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book n37, page 182.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. T'he motion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Lisk. Taylor, Thomas, Trout, and Mayor
Webber .......................... 7.
NAYS: Noae ........... O.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
CiTY M'ANAGER: The City Manager submitted the following communication
submitting his resignation as City Manager of the City of Roanoke. effective
December 15. 1972. at the latest, and December 1. 1972. at the earliest, in order
to take the position of Executive Director of the Virginia Municipal League:
"OctoberS. 1972
Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
llonorable Robert A. Garland, Councilman
Honorable William S. Hubard, Councilman
Honorable David K. Lish, Vice-Mayor
Ilonorable Dr. Hoel C. Taylor, Councilman
Iloaorable Hampton W. Thomas. Councilman
Honorable James O. Trout. Councilman
Gentlemen:
By this letter. I submit by resignation as City Manager
of the City of Roanoke, Virginia. I have this date accepted
the position of Executive Director of the Virginia Municipal
League.
This decision is the result of the most intense balanc-
ing of factors and soul searching that I have ever faced in
my employment life. An enumeration of the questions and
elements that have become involved in reaching a decision
would seem almost limitless and any attempt to list them
would be perhaps of little true interest to others.
I have a deep and very warm feeling for Roanoke. This
City and its citizens have been good to me and have been
good to my family. As a City Manager. as a resident and as
one who feels a very close relationship with many around me.
I cannot avoid a sense of obligation that has caused me to
question any such decision as this. yet a city and its
government, just as life itself, moves and changes and still
goes on. Those things which we feel and hold close continue
despite time and distance.
When I came to Roanoke only a few days short of seven
years ago, I used the word challenge, for Roanoke was a
challenge to me--and a great one. Many times since then I
have thought that the word was best forgotten. But now I
find myself using it again.
The Virginia Municipal League, as the organization of
Virginia's cities, towns and urban counties, has long served
as a bond of purposes and goals for the locaI governments.
The gentlemen whom I will succeed upon his retirement, Mr.
Harold I. Baumes, has, with the highest, effectiveness, molded
and guided its growth.
I see an opportunity for the League to move into an
even stronger position as representative of local government.
Mith the rapidly increasing growth, needs, problems and changes
405
et directions et government, and particularly local government,
I envision an even stronger role tot an orgsnization and un
agency such as the League. For what little I may have to otter,
this is mhat I would like to try and this is what tilts to the
decision I have concluded.
As I look back, as I have over these past several weeks,
there is a rush of many recollections. Certainly those things
that have been achieved and such progress as has been effected
is the result of the determinations and leadership of the City
Councils and the expressions of the citizens. But amen9 it
all I do find sene points which I can touch with personal pride.
There are projects, activities and interests that I would
like to stay with and continue to pursue, for their achievement
and the means of getting there mould produce a great deal of
satisfaction. The City has collectively done much. There
is much that is being done. And, as surely as the sun rises
and sets over this City end this Valley, there is much that
will be done.
To the other side of the book, I realize full mell that
I have left undone those things mhich I ought to have done;
and I have done those things which I ought not to have done.
There is that which could have been done better and there are
those efforts which could have been greater. I sill not
attempt to rationalize for rationalization height spares nor
restores those who have erred or strayed. There is only the
reflected belief that wherein there may have been from tine to
time inadequacies upon some of the paths, there were at the
same times adequacies and g~ns upon others.
This decision means for ne a personal and professional
change in direction. Such has weighed heavily for it is
difficult to voluntarily give up the familiarities of the
nature of one*s work. It mill be hard to not be a direct
part of the intricacies of city government. Yet. I believe,
and hope, there is the opportunity to broaden and orient my
scope of interest and activity in directions that, to use the
word, would be both interesting and challenging. There may be
additionally the prospect of better pacing ny personal time
and life, a factor I feel much needed.
I am deeply indebted to many and I would hesitate to
begin a list but several must be mentioned at this point.
To Mayor #ebber I could not have asked more as a friend, as
the head of the City's 9overnment and as my Mayor, The
members of the City Council, past and present, have given
to me support, encouragement and guidance for which I have
been and an most grateful. The appointed officers of the
Council. the members of the Court and the Constitutional
Officers have represented a highly pleasant association.
To my--and 1 claim them as mine--department heads, to
Bill Clark and Byron Hamer before him, and to those two
ladies, Gerry Aldridge and Marie Thomas, who have made it
possible for me to survive. I owe a deep and never-to-be
have lived a full life here. A decision has had to be made
'406
Upon the clarification of several matters, I will firm that
date for the City Council within u few days. Until the termi-
nation of my duties. I assure the Mayor and City Council of
my full attention to this office and that mhich may be deemed
of best interest to the City.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr, Tro~t moved that the communication be received and filed and that
the resignation be accepted with much regret. The notion was seconded by Mr.
Hubard and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor Nebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
City Clerk
407
COUNCIL. REGULAR MEETING,
Monday° October 9. 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Coun-
cil Chamber in the Runicipal Building, Monday, October 9, 1972, at 2 p,m** the
regular meeting hoar. with Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding,
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, William S. Hubard. David
!Lisk, Noel C. Taylor, Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L.
~febber ............................ 7.
AHSENT: None ........... O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Ilirst, City Manager; Mr. #imam F. Clark,
Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Nincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A. N.
Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend
Henry S. Moody, Jr., Pastor, Mount Pleasant United Methodist Church.
MINUTES; Copy fo the minutes of the cellular meeting held on Monday,
September 2b, Ir?2. havin9 been furnished each member of Council, on motion of
Mr. Trout, seconded by Dr. Taylor, and unanimously adopted, the reading thereof
was dispensed with and the minutes approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC BATTERS:
ZONING-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council, at its last regular meeting on
Thursday, October 5, 1972. having deferred action on a report of t'he City Manager
in connection with a communication from Mr. John S. Ilenritze expressing the opinion
that any future development on the site of the present American Theatre Building
should be required to setback along Kirk Avenue iu conformance with other
ings on that street, the matter mas again before the body.
In this connection, the City Manager suhmitted the following report
advising that the desirability of the widening of Kirk Avenue and straightening of
the north right of way alignment is unquestioned, that at the same time, based
on present Ordinances, he can only adivse developers as stated in his report.
that the developers indicate a reluctance because of building plans to release
additional building area, and that uhether any Ordinance change at this time uould
be effective, proper or legal mould be of some question to him:
*October 5, 1072
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Kirk Avenue
The City Council on July 31. 1972. referred to the City
Planning Commission and to me a letter from Mr. John S.
Henritize. This was referred for study, report and recommen-
dation. Mr. Henritize In his letter of July 25, 1972, took
note of the proposed new construction at the American Theater
site and that Kirk Avenue is T 1/2 feet narrower at this loca-
tion than through the remainder of the block. I submitted
interim comments to the Council on your Agenda of August 14.
1072. It is understood a report will be before you from the
Planning Commission at this meeting; therefore, I extend my
'408
We were contacted last year by the National Theatre Cor-
poration es to building line requirements and on October 12,
1971o Br. BcGhee, City Bngineer, wrote the corporation on the
following points:
1. Based on existing zoning, arterial plans and Downtown
Roanoke plans, n building setback from Jefferson Street
or Kirk Avenue is not required except as stated in No.
2.
R. A Visibility et Intersection indentation is required at
the actual intersection of the tm* streets. This would
necessitate clear visibility area vertically between two
and one-half feet fram ground level to ten feet and bori-
zonally measured a distance of fifteen feet from the corner
along Kirk Avenue.
3. The estimated water demand and semage discharge require-
ments should be evaluated for any proposed development in
order to incorporate this information into n downtown
utility study.
Representatives of the proposed development net with ne
in August, 1972, and by letter of September 1, 1972o I mr*to
to then substantially restating Mr. McGhee*s advice.
The desirability of the widening of Kirk Avenue and
straightening the north right of way alignment is unquestioned.
At the sane tine, based on present ordinances, ue can.only
advise developers as above stated. The developers indicate
a reluctance because of building plans to release additional
building area. Ihether any ordinnace change at this time
would be effective, proper or legal would be of some question
to ne.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
In this connection, the City planning Commission submitted the follow-
ing report transmitting a Resolution which was adopted by the City Planning Com-
mission generally recommending to Council that sound planning principals dictate
that Kirk Avenue should be a uniform ~treet:
"September 26, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Rehber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
This petition was considered by the City Planning Commission
at both its regular meetings of September bo 1972, and Sep-
tember 20, 1972.
At the September 6, 1972, meeting, Mr. John I. Boswell
appeared before the Planning Connission and stated that he
felt that the buiIding to be constructed on the present
site of the American Theatre Building should be set back
along Kirk Avenue as are the other buildings on Kirk Avenue.
He further stated that there has been talk of a pedestrian
mall replacing Kirk Avenue and if the proposed building was
not set back, these plans would never cone loto reality. ~e
noted that the American Theatre Building is not an old build-
ing and could have stood much longer than its 40 ~ ars, but
now that aa office building will replace it, this building
should be set hack to conforn with the remaining structures.
He further noted that the piece of land in question would
only be a strip of land 170 feet long x 7 1/2 feet mide and
that this snail amount could not make that much difference
in the construction of the proposed building.
409
The Planning Director appeared before the Planning Commission
and stated that Kith Avenue is 40 feet wide and that it would
cost the City approximately $40,000 to purchase tbts small
tract of land. He further stated that one of two things
could be done in this situation; either this portion should
be turned into a pedestrian mai1. or have s setback line
mith the City purchasing this small parcel Of land.'
Mr. Boswell stated that if tlis situation is not corrected now
before the building fs constructed, then no one could Justify
a setback line in the future and no one could Justify city
planning. Mr. ParrotS, Planning Commission member, stated th~
the drawings are well underway at this time and the $40,000,00
figure doesn*t really represent a valid figure. The Planning
Director stated that this property was zoned C-3, and there-
fore, does not require a setback line.
Mr. Parrots asked why nothing had been brought up until now
ehen the plannin9 stages were completed. MUg Boswell stated
that he had several long sessions with Mr, Scholm going back
for the past 3 years and that it was his understanding that
the proposed building would be set bach the ? 1/2 feet to
permit the midening of Kirk Avenue, but mhen the plans were
disclosed, no setback was planned and he further stated that
7 1/2 feet could not throw the new building off that much.
Mr. Parrots stated that the planning stages were too far along
to be changed nam and that he did not believe there would ever
he a mail because there were no plans for the mall in effect
now. Be noted that Marcon O'Leary had delineated such a plan
but that it was never acted upon.
Mr. Coleman asked if the proposed building was actually that
far alan9 that no changes could be made in it. Ne further
asked if any one had actually seen the plans to determine how
far along they were. The Planning Director stated that the
building mould be going up on the land in the early part of
next year.
Mr. CoIeman made a motion that this discussion be continued
at the next meeting of the Planning Commission in order to
allow the concerned property owners to appear before the
Planning Commission.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and uoanimously
approved that this discussion be tabled until the next
meeting of the Planning Commission.
At the September 20. 1932 meeting of the Planning Commission,
Mr. Boswell stated that he was appearing again to discuss the
question of whether to require a setback for the mew office
building to be built at the corner of Jefferson Street and
Kirk Avenue and proceeded to cite an example of a domntown
office building that experienced a similar type situation.
He stated that about 10 years or so ago. the dohn Meynick
building at the N. M. corner of Franklin Road and First Street,
S. M., was razed and the Mortgage Investment Corporation office
building was const~cted before there was any consideration of
a setback line. Be noted that there was considerable atten-
tion given to this situation by the hems media because the
dog leg was not eliminated when the building was constructed,
and noted again that there are no setback lines downtown and
if this new office building is not made to set hack, it, too,
will represent a visible case of poor city planning.
Mr. Boswell stated that someone had expressed the opinion that
this situation should have been brought up sooner before the
planning had come so far along on this building, but, he
noted, it is not up to the neighbors to bring this situation
to the attention of the City of Roanoke. In fact. he n~ ed,
the City of Roanoke should have a mechanism to enable it to
monitor these types of situations and then, at an early date,
t
t them.
Mr. Boswell further noted that the American Theatre Building
is one of the best built and best maintained buildings in
Roanoke and that it could stand for at least another 100 years
but economic obsolescence has done away with this building
and the new building would be more of a general purpose office
building and whatever is constructed there now will be there '
for another lO0 years. Be stated that if no setback line is
established here, this new building will stand for the next
100 years as a monument to the lack of city planning.
410
Mr. John M. P. Hamer, Attorney, representing Kirh-Jeff, Inc.
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that Kirk-
Jeff. Inc. lc located opposite the corner of the American
Theatre and fully supports Mr. Beswell*a position. He further
stated that they also feel that this new office b'ullding
should be set back in accordance with the ether buildings on
Kirk Avenue.·
Mr. Henry $cholz. one of the developers of the American
Theatre, appeared before the Planning Commission and stated
that on October 12, 1971, they had received a letter from the
City of Roanoke*s Engineering Department stating .that they
cow. Id bul'ld the new office building on this specific parcel
of land. He further stated that since the receipt of this
letter, they hav'e leased over 50~ of the 14 story building
and they have tenants wal,ting to be hoard from on the balance
of the building, He noted that Sherertz ~ Franklin are the
architects for this building and that they have hired a con-
tractor also. He farther coted that their plans will seriously
be impaired if they are not allowed to build on this T 1/2
foot strip and that they hare already begun the interior
demolition of the building and that within 30 to bO days. the
exterior demolition will begin and in another 30 to 60 days.
the construotion of the newoffice building will begin.
Mr. Franklin of Sherertz ~ Franklin, architects, appeared
before the Planning Commission. Mr. Hoynton asked him if
this setback was ever mentioned to him. Mr. Franklin stated
that they do plan to set back the building 2 feet and to
increase the size of the sidewalk but that the curb line will
not be changed, lie further stated that Mr. nosuell's recom-
mendation is not economically feasible since they have already
gone to considerable expense at this stage.
Mr. Lemon asked when construction would start on this pro-
jack. Hr. Franklin answered that construction would be
started by the first of the year. Mr. Lemon then asked
what is the square foot value of land and Hr. Cch*Ir answered
$50.00 per square foot.
Mr. Bosnell again appeared before the Planning Commission and
stated that about 3 years ago he met with Henry $cholz in his
office and discussed Kirk Avenue since he heard of the possi-
bility of the American Theatre Huildin9 being replaced.
About two months later, he noted~ he again met with Mr. $cholz
along with Mr. and Mrs. Todd and Mr. Peacock and during that
conversation he asked Mr. Cch*Ir about widenin9 Kirk Avenue.
and he stated that it was planned. Mr. Scholz rebuttled that
at this meeting there were 20 businessmen and that they didn't
discuss any one specific building.
Hr. Boswell then asked who gave Mr. Scholz permission in
October of last year not to set back the building. Mr.
Parr*ti stated that the letter was from Sam McGhee, City
Engineer. and that he only cited the ordinance stating the
fact that there is no setback requirement..
Hr. Boynton stated that from the standpoint of good city
planning, Kirk Avenue should be straightened out, but that
the City Planning Commission cannot recommend that the City
purchase this parcel of land.
After discussion by the Planning Commission members, it was
agreed that a resolution should be adopted generally recom-
mending to City Council that sound plannin9 principals dictate
that Kirk Avenue be a uniform street. A resolution was then
adopted and unanimously approved by the Planning Commission
members.
Sincerely,
$/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr.. by LM
Creed K, Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
Mr. M. L. Hazlegrove. Attorney. representing certain parties interested
in developing the former American Theatre property, appeared before Council and
called attention to a communication from the City ~nglneer under date of October
12. 1971, advising the National Theatre that there setback line
Corporation
is
requirement for the property in question since it is zoned C-3, Central Business
District, that based upon that letter, the property urn considered for future
development, that a great deal of time and money has already been spent on the
development of plans for this property, that to require a set back at this time
iwJll~ impair or destroy the feasibility of the plans for the that he is
project,
itryJng to impress upon Council the possible legal consequence if a setback line
!Ordinance is adopted at this point, that there is anything but uniformity on Kirk
~Avenue and that the developers cannot proceed any further without a clear cut
iideclsion from Council uith reference to the matter.
Dr. Taylor advised that considering all of the facts involved in this
case. Council should permit the developers to go forth with plans for the pro-
posed building since the developers have proceeded sith their plans accordin9 to
advice mhich mas rendered to them by certain city officials.
After a discussion as to the legal ramifications of adoption of a setback
line Ordinance for the downtown area at this time, Dr. Taylor moved that Council
go on record permitting the developers of the American Theatre property to go
forth mith their plans for a new office building to be erected on the American
Theatre site in keeping with the proposed plans. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ......................... 7.
NAYS: None ..........O.
Mr. Link then moved that the question of establishing a setback line in
downtown Roanoke be referred to the City Planning Commission for study, report and
recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously
adopted.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
STREET LIGHTS: Copy of a communication from the Appalachia Power Con-
pany transmitting a list of street lights installed and/or removed during the
month of September, 1972, was before Council.
Mr. Link moved that the communication and list be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: A communication from the City of Roanoke Rede-
velopment and Uousing Authority transmitting an Ordinance authorizing the execu-
tion of a Cooperation Agreement between the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority and the City of Roanoke, advising that this Ordinance is neces-
sary to carry into effect the *Redevelopment Plan, Gainsboro Neighborhood Develop-
ment Program, Program No. VA. A-6. for year 1972-1973.* as approved by Council on
September 11, 1972, mas before the body.
Mr. Link moved that Council concur in the request of the City Of
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housin9 Authority and offered the following emergency
Ordinance:
411
4 .2
(z20491) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and directing the Mayor or the City
of Roanoke and the City Clerk, for and on behalf of the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
to enter into and execute un Agreement with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority carrying into effect the Redevelopment Plan for the City of
Roanoke designated "Gainsboro Neighborhood Development Program. Program No. VA.
A-b. for Tear 1972-73"; and providing for an emergency; and
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u37, page 104.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr+ Thomas and adopted by the f,Il,wing vote:
ATES: Messrs. Garland. Dubard, Lisk, Taylor. Th,nas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber .........................
NAYS: None ........... O.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-COMMONREALTH'S ATTORNEY: The City Manager submitted a written
report advising that the city has received a federal grant, in the amount of
$751.00 for travel and training of a member of the Office of the Commonwealth*s
Attorney, that one of the Assistant Attorneys attended a one month program at
the National College of District Attorneys in II,asr,n, Texas, that this grant is
compensation for tuition, room and board and travel expenses, and requesting
that said funds be appropriated to Travel Expense under Section #22, "Common-
wealth*s Attorney," of the 1972-73 budget, in order for the City Auditor to reim-
burse said employee for out-of-pocket expenses.
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the request of the City Man-
ager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20492) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u22, 'Common-
wealth's Attorney," of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =37, page 188.)
Mr. Garland moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber .......................... ?.
NAYS: None ..........O.
BUDGET-DRUGS: The City Manager submitted a written report advising
that on July 24, 1972, Council endorsed the application of the Roanoke Area Drug
Abuse Control Council for funds through the State Division of Justice and Crime
Prevention to assist in their program, that $98,15B.00 will be federal funds and
$25,533.00 will be local funds, made up of cash and in-kind contribution, that
iiby report of August T, 1972, he summarized these grants and advised that upon
ilreceipt of approval from the State Council ou Crime Justice such would be reported
lit, Council, that this has now been accomplished, accordingly he is recommending
ilthat Council appropriate $98,158,00 for the RADACC prooram, said amount to be
entirely offset by revenue of federal grant through the State Division of Justice
and Crime Prevention nnd that payments mill be made on a quarterly basin to
RADACC by the city of the amount of the grant less administrative deduction allow-
ances,
Mr. Link moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(s20493) AM ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section u32, *Other Health
iAgencieso*of the 1972-73 Ordinance and for
Appropriation
providing
an
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a37, page
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber .......................... 7.
NAVS: None ........... O.
BUDGET-MUNICIPAL COL~T: The City Manager submitted the following report
advising that the Municipal Court wishes to submit an application for 9rant funds
to the Virginia Council on Criminal Justice for certain equipment considered to
be needed and advantageous to the functioning of the Court, totaling $9,47D.00.
that of this, the Virginia Council on Criminal Justice will provide $7,109.00
through LEAA funds, the remaining $2,359.00 to be provided by local cash and recom-
mending that $1.169.00 be transferred from Printing and Office Supplies to
Office Furniture and Equipment - New and that $1.200.00 be appropriated to Office
.Furniture and Equipment - New under Section ~20. "Municipal Court," of the 1972-
73 budget, to make a total of $2,abg.0Ofor said purpose:
"October 9, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Municipal Court Agreement
The Municipal Court wishes to submit an application for
grant funds to the Virginia Council on Criminal Justice for
certain equipment considered needed and advantageous to the
functioning of the court. This equipment is as follows:
2 Dictators @ $495 $ 990
1 Transcriber @ $475 475
I Portable Unit · $425 425
1 Copier @ $1315 1,315
I Converter 8
12 Rolls Paper 9 $10.25 123
12 Rolls Master Paper 9 $13.45 162
1 Case Toner 12
2 Memory Systems @ $2,595 5,190
10 Microphones ~ $40 400
10 Microphone Extension Cables @ $20 ~00
$9,478
Of this, the Virginia Council on Criminal Justice would
provide $7,109 through LEAA funds. The remaining $2,369
would have to be provided by local cash.
It would be recommended that $1,169 be transferred from
Municipal Court Code 20, Object Code 300, and that $1,200 be
appropriated to make the total of
';4.14
If City Council woald prefer not to make au appropriation
for this then the alternative recom~ndntioa would be the
transfer of $2,3§9 out of Municipal.Court Code 20, Object
Code 300,
Respectfully subaitted,
S/ Julian F. flirst
Julian F, Birst
City Manager'
Mr, Llsk moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Nanager and offered the follomin9 emergency Ordinance:
(z20494) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaia Section =20, "Municipal
Court," of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book m37, page
Mr. Llsk moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr, Bubard and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubardo Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber .........................
NAYS: None ........... O,
MISCELLANEOUS: The City Manager submitted a written report transmitting
copy of a communication from Mr. Charles A. Copeland. Adjutant of the Disabled
American Veterans, advising that the annual FORGET-ME-NOT Drive will be conducted
by the Roanoke H. H. MacKenzie Chapter #3, Disabled American Veterans, on
October 20 and 21, 1972, ia the Roanoke-Salem-Vlnton area, requesting that Coun-
cil accept his personal commit=eat and that of the Chapter in assuring the ethical
and courteous deportment of all solicitors and that anything Council can do by
way of endorsement of the Drive will be sincerely appreciated.
Dr. Taylor moved that the ~atter be referred to tbe City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure endorsing the annual FORGET-ME-NOT Drive to be
conducted by the Roanoke N. H. MacKenzie Chapter m3, Disabled American Veterans,
on October 20 and 21, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously
adopted.
BONDS-CAPITAL IRPROVEMEN~S PROCRAR-SCROOLS: The City Manager submitted
the following report transmitting copy of an amortization cost schedule in connec-
tion with the ten million dollar bond issue as prepared by the City Auditor:
"October 9, 1972
Honorable Rayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia:
Subject: Bond Amortization Cost Schedule
For your interest, guidance and consideration, I
attach an amortization cost schedule which I had asked the
GitI Auditor to prepare.
*ARORTIZATION COST SCHEDULE
TEN MILLION DOLLAR BOND ISSUE
10 YEAR 15 YEAR 20 YEAR 25 yEAR 30 YEAR
Effective
Rate 4.60~ S.O0~ 5,25% 5.35~ $,35%
Interest $2.530.000. $3.675.000. $5.512.500. $6.955;000. $~,025.0o0.
~Average
Interest 253,000. 258,333. 275,b25. 278,200.
Average
Annual
$~ $. 775.625. $~6.200. $. 600,033,
*Computed on 10 years $700.000.00 and 5 years SbO0,O00.O0 Repayment of Principal
~ Computed on 20 years $350.000o00 and 10 years $300,000o00 Repayment of Prin-
cipal'
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Ilirst
Julian F. Hivst
City Manager*
Mr. Thomas moved that thc report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr, Trout and unanimously adopted,
Germaine to the matter. Mr. Lisk moved that Council, acting as a Com-
mittee of the Rhole, serve as members of the November 7, 1972, Bond Program
Speaker Bureau. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
Mayor Mebber then advised that Vice Mayor David K. Lisk will serve as
Chairman of the November 7, 1972, Bond Program Speaker Bureau.
Mr. Lisk further moved that Mayor Roy Lo Rebber, Mr. Nicholas F.
Tanbman. Dr. Robert C. Haynes, Mr. John A. Kelley, Mr. David i. Lisk and Mr.
Julian F. Birst be officially appointed as members of the November ?, 1972, Bond
Program Steering Committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Hubard and unanimously
adopted.
Mr, Lisk pointed out that the members of t~e November 7, 1972. Bond
Program Advisory Committee will be appointed at a later date.
BRIDGES-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted the
following report advising that during the course of construction of the new
Roanoke River Bridge in Norwich, city forces installed an underground power cable
supplying electricity to the bridge lighting under the adjacent tracks of the
Norfolk and Mestern Railway Company, that this work was performed with the
approval of certain Railway Company officials and he was advised that the City
of Roanoke would later receive a proposed agreement for execution, that he has
! now received said agreement with the Norfolk and Mestern Railway Company:
415
'416
'October 9. 1972
'Hooornble Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen~
Subject: Norwich Bridge
During the course Of construction of the new Roanoke
'River bridge in Norwich, City forces installed aa underground
pomer cable supplying electricity to the bridge lighting
under the adjacent tracks Of the Norfolk and lestern Railway
Company~ This murk was performed with the approval of Railmay
Company officials and me were advised that the City would
later receive a proposed agreement fay execution.
Mebave now received from the Norfolk and Western Rail-
way Company a proposed agreement providing for the continued
existence of this underground conduit across Railmay Com-
pany property. There are no costs involved and the agree-
ment is basically formalizing the existing situation.
It is requested that City Council authorize the approval
of this agreement with the Norfolk and Western Railway Com-
pany. The City Attoraey*s office has been requested to pro-
vide the appropriate papers for this transaction.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Nirst
City Manager~
Mr. Hubard moved that Council concur in the request of the City Man-
cger and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20495) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City's execution of a written
license agreement with Norfolk C Mestern Company providing a right to the City
to construct, maintain and operate an underground power cable under and across
said Company*s property to serve the City's new Norwich Bridge; and providing
for an emergency.
(For f~ll text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book ~7. page 190.)
Mr. Hubard moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the fol~oming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ..........................
NAYS: None ......... O.
ROANOKE VALLEY: The City Manager submitted the following report advis-
ing that there has been prepared a modified form of Standard Americao Institute
of Architects agreement between the City of Roanoke and Smithey and Boynton,
Architects, for their services in conjunction with the repair of the flood damage~
to the National Guard Armory. that the cost to the city is based upon two and one-
half times the direct personal expenses of the architects with a maximum of
$7,100.00, pointing out that all flood damage repairs as well as architectural
services mill be reimbursed by the U. S. Army Carp of Engineers, and recommend-
ing that Council authorize the execution of this proposed agreement:
'October 9. 1972
Honorable HelOt and City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Hational Guard Armory - Architectural Agreement
On Monday. September 11, 19720 City Council agreed with
a committee report to amard a contract to Hodges Lumber Com-
pany for certain flood damage repairs to the U. S. Army
Hational Guard Armory including replacement of the gymnasium
floor, At that time Council requested the City Manager and
City Attorney to prepare and return to Council with an agree-
ment for architectural services related to this work.
Yhere has been prepared a modified form of the Standard
American Institute of Architects agreement between the City
and Smithey ~ Ooynton. for their services in conjunction with
the repair of the flood damages to the National Guard Armory,
The cost to the City is based upon two and one-half times the
direct personal expenses of the architects mith a maximum of
$7,100, As has been previously reported, all flood damage
repairs as mall as these architectural services will be reim-
bursed by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers,
It is recommended that City Councll authorize the
execution of this proposed agFeemento The City Attorney's
office bas been requested to prepare appropriate resolution
in this regard.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Ilirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Or. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~2049b) AN ORDINANCE authorizin9 the employment of the professional
services of certain architects and engineers to provide all necessary architectural
and engineering services and drawings and specifications for and providing super-
vision and inspection of and performing other related services in connection with
ithe repair of the damaged area of the National Guard Armory Building, upon certain
terms and provisions; and provldin9 for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book ~37. page 191,)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. Yhe motion was seconded
~by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following vote:
i~ AVES: Messrs. Garland, Ifubard, Lisk, Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
~Webber ...................... 7.
NAYS: None O.
ROANOKE VALLEY-STATE HIGHWAYS: Yhe City Manager submitted the follow-
lng report advising that as a result of the Hurricane Agens flood emergency in
iJune, certain federal aid highways throughout the City of Roanoke were damaged and ,
isubsequently repaired by city forces, that he is in receipt of a proposed agree-
ment between the City of Roanoke and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of
Highways whereby the city will be reimbursed for the expenses incurred in this
restoration work, that the agreement includes an itemized breakdomn of nine loca-
tions with an estimated cost of $3,204.00 doe to be reimbursed, that the work has
417
been completed by city forces at a cost of $3,323,42, mhich sum will be fully
reimbursed following n routine inspection by state nnd federal officials and
pointing out that it is necessary rot Council, by Resolution, to authorize the
execution of the proposed agreement:
'October 9, 1972
Uonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject:Hurricane Agens Flogd Emergency -
Street and Highway Repairs
As n result of the Hurricane Areas fJood emergency in
June, certain federal aid highways throughout the City of
Roanoke mere damaged and subsequently repaired by City forces,
Me are in receipt of a proposed agreement between the City
of Roanoke and the Commonmealth of Virginia Department Of
Ilighways whereby the City will be reimbursed for the expenses
incurred in this restoration work. The agreement includes
an itemized breakdown of nine locations with an estimated
cost of $3,204 due to be reimbursed. The work has been complet-
ed by City forces at a cost of $3,323.d2. which sum will be
fully reimbursed following a routine inspection by state and
federal officials.
It is necessary that City Council by resolution
authorize the execution of the proposed agreement. A
copy of this document has been furnished to the City
Attorney for his review and preparation of the appropriate
papers.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian Fo Hirst
Julian F, Hirst
City Ranager'
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Ranager
:and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(#2049?) AN ORDINANCE authorixing the City's execution of a written
~agreement with the Commonwealth of ¥irginia, Department of Highways, providin9
for the restoration of nine certain streets and highways within the City, damaged
by the waters of Hurricane Agnes; and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book ~37, page 193.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
iby Hr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk. T~ylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber ....................... 7.
HAYS: None ......... O.
!! CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE-STATE HIGHMAYS: Yhe City Manager submitted
a written report in connection with the location 'of the proposed Route 115-116 pro-
ject in relation to the Sewage Treatment Plant, advising that be met with a repre-
Sentative of the State Highway Department Urban Division in Richmond, Virginia. on
October 2. 1972. that the Highway Department has taken the information which was
provided to City Council at its meeting on September 26, 1972, and their engineering
forces will analyze the highway routing with respect to this material, that he
xpects to receive information within the next few days on the matter and he will
advise Council accordingly.
Hr. Trout moved that the report be received sod filed. The motion was
seconded by #r. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the fol-
lowing report on the status of personnel in the Police Department and the Fire
Department as of August 31, 1972:
*October 9, 1972
Ronorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Personnel Changes
Police and Fire Departments
Listed below is the status of the police and the fire
department as of August 31, 1972
'Fire Department
Emoloved
*James D. Poindexter August 9, 1972
'There was one vacancy in the Fire Department at the end of
August 1972.*
'Police Department
Employed Retired
*Officer Willie O. Adams AuguSt 1, 1937 August 1. 1972
Officer William E. Ralston August 14. 1972
Officer David G. Rhiteflack August 21. 1972
*Endin9 August, 1972 (11) 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.
BUDGET-CITY ATTORNEy: The City Attorney submitted the following report
'requesting that Council appropriate $10R.50 in order for him to purchase a
'refinished office dash and two refinished swivel chairs to be used to furnish one
of the offices in his department:
*October 9, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
It is respectfully requested that appropriation be made for
this office to allow for the purchase of certain needed
office equipment, namely, one desk and two swivel chairs.
Inquiry made at certain local suppliers of office furniture
has indicated that a used but well refinished office desk and
two similarly refinished swivel chairs may be purchased for a
total price of $188.50, two of those items being seriously
needed to furnish one of the offices in this department and
the other to release equipment borrowed from another
department of the City.
An ordinance which would provide the requested appropriation
is being generated for the Counctl*s consideration.
Respectfully.
S/ J. N. Kincanon
J. N. Kincano~*
419
420
Mr. Thoma~ moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attor-
ney and offered the follouJng emergency Ordinance appropriating the necessary
funds:
(a20498) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordaln Section a4, "City Attor-
ney** of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for un emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~37o page 194.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the folloming vote:
AyEs: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lish, Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
~ebber ..........................
NAYS: None ........... O.
CITY ATTORNEy-SALE OF pROPERTY-COUNCIL: The City Attorney submitted
a written report respectfully requesting an Executive Session with the members
of Council on a real estate matter.
In this connection, the City Attorney verbally requested that the item
be withdrawn from the agenda.
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attor-
ney that the item be withdrawn from the agenda. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Thomas and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
BUSES: Mr. Robert A. Garland, Chairman of the Transportation Committee.
submitted the following status report in connection with notification by
Roanoke City Lines, Incorporated, of their proposal to discontinue operation of
city bus service o~ December 31, 1972, advisin9 that it will be necessary for the
ii Committee to receive a preliminary estimate from the Company of a fair esti-
~ mated worth of the properties of said Company, that it will be doubtful that
i! should the City of Roanoke intend to acquire the system that the formalities
i could be completed by December 31 and that approximately six months from the
current time will be involved in the entire process, that Company representatives
have stated their awareness of this mud their willingness to work with the city,
*rovided they do not incur operational loss after December 31, 1972, to assure
continuation of service on the basis that some definite plan is positively intend-
ed and that the Committee will keep Council advised of progress in this matter
with a possible report to Council on Monday, October 23, 1972:
*0ctobe~ 9, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Centlemen:
Subject: Report on Bus Study Committee
This is to advise the City Council of the current acti-
vity and status of the bus study committee in the matter of
the notification by Roanoke City Lines of their proposal to
discontinue operation December 31, 1972.
421
The committee met on Friday morning. September 290 with.
Hr. Carpenter of Continental Trailway Company and #r. Mister
St,me of Roanoke City Lines. Also present with the commit-
tee were Hr. Hathaniel Griffin. Assistant Planning Director.
H. Hen Jones. Assistant City Attorney. and Hr. C. P. Hrumfield.
Jr.. and Hiss Connie Cofield of Total Action Against Poverty.
Rembers of the committee present were Robert A. Garland.
Hampton M. Thomas. A. N. Gibson end Julian F. Hirst. Conti-
nental Trellweys. as the City Council is familiar, is the
parent company of Roanoke City Lines. They have additionally
given a similar notice for their bus operation in Lynchburg
and the two company officials are also currently in discus-
sion mith officials there. Hr. Griffin. Mr. erumfield and
Hiss Colloid reported to the committee on a visit several
days previously in Washington with officials of the Depart-
meat of Transportation. There they had been advised of the
possibility of availability of federal funds for the acqui-
sition of capital facilities on a federal=local basis. The
procedure consists of a preliminary application mhich is in
the process of being prepared and should be completed within
the next two to three meeks based on available data. The
preliminary application will then be reviewed by the committee
and brought before the City Council. If it moves forward and
is received with preliminary approval by the Department of
Transportation there then would follow a much more detailed
application which would evolve down to the specifics of any
proposition for the City to take over the bus system. They
noted to the committee that the Federal government does not
participate in operating costs as these wouldbe totally
local responsibility.
In the discussion with the company officials, no firm
position mas taken by the committee as to position of owner-
ship or mode Of operation of the bus system. It would be
necessary for the committee to have in hand a preliminary
estimate from the company Of a fair estimated worth Of the
properties of the company and this they propose to furnish.
They would then follow a requirement for possibly three sepa-
rate appraisals of the properties of the company both as to
vehicular equipment and land and structures.
It was noted that it mould be doubtful that should the
City intend to acquire the system it would be doubtful that
the formalities could be completed by December 31 and that
quite likely some six months from the current time would be
involved in the entire process. The company representatives
stated their awareness Of this and their willingness to
Work with the City, provided they did not incur operational
loss after December 31, IH?2. to assure continuation of ser-
vice on the basis that some definite plan was positively
intended.
Your committee will keep the City Council advised of
progress in this matter. It is intended that the next
report back will be on October 23, This should consist of
the preliminary application. It will then be necessary
under Federal government procedures that the City government
hold a public hearing on the matter of public bus transpor-
tation and any direction which the City contemplates taking
and your committee tentatively suggests that this hearing would
be recommended to be held at the regular City Council meeting
on the last Monday in Hovember.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Robert A. Garland
S/ Hampton ~. Thomas
S/ A. N. Gibson
S/ Julian F. Hirst'
Mr. Garland moved that the status report be received and filed. The
!motion was seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
SALE OF PROPERTY: Mr. David K. Lisk, Chairman of the Real Estate Com-
iimittee, submitted the following report recommending that Council~accept the
H
Zt22
offer of Mr. and Mrs. R, Edward Mitchell, in the awount of $300.00 to purchase a
3,925 square foot parcel of land adjacent to .the rear of their property located
at 3377 Woodland Drive, S. l., together with the considerntion thst the city
release all right, title and interest Jn that ten foot wide easement, five feet
lying on the westerly side of Lot 10 and five feet lying on the easterly side of
Lot Il, Block 1, of the unrecorded map of Ogden Hills and further recommending
that a recordable new mop of Lots 10 and 11 be drawn at the expense of the pur-
chaser allocating to those lots proportionate parts of the 3,925 square foot par-
cel of land, this to be done with the approval of both the City and County Plan-
ning Departments and to be recorded by the purchaser simultaneously with recorda-
tion of the city*s deed:
"October 9, lg?2
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
SUBJECT: Sale of City=Owned Property
With the purchase of several snail private water com-
panies, the City acquired a few scattered lots which are
unneeded by the City and have been placed on the surplus
list of City lots. Because of the particular location of
some of these, they were purposely left off the lint of
surplus properties to be sold by auction. Instead, the
Real Estate Committee deemed it advisable to negotiate for
the sale of the parcels with the owners whose land they
would tend to become a natural part whew sold.
Following lengthy negotiations, the Committee is now
in receipt of a firm offer of $300.00 from Mr. and Mrs.
Edward Mitchell to purchase such a lot adjacent to the
rear of their property located at 3377 Woodland Drive,
Roanoke County which lot was acquired by the purchase of
the Cave Spring Water Company.
At a meeting of the Real Estate Committee held July
lB. 1972, it was unanimously agreed to recommend to the City
Council that it accept the offer of $300.00 made by Mr. and
Mrs. Mitchell for the approximate 3925 square foot parcel
of land together with the consideration that the City release
all right, title, and interest in that .ten foot wide ease-
ment, five feet lying on the westerly side of Lot 10 and
five feet lying on the easterly side of Lot 11. Block I of
the unrecorded map of Ogden Hills. It is further recommended
that a recordable new map of Lots 10 and 11 be drawn at the
expense of the purchaser allocating to those lots propor-
tionate parts of the 3925 square foot abovementioned parcel,
this to be done with the approval of City and County Planning
Departments and to be recorded by the purchaser simultaneously
with recordation of the City*s deed.
This is submitted with a copy to the City Attorney for
the preparation of the necessary papers inviting the City
Council's approval.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ David K. Lisk. Chairman
S/ Julian F. Hirst
S/ James N. Kincanon&
Mr. Lisk moved that the report add proposed Ordinance be referred back
to the City Attorney for necessary corrections by the next regular meeting of
~ Council on Monday, October 16, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas
and unanimously adopted.
z123
FIRE DEPART#ENT: Council having referred to a committee composed of
Heaars. Robert E. Nullen. Jr** Jullno F, Hirst and A, K, Hughson for study, report
end recommendation the question of the locations of the three new fire houses, the
committee submitted the following report advising that Council previously approved
!an application to the Federal Aviation Administration for grant participation in
Ithe construction cost of the northwest fire station, that the committee is awaiting
itentativegrant approval by the FAA and that the committee feels
it
has
been
Igenerally understood over a period of time that this station will be situated
~on the Airport property near the airport road leading off Hershberger Road. and
!'recommending that the southmest fire station be situated in the southwest corner
of the intersection of Overland Road and Colonial Avenue, S.
"October 9, 1972
Honorable Hayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Fire Station Committee Report
Your committee on the fire station program re'spectfully
submits the folloming report and recommendations concerning
the proposed northmest and southwest suburban fire stations.
Ne will not go into detail about this station. Ne
think that it bas been gernerally understood and presented over
a period of time that this station would be situated on the
Airport property near the Airport road, leading off of
Nershberger Road. The City Council approved a short time ago
an application by the City to the Federal Aviati. on Admini-
stration for grant participation in the construction cost.
The station would be designed for general City service equip-
ment and for airport fire protection equipment, plus accom-
modations for necessary personnel. Currently, we are await-
ing for the tentative grant approval by the FAA and it is a
matter Of expecting i,t at anytime.
A plan drawing of this station is attached with the
material .of this letter. Unless the City Council should have
some particular questions regarding this station, it is
assumed by the committee that its location is generally
established, that it is now a matter of procedure and that it
woold not be necessary to elaborate further.
Southwest Station
,The location of this stati'on has been a matter of a great
deal of discussions and studies over a long period of time. A
citizens' committee submitted a recommendation which previously
was filed with the City Council that the station be situated in
the general area of Overland Road--Colonial Avenue--Brambleton
Avenue. This recommendation the undersigned committee defi-
nitely concurs in.
We have examined fi~e possible sites. Forwarded with this
letter are two area maps showing those sites. The following
are comments regarding each.
Parcel I - This parcel at the intersection of Persinger
Road and Colonial Avenue is privately owned. The tentative
asking price is $100.000. The committee does not feel this is
a preferable location in comparison with other possible sites
and takes note of the land cost.
Parcel II - This parcel on the east side of Colonial
Avenue, opposite Clearfield Road, is also privately owned.
Host recent asking price was $110,000. The property since
has had some filling but the affect of this is not known on
the asking price. The filling is not advantageous to the City
for fire station location as major areas of the fill material
424
would have to be removed and refilled under compacting condi-
tions in order to adequately support the load requirements for
a fire athalon and drJyemay and apron areas.-
Very Preliminary estimate of site preparation moth mould
be $75,000 to $100.000. Estimated additional building cost
for foundation end footings because of grade would be $36,000.
While the area location of this lot ia reasonably satisfac-
tory the additional cost of land and site preparation reduce
the rating of the location in compariaon with other possibi-
lJtie$o
Parcel III - This property on the east side of Colonial
Avenue opposite the intersection of Overland Drive and Clear-
field Road is s part of the property made available to Virginia
Western Community College and its predecessors by the City. It
ia assumed that the lot, if it could be acquired, would be at
no cost to the City. The committee has not had formal nego-
tiations mith college officials. The lot is well situated;
however, it is influenced by the proposed extension of Overland
Road, mhich extension is in the regional bighmay plans, as a
connection from Franklin Road to the Southwest Expressway to
Colonial Avenue. This roadway limits and defines the south
boundary of any such lot.
This parcel would also require extensive filling because
of the deep slope to the rear.
Estimate of filling and compaction is between $T5,000
and $100,000.
Estimated additional foundation and footing costs because
of 9Fade--S36,000. In this connection, as a general solution
regarding this situation, the cost to put in a rough basement
would be about the same as compacting dirt.
A deficiency in this property is that the station mould
be limited to one route of ingress or egress unless a portion
of the proposed Overland Road extension were filled simultaneously
with the filling of the lot.
Parcel No. V - Situated at the intersection of Brambleton
Avenue and Overland Road, this is land owned by the City. The
committee does not recommend consideration of this property
because of the variation in grade between Overland Road on one
side and Rrambleton Avenue on the other and the considerable
excavation and change in area appearance that mould result in
order to adapt this property to a station.
Parcel No. IV - This parcel is in the southwest corner of
the intersection of Overland Road and Colonial Avenue. This
property was made available to the public schooi system by
the City of Roanoke.
It is assumed that there mould be no land acquisition
cost. The contours of the property are excellent for adapt-
ing to a station facility. Ingress and egress to the tmo
principal streets would be good. There would not be additional
structure cost brought about by land grades Or elevations.
The committee realizes that there may be some reaction
that this would be tedncihg school area or depriving school
property availability. It is the commlttee*s opinion that the
approximate two acres required mould not detract from usable
school land either under present conditions or proposed build-
ing expansion for rishburn Elementary. d recreation area is
on this site but it is not developed and has limited use. As
a part of the station project a new recreation area could be
provided nearer to the school.
The committee has also considered traffic conditions
under normal circumstances and due to school movement. No
serious problem is foreseen.
Also forwarded with this material is a site plan making
use of this proposed property by the City's architect,
Winston S. Sharpley. This shows additionally a drawing of the
building. The committee feels that such a building can meet,
or mtth modifications can meet, the general architectural
requirements for a structure in this area of recreation and
schools.
425
Some preliminary discussions have been held with school
officials end u presentation was made before the school board.
The committee would consider it to be more proper that the
public school system directly reflect its opinion.
Your committee recommends to the City Council approval
of this site for the southwest fire station and authorize.
under such form or procedure as would be best. to discuss or
negotiate with the school board.
Respectfully submitted.
S! Robert E. Mullah. Jr.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
S/ Chief A. K. Rughson*
Mr. Lisk expressed concern about the location of the southwest fire
~station. advising that the fire station will be in the midst of the educational
complex of Fishburn Park Elementary School and suggested that other locations con-
tained in the committee report might be more feasible.
gr. Ilubard raised the question as to mhether the fire station is still
needed.
The City Manager replied that the fire station is needed more now than
ever before because of the schools and extensive residential development.
After a very lengthy discussion Of the matter. Mr. Thomas moved that
the report of the committee be received and filed. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas further moved that the matter he taken under consideration
until the regular meeting of Council on Monday, October 23, 1972. The notion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
6ARBACE REMOVAL: Couocil, at its meeting on Monday, September 18, 1972,
having deferred actioe on certain recommendations to be made by the Landfill Com-
mittee with refereece to a timetale for londfill operations in Fallou Park. the
matter was again before the body,
In fbi's conuectioo0 Mr. James O. Trout, Chairman of the Landfill Committee.
!~submitted a written report requesting that consideration on the Falloo Park land-
;fill matter be deferred in order to have time to judge progress on the regional
landfill plan.
In a discussion, Mr. Trout explaieed that the Landfill Committee how
discussed the possibility of phasicg out landfill operations in Fallon Park. that
at the present time there are certain complex problems with regard to a timetable
on the regional landfill, that since the City Manager has not chosen an engineering
firm to be used in connection with the regional landfill, it is necessary to post-
pone the timetable for remaining in Fallon Park until a meeting is held with the
engineerln9 firm to discuss the regional landfill, Mr. Trout further.pointed out
!Ithat the present landfill operations will not go any further into Fallon Park than
At this point, the City Manager was requested to explain the concept of
the twenty year regional landfill pain, whereupon, the City Manager explained that
the twenty year plan Ii u requirement Of the Virginia Department of Health under
the ecology philosophy to try to establish facilities for the disposal of refuse
on a Bog-range basis, that u preliminary .study must be given to considered landfill
!
sites to see if they are useable Jn order for preliminary approval to be given fr~m1
the State Health Department.
Mr. Yront then moved that Council defer action on making a decision
on the timetable for remaining In Fallon park for landfill purposes pending
receipt of a report from the engineers with reference to a twenty year regional
landfill plan. The motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and unanimously adopted.,
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORO1NANCES AND RESOLDTIONS: NONE
MOI1ONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
CITY MANAGER-ACTS OF ACENOHLEDOEMENT: Mr. Garland presented the fol-
lowing commaoicatioo recommending that a committee composed of Hessrs. William
F. Clark, John A. Kelley and Hilliam R. Hill be appointed by Council for the pur-
pose of working out certain plans and details in connection with the "Julian F.
Hivst Appreciation Dinner.' and that Mayor Mebbev be requested to appoiot a mem-
ber of Council as Chairman of said committee:
'9 Oct 1972
Mayor Roy L. Mebber and
Members Of Roanoke City Council
Gentlem*en:
In view of the fact that our esteemed City Manager ha*s served
notice on this Council of his resignation to become effective
no latter than December 15. 1972, it is my sincere feeling
that we should display our affection and appreciation for
his loyal and dedicated service to the City of Roanoke, since
he became the City Manager in 1965, by honoring him with a
banquet which is to be designated as the 'Julian F. airst
Appreication Dinner."
It would be my suggestion, that you. Mister Mayor, appoint a
member from this body to serve as Banquet Chairman for this
dinner and in addition to that Councilman. that you appoint
Messrs. Hilliam F. Clark. John A. Kelley and Hilliam Hill to
serve on the Han~ et Committee.
Inasmuch that invitation lists must be compiled, menu
selected and a program that mill be entertaining and inter-
eating in order to accentuate and commemorate this occasion.
it is important that this groundwork be initiated immediately.
Once all this has been accomplished, the Committee will report
back to the Council as to the time and pllce of this event.
Accordingly, I will make the motion that this committee be
appointed for the purpose that has been delineated.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Robert A. Garland
Robert A. Garland*
Mr. Garland movedthat Council concur in his communication and that
Mayor Mebber be requested to appoint a member of Council as Chairman of the
committee. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Hobard and unanimously adopted.
427
Rayor Mebber then appointed Mr. Robert A. Garland as Chairman of said
committee.
CITY MANAGER: Mr. Habard moved that Council meet in Executive Session
!for the purpose of discussing n possible successor to the City Manager. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Llsk and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: #essrs. Garland, Hubard. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
iMebber .......................... ?.
~ NAYS: None ..........O.
i~ AIRPORT: Mr. Trout moved that the City Manager be directed to prepare
specifications and advertise for bids on the proposed addition to Roanoke Munici-
pal (Noodrum) Airport. including an alternate on a canopy for the front of the
Terminal Building and a further alternate on the cost of enclosin9 the concourses.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
LIBRARIES: The City Clerk reported that Mrs. Ralph K. Bomles, Mr.
Jesse T. Meadoms and Dr. Leo Platt have qualified as members of the Roanoke Public
Library Board for terms of three years each ending June 30. 1975.
Mr. Yhomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITy CLERK: The City Clerk reported that Miss Virginia L. Shaw has
qualified as City Clerk for a term of two years ending September 30, 1974.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion Mas
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITY AUDITOR: The City Clerk reported that Mr. A. N. Gibson has
qualified as City Auditor for a term of two years ending Septemper 30, 1974.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITY AYTORNEY: The City Clerk reported that Mr. James N. Kincanon has
qualified as City Attorney for a term of two years ending September 30, 1974.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion Has
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITY AYYORNEy: The City Clerh reported that Mr. James E. Buchholtz has
qualified as an Assistant City Attorney effective October 2, 1972.
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. Yhe motio.n was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
There being no further business, Mayor ~ebber declared the meeting
~adjourned.
APPROVED
iATYEST:
Deputy city Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL. REGULAR MEETING.
Monday, October 16, 1972'.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, Monday, October 16. 1972, at 2 p.m., the regu-
lar meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Webber preaiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. 6arland,'MillJam S. Hubard, Noel C.
iTaylor, Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Webber ..... 6.
ABSENT: Vice Mayor David K. Lisk ...........................1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Man'ager; Mr. Mllliam F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; and Mr. A. N.
Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting nas opened with a prayer by the Reverend
Lester D. Nave, Pastor, First United Methodist Church.
TRAFFIC-S~ATE BIUBMA¥S: Mr. Alice Tice. me=bet of the Roanoke Highway
Safety Commission, appeared before Council and presented Mayor Webber and the
members of Council with a Special Citation for Pedestrian Program Improvemement
and a presentation for the Outstanding Pedestrian Protection Award which was
received at theAnnual Safety Award Luncheon in Richmond. Virginia, ou Thursday.
October 12, 1972.
On behalf of the members of Council, Mayor Mebber accepted the awards
and advised that they will be displayed in an appropriate location. '
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC HATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
LE6ISLATION-SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: A communication froa Mr. David E.
Satterfield, III, House of Representatives, concerning the Federal Mater Pollu-
tion Control Act; advising that the conferees have met and agreed on a compromise
of the differences between the House*passed version. H. R. 11895. and the Senate-
passed version, 5.2770. that all that remains is for the House and Senate to
approve the conference report and transmitting a copy of said report for the
information of Council. was before the body.
Mr. Thomas moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unauimousIy adopted.
CITIZENS' ADVISORY COMMITTEE: A communication from Mr. T. H. Kemper
declining to serve as a member of the Citizens' Advisory Committee, was before
Dr. Taylor moved that the communication be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS-CLERK OF THE COL~TS: A communication from Mr. Joseph S. James.
Audi{or of Public Acco nra in o t o ....
' u , con ec i n with an audit o! the accounts ann Fee*fas
of Mr. Walker R. Carter, Jr. Clerk of the Hustings Court, Court of Law and Chancery
*
and Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, advising that the examination disclosed
that full accounting had been made for all funds of record coming into the custody
of the Clerk during the year and that the records had been prepared in very good
order, was before Council.
{I
{I
Mr. Trout moved that the communication and audit be received and filed.
The motion uaw seconded by #r. Garland and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND'ALLEYS: An application from BF. Jack B. Coulter, Attorney,
representing Br. Felix A. Obenchain, et mx.. requesting that Gum Street. N.
(formerly Pine Street) which is a paper street located approximately 330.9 feet
west of Beech Street between Shenandoah Avenue and Barberry Avenue (formerly
Dogwood Avenue) between Lots 4 and $ and Reservation No. 2 and Reservation No. 3.
according to the Map of Westwood, be vacated, discontinued and closed was before
Council.
Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution appointing viewers in con-
nection with vacating, discontinuing and closing said street:
(~204V9) A RESOLUTION providing for the appointment of five (5) free-
holders, any three (3) of whom may act, as viewers in connection with the applica-
tion of Felix A. Obenchain and Evelyn K. Obenchain. husband and wife, to vacate,
discontinue, and close Gum Street (formerly Pine Street), a paper street located
approximately 330.9 feet west of Beech Street between Shenandoah Avenue and Barbert7
Avenue (formerly Dogwood Avenue) between Lots 4 and S and Reservation No. 2 and
Reservation No. 3 according to the Map of Westwood recorded in the Clerk's Office
of the Circuit Court of Roanoke County, Virginia, in Plat Book 1, page 315.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book u37. page 194.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by BF. Trout and adopted by.the f, Il,win9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Bubard, Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber .......................... 6.
! NAYS: None ........... O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
Mr. Trout then moved that the request for vacating, discontinuing and
closing said street be referred to the City Planning Commission for study, report
and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Dr. Taylor and unanimously
adopted.
lo this connection, Rt. Jack B. Coulter appeared before Council with
i:regard to Section 15.1-363 of the Code of Virginia which establishes vacating.
:,discontinuing and closing streets and alleys procedures, advising that the present
iprocedure is both expensive and archaic, that when a street or alley is to be
or alley in question, that a notice has to be posted in three required locations
ilten days before the application is presented to City Council. that there is a
!ibring this tO the attention of their legislators for possible amendment to the
section of the Code of Virginia. Mr. Hubard moved that the present procedure for
~closing utreet~ and alleys in the City of. Roanoke be referred to the City Attorney
!Trout and unanimously adopted.
429
430
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
SE#ERS A~O STORM DRAINS: The City #hanger submitted the following report
ia connection with authorlzntioa for Change Order No, 2 to the contrnot with D.
Allen & Son Incorporated, for sludge lagoon construction now nnderwny at the
Wuter Pollution Control Plant. advising that in two locations the contractor
encountered sufficient quantities of rock material which required extra work in
order to accomplish the desired construction, that while the final quaati.ties have
yet to be measured for all such roch excavation, it is presently estimnted that
this will be approximately 6,500 cubic yards, mhich based on the contract bid price
$10.00 per cubic yard, will result in extra work of approximately
of
this rock removal:
"October 16, 1972
Honorable Rayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: 5omega Treatment Plant Expansion - Sludge Lagoons
Under the provisions of contract specifications for
sludge lagoon construction now underway at the City's ~ater
Pollution Control Plant. rock excavntion encountered by the
contractor is to be compensated as extra work. In two
tlties of rock material which required such extra work b~
the contractor in order to accomplish the desired construc-
tion. Ihile the final quantities have yet to be measured
for all such rock excavation it is presently estimated that
this will approximate 8,500 cubic ,ards, which based on the
contract bid price of $10 per cubic yard will result in
extra work of approximatel! $B5,000 for rock removal.
Partially offsetting the abovementloned increase, there
have been certain reductions in the quantities of other work
performed throughout this contract. These reduction items
are as follows:
1. Shifting the berm in Lagoon
approximately 20 feet away from the river at the begin-
ning of construction--approximate credit $9,600.
Raisin9 the bottom elevation of Lagoon No. I six foot.
Approximate credit $10,850.
3oReduction of certain soil sterilization. Approximate
credit $9,28g.
4. Reducing the height of the ber~ on Lagoon No. 3 by
three and one-half feet. Approximate credit $~,850.
Total credits approximate
Deducting the ubovementioned credit items from the rock
removal extra will result in a net contract cost increase
of approximutel, $51,411. The City's 20 percent share of
this cost increase will be approximately $10.282. Provi-
sion for such cost increases is covered within the contingency
item in the City's grant offer with the state and federal
government for Chis project.
It is not considered absolutely necessary at this time for
the City Council to authorize u change order for these items.
Such could be accomplished at the completion of the work and
encompass all changes which may occur under this contract.
However, if it is deemed desirable to execute a change order
at this time covering these items, such mould be Change Order
No. 2 to the contract with D. g. Allen & Son, Incorporated.
431
As a matter of interest to City Council, it mould be
doted thor. Lagoon No, I uss placed in service on Friday,
September 29, end is mom functioning as the City*s means of
digested sludge handling at the later Pollution Control Faci-
lities, Tmo additional lagoons ore nearly complete and will
be available for use mithJn a very short period of tine,.
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,
Mr, Thomas further moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare
the proper measure authorizing Change Order Ho, 2 to the contract with O, R,
adopted,
SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following report
recommending that Council authorize the extention of an agreement with Roanoke
Industrial Center and Hr. Darnall Vlnyard for use of certain farm land across the
RoamkeRiver from the Sewage Treatment Plant for the purpose of. dewatering the
sludge pond so as to expedite site preparation for the required retention basin/
ballast pond:
*October lb, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Cent]amen:
Subject: Mater Pollution Control Plant
AS Council will recall, one aspect of the expansion and
upgrading of the City*s sewage treatment facilities is a 30
million gallon retention basin/ballast pond, the design of
which has most recently been agreed upon by Mater Control Board
and City officials. The intended use of this facility will be
to serve as a storage basin for partially treated sewage
during periods of high flow until the entire plant is expanded
and then to serve as a ballast pond before the final filters
in the ultimate treatment process. There was at one time some
consideration of locating this facility on the flat river
bottom land across from and west of the treatment plant,
However this location mas not considered to be the most
desirable and practical place to locate such a facility,
The retention basin/ballast pond will be located within
the City's existing sewage treatment plant property just
east of the sand filter beds at the site which up to now has
been a storage pond of digested sludge, In order to expedite
the use of this portion of the City's property, it now
becomes important that me move ahead with site preparation
for the retention basin/ballast pond.
During the past few months the City has been transfer-
ring digested sludge from the sewage treatment plant by
means of a pipeline over the Underhill Avenue Bridge to the
farm land across the river from the plant. This has been
an excellent means of disposing of this digested sludge,
thus enabling the City to maintain a high quality of
tredtment pending expansion of the plant, This operation
has not been detrimental to the farm land and to our know-
ledge has not been considered objectionable Jo the neigh-
borhood, This same method of operation could now provide a
means to begin dewstering the storage pond to expedite site
preparation for the proposed retention basin/ballast pond,
By use of the same pipeline system and portable pumps the
liquid material could be pumped from the storage pond over
to the farm land for dispersal, Re have obtained approval
~32
from the State.Baler Control Board end Health Department
for Interim continued use of the farm lend for this purpose.
Officials of Roanohe Industrial Center, owners of the pro-
perty, end Br. Oarnall Vinyurd, tenant, have also indicated
their approval to this short term continued use of the pro-
petty.- Hr. ¥inyard has requested that the City would pay
to him the eom of $500 mhich he mould otherwise pay for
lease of the property during the coming year. This rea-
sonably minimal expenditure seems n fair proposition and
good deal for the City.
Bhen the City began temporarily using the farm land
for sludge disposal, there was every intent to discontinue
this operation as soon as the sludge lagoons were available.
nnd this commitment has been hept. It non seems appropriate
to suggest that we temporarily resume this operation for the
purpose of deuatering the sludge pond so as to expedite
site preparation for the required retention basin/ballast
pond, Such procedure can only continue for a short period
of time, approximately four months, since it mill then
become necessary to commence construction of the retention
basin/ballast pond.
It is recommended that City Council authorize the
extension of the agreement mith Roanoke Industrial Center
and Mr. Daroall Vinyard in order that we may proceed with
this process.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. tlirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20500) AN ORDINANCE authorizing agreement to be entered into between
the City of Roanoke, Roanoke Industrial Developmeot Company and certain property
on the north side of Roanoke River for the purpose of dewatering the sludge pond
at the City's Sewage Treatment Plant, upon certaio terms and conditions; and
providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book ~37, page 195.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Nebber ......................... 6.
NAYS: None .......... O, (Mr. Lisk absent)
ROANOKE VALLEY: The City Manager submitted the'following report in
connection with Hurricane Agnes flood emergency repairs, advising that because
of a time limit for instituting work in order to obtain reimbursement, he has
awarded a purchase order contract to Branch and Associates, Incorporated, in the
amount of $29,950.00. to clean up debris along
the
tributary
to
the
Roanoke River in the City of Roanoke and that a further purchase order contract.
in the amount of $16.092.00 has been awarded to Powers Fence Company, for fencing
~ throughout various city properties along Roanoke River. pointing out that for
!! both of these itemS, the city will be totally reimbursed the full cost of all
#October 16. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Hurricane Agnes Flood Emergency Repairs
As Council is well aware, there have been certai~
damages to public property along mith debris cleanup neces-
sitated by the hurricane Agnes flood in Jane of this year.
Several projects are alreayd ongoing to correct those condi-
tions, including repairs to the National Guard Armory under
City contract and cleanup along the Roanoke River being
accomplished by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
In addition to the cleanup along Roanoke River. several
of the tributary streams require debris cleanup created by
the flood situation. This murk must be accomplished by the
City although all costrelated thereto Mill be reimbursed by
the Corps of Engineers. Because of a time limit for insti-
tuting such work in order to obtain reimbursement, we have
awarded a purchase order contract to Hranch and Associates.
Incorporated, in the amount of $2g.950 to effect this debris
cleanup along streams tributary to the Roanoke River in the
City of Roanoke.
Another itme involves fencing throughout various City
properties along Roanoke River, such as in Masena Park, at
the Transportation Museum, and around Victory Stadium.
These fences were damaged and/or destroyed during the flood
emergency and require replacement. Again, due to a time
constraint, it became necessary to award a purchase order
contract to Powers Fence Company in the amount of $16,092,
which will be totally reimbursed by the Federal government.
In both of the above situations, bids Mere sought for
the murk but only one bid Mas received for each job. These
bids were approved by appropriate Federal officials and the
City will be reimbursed the full cost of ali expenses
involved. If there are any questions concerning these pro-
cedures, we Mould be pleased to discuss the matter with
Council at their upcoming meeting.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Juliao F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed.
by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
The motion was
seconded
TRAFFIC: The City Ranager submitted the followlog report advising that
',under longstanding provisions of the Traffic Code. there are certain portions where-
' in it is provided that payment of certain fines are to be made to the Traffic Bureau
:of the Police Department, that for several years this has not been the method by
i which fines have been received by the city and it would be appropriate to correct the
! Code according to what is the present and desirable procedure and recommending the
adoption of an Ordinance which would provide that traffic fines be paid to lhe Clerk
!i of the Municipal Court or after the hours of the Court to the Criminal Warrant
'~i Issuing Office:
"October 16, 1972 T
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
499
Under longstanding provisions of the City Traffic Code.
there are certain portions wherein it is provided that payment
of certain fines are to be made to the Traffic Bureau of the
Police Gepartment. For some several years this has not been
the method by which fines have been received by the City and
it ~ould be appropriate to correct the Code according to what
is the p ..... t and desirable p .... d ....
The City Attorney*s office has prepared amended sections
to the Code which are submitted and recommend for the purpose of
providing that traffic fines be paid to the Clerk of the Municipal
Court or after the hours of the court to the Criminal Marrant
Issuing Office.
Respectfully submitted,
$/ Julian F. Hits, ~
Julian F. Hfrst ;
City Manager" ~
Mr. Hubard moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the folloming emergency Ordinance: ~
(#20501) AN OROINANC£ amending and reordaJning Sec. 92. p~ties of unlace
officers in Teflard to meters: nenaltv for unlawful oarklno: payment; and Sec. 151.
penalties, of Chapter 1. Traffic Code, of Title XVIll. of the Code of the City of ii
Roanoke. 1956, as amended, by providing a manner and place for payment of fines, in
certain instances, for violation of provisions if said chapter; and providing for
an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook a37, page 196.)
Mr. Rubard moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Dr. Taylor and adopted by the folloming vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, ~ubard, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Rayor
Webber .......................... 6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the following report advising that
the city is in receipt Of a proposed lease agreement continuing the current con-
tract for space and facilities to accommodate the weather bureau at Roanoke Munici-
pal (Moodrum) Airport, that the rental rate has been increased from $1,827.96 per
year to $2,834.68 per year, that the term of the lease is for one year beginning
July 1, 1972, through June 30, 1973, with automatic renewal provisions at the
option of the H. $. Government until June 30, 1983, however, there ia provision
that in the event of terminal building expansion and/or remodeling the city may
renegotiate the lease, and recommending authorization for execution of this
agreement:
*October 15, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City is in receipt of a proposed lease agreement
continuing the current contract for space and facilities to
accommodate the weather bureau at Woodrum Airport. The areas
to be occupied by weather bureau personnel and equipment are
the same as presently being used; however, the rental rate has ii
been increased from $1.027.96 per year to $2,634.68 per year.
The term of lease is for one year beginning July 1, 1972, '~
through June 30, 1973, ~itb automatic renewal previsions at
the U. S. Government option until June 30, 1983. However,
there is provision that in the event of terminal building
expansion and/or remodeling the City may renegotiate the
lease.
It is recommended that City Council. by appropriate
ordinance, authorize the execution of this lease agreement.
The City Attorney has been provided a copy of the proposed
lease and requested to prepare appropriate papers for its
authorization.
Respectfully submitted,
S! Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager~
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the reconmendotion of the City
Manager and that the f,Il,ming Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(n20502) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the execution of u lease between the
City of R,on,he and the United States of America for certain space in the Terminal
Building at the Roanoke Municipal Airport. upon certain terms and conditions.
MHEREAS. lease heretofore made by the City to the United States of
America. Department of Commerce. Weather Bureau. of certain space in the Terminal
Building at the City*s Municipal Airport being made to expire on June 30. 1972.
'the Government. through its Department of Commerce. has made ha,un its desire to
enter into a certain new lease with the City as hereinafter provided; and the City
%Manager has recommended to the Council that the lease hereinafter described be
authorized to be made on behalf of the City.
THEREFORE. BE IT ORDAIRED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
the City Manager and the City Clerk be. and they are hereby, authorized, respec-
tively, to execute and attest, for and on behalf of the City of Roanoke. Lease
No. Ob-3-Oll-B between the City of Roanoke and the United States of America,
Department of Commerce, Meather Bureau. dated the 30th day of June. 1972. pursuant
to mhicb the City leases unto the government the following described space at
the Roanoke Municipal Airport, to-wit:
Approximately 1031 square feet of net useable space consist-
ing of office rooms 21 and 2lA; teletype room 218; storage
closet 2lB; all on the second floor; and unnumbered storage
room on the first floor Of the Administration (Terminal)
Building, and one Electronic Technician Laboratory, room
IO? of Building No. l; and roof and/or ground space as may be
mutually agreed by the parties hereto, for location of
instrumental equipment with cable connections; all space
located at M,,drum Airport, Roanoke, Virginia,
for the period July 1. 1972. to June 30. 1973. at a rental of $2,834.68 per
annum, payable in quarterly installments of $70B.57, said space to be used as
office quarters and uses incidental thereto, and with the right at the option
of the Government to renan said lease from year to year. and said lease to be
considered so reneued unless on 30 days* notice from the Government that it will
not be so renewed, but no period of occupancy thereto to extend beyond June 30.
19B2; and further that. in the event of expansion or remodeling of the Terminal
Building at said airport, the city reserves the right to renegotiate said lease.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber ....................... 6.
NAYS: None ......... O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
MJth reference to the matter, Mr. Trout requested that the City Clerk
transmit n copy of the report of the City Manager to Mr. Robert M. Moody, Chairman
of the Airport Advisory Commission Finance.Committee.
435
436
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted the following report
advising that by Resolution No. 20420, Council oathorlzed a sixty day period of
extended salary to Police Officer MillJam L. Rnwling who was injured in the line
of duty. that as of September 25, 1972, this sixty day period covering Officer
flowling*s salary expired, that Officer Bowling Js still unable to return to duty
and his return to duty is'not known at this time, and recommending that Council
again authorize payment to Officer Bowling of bis salary for an additional
sixty day period, or necessary portion thereof:
"October 16, 1972
Donorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Police Officer Injured in the Line of Duty
By Resolution No. 20420 adopted August 14, 1972. City
Council authorized a 60-day period of extended salary to
Patrolman Millinm L. Bowling who was injured in the line of
duty. As of September 25, 1972, this 60-day period covering
Officer Dowltng's salary expired. Officer BowlinR is still
disabled and his return to duty is not known at this time.
It is again recommended that City Council by appropriate
ordinance authorize the payment to Officer William L.
Bowling of his salary for an additional 60-day period, or
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. tlirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following Resolution:
(~20503) A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing that Milliam Lo Bowling,!
a member of the Police Department who is unable to perform his regular duties by
reason of personal injury received in line of duty, be paid his regular salary
for an additional period of sixty (60) days beginning September 26, 1972.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book #36. page
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber .......................
NAYS: None .......... O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
Mr. Garland pointed out that since the Resolution which provides for
compensation of injured members of the Police and Fire Departments was adopted by
Council in 1936. if it would be mise for the present Council to extend this period
beyond the established sixty day period.
The City Manager.replied that this sixty day period gives his office a
check point on the individuals involved.
Mr. Habard then suggested that it might be wise for the City Manager to
bare the Personnel Depar'tment study the matter and report back to the City Manager
accordingly.
GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted a written report advising
that on October 4, 1972, he executed an Option for Purchase under date of October 2.
~1972, between M. S, Thomas. the County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke and Thur-
~man Realty Company, that this option related to 261.25 acres of land. amid option
ibeing granted for the purpose of conduct of investigation as to the suitability
lief this property for landfill purposes, that the option carriea the purchase
iprlce of $23?.500.00, for a six-month period and had, prior to his execution,
lbeam executed by the Chairman 'of the Roanoke County Board Of Supervisors, that
simultaneously with signing this option, he presented Thurman Realty Company with
a check in the amount of $1,000.00,' which together with a payment of $10000.00
from the County of Roanoke meant the consideration amount of the option.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
TRAFFIC: The City Manager submitted the foil*win9 report in connection
with communications from Mrs. F. L. Cox. 834 Howbert Avenue, S. ~., and Mrs.
N. B. Friend. 037 Howbert Avenue, S. M., complaining about the heavy truck traffic
on Bowbert Avenue. advising that on September 28. 1972. destination survey was
conducted on Howbert Avenue by the Traffic Engineering Division of the Department
of Public ~orks. that conversations were held with the truck drivers using Howhert
Avenue, pointing out that he concurs with the vehicle operators that Howbert
Avenue is the safest and most practical means of ingress and egress to the busi-
ness establishments east of Main Street and can suggest no changes at this time:
*October 1G, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Truck Traffic - Bowbert Avenue. S. M.
On Monday, September 11, and again on Tuesday. September
25. City Council received communications from residents on
Howbert Avenue, S. M., complainin9 about the heavy truck
traffic on that street. This matter was referred to the
City Manager for investigation and report to Council.
On Thursday, September 26. between the hours of O a,m.
and 5 p.m., an origin and destination survey was conducted
on Bowbert Avenue by the Traffic Engineering Division of the
Clty*s Department of Public Murks. This study was conducted
to determine the number of trucks using Howbert Avenue, the
owners of those vehicles and the origin and destination of
their travel on Howbert Avenue. During this nine-hour period
41 trucks were counted, of which 18 were light vehicles
such as pickup trucks, lB were medium sized, and 5 were Jn
the heavy category such as tractor trailers. Of these
trucks all but 5 had their origin and/or destination on
Eighth Street, S. M.. with nearly 50 percent ooing to or
coming from the Advance Stores warehouse.
From conversations with the truck drivers we found the
following reasons for their use of Bowbert Avenue. Kerns
Avenue is not used because of its narrow width (lg feet wide)
and the steep grade just east of Main Street. #asena Avenue
437
438
is not used because of the narrow section of Eighth Street, -
between #asena and Hombert Avenue (18 feet side). Winonn
Avenue is not used for the same reoson (norrowaess of Eighth
Street). Reference the attached plan showing the area in
the vicinity of Nowbert Avenue and Eighth Street with the
various widths of street pavement in that section and busi-
ness located there.
The letters from the citizens indicate congestion on
the street also related to heavy on-street parking on Howbert
Avenue. A number of spot checks were conducted by City ·
personnel and at no time were more then four vehicles
observed to be parked on this street, Me will continue to
check parking in this area and if a problem is observed we
will be in touch with the residents about the possibility
of limiting parking on one side of that street, Off-street
parking is available at each residence.
The ilO0 block of Ilowbert Avenue is a residential duplex
zone, as is the 800 block of Masena Avenue. The businesses
along Eighth Street are located in a light manufacturing zone
and it is no doubt regretable to the residents along Honbert
Avenue that their street must be used by trucks going
between Main Street and Eighth Street. Nevertheless we con=
cur with the vehicle operators that Howbert Avenue is the
safest and most practical means of ingress and egress to the
business establishments east of Main Street and can
suggest no changes at this time.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Nirst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Carland and unanimously adopted,
SALE OF PROPER~¥: Council having referred to the City Attorney for
necessary corrections a report of the Real Estate Committee in connection with the
sale of city-owned property to Mr. and Mrs. R. Edward Mitchell. being a 3,925
square foot parcel of land adjacent to the rear of their property at 3377 Wood-
land Drive. S. W.. for the amount of $300.00, the City Attorney submitted the
following report advising that the basic committee report made recommendation that
the city provide for the sale of an unused 3.995 square foot parcel of land acquirl
by the city in its purchase of all of the assets of Valley Rater Company to be made
to lot ouners adjoining said parcel for a consideration Of $300,00, cash, provided
that proportionate parts Uf said parcel of land be immediately allocated to the
two lots which it abuts, advising that further discussions with the Manager of
the Rater Department have disclosed that an existing public water llne or main
occupies e southerly portion of the 3,925 square foot parcel of land proposed to
be sold and c~nveyed to the adjoining lot owners; and it is, therefore, obvious
that provision needs to be made that the city, in any sale of said parcel, reserve
an easement and right of way in that parcel for the city's con~inued use and main-
tenance of the existing water line and fo~ any repairs or replacements Of the same
and transmitting an Ordinanco reserving for the city a perpetual easement for the
water line or main:
"October 16, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
It is requested that the Councilts Real Estate Commit-
tee report dated October 9. 1972. and carried on the Coun-
cil's agenda of that day's meeting as Item O.b., be returned
to the agenda for the Councll*s consideration.
The basic Committee report made recommendation that the
City provide for the sale of an unused 3.925 square foot
parcel of land acquired by the City in its purchase of all of
the assets of Valley Mater Company to be made to lot owners
adjoining said parcel for a consideration of $300.00. cash,
provided that proportionate parts of said parcel of land be
immediately allocated to the tmo lots which it abuts. At
the request of the undersigned, the City Council deferred
its consideration of the Committee's recommendation so that
the undersigned might made certain necessary changes in the
form of ordinance which had accompanied the October 9th
Committee report aborementioned.
Further discussions mith the Manager of the City*s
Mater Department have disclosed that an existing public water
line or main occupies a southerly portion of the 3,925
square foot parcel of land proposed to be sold and conveyed
to the adjoining lot owners; and it is, therefore, obvious
that provision needs be made that the City, in any sale of
said parcel, reserve an easement and right-of-May in that
parcel for the Cityts continued use and maintenance of the
existing water line and for any repairs or replacements of
the some.
Accordingly. the undersigned has made appropriate changes
in the draft of the ordinance which was before the Council at
its meetin9 on October 9th so as to reserve for the City a
perpetual easement for the water line or main abovemen-
tioned; the easement has been further changed so that the
City would, in its conveyance of the 3.925 square foot par-
cel of land to'adjoinin9 lot owners, release all other former
easements in either of their aforesaid two lots, the man-
ager of the City's Water Department advising the writer that
such easements are no longer used by the City or necessary
to be continued.
It is the opinion of the under.goad that the Council
may now proceed with consideration of the earlier Commit-
tee report on the merits of recommendation made therein.
Respectfully.
S/ J. N. Kincanon
J. N. Eincanon"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Attorney
and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(=20504) AN ORDINANCE authorizin9 and providing for the City's sale
and conveyance of a parcel of land containin9 3,925 square feet, more or less, and
release of the City's rights to certain easements in Lots 10 and 11, as shown on
:the map of Block 1, Ogden Hills, in the County of Roanoke, and being a portion
of the properties and rights acquired by the City from the Valley ~ater Company,
upon certain terms and conditions.
WHEREAS, Ro Edward Mitchell and wife, omners, of adjoining Lots 10 and
11, Block 1, Map of Ogden Hills, in Roanoke County. have offered in writing to the
City, through the City's Real Estate Committee. to purchase and acquire from the
City a parcel of land, containing approximately 3,925 square feet, more or less,
439
440
and consisting of n portion of n former well lot adjoining portions of aforesaid
Lots 10 and 11, for the sun of $300.00, cash; and
WHEREAS, the Councll*s Real Estate Committee has recommended to the
Council that the sale of said parcel be approved and order on the terms and pro-
visions herein provided and reserving In said parcel of land certain perpetual
easement rights, in which recommendation the Council concurs.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of'the City of Roanoke
that the offer Of R. Edward Mitchell and wife to purchase and acquire from the
City that certain parcel of land containing 3,925 square feet, more or less.
situate in Roanoke County, Virginia and adjoining the southwest line of Lot 10
and the southeast li~e of Lot 11, Block 1, as shown on the Map of Ogden Hills,
the southeasterly line of said 3,925 square foot parcel being a straight line
extending from the southernmost corner of. Lot 10, aforesaid, to a point ga the
southerly line of Lot 11, aforesaid, approximately 20 feet northeasterly from the
southernmost corner of said Lot 11; and the other line of said 3~925 square foot
parcel being a curved line with a 50-foot radius extending along a southwesterly
line of Lot lO an arc distance of 58.5 feet, more or less, and along a south-
easterly line of Lot 11 an arc distance of 97.92 feet. more or less, reserving,
however, in said 3.925 square foot parcel of land and along the ~foresaid south-
easterly straight line a perpetual easement and 10-foot wide right-of-way for a
water pipeline or pipelines and the right of ingress, egress and regress over
said 3,925 square foot parcel of land and over Lots 10 and 11, aforesaid, for
the purpose of operating, maintaining, repairing, relaying or replacing said
pipeline or pipelines; said 3,925 square foot parcel of land being a northwesterly
portion of a circular lot whereon a mell was formerly located but in which the
City now only maintains a portion of a water line or main, together with a release
of the City's right, title and interest in and to all other easements and rights
of way for water lines and mains or accessway to said former mell lot in or
through Lots 10 and 11, aforesaid, extending from the southerly line'of #oodland
Drive in a southerly direction to the northerly line of the 3,925 square foot
parcel, abovementioned, for a consideration of $300.00, cash, to be paid to the
City upon deliver of the City's deed of conveyance made upon the following express
terms and provisions, be, and said offer is hereby ACCEPTED; the terms and pro-
visions, other than the cash consideration hereinabove provided, being as fol-
lows, namely, that the purchasers from the Cit'y cause to be made available for
irecordatlon simultaneously with the City's deed of conveyance a replatting of
Lots 10 and 11, aforesaid, and of said 3,925 square foot parcel whereby ali of
said ~925 square foot parcel is properly divided between and aIlocated to said
other two lots and so that no part of said 3,925 square foot parcel remains as a
separate lot of land, such replattin9 to conform to the land subdivision require-
ments of the County of Roanoke and of said City of Roanoke.
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, upon payment to the City of the sum of
$300,00, cash, as aforesaid, the Mayor be, and he is hereby authorized, empowered
and directed to execute, for and on behalf of the City, the City*s deed of conve-
~yance and release to the aforesaid land and easement, drawn upon such form as is
tprepared and approved by the City Attorney, granting and conveying to the City*s
luforesaid purchasers, with Special Warranty of title, title to the above described
3,g25 square foot parcel of land, the City reserving therein a perpetual easement
as hereinabove provided but. otherwise, releasing said City*s right, title and
interest in and to all other easements and rights-of=way for water lines or mains
OF accessways in or through Lots 10 and 11, aforesaid, extending from the south
:line of Woodland Drive to the northerly line of said 3.925 square foot. parcel of
,land; and that the City Clerk bee and is hereby authorized and directed to affix
to the aforesaid deed of conveyance the CJty*s seal. aud to attest the same, the
signatures Of the Mayor and the City Clerk to be acknowledged by each of them as
provided by law.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Ilubord. Taylor. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber ..........................
NAVS: None ...........O. (Rr. Lisk absent)
ANNEXATION-CONSOLIDATION: The City Attorney submitted a written report
advising that he has been unofficially, but authoritatively, advised that the
Supreme Court of Virginia has 9ranted the city's appeal of the final order
entered by the annexation court Jn the recent annexation proceedings to which the
city was a party, that he is further advised that appeal has also been granted to
the City of Salem. to the Windsor Bills and Municipal Airport area petitioners and
to the County of Roanoke. on the latter's petition for cross=appeal, pointing out
that it would he in order that Council and the clty's officers and attorneys make
some overall reassessment of the city*s position in annexation and other pending
matters, and, with the approval of Council, he will proceed along that line.
Mr. Trout moved that the report he received and filed. The motion mas
seconded by gr. Hubard and unanimously adopted.
AUDITS: The City Auditor submitted a financial report of the City of
Roanoke for the month of September, 1972.
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Re. Garland and unanimously adopted.
BUDGET-DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WELFARE: The City Auditor submitted a
monthly statement of expenditures for public welfare for the month ended September
30. 1972.
Dr. Taylor moved that the report be received and filed. The notion
, was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
44:!.
Zt42
BUOGET-AIRPORT: The City Auditor submitted n written report advisla9
cernin9 the type of accounting which mould best suit the Municipal Airport opera-
tions, that Council mas inclined to favor placing the accounting for the airport
separate from the City General Fund, proposing that this change be effective
January 1, 1973, if this is still the desire of Council and that the next step
S/ Robert A. Garland,
I
I
I
I
Hr. Garland moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
mas seconded by Hr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
i SEWERS AND STORM BRAINS: Hr. Hampton H. Thomas, Chairman of the Semer
Committee. submitted the f~lloming report of the Semer Committee regarding the
IMaste Mater Treatment Plant enlargement and upgrading program, transmitting the
ifollowlng communication from AIvord, Hurdick and Homson. Consulting Engineers,
iglvingconfirmation that the firm mill the
complete
plans
nnd
for
~the Advanced Waste Treatment ProJect and that such plans and specifications mill
be in the hands of the staff of the State Mater Control Board not later than
,:N°vember b, 1972, as directed by the State Mater Control Board at their meeting
on September 19o 1972:
*October lb. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Subject: Waste Mater Treatment Plant
folloms regarding the waste mater treatment plant enlarge-
ment and upgrading program.
1. The committee has authorized and directed llvord,
ceed with the preparation of the plans and specifi-
cations for the final stage of the plant development.
This is the stage generally described as the tertiary
treatment. The commitment of the City and the City
ordinances, and the such, has been to this step in
the program. The Engineering Department has been working
on this pahse of the project as a part of previous engi-
neering activity. Certain deadlines established by
the Water Control Board under the interim and long range
half have provided for this final stage. At the most
recent formal meeting of the Water Control Board on
September lq. lg?2, at which representatives of the City
were present, the Board confirmed its objective and
requirement that the City proceed according to previously
required dates in the preparation of the detailed plans
and specifications for this phase of the program. Act-
instructed Alvord, Burdick and Howson to complete these
plans and specifications. Action by the City Council. at
tual relationship of the City and the consultant on this
latter phase.
The City has received a letter from Alvord, Burdick and
Homson giving confirmation that the firm will complete
the plans and specifications for the Advanced Waste
Treatment project and that such plans and specifications
will be in the hands of the staff Of the State Mater
Control Board not later than November 6. 1972, as directed
by the State Water Control Board in their meeting on
September lg. 1972.
*October 11, 1972
Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City Manager
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24007
Dear Mr. Hlrst:
the staff of the State Mater Control Board,
paragraph 6, regarding the submission of
final plans and specifications (for the Roanoke
443
3 o The
6,'1972), and the further requlrenent that
'Roanoke engineers certify to the staff on or
before October 20, 1972," we hereby certify
that said plans and specifications will be
filed on or before ~ovember 6, 1972.
In making this certification we submit
the following:
office has been proceeding full speed on
structicn plans developed following the
functinna! plans.
and £cknann), and 15 draftsnen continuously
working on the detailed design drawings
days a week and 10 hours per day. Some
which all equipment will be purchased and
June 1, 1974, or (b) in the alternative, bid
By-----L. R. Howsont
trol Board of September 19. 1972.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Hampton #. Thomas
S~ Mill!am S, Hubard
S/ Julian F. Hirst'
Mr. Thomas moved that the report of the Seuer Committee be received and
filed. The motion uss seconded by Mr. Bubard and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas further moved that the communication from Alvord, BurdJck
tand Bomson, Consulting Engineers, be received and filed. The notion mas seconded
iby Dr. Taylor and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas then offered the follouing Resolution certifying to the staff
!of the State Ia*er Control Board that the plans end specifications forWe City of
!Ronnohets advanced Naste Treatment Plant mill be submitted to the State #stet
iCon*roi Board on or before November 6, 1972:
(~20§05) A RESOLUTION certifying to the staff of the State ~ater Control.
iBoard that the plans and specifications for the City of Roanoke*s advanced uaste
treatment plant mill be submitted to the State Ns*er Control Board on OF before
November 6. 1972.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book ~37, page 200.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution, The motion was seconded
by Hr. ilubard and adopted by the following vote:
AVES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
~ebber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Lisk absent)
Mr. Thomas further moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare
the proper measure reafflrmin9 the intent of the City of Roanoke tomard moving for-
ward with the final stage of plant development, generally described as the tertiary
treatment, at the [aste Water Treatment Plant. The motion was seconded by
Bubard and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Thomas further moved that the City Attorney be directed to transmit
to the staff of the State #ater Control Board, the report of the Sewer Committee,
the comnnnication from Alvord, Burdick and Howson. Consulting Engineers. and
Resolution No. 20505. The motion was seconded by Mr. Rubard and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTXON AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLLrIIONS:
MISCELLANEOUS: Conncil having directed the City Attorney to prepare
'the proper measure calling attention to and endorsing The Roanoke H. H. NacKenzie
Chapter 3, Disabled American Veterans' Annual Forget - Re - Not Drive in the
Roanoke Valley on October 20 and 21, 1972, he presented same; whereupon, Mr. Trout
'~offered the following Resolution:
(~20505) A RESOLUTION calling attention to and endorsing The Roanoke
H. H. NacKenzie Chapter 3, Disabled American Veterans' Annual Foroet -Ne - Not
drive in the Roanoke Valley on October 20 and ~1. 1972.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book n37, page 201.)
445
Hr, Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution, The motion mas seconded
by Hr, Garland and adopted bT the folloming ~ote:
AYES: Ressrs, Garland, Hubard, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Rayor
#ebber ...................~ ..... 6,
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr, Lisk. absent)
AIRPORT: Mr. Trout advised that on Friday, October 13, 1972. the
Senate Committee met and sent a message to the President prohibiting the imposi-
tion of a boarding tax by localities upon users of airports and pointed out that
the City of Roanoke probably will not be able to impose a boarding tax on users
Of Roanoke Runicipal (Moodrum) Airport.
At this point, Vice Mayor Lisk entered the meeting.
CORRITTEES: Vice Rayor Lisk presented the folloming revised statement
of policy on the appointments by Roanoke City Council to boards, authorities,
commissions and committees:
STATEMENT OF POLICY
ON
APPOINTMENTS By ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
TO
BOARDS. AUTHORITIES. COMMISSIONS,' AND COMMITTEES
I. POLICY
Rith the ever-increasing scope of operations of the Govern-
ment of Roanoke City. it is obvious that the level and quality
of service by the City to its people cannot be of the quality
and quantity mhich is both expected and deserved by the people
without the active support of many of its qualified and concerned
citizens. One of the best ways of involving such persons in
the promotion of the best interests of the City of Roanoke and
its citizens is to invite them to share some of the responsi-
bilities and opportunities by serving on one or more of the ·
several boards, authorities, commissions, and committies
appointed by Roanoke City Council.
In order to obtain the best qualified and dedicated
person to serve on such bodies, it is encumbent upon Coun-
cil to maintain a close relationship with them and to give
careful and thoughtful consideration to advice and recommen-
dations coming to it from such bodies. There is no surer
way to destroy the effectiveness of such a body than to
receive, file with thanks, and neglect a recommendation from
it.
II. COMMITTEES
Council does hereby establish or re-establish such per-
manent and ad hoc boards, authorities, commissions, and
committees as are set forth in schedules attached hereto.
The membership, purpose, and terms of membership of
these bodies shall be as set out in these schedules, or as
from time to time amended by Council. The terms of all
members of ad hoc committees, or of permanent committees
not stated othermise, shall expire on September I following
the appointment of such members. These schedules shall also
set forth any special requirements, by lam or otbermise.
which are applicable to a particular body.
1II. REPORTS
Each such permanent board, authority, commission, or
committee shall make a written report to Council, at least
-!
447
once in each fiscal year of the City of Roanoke, in mch form as
such body selects. Homerer, such report shall include therein
a report on the attendance of its menbership at regular or
special meetings of such body for the 12-month period preceding
the date of such report.
All ad hoc committees shall make periodic reports to
Council aa to the progress of their assigned responsibi-
lities.
IV. MEETINGS RITH COUNCIL
It is expected that, from time to time, it mill be
beneficial for a number of such permanent boards, authorities,
commissions, or committees set forth in the attached schedule
to meet mith Council, in a Joint session. Each such board,
authority, commission, or committee and Council itself may
request that there be a joint meeting held of Council and
any one of such organizations.
V. MEMBERSIIIP
Appointments by Council to such boards, authorities.
commissions, and committees shall be based upon qualifica-
tions acquired through experience, training and education,
interest, mlllingnes$ to serve, and dedication to promoting
the best interest of all persons in the City and the Roanoke
Valley. Membership shall not be restricted by race. creed,
color, sex. or religion; h.meyer, it mill be intended to
have n membership balance among the various interests in
our community. Membership. except where required by lam,
shall not be restricted to residents of the City of Roanoke.
METHOD OF APPOINTMENT
Members to such boards, authorities, commissions, and
committees shall be made by nomination by the Mayor or a mem-
ber of Council and election by Council upon an affirmative
vote by at least four members of Council. In making such a
nomination, it shall be stated that the nominee has been
consulted and is willing to serve if elected. If so requested
by any one member of Council any such appointment shall he
made only after the appointee has been interviewed by Coun-
cil.
Vll. MEETINGS
Such bodies shall meet at such times and places as
required by lam or as they may determine. It shall be the
duty of the City Clerk to provide for the recording of the
minutes of any such body which meets in the City Hall during
the time when the City Clerk's office is open. provided such
body has not Otherwise arranged to have its minutes recorded.
Vlll. REPEAL OF PREVIOUS RULES
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or other actions
of Council relating to such boards, authorities, commissions,
or committees which are inconsistent with the Policy herein
stated are hereby revoked."
Mr. Lisk moved that the revised statement be referred to the City
Attorney and to the City Clerk for preparation of the necessary measure or
imeasures in order to implement said policy. The motion was seconded by Mr.
i!Rubard and unanimously adopted.
COUNCIL=CITY MANAGER: Mr. Hubard moved that Council meet in Executive
:Session to discuss a successor to the City Ranager. The motion was seconded by
iMF. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
~i AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Taylor. Yhomas, Trout and Mayor
i. Webber .......................... 7.
[ NAYS: None ........... O.
'4 t8
There being no farther business, Unyor #ebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Deputy City Clerk Nayor
COUNCIL, REGULAR ME~TING,
Monday. October 23, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Council
Chamber Jn the Municipal Building, Monday, October 23, 1972, at 2:00 p.m** the
regular meeting hour, ulth Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding.
pRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, David K. Link, Noel C. Taylor,
Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. Mebber ............. 6.
iABSENT: Councilman Mllliam S. Bubard ....................... 1.
~ OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Birst, City Manager; Mr. William F.
Clark, Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincanon, City Attorney; Mr. H. Ben
Jones, Jr., Assistant City Attorney; and Mr. A. N. Gibson, City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend James
iM. Unruh, Pastor, Grace United Methodist Church.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
MUNICIPAL BUILDING-TRAFFIC: Councilman Robert A. Garland presented the
ifollowing communication in connection with parking facilities around the Munici-
ipal Building, suggesting that since Church Avenue. directly in front of the new
Municipal Huilding, is a three traffic lane street, that a study be made to
reduce that street to two lanes, if feasible, and that space which extends
between Secood and Third Streets be reserved for those people ~ho are conducting
business in the Municipal Building with a tine limitation of fifteen minutes:
"16 October 1972
Mayor Roy L. Mebbor and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Gentlemen:
It has been brought to my attention on several occasions by
taxpayers complaining of their inability to park near the
Municipal Building while paying their taxes or purchasing
the motor vehicle license decal or for that matter for con-
ducting any city business. Presently, they cannot do this
without going to a parking lot for which they are charged.
Cities are not much different from businesses in that the
ones that are the most Successful are the ones that iris
the easiest to get to and provide the best services with free
and adequate parking facilities. It would appear to me that
we should simplify these processes and make it as easy and
as convenient as we are capable. ! sometimes, get the feel-
ing that not enough attention is paid to those that are
footinR the bill. We should make it less difficult to pay
taxes. Me therefore should make some provision for free
parking by allowing them to park as near to the Municipal
Complex as possible.
Since Church Avenue, directly in front of the new Municipal
Building is a three traffic lane street, it would be my
suggestion that a study be made to reduce that street to
two lanes if feasible and that space which extends between
Second and Third Streets be reserved for those people that
are conducting business in the building with a time limita-
tion of fifteen minutes.
449
450
I would therefore more that this matter be referred to the
City Manager for study, report and recommendation,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Robert A. Garland
Robert A. Garland"
Mr. Carland moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
study, report and recommendation to Council.' The notion was seconded by
Trout and unanimously adopted.
HUBG£T-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD~ORMISSIONER OF THE REVENUE: Copy of
a communication from the State Compensation Board addressed to Mr. J. S, Howard,
Jr** Commissioner of the Revenue, advising that subject to concurrence by Coun-
cil, the Compensation Board approved an increase in the salary of Mrs. Margaret
K. Killou from $4,R83.00 to $5,720.00, effective November 1, 1972, which is in
accordance with the $2.75 per hour exemption recently allowed by the Pay Board,
was before the body.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the communication from the State
Compensation Board and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating
$558.00 to Personal Services under Section ~6. "Commissioner of the Revenue." of
the 1972-73 budget:
(#2050?) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~6. "Commissioner
of the Revenue." of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergencyo
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~37. page 206.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The notion was seconded
by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ...........................
NAYS: None ............O. (Mr. Hubsrd absent)
ZONING-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Mr. M. L. Hazlegrove, Attorney, represent-
ing sponsors of the proposed commercial office building on the northwest corner
of Kirk Avenue at Jefferson Street. appeared before Council and presented the
following communication in connection with an ambiguous provision of the Zoning
Ordinance contained in Article 5, Section 15, relating to Visibility at Inter-
sections, requesting that his communication be submitted to the Board of Zoning
Appeals. together with whatever comments Couocil may wish to make, with the
request that said communication be treated as an application for a variance by
the Board of Zoniog Appeals:
~October 12, 1972
Yhe Honorable Roy L. Mebber, Mayor
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, S. M.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mayor Webber:
On behalf of the sponsors of the above building project,
I should like to express their appreciation to the Council
.!
for its prompt uod fnvornble notion ag&lost implementing the
reoonmendution thnt u portion Of the Kirk Avenne frootuge of
the American Theatre property be ncquired for street widening
purposes or otherwise denied to the owners for building
occupancy.
During the course of our preseot~tion to Council on the
9th of October, me indicated that the application of n possibly
ambiguous provision of the Zoning Ordinance wight work u hard-
ship on the owners with respect to the proposed project end
that we would acquaint Council with the matter in connection
with our request that it be formarded to the Board of Zoning
Appeals for appropriate action.
The provision of which me speak is contained in Article
V (Supplemental Regulations), Section 15 reading as f,Il,ms:
YJsibJlJty at io(ersectJons: On a corner
lot no fence, wall, hedge or other planting or
structure that will materially obstruct vision
between a height of two and one-half feet and
ten feet above the centerline grades of the
intersecting streets should be erected, placed
or maintained within the area formed by the inter-
section of right-of-way lines ut such corner lots
and a straight line adjoining said right-of-way
lines at points mbicb are:
1. Fifteen feet distant from the inter-
section of the right-of-way lines at a corner
of u lot in industrial and commercial districts.
and
2. Twenty-five feet distant from such
intersection in other districts.
If the right-of-may lines of which the provision speaks
are interpreted to mean the curb line of the intersecting
streets, then we have no problem. If the right-of-way lines
are interpreted to mean the boundary lines of the corner lot.
then we do have a problem. This is to say that if we measure
fifteen feet northerly on Jefferson Street from the point of
intersection with Kirk Avenue and then fifteen feet westerly
on Kirk Avenue from the intersection and connect the two
points with a line, a triangular area is formed which will not
be occupied by any part of the proposed structure. However,
if the same triangular area is determined with reference to
the lot lines, then it will be necessary to bevel the south-
east edge of the building between the ground and first floor
levels.
Ne enclose a sketch of the proposed building and call
attention to the proposed configuration of a rather prominent
column or pilaster at the corner. The east face of this member
will be at the lot line and, thus. ten feet from the present
curb line (the Jefferson Street sidewalk is ten feet wide).
The south face of the member will be located two feet to the
north of the lot line and thus. six feet from the curb line
(Kirk Avenue sidewalk is four feet wide). If the provision
of the Ordinance is interpreted to require a first level
bevel to a depth of about twelve feet through this column
line. it will require a substantial redesign, which might
involve a somewhat smaller column and the necessity of
obtafnio9 a determination of whether the smaller column
constituted a 'material* Obstruction to vision.
Our feeling about the matter is that the pr,vision of
the Ordinance probably has reference to the curb line rather
than the lot line and that the provision Should be liberally
construed to this effect in cases, where, as here. sidewalk
areas provide the necessary visibility clearance.
The proposed building will provide slightly greater visi-
bility than the existing structure and will certainly afford
greater visibility than is presently available at either the
northeast or southeast corners of the intersection where there
is no sidewalk on Kirk Avenue.
~e ask that this letter be submitted to the ~oard of Zon-
ing Appeals together with whatever comments Council may wish
451
452
to nuke with the request that it be treated as ·n'·pplic·tlon
for · variance by the Hoard of Zoning Appeals. FaVorable
action on our application for a variance will; of course,
obviate both the hardship which would be imposed bY a restric-
tive interpretation of the provision of the Ordinance and
the necessity of either redesigning the oor·ev of th~
ture or seeking an amendment of the Zoning Ordinance,
Very truly yours.
S/ Hilbnr L. Hanlegrove
MILHUR L. HAZLECROVE
of Counsel for the Owners"
Hr. Trout moved that the communication be referred to the City Planning
Commission and to the Hoard of Zoning Appeals for study, report and recommenda-
tion to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
CITY THEASURER-L1CENSES: Council having previously requested that a
committee composed of Rt. A. No Gibson. Chairman. James N. Klncanon. J. S. Howard.
Jr.. and J. H. Johnson study the system now being used for the assessment of
personal property tax and the sale of automobile decals and report their recom-
mendations to Council accordingly. Mr, J. H. Johnson. City Treasurer and a member
i!of the committee submitted a minority report advising that at n recent neetin9 of
the committee three members felt the present personal property and city decal
Ordinances should remain substantially as now written, that he cannot agree with
ithe majority based on the confusion experienced while selling decals earlier
this year, along with the strong criticism received from taxpayers and transmit-
ting the following four suggestions for the consideration of Council which he
feels will increase revenue, provide better money controls and give a more satis-
ifactory service to the taxpayers:
1, Provide for the assessing of the vehicle tax and levying of
the decal all on one tax bill,
2, Re-schedule the deadline dates for paying personal property vehicle
taxes to coincide with.the dates for purchasing of decals in
order to avoid conflict,
3, Simplify the design of the'assessment tickets and decals to reduce
the cost involved in returning tax receipts and decals to those
who pay by mail,
4, Each and every motor vehicle be taxes on a separate tax bill,
Mr, Trout moved that the minority report be taken under consideration
pending receipt of the committee report. The motion was seconded by Mr, Lisk and
unanimously adopted,
Mr, Garland further moved that the committee be requested to submit its
Irecommendationsin Connection with the assessment of and the
personal
property
Iissuance of ali Roanoke City automobile decals by the regular meeting of Council
ton Monday, November 6, 1972, The notion was seconded by Mr, Trout and unani-
~mously adopted.
STATE COMPENSATION HOARD: Copy of a news release announcing that the
Virginia Advisory Legis'lative Council will hold a public hearin9 on Tuesday,
November 14, 1972, in House Room 3 Of the State Capitol at 9:30 a,m,, for the
ipurpose Of studying the structure, powers and functions Of the State Compensation
453
Board sad the system of compensating local constitutional officers and their
employees, mss before Counc.ll,'
Mr. Trout moved that the news release be referred to the City Manager
lfor and action, if necessary. The motion was seconded by Dr.
consideration
Taylor and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-CITY ENGINEER-GARBAGE REMOVAL: The City Manager submitted the
!!folloming report Jn connection with the Sanitation Division budget, advising that
isdditional work has resulted in overexpenditure of the overtime account and
requesting that $15;000.00 be transferred from Personal Services to Overtime under
Section a69, *Sanitation Division** of the 1972-73 budget, to replace the present
deficit in this account and to provide monies in anticipation of future overtime
*October 23, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City CSuncil
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Sanitation Division Budget
Council will recall that during the budget study ses-
sions it was noted that a considerable reduction in the per-
sunni services account of the Sanitation Division had been
effected through the efficient assignment of necessary
personnel and the elimination of certain extra positions.
Mithin the category Of sanitation men. there are now BO
authorized positions with a minimum Of 60 needed to man
our refuse collection routes and the balance to provide
coverage for vacation and sick leave. Nevertheless. we have
encountered some difficulty in filling all authorized posi-
tions and this has put an additional responsibility on the
existing personnel to maintain schedules. This additional
work has resulted in overexpenditure of the overtime
account necessitating our return to Council for additional
funds.
Since the beginning of the fiscal year, there has been
an average of more than O vacancies in the position of sani-
tation men. Additionally, the number of persons absent
without pay has averaged more than four each day. Therefore,
on the average, 12 of the BO budgeted positions have been
unfiled and when the number of persons on authorized vacation.
or sick leave, are added, we frequently have not had 60
individuals needed to man the daily runs. This has
required crews to double up and work overtime in order to
maintain schedules in areas that would otherwise be uncol-
lected. Through the first four months of the fiscal year,
over $16,000 has been expended Jn overtime, a large portion
of which has been in refuse collection schedules.
Nith positions vacant and other employees on unautho-
rized absence without pay there has obviously been a portion
of the budgeted salary funds unexpended. Through October
this has amounted to nearly $17,000. or approximately the
same amount as has otherwise been expended in overtime
pay to maintain refuse collection schedules. It is necessary
to request that $15.000 of this unexpended salary monies be
transferred to the sanitation division overtime account,
69-114. to replace the present deficit in this account and
provide some monies in anticipation of future overtime needs,
The sanitation division is continuing to attempt to reduce
the number of persons on unauthorized absence without pay and
the personnel department is assisting in the effort to recruit
additional employees. The extremely tight labor market in
the Roanoke yalley mould appear to be a contributing factor
in the difficulty to recruit workers for these positions.
'454
It is recommended that $15,000 be transferred from
Account 69-101 to Account 69-114 for the ab,restated reasons.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. fllrst
City Manager*
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(a20506) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section nhg, *Sanitation
Division** of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book a3T0 page 206.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
Iby Mr~ Lisk and adopted by the f,Il,win9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lick. Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber ......................... 6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Ilubard absent)
BUDGET-SEMERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the f,l-
lowing report advising that on Tuesday, October 10, 1972, one of the blower
engines at the Sewage Treatment Plant cut off while in service, that upon investi-
'gation it was determined that the crank shaft and crank case would have to be
ireplaced, resulting in an expenditure of approximately $10,000.00 to $11,000.00,
Ipointing out that a new basic engine similar to the ones purchased recently
!would cost approximately $28,000.00 complete and could be shipped in the latter
ipart of December, and since more than tm, million dollars is currently available
in the replacement reserve account in the Sewage Treatment Fund, it is racom-
;mended that $30,000.00 be transferred from this replacement reserve account in
!order that he may promptly order a new air bi,mar engine:
"October 23, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
' Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Sewage Treatment Plant
On Tuesday, October 10. 1972, one of the blower engines
at the sewage treatment plant cut off while in service. Upon
investigation it mas determined that the crank shaft and crank
case would have to be replaced. This is the equipment needed
to blow air into the secondary treatment process for the pur-
pose of supplying oxyRen demand to the bacterial action con-
suming sewage wastes. There are six such engines at the treat-
ment plant, five of which operate off of sewage or natural
gas and one being electric driven. To restore this engine to
operation will require an expenditure of approximately $10,000
to $11,000 and parts would not be available before the latter
part of December.
These air blower engines are pert of the original equip-
ment ~n the plant and are approximately twnety years old.
Parts in many cases are obsolete and have to be specially made,
making them very costly items. During the past couple of
years, in an effort to maintain the highest quality of sew-
age effluent possible with the present equipment, much of the
plant equipment has been run almost continuously. This could
well have been n contributing factor to the failure of this
particular air blomer engine. If another unit should go down
prior to our being able to restore the present engine, it
could be critical on the treatment efficiency.
In cheching further, we find that a new basic engine
similar to the ones purchased recently would cost approximately
$28.D00 complete. Sach n new engine could also be shipped
approximately in the latter part of December; theFefoFeo there
would be no additional delay in restoring the engine to ser-
vice. These engines will remain in service even after the
pending treatment plant expansion and upgrnding; therefore.
we are talhing about a long term investment rather than a
short range repair.
More than $2 million is currently available in the
Cityts replacement reserve account in the semnge treatment
fund. It is recommended that $30.000 be transferred from
this replacement reserve account in order that we may promptly
order a new air blower engine. In anticipation of favorable
response to this critical need. we have preliminarily
placed a verbal Order for this item.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Birst
CitT Manager~
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the CitT
Manager and offered the following emergencT Ordinance appropriating $30,000.00
~for Capital Outlay - Replacement Reserve," of the 1972-73 budget:
(g20509) AN ORDINANCK to amend and reordain Section ~500, 'Sewage Treat-
ment Fund - Appropriations for Capital Outaly - Replacement Reserve," of the 1972-
i73 Sewage Treatment Fund Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~37, page 207.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk. Taylor. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber ........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Hubard absent)
SE~ERS AND S'rORR GRAINS: The CitT Manager submitted the following report
advising that the citT has now received, by certified mail, dated October lB.
19T2, final approval from the B. S. Environmental Protection Agency. authorizin9
~ithe award of contracts for the first phase of major expansion at the Sewage Treat-
ilment Plant. that these contracts are with D. R. Allen G Son, Incorporated, and
English Construction Company. covering the sludge lagoons and chemical feed
ifacilities and noting that bids for another phase of the plant expansion which
lincludes equipment for the 14 MGD primary expansion are due to be received at the
!night meeting of Council on Monday. October 30. 1972:
'October 23. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The City has now received, by certified mail. dated October
16, final approval from the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
authorizing the award of contracts for the first phase
major expansion at the City'$ sewage treatment'plant. These
contracts are with D. R. Allen 6 Son, Inc.., nad English Con-
struction Company covering the sludge lagoons end chemical
feed facilities, Included in phase one of the plant upgrading
end expansion. As Council mill recall, portions of this work
bare already been preliminarily proceeding; however, ue hare
had to await receipt of this approval from the Federal govern-
ment before finally awarding contracts. We now have in hand
the fully executed contracts with both firms end have issued
notices to proceed.
These are the two projects which City Council advertised
for bids in early February. 1972, which were forwarded as
plans and specifications to the State Mater Control Board on
February 13, 1972, and on which the Council took bids on
March 9. 1972, and made tentative award or contracts on March
13, 1972. In time frame this is eight months between trans-
mittal to the State of plans and specifications and final
approval by all agencies to proceed mith work and contract;
this is seven months between Council's award of contracts
on a conditional basis and such final authorization by
approval agencies.
As a matter of information, it would be noted that bids for
another phase of the plant expansion, equipment for the 14 RGO
primary expansion, are due to be received at Council's night
meeting on Monday, October
This report is submitted for information so as to keep
Council apprised of the status of the several phases of
upgrading and expansion to the City*s water pollution control
facilities.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Ranager~
RF. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
S~MERS ANO STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted a mritten report
advising that in the project of pumping sludge from the Sewage Treatment Plant
across the Roanoke River and onto the property of Roanoke Industrial Development
and Investment Company. the State of Virginia Office of Civi'l Defense made loan
to the City of the pipe for this purpose, that this pipe is from stock material
which the Office of Civil Defense maintains for essential uses. that the origi-
nal period of time of this loan has expired, that the farm area will bo continued
in use for a period of a few more months and pointing out that the State Office
of Civil Defense has advised of their approval ~f
loan of the pipe for a period of 115 days, expiring on January 31, 1973.
Mr. Lisk moved that the repor't be received and filed. The motion was
·
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
SE#£RS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the foil,ming report:~
advising that in connection with upgrading and improvements at the Sewage Treat-
meat Plant provision is being made to receive various chemicals to be used in
the treatment process by rail shipments, that a railroad siding is to be installed
on the north side of Roanoke River. opposite the Sewage Treatment Plant on land
owned by Wells Furniture Company. that several agreements have already been
entered into between the city and Norfolk and Mestern Railway Company for the
construction on and under Railway Company p~operty, that there is still one
additional agreement betmeea the city and the Railmay Company which is. needed in
connection with this construction, that the chemical unloading platform end
related facilities will be so situated in proximity to the rail siding as to
provide clearance less than the standards normally desired by the Railway Company,
that the Reilmay Company has proposed to tbn city a clearance agreement covering
the location of the unloading platform with respect to the siding and recommend-
ing that Council authorize the execution of this clearance agreement with the
Norfolk end Mestern Railway Company:
"October 23, 1972
Honorable Rayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Sewage Treatment Plant Expansion -
Norfolk and Mestern Railway Company Agreement
In connection with upgrading and improvements at the
City"s water pollution control facilities provision is being
made for the receiving of various chemicals to be used in
the treatment process by rail shipments. A railroad siding
is to be installed on the north side of Roanoke River, op-
posite the treatment plant on land owned by Malls Furniture
Company. Several agreements have already been entered into
between the City and Norfolk and Nestern Railmay Company for
the construction on and under railmay company property. This
construction will be accomplished by English Construction
Company, Incorporated, under contract to the City of Roanoke,
and we are awaiting final federal approval to authorize their
proceeding with the construction.
There is yet one additional agreement between the City
and the railway company needed in connection with this con-
struction. The chemical unloading platform and related
facilities will be so situated in proximity to the rail sid-
ing as to provide clearance less than the standards normally
desired by the railway company. This is required in order
to provide access from the chemical unloading platform into
the tank cars Mhich mould be situated on the rail siding.
The railway company bas proposed to the City a clearance
agreement covering the location of the unloading platform
with respect to the siding.
It is recommended that City Council authorize the execu-
tion of this clearance agreement with the N ~ W Railway Com-
pany. The City Attorney has been furnished a copy of the
proposed agreement and requested to prepare the necessary
papers for its execution.
Respectfully submitted'
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Dr. Taylor moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
IManager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20510) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City's execution of a written
agreement with Norfolk ~ Yestern Railway Company providing a right to the City to
construct, maintain and operate a chemical unloading platform with shed and hinged
catwalk with less than standard clearances, on land utilized by the City for
chemical unloading facilities for the City*s Sewage Treatment Plant, upon certain
terms and conditions; and providing for an emergency,
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #37, page 207.)
457 '
458
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion mas
seconded by Mr. Link and adopted bT the follomlo9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. List, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Nebber ......................... 6.
NAYS: None ......... O. (Mr. Hubard absent)
BRIDGES-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted the
following report advising that he has been recently advised by the Virginia De-
partment of Highways that they are now in n position to program the replacement
of both corporate limit bridges over Peters Creek at Salem Turnpike and Shenandoah
Avenue, that the city*s fifteen per cent share of the cost of both of these pro-
jects is estimated to be mithin the $125,000.00 projected for the bond referendum
program, that the State has invited the city to formally request the Highway
Department to proceed mith necessary surveys, plans and specifications, right of
uny acquisition and construction administration for both of these projects and
that the city agree to pay its proportionate share of the cost and that following
anticipated favorable vote on the upcoming bond referendum, it would then be
recommended that Council adopt appropriate Resolutions requesting the State to
program both projects:
*October 23, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: West Corporate Limits - Salem Turnpike and
Shenandoah Avenue over Peters Creek
The City has been pursuing a program of upgrading and
replacing the several bridges along the west corporate
limits. This past year the bridge over Mud Lick Creek on
Grandin Road was replaced by the State Highway'Department
with City financial participation. The upcoming bond
referendum includes $125.000 as the City's share in the
cost of replacing the bridge over Peters Creek at Salem
Turnpike.
Me have recently been advised by the Virginia Depart-
ment of Highways that they are now in a position to program
the replacement of both corporate limit bridges over Peters
Creek at Salem Turnpike and Shenandoah Avenue. The City's
15 percent share of the cost of both of these projects is
estimated to be within the $125.000 projected for the bond
referendum program. The State has invited the City to
formally request the Highway Department to proceed mith
necessary surveys, plans and specifications, right of way
acquisition and construction administration for both of
these projects and agree to pay our proportionate share of
the cost. The City's IS percent share would apply only to
that portion of the projects mithin the Cityts corporate
limits, which would be approximately one-half of the total
project length.
Following an anticipated favorable vote on the upcom-
ing referendum, it would then be recommended that City
Council adopt appropriate resolutions requesting the
State to program both projects.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
I;
In this connection, the City Manager verbally requested that Council
defer action On the above report until the next regular meeting of the body on
Monday, October 30, 1972, pending additional information.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the verbal request of the City
Manager that action on the report be deferred until the next regular meeting of
Council on Monday, October 30, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk end
unanimously adopted.
JUVENILE AND DOMESYIC RELATIONS COURT: The City Manager submitted the
followin9 report in connection with the Juvenile Court Services Studies, advising
that a meeting for the Roanoke area will be held on Tuesday. October 31. 1972, at
Laheview Motor Lodge, 6910 Mllliamson Road. at 10~00 ri.mo, with informal luncheon
at 12:15 p.m., and closing by 3:00 p.m., that the members of Council as well as
others associated with government and other citizens who may be interested in
this particular project are invited to attend this area meeting at which time
the recommendations as they have been developed on this subject will be presented:
*October 23, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Juvenile Court Services Studies
I am in receipt of a letter from the State Department of
Welfare and Institutions which advises in significant part
as follows:
*The purpose of this letter is to inform you of the
current status of the Division of Youth Services"
*Juvenile Court Services Standards Project* and to
invite you to attend one of a series of local com-
munity meetings to discuss the emerging recommenda-
tions prior to their finalization.
*Outing the past several months the Division of Youth
Services has been engaged in a project mandated by
Substitute House Hill 266. The objectives Of the pro-
ject are to generate, and submit to the Legislature.
recommendations for:
*1'. Operating probation and related social ser-
vices for the juvenile district courts, includ-
ing delineation and definition of these services.
'2. Minimum standards for court service staffs and
related supportive personnel, their appointment
and function, in order to promote uniform services
for the juvenile district courts on a State-wide
basis.
*Since mid-July 1972, more than 150 persons have worked
and contributed on one or more of 17 different task
committees to develop recommendations. These persons
have been from local public welfare agencies, juvenile
probation staffs, local organizations, and from local
and central offices of the Division of Youth Services.
'The basic recommendations of the planning committees
have been received and are currently under consideration
by the Project Director and his staff. An integral part
of the project plannin9 is the process of sharing with
interested individuals (within the community and within
related judicial and governmental agencies) the develop-
lng recommendations before they become final.*
459
460
The meeting for the Bosnohe urea will be held on Tuesday,
October 31, 1972, at Lahevleu Motor Lodge, 6910 Nllliamson
Road, beginning at 10 n m (coffee at 9:15 a.m., with informal
luncheon at 12:15 p.m, end closing by 3:30 p.m.).
The members of the City Council as well as others
associated with government and other citizens who may be ·
interested in this particular project are invited to attend
this area meeting at which the recommendations as they have
been developed on this subject will be presented.
'If the Council mould be interested in more detailed infor-
mation with respect to the project, me would be glad to advise
to the extent that we have hnomledge of it.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hlrst
City Manager*
Mr. Thomas moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
seconded by Dr. Taylor end unanimously adopted.
ALCOHOL: The City Ranager submitted the following report advising that
the city has been requested by Bethany Hall, Halfway House for Alcoholic Women,
to receive and administer grant application funds which the facility proposes to
obtain through the State Division of Justice and Crime Prevention, that the appli-
cation is for a total of $26,101.00 which together with $3.900.00 local in-kind
money and $2.650.00 local cash funds will make an operating budget for the
facility of $32,5b0.00. that he will proceed under previous authorization in
matters of this typo to submit this application over the signature of the City
Manager, that it is believed that this funding is satisfactory and it would be
suggested that prior to another application grant, that additional analyses be
made as to tho justification of this program under federal crime prevention funds:
"October 23, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: State Division of Justice and Crime Prevention
Grant - Bethany Hall. Halfway House
The City has been requested by Bethany Hall, Halfway
House for Alcoholic Women to receive and administer grant
application funds which the facility proposes to obtain
through the State Division of Justice and Crime Prevention.
The application is for a total of $25,010. which together
with $3,900 local in-hind money and $2,650 local cash funds
will make an operating budget for the facility of $32,560.
Unless the City Council would have objection, me will
proceed under previous authorization in matters of this
type to submit this application over the signature Of the
City Manage~.
It is believed that this funding is satisfactory and
it would be suggested that prior to another application
grant, perhaps in the following fiscal year, that additional
analyses be made as to the justification of this program
under federal crimeprevention funds. Upon being advised of
approval of this program, we will recommend to Council an
amendment to your budget.
Respectfully.submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hits,
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
Dr, Tsylor moved that the report be received and filed. The motioo was
seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously sdopted.
PARKS AND PLAYDMOUNDS: Council having referred to the City Msnsger for
study, report and recommendation the question of s development study for Mill
Mouotuiu Park. the City Maosger submitted the following report advising that
from several contacts with various governmental and nongovernmental entities in
an effort to determine if other OF competitive proposals might be obtained, it
appears that Ken Wilson Associates would be the only group within this general
:area that is so constituted as to respond to a study of this type and recommending
that the proposal of Ken Milson Associates to prepare a development study for
Mill Mountain be accepted and that appropriate authorization be given to commis-
sion this firm for said work:
*October 23, 1972
Itonorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Mill Mountain
In the very latter stages of the City Council's
deliberations on the 1g72-73 budget, the Mill Mountain
Development Committee submitted a proposal for a develop-
ment study of the park and recreation area at the tope of
the mountain. This proposal had been prepared by Ken
Milson Associates as a result of discussions with repre-
sentatives bf the Mill Mountain Committee. It offered for
the sum of $12,500 to undertake such a study pursuant to
the outline in a letter from Mr. Milson dated June 23, 1972.
A copy of the proposed scope of work is attached.
The Council referred the matter to this office for
consideration and recommendation and at the same time
provided $12,500 in the 1972-73 budget under Capital,
Department Code BO.
Since that time several contacts have been made with
various governmental and nongovernmental entities in an
effort to determine if other or competitive proposals might
be obtained. It has appeared thus far that this particular
group would be the only one within this general area that
is so constituted as to respond to a study of this type
which embraces the potential of both commercial and govern-
mental development. ·
Mr. Silson in his proposal is representing a combina-
tion of a number of consulting activities ranging from economics.
commercial travel, architecture to landscaping. Zhe input
from such a variety of consulting techniques is considered
desirable in completely analyzing such u program and its
possibilities and alternatives.
In the absence of competitive proposals, it is not
possible to accurately advise on the quoted study price of
$12,§00 as to whether it is high or low or competitively
reasonable. Best judgment would seem to indicate that.
considering the amount of work and level of skills involved,
and assuming the end product would he commeosurate with that
proposed in Mr. Milson*s scope outline, the price would be
fairly well in line.
Councilman Trout, Mr. M. Carl Andrews. Chairman of the
Mill Mountain Committee, and I, along with Mr. Mitchell,
Director of Parks and Recreation, and Mr. Mermelstein,
Director of Planning, have met with Mr. Milson and one of
his proposed associates in the project. We have discussed
both the intent and the scope. One of the questions that
was raised at the time that the proposal first came before
461
zt62
Council dealt with the satisfaction that such n study would .
be sufficiently unit prepared and sufficiently unbiased, that
it would be suitable for th~ City to use in obtaining pro-.
positions from other interests for uny possible development
on the top of the mountain. This point was made recognizing
that Hr. Milson is representative of the development of the
Ground Hog Mountain project south of Roanoke on the Blue
Ridge Parkway. It would be intended that the final report,
in conten~ and recommendations, would be so as the City
could submit it to other individuals or firms for any pro-
position that the City Council might determine as a pos-
sible development item. Mr. Milson assured those meeting with
him that this mas the intent of bis organization in undertak-
ing this project and that on such a basis the City would be
expending public funds for the purpose of obtaining a full
scale study rather than one oriented to the advantage of a
particular firm.
One point should be mentioned for reiteration to the
consultants, ns well as for the future information of the
Council, the committee and others as time proceeds under
this study project. It was noted with and to Mr. #ilson
that the master plan for the Mill Mountain area, prepared by
Rr. Stanley Abbott and identified by his name, proposed
certain facilities on the north portion on the top of the
mountain. These were identified as quite possibly a
restaurant and overnight motel or hotel structures.
Such a concept was continued in the updating of the master
plan by the City Planning Department in about 1966. It
was pointed out to Mr. Milson, in the discussion within
the group above named, that while the master plan had
served and will undoubtedly continue to serve the City for
many purposes Mith respect to the mountain, it Js not neces-
sary that he or his study assistants would have to feel
hound by its proposals. In other Nerds, for example, there
may be the question of whether restaurant and/or motel or
hotel facilities would be feasible in the general mountaintop
area. There then would be the next question to be resolved
in this stndy of what might be the most desirable location
for one or both. The consultant need not feel bound by the
present master plan location.
In support of this open attitude which the consultants
should take. if they proceed with the study, is the general
feeling now prevailing in park and natural attraction develop-
ment. that it is not always necessary, nor always desirable.
that structures or public accommodation be situated immediately
in the center of the attraction or that theyconsume a parti-
cularly strategic locationo In other words it would be an
alternative item for consideration as to the possibility of
situating such facilities, if proposed on Mill Mountain. on
the access road or some other location not necessarily on
the top or the most strategic point on the top.
This could mean that the Star could continue at the
location or could be considered for removal with or without
direct bearing on such types of facilities. It would be
offered that the physical area of the study extend rea-
sonably but beyond the precise mountaintop area in order
to obtain an adequately interrelated analysis of the park
land both on and off the top of the mountain.
In view of City Council's interest in such a study, as
expressed by the appropriation in the 1972-73 budget, in
view of the desirability that the potential of Mill Moun-
tain be fully appraised, in view of certain improvements
already scheduled for the mountain and the need for addi-
tional work and the further need that there be proper coordina-
tion between work in the mountain area and future require-
ments, and in view of the in-hand situation of the proposal
of Mr. Ken Milson, which proposal appears reasonably satis-
factory, it is recommended that such proposal be,accepted
and appropriate authorization be given to commission this
firm for the work.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Htrst
City Manager*
Hr, M. Carl Andrews, Chairman of the Hill Hountain Development Commit-
tee, appeared before Council end requested that the project go forth ns expedi-
tiously as possible.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Hanager
and that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the
proper measure. The motion was seconded by Hr. Link and unanimously adopted.
ELECTIONS-LEGISLATION: The City Hanager submitted the following report
in connection with the definition of m city, advising that the question,#Shall
the Constitution be amended to include in the definition of 'city* any incorporated
community which became a city as provided by law before noon on July 1. 19717"
iwill be on the ballot in the November election, that he is calling this matter
~to the attention of Council because it would appear that a favorable vote by the
!citizens of the State would be appropriate and desirable to assure this clarity
~!in the organization of local government in Virginia:
"October 23. 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Constitutional Amendment
Under our State Constitution a city is defined as
meaning *un independent incorporated community which has
within defined boundaries a population of 5.000 or more and
which has become a city as provided by law.* Under that
terminology, any existing city which falls below 5,0GO
population, as the City of Norton has already done. will
likely lose its city status with many attendant difficulties
and great confusion. The General Assembly has proposed an
amendment to the Constitution to remedy this situation and
has changed the above definition of a city to read * ~City*
city as provided by law before noon on the first day of
July. nineteen hundred and seventy-one, or which has within
defined boundaries a population of S.ODO or more and which
has become a city as provided by law.'
?he above proposed amendment has already been passed by
tmo sessions of the General Assembly and will be on the
ballot in the November election. ?he question will read
'Shall the Constitution be amended to include in the defi-
nition of #city" any incorporated community which became a
city as provided by law before noon on July 1, 19717'
Yes No
I call this to your attention as it would certainly
appear that a favorable vote by the citizens of the State
would be appropriate and desirable to assure this clarity
in the organization of local government in Virginia.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. ?homas moved that the report be received and filed. ?he notion
I mas seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: ?he Assistant City Attorney submitted the following report and
draft of amendment in connection with an amendment of the general regulations
463
contained in Section 67 of the Zoning Ordinance, advising that it Is his opinion
that situations have and may again arise wherein Council may wish, for n variety
of reasons, to reconsider certain petitions for rezoning upon the Councll*s own
motion, and that the intent of the provision in Section 67 prohibiting reconsidera-
tion within one year should be made clearly restrictive only upon owners of pro-
perty and not upon the Council:
*October 23, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Council will recall litigation groming out of its
reconsideration, in the spring of this year. of a petition
to rezone a 16-acre tract of land near the intersection of
Cove goad and Hershberger Road, N. M. Following action by
the Council in approving amendment of the district boun-
daries so as to permit construction of an apartment com-
plex. residents in the area initi~h~d proceedings in the
ItustJngs Court of the City of Roanoke seeking to invali-
date the action of the Council in reconsidering the
petition after having, earlier in the year, disapproved the
same.
By agreement of all counsel of record, the Court decided the
case upon the defendants* demurrers and. subsequently, entered
an Order uhich overruled the demurrers Of all defendants to
the proceeding, and, in effect, invalidated the ordinance by
which Council had rezoned the aforesaid 16-acre tract of
land.
The Court having ruled that the sentence in Section b7 of
the zoning ordinance (which provides tbat having once con-
sidered a petition the Council will not reconsider sub-
stantially the same petition for one year) is a provision
of substantive law and not one of procedure, the effect of
the decision is to make such provision binding on the City
Council, as well as on owners of property petitioning for
rezoning.
It is the opinion of the undersigned that situations have
and may again arise wherein the Council may wish, for a
variety of reasons, to reconsider certain petitions for
rezoning upon the Council*s own motion, and that the intent
of the provision in Section 67 prohibiting reconsideration
within one year should be made clearly restrictive only
upon owners of property and not upon the Council.
Accordingly, this office has drafted an amendment of the
general regulations contained in Section 67 of the City's
zoning ordinance which would further clarify what has
heretofore been understood to be the intent of the section,
a copy of which is transmitted herewith. It is respectfully
submitted that the Council might wish to initiate such
amendment upon its omu motion, aud refer the matter to the
City's Planning Commission for study, report and recommen-
dation.
Respectfully submitted,
S! H. Ben Jones, Jr.,
H. Ben Jones, Jr**
Assistant City Attorney*
Mr. Thomas moved that the report and draft of amendment 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: The City Planning Commission submitted a written report recom-
mending that the request of Mr. M. M. Quick that property located in the 4100
block of YJrginla Avenue, H. W,, described as part of Lot 9 and all of Lot 10,
Bloch 4, Hap of #est Park, Official Tax Ho. 2760223, be rezoned from RS-3,
Single-Pamily Residential District, to RD, Duplex Residential District, be
granted.
Mr. Trout moved that Council hold a public hearing on the request for
rezoning at 7:30 p,m., Monday, Hovember 27. 1972, in the Council Chamber. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: The City Planning Commission submitted a uritten report recom-
uending that the request of Ressrs. Roby J. Jarrett and Norman E, Jarrett and the
Jarrett Investment Corporation that property located on Mountain Avenue. S.
]described as Lot 12, the uestern one-half of Lot 13, the eastern one-half of
Lot 13. and Lot 14, Section 13. Lewis Addition, Official Tax Hos. 1020b13, 1020b14
!and 1020015. be rezoned from RG-2, General Residential District. to C-2, General
Commercial District, be 9ranted.
Mr. Trout moved that Council hold a public hearing on the request for
rezoning at 7:30 p.m.. Monday, November 27, 1972, in the Council Chamber. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
ZONIND: The City Planning Commission submitted a written report in
connection with the request of Reliance Universal, Incorporated, that property
described in a metes and bounds description. Official Tax No. 1520101. be rezoned
from HR. Deavy Manufacturing District. LM. Light Manufacturing District, RG-1,
~Ceneral Residential District. to HR. Heavy Manufacturing District. recommending
ithat the amended request that a strip Of land 120 feet long on Roanoke Avenue
and 3bO feet long on the railway right of way property be rezoned from LM and
RG-I, to Hq, and that the remainder of the parcel of land be rezoned from RCOI to
LM with the stipulation that the portion rezoned to NM. Ileavy Manufacturing
District. will be fenced for security and safety measures.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. D. Purnell Eggleston.
iAttorney, representing the petitioner, advising that his client is in accord
with the amended recommendation of the City Planning Commission was before Council.
Mr. Trout moved that Council hold a public hearing on the request for
rezoning at 7:30 p.m., Monday. November 27, 1972, in the Council Chamber. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Plannin9 Com-
mission for study, report and recommendation the request of the Trustees of the
~Garden City Baptist Church that streets known as goffett Street and David Street,
i!S. E., and an alley in the Garden City Subdivision of the City of Roanoke be
ilvacated, discontinued and closed, the City Planning Commission submitted a writ-
!!ten report recommending that the amended request that Moffatt Street and all of
~ David Street, S. E., and an alley in the Garden City Subdivision of the City of
Roanoke be vacated, discontinued and closed be granted.
465
'466
Mr. Trout eared th~Coanoil hold a public ~earing an the request at
7:30 p.m., Monday, November 27, 1972. In the Council Chamber, The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having referred to the City Planning Com-
mission for study, report and recommendation the request of E. H, Winner, Grace
M. ~lmmer, Alex-ffinmer Tire Service, lncorpornted, and Industrial and Hill
Suppliers, Incorporated, that that portion of an alley IS feet wide lying paral-
lel to South Jefferson Street running northerly from the northerly line of
Jhitmore Avenue at the southwesterly corner of Lot 11 to the terminus of the
alley and lying behind Lots 6 - 11, inclusive, Section 5, of the Pleasant Valley
Land Company Map. be vacated, discontinued and closed, the City Planning
Comuission submitted a written report recommending that the request be granted.
In this connection, a communication from Mr. J. O. Logan, Ili,
Attorney. representing the petitioners, advising tkat his clients are requesting
that action on tbe matter be deferred until an agreement can be reachnd wJtb the
Norfolk and Hestern Railway Company whereby the Railway Company will convey its
portion of the alley to his clients upon closing of said alley, was before Coun-
Rr. Trout moved that action on the alley closing be deferred pending
receipt of further notification from Rr. J. D. Logan. Ill. Attorney, representing
the petitioners. The motion was seconded by Hr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: The City Manager submitted the following copy
the City of Roanoke at the State Water Control Board meeting in Richmond,
Virginia, on ~eptember 19. 1972, advising that he has received a copy of Minute
12 which concerns tbe city*s appearance and he is submitting the following letter
in an attempt to comply witb the directives contained in that Minute in Direc-
tives I, IV, V and VI:
"October 20, 1972
Mr. A. ii, Poessler
Director
Bureau of Water Quality
P. O, Box 11143
Richmond, Virginia 23230
Dear UFo Paessler:
Reference is made to the appearance of the City of Roanoke
at the State Mater Control Board meeting in Richmond on
September 19. 1972. Me have received a copy of Minute 12
which concerns our appearance and we are submitting this
letter in an attempt to comply with the directives con-
tained Jn that Minute in Directives I, IV, V and VI.
Directive I
A. Progress in final plans submittal:
1. Contract A, G/vision I and Division II - Construction
of sludge lagoons and phosphorus removal facilities:
,!
Advertised on February 9o 1972; plans and specifica-
tions submitted for approval on February 15, 1972;
bida received on March 9, 1972; recelved _final .
approval from EPA to award contracts on October lO,
1972.
Contract B - Primary equipment: Plans and specifica-
tions submitted for approval on June 28, 1972; final
EPA approval to advertise received on September 29,
1972; advertised October 6, 1972; bids to be received
on October 30, 1972.
3.. Contract C - Primary facilities: Plans and specifica-
tions submitted for approval on August 17, 1972; as
of this date. these plans and specifications, to the
best of our knomledge, still have not received final
approval from the State Mater Control Hoard.
4. Contract D - 30 million gallon basin: Plans and
specifications were submitted for approval on Octo-
ber 10, 1972; these are still being reviewed by the
State agencies.
5. Contract E - 14 million gallon per day secondary
expansion and advanced waste treatment facilities
for 35 million gallons per day: Final plans and
specifications for this.contract are being prepared
and are to be submitted by November 6. 1972. to
the Health Department and the State Water Control
Doard for approval.
lnterJm program reassessment by the City:
Since July 1971, the City has made certain operational
changes together with some physical improvements in an
quality to the standards established by the State Mater
Control Hoard.
Me have been utilizin9 all of the raw sewage pumps to
their maximum capability in order to significantly reduce
the amount of bypassing from tho plant to the Roanoke
River. Mhile reducing the bypassing, the effect has
been. during periods of high flow, to overload the plant
both in flow and in HOD. suspended solids, and phosphorus
loadings. Consequently. the efficiency of the plant as
suspended solids, and phosphorus are in tho effluent
than had been expected. However. it should bo noted
that although the effluent concentrations were higher
during periods of high flows, that due to the reduction
in bypassing there was a significantly larger quantity
of sewage which was treated and that actually the total
BOD, suspended solids, and phosphorus discharged to the
River was significantly reduced over that.discharged
the previous year.
Fine bubble diffusers were installed in all of the ex/sting
aeration basins and these contributed 9really to the re-
duction which we experienced in HOD.
Additional sludge robes were installed in the secondary
settling basins and these contributed to our ability to
remove sludge from these basins more efficiently and
effectively.
The use of pickle liquor as the first stage of phos-
phorus removal nas instituted prior to having the per-
manent feed facilities constructed. This program is
still continuin9 and will of course continue until such
time as the permanent facilities are completed. The
phosphorus concentrations in the effluent has been
significantly reduced although we have been experiencing
problems in capturing the phosphorus precipitate.
The State Water Control Board and the Health Department
approved the use of 35 acres of farm land across the
River from the Sewage Treatment Plant for the disposal of
sludge by irrigation. This tremendously increased our
ability to remove solids from the plant system and
resulted in significant reductions in the suspended
solids concentration in the effluent.
467
'468
During the period of July .1970 through July 1971, the
average dully flow at the Semage Treatment Plant was
22,92 million gallons per day and final effluent BOD'
averaged 24 parts per million (4,360 pounds), suspended
solids averaged. 81 parts per million (15,606 pounds) and
phosphorus averaged 9 parts per million (1,297 pounds).
During the period from July 1971 to July 1972, the average
daily flow at the Sewage Treatment Plant was 24.90 mil-
lion gallons per day and the final effluent BOO averaged
15 parts per million (3,159 pounds per day), the suspended
solids averaged TI ports pet million (14,071 pounds per
day), and the phosphorus averaged 8 parts per million
(1.488 pounds per day).
During the period of July 1972 through mid-September
1972, the average daily flow at the Sewage Treatment
Plant was 23.33 million gallons per day and the final
effluent BOO average O parts per million (1,554 pounds
per day). the suspended solids averaged 26 parts per
million (5.231 pounds per day), and the phosphorus
averaged 3 parts per million (568 pounds per day).
The month of August 1972 was the first month during .
which me were consistently able to simultaneously control
the BOD, suspended solids, and phosphorus. The. averages
for that month based on 23.73 million gallons per day
average flow were BOD 4.9 parts per million (9B5 pounds
per day), suspended solids 24 parts per million (4,777
pounds per day), and phosphorus 1.3 parts per million
(272 pounds per day).
The data for the month of September 1972 is higher than
August 1972 and it represents the problems associated
mlth not being able to operate continuously in the
desired maooer. During the second week of that month it
was discovered that the chlorine contact chamber had
become contaminated with debris during the flood which
occurred in June 1972. The basin had to be taken out of
service for approximately 12 hours but the combination of
the buildup of solids in the basle and the loss of the
use of this basin for just that short period of time
actually effected the plant efficiency for a period of
several weeks.
During the second week of October 1972 one of the air
blower engines experienced a mechanical breakdown of such
magnitude that we have decided to replace the engine in
its entirety. ~e first investigated the possibility of
repairing this engine and found that the time required to
repair the engine was the same as the time required to
obtain the new engine. This breakdown will severely
hamper our ability to consistently control our BOD in the
effluent until such time as we can place the new engine
back on line.
of the major expansion of the facility and will be accon-
C. Recomnendatt)ns from the City Council and its engineers as
to what specific steps will he tahen to expedite comple-
tion of the interim plan sad minimize further delay nJtb
respect to the interim and long range programs:
I believe that the statements under A and B above fairly
nell describe the status of the program to date. Assum-
ing the prompt review and approval of the plans and speci-
fications for the secondary and advanced waste treatment
portions of this facility by both the State agencies and
EPA and that a grant Ofter is to be £orthconlng in the
very near future, ue can anticipate no delays with respect
to implementing the remainder of the program. Ne believe
that the contract construction times specified in the
plans and specifications are the shortest times which
can reasonably and practically be met.
Contract C - Primary facilities, provides for the work to be
'469
470
p[rective V ~
Revlem of functional drawings by the State Water Control
Rourd and the Health Department:
Representatives or the City met with representatives of the
State Wate~ Control Doard start end the BeslthDepartment
staff on September 29, 19?2, and October 6; 1972. for'the
purpose of revlemJng these functional drumlngs in un attempt
to resolve any questions which might arise prior to the
actual submission of the final plans and specifications.
Rany questions were asked and discussed and hopefully
answered satisfactorily. We have conferred uJth our consulting
engineers on these questions and believe that all items dis-
cussed or questioned are satisfactory or are being satis-
fied in the preparation of the final plans. We are. however,
anticipating receiving from the State Water Control Board a
listing of these various questions as brought up by members
of the Hoard's staff and the Health Department staff.
We appreciate very much the fact that you have revised some-
what your normal procedures for the review of these plans in
order that we might expedite this phase as much as possible.
We realize that this pFocedure nay be unusual but we are of
the opinion that our facility is unique and it must be
operational within a very short period of time and that these
unusual procedures are justified.
Directive VI
CeFtification by the City Council and by AIvord. Hurdick and
Rowson that the plans and specifications for the secondary
expansion and the advanced waste treatment facilities will
be filed with the State Water Control Board no later than
November 6. 1972.
Ne have held many discussions with our consultants since the
meeting of the State Nater Control Board on September 19.
1972. These discussions culminated in a conference call on
October 11. 1972. 7his call involved the City's Sewer Com-
mittee composed of Councilman Thomas. Councilman Bubardo
Assistant City Reneger William Clark. City Engineer Sam
RcGhee and the wFiter with Mr. Howson and Mr. Eckmann of
Alvord. BuFdick and Howson. The result of this conference
call was the submittal by Alvord. Burdick and Howson of a
letter of ceFtificatJon dated October 12, 1972, and the passing
of a City Council resolution on OctobeF 16, 1972, both certi-
fying that the plans and specifications for this phase of the
plant development would be filed by November 6, 1972. The
letter of certification and the City Council resolution have
been transmitted to you by separate letter.
Me would appreciate your consideration of this information
in the preparation of the staff recommendations on the matter
of whether or not Requirement Number One should be lifted
and also on the matter of approval of the project construction
schedules. As expressed at the hearing before the Hoard on
September 19, 1972, the City does recommend and encourage
relief from Requirement Number One.
Additionally. it is recommended that consideration be
given to a revision in the effluent standards now required
of the City. Ne mould recommend those requirements submitted
at the State Water ContFol BoaFd meeting September al. 1971,
in the repoFt entitled 'Report on Sewage Treatment for
Roanoke, Virginia,' dated September 1, 1971, as prepared by
AIvoFd, Durdick and Bowson. consulting engineers (Pages 1
and 2 of that report). It ts our considered judgment based on
valid experience to date that those standards are more readily
obtainable and more feasible under the conditions of the pre-
sent physical facilities of the plant. It is suggested that
even with these standards there can be no absolute guarantee
that they can be met on a consistent basis but the perfor-
mance goals would be at a more practical level. In connec-
tion with this matter of revising effluent standards and the
relation of them to present plant capability, your attention
is invited to statements previously submitted by the City
to the staff as made by Alvord, Hurdick and Howson. consult-
ing engineers. Roy F. Weston, Inc.. environmental consultants.
and the Cincinnati Field Investigation CenteF and the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
Hopefully. me hove answered all of the questions asked of us
in the directives. The majority of this information is not
new and has been previously submitted but perhaps it has
never been compiled into one document as it has here. Me
mo~ld like to reconfirm our committment to this program and
our desire to see it successfally completed and in opera-
If me can provide any additional information or if you bare
additional questions, do not hesitate to let us know. Me
mould be most happy to meet mith you again prior to the sub-
mittal of your recommendations to the Board on October
you mould like for us to do se.
Yours truly,
S/ Julian F. HJrst mfc
Julian r. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the communication from the City
Uanager to Mr. Paessler and that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
iproper measure concurring in said communication. The motion mas secooded by Mr.
:~Lisk and unanimously adopted.
Later during the meeting. Mr. Thomas offered the following Resolution
tcencurring in a mritten report of the Council*s Sewer Committee through the City
Manager made October 20, 1972, to the Staff of the State Mater Control Board
i~relatire to semage treatment matters and requesting that the sewer connection ban
=!imposed by said Board on the city and others on March 17. 1972. be'removed:
(=20511) A RESOLLr~ION concurring iff a mritten, report of the Council*s
Sewer Committee through the City Manager made October 20, 1972, to the Staff of
itbe State Mater Control Board relative to sewage treatment matters; and request-
,iug that the sewer connection ban imposed by said Board on the City and others
:on March 17, 1972, be removed.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book #37, page 209.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The notion was seconde~
i!by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
ii AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
!iMebber ..........................
~ NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Ilubard absent)
Mr. Thomas further moved that Resolution No. 20511 be delivered by the
';iCily Attorney to the State Mater Control Board mith a letter Of transmittal from
i'the Mayor of the City Of Roanoke. The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and ueani=
!jmously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
F/RE DEPARTMENT: Council, at its meeting off Monday, October 9, 1972,
having deferred action on a report from a committee ia connection With the
~locationa of the proposed northwest and southwest fire stations, advising that
!Council previously approved an application to the Federal Aviation Administration
ifor grant participation in the construction cost of the northwest fire station.
that the committee is amaiting tentative grant approval by the FAA mud that the
471
committee feels it has been generally understood over m period of time that this
station will be situated on the Airport property near the airport road leading
off Hershberger Rand nnd recommending that the sonthwest fire stntion be situated
in the southwest corner of the intersection of Overland Road nnd Colonial Avenue,
the matter was again before the body.
In this connection, Mr. Jach H. Coulter, Attorney, representing certain
residents of Overland Road and patrons of Fishburn Path Elementary School and
James Madison Junior High School, appeared before Council and presented the fol-
lowing communication calling attention to certain points and observations and
transmitting specific objections to the proposed site of the southwest fire
station:
"October lg,
The Honorable Roy L, Webber, Rayor
and Members of City Council
Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I am writing on behalf of certain residents of Overland
Road and patrons of Fishburn Park Elementary School and James
Madison Junior High School to voice their protests to the pro-
posed location of the Southwest Fire Station at the southwest
corner of the intersection of Overland Road and Colonial
Avenue. It Js my understanding that this matter was before
City Council at its meeting of October 9, 1972, and was
carried over for further consideration at its meeting on
October 23.
Mefore enumerating the objections to the site now pro-
posed, may I respectfully invite your attention to the fol-
lowing points and observations:
1. The most recent Committee Report of October 9, 19T2,
suggest that *the public school system directly reflect its
opinion.' It is my understanding that. although the School
Board has not voted officially, the general consensus at its
executive session a number of months ago was strongly against
the proposed location. It would appear to me that the
cial position of the School Board should be actually solicited
on this matter.
2. Similarly. since Parks and Recreation are at least
indirectly affected, should not the opinion of this department
he obtained? Furthermore. since City Planning and Lamd Use
are clearly involved, should not the recommendations or opinions
of the City Planning Commission he sought?
3. The original Citizens Committee Report of August 1.
lgbg, included the recommendation that *the land owned by the
City*s Water Department along Colonial Avenue (had) excellent
potential for the location of this facility** It may be argued
that the Water Department site WaS attractive because of the
prospects of annexation; but. if this be'true, then it'was that
same prospect which justified including the project in the
lgb7 Bond Issue in the first place. What I am suggesting is
this: If the Water Department site is no longer attractive
because of the lack of annexation, then what does that do to
the original justification?
4. Rhat professional studies have been made toward
simply relocating the Vir§inia Heights Station in l~u of a
third station for southwest? There is presently an overlap
of area served by this station and a new station located near
the educational complex along Colonial Avenue would be just
as far away from the Rosalind Mills Section, forinstance,
as the presently-located Virginia Weights Station. To what
extent, in other words, has the report 'FIRE STATIONS: A
LONG-RANGE DEVELOPMENT PLAN* dated October, Ig63, been pro-
fessionally updated?
5.' Cost of site acquisition, mhich apparently influenced
the recent Committee in its report or October 9, lg?2, was
originally included in the 1967 Bond Issue Prospectus and sub-
sequent Capital Improvement Progress Reports, Bence, the fact
that land would have to be purchased, and not taken away from
existing school and park properties, was within the original
contemplation of the project.
As to the specific objections to the proposed site on tee
Flshburn School property, I respectfully submit the following:
1. The expansion of Fishbnrn Park Elementary School to
double its present capacity is now contemplated. To take away
tug acres of the area now assigned to it--and the only rela-
tively level area for playground activities--will jeopardize
the maximum use of this property for school and recreational
purposes.
2. The academic-educational comples of this general
area, including a grade school, a Junior high school, an
expanding community college, an educational television
facility, and a new church, is a matter of considerable
pride to the City. This area is probably already overcrowded,
but the aesthetic beauty and utilitarian function of this
complex should not be sacrificed nor compromised.
3. The traffic congestion, aggravated by school
buses, school children of tender years, lack of sidewalk~.
etc., particularly at the intersection of Overland Road and
Colonial Avenue, does not qualify the area as a prime loca-
tion for a fire station.
4. The property values of the residents along Overland
Road. who relied on the prime residential aonia9 of this
area, Mill be adversely affected by this proposed location
for a fire station which, according to the recommendations '
of the National Board of Fire Undermriters, should be located
'in relatively high population densities or...commercial areas.'
The entire area is now zoned RS-2.
For these reasons, therefore, we respectfully oppose
the proposed location of a fire station on school property
and request permission to be heard on the matter at the forth-
coming meeting of Council on Monday, October 23, 1972.
Respectfully,
S/ Jack B, Coulter
Jack B. Coulter"
Mr. Coulter further pointed out that the fire station will jeopardize
lithe proposed expansion of Fishburn Park Elementary School and the beauty and
illntegrity of the educational comples, that certain locations in Shrine Park or
Raleigh Court Park would be more feasible and expressed the opinion that Council
'ishould confer with the Roanoke City School Board and officials of Virginia
Western Community College prior to making any final decisions on the matter.
Mr. Coulter also presented petitions signed by members of the Faculty
!~of the Fishburn Park Elementary School, the James Madison Junior High School,
members of the Parent-Teacher Associations of said schools, residents in proximity
!to said schools near the intersection of Colonial Avenue and Overland Road, S.
and citizens interested in ,the best operation of the Roanoke City Schools, peti-
tioning city officials to prohibit the construction of the proposed fire station
~in the area known and commonly referred to as "Fishburn Park,' since such a fire
station will infringe upon the recreational facilities in connection with said
schools and park, and it is their opinion that it will be a serious detraction to
ithe orderly operation of said schools, particularly the Fishbnrn Park Elementary
School. and requesting that the proposed fire station be erected in a more appro-
ilpriate location.
473
'474
With reference to the matter, n communication framers, ~. C, Horgsn0
President. James Wadi~on PTA. objecting to tbs location of the southmest fire
station for the following ~'ur reasons, was before Council:
1. It would create an enormous hazard to vehicular traffic.
2, It mould be daogerouz to student pedeatrfsas of kfndergarten through
college age,
3. It would not permit sufficient space for the needed expansion of
Pishburn Park Elementary School,
4. It is not in keeping mith this area as an educational comples,
the only one of its kind in Roanoke. (Where else do yea have
an elementary school, an intermediate school, a c~mmunity college
and an educational television center?)
With further reference to the matter, a communication from Mr. Thomas
O. Broker calling attention to the traffic congestion mhich already exists in
the area and pointing out that the construction of the southwest fire station in
this location mill only ~enerat~ mere trntfJc.
After a lengthy discussion of the matter, Hr. Trout moved that Mayor
Webber be requested to appoint a three man committee of Councilmen to review and
evaluate the situation.
The motion failed for lack of o second.
Rt. LJsh then moved that the matter be referred back to the committee
to explore the concept of the proposed location of the southwest fire station at
the sourthwest corner of the intersection of Overland Road and Colonial Avenue,
S. W., with the Roanoke City School Hoard. officials of Virginia ~estern Con-
munity College and the State Fire Harshall. taking into consideration certain
points made by Mr. Jack H. Coulter. and that the committee be directed to submit
its report and recommendations to Council by the regular meeting of the body on
Honday. November 6. lg72. or the regular meetin9 on Monday. November 13. 1972.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
AMbULANCES-ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL HEALTH SERVICES PLANNING COUNCIL.
INCORPORATED: Council having referred to the City Manager und to the City
Attorney for study, report and recommendation u comnnnication from Mr. Byron
tlicks, Presldneto Roanoke Valley Regional Health Servlces Planning Council.
corporated, advising that by Resolution No. 20307, Council acknowledged the
Emergency Hedical Services Plon developed by a Study Group of the Health Services
Plonning Council. thet two of the nost important recommendations in that plan
mas that locol governments should develop and pass Ordinances governing emergency
ambulance operations in their jurisdictions and that n broadly representative
Emergency Red/col Services Council should be duly recognized by local governments
which would serve as an advisory group to governments and the community in all
matters pertaining to emergency medical services delivery, transmitting a somple
Ordinance mhich the Health Planning Council's study group is recommending to local
governments and o list of proposed members for the Emergency gedlcal Services
Council mhich ~ill be staffed by the Health Planning Council and encouraging
affirmative action by Council us soon as possible in approving un Ordinance and
in recognizing the Emergency Medical Services Council membership, the matter
mas again before the body.
In this connection, the City Manager submitted the following report
with regard to certain regulations which should apply to the operation of aubu-
hates mithin the City of Roanoke, advising that the overall intent and objective
of such an Ordinance has merit and transmitting specific comments with respect
'to such an Ordinance:
~0ctober 23,
Ronorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Ambulance Ordinance
Pursuant to City Council*s referral to me for report and
recommendation on the proposed ordinance which would apply
certain regulations to the Operation of ambulances within
the City of Roanoke. I advise as follows.
The overall intent and objective of such an ordinance has
merit. The folloming specific comments are with respect to the
document itself which has been before you and is included in
your agenda for this date.
1. Section 3 a. Revise to read:
'The name and address of the applicant, and in the
event that the applicant be a corporation, a certi-
fied copy of the articles of incorporation.
2. Section 3 b. Suggest revision to generally read:
'The number of vehicles actually owned and the number
of vehicles actually operated by such applicant on
the date of such application, or the number of
vehicles to be owned and to be operated by such appli-
cant in the event of the granting of this certificate.
If the applicant owns and/or operates ambulance
vehicles in areas or locations beyond the City of
Roanoke or proposes to ~on and/or operate ambulance
vehicles in areas or locations beyond the limits
of the City of Roanoke, then the applicant shall
advise in detail as to the assignment of all such
vehicles owned or proposed to be Owned as to geo-
graphical areas of service.
3. Section 3 c. Suggest to be revised generally to read:
*The make. type. year of manufacture, serial number
for each ambulance owned or operated, or, if known.
proposed to be owned or operated by the applicant.*
4. It is suggested that provision be made within the
ordinance that the certificate holder ut all times
maintain with the City a current list of vehicles
with their appropriate descriptions. Possibly the
best location for such a listing Mould be on file with
the Department of Inspections.
5. Section 4. Mhile not disagreeing with the role to be
played by the Emergency Medical .Services Council, I
feel that some thought should be given to the speci-
fic responsibilities assigned to this body. A
suggestion is that instead of the City Council *will
refer the request to' the EM$C that the City Council
invite the recommendations of the EMSC.
6. Section 4. It wouldappear that instead of t'he certain
numbered items mhich the EMSC would consider and inves-
tigate that these items should be a part of the appli-
cant*s submission to the City Council. I refer parti-
cularly to: 3.) the financial responsibility and
experience of the applicant; and 4.) the need for
additional service.
476
7. Section 4. It is suggested that tS.) the ability of
existing holders of a certificate to provide any necessary
additional service* be deleted.
8. Section 5.b. Suggest a rewrite to read substantially as
follows:
*The applicant shall state in mriting th'at the ambulance
or ambulances proposed to be operated under said certifi-
cate shall be in full compliance with reales, regulations
and procedures of the Virginia State Department of Health
(Sections 32-310,1 to 32-310.8 of the lgSO Code Of Virginia
as the same may be from time to time amended) and shall be
approved by the Department for operation in the State of
Virginia. Prior to the commencement of operation of any
ambulance or ambulances uoder a granted certificate, the
applicant or certificate holder shall give evidence to the
City of the above compliance and approval and shall maintain
such compliance and approval during the term of the opera-
tion of any ambulance vehicle under a granted certificate.*
9. Section 6o There mould appear to be some question as to
the term of a certificate being for a period of one year.
Considering the capital investment of equipment, it would
seem questionable that an operator might be able to inau-
gurate o business o~ only a one-year certificate. Quite
possibly this term should be extended or perhaps there
may not be a necessity for a term but that the certificate
continue as long as service is satisfactory. This section
does not state as to what would be the handling upon the
expiration of a stated term. That is to say whether an
application for renewal would be necessary as the procedure,
10. Section 7. It is questioned as to whether the ordinance
should specify that an owner in business on June 2§. 1960,
has thereby the right to be *entitled to a certificate.*
It would seem more appropriate that a date he set for
receipt of the initial certificates and that any owner or
owners in business would subject himself OF themselves
to the application process.
11. Section 8, Suggest a rewrite of subparagraph two to
read generally as folloms:
'is operated from a location or headquarters outside the
City and is engaged in the transportation of a patient
from a point beyond the limits of the City to a location
within the City or is engaged in the transportation of a
patient through the City or is engaged in the transpor-
tation of a patient from a location mithin the City to a
location outside of the City but no owner operator or
ambulance performing services as set forth in this
section shall routinely or with regularity transport
patients from within the City to other locations within
the City unless such owner or operator shall hold a
valid certificate of public convenience and necessity
issued under the provisions of this ordinance.
12, Section 9. Suggest that in the second line the words
"an operator' be substituted with *one or more operators.'
13. Section 10 - 2. The wording of this paragraph should be
viewed very carefully to be certain that a person who
does not catually require such a vehicle, is not subject
to prosecution. There further should be certainty that
this paragraph does not place upon the person sunmonsing
the ambulance the burden of determining whether or not
an ambulance is needed.
14. This ordinance does mot go into the matter of cost of
service or rates. Consideration should be given to the
question of whether or not such a factor should be intro-
duced into the ordinance with the idea of advantages
or disadvantages of protecting the public from the situa-
tion of a single operator being able to achieve a certi-
ficate, having a monopoly on the rate structure and being
able. by a scope of service, to limit the possibiIities
of one or more other firms obtaining a certificate.
IS. Section 9 states ia part that 'the City of Roanoke shall
have the right ,.. to provide economic assistance to
said operator for calls deeued uncollectable.' It is
gathered that this applies to the operator or operators
with whom the City way have a contract, although this is
not fully clear, Among several other points that might
be raised In connection with this reference is the fact
that this would open the situation to wherein the City
could be obligated to assume responsibility for all of
those ambulance calls which maybe rejected by medicare
and medicaid os not covered items under their programs.
This mould mean that the City would be underwriting certain
cases that the federal end state would consider to be
ineligible for payment. This particular item of economic
assistance additionally refers bach to the question of
the rate structure and whether the City would have control
over these costs.
I submit the above Items in some detail and would be glad
to disucss them further with Council or otherwise as Mould be
appropriate.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian Fo Nirst
Julian F, Hirst
City Manager"
Mith reference to the matter, the City Manager verbally requested that
Council take the question of adoption of an anbulance Ordinance under considera-
tion until he can confer with the City Attorney on certain wording to be included
in the proposed Ordinance.
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the verbal request of the City
Manager and that action on the question of adoption of an ambulance Ordinance be
deferred until the regular meeting of Council on Monday, November 6, 1972. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
AIRPORT: Ordinance No. 20502, authorizing the execution of a lease
between the City of Roanoke and the United States of America for certain space in
the Terminal Building at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport, 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:
(a20502) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the execution of a lease between
the City of Roanoke and the United States of America for certain space in the
Terminal Building at the Roanoke Municipal Airport. upon certaio terms and condi-
tions.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book aa?. page 202.)
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 and Mayor
· ebber .......................... 6.
NAYS: None ........... O. (Mr. Hubard absent)
477
478
SALE OF PROPERTY: Ordinance No. 20504. authorizing and prov.lding for
the Clty*s sale and conveyance to Mr. and Mrs. R, £~uard Mitchell of a parcel
of land containing 3,925 square feet, m~te or less, and release of an easement
situate adjacent to the property lines of Lots 10 a~d 11. as shown on the map of
Block 1, Ogden Rills, in the County of Roanoke, and being a portion of the pro-
perties and rights acquired by the city from the Cave Spring Mater Company. upon
certain terms and conditions, having previously been before Council for its first
reading, read and laid over, was again befor~ the body. Mr. Garland offering the
following for its second reading and final adoption:
(z20504) AN ORDINANCE authorizing and providing for the City*s sale
and conveyance of a parcel of land containing 3,925 square fqe~, more Or less,
and release of the City's rights to certain easements in Lots 10 and 11, as shown
on the map of Block 1, Ogden Mills, in the County of Roanoke, and being a portion
of the properties and rights acquired by the City iron the Valley Mater Company,
upon certain terms and conditions.
(For full text Of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book #37, page 204.)
Mr, Garland 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 and Mayor Webber--6.
NAYS: None ...........................................................O.
(Mr. Rubard absent)
BUDGET-AIRPORT: Council having directed the City Attorney to prepare
the proper measure relating to certain additional accounting procedures to be
employed in the financial operation and control of the Roanoke Municipal (Noodrum)
Airport, a department of the city, he presented same; whereupon. Mr. Trout
offered the following Resolution:
(#20512) A RESOLUTION relating to certain additional accounting pro-
cedures to be employed in the financial operation and control of the Roanoke
Municipal Airport, a department of the City.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book 337, page 210.)
Mr. 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 and Mayor Webber--6.
NAYS: None .......................................................... O.
(Mr. Hubard absent)
ROANOKE VALLEY: Dr. Taylor offered the following emergency Ordinance
ratifying, approving and ~onfirming the award of certain purchase order contracts
by the City Manager to Branch and Associates, Incorporated, for the cleanup of
debris along the streams in the city tributary to Roanoke River, in the sum of
$29,950.00, and to Powers Fence Company of Roanoke, Incorporated, for the repair
and replacement of various fencing on or around publicly owned properties in the
city along Roanoke River and streams tributary thereto, in the sum of $1b,092.00,
to meet emergency situations created in the city by Rurricane Agnes:
(~20513) AN ORDINANCE ratifying, approving and confirming the award of
certain purchase order contracts by the City Manager to meet emergency sit;ations
{I
{I
created in the City by Hurricane Agnes and the ensuing flood in June, 1972; and
providing for an emergency.
'(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Hook a37. page 211.)
Dr. Taylor moved the adoption or the Ordinance. The motion was seconded
Iby Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
~.Mebber ..........................
i NAYS: None ...........O. (Mr. Ilubard absent)
SEWERS AND b~fOgM DRAINS: Council having directed the City Attorney to
;prepare the proper measure ratifying and approving work heretofore completed by
Alvord, 6urdick ~ Homson, Consulting Engineers, relative to the city's Sewage
Treatment Plant, and authorizing and directing said engineers to proceed with and
i
complete the preparation of pains and specifications for construction of advanced
waste treatment facilities at said treatment plant, he presented same; whereupon,
Mr. Thomas offered the followin9 Resolution:
(c20514) A RESOLUTION ratifyin9 and approving work heretofore com-
pleted by Alvord. Burdick ~ Ilomson. Engineers, relative to the City*s Sewage
Treatment Plant. end authorizing and directing said engineers to proceed with
and complete the preparation of plans and specifications for construction of
advanced waste treatment facilities at said treatment plant.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Hook #37, page 212.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Trout and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Lisk, Taylor, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber .................
NAYS: None--O. (Mr. Hubard absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
BONDS-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-SCHOOLS: Mr. C. B. Mood, 1920
ilRiverdale Road, S. E.. appeared before Council and requested that Council arranoe
to have a meeting with southeast residents to discuss the status of items which
i were included in the 1967 bond referendum but have not been accomplished as yet
~and to discuss the location of the new elementary school in southeast Roanoke.
Mr. Garland moved that Mr. Lisk, Chairman of the 1972 Hand Program
Speaker Hureau, be requested to arrange a meeting with.southeast residents to
idiscuss questions concerning the bond issue. The motion was seconded by Mr.
iThomas and unanimously adopted.
STATE HIGHMAYS-SEMAGE TREATMENT PLANT: Mr. Charles R. Merkel, President,
Riverdale Civic League, appeared before Council and requested information on the
status of the Route 115 - 116 Highway ProJect with regard to the seventy-two foot
setback at the Sewage Treatment Plant.
479
480
The City Manager advised that he has not discussed the matter with the
State Highway Department as yet but will be talking with then within the next day
or two and will advise Mr. Merkel us to the contents of'the conversation.
BUILDINGS-HOUSInG-SLUM CLEARANCE: Vice Mayor Llsk presented a petition
signed by seventeen residents of Edgerton Avenue, S. E., and 16th Street, S. E..
requesting that a building located at 1552 Edgerton Avenue~ S. E., be condemned
and razed as soon as possible.
Hr. LlSh then moved that the matter be referred to the City Manager for
investigation and report to Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
TRAFFIC: Vice Mayor Lisk presented a communication from Mr. Charles
R. Merkel, President of the Riverdale Civic League, calling attention to a
drastic situation mhich exists at Riverland Road and gth Street, S. E., at the
Roanoke Industrial Center, advising that traffic is backed up at various times of
the day and creates not only n problem for the community but for the Industrial
Center and advising that in View of the drive for the new bond issue on
November 7, lg?2. it behooves the city to alleviate this problem.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the matter be referred to the City Hanager for
study, report and recommendation to Council. The motion was seconded by Rr.
Garland and unanimously adopted.
BONDS-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAR-SCHOOLS: Vice Mayor Lisk moved that
Mr. G. Frank Clement, Mr. Robert A. Garland. Mr. Milliam S. Hubard. Dr. Noel C.
Taylor. Mr. Hampton M. Thomas, Mr. James O. Trout, Mr. Samuel P. McNeil, Dr.
Roffett H. Bowman, Dr. Wendell H. Butler. Rt. #illiam C. P~ttman. Mr. Herman H.
Pevler. Rt. Charles E. Morris. Jr., Mr. T. T. Moore, Rro Warner* N. Dalhouse.
Reverend John O. Atkins. Rrs. Ralph R. Bowles, Dr. Leo Platt, Mr. Robert M.
Woody. Mr. John J. Dutler, Rt. #. Dolling Izard, Mr. Rilliam E. Majors, Mr.
Edwin L. Phillips, Rt. James E. Jones. Mr. Robert L. Lynn, Hr. Rarcus fi. Raplan.
Mr. Roy E. Elliott. Mr. Samuel H. Stuart. Rrs. W. S. Kitchen. Mr. Raymond L. Hall,;
Rr. A. A. Akers, Reverend A. H. Edwards. Mr. Joe K. Ingram. Reverend Metz T.
Coker. Miss Eunice Poindexter, Mr. Charles R. Merkel. Reverend Calvin H. Fulton,
Mr. #illiam C. Thomas, Mr. Richard F. Pence, Rt. John H. Locke, Mr. David R.
Goode, and Mr. Thomas E. Dickerson be officially appointed as members of the
Citizens' Advisory Committee for the Bond Referendum and that Mr. G. Frank Clement
be appointed as Chairman of said commi}tee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout
and unanimously adopted.
HOUSING-SLUM CLEARANCE: Dr. Taylor presented the following communica-
tion transmitting supportive material and a proposed Ordinance in connection with
the consideration Of a ~o~s~no Availability Ordinance Mhich will assure an
equal opportunity for all to purchase or rent adequate housing facilities of their
choice without regard to race, color, religion or national origin, requesting that
the members of Council, the City Attorney and the City Manager study the proposed
Ordinance and that the matter be placed on the agenda of Council for Monday,
November 6. 1972. along with any additions, deletions or correcdons which are
deemed necessary:
"October lB, 1972
The Honorable Mayor Roy L. Nebber
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Municipal Huilding
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
I wish to recommend your consideration of a HQusin~
Availability Ordinance which will assure every individual
cooperation, partnership, etc., an equal opportunity to pur-
chase or rent adequate housing facilities of their choice
without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin.
The United States has led the =odero world Ju new concepts
of democratic government and in new systems for the manu-
facturing and distribution of goods. Now, America is challeng-
ed with the task of getting different people to live together
as equals.
Some believe that integration in housing will take
several generations, and others feel that racial integration
in housing will never be achieved. However. I personally
muaities in a discriminating fashion as was the situation for
so many years. In good public management, the inequities that
have long existed are replaced by a system that is fair to
all the people and we kno~ that open housing is not only fair;
it is right.
Today, in some instances, we still find 'two societies.
almost everything bas been said and nothing done. Now,
the tine has come for good wishes and pious platitudes to
Council, the City Attorney. and the City Uanager will care-
fully study the proposed Housing Availability Ordinance which
I am aubmitting today for the period of two weeks. I further
suggest that this matter will be placed on the regular Council
cil will give adequate consideration to the same. I, finally.
suggest that the provisions of the Housing Availability Ordi-
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Noel C. Taylor
Noel C. Taylor"
City Attorney and the Roanoke Valley Board of Realtors for study with the under-
will be welcomed and considered at the regular meeting of Council on Monday,
Norenber 6, 1972. The motion was seconded by Ur. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ROUSING-SLIJU CLEARANCE: The City Clerk reported that Messrs. C. Fred
Manqus. Edwin L. Phillips and Nilliam E. Majors have qualified as Commissioners
Of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for terms of four years
each ending August 31, 197b.
Mr. Thomas moved that ~he report be received and filed, The motion mas
seconded by Mr, Llsk nnd unanimously adopted.
There being no furthcr business, Mayor Webber declared the meeting
adJonrned,
Ap'PRO.¥ED
ATTEST:
:Deputy City Clerk Mayor
COUNCIL. REGULAR MEETING,
Monday, October 30, 1972.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular meeting in the Coun-
cil Chamber in the Municipal Huilding, Monday; October 30, 19T2. at 7:30 p.m.o
the regular meeting hour, with Mayor Roy L. Mebber presiding.
PRESENT: Councilmen Robert A. Garland, Mllliam S. Hubard, David K.
Lisk, Hampton M. Thomas, James O. Trout and Mayor Roy L. lebber ............ 6.
ABSENT: Councilman Noel C. Taylor ...............................1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mr. Julian F. Hirst, City RanaRer; Mr. Milliam F.
Clark. Assistant City Manager; Mr. James N. Kincnnon. City Attorney; and Mr.
A. N. Gibson. City Auditor.
INVOCATION: The meeting was opened with a prayer by the Reverend
Milliam L. Vann, 111, Associate Pastor, Memorial United Rethodist Church.
MINUTES: Copies of the minutes of the special meeting held on September
28, 1972; the regular meeting held on October 5, 1972; the regular meeting held
on October 9. 1972; and the regular meeting held on October 15, 1972. having been
furnished each member of Council, on motion of Mr. Trout, seconded by Mr. Lisk
approved as recorded.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids
on Contract B. Primary Equipment, at the Sewage Treatment Plant, said proposals
to be received by the City Clerk until ?:30 p.m., Monday, October 30, 1972, and
to be opened at that hour before Council. Mayor Webber asked if anyone had any
questions about the advertisement and no representative present raising any ques-
tion. the Mayor instructed the City Clerk to proceed with the opening of the
bids; whereupon, the City Clerk opened and read the follosing bids:
Item III Item IV
Primary Raw
Item I Item II Settlin9 Sewage
Comminutin9 Grit Basin Basin Pumping
Eauioment E~ui~ment Eauivment Eouioment
$27,655.00
$68,337.00
$230,800.00
Bidder
Herr-Oliver.
Incorporated
Rex Chainbelt,
Incorporated
Colt Industries,
Incorporated,
Fairbanks Morse
Pump Division
North American
Engines Company.
Incorporated - $275,000.00
Mr. Thomas moved that the bids he 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
or recommendations of the committee. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
unanimously adopted.
483
Mayor Nebber then appointed Messrs. Julian F. Hirst, Chairman, ~llllam
F. Clar~, Saeael H. HcGhee, III, Hampton No Thomas. D, E. Eckmann and L. R,
Howson as members of the committee.
SCHOOLS: Council having set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m.. Monday.
October 30, 1972, on the request of YJrginla Yestern Community College to lense
airspace, upon certain terms and conditions, over the right of may of Colonial
Avenue, S. N., in th~ City of Roanoke, for a term of sixty years for the con-
str~ction of a building that would Join the campuses of said College situate
on either side of Colonial Avenue, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the Assistant City Attorney submitted the following
report advising that the notice prepared by his office was published only one
time in the newspaper, as is the usual practice in the city's advertising pro-.
cedures: however, it is necessary under the lam applicable to lease of airspace
over streets that notice of such a public hearing be published once a week for
two successive weeks and that the hearia9 be held not less than five days but
not more than twenty-one days after final publication, that the state law further
provides that prior to any lease of airspace over public streets, it is necessary
to have the written consent of the State Ilighway Commissioner to such leasing,
that as of this time, such conscnt has not been received, pointing out that his
office has prepared an additional notice to be published in a local newspaper
and would set the public hearing for 7:30 p,m., Monday, November 27, 1972, and at
that time he would expect to have received notice from the State Highway Com-
missiocer on the proposal:
'October 30. 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Oo Monday. September 11, 1972, the Couueil set a public hear-
ing for 7:30 p.m., Mocday, October 30, lg72, on the question
of leasing airspace aver Calanial Avenue. S. W., to Virginia
Mestern Community College for the construction of a building
that would join the campuses Of said college.
The notice prepared by this office was published only one
time in the neaspaper, as is the usual practice in the City's
advertising procedures: however, it is necessary under the lam
applicable to lease of airspace over streets that notice of
such a public hearing be published once a week for two suc-
cessive weeks and that the hearing be beid not less than
five days but not more than twenty-one days after final pub-
lication. The state law further provides that prior to any lease
of airspace over public streets, it is necessary to have the
written consent of the State Highway Commissioner to such .
leasing. As of this time, such consent has not been received.
This office has, therefore, prepared an additional notice to
he published in a local newspaper which would set the public
hearing for 7:30 p.m., on Monday. November 27, 1972. At
that tine, we would expect to have received notice from the
State Highmay Commissioner on the proposal. Accordingly. it
is respectfully recommended that Council reschedule said
public heariug for the above mentioned time.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Edward A. Natt
Edward A. Natt,
Assistant City Attorney'
It appearing that various members of Council will be attending the
National Lengne of Cities Convention in Indlnnnpolf$, Indiana, during the went of
November 27, 1972, Hr. Thomas moved that Council hold a public hearing on leasing
said air rights at 2 p.m., Monday, December 4, 1972, in the Council Chamber. The
motion was seconded by Hr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
Also with reference to the matter, Mr. Link moved that the City Attor-
ney be directed to prepare the proper measure requesting the consent of the State
Highway Commissioner for leasing said airspace over Colonial Avenue. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted,
Mr. Garland then called to the attention of Council that at the last
regular meeting of the body on Monday. October 23. 1972, Council set four public
hearings for Monday, November 27, 1972, with reference to reaonings and a street
closing and since there is some question as to whether or not there will be a
meeting of Council on that date, if it would not be wise for Council to reschedule
the public hearings previously set for November 27, 1972. to December 4. 1972.
After a discussion of the matter. Mr. Garland moved that the public
hearing on the request of Mr. M. M. Quick that property located in the 4100
block of Virginia Avenue, N. M., described as part of Lot 9 and all of Lot lO,
Block 4, Map of West Park, Official Tax No. 2760223, be rezoned from RS-3, Single-
Family Residential District, to RD, Duplex Residential District, be rescheduied
from 7:30 p.m., Monday, November 27, 1972, to 2 p.m., Monday, December 4, 1972.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Garland further moved that the public hearing on the request of
Messrs. Roby J. and Norman E. Jarrett and the Jarrett Investment Corporation that
property located on Mountaln Avenue. S. N.. described as Lot 12, the western one-
half Of Lot 13, the eastern one-half of Lot 13, and Lot 14. Section 13, Lewis
Addition, Official Tax Nos. 1020513, 1020514 and I020515, be rezoned from RG-2,
General Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, be rescheduled
from 7:30 p.m.. Monday, November 27, 1972. to 2 p.m., Monday. December 4, 1972.
The motion mas seconded by Mr. Lisk and uoanimously adopted.
Mr. Garland further moved that the public hearing on the request Of
Reliance Universal. Incorporated, that property described in a metes and bounds
description. Official Tax No. 1520101, be rezoned from HM. Heavy Manufacturing
District. tM. Light Manufacturing District and RG-I. General Residential Dis-
trict, to HM, Heavy Manufacturing District, with the understanding that the
amended request that a strip of land 120 feet long on Roanoke Avenue and 350
feet long on the railway right of way property be rezoned from LM and RG-l. to
HM. and that the remainder Of the parcel of land be rezoned from RG-I. to tM. with
the stipulation tha~ the portion rezoned to HM, Heuv~ Manufacturing District,
will be fenced for security and safety measures, be reschednled from 7:30 p.m**
Monday. November 27. 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lish and unanimously
adopted.
485
~486
Mr. Garland further waved that the public hearing on the request of
the Trustees of the Garden City Baptist Church that streets knonn as Moffett
Street and David Street, S.
thc City of Roanoke be vacated,
7:30 p.n., Bonday, November 27,
and an alley in the Garden City Subdivision of
discontinued and closed, be rescheduled from
1972, to 2 p.m** Monday, December 4, 1972. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Link and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m.. Monday.
October 30, 1972, on the request of Carvin Development Corporation that property
facing the 1500 block of Baldwin Avenue and Kesuick Avenue, N. E., described as
Lots 12 - 16. inclusive, Section 5, Map of Jackson Park, Official Tax Nos.
3210912 - 3210916, inclusive, be rezoned from LB. Light Manufacturing District,
to RG-I, General Residential District, the matter Was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the follow-
ing report recommending that the request be granted:
"September 6. 1972
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 September 5,
1972.
Mr. Maldrop appeared before the Planning Commission and
presented letters from three of the four adjoining property
owners stating that they have no opposition to the above
request for rezoning; the fourth adjoining property owner.
he noted, is in the process of selling her property and the
new deed hasn*t been recorded as yet. Mr. Maldrop further
stated that the developers for this property were experienced
builders and would develop a sound apartment complex.
The Planning Director asked how many apartments the
developer planned to build on this property. Br. Raldrop
stated that the number Of apartments built would coincide
with the requirements for the rezoning.
After a general discussion by the Planning Commission
members, they agreed that this rezoning would represent a
viable and compatible use of the land.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unani-
mously approved recommending to City Council to grant this
request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr** by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman"
Mr. Trout moved that Coun*cil concur in the recommendation of the City
Planning Commission and that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(~20515) 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. 321, Sectional
1966 Zone Map, City of Roanoke. ~ relation to Zoning.
fl
{I
WHEREAS, application hem been made to the Council of the City of
Roanoke to have that property facing the 1500 Block of Baldwin Avenue end Kesmick
Avenue, N. E.o described as Lots 12-16. inclusive, Section 5, Map of Jackson Park,
Official Tax Nos. 3210912-3210915. inclusive, and b~iog the property conveyed by
Solomon Mo Reedy and Allen G. Reedy, husband and wife, to Carvin Development Cor-
poration by deed dated April 27, 1972, recorded May 1, 19720 in Deed Book 1310.
page 725, Clerk*s Office, Hustings Court, City of Roanoke, Virginia, rezoned from
LM, Light Manufacturing District. to RG-I, General Residential District; and
MHEREAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from LM. Light Manufacturing District. to RG-I,
General Residential District; and
NHEREA5, the written notice and the posted sign required to be published
land 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
MHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the
30th day of October, 1972. at 7:30 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 tho proposed rezooing; and
MHEREAS, this Council, after considering the evidence as herein pro-
vided, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described land should be rezoned.
YHEREFORE. BE 17 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, 1956. as
'amended. relating to Zonin9, and Sheet No. 321 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map,
City of Roanoke. be amended in the follomin9 particular and no ogher, viz.:
Property facing the 1500 Block of Baldwin Avenue and Keswick Avenue.
i!No E., described as Lots 12 - lb, inclusive, Section 5, Map of Jackson Park,
i!designated on Sheet 321 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map. City of Roanoke. as
!iOfficial Tax Number's 3210912. 3210913. 3210914. 3210915. and 3210916. bo. and
is hereby, changed from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to RG-1, General Resi-
i!dential District. and that 5beet No. 321 of the aforesaid map be changed in this
The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Link. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Webber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 7:50 p.m., Monday,
October 30, 1972, on the request of Mr. Linwood E, Bush that 9.13 acres of land
situate on the north side of Rutrough Road. S. E., west of Brookside Lane, S. E.,
described as Official Tax No. 4450106, be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential
District, to RG-I, General Residential District. the matter was before the body.
487
'488
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the fol-
lowing report recommending that the request he granted:
*September 21, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Webber, Mayor
end Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request was considered by the City Plan-
ning Commission at its regular meeting of September 20, 1972.
Mr. Maldrop appeared before the Planning Commission and
stated that he and the petitioner had visited the adjoining
property owners, shorted them the plans for this property, and
that they had then received letters from the majority of
the property owners stating that they had no opposition to
this rezoning request. He further stated that the petitioner
did not intend to build low rent apartments on this property
noting that the petitioner is trying to provide housing for
the people working in the industrial area and at the hospital.
Finally. he pointed out that there mill be two access roads
to this property.
Mr. Lawrence, Planuing Commission member, asked the
petitioner how many apartment units were contemplated for
this development. Mr. flush, the petitioner noted that the
plans called for 132 apartment units. Hr. Doynton then
asked if this number of units would qualify for the RG-I
zoning designation, and would thisbe acceptable to the
petitioner.
The Planning Director stated that the RG-I designa-
tion ~ould allow for 220 apartment units and the RG-2 desig-
nation would allow for 397 apartment units. Mr. Maldrop
then stated that the RG-I designation would be acceptable
with the petitioner.
Mr. Lawrence then asked what the rent would he for
these apartments and did the petitioner plan to have one,
two and three bedroom apartments. Mr. flush stated that the
rent would be on the same basis as the rent is generally
throughout Roanoke. and that there would be a mixture of
apartment sizes.
~he Planning Director asked the petitioner how much
parking would be provided in this development. ~he peti-
tioner stated that more that I 1/2 parking spaces would be
provided for each unit, which would meet the off-street
parking requirements.
The Planning Commission members generally concurred
that this proposed apartment development ~ould be an asset
to the City.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unani-
mously approved recommending to City Council to grant this
amended request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed ~. Lemon, Jr., by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman~
Hr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Planning Commission and that the following Ordinance be placed ~pon its
first reading:
(#20516) AN ORDINANCE so amend Title XV, Chapter 4.1. Section 2, of
the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, and Sheet No. 445, Sectional
1966 Zone Hap. City of Roanoke, in relation to Zoning.
I
HHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of
Roanoke to have 9.13 acres of land situate on the north side of Rutroogh Road.
S. E.. west of Hrookside Lane, S. H., Riverdale Land Hap. Official Tax Ho.
445010b. nod being the same property conveyed by J. F. St. Clair and Sons,
Inc., to Linwood E. Dash. by deed dated Jane 26, 1972, recorded July 5, 1972, in
Deed Hook 1314, page 152. Clerk*s Office, Hustings Court. City of Roanoke.
Virginia, rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RD-2. General Resi-
dential District; and
~IIEREAS. the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land be rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RD-I,
General Residential District; and
~ItEREA$, the mritten notice and the posted sign required to be publish-
ed and posted, respectively, by Section 71. Chapter d.l, 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
RHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the
30th day of October, 1972. at 7:30 p.m.. before the Council of the City of
Roanoke, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were 9ivan an
opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and
NHEREAS, this Council. after considering the evidence as herein pro-
vided, 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 IV, Chapter 4.1, Section 2, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1956. ns
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 445 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map.
City of Roanoke. be amended in the following particular and noother, viz.:
Property located on the north side of Rutrough Road, S. E.. in the
City of Roanoke, Virginia, described as follows:- 9.13 acres of land situate on
the north side of Rutrough Road, S. E., west of Brookside Lane. So E., 8iverdale
Land Map. Official Tax No. 4450105, being the same property conveyed by J. F.
St. Clair and Sons, Inc., to Linwood E. Hush. by deed dated June 2b. 1972,
recorded July 5, 1972. in Deed Rook 1314, page 152. Clerk's Office. Hustings
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 4450106. be, and is hereby,
changed from RD, Duplex Residential District, to RD-l. General Residential
District, and that 5heat No. 445 of the aforesaid map be change~ in this
respect.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Ilubard, Ltsk. Thomas. Trout and Mayor
~ebber .........................6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m., Monday,
October 30. 1972, on the request of Dr. James C. Garst that property located on
the west side of Ridgefield Street, N. E., described as Lot 9, Official Tax No.
489
.490
3131104. E. J. Parker Map, be rezoned from RD. Duplex Residential District, to
RG-2, General Residential Distrlct,'the mutter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted thefol-
lowing report recommending ·that the request be denied:
.January 20, 1972
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 both its regular meeting of January
S and January 19. 1972o
Mr. Richard F. Pence, attorney for the petitioner,
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated the
following in relation to this petition:
that the lot in question is a sizable lot located
on the west side of Ridgefleld Street, N. £.,
and access tn it is from Liberty Road.
that his client wished to construct apartment
units on the parcel noting that the area is best
suited for this type of developments, and is,
therefore, requesting a RD-2 zoning designation.
that the lot will not be developed if it remains in
its present zoning classification and the best use
that all the existing structures located in this
area are about 50-years old.
that his client prefers a R6-2 zoning designation,
but would accept u RD-I rezoning for this parcel.
Mr. Purrott, PlannJn§ Commission Chairman, questioned
if a RD-1 zoning designation would not represent a more
suitable classification. Mr. Pence stated that his client
would be amenable to u RG-I zonin~ designation.
Mr. Boynton, Planning CommiSSion member, felt that the
RG-2 zones should be restricted to close-in areas, not to the
outlying areas of the City.
Mrs. Garst, the petitioner, stated that she would clean
and improve the site.
Mr. Peters stated that he owns property across the
street and would like to know what size apartments are
being planned in this development. Mr. Pence noted that
the plans have not progressed to the stage where he could
comment on this question.
The Planning Director noted that the area is more con-
ducive to an industrial designation predicated on the fol-
lowing factors:
the area is presently of an industrial nature.
the housing in the area is of a low quality.
the proposed Route 115 will extend throu9h this
general area mhich should.encourage industrial uses
to locate adjacent to this property.
the Planning Department is presently drafting an
updated land use plan for the City, and this area
is designed as an industrial one.
Accordingly, motion nas made, duly seconded and unani-
mously approved to recommend to City Council to deny this
request.
Sincerely,
S! Creed K. Lemon. Jr., by LM
Creek K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman*
Mr. Richard C. Pattlsall, Attorney. representing the petitioner, appear-
ed before Council in support of the request of hfs client, advising that Jt Jn
the desire of his client to erect apartments on the site consisting of 16 to 20
units, that the value of the apartment complex will be approximately $200,000.00
and will generate approximately $2.700.00 to $2.R00.00 per year in taxes for the
City of Roanoke, that there is an important need for decent, adequate housing in
this particular area of the city and that there is no opposition to the rezolng
by residents in the neighborhood.
Ur. Fattisall then presented preliminary plans /or the proposed apart-
ment complex.
Mr. Lothar Wermelstein. Planning Director, appeared before Council and
advised that the area in question is presently in very poor condition, that if
more housing is allowed to be constructed, the conditions will become worse, that
the property is basically a light manufacturing or heavy manufacturing area.
that to rezone the area to RG-I or RG-2, General Residential District, is not in
the best interest of the City Of Roanoke and that the City Planning Commission
remains opposed to this particular use.
Messrs. Thomas and Llsk expressed the opinion that in many instances
they do not mind rezoning property when they know the property is bern9 developed
in accordance sJth development plans as presented to the City Planning Commis-
sion and to City Council but that it does concern them when they rezone property
and the developer does not proceed to develop the property in accordance with
the plans as presented to the City Planning Commission nod to City Council and
that the time has come mhen Council is 9gin9 to have to place certain restrictions
on approved rezoniflgs,
No resident appearing in opposition to the request, Mr. Thomas moved
that the following Ordinance be placed upon its first reading:
(#20517) 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. 313, 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 q, E. J. Parker Map, Official Tax #3131104, located on the west
side of Ridgefield Street, N. Ea. rezoned from RD, Duplex Residential District,
to RG-2 General Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission has recommended that the herein-
after described land not be rezoned iron RD, Duplex Residential District, to
RG-2, General Residential District; and
WHEREAS, the written notice and the posted sign, 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 tine provided by said section; and
WHEREAS, the hearing as provided for in said notice was held on the
30th day of October, 1972, at 7:30 p.m.. before the Council of the City of
491
492
Hosnohe, at uhJch h~aring all parties in interest and citizens mere given an
opportunity to be heard, both for nnd against the proposed rezoning; and
MHEREAS, thin Council. after considering the evidence es herein provided
is of theopJnJon that the hereinafter described land ahould be rezoned.
THEREFORE. HE IT 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, 1956, as
amended, relating to Zoning, and Sheet No. 313 of the Sectional 1966 Zone Map.
City of Roanoke. be amended in the folloming particular and no other, viz,:
Property located on the meat side of RJdgefield Street. M. E.. des-
cribed as Lot 9, £. J. Parker Map, designated on Sheet 313 of the Sectional
1966 Zone Rap, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax Mo. 3131104. be, and is hereby,
changed from RD, Duplex Residential District. to RG-2, General Residential Dis-
trict, and that Sheer'Mo. 313 of the aforesaid map be changed in this respect.
The motion mas seconded by'Mr. Garland and adopted by the followin9
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Thomas, Trout and Mayor Mebber ............4.
MAYS: Messrs. Hubard and Lisk ....................................2.
(Dr. Taylor absent)
Mr. Lisk moved that the City Planning Commission and the City Attorney
be requested to submit their reports and recommendations on requiring developers
to present development plans for proposed construction to the City Plannin9 Com-
mission mhen said developers apply for a change in the zoning classification and
that the City Planning Commission and City Attorney further be requested to
advise Council as to the possibility of amending the Zoning Ordinance to provide
that if a developer does not develop the rezofled property iff accordance ~ith
development plans as submitted to the City Planning Commission at the time of the
requested rezoning, that the property will automatically revert back to its
original zoning classification. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and
unanimously adopted.
ZORING: Council having set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m., Monday.
October 30, 1972, on the request of Messrs. M. L. Foley and R. A. Foley that
property located in the 3500 block of Barberry Avenue. M. W.. described os ail of
Lots 3 and 4. Block 3, Revised Map of Mestwood Annex. Official Tax No. 2630610
and part of 2630604. be rezoned from MS-3, Single-Family Residential District,
to RG-1. 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:
"August 17, 1972
The Honorable Roy L. Mebber. Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, ¥irgJnia
Mr. Douglas M. Kielkopf, Attorney for the petitioners.
appeared before the Planning Commission and stated that there
{I
,I
was some misunderstanding ns to the actual land requested
for renoning, ~e stated that the request mas for the entire
Lots 3 and 4 and not Just Lot O, and being nil of Official
Tax No, 2630h10 and part of Official Tax No, 2630604, He
noted that earlier this year, the Planning Commission had
recommended to City Council that the tract of land to the
nest of Lots 3 and 4 be rezoned to RG-I and that City Council
had granted the request, Additionally, he noted that at pre-
sent. imm apartment buildings ere being built on this tract
and that the petitioners mould like to build n similar apart-
meat building on Lots 3 and 4. Hr. Kielkopf stated that
since the land non stands vacant, this resorting uould serve
as an improvement to the neighborhood and to the residential
area to the south of Lots 3 and 4.
Mr. Parrott asked why the building of the tun apartment
buildings on the tract to the meat had not been finished.
Mr. Kielkopf stated that he did not know but that he presumed
construction mould begin again shortly.
The Planning Director stated that this RB-I resorting
would make a very good buffer zone between the C=2, commercial
district to the north and the single-family residential dis-
trict to the south.
Mrs. Gisho 3526 Barberry Avenue. N. M.. appeared before
the Planning Commission and presented a petition signed by a
number of citizens in the immediate neighborhood who were
against this low-density apartment rezoning as it would
devalue their property.
Accordingly. motion was made. duly seconded and unani-
mously approved recommending to City Council to grant this
amended request to include all of Lots 3 and 4, being Offi-
cial Tax No. 2630610 and part of Official Tax No. 2630604.
Sincerely.
S/ J. H. Parrott/by ON
J. H. Parrott
Acting Chairman"
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Plannln9 Commission. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously
adopted.
In this connection, the City Attorney advised that there are certain
mistakes in the Ordinance as drafted by the attorney representing the petitioner
and suggested that siad Ordinance be referred to him for the necessary correc-
tions by the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, November 6, 1972.
Mr. Lisk moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney
and that the proposed Ordinance be referred to the City Attorney for necessary
corrections and to be placed on the next agenda of Council for Bonday, November
6, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously adopted.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council having set a public hearing for ?:30
p.m.. Monday, October 30, 1972. on the request of the M. E. Cundiff Company,
Incorporated, that a portion of a 15 foot alley lying between Lots 1, 2 and 3,
and Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block H, Map of Ken#mod Subdivision. be vacated, dis-
continued and closed, the matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the fol-
lowing report recommending that the request be granted:
"493
' 94
'September 6o 1972
The Honorable Roy L. M~bber, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The above cited request uss considered by the CitT
Planning Commission at its regular meeting of September 6,
1972.
Mr. Craawell appeared before the Planning Commission
and stated that the basic reason for this request was
the fact that Lots 12, 13 and 14 do not have enough frontage
for building two single-family dwellings. Me further stated
that with the alley closed, there would be enough square
footage, ?0 foot for the corner lot and 60 foot for the adja-
cent lot. The present plans, be noted, for these lots are
for the constFuctlo~ of two FHA 235 hones or two duplexes.
After a general discussion of the Planning Connission
members, it was agreed that this portion of the alley be
closed, since it represented only a paper alley. Mowever,
the Commission members instructed the Planning Director tO
contact the remaining neighboring property owners to deter-
mine their views on the closing of this entire paper alley.
Accordingly, motion was aade. duly seconded and
unanimously approved recommending to City Council to
9rant this request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr., by LM
Creed K. Lemon, Jr.
Chairman~
The viewers appointed to view the alley submitted a written report
advising that they have viewed the alley and the adjoining 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 said alley.
No one appearing in opposition to vacating, discontinuing and closing
the alley, Mr. Trout moved that the followln9 Ordinance be placed upon its first
reading:
(~20518) AN ORDINANCE permanently abandoning, discontinuing and clos-
in9 a portion of a 15 ft. alley lying between Lots 1. 2 and 3 and Lots 12. 13
and 14. Block H. Map of Kenwood Subdivision, and also being shown on Tax Sheet
No. 332 of the Tax Appraisal Map of the City of Roanoke. Virginia.
WMEREAS. M. E. Cundiff Co.. Inc.. has heretofore filed a petition
before City Council, in accordance with law. requesting Council to permanently
vacate, abandon, discontinue and close that portion of a 15 ft. alley, lying
between Lots 1, 2 and 3 and Lots 12, 13 and 14, Block M, Map of Kenwood Subdivi-
sion. which said alley is more particularly hereinafter described; and os to
the filing of said petition, due notice was given to the public as required by
Section 15.1-364, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended; and
NHEREAS, in accordance with the prayer in said petition. Resolution
No. 20463 was adopted by the said City Council on the 2Otb day of August. 19T2.
pursuant to which viewers were appointed to view the said property and to report
in writing what inconvenience, if any. would result from permanently abandoning,
ol
vacating, dis-continuing and closing said nlley hereinafter described; and further
the said City Council referred the issues rnised by said petition to the Planning
Commission of the City of Roanoke for said Conmissicn*s study of said request
MHEREAS. it appears from the report in mriting filed by the viemers
mith the City Clerk, on the llth day of September, 1972, that no inconvenience
would result, either to any individual or the public from the permanent abandonin
vacating, discontinuing and cluing of the said alley hereinafter described, to
nhich report no exceptions have been filed; and
NBEREAS, TIlE City Planning Commission by letter directed to the Mayor
of the City of Roanoke and the members of City Council, dated September 6, 1972,
recommended to City Council that the said alley hereinafter described be abandoned
vacated, discontinued and closed subject to the right of the said City to retain
ell necessary easements to public utilities; and
MHEREAS, a public hearing on the question was held before the Council
on the 30th day of October, 1972, at which hearing all parties in interest and
citizens were afforded an opportunity to be heard on the question of the proposed
closing of the alley; and
RHEREAS. 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 closin9 of the alley
hereinafter described and that the petitioner*s application to permanently close
the same should be granted, said petitioner having agreed to bear and defray
the expenses incident to the closing of same.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEO by the Council of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, that that part of the 15 ft. alley, lying between Lots 1, 2, and 3
and Lots 12, 13 and 14. Block H. Map of Kenwood Subdivision in the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, and more particularly described as follows, to-wit:
BEGINNING at the point of intersection of the southerly
side of Clyde Street, in the northwesterly corner of Lot
1. Block H, according to the Map of Kenwood Subdivision;
thence with the southerly side of Clyde Street in a north-
easterly direction 15' to the southwesterly corner of Lot
12. Block H, according to the Rap of Kenwood Subdivision;
thence with the rear lot lines of Lots 12, 13 and 14 in a
southerly direction 120 ft. to the southeasterly corner of
Lot 14; thence in a southerly direction across the 15 ft.
alley, 15' to u point on the northeasterly corner of Lot 3,
Block H, according to the Map of Kenwood Subdivision 120
ft. to the place of Beginning, and
BEING that portion of the 15 ft. alley that.lies between
Lots 1, 2, 3 and 12, 13 and 14, Block R, according to the
Map of Kenwood Subdivision.
be and the same hereby is permanently abandoned, vacated, discontinued and
closed, theCity 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.
495
496
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Engineer of the City of Roanoke,
be, and he hereby is, directed to mark *Permanently Abandoned, Vacated, Discon-
tinued and Closed~ the alley her,inshore described on all maps and plats on file
in the office of the City Engineer of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, on ublch
said maps and plats said alley is shown, referring to the book and page of
Ordinances and Resolutions of Council wherein this Ordinance shall be spread,
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Clerk of this Council deliver to the
Clerk of the Hustlngs 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 alley
herein permanently abandoned, vacated, discontinued and closed as provided by
law, and may record same at the csst of petitioner, indexing the same in the
name of the City of Roanoke as grantor and M. E. Cundiff Co., Inc., as grantee.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the folio#lng
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubardo Lisk~'Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
ZONING: Council having set a public hearing for 7:30 p.m., Monday,
October 30, 1972, on the request of Mr. Rs,ford E. McKinney for a permit to
authorize initiation of a non-conforming use of premises located at 2307 Lincoln
Avenue, S. l.. Official Tax No. 1530515, by allowing Mr. McKinney to remodel an
existing maid*s quarters and use the same as a single apartment dwelling, the
matter was before the body.
In this connection, the City Planning Commission submitted the fol-
lowing report recommending that the request be granted:
*October 30, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Yhe above cited request was considered by the City
Planning Commission at its regular meeting of September
1972.
Mrs. ~anda McKinney appeared before the Planning
Commission and stated that they planned to remodel an exist-
in9 maid's quarters in a detached garage at the rear Of
their home for use as an apartment. She further stated
that the maid's quarters had not been used in sell over two
years.
The Planning Director stated that this area is essen-
tially a single-family and duplex area. Additionally, he
noted, that since the maid*$ quarters was not in use in
excess of two years, it would lose its non-conforming
status, even if a non-conforming permit Has issued to the
petitioner, in this case, the petitioner did not obtain a
non-conforming permit.
After a general discussion by the Planning Commission
members, it uaw 8greed that this use mss generally in he.p-
ing mith the general character of ~e area.
Accordingly, motion was made, duly seconded and unani-
mously approved recommending to City Council to grant this
request.
Sincerely,
S/ Creed K. Lemon, Jr** by LM
Creed M. Lemon. Jr.
Chairman"
lith refereuce to the matter, the Assistant City Attorney submitted
the followiug report recomneuding that Council not act upon Mr. McKlcney*s request
for a non-conforming permit, but. instead, withhold action pending the filing of
a petition to rezone the property to RD, Duplex Residential District:
*October 30, 1972
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Council has set for public hearing at its meeting on
October 30. 1972. as item 5,h., proposal of the Council's
authorization of issuance of a permit for a non-conforming
use of property described as Official Ho. 1530515. We feel
constrained to call to the CouncilOs attention what we regard
ns irregular procedure under the City*s Zoning Ordinance as
those regulations now exist, and to suggest the method by
which substantial relief may be afforded the property o~ner
applicant within the frameworh of the Zoning Ordinance,
should the Council see fit and the property owner desire to
follow prescribed procedures. This office was directed to
prepare n requisite notice of public hearing ns well as
additional necessary measures to implement the request.
Subsequent investigation of the facts of the matter reveal
that the property of Mr. McKinney is zoned RS-3, Single-
Family Residential District, as are the properties immed-
iately surrounding. A single-family dwelling is located
on the front portion of the lot and a second building, that
intended to be remodeled, occupies the rear of the lot, which
lot bears dimensions of approximately b2.5 feet by ~0 feet.
Independent investigation indicates that no certificate of
occupancy for non-conforming use has been obtained since
adoption of the City's Zoning Ordinance in August of lObS;
and, further that the rear dwelling has been vacant for
over two years and probably much longer, The present owners
desire to obtain a building permit to remodel the rear
building for use as an apartment. Under the facts and the
existing applicable zoning regulations, the only manner by
which this could legally be accomplished is by considera-
tion of a petition to rezone the property to RD, Duplex
Residential District.
The matter has been discussed with the Attorney for the
owners, and the understanding of the undersigned is that
said Attorney agrees with the opinion contained herein.
It is recommended that the Council not act upon the owner's
request for non-conforming permit, but, instead, withhold
action pending the filing of a petition to rezone the pro-
perty to RD. Duplex Residential District.
Respectfully,
S/ H. Ben Jones, Jr.
H. Hen Jones, Jr**
Assistant City Attorney"
Rlth further reference to the matter, a communication from Mr. John M.
Zaylor, Attorney, representing Mr. McKinney, requesting permission to withdraw
49T
the request for the nun-conforming permit, was also before Coun-
cil,
Mr, Trout moved that Council concur Jn the request of Mr. McMioney
for permission to withdraw the request for a nonconforming permit. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
ZONING: Or. Nard N. Stevens appeared before Council and requested
that he be issued a non-conforming certificate of occupancy in order to permit
him to continue the use of a building located at 2?44 Jefferson Street, S, E..
for apartment purposes,
Mr. Trout moved that the matter be referred to the City Attorney for
preparation of the proper measure extending the period of time for obtaining a
non-conforming certificate of occupancy. The notion was seconded by Mr. Thomas
and adopted. Mr. Hubard voting no.
Mr. Hubard spoke in opposition to the motion, advising that Council
is opening the door to any and all requests for non-conforming certificates of
occupancy and that it would be better to consider the requests, case by case,
rather than opening the door for all requests of this nature.
SCHOOLS-TRAFFIC: MrS. Paul ~harton. President of the Oakland Elemen-
tary School Parent-Teacher Association. and Mr. Eduard M. Jones, Member of the
Oakland Elementary School Parent-Teacher Association. appeared before Council
and requested that an adult school crossing guard be placed at the intersection
of 10th Street and Nlllianson Road. N. M.
In this connection, Mr. Jones substantiated his request by calling
attention to an incident which happened on April 12, 1971. when a student was
seriously injured by an automobile in front of Oakland Elementary School and
presented petitions signed by 188 members of the Oakland Elementary School Parent-
Teacher Association expressing a need for a school crossing guard to be placed
at the crossing of Tenth Street and Nilliamson Road.
Mr. R. C. Herring. Manager of Communications and Transportation of
the Roanoke City Public Schools, appeared before Council and advised that the
school administration is of the opinion that this is a bad intersection and
that a school crossing guard with police authority would be the most effective
means of providing safety for these children.
Mr. L. R. Crawford, a teacher at Oakland Elementary School. also
appeared before the body and expressed the opinion that there is no question
as to the need for un adult crossing guard at this intersection and urged that
Council take affirmative action as soon as possible.
After a discussiou of the matter, Mr. Garland moved that the request
for an adult school crossing guard be referred to the City Manager for study,
report and recommendation to Council by the regular meeting of the body off,
Monday. ~ovember 13. 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout.
Mr, Llsk expressed the opinion that the intersection justifies n
school crossing guard for the protection of the students and that he would hate
to see Council delay on the matter and toke the chance of.another child being
injured.
Mr, Lisk then offered n substitute motion that Council concur in the
request of the Oakland Elementary School Parent-Teacher Association for an adult
school corssing guard at the intersection of 10th Street and Milllamson Road,
The motion mas seconded by Mr, Trout and adopted. Messrso Garland and Hubard
voting no,
Mr. Trout moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the pro-
per measure appropriating necessary funds for the employment of an adult school
crossing guard at the intersection of loth Street and Milliamson Road, N, M,
The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted,
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting that $234,863,00 be appropriated to Section ~??000, *Schools -
Emergency School Assistance Program," of the 1972-73 budget of the Roanoke City
School Board, advising that this appropriation, which has been approved by
the U, S, Office of Education, will enable the School Board to continue tbe
Emergency School Assistance Program through January 31, 1973, and one hundred
Mebber ..........................
of Franklin Road, S. M., was before Council,
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
BUDGET-AIRPORT: The City Manager submitted the follomin9 report
recommending that $125.00 be appropriated to Operational and Construction
Equipment - Nam under Section u65, 'Airport," of the 19Y2-73 budget, to provide
funds for the purchase of an industrial-quality Vacuum cleaner to be used at
Roanoke Municipal (Moodrum) Airport:
-October 30, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Airport Budget - Vacuum Cleaner Purchase
Included within the existing budget for Roanoke Munici-
pal Airport is the estimated sum of $100 for a vacuum cleaner
needed for custodial maintenaoce. Over the years there has
been a sizable increase in the quantity of carpeting at the
Airport, such that it is very difficult to provide appro-
priate maintenance with the small domestic cleaner presently
available. The heavy duty use to which this equipment must
be placed has caused the motor to burn out on several occa-
sions.
It has recently been determined that the sum of money
currently budgeted ia inadequate to purchase an industrial-
quality vacuum cleaner required for this type of work. It
has been determined that at least $225 will be required to
provide a machine which will do the job and stand up over
a reasonable period of time.
It is recommended that $125 be appropriated to Object
Code 390 for the above stated purposes.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Monader~
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager and offered the following emergency Ordinance:
(~20520) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #65, ~Airport,~
of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an emergency-
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book u37. page 216.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Ltsk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland. Hubard, Lisk, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
Rebber .......................... 6.
NAYS: None ...........OD (Or. Taylor absent)
MUNICIPAL BUILOING-C~PITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: The City Manager
submitted the following report advising that the plans and specifications for
the remodeling of the Third Street Building can be ready within the next week
or two with the exception of those portions of the specifications which have
been submitted to the CitI Attorney's Office for review, calling attention to
the matter of an encroachment in connection with the building which is outlined
in his report and recommending that Council favorably consider plans and
i!
specifications and tahe such action as uould be opproprlate, by Ordinance or
otherwise, to approve the contemplated encroachuent:
~October 30, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Third Street Building Remodeling
Through Mr. McGhee, City Engineer, Somers. Redes and
Nhitescarver and Gregory and Associates advised that the plans
and specifications for the remodeling of the Third Street
Bulld~ng can be ready within the next week or tmo mith the
exception of those portions of the specifications which have
been submitted to the City Attorney*s office for review.
Me will have one particular situation in this remodeling
project and that mill be the seeking of a new location for
the Police Academy and it is hoped that this can be worked
out. preferably prior to actual advertisement of the project.
An additional situation will involve revisions in the avail-
able parking space on the municipal lot at Third Street and
Church Avenue. This will be developed further.
It is considered that the existing plans and specifi-
cations for this project are sufficiently complete to be
brought before the City Council for your approval. Me $o
do. The City Engineer also has a rendering of the front of
the building. This will show in additional detail a matter
of a proposed encroachment. 1 attach also a sketch which
details the matter of the encroachment and which Is described
as follows:
1. Portion A (Old Building)
A. From the existing ground elevation to a point
9 feet above the first floor elevation - 4 inches
encroachment required.
B. From the point q feet above thc first floor
elevation to the top of the building - 1
foot fl inches encroachment required.
2. Portion B (New Building)
A. From the existin9 9round elevation to a point
12 feet I 1/2 inches ~ above the first floor
elevation of this section of the building - 4
inches encroachment required.
fl.From the point 12 feet I 1/2 inches above the
first floor eleration to a point 13 feet 9 1/2
~ above the first floor elevation - ? inches
encroachment is required.
It should he noted that Portion A of this building is
uithin the 10 foot setback which uaw established for
this street in 1949, and the low section of Portion B
is also within the setback. It was determined at the
outset of the preparation of the plans and speci-
fications that the entire building should be utilized,
rather than demolishing the front ten feet.
It is recommended that the City Council favorably con-
sider plans and specifications and take such action as would
be appropriate, by ordinance or otheruise, to approve the
contemplated encroachment.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager"
502-
In this connection, Hr. Charles K. Mhitescsrver nad Hr. Grady. P,
Gregory, ropresenting SonarS, Rodes and Mhitescarver,.appeared before Council
and presented sketches of the proposed building.
Mr. Thomas expressed the opinion that he does hot think any of the
members of Council are familiar with the proposed layout of the Offlce~ that
are to be located Jn this building, that he hopes in the future Council cnn be
more involved in matters of this nature, that he does not feel Council has had
an active role in the planning of the building hut he will vote in the affirma-
tive in order to move forward with the project.
Mr. L. L. Koontz, Jr., Ju~eof the Juvenile and Domestic Relations
Court, and Mr. M. David Hooper. Superintendent of Police, appeared before Council
and advised that they are in accord with the proposed plans for remodeling.
Mr. Lisk pgJnted out that the matter mhich concerns him is the
encroachment on the building setback line, that the City of Roanoke cannot ask
its citizens to abide by setback lines established by City Council when City
Council does not abide by itw own setback lines, but to delay the project any
further would be a terrific amount of cost and time.
Rr. Lisk then moved that the City Manager be authorized to proceed with
advertisement for bids on the project and that lhe City Attorney be directed
to prepare the proper measure approving said encroachment on the building set-
back line. The motion was seconded hy Mr. Trout and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Thoaas, Trout and Rayor
Rebber .......................... 6.
NAYS: Hone ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
In this connection, Mr. Trout presented the following prepared state-
merit in connection with the municipal parking lot. expressing the opinion that
since the city is going forth with the much needed improvements to the for~er
Reid and Cutshall Building and since it will be necessary for the contractor to
occupy a portion of the parking lot for equipment and materials during the period
of renovation, it will be an excellent time to rearrange the essential parking
needs, priorities and assignmen~ of spaces, that the original location of spaces
for the Police Department has proven unsatisfactory due to the fact that they
were assigned to an area adjacent tn the Reid and Cutshall Building. that this
has brought about the situation of police cars being blocked in~ that the best
way to handle this problem is to place all vehicles for police use in the center
spots on the lot which would result in police cars pulling head in toward each
other and thereby eliminating any occasion of blocked vehicles which requires a
search for the operator and the location of keys if the driver of the c~y has
gone off duty and further recommending that the city consider the possibility of
leasing some of the surplus property owned by the Lewis Gal~ Hospital:
s
'October 26, 1972
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Nom that we are going forth mith the much needed im-
provements to the former Reid nad Cutshall building for the
relocation of the Police Department nad Juvenile Court, this-
1 feel will also bring about the need to consider the problem
of use of the parking lot during the period of construction.
As you know, it mill be necessary for the contractor to
occupy a portion of the parking lot for his equipment and
materials during the period of renovation. Quite obviously
this will reduce considerably the number of spaces for park-
Jug purposes.
I think this Is an excellent time to rearrange the
essential parking needs and priorities and assignment of
spaces. The original location of spaces for the Police
Department has proven unsatisfactory due to the fact that
they were assigned an area adjacent to the Reid ~ Cutshall
building. This has brought about the situation of police
cars being blocked in. I feel the best may to handle
this problem would be to place all vehicles for police use
in the center spots on the lotwhich would result in police
cars pulling head in toward each other and thereby ellmiuat-
lng any occasion of blocked vehicles which requires a search
for the operator and location of keys if the driver of the
car has gone off duty.
Also, I would like to recommend that Council consider the
leasing of some of the surplus property gamed by Lewis Gale
Hospital. As you know, we did consider the possibility of
acquiring some of this land but the City at this time is not
in the position to consider actual acquisition of the pro-
perty.
I have discussed this with Mr. David Mllliamson. Ad-
ministrator for the hospital, and he expressed a deep in-
terest in the possibility of making the existing parking
facilities available under lease agreement with the usual
30-day cancellation if they had the opportunity to sell the
property.
1 certainly think it is time for City Council to con-
cern itself with its responsibility to provide parking area
at no cost to policemen when they are on Court duty. After
all, we realize that the revenue from court activities is
increasing and this certainly requires increased time in the
courtroom by off=duty policemen. I don*t see how we can
do any less to meet this need.
S/ James O. Zrout
James O. Trout"
563
s'o4--
up on final action with Piedmont Airlines and Eastern Airlines on the landing
contract because the boarding tax could harm lone hearing on these negotiations:
*October 30, 1972
Honorable Mayor end City Council
Roanohe, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Boarding Tax
The present status on the Boarding Tax at the Airport
is the Council's ordinance extending the effective date to
November 1, 1972. ~e hare held up any final formalizing of
procedures becaus~ of the new Federal legislation situation.
As this is written, the action of the President on the law
passed by Congress which would prohibit Boarding Taxes is
still cot clear.
Me need one more meetin9 with Piedmont Airlines but this
meeting is of little value and purpose unless it is definite
that the tax is to be applied. In other words, most ~ the
preliminary conversations are out of the way. In addition
there are procedures to be started and I have questioned the
value of starting them unless the tax is positive.
In riew of this, it is recommended that the Council by
appropriate action authorize the further deferment of an
effective date of the tax until December 1, 1972.
In connection with the above we have held up on final
action with Piedmont and Eastern Airlines on the landing
contract because the Boarding Tax could have some bearing
on those negotiations. .Just as soon as the Roarding Tax
matter is settled, 1 want to immediately get with Piedmont
Airlines on completing a landing contract.
Respectfully submitted
$/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
City Homager"
The City Manager advised that the above report was written prior to
the action taken by the President of the United States on the airport boarding
tax bill. that he has discussed the matter with representatives of Piedmont
Airlines and they are of the opinion that if Council wants to enact the board-
ing tax by November 15, 1972, they can proceed accordingly.
Mr. Trout offered the following emergency Ordinance amending and
reordaining Section 1, Chapter 5.1, Airplane Boarder*s use and service charge,
Title VIII, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1955, as amended, by delaying
the effective date of the imposition of such use and service charge; repealing
Ordinance No. 20440, heretofore adopted on August 20, 1972; afldprov/diflg fur the
effective date of November 15, 1972, of Ordinance No. 20343 adopted on June
1972:
{~20521) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordainiug Sec. 1. of Chapter
5.1. Airnlane Boarder's use and ser¥ice ch~rq~, of Title VIII, of the Code of
the City of Roanoke, 1956, as amended, by delaying the effective date of the
imposition of such use and service charge; repealing Ordinance No. 20440, hereto-
fore adopted on August 28. 1972; providin9 for an emergency; and providing for
the effective date of Ordinance No, 20343.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book c37, page 216.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Mesars, Garlaud. Hubord, Lisk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
~ebber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
Mr. Liak thea moved that the City Attorney be directed to prepare the
proper measure broadening the tax base to include all fare-paying passengers
boarding non-schedules, charter or air-taxi aircraft as well as those boarding
scheduled aircraft at Roanoke Municipal (Woodrum) Airport by the next regular
meeting of Council on Monday, November 6, 1972. The notion was seconded by
Trout and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Hubard further moved that the City Attorney be directed to render
u legal opinion us to the enforceability of the boarding tax Ordinance at
Roanoke Municipal (~oodrun) Airport by the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday. November 6, 1972. The motion was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously
adopted.
CITIZENS* ADVISORY COMMITTEE-STATE HIDHYAYS: The City Manager sub-
mitted the followin9 status report on the Route 115 - 116 Project. advisin9 that
by detailed telephone conversation on October 24, lg72, with a representative of
the State Highway Department, he was informed that the Ilighway Department has
completed its preliminary alignment drafting for the purpose of determining the
affect of the proposed location of the Route 115 - llb Project. that the tiighway
Department anticipates that they will be in a position to contact him by the
middle of the week of October 30. ut which tine representatives from the City of
Roanoke will 90 to Richmond to go over the information then available and meet
with the Highway Department and that he will keep Council informed on the matter:
"October 30, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Route lis - 116
This is written as the most current information that
1 harmon the matter of the Route lis - 116 project as it
relates to the section from 13th Street south to Henningtoo
and involves the matter of the bridge over Roanoke River and
Buzzard Rock Ford area.
I am advised by detailed telephone conversation on
October 24 with a representative of the State Highway De-
partment that they have completed their preliminary align-
ment drafting for the purpose of determining the affect of
the proposed location that we last snbmitted to them from
here. That is the one which set a 200-foot distance from
the front door faci~9 of the treatment plant building. They
had a5 of that date an estimate of additional bridge con-
struction Costs but did not have completed an estimate of
adjustment in one side of the river channel.
difficult within the last couple of weeks because of the
recent failure of the Federal Highway funding bill which is
Additionally many officials of the department, includin9
the latter part of the past week for the State Highway Con-
565
I have been advised that they anticipate being in a
position to be back in touch math me by the middle of the
meeh of October 30. At that time it woeld be anticipated
that persons from here would go to Richmond to go over the
information as then available and to meet mltb them.'
Additionally on this subject. I learn from Richmond
sources that Delegate Bay Garland and Delegate John Towler
have each been in contact with the State Highway Department
and the Btate Mater Control Board on this matter. This
has resulted in representatives of the State Mater Control
Board initiating and meeting with the Blghmay Departme&t.
This also indicates at this time that prior to a final
resolution of the matter there will now be necessary, in
addition to the City*a conferences and discussions with
the Highmay Department. a three-way conference involving
the Highmay Department. the State Mater Control Doard and
the City.
I will heap the Council as immediately posted as I
can as we admlnistrativoly are highly anxious to conclude
this matter.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hits,
City Manager"
In this connection. Mr. Charles R. Merkel. President of the Riverdale
Civic League. appeared before CouflcJl and advised that the City Of Roanoke has
a Citizens* Advisory Committee whose members are well briefed on this subject and
that it might be beneficial to the City Manager to allow Reverend Calvin B.
Fulton. Chairman of the Citizens' Advisory Committee. to accompany him to
Richmond. Virginia. when he discusses the Route 115 - 116 Project with the
State lJighway Department.
Mr. Lisk pointed out that Council does not appoint representatives to
go to Richmond to discuss these matters with the State llJghway Department. that
this is the prerogative of the City Manager and that Mr. Bethel should discuss
this Suggestion with the City Manager.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the report of the City Manager be received
and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
BUSES: The City Manager submitted the following report inconnection
with the anticipated termination by Roanoke City Lines. Incorporated. of their
operation at the end of this calendar year and the consideration of assumption
by the city of the bus company operation or such other disposition as may be
determined, transmitting draft of a communication to the Urban Mass Transporta-
tion Administration which would be the accompanyin§ letter for an application for
funding assistance and will be further accompanied by various other data and
material which will be reported to Council and pointin9 out that there has been
transmitted to the City Attorney a sample Resolution from the Department of
Transportation which Council will have to adopt to authorize the submission of
an application:
.I.
'October 30, 1972
~onorable Muyor uud City Couucil
Roanoke, ¥1rglnio
Gentlemen:
Subject: flus System
As the Council has been informed from time to time,
through Councilman Garland, the Chairman of your Committee,
various meetings and activities have taten place uith
respect to the anticipated termination by Roenote City
Lines of their operation at the end of this calendar year
and the consideration of assumption by the City of this
bus company operation or such other disposition as may be
determined. As Mr, Garland has further informed, the pro-
cess has included investigation of the possibility of
federal grant assistance.
I attach a draft of a letter that has been prepared to
the Urban Mass Transportation Administration which would
be the accompanyin9 letter for an application for funding
assistance. This letter mill be accompanied by various
other data and material which mill be reported to the City
$ideration by the Department of Transportation.
There has been forwarded to the City Attorney a
which the City Council would have to adopt to authorize
the subeission of an application. If the Attorney should
be in a position to have prepared such a resolution by this
meeting, it is recommended that it be favorably considered.
the bringing up of the resolution at the next meeting.
It is recognized that the City Council bas not as yet
formalized any position with respect to the bus system or
to the position of the City. You need to have considerable
additional information mhich is continuing to be prepared as
in mind, it is stated that this application preparation and
submission does not constitute any positive position on the
part of the City but is with tbe intent of assuring the
record and beginnings of study by the Federal government of
this for the City of Roanoke.
$/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian Fo Uirst
City Manager~
Mr. Garland moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following Resolution aothortzin9 the filing of an application
under the Urban Russ Transportation Act of 1964. us amended, to aid in the ftnanc-
(~20522) A RESOLUTION authorizing the filln9 of an application with
the Department of Transportation, United States of America. for a 9rant under
the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964. as amended.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Cook ~37, page 217.)
Mr, Garland moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Thomas and adopted by the followin9 vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garlond, Hubard, Lish, Thomas. Trout and Mayor
lebber .........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylorobsent)
BONDS-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-SCHOOLS: The City Manager submit-
ted a written report on the project of replacement of the Salem Turnpihe Bridge
at the west corporate limits which is included in the NovemSer 7, lq?2, bond
referendum mJth an allocation of $125o000.00o advising that since this esti-
mate was prepared and since the compiling of the bond issue Items, further con-
ference and study of the division of costs with the State Highway Department
has resulted in a revision of the estimate of the city*s cost for this project
to $50.000.00. that the State Department of Ilighways advises that they are
setting an advertising date of January lq, lq73, on this particular project,
that the state also is interested in advertising the replacement of the bridge
on Shenandoah Avenue at the west corporate limits which mill carry an esti-
mated city division of cost at $50,000.00, that their present proposal is to
advertise this in December, 1q73, pointing out that in the priority projects
initially before Council both Of these bridge projects were listed at
each, however, in the balancing of funds, it was considered necessary to elimi-
nate one and thus the Shenandoah Avenue Bridge was taken out. that based on the
above figures, it would appear now possible to accommodate the city*s cost in
both of these projects within the $125,000.00 provided in the bond program and
transmitting a Resolution which would recognize the inclusion of these two
bridges in the bond program.
Mr. LJsk moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following Resolution amending Resolution No. 204q0. adopting a
1972 Capital Improvements Program for the City of Roanoke. to provide for the
replacement of two bridges over Peters Creek, one on the Salem Turnpike and one
on Shenandoah Avenue, N.
(=20523) A RESOLUTION amending Resolution No. 20490, adopting
Capital Improvements Program for the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Ordinance Book =57, page 218.)
Mr. Lisk moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Garland and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
STATE COMPENSATION BOARD: Council having referred to the City Manager
for necessary action a news release announcing that the Virginia Advisory Legis-
lative Council will hold a public hearing on Yuesday, November 14, lq?2, in
House Room 3 of the State Capitol at g:30 a.m., for the purpose of studying the
structure, pomers nnd functions of the State Compensation Hoard and the system of
compensating local constitutional officers and their employees, the City Manager
submitted the folloming report suggesting that it may be advantageous that one or
more members of Council attend this hearing along mltb the City Auditor or a
representative of his office:
'October 30~ 1972
/
Honorable Mayor and City Council
~oanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Compensation Hoard Study Committee
The City Council received on October 23 and referred to
me for study and recommendation, a news release from the
Compensation Hoard Study Committee of the Virginia Advisory
Legislative Council stating that a public hearing would be
held on Tuesday, November 14, 1972, tn Ilouse Room 3 of the
State Capitol beginning at 9:30 a.m. It was noted that this
the State Compensation Hoard and the system of local consti-
tutional officers and their employees. The notice also
invited any persons who might wish to make presentations to
advise of their wish and to be present.
The system of compensating local constitutional officers
and their employees is a matter that comes up w~th frequent
elected governing bodies of the cities and towns in Virginia.
As the Council is aware, it has come in for discussion here
from time to time, both during budget study periods and
otherwise. It would seem that the study by the Advisory
of Jn either observing or expressing positions.
The hearing on November 14, if it is typical us with
hearing presentations by interested parties. ! would
hers of the City Council might ~ish to attend along with
the City Audltor or a representative of his office. Even
could be of considerable interest, or the Council may mish
seconded
The above is not intended to omit recognition of our
own constitutional officers and any thoughts or input that
they wish to express to Council would be helpful and I am
Sure that they have knowledge of this hearing and individual-
ly or collectively, locally or statewide will be in atten-
dance or expressing any vieus that would be appropriate.
Respectfully submitted.
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hirst
Mr. Lisk moved that the report be received and filed. The motion was
by Mr. Garland and unanimously adopted.
SCHOOLS-STADIUM-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST P~VERTY IN ROANOKE VALLEY: Council
having referred to the City Manager and the City Attorney for study, report and
recommendation a communication from Mr. George E. Franklin, Executive Director,
Opportunities Industrialization Center, requesting that the City of Roanoke
509
'5, 0 '
become the receiver for'the Law Enforcement Assistance Act Grant Application,
advising that the objectives of snid grant are to develop a twelve month communit!
based correctional progrnm and services for tmelve inmates of Camp x2S in the are
of vocational guidance and shill training in auto mechanics, melding and retail
sales, the City aonsger submitted the following report advising that the city
recently approved trsnsmittal of an application grant to the Virginia Division
of Justice end Crime Prevention for the funding of a special program for OIC
related to Pre-Release Services for Adult Offenders in the State Penal System,
that it is now necessary to request that Council authorize, by budget Ordinance
amendment, the appropriation of $44,000,00 which will be the amount of the state
orant and which will be the amount, subject to any adjustment for administrative
expenses, that will be received by the city and made available to OIC for its
program administration:
'October 30, 1972
Ilonoruble Hayer and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Geotlemen:
Subject: Program Grant -OIC
The City Council bas previously approved our trans-
mittal of an application 9rant to the ¥irginia Division of
Justice and Crime Prevention for the funding of a special
program for O1C related to Pre-Release Services for Adult
Offenders in the State Penal System. It is now necessary
to request that the City Council authorize by budget
ordinance amendment the appropriation of $44.000 which will
be the amount of the State grant and which will be the
amount, subject to any adjustment for administrative
expenses, that will be received by the City and made avail-
able to OIC for its program administration.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian ~. Hirst
City Manager"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating $44,000.00 to Pro-
Release Services for Adult Offenders in the State Penal System under Section #91.
*Non-Departmental,* of the 1972-73 budget:
(#20524) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section #91, ~Non -
Departmental,~ of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance, and providing for an
emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book n3?. page 220.)
Mr. Zhomus moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Trout and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Hubard. Lisk. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
.Mebber ........................6.
NAYS: None .......... O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
J
In this connection, the City Auditor raised the question as to whether
or not'Council expects him to audit the accounts of the Opportunities Industriali-
zation Center, pointing out that the federal government holds the City of
Roanoke responsible for the manner in mhich this money is disbursed.
Mr. Lisk then moved that the Audit Committee composed of Messrs. Milliam
S. Habard, Chairman, Robert A. Garland and Hampton M. Thomas be requested to
report to Council on the degree of city respoosibllity and handling of finances
required by the federal government mhen the city accepts a grant on behalf of u
private agency. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
CITY ERPLOYEES: The City Manager submitted the folloming report in
connection with the safety seminar, advising that 44 employees of the City of
Roanoke attended sessions of safety seminar sponsored by the Roanoke Valley
Safety Council and the Southwest Virginia Safety Society, that the seminar con-
sisted of three two-hour sessions with the last one being held on October 17,
1972, and that Jt is felt that the information gained and the instruction pro-
vided as well as the reorientatian of attitudes brought about by these sessions,
had a value far in excess Of the cost of the seminar:
*October 3U, 1972
llonorable ~ayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
Subject: Safety Seminar
For informatio~ to the City Council and of possible
interest as to the attention being given to safety by the
City, you may wish to know that 44 employees of the City of
Roanoke attended sessions of a safety seminar sponsored by
the Roanoke Valley Safety Council and the Southwest Virginia
Safety Society. This seminar consisted of three two-hour
sessions with the last being held on October 17, 1912.
The sessions covered case histories of two industrial
accidentsln which employees were killed, presentations by
medical doctors on hand, attention to eye safety, a discus-
sion of the OHSA by the Federal Compliance Officers assigned
to the State of Virginia and discussions by a representative
of the insurance industry.
It is felt that the information gained and the instruc-
City Home, 2 personnel
Food Distribution, I personnel
Juvenile Detention Home. 2 personnel
Civic Center, 2 personnel
Respectfully submitted.
.S/ Julian F. Hirst
Julian F. Hfrst
City Manager"
Mr. Trout moved that the report be received and filed. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
SYRE£T LXGHTS: Council having referred to the City Manager for con-
sideration and recommendation a communication from Mrs. Ruth L. Anderson. 1719
Stsunton Avenue. N. M.. requesting the installation of better brighter street
liohts in the 1700 block of Stauotoo Arenue. N. N.. the City Manager submitted
the following communication written by him to Mrs. Anderson endeavoring to
explain the situation:
"October 24. 1972
Mrs. Ruth L. Anderson
1719 Staunton Avenue. N. N.
Roanoke. Virginia 24017
Dear Mrs. Aoderson:
On August iH. 1972. you wrote to the City Council
requesting better street lights in the 1700 block of
Staunton Avenue. N. M. You also sent a petition signed by
ten other residents in the block mbo joined you in this
First may I express my opologies to you. In 1970 you
mstters~including trees, lights and an alleyway. In reply-
ing to you. as I did by letter of June 10. 1970. with regard
to tho lights. I stated to 7gu the City*s policy on schedul,
lng new light installations. I then asked our proper City
department to look into the matter as to what the situation
was and what might be done. That department promptly
replied to me and advised that there was a problem as to
the City being able to do anything at that particular time.
My apology is that I failed to then in turn advise you of
the problem and the result was that you were somewhat left
with the impression that perhapssome lighting changes would
be made and you kept loohin9 for them but they didn't arrive.
7he situation is that there is a light at the inter-
section of l?th Street and Staunton Avenue and 18th Street
and Staunton Avenue. In talking with me you had expressed
an interest in having one or more lights added in the middle
of the block.
The condition involved several matters. Those lights
at-the two corners, that ] mentioned above, are not the
newer mercury vapor type lightst Neither are they the older
lights that are still scattered in several areas of the City
and which are called open bulb or barn lights. Rather the
lights at the emu corners are of a type that were installed
somewhere in between. In other words they give limited
illumination in comparison with lights such as those me
is heavy foliage on the trees and this severely limits
the area which these lights affect. In noticing in the
location at night. ! observe that the illumination from
these lights goes only a few feet along Staunton Avenue.
Also the City hms proceeded over the years under the policy
of installing mid-block street lights only ir a block is 600
feet or longer. The 1700 block of Steunton Avenue Is only
SO0 feet long mhich under this policy m~eld not Justify a mid-
block light. Me have to have a policy such as this to maintain
u control over the number of mid-block lights until such
time us the City has adequately taken care of all of the in-
tersections. I think that this is apparent in your area
ns you will notice that there ore not intersection lights
on Staunton Avenue nt 19th Street, 2otb Street, et cetera.
The City has had undermsy for approximately four years
an annual program of upgrading street lighting. This program
has been going very successfully and large areas of the City
are being provided with improved and increased street light-
ing. If monies can continue to be provided fn the City's
budgets each year for new street lighting, it Mould seem
that the next step in improvement of lighting in the
Staunton Avenue area would occur mhen this program reaches
there and the lights at the intersections mould be upgraded
and new lights would be provided at those intersections which
do not now have lighting. This, however, would still leave
the problem of the heavy foliage on the trees and would also
leave the situation that until the street corners are taken
care of. the addin9 of lights in mid-block would have to be
held off.
Agaio I regret that I did eot realize that I had failed
to explain this to you when you first brought this matter to
my attention and that Jt became necessary for you and your
neighbors to go to the time and trouble Of preparing an
additional letter and petition to the City. I think that
the program on nam street lighting by areas is moving well.
It is very difficult to be able to pinpoint when a particu-
lar area will be included but it is to be hoped that pro-
grass can continue and that at the time that the Stauntoe
Avenue area is included, that there may be a marked improve-
ment in the situation which is of concern to you and your
neighbors.
Very truly yours.
S/ Julian F. Birst
Julian F. Hirst
City Manager*
In this connection, Mrs. Anderson appeared before Council and again
requested, on behalf of the tax paying citizens of Stauoton Avenue. that the three
additiooal street lights be installed in their block.
Mr. C. R. Meadows, 1720 Staunton Avenue. N. M.. also appeared before
Council and requested that the additional Street lights be installed for safety
purposes and pointed out that unless residents of Staunton Avenue leave their
porch lights on after dark they cannot see how to 9et into their homes.
After a discussion of the matter. Mr. Lfsk moved that the report be
referred back to the City Manager for further consideration and recommeodation to
Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bubard and unanimously adopted.
PAY ~LAN-C1TY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager submitted a written report
advising that the Personnel Board has approved the Grievance Procedure mhich was
previously forwarded to Council for information, that this approval is with some
minor changes in the wording for clarification purposes and follows a public
hearing held on September 28, 1972, by the Personnel Board in accordance with
certain City Code provisions.
Br~ Thowaa moved that the report be received and riled. The motion
wes seconded by Br. ~fah and uanafwonsly adopted.
BUDGET~POLICE DEPARTMENT-FIRE ORPARTR£NT--CIT¥ EMPLOYEES-PENSIONS-
INSUEANCE: The City manager submitted a written report advising that on July 5.
1972, Council requested that they be furnished with a report as to whet other
cities in Virginia are doing in the wetter of re~irewent programs, transmitting
copy of a compilation wade by the Virginia ~uofclpal League of the information
furnished by those cities listed in response to specific questions which he pre-
pared end asked the League to forward to all Virginia cities and that this infor-
Mation will be analyzed to determine if sown general standards or trends are
significant, particularly with respect to the City of Roanoke £wployees' Retirewet
Systen.
BF. Llsk waved that the report be received and filed. The notion was
seconded by Br. Garland and unanimously adopted.
PLANNING: Ybe City Manager submitted a written report transmitting a
memorandum under date of October 12, 19Y2, from the Fifth Planning District
Commission with its attachments of projections for the political subdivisions
of the Fifth Planning District as to population to the year 2000.
Mr. Lisk Moved that the report be received end filed. Yhe motion vas
seconded h~ Ur. Garland and unanimously adopted.
FUEL OIL: Yhe City Baoager submitted a written report concurring io
the followin9 report of a committee recommending that the bid of lhlting 0il
Company for supplyin9 No. I and Noo 2 fuel oil to the City of Roanoke for tbe
period beginnln9 November 1, 1972, to October 31, 19Y3, be accepted:
'October 30, 19Y2
Honorable Rayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Medoesday, October 25, 19Y2, bids were received and opened
before the conmittee whose names appear below for supplying
fuel oil to tbe City of Roanoke for the period beginning
November 1, 19Y2, and endin9 October 31, 1973.
Tbe attached tabulation will show tbat five bids were recei~J,
with Nhitiag Oil Company being the lowest bidder at the fol-
lowing prices.
No. I Fucl Oi! No. 2 Fuel
Tank Baron Price $o1900 per gal. $.1750 per gal.
Less Discount ,0444 per gal. .,0394 per gal.
~et Price ~4~ per galo $.]35~ per gal.
Consumer Yank Magon Prices* in effect at Roanoke, Virginia,
and are to be adjusted to any increase or decrease of the
Virginia, on day of delivery, but the above discounts will
remain unchanged throughout tbe contract period.
It is the recommendation of*the comeittee that tbe bid of
~hiting 011 Company be accepted ~or supplying ~o. I end
No. 2 Fuel Oil to tbe City for the period beginning Nov-
ember 1, 1972, and ending October 51, 1973. This compony
has supplied fuel oil to the City in prior years, and their
service has been very satisfactory.
Respectfully submitted,
S/ K. O. Klser
S~ Rex T. Mitchell, Jr.
S/ Bueford D. Thompson"
Mr. Thomas moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Ranager and offered the following emeroency Ordinance:
(#20§25) AN ORDINANCE providing for the supply to the City of its
annual requirements of No. I fuel oil and No. 2 fuel oil; acceptin9 a certain pro-
posal sade therefor; rejecting cerLain other bids made to the City for furnish-
lng said fuel oil requirements;and providing for an emergency.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book ~aT, page 2RI.)
Mr. Thomas moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Trout and adopted by the follouiug vote:
AYES: Messrs, Garland, Bubard0 Lisk. Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Mebber .......................... 6.
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
PENSIONS: Council having referred to the City Manager and to the City
Auditor for study, report and recommendation a communication from Mrs. Ethel A.
Osborne transmitting information to substantiate her request for an increase in
her pension as a former employee of the Roanoke City School Board, requesting
that she be given the same consideration which was given to firemen and police-
men and that any consideration given to her application for au increase in her
pension be made retroactive to July 1, 1972, the City Auditor submitted the fol-
lowiog report transmitting the following communication from George B, Buck,
Consnlting Actuaries, Incorporated, io connection with the matter, and suggest-
The cost-of-living index has risen approximately 10% from
supplemental benefit for the retired employees would be to
increase the pensions for these people retired prior to
2-1-70 by 10% and to apply the same formula to the employees
retiring since 2-1-70 by reducing the 10% maximum by 1~ for
each three month period elapsing slnc~ 2-1-TO.' This seems
to be an equitable method to accomplish this purpose even
though it does not exactly parallel the benefits given to
the members of the Police end Firemen Pension System. That
benefit mas based largely on an Increase for long service.
Accordingly, I have calculated that a supplement for
cost-of-living, based on this premise mould increase the pen-
sions paid to the retired members by approximately
$34,000.00 per year. The cost of this Increase mould be
a part of the City's contribution rote in future years.
I would suggest the Council request the City Attorney
tiaa.
'September 26. 1972
Mr. A. No Gibson. City Auditor
Employees' Retirement System of the City of Roanoke
P. O. Box 2985
Roanoke, Viroinia 24011
Dear Mr. Gibson:
to outline a proposal to provide cost-of-living
of the City of Roanoke to persona entitled to
Under Subsection (19) of Section 7 of th~
a supplemental benefit became payable after
February 28, 1971, to any person on account of
January 31, 1970. The supplemental benefit mas
computed to adjust systematically for cost-of-
living increases which occurred up to January 31.
1970.
Off the basis of an examination of data pub-
lished by the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics,
Index for the country as u whole has risen by
about 10% during the period Of 30 months from
February 1, 1970. through July 31, 1972. Accord-
of July 31, 1972, to each beneficiary be increas-
.ed by 1% for each period of 3 full calendar months
1~70. for which an allowance or pension mas pay-
as of July 31, 19~2, as the result of the death of
pri~r to July 31, 1972, the pay=eats node to the
member prior to his death shall be deemed for the
purpose of this provision to be payments to the
beneficiary in receipt of an allowance or pension
as of July 31, 1972. The per cent increase is to
be applied to the total benefit including the sup-
plemental benefit payable in accordance with Subsec-
tion (19) of Section 7.
would be 10%
Very truly yours,
S/ Nathaniel Gaines
Natbaniel Gaines
Respectfully submitted.
S/ A. N. Gibson
a. N. Gibson
City Auditor"
la this connection, Mrs. Osborne appeared before Council and expressed
the opinion that all city employees who have worhed for the City of Roeuoke
over thirty years should receive the same retirement percentage as policemen
and firemen.
After a lnng discussion of the matter, Mr. Garland moved that thu
report be referred bach to the City Auditor for further study, report and recom-
mendation mith the thought of providing more'than a ten per cent cost of living
increase, The motion was seconded by MF. Lisk and unanimously adopted.
flHDGET-COUNCIL: The City Auditor submitted a written report advising
that due to an increase in the cost of the $eFvice pins aMarded to city employees
for their various years of service, it is necessary to appropriate $12s.oo to
Employees Service Pins under Section Ul, ~Councilo
order to provide funds for the purchase of Service pins needed for tbe current
year.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Auditor
and offered the following emergency Ordinance appropriating the necessary funds:
(~2052b) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain Section ~1o "Council**
of the 1972-73 Appropriation Ordinance. and providing for an emergency. (For full text of Ordinance. see Ordinance Book n37. page 222.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of the Ordinance. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the follomlng vote:
AYES: Messrs. Garland, Ilubard, Lisk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Webber ..........................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. T~yI~ ~h~ent)
SALE OF PROPERTY: The Real Estate Committee submitted the follow-
lng report recommending that the offer of Mr. ~illiam Kenoey to purchase a 404
square foot parcel of city owned property, located on the southwest corner of
the intersection of Elm Avenue and Fourth Street, S. E., in the amount of
$600.00. be accepted:
"October 30, 1972
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
In acquisition of right-of-wayfor the construction of
Route 24. Elm Avenue from the intersection of Seventh Street,
S. E., to the intersection of Jefferson Street, there was a
small residue parcel acquired by the City. This came about
because the major portion of the lands of one of tbe property
owners was needed for right-of-way, leaving a heavily
damaged residue parcel which the City purchased. This trl-
angular shaped residue, containing approximately 404 square
feet, is located on the soutbwest corner of the intersection
of EIm Avenue and Fourth Street, S. E.
Fairly recently Mr. William Kenney of Kenney's Fran-
chise Corporation bas constructed an eating establishment
at this location, and his parking area is adjacent to the
City*s residue parcel and the said parcel cea be and is
utilized for additional porklog by Eenaeyea. The Real
Estate Committee requested the City Assessor to place a
value on this land. mhich he did in the amount of $600,00.
The Committee then Instructed the CJty*s Real E~tate Agent
to negotiate with Hr, Kenney at this figure, Negotiations
have been successfully completed pending City Council*s
approval.
The Real Estate Committee recommends that the City
Council accept Mr, MJlliam Nenney*s offer of abo0.o0 for
the purchase from the City of that certain approximate 464
square font triangular-shaped residue parcel adjacent to
Mr. Keoney's land.
Thisis submitted mith*a copy to the City Attorney for
the preparation of the necessary papers inviting the City
Council*s approval,
Respectfully submitted,
S/ David K. Link, Chairman
S/ Julian F, Nirst
S/ A, N. Gibson
S/ James N. Kincanon'
ar. Link moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the Real
Estate Committee and that the followio0 Ordinance bo placed upon its first
reading:
(#20527) AN ORDINANCE authoriziog and directing the City's sale and
conveyance to Milliam Kenney acd others of a triaogular shaped parcel oY laod
containing 4B4 square feet, more or less, situate at the southwest corner Of Elm
Avenue. S. E., and Fourth Street. S. Eo, being the southerly residue of Official
No. dO20319, upon certain terms and conditions.
~REREAS, the City is the onner of the parcel of land hereinafter des-
cribed which, being held as surplus property and not needed for public purposes,
is the subject of an offer to purchase, made to the City through the Council's
Real Estate Committee by Nilliam Kenney and others, owners of certain adjoining
property; and
~REREAS, the Council's Real Estate Committee, through which said offer
was directed to the Council, has reported to the Council and has recommended
that said offer should be accepted and that conveyance of the title to said pro-
perty to the offerors be authorized and directed on the terms hereinafter set
forth.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
the sale and conveyance of the following described parcel of land situate in the
City of Rom·oho. viz:
BEING a triangular parcel of land containin9 approximately
484 square feet, and bounded on its northeast line by the
southwest line of the. new right-of-way for State Route 24
(Elm Avenue, S. E.), on its westerly line by the east
line of a lot now or formerly owned, by E. L, Nar·es and
Georgia Kamen, and on its south line by a lot now or
formerly owned by Lillian P. Conner; said 484 square foot
parcel of land being designated as Parcel '001' on Sheet 6
of the plans for State Highway Project O024-12D-IOI-R~-201,
a copy of which said plans and said sheet are of record in
the State Highway Plat Book ia the Cloth's Office or the
Hustings Court for the City of R~anoke; nnd
BEING all of the southerly residue of Official No. 4020319,
according to the Tax Appraisal Hap of the City of Roanoke
and located at the southwest corner of Elm Arcane, S. E.,
and Fourth Street, $. E., conveyed to the City of Roanoke
by deed dated June 1. 1966. from L. R. Barboar. et al, of
record in the Clerk's Office of the Hustings Court of the
City of Roanoke in Deed Hook 1201. at page 290;
to Mlllian Kenney and others, for and in consideration of $600.00, cash, be. and
Is hereby authorized and approved, subject to the terms nnd conditions herein
provided, and the City Clerk shall so notify said offerors by transmittal of an
attested copy of this ordinance.
BE IT FL~THER ORDAINED that the Mayor be, and he i$ hereby authorized
and empowered, for and on behalf of the City. to execute to the aforesaid pur-
chasers a deed of conveyance drawn by the City Attorney conveying to said par-
chasers the fee simple title to the aforesaid lot. such deed to contain the City's
Special Marrunty of Title, and modern English covenants on behalf of the City. and
to include, also, provisions precluding any right of access to or from Elm
Avenue, S. E., or Fourth Street, S. £., via the northeast boundary lJoe of the
~ebber ..........................
'October 30, 1972
The Honornble #uyor and #embers
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Gentlemen:
The Committee which you appointed to study the system
now being used for the assessment of Personal Property Tax
and the sale of automobile decals, has had several meetings
on these subjects.
The problems which concern the Council appear to arise
as a result of two relatively recent amendments to the City's
tax ordinances. First. in order to obtain more of each
calendar year*s revenue within the first sim months of such
year. the date required for payment of the Merchant*s
License Tax and the Tangible Personal Property Tax was
advanced; this in order that the payment of such taxes be
received by the City sooner and so as to be counted aa income
in a fiscal year earlier than in the past, thus, in effect,
amounting to a oneotime windfall in the first year effected.
Secondly. effective for the 1971-72 year, requirement
was made for presentation of a paid current year*s Tangible
Personal Property Tax receipt of the property tax assessable
on every motor vehicle as a prerequisite of issuance of a
current annual license for each such vehicle. This had the
twofold effect of accelerating the filing of return and pay-
ment of the Personal Property T~X and vastly increased the
issuance of automobile and other vehicle licenses. These
procedures, directed hy the Council, have worked extremely
well insofar as the collection of revenue is concerned. The
problem that arises has to do sJth the extent of incon-
venience these procedures nay have placed upon the taxpayer
and upon the officer charged with assessment and collection
of the property and license taxes assessable under the ordi-
nances of the City.
Inasmuch as last year, 1971-72 fiscal year, was the
first year that during which prepayment of the current year's
Personal Property Tax on vehicles, prior to the licensing
of same was required, there was. admittedly, some confusion and
inconvenience. Without question, these two recent changes
have speeded collection of the City's annual revenue, and
the second change abovementioned has resulted in the collec-
tion of large amounts of tangible personal property tax
heretofore unpaid. The question would seem to be whether or
not further changes in procedure and in requirements of iii-
in9 returns and tine of payment of taxes are inorder, for
the better convenience of the taxpayer and of the aforesaid
tax administering offices,
The undersigned Commissioner of Revenue would report
that his office has instituted and complied with the above
changes with a very minimum amount of inconvenience within
his office and with little report of inconvenience or con-
plaint from the taxpayers visiting or communicating with his
office. He would further report that his office personnel
worked overtime on a@proxJmately ten Saturdays during the
peak activity period of Fiscal 71-72 on a full-tine basis,
so as to keep up to date the duties Of that office, a large
portion of that tine being devoted to handling the large
amounts of mail received during that period. It is con-
sidered that the examination of returns, assessment of taxes
and preparation of the bills and form of receipts of same,
all of which are generated in the office of the Commissioner
of Revenue, is more time consuming than may be the mailing
of tax tlchets, the collection of the taxes assessed and
validation of the tax receipt forms, performed in the office
of the City Treasurer. However. it is recognized that re-
quirement of payment of the property tax on vehicles up to
May 5th and requirement of payment of license taxes on the
same vehicle no later than May 15th may have allowed too
little time interval between such requirements, since pay-
ment of the first is now required as a prerequisite to the
second. Even so, and in retrospect, some of the delay and
possible confusion encountered in the first period of
administering the above changes might well have been
avoided or overcome by speedier processing of the tax payments
and issuance of tax receipts and vehicle license decals.
I
I
The members of the committee appear unanimous in.recom-
mending continuance or requirement that no motor vehicle be
Ifcensed for · given year without the current properly tax
assessable on that vehicle having been previously paid.
After considerable discussion and frank exchange of
views, the majority of the Committee believe that a
recurrence of such inconvenience or confusion aa may have
occurred previously can be largely eliminated by Implement-
ing the following:
First, the Committee recommends that the period within
which all annual motor vehicle license taxes must be paid be
changed from April 15th - May 15th to May 15th to June 15th;
but that no change be made in requirement of payment by May
5th of tangible personal property taxes assessable on such
vehicles. Such would have the effect of alloming forty days,
rather than ten days as.the time interval between the last date
on which payment of the property tax assessable on a motor
vehicle is required and the last date on which the license
tax assessable on the same vehicle may be Issued without
penalty, and, for the greater convenience of the taxpayer
but, at the same time would see to the Cityts collection of
the revenue from both such SOUrCeS within the first six
months of each calendar year. For that purpose and should the
Council concur with such recommendation, a proposed form of
ordinance is attached which would change such time require-
ments.
Secondly, the undersigned suggest that with continuing
agreement between the tax assessing and the tax collecting
offices as to coordination of the wetting periods scheduled
within those offices, so as to Speedily process property
tax returns and applications for vehicle licenses and assess-
ments of tax on both. on the one hand, and to bill and to
receipt for payment of property taxes and license taxes so
assessed. On the other hand. all further inconvenience to
taxpayers and to the offices themselves may be overcome.
All reasonable efforts should continue to be made. as they
have in the past, to notify the public at large of the
earliest and latest dates at which tax returns and applica-
tions, may or are required to be made and assessable taxes
paid, and to encourage early, rather than last-day perform-
ance of those requirements.
All members of · e Committee are cognizant of the
duty of each office to efficiently discharge the duties im-
posed relative to the assessment and collection of local and
state tax revenue and, in SO doing, to accoaodate the public
convenience by all means available to the= within the law. The
undersigned are of thc opinion that. with benefit of the
experience gained on all sides durin9 the first half of the
current calendar year and with amendment of annual vehicle
license tax requirements as herein recommended future admini-
stration of local tangible personal property tax and motor
vehicle license tax regulations may be smoothly accomplished.
Respectfully,
S/ Jerome S. Howard
S/ J. H. Johnson
S/ J. N. Mincanon
$/ A. N. Gibson, Chair=an"
la this connection, Mr. J. H. Johnson..submitted the following
minority report transmitting four suggestions which he feels will alleviate the
situation:
"October 30. 1972
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Couacil
In response to the s~ggestions I made to Council on October
19. I wish to re-submit my suggestions in detail.as follows:
1, Under the present system for assessing personal
property rexes end auto decals the Commissioner of the
Revenue makes 30,000 sepsrnte personal property,tax
assessments annually. Tax hills are made mlth the desd-
line payment date set for May 5. The Commissioner later
assesses 40.000 auto decals on separate tax bills and
the deadline date for payment is set for Hay 15. At
least 75~ of the names and oddresses on both sets of
The present method generates 70,000 assessments uhich
require 70,000 collection items for the Treasurer uith
70.000 separate cash-register rings and ?0.000 separate
items to be checked by the City Auditor. I recommend
property tax on a separate tax bill and list on th~ same
bill the cost of the decal needed for that vehicle, show-
ing the total due for both. This method would reduce
the number of items assessed and collected from 70,000
to 40,000, and the City Treasurer could process the
payments and make deposits three or four times faster
2. The present deadline for filing personal property
tax is March 1, however, taxpayers may file and pay
their tax at the time they file their return as late
as May 5. I recommend that the deadline for filing
personal property tax returns be changed to April 15
(which is also the deadlin9 for filing federal income
tax returns). At the same time repeal the extended
compute their tax and file and pay ns late os May 5
~ithout penalty, I recommend that the taxpayers be
allowed to pay their personal property tax and decal
all on one tax bill as early as April 15 and
through June 15, which will give the taxpayers a longer
period of time in which to pay.
3, Purchase tax receipts designed with pockets on the
back side into which decals can be inserted and also
give better protection and speed up mailing.
separate tax bill by the Commissioner, listing
and sboming the total Of both. Permit the City Treasurer
in numerical order. The tax bill number will be the
In'my opinion most taxpayers mill file their personal pro-
perty tax returns early in the year, providing they are
in tine to receive their tax and decal bill by April 15,
and the remaining few who file as late as April 15 (dead-
line date for filing) could be billed in time to pay their
personal property tax and decal by the June 15 penalty
deadline date.
The present deadline date for paying personal property tax to
avoid a 10% penalty is May 5, while the deadline date for
purchasing catI decals is May 15. These two dates caused a
backlon9 of mail payments in the office of the City Treasurer
in 1972 because many taxpayers mailed a check attached to their
tax bill and also included the cost of the decal which had
to request that Council seriously consider changing the
penalty deadline for filing personal property taxes to
April 15 and require that each separate motor vehicle be
assessed on a separate bill fixing the amount of personal pro-
lng the total to be paid, permitting the taxpayer to pay as
early as April 15 and as late as Jure 15 to avoid the pre-
sent 10~ penalty for late payment. (See postscript for
percentages of those who filed early in 1972.)
Since placing my October 19 letter on the agenda, the Com-
missioner has made an additional 650 arbitrary personal pro-
perty tax assessments against taxpayers mho had failed to
file at all. Some of those had purchased city tags but
had not paid a tax, and many of themare paying the tax but
are not purchasing city tags,
I
Such conditions could be avoided provided Council could
strengthen the city ordinance by assessing the personal pro-
perty and decnl tax all ua uae bill nad making the city tag
n part of the property trix assessed, Such u change would
empower the City Treasurer to be able to enforce collection
of the auto decnl at the same time he tabes legal action
to collect the personal property tax. This method would
eliminate the need for policing curs for decals. I am now
in the process of attaching wages to collect the 1972
delinquent personal property taxes on thus who have not
paid, however. I am not able to require the taxpayer to
pay his auto decal tax.
These recommended changes, in my opinion, would improve the
service to the taxpayers, produce additional revenue
from taxpayers who are not paying their fair share, and
at the same time simplify and solve the entire problem
which we are now facing.
Sincerely yours,
S/ J. H. Johnson
J. H. Johnson
Treasurer"
After a discussion of the matter. Mr. Thomas moved that the committee
be requested to review the majority report and the minority report to see if
there are any points which can be agreed upon, to inform Couccil wherein they
disagree, and to report back to Council as soon as possible on the matter. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and unanimously adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
ML~]CIP~L BUILDING-CITY PROPERTY: The City Manager submitted the fol-
lowing report advising that on July 31, 19T2, he referred to Council a proposed
lease with the federal government extending the agreement for occupancy of
certain spaces in the former Reid ~ Cutshall Building used by the Social Security
Administration Offices, that the following week it was reported to Council that
he was discussin9 with representatives of the General Services Administration
the possibility of an increase in the rental rate under this lease and Council
temporarily deferred action on the second reading of the Ordinance, that he is
now in receipt of a revised lease agreement including an increase in the annual
rental of $2,400.00 making a new annual rental rate of $19,200.00 and recommend-
ing that Council, by appropriate Ordinance, authorize this supplemental lease
agreement with the General Services Administration for the period from August 1,
1972. to July 31. 1975.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the report of the City Manager
and offered the folloming Ordinance for its second reading and final adoption,
as amended:
(a20397) AN ORDINANCE agreeing to the continued occupancy until July
31, 1975, by the Government of certain ground floor space in the premises
known as the Reid ~ Cutshall Building at the corner of C~mpbell Avenue and Third
Street. S. W., in the City, held under Lease No. CS-03-B-4B25 dated July 30, 1962.
as amended by Agreement No. I dated December 5. 1966. at an annual rental of
$19.200.00.
IFor full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book =37, page 213.)
Mr. Trout moved the ndoptlon of the Ordinance, The motion mas seconded
by Hr. Llsk and adopted by the follomiag vote:
AYES: #essrs. Garland, flubard, Lift, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
~ebber ................
NAYS: None ...........O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS: Council having directed the City Attorney to pr~
pare the proper measure authorizing the employment of certain special professiona~
services in connection mith the preparation of a comprehensive Develop~
consulting
ment Plan for the Mill Mountain property, upon certain terms and conditions, at
cost not to exceed $12,500.000 he presented same,
In this connection, the City Manager submitted a ~rJtten report request
that Council withhold action on the adoption of the Ordinance until the next
regular meeting of the bo~y on Monday, November 6, 1972.
Mr. Trout moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
and that the matter be deferred until the next regular meeting of Council on
Monday, November 6, 1972. The motiou was seconded by Mr. Thomas and unanimously
adopted.
SENERS AND STORM DRAINS: Council. at its last regular meeting on
Monday, October 23, 1972, having adopted an Ordinance appropriating $30,000.00
to Replacement Reserve under Section #500, "Selage Treatment Fund - Appropriationi
for Capital Outlay - Replacement Reserve." of the 1972-73 budget, to provide
funds for the purchase of a new air blower engine for the Semage Treatment Plant
Mr. Trout offered the folloming Resolution concurring in the emergency action
taken by the City Manager, in ordering delivery and replacement of a hem air
blower engine for the Sewage Treatment Plant by purchase order issued by the cit)
to cost an estimated sum of $28.000o00:
(=20520) A RESOLUTION concurring in e~ergency action taken by the City
Manager towards replacement of u new air blower engine for the Sewage Treatment
Plant.
(For full text of Resolution. see Ordinance Book ~37, puge 223.)
Mr, Trout moved the adoption of the Resolution. The motion was second-
ed by Mr. Lisk and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Nessrs. Garland, Hubard, Lisk, Thomas, Trout and Mayor
Kebber .......................... 6.
NAYS: None ........... O. (Dr. Taylor absent)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: NONE.
There being ne further business, Kayor Nebber declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Oeputy City Clerk Mayor
I
I
I