HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 01-18-00HARRIS
34634
ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
January 18, 2000
12:lSp. m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
/t GENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
1. Call to Order--Roll Call. All Present.
ao
City Manager briefing with regard to the Roanoke Renaissance
Program. (30 minutes)
It was the consensus of Council that the City Manager and the City
Attorney be requested to prepare the proper measure endorsing the
Roanoke Renaissance Program, recognizing those issues that have
been accomplished by the City and listing those issues that need to
be addressed; and formally recognizing the contributions of those
persons/organizations that participated in formulating the program.
File #488-527
City Manager briefing with regard to evaluation of the Rental Certificate
of Compliance Program. (30 minutes)
Received and filed.
File #178-402
At 1:07 p.m., the meeting was declared in recess to be reconvened at
2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber.
2
ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
January 18, 2000
2:00p. m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
1. Call to Order-- Roll Call. All Present.
The Invocation was delivered by Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
was led by Mayor David A. Bowers.
Welcome. Mayor Bowers.
3
NOTICE:
Meetings of Roanoke City Council are televised live on RVTV Channel 3.
Today's meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Thursday, January 20,
2000, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, January 22, 2000, at 4:00 p.m.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RECEIVE
THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AND RELATED
COMMUNICATIONS, REPORTS, ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS, ETC., ON THE THURSDAY PRIOR TO THE
COUNCIL MEETING TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR
REVIEW OF INFORMATION. CITIZENS WHO ARE INTERESTED
IN OBTAINING A COPY OF ANY ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA
MAY CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE, ROOM 456,
MUNICIPAL BUILDING, OR CALL 853-2541.
THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE NOW PROVIDES THE ENTIRE CITY
COUNCIL AGENDA PACKAGE ON THE INTERNET FOR VIEWING
AND RESEARCH PURPOSES. TO ACCESS THE AGENDA
MATERIAL, GO TO THE CITY'S HOMEPAGE AT
WWW.CI.ROANOKE.VA.US, CLICK ON THE ROANOKE CITY
COUNCIL ICON, CLICK ON MEETINGS AND AGENDAS, AND
DOWNLOAD THE ADOBE ACROBAT SOFTWARE TO ACCESS THE
AGENDA.
PRESENTATIONS
A Resolution memorializing the late George W. Sanderson.
Adopted Resolution No. 34634-011800. (7-0)
File #367
4
2. CONSENT AGENDA
(Approved 7-0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE
CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE MEMBERS OF CITY
COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE
WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF
DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM
THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers requesting a Closed
Meeting to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and
committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION Concur in request to convene in Closed
File #132 Meeting.
A report of the City Manager requesting a Closed Meeting to discuss
acquisition and disposition of real property for a public purpose, where
discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or
negotiating strategy of the City, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(5), Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in request to convene in Closed
File #104 Meeting.
A report of the City Manager with regard to the City's Y2K conversion
project.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
File #175
A report of the City Manager with regard to tool replacement efforts in
the Department of Fleet Management.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
File #217-361-472
C-5
A report of the City Manager recommending execution of a reciprocal
agreement to facilitate transportation of qualified CORTRAN and STAR riders
across jurisdictional lines.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
File #55-353
C-6
A report of the Director of Finance, the City Manager and the City
Treasurer transmitting information with regard to the new water/sewer service
bill format.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
File #27-111-468
C-7 A report of the Director of Real Estate Valuation with regard to the City's
annual general reassessment program for fiscal year 2000-01.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
File #79-162
C-8 A communication from Judy A. Bower tendering her resignation as a
member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Parmership Steering Committee.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file the communication and accept
File #15-110-488 the resignation.
C-9
Qualification of the following persons:
Sydnor W. Brizendine, Jr., and Willard G. Light as members
of the Board of Zoning Appeals for terms ending December
31,2001 and December 31, 2002, respectively;
File #15-51-110
Shirley M. Bethel, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., 'and Mark A. Harris as
members of the Roanoke Neighborhood Parmership Steering
Committee for terms ending November 30, 2003; and
File #15-110-488
David K. Lisk as a member of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany
Regional Commission for a term ending December 31,2002.
File #15-110-326
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
REGULAR AGENDA
e
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
Presentation with regard to services provided by Camp Virginia Jaycee,
Inc. William B. Robertson, Founder. (5 minutes)
A request for $50,000.00 over a five year period was referred to
2000-01 budget study.
File #60-528
4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
ao
A communication from Council Member Can'oll E. Swain with regard
to railway safety educational programs offered by RailWatch.
Withdrawn.
be
A communication from the Roanoke City School Board requesting
appropriation of $15,000.00 for the Chess Program, and transfer of
funds from the General Fund Capital Outlay to provide for interest
expenses related to the Addison Aerospace Middle School renovation
project; and a report of the Director of Finance recommending that
Council concur in the request.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34635-011800. (7-0)
File #60-467
7
5. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
a. CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS:
A report with regard to proposed amendments to Article III,
Division 2, Subdivision B, RM-1, Residential Multifamily Low
Density District, of Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City
of Roanoke (1979), as amended. (10 minutes)
Received and filed.
File #24-51
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
A report recommending authorization to extend the closing date
for the sale of City-owned property located on Gilmer Avenue,
N. W., to Serenity Funeral Home.
Adopted Resolution No. 34636-011800. (7-0)
File #2-166
ge
A report recommending execution of an amendment to the City's
agreement with Downtown Associates for management of the
City Market Building, dated January 27, 1983.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34637 on first reading. (7-0)
File #42-166
o
A report recommending appropriation of funds to provide for
installation of a new canopy roof at the City Market Building.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34638-011800. (7-0)
It was the consensus of Council that the City Manager be
requested to report to Council during fiscal year 2000-01
budget study with a comprehensive analysis of the highest and
best use of the City Market Building. The Mayor requested
that the report include information on sidewalk caf6s (does
8
the City promote sidewalk caf6, are there certain restrictions
on sidewalk cafes, should the sidewalk under the canopy of
the City Market Building be extended, etc.), and that the City
Manager address any other areas surrounding the City
Market Building.
File #60-42-166
A report recommending execution of Change Order No. 5 to the
City's contract with Alex E. Paris Contracting Co., Inc., in the
amount of $460,000.00, for construction of the Roanoke River
Interceptor Sewer Replacement Project, Contracts A 1, A2, B 1 and
B2.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34639-011800. (7-0)
File #27
o
A report recommending award of a contract to Davis H. Elliot
Co., Inc., in the amount of $926,611.25, for construction of the
Central Business District Traffic Signal System; and transfer of
funds in connection therewith.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34640-011800 and Ordinance No.
34641-011800. (7-0)
File #20-46-60
A report recommending purchase of 16 new police automobiles
from Magic City Motor Corp., for a total cost of $333,184.00; and
appropriation of funds in connection therewith.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34642-011800 and Resolution No.
34643-011800. (7-0)
File #5-60-472
ge
A report recommending purchase of pickup trucks and utility
vehicles for several City departments from Pinkerton Chevrolet-
Geo, Inc., and Magic City Motor Corp., for a total cost of
$85,593.20; and appropriation of funds in connection therewith.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34644-011800 and Resolution No.
34645-011800. (7-0)
File #60-472
A report recommending purchase of two new emergency vehicles
for the Fire/EMS Department, from Wheeled Coach, N.C., Inc.,
for a total cost of $127,680.00.
Adopted Resolution No. 34646-011800. (7-0)
File #70-188-472
10.
A report recommending acceptance of a Source Water
Assessment Grant from the State Department of Health to provide
financial assistance in preparing a Source Water Assessment Plan
for the City of Roanoke.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34647-011800 and Resolution No.
34648-011800. (7-0)
File #60-468
11.
A report recommending appropriation of $237,432.00 from Water
Fund previous years' retained earnings for costs incurred for
purchased water and anticipated cost for new services, hydrants
and lines.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34649-011800. (7-0)
File #60-468
12.
A report recommending acceptance of a gift from the American
Association of Retired Persons of a fully trained canine to be used
by the Police Department's Canine Unit.
Adopted Resolution No. 34650-011800. (7-0)
It was the consensus of Council that the City Manager and the
City Clerk be requested to recommend an appropriate
method in which to express appreciation to the American
Association of Retired Persons for their generous gift to the
city.
File #5-80
l0
b. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
A report with regard to transfer of funds between categories of
1999 Bond funds.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34651-011800. (7-0)
File #53-60
A report with regard to reallocation of bond proceeds to ensure
compliance with Federal Arbitrage Rebate Requirements.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34652-011800 and Resolution No.
34653-011800. (7-0)
File #53-60
c. CITY CLERK:
1. A report advising of expiration of the three year terms of office
of F. B. Webster Day, Marsha W. Ellison and Sherman P. Lea as
Trustees of the Roanoke City School Board on June 30, 2000, and
applications for the upcoming vacancies will be received in the
City Clerk's Office until 5:00 p.m., on Friday, March 10, 2000.
Received and filed.
File #467
6. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: None.
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
Se
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
a#
Ordinance No. 34619, on second reading, amending certain proffered
conditions contained in Ordinance No. 29028 adopted on March 28,
1988, which conditionally rezoned property located at 3113 Franklin
Road, S. W.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34619-011800 on second reading. (7-0)
File #51
bo
Ordinance No. 34631, on second reading, authorizing and directing the
proper City officials to enter into a five-year lease between the City and
the Roanoke Valley Federal Credit Union leasing a small area in the
Second Floor Lobby of the Municipal Building for the placement by the
Credit Union of an automatic teller machine (ATM), pursuant to certain
terms and conditions.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34631-011800 on second reading.
(Council Member Wyatt voted no.)
File 0209-443
(6-1)
9. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
a#
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and
Members of City Council.
Council Member Swain requested a target date as to when
1999 crime statistics for the City of Roanoke and a
comparison of previous years will be submitted to Council;
whereupon, the Director of Public Safety advised that after
conferring with the Chief of Police, he would provide Council
with a projected date for submission of the report. Council
Member Swain also requested information on the
effectiveness of the COPE offices in the four areas of the City,
and a progress report on police precincts in the City,
specifically the Williamson Road/Melrose area.
File #5
12
e
Council Member Swain referred to complaints regarding the
appearance of the recycling center on 1-581. He called
attention to the practice of the City of Los Angeles, California,
in which concrete traffic blocks with decorative stones are
used to conceal certain unsightly areas. He suggested that the
matter be referred to the City Manager for study and report
to Council during fiscal year 2000-01 budget study, with cost
estimates for improving the appearance of the above
referenced area.
It was the consensus of Council to refer the matter to the City
Manager for report during fiscal year 2000-01 budget study.
File #144
e
Council Member Trout called attention to parking needs in
the downtown Roanoke area, and advised that for those
businesses that have expressed a desire to move to downtown
Roanoke, the City should be in a position to provide a
timetable regarding the construction of a parking facility or a
specific solution to address the parking situation.
It was the consensus of Council to refer the matter to the City
Manager for report to Council.
File #20
e
Council Member White commended citizens, Council and City
staff on the City's sidewalk, curb and gutter program on
Ferncliff Avenue, N. W.
File #57-80
bo
Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and
committees appointed by Council.
13
10.
OTHER HEARING
MATTERS:
OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY
FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. IT IS A TIME FOR
CITIZENS TO SPEAK AND A TIME FOR COUNCIL
TO LISTEN. MATTERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO
THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED,
WITHOUT OBJECTION, IMMEDIATELY, FOR ANY
NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE,
RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL.
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED MEETING. (5-o) (Mayor
Bowers and Council Member Hudson were absent)
At 5:45 p.m., the meeting was declared in recess to be reconvened at 7:00
p.m., in the City Council Chamber.
14
R O,4NOKE CITY CO UNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
January 18, 2000
7:00p. m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
,4 GEND,4 FOR THE COUNCIL
Call to Order-- Roll Call. (Council Member Swain was absent)
The Invocation was delivered by Mayor David A. Bowers.
Welcome. Mayor Bowers.
NOTICE:
AO
Meetings of Roanoke City Council are televised live on RVTV Channel 3.
Today's meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Thursday, January 20,
2000, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, January 22, 2000, at 4:00 p.m.
HEARING OF CITIZENS:
Request to address Council with regard to adding a definition for a
"Duplex Townhouse" to the City's Zoning Ordinance. Adam J. Cohen,
Spokesperson. (5 minutes)
The matter was referred to the City Manager and the City Attorney
for study, report and recommendation to Council.
File #51
Request to address Council in support of legislation to curtail drug
trafficking in the City of Roanoke. Jeff Artis, President, Lafayette
Watchdogs. (5 minutes)
The following persons addressed Council in support of the above
referenced legislation:
Jeff Artis
John Styles
Kathy Wheeden
Stuart LaManna
Sue Snellings
Thomas Donel
Sean Arjormandinia
Kathy El-Attar
Kathy Hill
Lisa Knappe
Brenda McDaniel
Ray Barbour
The remarks were referred to the City Manager and the City
Attorney for report to Council at the next regular meeting on
Monday, February 7, 2000.
File #5-66-76-137
o
Request to address Council on behalf of the Roanoke Municipal
Employees Association. Ted Kaplan, President of Local 2032. (5
minutes)
A request of Ms. Angela Norman, 1731 Michael Street, N. W., that
City custodial workers be provided with lockers in which to store
personal items was referred to the City Manager for appropriate
response.
File #184
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Public heating on the request of Radford & Company that property
located at 2154 McVitty Road, S. W., identified as Official Tax Nos.
5100527, 5100528, 5100534 and 5100535, be rezoned from RS-I,
Residential Single Family District, to C-1, Office District. Edward A.
Natt, Attorney.
Denied.
File 051
Public heating to consider an amendment and revision to Chapter 36.1,
Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to permit
accessory apartments outfight, and to permit two-family dwellings by
special exception. Melvin L. Hill, Chairperson, City Planning
Commission.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34654-011800. (6-0)
File #24-51
ge
Public heating to receive citizen input on the selection of transportation
enhancement projects in fiscal year 2000-01 to be recommended to the
state for funding under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st
Century (TEA-21). Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager.
Adopted Resolution Nos. 34655-011800 and 34656-011800. (6-0)
File #422
17
Public hearing in connection with execution of the appropriate
document reserving a 25 foot City sanitary sewer easement across City-
owned property located on Findlay Avenue, S. E., identified as Official
Tax No. 4260506. Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34657 on first reading. (6-0)
File #27-28-166
o
Public hearing in connection with execution of the appropriate
document granting an easement for the extension of overhead electric
power service across City-owned property and located adjacent to
Innotech, Inc., property on Femdale Drive, N. W., Official Tax No.
6460103. Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager.
Adopted Ordinance No. 34658 on first reading. (6-0)
File #28-29-166-207
o
Public hearing to consider changes to the sewer exemption meter credit
program which would require all customers, where practical, to place
meters in meter boxes to facilitate reading of meters by City employees.
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance.
The matter was referred back to the Water Resources Committee
for further study, report and recommendation to Council, Vice-
Mayor Harris abstained from voting.
File #468
C. OTHER HEARING OF CITIZENS:
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY
FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. IT IS A TIME FOR
CITIZENS TO SPEAK AND A TIME FOR COUNCIL
TO LISTEN. MATTERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO
THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED,
WITHOUT OBJECTION, IMMEDIATELY FOR ANY
NECESSARY AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE,
RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO COUNCIL.
Mr. George Gunther, P. O. Box 12353, addressed Consent Agenda
Item C-6, New Water/Sewage Service Bill Format; viz: a ten per
cent or $2.00 minimum late payment penalty which takes money
from citizens who live on a fixed income.
File #27-66-111-468
e
e
Mr. Martin Jeffrey, 517 Rutherford Avenue, N. W., requested that
Council consider the impact of the proposed amendments to Article
III, Division 2, Subdivision B., RM-1, Residential Multifamily
District, Low Density District, Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of
the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, on other City
neighborhoods, specifically the Loudon/Melrose neighborhood that
currently has 219 vacant lots.
Mr. Jeffrey also spoke in support of Mr. Eric Minor, who would
address Council following his presentation, in regard to a formal
harassment complaint which he filed against Police Officer W. G.
Boucher. He addressed the issue of perfection of justice which
should be of concern to all citizens and law enforcement that is
accountable for its actions. He expressed concern regarding an
incident involving another citizen and Police Officer Boucher which
is currently under investigation by the City.
File #5-51
Mr. Eric Minor, 819 Seventh Street, N. W., appeared before Council
in connection with alleged harassment by Police Officer W. G.
Boucher, and requested that a committee be appointed to investigate
his concerns.
It was the consensus of Council to refer the remarks of Mr. Jeffrey
and Mr. Minor to the City Manager.
File #5
Mr. Carl Cooper, 2120 Carroll Avenue, N. W., recommended that
cameras be installed in all police vehicles as soon as possible.
It was the consensus of Council to refer the matter to the City
Manager.
File #5
The City Attorney was requested to prepare the proper measure
providing that the 7:00 p.m. regular session of Council to be held on
Tuesday, February 22, 2000, will be held in the Exhibit Hall of the
Roanoke Civic Center.
File #132
2O
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File ff,-488-527
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
William M. Hackworth
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham and Mr. Hackworth:
A briefing with regard to the Roanoke Renaissance Program was before the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
It was the consensus of Council that the City Manager and the City Attorney be requested
to prepare the proper measure endorsing the Roanoke Renaissance Program, recognizing
those issues that have been accomplished by the City and listing those issues that need
to be addressed; and formally recognizing the contributions of those persons/organizations
that participated in formulating the program.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
C:\MyFiles\jan 18.wpd
CITY
'00 JAN13 P3:53
Janua~ 18,2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Briefing on Roanoke Renaissance
This is to reserve space on Council's agenda for the 12:15 session for a 30-minute
briefing regarding the above referenced subject.
DLB:ca
CC:
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Clerk
Director of Public Safety
anoke Neighborhood Renaissance
I
Vision for a Century of
Excellence
oanoke N~ighborhood Renaissance
ackground and Foous')
Initiated in ttte fall of 1997 by then City Manager, Bob Herbert
Included stakeholders ~om community organizations, churches,
neighborhood associations, and government agencies
e Reviewed exis~ng stud-S, plans, and needs asesesments
* Talked ~ citizens m gather input (Al:~mately 2,500)
e tdent~ed and devek~ ~ .;~3las t~at would enhance t~e
quality and health d our city's neighborhoods
IRole of the Renaissan~
I
· Provides a structure and means to coordinate,
organize, and monitor the efforts of I~cal community
and govemrnant agencies which seek to ensure vital,
productive, and healthy neighlxxhoods.
· Facilitates new partnorship~ and strengthens existing
relationships among agencies and organizations.
· Sewes as a clearinghouse and advocate in regard to
addressing the needs, goals, and progress of our
neighborhoods.
· Identifies services to address corr~nunity needs.
~oanoke Neighborhood Renaissance
Vision Statement
Roanoke's neighborhoods will be
healthy, attractive, and dynamic
communities where everyone shares
a high quality of life.
I~°anoke Neighborhood~Renaissance
Mission Statement
The mission of Roanoke Neighborhood
Renaissance is to develop a livable
communib/ of healthy neighborhoods that
support strong families, protect the
environment, provide quality education,
suppcarL ~-~ ~h ~al opportuni#es, and ensure
Define policies and activities which the
community as a whole may implement to
stabilize, enhance, and protect
Roanoke's older core neighborhoods.
These sbategies will be implemented
over a five-year period.
oanoke Neighborhood) Renaissance
Basic Principles
· Comprehensive goals and objectives
· Based on and expands previous plans
· A~tion~riented and realistic focus on all
elements of the core neighborhoods
· Shared responsibility by all stakeholders
~oanoke Neighborhood~Renaissance
!
Organizational
Support
· Coordinating Committee
· Housing Development Ofl~e
e, Dan Pollock
, Co-Chairs
e, Paula Prince, Ph.D.
sance
~oanoke Neign~omood~ Renais
,' Cr§~nlzat':onal Cfructure
~1 I
· Eight Technical Working Groups
· Economic Development
. Education
. Community Development
. Housing
. Social and Human Se~ices
. Crime and Public Safety
~. Tra,lS, pmtl~iml
Example of RNR Priorities
I
. Advocacy for the development of neighborhood plans
which resulted in the hiring of two additional
neighborhood planners
· Support for funding and implementation of a
Community Health Center
· Suplxxt for implementa~on and expansion of the rental
inspection program
· Increase number of preschool child care services
· Irmmase student achievement and vocational mining
to suplxxt local labor manet
Priorities Continued...~.
· Increasing emphasis on the prosecutJon of
building code violations
· Support for the COPE Program to improve
neighborhood safety
· Small Business Development Center
· Redevelopment of vacant lots
· Establish a Funding Pool to finance priont~es
IEndorsement of RNR~trategies
· Regional Chamber of Commerce
I
· Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
· Council of Community Services
· Regional Housing Network
· Roanoke Valley Association of Realtors
'00 JANIO P3:08
Roanoke, Virginia
January 18, 2000
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Please reserve space January 18, 2000, on Council's 12:15 p.m. agenda for a
Briefing on Evaluation of the Rental Certificate of Compliance Program.
Resp. ectfully submitted,
City Manager
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Clerk
Attachment B
RENTAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
Analysis of Issues
Fail, 1999
Overlap and redundancy of Section 8 inspections and City's rental inspections
program
The complaint is that an owner has to have his/her Section 8 unit inspected each year by the
RRHA and every two years through the rental inspection program. This is claimed to be
burdensome to the owner and a waste of inspections resources.
Similarity of requirements and inspectio~ - The requirements of the Section 8 Housing
Quality Standards (HQS) and the Building Maintenance Code (BMC) are similar but not
identical. HQS inspections are required by HUD as a condition of payment of rental
assistance and are performed annually. The BMC is state law and applies to all buildings,
including Section 8 rentals. The emphasis of the two inspections as conducted by the RRHA
and the City seem to vary however. Training could make the inspections more similar, but
efforts at cross-training have not been effective in the past.
Delegation and C~,nxificati0n - State law allows the building official to appoint inspectors or
outside agencies to enforce the Code, but these inspectors are required to get a certificate of
competence from the state within three years of appointment. (New inspectors hired by the
Building Department typically are required to be certified within 6 months.)
Code enforcement and prosecution - Violations of the BMC are required to be corrected,
regardless of the tenancy. Failure to comply with an order to make repairs is a
misdemeanor, punishable by a fine or potentially imprisonment. Following the inspection
is the responsibility for due process, including issuing a legal notice and following through
to achieve compliance, including possible prosecution in court, ff the RRHA inspectors
were to be designated as code enforcement agents of the Building Department, they would
need to either follow the steps prescribed by the BMC and state law, or pass the case back
to a City impector for enforcement action.
1) Exempt Section 8 units by definition from the rental inspections requirement.
However, there are a significant number of Section 8 units that fail BMC inspection.
2) Accept the RRttA's inspection as a BMC inspection. RRHA inspectors would
need to be trained in the requirements of the BMC and apply it to the inspection,
either in addition to or instead of HQS. In addition, some understanding would be
necessary as to how violations were pursued, especially if the Section 8 tenant did
not take or continue occupancy.
3) The RRH,4 accept the City's BMC inspection in lieu of the Section 8 inspection.
This would probably have to be approved by HUD, but would reduce the number of
inspections the RRHA performs.
Resolution
1) The RRHA has agreed to begin verifying that any unit that is to receive rental
assistance has been inspected as required by the certificate of compliance program.,
beginning December 1, 1999.
2) The RRHA intends to apply BMC standards in addition to any higher specific
standards of HQS for rent-subsidized housing inspections.
3) The RRHA intends to have its Section 8 inspectors receive training in the provisions
of the BMC, including training through the State's Code Academy and with City
inspectors.
Mandatory vs. Voluntary inspections
Some rental properties are not inspected, either because their tenancy does not change, or
the owners simply do not abide by the requirement to have the unit inspected upon turnover.
Identifying units that should be or should have been inspected is a major difficulty which
will require significant staff time and probably several agencies. Requiring every rental unit
to be inspected at specific intervals, regardless of whether its occupancy changes, would
simplify the program's administration dramatically, in addition to having more units
inspected, especially those most in need of inspection.
However, the enabling legislation only allows the City to r~uire inspection when the unit's
tenancy changes or it is sold; currently it is not allowed to require inspection at any other
time, other than for an expected unsafe condition.
Resolution
Ask City Council to propose to the General Assembly that the law be changed to allow the
City to require inspections at regular intervals, rather than only upon change in occupancy
or sale.
Positive incentives for good maintenance, responsiveness, e.g. longer time between
inspections
A complaint is that the program is "heavy-handed," concmntrating on threats of punishment
for failing to cooperate, rather than encouragement and positive inducements to cooperate.
There is no distinction made between the owner that maintains a unit well or promptly
makes needed corrections, and the owner that just meets minimum standards for the purpose
of the inspection, or only makes repairs when forced to do so. To the extent that time is
spent applying the program to the former, there is less time and resources to devote to the
latter, for which the program was created.
2
If the life of the certificate of compliance were to vary, depending on the overall quality of
the unit or other factors, some administrative aspects of the program would be somewhat
more complicated, but probably not significantly. The inspector would be responsible for
greater discretion but also flexibility to respond to the conditions of the specific case.
However, exercise of such discretion by the inspector could raise the possibility of charges
of favoritism, especially if the criteria is based on the performance or history of the owner
instead of the building. The more objective the criteria that is applied, the more defensible
its use would be. It may be that some of the legal objections could be answered by making
the standard or "default" life of a certificate of compliance be, say, one year, but with the
administrative option of annual extensions if there are no Maintenance Code violations
reported and found during the preceding year; and the extension is rescinded if the property
is transferred to another owner.
Resolution
No change at this time. Certificates of compliance will have a standard two-year life, except
for three years for new construction and complete rehabilitation.
More time allowed to make repairs
The allegation is that insufficient time is allowed for an owner to make needed repairs,
especially if the owner has several buildings being inspected and receiving repairs orders at
roughly the same time. Currently, the program allows an inspector to give an owner up to
six months to make required corrections. The presumption is that six months is ample time
for the diligent owner of an individual building to shop for and line up contractors and
obtain financing for non-critical repairs.
In determining the time actually allowed, the inspector normally will consider such issues
as the seriousness of the violations, the extent and cost of repairs needed, and the time of
year. Beyond those considerations however, each building is evaluated on its own, as each
building is expected to produce revenue and is unique to its residents and neighboring
properties. Typically the inspector is not aware of other properties an owner has, whether
orders have been issued of other properties, or how the owner is progressing on complying
with other orders.
If an owner wishes for a longer time than the inspector originally provides, the owner can
request an extension from the inspector or can ask the Housing Development Coordinator
or Building Commissioner to agree to an extension, ffthe owner seems to be making good-
faith efforts to correct non-critical violations, an extension typically is granted.
Resolution
Continue the maximum six-month time for a temporary waiver/repair order.
The Program is not applied City-wide
The program only applies to identified Conservation Areas and Rehabilitation Districts in
the City. This encompasses less than 1/3 of the rental units in the City. Therefore, it is
discriminatory against those units and their owners.
The Building Maintenance Code, which establishes the standard to which all properties are
to adhere, does apply to all properties throughout the City. The rental inspections program
does not impose any additional or higher standards of maintenance on a property owner. It
only provides an administrative mechanism to apply the maintenance standard, and mandates
the owner to have an inspection performed to verify the building's condition complies with
the law. ' · ·
The reqmrement apphes to Conservation Areas and Rehabilitation Districts because
those areas, by virtue of their designations, are more likely to have deteriorated housing and
Maintenance Code violations than other areas of the City.
On the other hand, there are rental units in other neighborhoods with Code violations.
Periodic inspections of rental units in those neighborhoods would cause the correction of
those violations and prevent deterioration of conditions gene/ally.
The enabling legislation only allows the inspections requirement to apply to Conservation
Areas and Rehabilitation Districts (and individual properties designated as "spot blight"
through a fairly complicated process). A Conservation Area is one where there is housing
decay but conditions generally make the area worthy of special efforts to conserve the
neighborhood. To be so designated, the Redevelopment and Housing Authority must
develop and City Council must approve a plan for the neighborhood's improvement. The
Housing Authority then is granted special powers, particularly the power to acquire
deteriorated properties through eminent domain. A Rehabilitation District is an area with
conditions similar to a Conservation Area, although not as severe. A Rehabilitation District
must be adjacent to a Conservation Area, but a plan is not required to be developed.
Given the existing statute, the City cannot mandate that inspections be required beyond
Conservation Areas and Rehabilitation Districts. However, additional districts could be
designated, or bound&ries of existing areas could be expanded. For example, the Wasena
neighborhood could be designated as a Rehabilitation District, adjacent to the Highland Park
Conservation Area; Washington Park could become a Rehab District, adjacent to the
Gainsboro and Harrison Conservation Areas; orthe boundaries oftheMelrose Rehabilitation
District could be expanded to include the Villa Heights neighborhood.
Expanding the geographical scope of the program would require either additional resources
for the program, or dramatic changes in the program design to allow existing staffto address
many more properties. Also, to the extent that manpower resources are used in inspecting
properties in compliance, less is available to find and address substandard buildings, for
which the program was created.
..Resolution
Ask City Council to propose to the General Assembly'that the law be changed to allow the
City to designate additional areas for the inspections requirement, without designation as a
Conservation Area, Rehabilitation District, or spot blight, upon a formal finding by City
Council that conditions in the area warrant increased inspections procedures. City Council
is encouraged to designate additional appropriate areas as Rehabilitation Districts, in order
to maintain their good health and prevent deterioration beginning with rental properties.
The Program'is unfair in that it doesn't address deteriorated buildings other than
rental
The Building Maintenance Code applies to all buildings in the City, not just rental properties
or those in specific areas. There are numerous buildings that are vacant or owner-occupied
that fail to meet Code standards, that are safety hazards, and are unsightly and detrimental
to the neighborhood. However, the enabling legislation allows inspections to be mandated
only for residential rental properties.
As the program has been rolled out in individual neighborhoods, inspectors have "swept"
each area to identify buildings that are not inspected through the program but that have
apparent significant Code violations on the exterior, regardless of the occupancy status of
the building. Orders are then issued for corrections to be made. Realistically, only the most
serious of these buildings are cited and pursued toward correction. Significantly increasing
the numbers of cases of owner-occupied or vacant buildings cited will require more
personnel resources, or will require diverting effort from rental properties.
As the program soon will have begun in all eligible areas, operation of the program will
change from an area-by-area approach to recertifications of expiring certificates and
checking on properties not inspected on the initial run-through of areas. Arrangements
should be planned for periodic comprehensive "sweeps" of areas to continue to address
serious cases of deterioration and blight of owner-occupied and vacant buildings. In
addition, spodal attention should be focused on alleviating deterioration and blight in vacant
abandoned and owner-occupied buildings.
Resolution
Do not seek expanded authority to require inspections of owner-occupied buildings.
However, due to the significant detrimental effect vacant buildings have to overall
neighborhood health, the Regional Housing Network should coordinate a study of building
abandonment and neglect, to more clearly identify its causes and effective strategies to
prevent and remedy such blight.
Tenants don't know whether property has been inspected
5
o
Prospective tenants do not have a simple way to determine whether a unit has been inspected
as required. They may ask the owner or agent, who may or may not be truthful or may
decline to show the certificate to the tenant. The owner may choose to display a sticker
showing that the unit has been approved, but this is not required. Therefore, the absence of
a sticker does not mean that the unit may not be rented. The tenant may call the Housing
Development Office to find out whether the unit has been inspected, but this is inconvenient
to the City as well as the tenant.
When the program was developed initially, some property owners objected to being required
to display stickers or any indication of the inspections status of the building, out of concern
either that the building and its residents would be "branded" as rental, or that the symbol
itself would be unsightly. Consequently, stickers are provided for owners that wish to use
them voluntarily.
The prospect of requiring stickers to be displayed only on units that do not have certificates
and therefore may not be rerented has been discussed. This would impose no burden on the
owner that cooperates to have his/her units inspected, yet ser~es notice on those parties that
need to know (i.e. prospective tenants, neighbors, and building inspectors) that the unit may
not be occupied legally. However, this procedure would leave issues unresolved, such as
where stickers are to be displayed on the unit, whether inspectors or other City personnel
would place the stickers or the owner would be responsible, and how owners would be
compelled to use them.
Resolution
No additional mandates are recommended. However; the Regional Housing Network, in
cooperation with the City, Neighborhood Partnership and other agencies, should develop and
distribute a brochure or other materials to inform tenants, owners, and other interested
parties of relevant information, including the requirements of the rental inspection program,
the Landlord-Tenant Act, lead paint hazards, useful procedures for property management
and maintenance, and Fair Housing provisions.
There is no effective mechanism for identifying when a unit rents illegally, i.e. without
reqnired inspection
Since the proBram relies on the mandatory provision for an inspection upon turnover, a
critical component of it is to insure that those inspections are requested and performed. If
an owner can ignore the required inspection without penalty, there is little incentive to have
the unit inspected voluntarily. Identifying when units rent illegally has always been
recognized as a very difficult task and a weakness in the program design. It is the principal
reasoning behind seeking to make periodic inspections mandatory, without waiting for a
turnover (Issue 2).
Some cities have arranged with utility companies to notify them when utility services change
6
from one party to another. Some have even provided in their municipal codes that electrical
service may not be changed or instituted without notifying the locality.
It appears likely that a combination of sources of information will be necessary to develop
good information of when rental units change over. These include the primary utilities,
especially electricity, but also "secondary" utilities that are more likely to be in the names
of individual tenant-occupants, such as telephone and cable TV. American Electric Power
and Cox Cable have been contacted about notifying the City of service changes, and AEP
has begun to do so.
Other potential sources of information of move-outs include Solid Waste Management (calls
for bulk pick-up of trash),Unlawful Detainers filed in General District Court, and Section
8 moves. While these are expected to reveal a minority of the changes in tenancy of rental
units, they should be sources of reliable information about the units that are identified.
Furthermore, the information should be accessible easily and on a regular basis.
In the absence of such information at this point, letters have been sent to owners of
properties that have not been inspected, asking whether the units have changed occupancy.
The response to these letters has been relatively light. The next step would be to try to
contact the tenants of those units to ask when they moved in and ask permission to conduct
the inspection. However, this process would be awkward and time-consuming for
administrative staff.
Resolution
1) Continue to recruit American Electric Power, Cox Cable, and Bell Atlantic to
2)
3)
forward information periodically on changes in service by address and date.
Arrange for information to be obtained from Solid Waste Management, General
District Court, Department of Social Services, and the Redevelopment and Housing
Authority regard~ move-outs of apartments in affected areas. (The RRHA has
begun to provide this information regarding Section 8 units.)
The Housing Development Office should devote additional effort to seeking out
units that have been rented illegally and prosecuting the owners for falling to abide
by the program. In addition, units whose owners have declined to have inspected
should be canvassed; the occupants should be asked when they moved into the unit
and asked to allow an inspection, with emphasis on those units either appearing to
be in poor repair from the outside and those whose owners have shown a history of
avoiding the program.
Adequate funding, efficiency in program design and implementation
Currently the program is administered with six inspectors and two administrative
coordinators. This staff also handles all other Code enforcement work, including responding
to complaints and addressing dilapidated vacant buildings. The staffing level has doubled
7
10.
since the program was approved in 1996 and is at the level projected as necessary at that
time. This staffing has allowed the program to be fully implemented in all areas by the end
of 1999, although this is more than three years after inspections began, and approximately
2~ years after inspections activities were at full speed. Inspectors now spend about 2/3 to
3/4 of their time on rental inspections activities, with the balance responding to complaints,
addressing vacant deteriorated buildings, and other Code enforcement and housing activities.
Approximately 2/3 of the units that currently have Certificates of Compliance received them
on the first inspection. The original primary purpose of the program was to address those
units that were ordered to have repairs made, not units in very good condition. More effort
should be focused on the units that have not been inspected, particularly those needing
repairs.
However, without a provision to extend the time between inspections of good quality, well-
maintained units, it is unrealistic for existing staffto keep up with recertification inspections,
respond to requests for inspections on units turning over, search out and address units that
have been rented illegally, extend the program into additional areas not currently designated
as Conservation Areas and Rehabilitation Districts, and handle other Code enforcement
cases, including vacant blighting buildings.
Resolution
Commit additional staffing resources to allow the rental inspections program to continue on
a two-year inspections basis, while aggressively applying the program to units whose owners
have not had them inspected, extending the program to additional appropriate areas, and
continuing other Code enforcement activities. At least two additional positions are projected
to be needed for optimal functioning.
Court process and heavier fines for repeat violators
Currently, State law provides that violations of the Building Code may be punishable by a
fine of up to $2:500, with mandatory minimum fines for 2*a and 3r~ offenses. Violators
convicted of the 3~ offense within 10 years may be jailed for up to 10 days. The provisions
in the Code of Vir~oinia notwithstanding, their effectiveness as an incentive to property
owners to comply with the Maintenance Code or the rental inspections program depends on
the violators belief that the penalties will be imposed, which in mm rests on the court's
willingness to impose them. The history has been that the court is very reluctant to impose
such fines, choosing instead to take a case under advisement pending the owner making
repairs. When repairs are made, the case usually is dismissed without a conviction. Even
when mandatory frees are "required" due to repeat convictions, the court usually imposes
smaller frees, or suspends most or all of the fine imposed.
Unless the court is willing to use the maximum penalty allowed, getting larger penalties
authorized by the General Assembly would not be productive. Certainty of penalty would
12.
11.
be of more effect than severity of penalty.
Resolution
The Commonwealth's Attorney's office should continue to prosecute violators vigorously,
including owners that rent units illegally without having required inspections performed.
Neighborhoods and program advocates should support these efforts, including appearing in
court to show their interest and support.
Programs for financing to help pay for repairs
Some property owners have asserted that if the City is requiring them to make major repairs
to their properties, the City should help them pay for the repairs. In fact, the City does offer
some limited financial help for the repair of substandard property, but it does not have
sufficient funds to pay for repairs of all such properties in the City. Practically all of the
properties that have been repaired after receiving Code enforcement orders have been
financed by the owners, including tapping private commercial lenders.
Fundamentally, it is not the City's responsibility to pay for prol?erty owners to comply with
the law's requirements. This is especially true of an owner that has owned a property over
several years and has neglected to make the regular investment to keep it maintained.
Neither is it the City's responsibility to compensate for an owner overpaying for a property,
based on its condition and cash flow. Only if doing so is in the best interests of the City and
all its citizens is it reasonable for the City to provide such financial assistance.
Resolution
Publicize financial assistance that is available, such as abatement of property taxes for
substantial rehabilitation and any applicable provisions for properties in the Enterprise Zone.
A revolving loan fund of $10 million should be established by the City, capitalized with
bonds sold by the City or the Redevelopment and Housing Authority, for the purpose of
financing improvements, at below market rates with liberal repayment terms, for our aging
housing stock with special attention to rental housing in the City's Conservation Areas and
Rehabilitation Districts.
Coordination and foe~ of resources, programs, activities in support of rental
inspections
The contention is that all efforts of the City should be coordinated for impact in the specific
target areas. The program of rental inspections is only one component of an effective
neighborhood revitalization strategy, ffthe intention is to focus efforts on specific areas, i.e.
Conservation Areas and Rehabilitation Districts, then those boundaries should correspond
to other designated boundaries, such as CDBG-eligible areas, Enterprise Zones, etc.
However, this contention does not fully consider that different resources have different
purposes or criteria. For example, CDBG-eligible areas include in part those neighborhoods
with high concentrations of low income residents. They may not be blighted or have high
concentrations of problem rental properties. Furthermore, some resources or activities can
or should be applied much more broadly than others. Although different programs may have
different boundaries, frequently they do overlap.
Resolution
Available resources should reinforce each other where practicable. Efforts should be
coordinated for optimum effectiveness through such mechanisms as neighborhood plans, and
regular communicaUions among involved agencies such as the City Action Team and the
Regional Honsing Network.
13. Owners are held responsible for behavior of bad tenants; Tenant screening
The law and public opinion tend to hold property owners responsible for actions of their
tenants, ranging from damage to the property, to behavior disruptive to neighbors, to
criminal behavior. When a property has Code violations, the Code and the inspector
typically holds the owner responsible for making corrections, regardless of whether the
occupants caused the damage. Neighborhood advocates expect the owner to screen
prospective tenants diligently to avoid renting to "problem tenants" in the first place, and to
move them out if they are disruptive.
The contention of landlords is that once they rent a unit, their control over what the tenants
do is very limited. Furthermore they are limited legally and practically in the basis on which
they can select tenants and the grounds on which they can evict.
The behavior of residents is a critical component of the peace and health of a neighborhood,
as well as the financial performance of the property for the owner-investor. In reality, both
points of view have degre~ of validity. However, addressing the legal basis of the
relationship between the landlord and his renters nece~uily involves the Xrtrginia Landlord-
Tenant Act. This clearly is beyond the scope of the inspections program.
Rg~olution
The committee believes the issue of ownen' responsibility for their tenants' actions is
outside the consideration of the rental inspections program. It recommends that the material
to be developed per item 7 include information for both tenants and owners as to'
responsibilities and procedures to screen tenants and evict them for unsatisfactory behavior.
Additional education activities regarding responsible and profitable property ownership and
management should be developed and offered for investors.
14. Fees for inspections
10
Currently, the program provides that a mandatory inspection (i.e. one required when a unit
without a certificate of compliance is vacated) costs the owner $75, and that each additional
inspection performed to check that corrections have been made costs $35. However, if an
owner voluntarily has an inspection done before a unit is vacated, there is no charge for
either that initial inspection or for the first two reinspections due to corrections being
required. The primary purpose of this arrangement is to provide an incentive to an owner
to have the inspection regularly and on schedule. The program is intended to be of minimal
inconvenience and expense for the cooperative owner.
A scenario between the voluntary inspection and the mandatory one due to turnover is where
the owner declines to have the inspection performed, but the tenant registers a complaint or
asks for an inspection. The tenant is completely entitled to do so. The current
administrative arrangement is to notify the owner that an inspection is to be performed and
invite him or her to be present. A different but similar scenario is where the owner declines
initially but later, before the original tenant leaves, asks for the inspection.
In both cases, since the unit has not been vacated, the inspection is not mandatory upon the
owner, and therefore there is no charge for the inspection.
The original intention was to encourage the cooperation of the owners of all rental
properties, before the inspection is required. By imposing fees when inspections are not
required,, such cooperation could be discouraged. Furthermore, until the unit's occupancy
turns over, the owner is within his or her fights to decline the inspection.
Resolotion
The current fee structure should remain, in terms of the amount of the inspection fee charged
and the circumstances under which it is charged. However, since the tenant is entitled to
have the unit inspected and making arrangements with the owner to be present is
cumbersome and frequently leads to conflict between the tenant and the owner, the City
should no longer be expected to delay the inspection until the owner has been notified.
11
Attachment C
CITY OF ROANOKE
RENTAL CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
PROGRAM OUTLINE
Draft Revised, October 1999
STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
The intent of the rental certificate of compliance program is to protect the health, safety and
welfare of residents of rental dwelling units, as well as the general public, and to enhance the good
health and vitality of the City's oldest neighborhoods, by preserving the quality of rental housing
in those areas. The program will accomplish this by encouraging good and regular maintenance and
preventing gradual deterioration. In order to accomplish this, the program will provide for the
inspection of rental units in conservation and rehabilitation districts designated by City Council, to
insure their compliance with Building Maintenance Code standards.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
The City of Roanoke has adopted the Virginia Building Maintenance Code. Accordingly,
all properties, regardless of use and location within the City, are required to be maintained
to the standards of this Code. The rental certificate of compliance program does not affect
those standards, but addresses only the administrative means of inspections specifically of
rental units in designated conservation and rehabilitation districts of the City, to verify their
compliance with the Code. All other buildings and areas of the City are subject to the same
requirements for maintenance and condition.
After the effective date of the certificate of compliance program, any residential rental
property in a conservation or rehabilitation district or other area designated by City Council
for the program will be subject to regular inspection by the Building Depamnent as to
compliance with the Building Maintenance Code. The objective is to inspect all rental units
in designated areas every two years, on a basis that is automatic, predictable, and organized.
Individual rental units in multi-family buildings, where the owner occupies one of the units,
will also be subject to inspection.
Ail owners of property in the areas designated for the program will be asked to certify
whether the property is owner-occupied, rental, or vacant, and to verify the proper address
of the responsible party to be contacted regarding the property, including receipt of legal
notice.
Any housing unit not OCcupied by the owner of record, i.e. in whose name the property deed
is recorded, will be presumed to be either rental or potential rental and would be scheduled
for regular inspection. Vacant units, not condemned, will be considered potential rental
units. Units that are condemned from a previous inspection would remain condemned, and
their vacant status would be verified.
If an owner willfully fails to allow a unit to be inspected at its scheduled time after
notification has been issued pursuant to Section 7-37 of the City Code, or prior to the
expiration of the certificate of compliance, the unit may not be rerented upon its vacancy
without an inspection and issuance of a certificate of compliance, a temporary waiver, or a
certificate of exemption. The owner will be sent notice of this restriction.
WHEN INSPECTION REQUIRED
Any property owner may'request an inspection at any time. The owner must either schedule
an appointment for the inspection, or arrange for the inspector to have access to the unit to
be inspected.
Inspections may be scheduled at least 30 days in advance, so property owners can prepare
for and notify their tenants of the inspection. If the owner wishes to reschedule the
inspection for convenience, he/she may do so twice with reasonable notice to the Building
Department. A minimum of one week will be allowed between scheduled inspections, i.e.
the owner would have the opportunity of three inspection appointments over a period of at
least two weeks, ff an owner fails to allow an on
~ff:r nc~,'2~c:~cn k~ ~ the three nodficat/ons have been issued pursuant to Section 7-37
of the City Code, or prior to the expiration of the certificate of compliance, he/she will be
considered to be willfully failing to cooperate with the schedule of inspections.
Owners are encouraged to make arrangements for entry with their tenants well in advance
of the scheduled inspection. While not required, it is strongly preferred that the property
owner or his representative be present during the inspection, to discuss the findings of the
inspection. The tenant's presence is also desirable, to participate in the inspection and the
discussion of conditions and maintenance.
If the unit becomes vacant after the notice of the scheduled inspection is given to the owner
but before the scheduled inspection is made, the Building Department would prefer to
conduct the inspect/on while the unit is vacant. Accordingly, the owner is asked to notify
the Building Department of the vacancy and to schedule an expedited inspection of the
vacant unit. Because this would be for the Building Department's convenience, there will
be no fee or penalty for that inspection, on the same terms as if the inspection were
performed according to schedule.
10.
If a unit is not inspected upon schedule and an inspection is to be performed with the
tenant's permission or pursuant to a complaint, so that a certificaUe of compliance may result,
the Building Department will not be obligated~ attempt to contact the owner or managing
2
11.
12.
13.
14.
agent to inform him/her that an inspection is to be made.
All rental units in designated areas will be required to have a certificate of compliance.
However, the inspection requirement may be relieved for certain units, as follows:
A. Newly constructed units receiving a certificate of occupancy (C.O.) under the
provisions of-V~sm~.~ the Uniform Statewide Building Code will be presumed
to meet standards of the Building Maintenance Code and will be given a certificate
of compliance, good for three (3) years.
B. Units beinff substantia!l¥ rehabilJt~_ted or rebuill may also be given a three (3) year
certificate of compliance and be exempted by the n_..::!~..:~ C:..-...-.:::::::c.._ Code
Offie. ial from the requirement for inspections, upon his/her.judgement that the
rehabilitated unit meets the requirements of -V~hss,.,~-I-et- the Statewide Building
Code, and the extent of the work is basically equivalent to new construction and
provides a level of assurance of safety of construction generally equivalent to new
construction.
C. A rental complex that consists of at least 20 reaial units may have a random sample
of no less than 10 units inspected. If all units inspected pass on the first inspection,
and all common areas pass, the inspector may exempt the balance of the units from
inspection.
If later inspections of any exempted units reveal violations that apparently were present at
the time of renting the units, or are not promptly corrected, o'-,-
m .........o .....-: ....... ~. Code
Offie/a/may revoke the exemption from the inspection requirement.
Periodically the Building Department will review records of real estate transfers to identify
rental properties without certificates of compliance that may have been sold to new owners.
The new owners will be contacted to arrange for inspections of the transferred units. A
prudent buyer of rental property will determine whether the property has a valid certificate
of compliance, prior to sale.
For any unit that has not been inspected on schedule, or upon subsequent vacancy, or for any
reason within a reasonable period of time after the implementation of the program, the
Building Department may pursue all legal avenues available in order to perform the
inspection.
The Redevelopment and Housing Authority plans to apply the standards of the Building
Maintenance Code to its inspections of Section 8 rental units, in addition to HUD's
housing quality standarda RRtL4 inspectors will receive training in the provisions of the
Property Maintenance Code and its application in Roanoke. When RRIL4 inspectors are
adequately trained, the RRHA and t&e City Code Official will examine whether and how
Code enforcement authority can be delegated by the Code Official to RRIL4 inspector~
Beginning December 1, 1999, the ~ also will verify tkat a prospective Section 8 unit
has been inspected in compliance with the inspections program before it is approved for
tke rent subsidy.
15.
Co
INSPECTION STANDARDS
Any inspection will be based on provisions of the Virginia Building Maintenance Code.
Deficient conditions will be separated into three categories:
A. Dangers to health and safety of the residents or public, presented by the building.
Examples would include:
· Hazardous wiring, such as bare conductors;
· No operable heating system;
· Major structural deterioration or defects.
The unit would be condemned as not fit for use or occupancy until corrections are
made. Failure to make corrections will result in prosecution for violation of the
Code.
Significant exterior and interior violations not immediately endangering health and
safety but needing correction. Examples would include:
· Structural defects not imminently endangering health and safety;
· Windows and doors allowing significant air infiltration or not readily
openable for emergency exit;
· Aconnulated debris or rubbish posing a fire or pest hazard;
· Pest infestation.
The owner will be given a notice of violations found and a "temporary waiver" for
a period of time to correct these deficiencies, with that time depending upon the
severity of the deficiencies, but not in any case exceeding 6 months. Failure to make
corrections will result in prosecution for violation of the Code. A certificate of
compliance would not be issued until all corrections are made.
Technical or minor deficiencies or developing problems noted by the inspector, of
which the owner should be aware and plan to address eventually, but which will not
be ctted as vtolat~ons requmng correction. Examples would include:
· An aging roof but no substantial leaks;
· Deteriorating masonry work;
· Developing wood rot;
· Peeling exterior paint.
On future inspections, these items will be checked for worsening conditions and may
4
be cited or prevent reissuance of a certificate of compliance.
16.
The inspection will be of the complete unit. Any deficiencies found will be noted on the
inspection report by the inspector. The purpose of the inspection report will be to identify
for the owner or the agent or contractor the deficiencies that must be corrected in order for
the unit to receive a certificate of compliance. As there may be several ways to correct any
deficiency, the inspection report typically will not specify the means to be used.
17.
The Building Maintenance Code assigns responsibility for some items to the resident, unless
otherwise arranged with the owner, such as accumulation of garbage, rubbish, or hazardous
materials inside a unit. A violation notice and order to correct any deficiencies found for
which the tenant is responsible will be addressed to the tenant, with a copy to the owner.
The tenant's failure to correct violations for which he/she is responsible may result in
prosecution for violation of the Code.
18.
In order for owners to preinspect a unit and anticipate corrections that may be required, the
Building Department will provide to any interested party a sample of the inspection report
it will use to inspect units, as well as a summary of provisions of the Building Maintenance
Code. General guidelines for inspections standards will be prepared with the assistance of
representatives from the community and will also be made available.
CERTIFICATE OF COMI~LIANCE
19.
The certificate of compliance or temporary waiver and/or notice of deficiencies may be
issued to the owner or agent on the spot, at the time of inspection, if the owner or owner's
agent is present, and mailed to the owner's or agent's address of record if he/she is not
present, ff deficiencies are found, a copy of the notice and inspection report will also be
given to the tenant. A sticker will be given to the owner or agent, which, at the owner's/
agent's option, may be plnced on the unit to reflect `~'-._ ...... w_._~'~ v.~"'~'-_.. ----r----v--,: ..... :A- :~;~.~r. r2:2,':
--- that a Certificate/ms been issued, effective through a given date;
ff he/she wishes, the owner or agent may display the sticker as long as it is valid.
20. A certificate of compliance will be effective for a period of 24 months.
APPEALS
21.
An owner disagreeing with a determination of the inspector may request a modification of
that finding from the-_n'_';_!'~_:__-g C_'z'"'":.:::.:=~ Code ~ any time within 21 days of the
determination. The g~ami~oa~'-Code Offwhat will discuss the owner's request with the
owner and/or the owner's representative. Ifthef,~unisaion~ Code ~ and the owner
fail to agree, then at the option of the property owner, the ~Code O~/a/will
22.
convene an informal meeting with the owner and/or the owner's representatives to discuss
the owner's request. The meefng may include advisors to the_°'_':.:~_'.'.".g C:.-...-..:'::'.'_-'.':er Code
Official, including representatives from rental property owners, neighborhood residents,
tenants or tenant advocates, and other inspectors. The ~ Code Official will
reach a decision within five working days of the meeting.
ff the-?'_':_!a_seg C'z..-__-_'_':::'_--::= Code Official declines to grant the requested modification,
the owner may appeal to the Board of Building Code Appeals, as prescribed in the Building
Maintenance Code.
23.
24.
INSPECTION FEES
If Inspection Is Performed On Scheduled Basis:
A. Inspections on the regularly scheduled basis will maximize the convenience and
efficiency of the Building Department, in addition to that of owners and occupants
of units to be inspected. Consequently, if the inspection is performed at the request
of the Building Department on its routine basis, or at the request of the owner, there
will be no charge for the initial inspection.
B. If the unit fails to pass on initial inspection, a second and third inspection to verify
that cited violations have been corrected will be at no charge. If however the unit
fails to pass at the third inspection, the fourth and any subsequent inspection for
deficiencies cited at the initial inspection will incur a $35 reinspection fee.
ff Ins_t~ction Is NOt Performed On Schedule:
A. Inspections requiring rearrangement of priorities and scheduled work reduce the
Co
Building Deparlment's efficiency. Accordingly, an inspection fee of $75 will be
charged to the owner of a unit that either:
· had been scheduled by the Building Department for inspection on three
occasions (see section 7); and
has not been inspected; and
is lam- inspected due to vacancy (see section 5);
·
·
· is inspected after its certificate of compliance expires.
Any reinspections performed on such a unit to verify corrections of violations cited
upon the initial impection will incur a $35 reinspection fee.
A property owner may avoid these charges by cooperating with the schedule of
INSPECTION FEES
ON SCHEDULED BASIS ] UPON VACANCY ]
6
Initial Inspection No Charge $75
2nd Inspection No Charge $35
3rd Inspection No Charge $35
4th and Later $35 $35
Inspection
25.
Upon reinspection, there may be Code violations found that were not cited upon earlier
inspection, either because the condition did not exist or it was not observed by the inspector.
The inspector will cite such conditions when they are found, but they will not trigger an
inspection charge unless they are uncorrected upon subsequent reinspection.
PENALTIES AND FINES
26.
Renting a vacant unit without either a certificate of compliance, temporary waiver, or
certificate of exemption will be a violation of the program and will be punishable in
accordance with Sec. 36-106 of the Code of Virginia. A ......... ~ a
PHASED IMPLEMENTATION
27.
The program will be initiated on a limited basis, in order to test and refine administrative
procedures. A schedule for expanded implementation of the program, specifically
establishing a schedule of inspections by the Building Deparm~ent, will be determined by
the administrative resources that may be devoted to it. The program provisions will apply
to all eligible conservation and rehabilitation districts or otkor areas designated by City
Council, with full application to all rental properties in conservation and rehabilitation
districts intended within 2 years.
28.
A notice will be mailed to all property owners with units to be affected by the program,
informing them of the program, its purpose and operation, including general program
requirements and property maintenance standards. I..~...~._2' :.-..-:~
me, il ,,~4:' 4,1.~ $.d~A..I..I,n,.a ,,4~.A ,~,,..A ,-..~.....~'.n..4,~ +;..,~ ~g' +1.~
~orl~hol~ and ~~ will be o~ ~i~ly to int~ o~ and others
r~ding l~visions of the 1~. ~ ~ ~, ~eys, and lend~ will be
notified of the program as well, for the benefit of their clients.
29.
Ongoing evaluation of the program's operation will be necessary to its efficient
implementation. The City will also perform a specific evaluation of the program's
effectiveness, as well as the efficiency of its procedures, approximately 24 months after its
inception. This evaluation will involve representatives from the community of interests,
including neighborhoods, tenants, and property owners.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34634-011800.
A RESOLUTION memorializing the late George W. Sanderson.
WHEREAS, the members of this Council have learned with sorrow of the passing on
December 31, 1999, of George W. Sanderson;
WHEREAS, Mr. Sanderson was a tireless and dedicated civic leader having taught
Sunday school and volunteered as a teacher's aide at Oakland Elementary School, read
newspapers and magazines to the visually impaired over the radio, served on the Mayor's
committee for People with Disabilities, and helped start the Blue Ridge Independent Living
Center;
WHEREAS, Mr. Sanderson was also a well known train enthusiast and helped
assemble a miniature train and half-mile of train track for children at the Blue Ridge Line
Steamers Club;
WHEREAS, Mr. Sanderson served this community for the last twenty years of his life
confined to a wheelchair due to complications from bypass surgery in 1979;
WHEREAS, Mr. Sanderson was named Citizen of the Year by this Council in 1991;
WHEREAS, Mr. Sanderson won the Ageless Heroes Against the Odds Award in
1999; and
WHEREAS, this Council desires to take special note of the passing of this
distinguished Roanoker.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City Council adopts this means of recording its deepest regrets at the
passing of George W. Sanderson, and extends to Mrs. Corretta Sanderson, his widow, the
sympathy of this Council and that of the citizens of this City.
Sanderson.
The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to Mrs.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H: ~-,ES'xR- Mere- S anderson- 1 - 18-2000
DAVID .4.. BOWERS
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
215 CHURCH AVENUE S.W. - ROOM 452
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1594
TELEPHONE: (540) 853-2444
FAX: (540) 853-1145
Janua~ 18,2000
The Honorable Vice-Mayor and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
I wish to request a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards,
commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1),
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
David A. Bowers
Mayor
DAB:se
~ECE!VE~,
CITY ~ ..... ," -i"
'00 JAN18 A8:24
January 18, 2000
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Request for closed meeting
Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members:
This is to request that City Council convene a closed meeting to discuss the
acquisition and disposition of real property for a public purpose, where discussion in open
meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the City,
pursuant to §2.1-344.A.5, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
DLB/f
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Safety
City Clerk
Sincerely,
Darlene L. BurchS~n
City Manager
January 18, 200000 JAN 12 P 3:03
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject: Y2K Preparation Costs
This report is provided in response to City Council's request of December 20, 1999
regarding Year 2000 preparation costs.
The city began addressing the Year 2000 computer problem several years ago. Each
system was analyzed to determine the most effective approach in making it compliant. The
following is an explanation of the different approaches employed by CIS and the costs associated
with each:
Replace systems that are not compliant and no longer meet the city's operational
needs. Even though these can be considered Y2K costs, it is reasonably certain
that the systems would have been replaced even if they were compliant.
Five (5) systems ........................................... $3,117,422
Modify systems originally developed by city staff which were not compliant.
Twenty (20) systems ........................................ $440,000
Validate systems originally developed by city staff which were developed as Y2K
compliant systems.
Seven (7) systems ............................................ $10,000
Upgrade vendor-supplied systems as part of our annual software support
agreement with the vendors. (These are system upgrades, provided annually by
our vendors. The installation of these modifications are handled by city staff and
are included in our normal operating costs.)
Thirty-seven (37) systems ............................. no additional cost
Miscellaneous costs for planning, administration and validation of compliance.
2,500 staffhours
............................................ $125,000
Y2K Preparation Costs
Page 2
Outside consulting service: city-wide assessment and inventory development.
Year 2000 Consultant ........................................ $15,000
In summary, the maximum total cost attributed to Y2K is $3,707,422. However,
$3,117,422 can be attributed to the replacement of five obsolete systems that were otherwise
planned for replacement within this same time period. Costs directly related to the Y2K
migration are $590,000.
We appreciate your questions and welcome this opportunity to provide information to you
regarding the City's Y2K conversion project.
Res~tfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB/mm
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
James D. Ritchie, Assistant City Manager
Archie Harrington, Manager, City Information Systems
'00 JAN12 P3:03
January 18,2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
SUBJECT: Tool Replacement- Fleet Management Department
At City Council's meeting on Tuesday, January 4, 2000, Councilman Carroll Swain
expressed concern regarding tool replacement in the Department of Fleet Management. In
particular, the report regarding fund appropriations from the Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Program (CMERP) included a $40,510 appropriation for "hand and power tools" in
Fleet Management. The report included a statement indicating that "many tools are broken,
worn-out or outdated and have not been replaced since 1981 ." This prompted Councilman Swain
to request that staff report on how this situation had developed and what plan we had to address
this matter in the future.
Hand and power tools are used by City mechanics in everyday fleet repairs and wear out
due to daily usage. Other tools known as "shop tools" are used by City mechanics on a less
frequent basis. These are the more costly, specialized tools which now require replacement due
to changes in technology. In some instances replacement parts for existing shop tools are no
longer available.
Since 1981, replacement of broken tools has been an ongoing activity, in an attempt to
meet the basic needs of City mechanics. This has been funded from Fleet Management's
operating budget, which has annually averaged $4,000 for this purpose. However, the time had
come in fiscal year 1999-2000 to address the need for a significant upgrade of outdated tools.
This upgrade would primarily address the changes brought on by equipment makers that are
manufacturing vehicles which require specialized tools for vehicle maintenance. To sustain this
effort, Fleet Management will, on an annual basis, seek to secure the appropriate funds in its
annual operating budget, in order to provide its mechanics with the tools they need to do their
work.
I hope this information is helpful to City Council's understanding of tool replacement efforts
in the Department of Fleet Management.
City Manager
DLB:RKB:pr
cc: City Clerk
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Acting Director of Public Works
'00 d,~t~t t2 A1t :31
January 18, 2000
Report No. 00-311
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Reciprocal Agreement - CORTRAN and STAR Service
At the December 6, 1999, City Council meeting, Council Member Linda Wyatt
requested that CORTRAN and STAR try to reach a reciprocal agreement that would
allow both transportation systems to cross jurisdictional lines. Furthermore, in a letter
dated December 30, 1999, Mayor David A. Bowers asked that the current transportation
service for disabled citizens be reviewed. Following is a brief overview of both
programs and options regarding possible alternatives.
Currently, Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) contracts with RADAR to
provide its STAR service. STAR service is required by the Federal Transit
Administration because GRTC receives federal funds for public transit. STAR provides
transportation for disabled citizens that reside within the City of Roanoke, and is
mandated by the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). They will transport passengers
to and from any area within 3/4 of a mile from the current Valley Metro fixed bus routes.
This service operates the same hours as Valley Metro, i.e. 5:45 a.m. - 8:45 p.m.,
Monday thru Saturday. GRTC presently pays RADAR $12.00 per trip. This is
anticipated to increase in the next fiscal year. The fare that we charge citizens is limited
to $2.50 per trip by federal regulation. Consequently, each trip is subsidized by $9.50.
CORTRAN, the Roanoke County van service, is not mandated ADA because
Roanoke County does not receive federal funds for public transit. CORTRAN does
provide transportation service for elderly and disabled county residents throughout
Roanoke County. This service will take County citizens anywhere within the borders of
Roanoke County, as well as the City of Roanoke and the City of Salem. This service
operates 7:30 a.m. - 5:30 p.m., Monday - Friday. Roanoke County also contracts with
RADAR to provide this service, and because of their larger service area, they pay
approximately $18.00 per trip. The fare charged CORTRAN passengers is $3.50.
RADAR recently received a Job Access/Reverse Commute grant and will begin a
deviated fixed route service in Roanoke County, along the Route 419 corridor, and
along West Main Street in Salem. This is anticipated to begin in the Spring of this year.
Their new transit service will be coordinated with Valley Metro and STAR. Passengers
will at thai time be able to transfer from one service to the next free of charge. This will
provide transportation for City residents to these County areas at no additional cost to
GRTC or the City of Roanoke.
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
January 18, 2000
Page 2
However, if City Council requests that the current STAR system be expanded,
additional funding will be needed. Following are a few options that Council and the
GRTC Board could consider and the anticipated financial impact of those options:
Ao
The STAR system could be expanded to include all of Roanoke
County. The cost per trip would increase to approximately $18.00 -
$20.00, similar to Roanoke County's current rate. In addition, the
Valley Metro passengers would most likely want the same or similar
service. If the Valley Metro system is expanded to include
Roanoke County, then GRTC could possibly be serving an
urbanized area with a population over 200,000, pending the 2000
census. This would change GRTC's current funding status from a
Small Urban to a Large Urban transit system and GRTC would not
be eligible for, and would therefore lose, Federal Operating Funds,
which are anticipated to be approximately $1,100,000 in FY 01.
Financial Impact: Combining the increase in expense for STAR
county service, Valley Metro county service, and the possible
elimination of Federal Operating Funds, GRTC would have a need
for additional local subsidies of approximately $2,000,000 the first
year.
City of Roanoke could contract directly with RADAR for new county
service. This service would operate separately from the current STAR
service and would not involve GRTC. This would reduce the probability of
Valley Metro becoming a large urban transit system and maintain its
present funding structure. The cost per trip would be approximately
$18.00 - $20.00.
Financial Impact: Cost to the City of Roanoke for local subsidies
for such new service is estimated to be an additional $100,000 -
$150,000 the first year, depending on ridership.
For additional information, I have attached ridership and cost data for FY 96 - FY
00. As you can see, demand for STAR has increased significantly. This trend is
anticipated to continue in the future.
I recommend that passengers take advantage of the new service to be offered
this spring by the Job Access/Reverse Commuter grant that will provide the deviated
fixed route service along the Route 419 corridor and West Main Street in Salem.
The Honorable Mayor and City Council
January 18, 2000
Page 3
This report is for Council's information. Any guidance you wish to provide for
consideration in the preparation of the FY 00-01 budget would be most appreciated.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB:DAM:afm
Attachment
CC:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations
David A. Morgan, General Manager, Valley Metro
Marshall E. McCray, 3338 Glade Creek Boulevard, Suite #3,
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Greater Roanoke Transit Company
STAR Ridership and Cost FY 96 - FY 00
Annual Percent Annual Percent
Ridership Increase Cost Increase
FY 96 23,900 195,159
FY 97 28,437 18.98% 221,813 13.65%
FY 98 29,207 2.71% 241,771 8.99%
FY 99 31,844 9.03% 285,549 18.10%
FY 00' 36,600 14.93% 340,420 19.21%
* Projected for FY O0
C-6
C1 of Roanoke, Vir
January 18, 2000
Honorable Mayor and Members
Of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
At the January 4, 2000 council meeting, a citizen spoke to you about concerns with
water/sewer service billing. The following information is offered to address those
concerns:
In September 1999, we began using a new water/sewer service bill made possible
by the implementation of a new utility information computer system. For over
30 years, a post-card size bill was used which had limited information. The new
bill allows us to provide information such as prior billing, payment and usage
information, conversion of water usage to gallons, and information about city
services.
A brochure 'Understanding Your New City of Roanoke Water & Sewer Service
Bill" was developed and is being mailed along with all the bills for a three month
period, until all customers have received the brochure.
For the first time, bills are being mailed in an envelope and a return envelope for
bill payment is provided. Customers have long complained about not having a
return envelope for payment and we are pleased to now be providing this service.
In the past 15 days were allowed for payment with an average time of 39 days
from billing until service termination in the event the bill was not paid. But, with
the new billing system and the provision of a late payment penalty, the due dates
were expanded to allow for 20 days for payment of the bill with an average of 44
days until service termination if the bill remained unpaid. Since bills are
rendered after 90 days or 3 months of usage, it takes over a month to generate
the bill and allow time for payment and eventual service termination, if the bill
is unpaid. Therefore, 4 1/2 months could pass without payment. Thus due to
quarterly billing, it is not prudent to extend payment deadlines to 30 days like
companies that have monthly billing.
It is a standard business practice to impose a late payment penalty on unpaid
accounts. A late payment penalty amount of 10% or a $2.00 minimum was
approved to encourage timely payment, to decrease the amount of delinquent
notices being prepared and mailed, and to decrease the volume of service
terminations. However, the penalty does not apply when the first utility bill is
unpaid, instead it applies after the delinquent notice remains unpaid. This
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
January 18, 2000
Page 2
means that the penalty applies after 38 days have passed.
It is also a standard business practice to require deposits to protect paying
customers from losses caused by those that do not pay. Deposits are required
for repeated delinquent accounts or returned checks. Deposits are refundable
without interest if no cut-offs or payment extensions have occurred in a two year
period at one location. Deposits are typically equal to approximately one and
one-half an average quarterly billing amount with a minimum deposit of $25.
Customers are allowed to make installment payments for deposits.
Effective July 1, 1999, the fee for "each service trip for non-payment" is $35.
This fee is charged when field personnel are sent to disconnect service. There is
no charge for the return trip to reconnect water service after the account has
been paid. Again, this is a common business practice in the utility industry to
impose fees and special charges for services in order to recover costs.
We make every effort to maintain consistent meter reading dates. However,
schedules occasionally need to be adjusted to allow for inclement weather,
holidays, weekends, or other unusual circumstances that are out of our control.
In rare circumstances, it is necessary to estimate a meter reading in order to
produce bills. However, by the next reading cycle, an actual reading will be
made. Our meter readers work in varying climatic conditions and are committed
to obtaining accurate readings on time and on schedule.
As with all major changes, customers will become more accustomed to the new bill
form over time. We have used brochures, City Page articles and the CityWeb to help
inform customers of the new changes and billing form.
This report is for your information and no action is required.
Sincerely,
City Manager
~e~s D. Griss'~o/~~~
Director of Finance
David C. Anderson
City Treasurer
DLB \ DCA\JDG\ DDL: s
Attachments
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
January 18, 2000
Page 3
C:
Kit Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations
Mary Parker, City Clerk
Bill Hackworth, City Attorney
Dana D. Long, Chief, Billings and Collections
George Gunther
Some Helpful Information
The City of Roanoke would like to take this opportunity
to welcome and provide information for our customers
about our operations and your water and sewer
service at the lowest possible cost. Drinking water
is supplied from Carvin's Cove Reservoir, Falling Creek,
and C~ystal Springs treatment facilities.
Billing
Bills for water and sewer service are rendered on a
quarterly basis. Payment may be made by mail, in
person, by credit card or automatic bank draft. If
paying by mail, make check or money order payable
to City of Roanoke Treasurer. If paying in person, bills
may be paid in the Office of the City Treasurer in the
Municipal Building, Room 254 or at the Treasurer's
Satellite Office at the DMV at Crossroads Mall.
For non-cash payments, there are payment boxes
located at 1. in front of the Municipal Building, 2. in the
Municipal Building lobby, 3. on Reserve Avenue, in front
of the Parks & Recreation Building, and 4. at the DMV
in Crossroads Mall.
Water / Sewer Rates &
Service Charges
A complete schedule of rates and charges is available
upon request.
The City of Roanoke encourages the wise and
conservative use of water by all customers. Conserving
water will help reduce your bill and is helpful to the
environment. Water conservation material is available
upon request. Information may also be found on our
website at
Water Quality
The City of Roanoke is committed to providing the
highest quality of drinking water. The water delivered
is tested daily and complies with rigorous standards
set by state and federal regulatory agencies. The
City will provide, on an annual basis, a Water Quality
Report to each customer. For a copy of this report
or for additional information about your water
quality, contact, the Water Department at 853-2596.
Payment Due Dates
Bills are due when received. If a bill is not paid within
seven (7) days of the due date. a delinquent notice
is mailed which allows seven (7) days for payment
and a 10% late payment penalty ($2 minimum) will
apply if not paid by the due date. Failure to keep
your account current may result in the collection
of a deposit in addition to the penalty and
special charges.
Automatic Bank Draft Payment
This allows your payment to be automatically with-
drawn from your bank account eliminating the need to
worry about paying your bill on time. Call Billings and
Collections for more information. 853-2456.
Customer Inquiry
The City of Roanoke is interested in answering any
inqui~, you may have concerning water service, your
billing or water quality. For questions on payments,
past due bills, service charges, billing questions or
error: Call 853-2456. For Water/Sewer Line emergencies:
Call 853-2792. For Water Quality questions or for
the Water Quality Report: Call 853-2596.
CITY OF ROANOKE
Billings and Collections
215 Church Ave. SW, Rm 252
Roanoke, VA 24011-1529
540.853.2456 · 540.853.2458 (fax)
Understanding
Your New
City of Roanoke
Water & Sewer
Service Bill
Introducing A New Return Envelope
The-same envelope will be used for both sending your
water'sewer bill and for returning your payment. This
new recyclable envelope will help us to reduce costs
and protect the environment at the same time.
And, it's easy to use!
Here's How It Works...
Detach flap at perforation.
pull out the return flap.
Insert payment and statement stub.
Fold reply flap completely over the front
of the envelope. Seal and mail.
Understanding Your Bill
page 1 CITY OF ROANOKE
wATER/SEWER BILLING
Account Nu , -
Name of customer =ota~
lance
responsible for ~ta~ ~ou~t Due
payment and their
mailing address
cITY OF ROANOKE
and Collections
853-2456
phone: 153-2458
Fax: www ci oanoke,va-U$
Ro~OKE V~ 24002-0000
07856
.00
/ ~onS~Y~ 00 2~.39 28.20
-- WA -~T 8400 cu-f · 46.98
Account Number .~ ~ .~s~ 2~ oo ~.3s 3.3s
.00
~8.56
uT~LIT~ T~ otal current charges
Bala~C~_~.nt Due
Average cost per day .87
Message to
customers appear
in this area
Questions?
See reverse side
for more information
pLEASE v" sw ROO~ ~5~ -
Payment must be
received by this date
Tear off here and return
top portion with payment
Prior billing and
payment information
Water consumed in 100
cu. feet.To calculate into
gallons, multiply by
750, e.g. 25 x 750 =
18,750 gallons
Total due
Average cost
per day
WlLLARD N. CLAY'FOR
Director
CITY OF ROANOKE
REAL ESTATE VALUATION
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 250
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
'00 d~lq 19 ?12:06
Telephone: (540) $53-2771
Facsimile: (5401 853-2796
January 19, 2000
The Honorable Mayor David A. Bowers
and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
FACSIMILE
TRANSMISSION
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
In my January 12, 2000 letter to you regarding the annual general reassessment program, I
informed you the County's reassessment increase was 5.4%. The County Assessor called
me on yesterday to revise his estimate to 3.1%. However, the County's residential new
construction remains unchanged at $63 million dollars.
2000
Roanoke City 2.8%
Roanoke County 3.1%
1999
Salem 7.0% ( Two year assessment cycle)
Again, should you need additional information or assistance with an assessment matter,
please call me.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Willard N. Claytor
Director
WILLARD N. CLAYTOR
Director
REAL ESTATE VALUATION
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 2'1~0 J/~,~ t 2 P 3 :,~,5
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
January 12, 2000
Telephone:
Facsimile:
(540) 853-2771
(540) 853-2796
Honorable Mayor David A. Bowers
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
As prescribed by law, the Office of Real Estate Valuation has completed the annual general
reassessment program for Fiscal 2000-01. "Change of Assessment Notices" will be mailed
to property owners January 18, 2000.
The real estate tax base increased approximately 2.8% due to this year's annual
reassessment. This figure is subject to appeals and excludes new construction. The increase
last year was 2.7%. For comparison purposes I have included the assessment changes for
Roanoke County and Salem:
2000
Roanoke City 2.8%
Roanoke County 5.4%
1999
Salem 7.0% ( Two year assessment cycle)
The numbers indicate what most of you already know. There is more residential growth in
neighboring bedroom communities located in Botetourt, Bedford, Franklin and Roanoke
Counties. Roanoke County, as an example, experienced $63 million dollars of new
residential construction during 1999, following $72 million dollars of new residential
construction in 1998. Obviously, the availability of vacant land is a major contributor to this
growth.
Here in Roanoke, new construction will add another 1.6% to the tax base. This represents
$22 million dollars in residential and $38 million dollars in commercial construction. This
year's new construction (residential&commercial) is equal to that which occurred last year.
Members of Roanoke City Council
January 12, 2000
page 2
Overall, the general reassessment program and new construction indicate growth of 4.5%
in the real estate tax base to July 1, 2000, which is up slightly from last year's 4.4% rate.
Individual property assessments vary widely from the citywide average of 2.8%. Most
assessment changes will range from 3% to 7%, with a majority at 5% or less. If an owner
has made improvements to the property during the year that increased its value, that
property owner may receive an increase higher than others.
Assessment Appeals will be conducted from January 18 through February 15, 2000. I
would be most happy to respond to any inquiries you may receive from our citizens about
the reassessment program. I expect the Circuit Court to appoint the Board of Equalization
during the month of March.
Should you need additional information or assistance with an assessment matter, please
feel free to call me.
Respectfully submitted,
Willard N. Claytor
Director
c: Darlene Burcham, City Manager
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor
William Hackworth, City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 24,2000
Ms. Judy A. Bower
2721 Cumberland Street, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Dear Ms. Bower:
Your communication under date of January 10, 2000, tendering your resignation as a
member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee, effective
immediately, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was
held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the resignation was accepted and
your communication was received and filed.
The Members of Council requested that l express sincere appreciation for your willingness
to serve the City of Roanoke as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership
Steering Committee from December g, 1991 to January 10, 2000. Please find enclosed
a Certificate of Appreciation and an aerial view photograph of the Roanoke Valley which
was issued by the Mayor on behalf of the Roanoke City Council.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
Elizabeth A. Watson, Secretary, Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering
Committee
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
C:'dVlyFiles\jan 18.wlxt
RECEIVED
£'ITY r,~ F~F':,'. t'}!::=
'00 ,JAN 11 F12:55
I~dO
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 26, 2000
File #15-51-110
Benjamin S. Motley, Chair
Board of Zoning Appeals
1704 Greenwood Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Motley:
This is to advise you that on January 10, 2000 and January 11,2000, respectively, Sydnor
W. Brizendine, Jr., and Willard G. Light qualified as members of the Board of Zoning
Appeals for terms ending December 31,2001 and December 31,2002, respectively.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
Linda L. Leedy, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
C:\MyFil~\jan 18.wpd
t~ECEI'vEO
CITY gL~' ....... '~! !]
JAN i 0 A'9:26
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Sydnor W. Brizendine, Jr., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties
incumbent upon me as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals for a term ending
December 31,200'1, according to the best of my ability. (So help me God.)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~,(~ 00.
ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK
, DEPUTY CLERK
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Willard G. Light, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution
of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me
as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals for a term ending December 31,2002,
according to the best of my ability. (So help me God.)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this //day of O'-,4A/, la~.
ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK
DEPUTY CLERK
C:\MyFiles\dec20.wpd
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File #15-110-488
Chades W. Hancock, Chair
Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership
Steering Committee
1016 Estates Road, S. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Hancock:
This is to advise you that on January 12, 2000, January 11,2000 and January 10, 2000,
respectively, Shidey M. Bethel, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., and Mark A. Harris qualified as
members of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee for terms ending
November 30, 2003.
Sincerely, p~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
Elizabeth A. Watson, Secretary, Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering
Committee
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
C:Xa'vlyFilc~\j ~n 18,WlXl
jAN12 P3:30
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Shirley M. Bethel, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution
of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me
as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee for a
term ending November 30, 2003, according to the best of my ability. (So help me God.)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /',~ day of ~ ~
ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK
BY
,DEPUTY CLERK
C:hMyFilcs\dec6.wpd
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth
of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties
incumbent upon me as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering
Committee for a term ending November 30, 2003, according to the best of my ability.
(So help me God.)
Subscribed and sworn to befoi:
day
ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK
BY
~¢c/ ~'-)~'~~~D E PUTY CLERK
C:'qVlyFiles\dec6.wpd
RECE~V£e
Ct~Y CL
w ~Jt~l'l I I I'I! I
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Mark A. Harris, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution
of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me
as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee for a
term ending November 30, 2003, according to the best of my ability. (So help me God.)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /~) day of
ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK
, DEPUTY CLERK
C:LMyFiles\dec6.wpd
MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
January 24, 2000
File#15-110-326
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
J. Lee E. Osborne, Chair
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission
5152 Falcon Ridge Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear Mr. Osborne:
This is to advise you that on January 11,2000, David K. Lisk qualified as a member of the
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission for a term ending December 31,2002.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
Wayne G. Strickland, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional
Commission, 313 Luck Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
C:XMyFile~\jan 18.wpd
RECEIVE[]
'00 J~N ~2 ?Z:bZ
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, David K. Lisk, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of
the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and
that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me
as a member of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission for a term
ending December 31, 2002, according to the best of my ability. (So help me God.)
Subscribed and sworn to before me this J~ day of,,._~;l~
ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK
,DEPUTY CLERK
C:'uMy Files\dec20.wpd
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File #60-528
William B. Robertson, Founder
Camp Virginia Jaycee, Inc.
2494 Camp Jaycee Road
Blue Ridge, Virginia 24064
Dear Mr. Robertson:
A request of Camp Virginia Jaycee, Inc., for $50,000.00 over a five year period was before
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000.
On motion, duly seconded, and unanimously adopted, the request was referred to 2000-01
budget study.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
C \MyFil~s\jan 18 wpd
Founder
William B. Robertson
W.~?gton, DC
i~oard of Directors
Lee Brooks, CFP,
Chairman
Roanoke, Virginia
Vice Chairman
Frank Barnett, III
Bentonville, Virginia
Rozalyn Goin
Dillwyn, Virginia
J. Pat Green
Roanoke, Virginia
Kenneth P. Gross, II,
Treasurer
Richmond, Virginia
Holly Hagle
Bentonville, Virginia
Leslie Hager,
Secretary
Roanoke, Virginia
James Purks
Sterling, Virginia
Stuart F. Shatz
Sterling, Virginia
Directors
Joe Belzile
Sterling, Virginia
Frances Daniel
Richmond, Virginia
Mary Loose DeViney
Keswick, Virginia
Sam Goin
Dillwyn. Virginia
Jane Johnson
Salem, Virginia
Alan Richardson
Williamsburg, Virginia
Hasmukh Shah
Charlottesville, Virginia
Bill Sledd
Roanoke, Virginia
Mack Stevens
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Stratford Ward
Richmond, Virginia
Bob Wear
Arlington, Virginia
Ex Officio
Chuck Clement
Richmond, Virginia
Charles Cornelison
Roanoke, Virginia
Pablo Cuevas
Harrisonburg, Virginia
Larry Hull
Norfolk, Virginia
Craig Lane
Richmond, Virginia
Bob Marshall
Virginia Beach, Virginia
Dan Pizzullo
Kingsport, Tennessee
Diane P'Pool
Richmond, Virginia
David Serota, Ph.D
Kalamazoo, Michigan
James Sumption
Harrisonburg, Virginia
Ray Trevillian
Chesterfield, Virginia
Staff
Everett Werness, M.Ed.,
CFRE, President
Vir, iniaJa cee,
16 P5',08
November 12, 1999
Ms. Mary Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke,VA 24011
Dear Ms. Parker:
This is to respectfully request that I be placed on the agenda of Roanoke
City Council on Tuesday, January 18, 2000, at 2:00 p.m., for a brief presentation
under the category "Petitions and Communications". The presentation will center
around those Camp Virginia Jaycee serves.., persons with mental retardation.
I look forward to hearing from you.
j // RTectfully'
/~/~'/~erts~n Founder
2494 Camp Jaycee Road · Blue Ridge, Virginia 24064 · (540) 947-2972 · FAX (540) 947-2043
,Founder
William' ~., Robertson
Washington, DC
Board of Directors
Chairman
Frank Barnett, III
Bentonvilte, Virginia
Immediate Past Chairman
Lee Brooks, CFP
Roanoke. Virgima
Vice Chairman
J. Pat Green
Roanoke Virg~ma
Kenneth P. Gross, II,
Richmond, Virginia
Holly Hagle
Bentonvitte, Virginia
Bruce McKenzie
Warrenton, Virginia
Mack Stevens
virginia Beach, Virginia
Secretary
Leslie Hager
Roanoke, Virginia
Treasurer
Tom King
Centervitte, Virginia
Directors
Joe Belzile
Slerling, Virginia
Frances Daniel
Richmond, Virginia
Mary Loose DeViney
Keswick, Virginia
Sam Goin
Dillwyn, Virginia
Jane Johnson
Salem, Virginia
Anne Lee
Oakton, Virginia
Jim Purks
Sterling, Virginia
Hasmukh Shah
Charlottesville, Virginia
Bill Sledd
Roanoke, Virginia
Stratford Ward
Richmond, Virginia
Bob Wear
Arlington, Virginia
Ex Officio
Chuck Clement
Altoona, Pennsylvania
Charles Cornelison
Roanoke, Virginia
Pablo Cuevas
Harrisonburg, Virginia
Larry Hull
Norfoik. Virginia
Craig Lane
Richmond, Virginia
Bob Marshall
Virginia Beach, Virginia
[:)an Pizzullo
Cordova. Tennessee
Diane P'Pool
Myrtle Beach, South Carolina
David Scrota, Ph,D
Kalamazoo. Michigan
James Sumption
Harrisonburg, Virginia
Ray Trevitlian
Chesterfield, Virginia
President
Everett Wemess, M.Ed.,
CFRE
J~u~ 18, 2000
Mayor David A Bowers ..~ ~ .
215 Ch~ch Avenue, SW v/" ~g'i
RoOm 452, M~icipal Build~g ~
Ro~oke, VA 24011
De~ Mayor Bowers: )~F
Camp Virginia Jaycee's purpose is to give children and adults with mental
retardation a place to run and play, to ride horses, to swim, to fish, to make_"~]~
friends, to develop social skills and to enjoy the outdoors like others who have the~''4'/
opportunity to attend a summer camp. While the main purpose is recreation,
many times we see campers who learn to have more participation in their daily
care, or to develop a new skill like conversing with other campers. These
achievements, large and small, are the real rewards of working with these very
special people.
Camp Virginia Jaycee is a year round residential outdoor recreation and education
facility located in Blue Ridge, Virginia. The nonprofit organization has been
serving children and adults with mental retardation throughout Virginia for over
twenty-nine years. The Virginia Jaycees, who raised the funds to purchase the
land and build the facilities, have provided tremendous support since the founding
of the organization. After the initial effort to build the Camp, Jaycee Chapters
continued their support by sponsoring campers fi.om their local communities,
donating equipment and supplies, and providing labor for the many work projects.
However, as with many civic organizations today, the membership of the Virginia
Jaycees has declined over the past few years. In 1987 their membership was
13,000. Today it has declined to 2,500 members. This decline in membership
caused significant impact in their ability to support Camp Jaycee. In 1987 the
Jaycee Chapter sponsored campers provided 42% of the Camp's operating
budget. In 1998 this support declined to 22% of the budget. After much
deliberation the Camp Virginia Jaycee Board of Directors realized in order to
provide for Virginia's children and adults with mental retardation, at the same
level as in the past, additional sources of revenue would need to be found.
The "Dare to Care" $3,000,000 Campaign for Camp Virginia Jaycee is the result
of these deliberations. The campaign's purpose is to raise funds to ensure the
future of Camp Jaycee and the people we serve. These funds will be used to
establish two endowment funds where each year the interest will pay for
camperships and major unanticipated maintenance costs at Camp. The
breakdown of the $3,000,000 is as roi'lows:
$$00,000 Endowment - Interest will provide for unanticipated major
maintenance expenses.
2494 Camp Jaycee Road · Blue Ridge, Virginia 24064 · (540) 947-2972 · FAX (540) 947-2043
Page 2
Roanoke City Council
January 18, 2000
$2,500,000 Endowment - Interest will provide for camperships each year
for those who need assistance in attending camp.
Last year 104 campers from the City of Roanoke were able to experience the
outdoors at Camp Jaycee. But three percent of the population has mental
retardation, an estimated 2,800 people in the City of Roanoke. Most of these
citizens could benefit from the opportunity to learn more independence, to learn
socialization skills and for their parents or care givers to have a much-needed
break from their constant care. A successful capital campaign will allow Camp
Virginia Jaycee to double the number of children and adults who are served from
the City of Roanoke.
The Camp Board of Directors and I ask that Roanoke City Council consider a
contribution of $50,000 to the capital campaign payable over a period of five
years. Your investment will ensure that resources will be available to serve the
children and adults with mental retardation from the City of Roanoke who want
and need the opportunity for an outdoor education and recreation experience.
Thank you for DARING TO CARE through your consideration of a gift to these
unique citizens.
Sincerely,
William B. Robertson
Founder
Camp Virginia Jaycee, Inc.
MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
January 24, 2000
File ¢t467
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Melinda J. Payne, Chair
Roanoke City School Board
301 Rutherford Avenue, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Ms. Payne:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 34635-011800 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1999-2000 School Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of
$15,000.00 for the Chess Program, and transfer of $32,777.00 to fund interest expense
charged by the State for cash advances against the Literary Fund loan for the Addison
Aerospace Middle School renovation project. The abovereferenced measure was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc~
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
Richard L. Kelley, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, Roanoke City Public
Schools
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board
C:~lyFiles\jan 18wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34635-011800.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1999-2000
School Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1999-2000 School Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are
hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
A~r~ropriatione
Education
Facilities (1) ................................................
Other Uses of Funds (2) ......................................
Chess Program 1999-2000 (3-4) ................................
$124,062,275
2,322,895
4,776,798
15,000
Revenue
Education $121,371,485
Chess Program 1999-2000(5) ................................. 15,000
1 ) Additions - Machinery
and Equipment
2) Interest
3) Maintenance Service
Contracts
(030-060-6006-6681-0821 )
(030-060-6007-6998-0902)
(030-O60-6603-6102-0332)
4) Conventions/Education (030-060-6603-6102-0554)
5) Fees (030-060-6603-1103)
$ (32,777)
32,777
3,000
12,000
15,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
~ ~ I~aaeke. Vit~nla
January 18, 2000
'00 JAN 13 P1:40
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM:
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
SUBJECT:
School Board Request for Appropriation of School and School Capital
Projects Funds
We have reviewed the attached request to appropriate funding for the School
Board. This report will appropriate the following:
$15,OOO.OO for the Chess Program to pay for chess materials and tournament
participation costs. This continuing grant program is funded with a private
donation.
The Board further requests a transfer of $32,777 to fund interest expense charged
by the State for cash advances against the Literary Fund loan for the Addison
Aerospace Middle School renovation project.
We recommend that you concur with this request of the School Board.
JDG/hrh/pac
'~~1 Melinda J. Payne, Chairman Marsha W. Ellison
F. B. Webster Day, Vice Chairman Sherman P. Lea
' Charles W. Day Ruth C. Willson
//.Roanoke
City School Board · P.O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 · 540-853-2381 · Fax: 540-853-2951
Brian J. Wishneff
E. Wayne Harris, Ed.D., Superintendent
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk of the Board
3anuary 12, 2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council ~
Z
Roanoke, VA 24011 ~
Dear Members of Council' -o
The School Board at its 3anuary 11 meeting voted to request the co
Roanoke City Council to appropriate $15,000.00 for the Chess Program to
pay for chess materials and tournament participation costs. This continuing
grant program is funded with a private donation.
The Board further requests a transfer of funds from General Fund
Capital Outlay to provide for the interest expense charged by the State for
cash advances against the Literary Fund loan for the Addison Aerospace
Middle School renovation project.
The Board appreciates the approval of these requests.
Sincerely,
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk
re
CC:
Ms. Melinda .l. Payne
Dr. E. Wayne Harris
Mr. Richard L. Kelley
Mr. Kenneth F. Mundy
Mr. William L. Murray
Mrs. Darlene L. Burcham
Mr. William M. Hackworth
Mr..lames D. Grisso
Ms. Ann Allen (with accounting details)
" Preparing Students for Success
JAN 11 At0:31
Roanoke, Virginia
January 18, 2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Subject:
Proposed amendments to Article III, Division 2,
Subdivision B., RM-1, Residential Multifamily Low
Density District, of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended.
Please reserve 20 minutes on Council's agenda for a briefing on
the above-referenced matter.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
/mpf
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File #2-166
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 34636-011800 authorizing the City Manager to
execute any documents necessary to grant an extension of time in which to hold the
closing on the transfer of property from the City to Serenity Funeral Home, L. L. C., until
March 31,2000. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Attachment
pc:
The Reverend Dwight O. Steele, 2968 Emissary Drive, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24019
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
C:hMyFil~\jan 18.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34636-011800.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute any documents necessary to grant
an extension of time in which to hold the closing on the transfer of property from the City to Serenity
Funeral Home, L.L.C. (Purchaser), until March 31, 2000.
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 34410-080299, adopted on August 2, 1999, City Council
authorized the sale of the City's fee simple interest in Official Tax Nos. 2012705, 2012706 and
2012707, and authorized the execution of a Contract of Sale by the City, which Contract was entered
into on August 12, 1999, and provided, among other things, that closing would occur Within 60 days
from the date of the Contract of Sale, or as soon thereafter as practicable, which date was extended
to December 15, 1999;
WHEREAS, because of various matters affecting the Purchaser, closing has not occurred,
and Purchaser has requested an extension of time in which to close, and it is in the best interests of
the City to extend the time of closing until March 31, 2000, as recommended by the report of the
City Manager dated January 18, 2000.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City
Manager is authorized to extend the time period in which the transfer of property to Serenity Funeral
Home, L.L.C., may be held to March 31, 2000, and execute any documents necessary to accomplish
this extension.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
l:\Cl~k~0002-m- 11800
P, ECEi~, ED
'00 JI~N 12 Att:31
January 18, 2000
Council Report # 00-02
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Request for extension on closing the sale of city-owned property
located on Gilmer Avenue Northwest to Serenity Funeral Home
BACKGROUND:
Serenity Funeral Home, LLC identified a need to expand its facility
at 126 Gilmer Avenue, NW.
To facilitate Serenity's expansion, the City of Roanoke agreed to
sell three of its properties adjacent to the funeral home (official tax
map numbers 2012705, 2012706 and 2012707). The lots comprise
12,763 square feet.
The City of Roanoke and Serenity Funeral Home, LLC, entered into
certain Contract of Sale, dated August 12, 1999, with a closing date
to occur 60 days later. The purchase price is $51,052 for .293 acres
at $4.00 per square foot.
Do
On September 20, 1999, City Council's Water Resources
Committee authorized extending closing until December 15, 1999.
Serenity was unable to close at that time.
II. CURRENT SITUATION:
Ao
Serenity Funeral Home, LLC, intended to borrow funds from an
affiliated corporation, but the funds were no longer available.
Serenity Funeral Home, LLC, still desires to purchase the property
at the agreed upon purchase price and is currently seeking
requisite financing to do so.
Serenity Funeral Home, LLC, is requesting an extension of the
closing date until March 31, 2000.
Mayor and Members of City Council
January 18, 2000
Page 2
III.
IV.
ISSUES:
A. Neighborhood Revitalization
B. Economic Development
ALTERNATIVES:
A. Authorize the City Manager to extend closing date to March 31,
2000, under terms of Contract of Sale dated August 12, 1999.
1. Neighborhood revitalization will be accomplished as the
expansion project fulfills the goals of the Gainsboro Coalition for
promotion of minority business to serve the Gainsboro
neighborhood as well as the entire city.
2. Economic Development program will be advanced by placing
the property into the private sector, thus creating new revenue
and retaining jobs within the city.
B. Not Authorize the City Manager to extend the closing date to March
31,2000, under terms of Contract of Sale dated August 12, 1999.
1. Neighborhood revitalization will not occur at this time.
2. Economic Development opportunity will be forfeited at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the City Manager to extend closing date to March 31, 2000,
under terms of Contract of Sale dated August 12, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. Burch~
City Manager
Mayor and Members of City Council
January 18, 2000
Page 3
mjp
James D. Ritchie, Assistant City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Direct of Public Works
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator
Linda S. Bass, Acting Chief of Economic Development
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
J),.N.-06' ~'.~iTH[.:.} ll '52 q, ti:~Tiii!'. L00tiE. RAI<ES&H TEL:S40 985 946C) P. ~'~'~2
GENTRY LOCKE
RAKES & Mq'DRE
A !.ilB lei L,abH':'/ I':,,, ~e. rs~-cJ
Direct Dial: {5401 083-9409
January 6. !999
i0 I:rank:m Roue. 5 ~
VIA i:;'ACSI~v~_-LF~ & I.I.S. MAlL
William M. Hackworth
City Attorney
464 Municipal Building
2t5 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011-I 5!)5
Contrac~ of Sale - Conveyance by thc City of Roanoke to Serenity Funeral Home,
L.1 ,.C.
Dear Mr. Hackworth:
'['hc City of Roanoke (the "City") and Serenity Funeral Home, L.L.C. C'Screnity") entered into
that certain Contract of Sale (the "Contract"), dated August 12, 1999, ['or the purchase and sale of
three lots, official tax map numbers 2012705, 2012706 and 2012707 (collectively, the
"Property").
To finance the purchase of the Property, Serenity intended to bon'ow funds from an affiliated
corporation. Unfommately, due to unforeseen factors, the t'unds needed to purchase the Property
are no longer available. However, Serenity still desires to purchase the Property, and is currently
m the process of obtaining the requisite financing to do so. Accordingly, Serenity requests that
~hc City agree to extend the closing date and aDree nm to exercise its option to terminate the
Contract before Mm-ch 31, 2000.
If this is acc[eptable, please send me written confirmation of the City's acceptance of the
extension. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely your's,
GENTRY I.OCKE RAKES & MOORE
C. Cooper Yo~tell, IV
CC'
Dwight O. Steele, Sr.
Melinda Payne
{ ~ :\~ransact\1,150_\1\00667171 DOC t
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File ¢¢42-60-166
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 34638-011800 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1999-2000 General and Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, providing for
appropriation of $53,875.00, in connection with installation of a new canopy roof at the City
Market Building. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Attachment
pc:
The Honorable Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations
Ellen S. Evans, Construction Cost Technician
Alicia F. Stone, Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets, Department of Finance
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
Lynnis B. Vernon, Acting Manager, Building Maintenance
C:kMyFilc~\jan 1 &wlxt
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34638-011800.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1999-2000
General and Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1999-2000 General and Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be,
and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
General Fund
Appropriations
Public Works $ 22,629,727
Building Maintenance (1) .................................... 3,373,609
Nondepartmental $ 61,974,083
Transfers to Other Funds (2) ................................. 60,819,597
Capital Projects Fund
Appropriations
General Government $ 30,905,859
New Canopy Roof - City Market Building (3) ..................... 53,875
Capital Improvement Reserve $ 21,843,482
Capital Improvement Reserve (4) ............................. 600,219
1 ) Maintenance of
Fixed Assets (001-052-4330-3057) $ (25,000)
2) Transfers to Capital
Projects Fund
3) Appropriated from
General Revenue
4) Buildings and
Structures
(001-004-9310-9508)
(008-052-9663-9003)
(008-052-9575-9173)
25,000
53,875
28,875)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
~ECE~VED
'00 J/~l-~ 12 A 8:47
January 18, 2000
Council Report No. 00-105
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
FUNDS APPROPRIATION
NEW CANOPY ROOF
CITY MARKET BUILDING
32 MARKET STREET
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
BID NO. 99-11-7
II.
Background on the subject in chronological order is as follows:
Bids, following proper advertisement, were received on December 7, 1999,
by D. Darwin Roupe, Manager of Supply Management.
Four (4) bids were received with Baker Roofing Company of Roanoke,
Virginia submitting the Iow bid in the amount of $53,875. No time of
construction was submitted, but the three other bidders each submitted a
construction time of 120 consecutive calendar days.
Co
Project consists of the following: Remove the existing canopy roof and
replace it with a new roof while providing protection for the street around the
Market Building.
The metal canopy fascia was repaired and the soffit (ceiling) was
repaired and painted last year along with repair of the upper metal
roof of the building. Fralin and Waldron did some repair work on the
canopy roof at that time. This repair work only emphasized the fact
that this roof needs to be replaced.
An asbestos survey was made of the roofing materials and it found
that the flashing and mastic around the perimeter, where the brick
wall and canopy meet, has asbestos containing materials. These
materials are to be properly abated as part of this project.
Current situation is as follows:
Ao
The project has been bid and funding needs to be appropriated to permit the
award of a contract as soon as possible to prevent further water damage to
the canopy soffit.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FUNDS APPROPRIATION
NEW CANOPY ROOF
CITY MARKET BUILDING
32 MARKET STREET
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
BID NO. 99-11-7
January 18, 2000
Page 2
Bo
The City Manager has authority to execute a contract with the Iow bidder.
Funding needs to be appropriated for the project.
III.
Issues in order of importance are as follows:
Ao
Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of the contract documents
for bidding.
Amount of the Iow bid.
Funding
Time
IV.
Alternatives in order of feasibility are as follows:
Authorize the appropriation of $53,875 to provide funding for the installation
of a new canopy roof at the Market Building, in accordance with the Contract
Documents as prepared by the Office of the City Engineer.
1. Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of the Contract
Documents for bidding was met.
°
Amount of the Iow bid exceeds the estimated cost but is still
acceptable. Most of the additional cost is due to the asbestos
containing materials and the fact that the jobsite is not easily
accessible.
3. Funding for this project is as follows:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FUNDS APPROPRIATION
NEW CANOPY ROOF
CITY MARKET BUILDING
32 MARKET STREET
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
BID NO. 99-11-7
January 18, 2000
Page 3
From Fixed Asset Maintenance
Account No. 001-052-4330-3057
From Capital Improvement Reserve,
Building & Structures,
Account No. 008-052-9575-9173
Total
$25,000
28,875
$53,875
o
Time of completion has been negotiated at 120 calendar days and is
acceptable.
B. Do not authorize the appropriation of funds at this time.
Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of the Contract
Documents for bidding would not be an issue as the bids will have to
be rejected.
2. Amount of the Iow bid would probably change if rebid at a later date.
3. Funding of the project would not be required at this time.
Time of completion would be extended. This would permit further rain
damage to the canopy ceiling.
Recommendation is as follows:
City Council concur in Alternative "A" and take the following actions:
Authorize the appropriation of $53,875 to remove and replace the roof and
to properly abate the asbestos containing materials at the Market Building,
in accordance with the Contract Documents as prepared by the Office of City
Engineer.
Bo
Authorize the Director of Finance to establish a new Capital Projects Fund
Account entitled "Market Building Canopy Roof Replacement" and to transfer
the following funds:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FUNDS APPROPRIATION
NEW CANOPY ROOF
CITY MARKET BUILDING
32 MARKET STREET
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
BID NO. 99-11-7
January 18, 2000
Page 4
From Fixed Asset Maintenance
From Capital Improvement Reserve
Buildings and Structures
Total
$25,000
$28,875
$53,875
C. Reject the other bids received.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB/LBC/fm
C~
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Acting Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities and Operations
Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets
Budget Administrator
Manager, Office of Supply Management
Commissioner of the Revenue
Acting Manager, Building Maintenance
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File g42-60-166
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000, it was the consensus of Council that the City Manager be requested to
report to Council during fiscal year 2000-01 budget study with a comprehensive analysis
of the highest and best use of the City Market Building. The Mayor requested that the
report include information on sidewalk caf6s (does the City promote sidewalk caf6s, are
there certain restrictions on sidewalk caf6s, should the sidewalk under the canopy of the
City Market Building be extended, etc.), and that the City Manager also address other
areas surrounding the City Market Building.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
Lynnis B. Vernon, Acting Manager, Building Maintenance
C:~'lyFil~\jan 18.w]xi
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 24,2000
File #27
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 34639-011800 authorizing the City Manager's
issuance of Change Order No. 5 to the City's contract with Alex E. Paris Contracting Co.,
Inc., in the increased amount of $460,000.00, in connection with the Roanoke River
Interceptor Sewer Replacement Project, Contracts Al, A2, B1 and B2. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
MFP:Io
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Attachment
pc:
The Honorable Sherman A. H~)lland, Commissioner of the Revenue
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations
Chades M. Huffine, City Engineer
Ellen S. Evans, Construction Cost Technician
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
Alicia F. Stone, Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets, Department of Finance
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
Lynnis B. Vernon, Acting Manager, Building Maintenance
C:~dVIyFile~\jan 18.wpd
IN THECOUNC~ OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINI&
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34639-011800.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager's issuance of Change Order No. 5 to the
City's contract with Alex E. Pads Contracting Company, Inc., for the Roanoke River Interceptor
Sewer Replacement Contracts Al, A2, B1 & B2; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is authorized to execute for and on
behalf of the City, upon form approved by the City Attorney, Change Order No. 5 to the City's
contract with Alex E. Paris Contracting Company, Inc., for the Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer
Replacement Contracts Al, A2, B1 & B2, all as more fully set forth in the report to this Council
dated January 18, 2000.
2. The Change Order will provide authorization for additions in the work with an
increase in the amount of $460,000 to the original contract, all as set forth in the above report.
3. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an
emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
'00 JAN11 ~10:31
January 18, 2000
Council Report No. 00-107
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject: ROANOKE RIVER INTERCEPTOR SEWER REPLACEMENT
CONTRACTS Al, A2, B1 & B2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 5
Background on the subject in chronological order is as follows:
Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer Replacement is part of the renovation and
expansion of joint use sewer facilities considered by City Council at its meeting of
December 13, 1993.
Bo
Current project cost is estimated at $66,090,790 with the City's share being
$25,145,096. This cost includes increasing the design capacity at the Water Pollution
Control Plant by 27 MGD, rather than the 7 MGD estimated in 1993, and the
lowering of the sewer interceptors to avoid siphons at stream crossings.
Co
The Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer Replacement project replaces the existing
interceptor sewer from the Water Pollution Control Plant to the Salem city_ limit.
Contracts Al, A2, B1 & B2 are with Alex E. Paris Contracting Company, Inc. to
replace the existing interceptor from the Water Pollution Control Plant to Wasena
Park at Winchester Street. These contracts represent a total of 26,982 feet (5.1 miles)
of sewer replacement. This is 52 percent of the total project length of 51,870 feet
(9.82 miles).
II.
Current situation is as follows:
A°
The project (Contracts Al, A2, B1 & B2) has progressed and is approximately 95
percent complete, with a scheduled completion date of February_ 15, 2000.
B°
The project included construction of a tunnel to carry the proposed sewer near the
intersection of Jefferson Street and Reserve Avenue. The tunnel was necessary to
cross under the railroad tracks and the subject roadway intersection to avoid
disruption of rail and vehicular traffic.
C. The tunnel construction encountered unstable soil conditions underground that
required the use of pressurized grout stabilization to prevent cave-in of the
excavation. The proposed Change Order No. 5 includes all additional costs
associated with the grout stabilization ($375,000). The consultant, Black & Veatch,
concurs in this recommendation.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
ROANOKE RIVER INTERCEPTOR
CONTRACTS Al, A2, B1 & B2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 5
January 18, 2000
Page 2
Do
Eo
Fo
Change Order No. 5 also includes the additional cost for stabilization of soft soils
under the proposed sewer pipeline at several locations through December 20, 1999
($85,000). The consultant, Black & Veatch, concurs in this recommendation.
The construction cost of the project (Contracts Al, A2, B1 & B2) is estimated as
follows:
Initial Contract
Change Order No. 1 (Administrative, time only, 14 days)
Change Order No. 2 (Tunnel at plant, repairs at 9th St.)
Change Order No. 3 (Additional paving in Smith Park)
Change Order No. 4 (Misc. small items, 30 days)
Proposed Change Order No. 5
$18,367,063
0
215,052
13,141
24,815
460,000
Total
$19,080,071
Total Change Orders to date, including proposed Change Order No. 5, are equivalent
to 3.8 percent of the initial contract.
The proposed change order cost is apportioned between the participating jurisdictions
as follows:
City of Roanoke 36.7% $168,820
City of Salem 33.7% $155,020
Roanoke County 29.6% $136,160
Total
$ 460,000
The contractor has submitted other requests of approximately $1,000,000 not covered
by Change Order No. 5. The validity of these requests are under investigation by
City staff and the consultant. They will be brought forward only if determined to be
valid and appropriate.
III.
Issues in order of importance are as follows:
A. Cost
B. Funding
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
ROANOKE RIVER INTERCEPTOR
CONTRACTS Al, A2, B1 & B2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 5
January 18, 2000
Page 3
IV.
Alternatives in order of feasibility are as follows:
mo
Authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 5 for the items set forth in
paragraphs II. (C.) and (D.) above, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with
Alex E. Paris Contracting Company, Inc., in the total amount of $460,000 and 25
additional calendar days of contract time.
1. Cost is reasonable for the additional work.
Funding is available in the project contingency held in Roanoke River
Interceptor Contract A 1, A2, B 1 & B2 (003-056-8484) to pay the cost of the
Change Order. The amount of project contingency remaining after this
Change Order is $665,698 after an allowance of $350,000 for the emergency
Change Order for the anticipated repair of the existing sewer line due to
damage by blasting due to misalignment as explained to City Council on
Monday, October 4, 1999.
Bo
Do not authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 5 with Alex E. Paris
Contracting Company, Inc.
1. Cost would be based on future negotiation.
Funding would remain in Roanoke River Interceptor Contract A 1, A2, B 1,
& B2 (003-056-8484).
V°
Recommendation is as follows:
City Council concur in alternative "A" and take the following action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 5 for the items set forth in
paragraphs II. (C.) and (D.) above, in a form approved by the City Attorney, with
Alex E. Paris Contracting Company, Inc., in the total amount of $460,000 and 25
additional calendar days of contract time.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
ROANOKE RIVER INTERCEPTOR
CONTRACTS Al, A2, B1 & B2
CHANGE ORDER NO. 5
January 18, 2000
Page 4
DLB/PCS/bls
Attachments
C'
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities and Operations
Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets
Budget Administrator
Manager, Office of Supply Management
Commissioner of Revenue
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 27, 2000
File #20-46-60
Bill Monroe, General Manager
Davis H. Elliot Co., Inc.
P. O. Box 12707
Roanoke, Virginia 24027-2707
Dear Mr. Monroe:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 34641-011800 accepting the proposal of Davis H.
Elliot Co., Inc., in the amount of $926,611.25, for construction of the Central Business
District Traffic Signal System, upon certain terms and conditions; and rejecting ail other
proposals made to the City for the work. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc:
Dadene L. Burcham, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
Chades M. Huffine, City Engineer
Ellen S. Evans, Construction Cost Technician
C:XMyFil~s\jan 18.Wl~
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 27, 2000
File #20-46-60
I. J. Payne, III, President
Richardson-Wayland Electrical Co.
P. O. Box 12648 .
Roanoke, Virginia 24027
Dear Mr. Payne:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 34641-011800 accepting the proposal of Davis H.
Elliot Co., Inc., in the amount of $926,611.25, for construction of the Central Business
District Traffic Signal System, upon certain terms and conditions; and rejecting all other
proposals made to the City for the work. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000.
On behalf of the City of Roanoke, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your
bid on the abovedescribed traffic signal system.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
C:~VIyFilel\j aa 18.wpd
1N THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34641-011800.
AN ORDINANCE accepting the proposal of Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc., for the
construction of the Central Business District Traffic Signal System, upon certain terms and
conditions, and awarding a contract therefor; authorizing the proper City officials to execute
the requisite contract for such work; rejecting all other proposals made to the City for the
work; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The proposal of Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc., in the total amount of
$926,611.25, to furnish all equipment, materials, labor, and services necessary to provide and
completely implement a fully-operational, microcomputer-based traffic signal control
system, as is more particularly set forth in the report to this Council dated January 18, 2000,
such proposal being in full compliance with the City's plans and specifications made therefor
and as provided in the contract documents offered said proposer, which proposal is on file
in the Office of Supply Management, be and is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby
authorized, on behalf of the City, to execute and attest, respectively, the requisite contract
with the successful proposer, based on its proposal made therefor and the City's
specifications made therefor, said contract to be in such form as is approved by the City
Attorney, and the cost of said work to be paid for out of funds heretofore or simultaneously
appropriated by Council.
3. Any and all other proposals made to the City for the aforesaid work are hereby
REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such proposer and to express to
each the City's appreciation for such proposal.
4. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government,
an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its
passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H:\ORD-GEN~OB-CBD-SignaI-Elliot- 1 - 18-2000
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File #20-46-60
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 34640-011800 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1999-2000 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, providing for transfer of
$1,016,611.00 in connection with a contract with Davis H. Elliot Co., Inc., for construction
of the Central Business District Traffic Signal System. The abovereferenced measure was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on
Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Attachment
pc:
Dadene L. Burcham, City Manager
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Ellen S. Evans, Construction Cost Technician
C:~VlyFiles\j an 18.wlxi
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34640-011800.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1999-2000
Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1999-2000 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and the same
are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
Appropriatione
Streets and Bridges
Central Business District Traffic Signal System (1) ..................
Capital Improvement Reserve
Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1996 (2) .......................
1 ) Appropriated from
Bond Fund (008-052-9544-9001) $1,016,611
2) Streets and Sidewalks (008-052-9701-9191) (1,016,611)
$ 21,384,369
1,213,659
$ 20,742,746
1,209,684
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
'00 JANIO P3:08
January 18, 2000
Council Report No. 00-108
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
SUBJECT: Central Business District Traffic Signal System
I. Background:
Ao
The Central Business District (CBD) traffic signal system coordinates the
operation of 44 signalized intersections in the downtown area. Funding in
the amount of $1.350.000 was included in the 1996 Bond Referendum for
plans and equipment needed to replace the existing system which has been
in operation for approximately 20 years. It is projected that the new system
may last for 20 years.
The Outlook Roanoke plan which serves as a vision for downtown Roanoke
included a recommendation for changing Salem Avenue and Campbell
Avenue to two-way traffic. Representatives of the City administration met
over a period of several months with a task force including individuals
interested in this proposal. Ultimately this task force approved a
recommendation that:
1)
2)
3)
the traffic on Salem Avenue be changed to two-way from Williamson
Road to Sixth Street, S. Wo
the traffic pattern on Campbell Avenue be changed to two-way from
Second Street to Fifth Street, S. W.
a traffic signal be installed on Williamson Road at the corner of Salem
Avenue to permit left turns from Williamson Road to Salem Avenue,
and from Salem Avenue to Williamson Road
City Council concurred in these changes on January 19, 1999,
Resolution No. 34157-011999.
The City's Traffic Enqineering Division and the City's project consultant,
Wilbur Smith Associates, considered the alternative procurement methods
and determined that "competitive negotiation for the procurement of other
than professional services" is the best method for procuring a new
computerized traffic signal system. Under this method, proposers are
required to demonstrate experience in the implementation of traffic signal
Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council
Page 2
systems, including construction, software development, integration, system
maintenance and related activities for systems similar in size and scope to
the City's project.
By comparison, the usual bidding process (competitive sealed bidding) is not
particularly or fiscally advantageous to the City for the procurement of a new
computerized traffic signal system because the process does not guarantee
the selection of a contractor that can provide a quality signal system at the
best economic value for the City.
Hence, City Council adopted Resolution No. 34181-021699 on February 16,
1999, thereby allowing the use of competitive negotiation for this project.
II. Current Situation:
Public advertisement was published in The Roanoke Times and The
Roanoke Tribune. Proposals were received and publicly opened at
2:00 p.m., on Tuesday, October 5, 1999, in the Office of Supply
Management.
B. Proposals were received from four (4) firms:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc.
J. B. Moore Electrical Contractor, Inc.
New River Electrical Corporation
Richardson-Wayland Electric Corporation
Interviews were held with each firm on November 17, 1999. The interview
team consisted of Mr. Robert K. Bengtson, P.E., Traffic Engineer/Acting
Director of Public Works; Mr. Philip C. Schirmer, P.E., Assistant City
Engineer; Mr. Howard D. Saunders, Superintendent, Traffic Engineering;
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management; and Mr. Thomas E.
Flynn, P. E., Vice-President, Wilbur Smith Associates.
Subseo. uent negotiations were conducted with Richardson-Wayland Electric
Corporation and Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc. Based upon the various
criteria established for evaluation purposes, Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc.,
located in Cloverdale, Virginia, has been selected for this project at a
contract price of $926,611.25. This price is 1._~7 percent less than the project
estimate of $1,117,000.
Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council
Page 3
III. Issues:
A. Proposal.
B. Amount of proposal.
C. Funding for construction.
D. Time of completion.
IV. Alternatives:
Accept the proposal of Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc., and award a contract
in the amount of $926.611.25, to furnish all equipment, materials, labor, and
services necessary to provide and completely implement a fully-operational,
microcomputer-based traffic signal control system, and establish a
contingency in the amount of $90.000.
Proposal for project construction by Davis H. Elliot, Inc., is deemed to
be in the best interest of the City, as determined by the interview
team. Selection is based upon firm's experience, personnel, proposal
cost, time schedule for completion, and demonstration of signal
equipment.
Amount of the proposal of $926,611.25 is acceptable, as it
is 1_Z7 percent less than the project cost estimate of $1,117,000.
Funding for construction of the project is available from the Streets
and Sidewalks Category of the 1996 General Obligation Bonds
(008-052-9701-9191 ).
4. Time of completion is 335 consecutive calendar days.
Do not accept the proposal of Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc., and do not
award a contract to in the amount of $926,611.25 for the traffic signal control
system.
Proposal for project construction by other firms would need to be
considered.
2. Amount of the proposal would likely increase.
Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council
Page 4
3. Funding for construction would remain available.
4. Time of completion would be delayed.
Recommendation is that City Council concur in Alternative A, and take the following
actions:
Accept the proposal of Davis H. Elliot Company, Inc., and award a contract
in the amount of $926,611.25, to furnish all equipment, materials, labor, and
services necessary to provide and completely implement a fully-operational,
microcomputer-based traffic signal control system, and establish a
contingency in the amount of $90,000.
Transfer $1,016,611 from the Streets and Sidewalks Category of the 1996
General Obligation Bonds to the "CBD Signal System"
Account No. 008-052-9544-9001.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB:RKB:pr
CC;
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Acting Director of Public Works
Budget Administrator
Manager, Office of Supply Management
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke. Virginia 2401 l- 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
January 24, 2000
File #5-60-472
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Wayne E. Williams, Sales Manager
Magic City Motor Corp.
P. O. Box 12807
Roanoke, Virginia 24028
Dear Mr. Williams:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 34643-011800 accepting the bid of Magic City Motor
Corp., in the amount of $333,184.00, to provide 16 new police automobiles for use by the
Police Department; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for the vehicles. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
James A. McClung, Manager, Fleet Management
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
C:~VlyFil~\jan t 8 wlxi
MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I- 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-I 145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File #5-60-472
Jesse B. Sellers, Jr., Fleet Manager
Berglund Ford, Inc.
834 E. Main Street
Salem, Virginia 24153
Dear Mr. Sellers:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 34643-011800 accepting the bid of Magic City Motor
Corp., in the amount of $333,184.00, to provide 16 new police automobiles for use by the
Police Department; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for the vehicles. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
On behalf of the City of Roanoke, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your
bid on the abovedescribed vehicles.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
C:~Vly Files\jan 18.wpd
IN THECOUNCILOF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34643-011800.
A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of Magic City Motor Corporation, to provide motor
vehicles for use by the Police Department; and rejecting all other bids made for such items.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The bid of Magic City Motor Corporation, in the total amount of $333,184.00, for
purchase of sixteen (16) new police automobiles, be and is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City's Manager of Supply Management is hereby authorized and directed to issue
any required purchase orders for the purchase of such automobiles, and the City Manager or the
Assistant City Manager is authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City, any required purchase
agreements with respect to the aforesaid automobiles, such agreements to be in such form as shall be
approved by the City Attorney.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid items are hereby REJECTED,
and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation
for such bid.
4. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid items are hereby REJECTED,
and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation
for such bid.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File #5-60-472
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 34642-011800 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1999-2000 General and Fleet Management Fund Appropriations, providing
for appropriation of $333,184.00 in connection with the purchase of 16 new police
automobiles for use by the Police Department from Magic City Motor Corp. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Attachment
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
James A. McClung, Manager, Fleet Management
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
C:~/yFiles\jan 18. ~
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34642-011800.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1999-2000
General and Fleet Management Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1999-2000 General and Fleet Management Fund Appropriations,
be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
General Fund
Appropriations
Nondepartmental
Transfers to Other Funds (1) ..................................
Fund Balance
Reserved for CMERP - City (2) ................................ $
$ 62,282,267
61,127,781
2,825,773
Fleet Management Fund
Appropriations
Capital Outlay (3) ........................................... $
Revenue
Non Operating (4) .......................................... $
4,603,885
459,084
1 ) Transfer to Fleet
Management Fund
2) Reserved for
CMERP - City
3) Vehicular Equipment
4) Transfer from
General Fund
(001-004-9310-9506)
(001-3323)
(017-052-2642-9010)
(017-020-1234-0951 )
$ 333,184
(333,184)
333,184
333,184
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
AI-I'EST:
City Clerk.
P, ECE~VED
CITY C! F~:~,~ ~: '~
'tX) JAN t 2 ~. 8 '47
January 18, 2000
Council Report No. 00-303
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Purchase of Police Automobiles
Bid No. 99-11-82
Background on the subject in chronological order is:
Critical capital maintenance and equipment replacement needs have been
identified for various departments.
October 20, 1999, City Council received a report recommending the Capital
Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program for FY '99-'00.
Co
Sixteen (16) police patrol automobiles have been determined critical and in
need of being replaced.
Specifications were developed and, along with a Request for Quotation were
sent to ten (10) automotive dealers requesting the opportunity to bid. A
public advertisement was posted on the City's bid board and also published
in The Roanoke Times and The Roanoke Tribune.
Bids were received, publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday,
December 23, 1999 in the Office of the Manager of Supply Management.
II Current Situation is:
Two (2) bid responses were received. A bid tabulation is attached to this
report. The bids received were also compared to a like unit available under
the State Contract.
The lowest bid, submitted by Magic City Motor Corporation, Roanoke,
Virginia meets all required specifications for a cost of $20,824.00 per unit.
III Issues in order of importance are:
A. Need
B. Compliance with Specifications
Mayor David A. Bowers and Members of Council
Police Automobiles
January 18, 2000
Page 2
IV
V
C. Funding Availability
Alternatives in order of feasibility are:
A. City Council authorize the purchase of sixteen (16) new police automobiles
from Magic City Motor Corporation for a cost of $20,824.00 per unit.
1. Need to provide appropriate replacement vehicles in the police
department would be met with this alternative.
2. Compliance with specifications is met in the response submitted by
Magic City Motor Corporation.
3. Funding is available in the current year Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Program to provide for the purchase of the
automobiles identified in this alternative.
B. Reject all bids.
1. Need to appropriately replace police patrol automobiles would not be
met by this alternative.
2. Compliance with specifications would not be a factor with this
alternative.
3. Funding available for this purchase would not be expended at this
time with this alternative.
Recommendation
A. City Council concur with Alternative "A", which is to authorize the purchase
of sixteen (16) new Police Patrol Automobiles from Magic City Motor
Corporation for a total cost of $333,184.00 and reject other bid.
Mayor David A. Bowers and Member of Council
Police Automobiles
January 18, 2000
Page 3
Council appropriate $333,184.00 from current year Capital Maintena
Equipment Replacement Program to Fleet Management account 0
2642-9010.
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Clerk
Director, Utilities & Operations
Director, Public Safety
Director, Public Works
Management & Budget
Manager, Fleet Management
Manager, Supply Management
~ce and
17-052-
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
Bid Tabulation
Bids were received, publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 23, 1999
For
Police Automobiles
Bid No. 99-11-82
16 - New, Full Size, 4-Door
Automobiles for Police Service in
accordance with City of Roanoke
specifications and to be delivered
F.O.B. Roanoke, Virginia
Berglund Ford, Inc.
$21,107.45 each
Magic City Motor
Corporation
* $20,824.00 each
State Contract
$20,968.00 each
Delivery
90-120 Days
90 Days
90-120 Days
Committee:
Robert K.
James A. McClun~
D. Darwin Roupe
* Indicates Recommendation
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
January 24,2000
File #60-472
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Stan Mooney, Fleet Manager
Pinkerton Chevrolet-Geo, Inc.
925 N. Electric Road
Salem, Virginia 24153
Gentlemen:
Wayne E. Williams, Sales Manager
Magic City Motor Corp.
P. O. Box 12807
Roanoke, Virginia 24028
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 34645-011800 accepting the bids of Pinkerton
Chevrolet-Geo, Inc., in the amount of $30,059.20, for 2-new full size, ¼ ton pickup trucks;
and Magic City Motor Corp., in the amount of $55,534.00, for 2-new full size, 4-wheel drive
utility vehicles. The abbvereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
James A. McClung, Manager, Fleet Management
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
C:'~lyFil~\jan 18. wpd
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I- 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAK1N
Deputy City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File #60-472
Jesse B. Sellers, Jr., Sales Manager
Berglund Ford Company
834 E. Main Street
Salem, Virginia 24153
Bob Kaplan, Vice President
Dominion Car Company
1259 E. Main Street
Salem, Virginia 24153
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 34645-011800 accepting the bids of Pinkerton
Chevrolet-Geo, Inc., in the amount of $30,059.20, for 2-new full size, ¼ ton pickup trucks;
and Magic City Motor Corp., in the amount of $55,534.00, for 2-new full size, 4-wheel drive
utility vehicles. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
On behalf of the City of Roanoke, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your
bid on the abovedescribed vehicles.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
C:'xMyFil~\jmnl 8.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34645-011800.
A RESOLUTION accepting bids made to the City for furnishing and delivering vehicles
upon certain terms and conditions; and rejecting all other bids made to the City.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The bids in writing of the following named bidders to furnish to the City the items
hereinafter set out and generally described, such items being more particularly deschbed in the
City's specifications and any alternates and in each bidder's proposal, are hereby ACCEPTED, at
the purchase price set out with each item:
Item Quantity and Description Successful Bidder Total Purchase
Number Price
2 2 - new full size, ¼ ton pickup trucks Pinkerton Chevrolet-GEO, Inc. $30,059.20
3 2 - new full size, 4-wheel drive utility vehicle Magic City Motor Corporation $55,534.00
2. The City's Manager of Supply Management is hereby authorized to issue the requisite
purchase orders and related documents therefor, incorporating into said orders the City's
specifications, the terms of said bidders' proposals and the terms and provisions of this resolution.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid procurement are hereby
REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the
City's appreciation for such bid.
ATTEST:
H:\ORD-GENAOB-Veh-Trucks- 1 - 18-00
City Clerk.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File #60-472
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance NO. 34644-011800 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1999-2000 General and Fleet Management Fund Appropriations, providing
for appropriation of $38,146.00 in connection with the purchase of pickup trucks and utility
vehicles for several City departments from Pinkerton Chevrolet-Geo, Inc., and Magic City
Motor Corp. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Attachment
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
James A. McClung, Manager, Fleet Management
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
C: hMyFiles~jan 18.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34644-011800.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1999-2000
General and Fleet Management Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1999-2000 General and Fleet Management Fund Appropriations,
be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
GeneralFund
Appropriations
Nondepartmental
$ 62,105,755
Transfers to Other Funds (1) .................................. 60,951,269
Fund Balance
Reserved for CMERP - City (2) ................................. $
3,470,811
Fleet Management Fund
Appropriations
Capital Outlay (3) ........................................... $
Revenue
Non Operating (4) ........................................... $
1) Transfer to Fleet
Management Fund
2) Reserved for
CMERP - City
(001.004-9310-9517)
(001-3323)
(38,146)
4,308,847
3) Vehicular Equipment
4) Transfer from
General Fund
(017-052-2642-9010)
(017-020-1234-0951 )
38,146
38,146
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
January 18, 2000
Council Report No. 00-304
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Purchase of Pickup Trucks and
Utility Vehicles, Bid No. 99-11-72
Background on the subject in chronological order is:
Ao
Critical and time sensitive capital maintenance and equipment replacement
needs have been identified for various departments.
Bo
October 20, 1999, City Council received a report recommending the Capital
Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program for FY '99-'00.
C. Identified in that program are the following:
One (1) new full size, extended cab, 4-wheel drive pickup truck for the
Parks and Grounds Maintenance Department.
Two (2) new ~ ton full size pickup trucks for the Animal Control
Division of the Police Department.
One (1) new full size, 4-wheel drive utility vehicle for Crisis
Intervention Center. Specifications for this unit reserved the right to
purchase an additional unit at the same price should we decide to do
so. The second unit would be used by the City Manager.
Do
Specifications were developed and, along with a Request for Quotation, were
specifically sent to nine (9) vehicle dealers that are listed on the current bid
list for these types of vehicles requested. A public advertisement was posted
on the City's Bid Board and also published in The Roanoke Times and The
Roanoke Tribune.
Eo
Bids were received until 2:00 p.m. on Monday, December 6, 1999 at which
time all bids appropriately received were publicly opened and read in the
Office of Supply Management.
Mayor David A. Bowers and Members of Council
Pickup Trucks and Utility Vehicles
January 18, 2000
Page 2
II Current situation is:
Four (4) bid responses were received. A tabulation of those responses is
attached to this report. All responses were compared with like vehicles that
are available currently under State Contracts.
Bo
All responses were evaluated in a consistent manner by representatives of
Public Works, Fleet Management and Supply Management.
C. Bid evaluation are as follows:
Item #1 - one (1) new full size, extended cab, 4-wheel drive pickup
truck - During bid evaluations it was determined that this unit was not
specified heavy enough for the purpose for which it is intended. The
specifications for this unit will be revised and rebid.
Item #2 - two (2) new full size, ~ ton pick trucks - The lowest bid,
submitted by Pinkerton Chevrolet-GEO, Inc. of Salem, Virginia, meets
all required specifications for a cost of $15,029.60 per unit.
Item #3 - two (2) new full size, 4-wheel drive utility vehicles. The
lowest bid submitted by Pinkerton Chevrolet-GEO, Inc. of Salem,
Virginia took exception to seats, rear defogger and tires. These
exceptions are substantial and cannot be waived as informalities.
The second lowest bid, submitted by Magic City Motor Corporation of
Roanoke, Virginia meets all required specifications for a cost of
$27,767.00 per unit.
III Issues in order of importance are:
A. Need
B. Compliance with specifications
C. Funding availability
Mayor David A. Bowers and Members of Council
Pickup Trucks and Utility Vehicles
January 18, 2000
Page 3
IV Alternatives in order of feasibility are:
C. City Council to authorize the following:
Reject item #1 of Bid No. 99-11-72. Specifications to be revised and
item rebid at a later time.
Purchase of two
Department from
$15,029.60 each.
(2) new full size pickup trucks for the Police
Pinkerton Chevrolet-GEO, Inc. for a cost of
Purchase of two (2) new full size utility vehicles, one (1) for Crisis
Intervention Center and one (1) for the City Manager, from Magic City
Motor Corporation for a cost of $27,767.00 each.
ao
Need to provide appropriate replacement vehicles would be met
by the alternative.
bo
Compliance with specifications are met on bids for Item #1 and
Item #2 of this alternative.
c. Funding is as follows:
$26,330.00 from prior year Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Program.
$11,816.00 from current year Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Program.
$47,447.20 is available in Fleet Management account 017-052-
2642-9010.
B. Reiect all bids.
Need to provide appropriate replacement vehicles would not be met by
this alternative.
Compliance with specifications would not be a factor with this
alternative.
Mayor David A. Bowers and Members of Council
Pickup Trucks and Utility Vehicles
January 18, 2000
Page 4
V
CC:
Co
Funding available for these purchases would not be expended at this
time with this alternative.
Recommendation:
A. City Council concur with Alternative "A" to authorize the following:
Purchase two (2) new full size, ¼ ton pickup trucks from Pinkerton
Chevrolet-GEO, Inc. for a total cost of $30,059.20.
Purchase two (2) new full size, 4-wheel drive utility vehicles from
Magic City Motor Corporation for a total cost of $55,534.00.
B. Reject all other bids.
C. Appropriate $38,146.00 as follows:
$26,330.00 from prior year Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Program to Fleet Management account 017-052-2642-
9010.
$11,816.00 from current year Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Program to Fleet Management account 017-052-2642-
9010.
Respectfully submitted,
C~Darlene L. Burn,ham
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Director, Utilities & Operations
Director, Public Works
Director, Public Safety
Manager, Fleet Management
Manager, Supply Management
Management & Budget
Bid Tabulation
Bids were received, publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m. on Monday, December 6, 1999
For
Pickup Trucks and Utility Vehicles
Bid No. 99-11-72
Dominion Berglund Ford Magic City Pinkerton
Car Company Motor Chevrolet-GEO,
Company Salem, VA Corporation Inc.
Salem, VA Roanoke, VA Salem, VA
State Contract
One (1) New Full Size,
Extended Cab,
4-Wheel Drive, Pickup
Truck delivered F.O.B.
Roanoke, VA
$23,360.00 ea
$23,031.00 ea
$23,297.00 ea
$21,768.61 ea
Not Available
Two (2) New Full Size,
~ Ton Pickup Trucks
delivered F.O.B.
Roanoke, VA
$17,434.00 ea
$16,172.00 ea
$15,263.00 ea
* $15,029.60 ea
$15,832.00 ea
Two (2) New Full Size,
4-Wheel Drive Utility
Vehicles delivered
F.O.B. Roanoke, VA
No Bid $27,773.00 ea * $27,767.00 ea $24,446.00 ea
$29,976.80 ea
Delivery
60 Days 90-120 Days 60-90 Days 90 Days
90-120 Days
Committee:
· D. Darwin Roupe
* Indicates Recommendation
MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File #70-188-472
John Daly, Sales Representative
Wheeled Coach, N. C., Inc.
P. O. Box A. P. Main Street
Falkland, North Carolina 27827
Dear Mr. Daly:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 34646-011800 accepting the bid of Wheeled Coach,
N. C., Inc., in the amount of $127,680.00, for purchase of two new ambulances, upon
certain terms and conditions; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for such items.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc:
R. E. M. S., Inc., 374 Day Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dadene L. Burcham, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works
James Grigsby, Chief, Fire/EMS
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
James A. McClung, Manager, Fleet Management
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
C:hMyFil~\jan I
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-254.1
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 24, 2000
File :/¢70-188472
Richard W. Carson, President
National Ambulance Builders, Inc.
P. O. Box 939
Concord, Virginia 24538
Dear Mr. Carson:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 34646-011800 accepting the bid of Wheeled Coach,
N. C., Inc., in the amount of $127,680.00, for purchase of two new ambulances, upon
certain terms and conditions; and rejecting all other bids made to the City for such items.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
On behalf of the City of Roanoke, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your
bid on the abovedescribed vehicles.
~k.~ ~, ~Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
C:~lyFiles\janl 8.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34646-011800.
A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of V~q~eeled Coach, N.C., Inc., for the purchase of two
new ambulances, upon certain terms and conditions; and rejecting all other bids made for such items.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The bid submitted by Wheeled Coach, N.C., Inc., to furnish two new ambulances at
a total cost of $127,680 is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City's Manager of Supply Management is hereby authorized and directed to issue
any required purchase orders for the purchase of such ambulances, and the City Manager or the
Assistant City Manager is authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City, any required purchase
agreements with respect to the aforesaid ambulances, such agreements to be in such form as shall be
approved by the CRy Attorney.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid Rems are hereby REJECTED,
and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation
for such bid.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY ~ =~' ~'
January 18, 2000
'00 JAl~i 11 ~10 L'~I°uncil Report No. 00-305
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Purchase of Emergency
Vehicles, Bid No. 99-12-37
Background on the subject in chronological order is:
Ao
Critical capital maintenance and equipment replacement needs have been
identified for various City departments.
Bo
Co
October 20, 1999 City Council received a report on the current year Capital
Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP)for FY'99-'00.
The above report identifies the critical need to replace two (2) ambulances
in the Fire/EMS department. One (1) unit is a 1993 model and the other unit
is a 1994 model. Both units are experiencing high mileage, increased
maintenance cost and downtime, all of which causes great concern for
reliability.
Specifications were developed and, along with a Request for Bid, were
specifically sent to ten (10) ambulance and emergency vehicle providers. A
public advertisement was posted on the City's Bid Board and also published
in The Roanoke Times and The Roanoke Tribune.
Bids were received until 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 30, 1999, at
which time all bids that were appropriately received were publicly opened
and read in the Office of the Manager of Supply Management.
Fo
Additional operational equipment, such as stretchers, floormounted warmers
and portable suction units, will be necessary for the ambulances to be put
into active service. This additional equipment either has been or will be bid
in accordance with the Procurement Section of the Code of the City of
Roanoke.
II Current situation is:
Ao
Two (2) bid responses were received. A bid tabulation is attached to this
report.
Mayor David A. Bowers and Member of Council
Emergency Vehicles
January 18, 2000
Page 2
III
IV
B. All bids were evaluated in a consistent manner by representatives of Public
Works, Fire/EMS, Fleet Management and Supply Management.
C. Bid responses were also compared to units that are available through the
State Contract system. This comparison is noted on the bid tabulation.
D. The lowest bid, submitted by Wheeled Coach, N.C., Inc. of Falkland, North
Carolina, meets all required specifications for a cost of $63,840.00 per unit.
Issues in order of importance are:
A. Need
B. Compliance with specifications
C. Funding
Alternatives in order of feasibility are:
A. City Council authorize the following:
1. Purchase two (2) new ambulances from Wheeled Coach, N.C., Inc.
for a cost of $63,840.00 per unit.
2. AD_DroDriate funding to allow for this purchase of the ambulances and
the needed operational equipment as previously explained.
a. Need to replace critically needed emergency equipment would
be accomplished by this alternative.
b. Compliance with specifications is met by the response
submitted by Wheeled Coach, N.C., Inc.
c. Funding is available in Fleet Management account 017-052-
2642-9010 to provide for this purchase.
Reject all bids.
Bo
Mayor David A. Bowers and Members of Council
Emergency Vehicles
January 18, 2000
Page 3
V
CC:
Need to replace critical equipment would not be addressed by this
alternative.
2. Compliance with specifications would not be a factor with this
alternative.
Funding designated for this purchase would not be expended at this
time with this alternative.
Recommendation is that City Council approve Alternative "A" and:
Ao
Authorize the purchase of two (2) new ambulances from Wheeled Coach,
N.C., Inc. for a total cost of $127,680.00.
B. Reject other bid.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Director of Finance
Director, Utilities & Operations
Director, Public Works
Director, Public Safety
Fire/EMS
Manager, Fleet Management
Manager, Supply Management
Management & Budget
R.E.M.S., Inc.
Bid Tabulation
Bids were received, publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 30, 1999
For
Emergency Vehicles
Bid No. 99-12-37
National Ambulance
Builders, Inc.
Concord, VA
Wheeled Coach, N.C.,
Inc.
Falkland, N.C.
State Contract
Two (2) New Ambulances in
accordance with City of Roanoke, VA
specifications and delivered F.O.B.
Roanoke, VA
$64,089.50 each
* $63,840.00 each
$64,560.78 each
Delivery
75-120 Days
90-120 Days
90-120 Days
Committee:
Robert K. Bengt~OJ~ / James A. McClun{I -) D. Darwin Roup~"'
* Indicates Recommendation
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #60-468
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 34648-011800 accepting a Source Water
Assessment Grant, in the amount of $40,000.00, made to the City by the Commonwealth
of Virginia, Department of Health and authorizing execution of any required documentation
on behalf of the City. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Attachment
pc:
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Water Department
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
C:~v~yFile~\jan 18.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34648-011800.
A RESOLUTION accepting the Source Water Assessment Grant offer made to the City by
the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health and authorizing execution of any required
documentation on behalf of the City.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City of Roanoke hereby accepts the offer made to the City by the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health for the Source Water Assessment Grant in the
total amount of $40,000, such Grant being more particularly described in the report of the City
Manager dated January 18, 2000, upon all the terms, provisions and conditions relating to the receipt
of such funds.
2.
The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby
authorized to execute, seal and attest, respectively, the Grant Agreement and all necessary documents
required to accept the Grant, including any documents providing for indemnification from the Ci~
that may be required for the City's acceptance of this Grant, all such documents to be approved as
to form by the City Attorney.
3. The City Manager is further directed to furnish such additional information as may
be required by the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of Health in connection with the City's
acceptance of this Grant.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #60-468
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance NO. 34647-011800 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1999-2000 Water Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of
$40,000.00 in connection with acceptance of a Source Water Assessment Grant from the
State Department of Health to provide financial assistance in preparing a Source Water
Assessment Plan for the City of Roanoke. The abovereferenced measure was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Attachment
pc~
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Water Department
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
C:hMyFiles\jan 18.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34647-011800.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1999-2000 Water
Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1999-2000 Water Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are
hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Water - Grant Projects $ 40,000
Land Use Activity inventory (1) ................................ 20,000
Delineation and Mapping (2) .................................. 20,000
Revenue
Due from State (3) ........................................... $ 40,000
1) Appropriated from
State Grant Funds (002-056-8350-9007) $ 20,000
2) Appropriated from
State Grant Funds (002-056-8351-K)07) 20,000
3) Source Water
Assessment Grant (002-1302) 40,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
AT'rEST:
City Clerk.
January 18, 2000
Report No. 00-306
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject: Source Water Assessment Grant
I. Background:
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), 1996 Amendment required states to
develop a comprehensive Source Water Assessment Program (SWAP)
that will:
Identify the boundaries of the assessment areas that supply public
water which includes delineation and mapping referenced in
Exhibit B of the Source Water Assessment Grant.
Inventory contaminants and assess water system susceptibility to
contamination which includes land use activity inventory referenced
in Exhibit B of the Source Water Assessment Grant.
3. Inform the public of the results.
Source Water Assessment Program for Virginia was approved by EPA
effective November 1, 1999.
Co
Source Water Assessment is required for the City of Roanoke water
supply in accordance with the Source Water Assessment Program
referenced in "A".
Do
Deadline to complete the Source Water Assessment for the City of
Roanoke is October 31, 2001.
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program established grants to
provide financial assistance to community water systems in the
Commonwealth to prepare the Source Water Assessment for their public
water supply.
These grants are provided on a reimbursement basis for qualifying
localities from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Department of
Health.
Honorable Mayorand Members of City Council
Source Water Assessment Grant
January 18,2000
Page 2
II. Current Situation:
Roanoke City Water Department submitted an application for financial
assistance to prepare the Source Water Assessment for Carvins Cove.
Source Water Assessment Grant Agreement has been tentatively
approved by the State and needs to be accepted by the City of Roanoke
and returned to the Department of Health by February 1, 2000.
(Agreement is attached.)
Source Water Assessment Grant provides financial assistance to the City
of Roanoke in the total amount of $40,000 (consisting of $20,000 for the
Land Use Activity Inventory and $20,000 for Delineation and Mapping) for
preparation of the Source Water Assessment.
Acceptance of the grant by the City of Roanoke obligates the City to
certain provisions as set forth in Article IV of the agreement.
These funds will be used to pay or to supplement other water funds to pay
a consultant to work with City staff, the Virginia Department of Health, and
the State and land situated in Roanoke, Botetourt and Bedford Counties
to develop Source Water Protection Plans.
III. Issues:
A. Need
B. Funding
C. Timing
IV. Alternatives:
City Council authorize the City Manager to accept the Source Water
Assessment Grant in the amount of $40,000 and execute the requisite
grant agreement and documents relating thereto, and authorize the
Director of Finance to establish an account in the Water Department
budget to monitor the expenditure of the grant and additional funds as
appropriated to complete the Source Water Assessment.
1. Need to accept the Grant Agreement to receive funds will be met.
Funding for the Source Water Assessment for the City for Roanoke
will be augmented by this Grant.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Source Water Assessment Grant
January 18, 2000
Page 3
Timing for the Grant Agreement to be returned by February 1,
2000 will be met.
City Council not authorize the City Manager to accept the Source Water
Assessment Grant in the amount of $40,000 and execute the requisite
grant agreement and documents relating thereto, and not authorize the
Director of Finance to establish an account in the Water Department
budget to monitor the expenditure of the grant and additional funds as
appropriated to complete the Source Water Assessment.
Need to accept the Grant Agreement to receive funds will not be
met.
2. Funding provided by the Grant Agreement will not be utilized.
3. Timing to accept and return the Grant Agreement is a moot issue.
V. Recommendation:
City Council authorize the City Manager to accept the Source Water Assessment
Grant in the amount of $40,000 and execute the requisite grant agreement and
documents relating thereto, and authorize the Director of Finance to establish an
account in the Water Department budget to monitor the expenditure of the grant
and additional funds as appropriated to complete the Source Water Assessment.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
KBK/JHP,Jr./je
CCZ
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Clerk
Director of Utilities and Operations
Water Department Manager
Engineering
COMMONWEALTH of ViRGINiA
Department of Health
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program
December 7, 1999
Subject:
Water -
City of Roanoke
Roanoke City Water Department
SWA-66466-76-97
1500 East Main Street
Richmond, VA 23219
ATTN: Room 109
FAX: 804 · 786,5567
Voice: 804-786-1087
Mr. Jesse Perdue
Roanoke City Water Department
541 Luck Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24016
Re'
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program
Financial Assistance
Source Water Assessment Grant
Dear Mr. Perdue:
Enclosed is the Source Water Assessment Grant Agreement, which reflects funding not to exceed
$40,000 for the above referenced project. Please review the Agreement and indicate your acceptance by
signing on page 4. Should you deem it necessary to make any changes to the Agreement, please do so on
the enclosed document and initial the changes. Also, finalization of the Agreement is contingent upon:
· Your completion of the columns on Exhibit C, entitled Start Date and Projected Completion
Date
If you have any questions or need clarification concerning the foregoing, please contact me at
804/786-1087. Please return the Agreement to me no later than January 15, 2000.
Sincerely,
Thomas B. Gray, P.E.
Special Projects Manager
DWSRF Program
Enclosure
c: Lexington Field Office
~ll~r DEPARTMENT
W ~111~ I WOF HEALTH
Protef~ing You and Your I[nvironment
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRG1NIA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT GRANT AGREEMENT
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM
VDH Grant Number: SWA-66466-76-97
~or its
This agreement entered into this __ day of by Roanoke Cit~Water
Department herein after called the "Grantee" and the Commonwealth of Virginia, Virginia Department of
Health, herein after called the "Department".
The federal Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 (P.L. 104-182), referred to as SDWA,
established a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program of which the Catalog of Federal
Domestic Assistance number is 66.468. DWSRF Program funds are awarded annually to eligible states
through a capitalization grant. Using DWSRF Program funds, the Department created an activity to
provide source water assessment grants to certain eligible community waterworks. The Grantee is
considered a subrecipient of the DWSRF Program and is subject to the audit requirement of OMB
Circular A-133.
WITNESSETH that the Grantee and the Department, in consideration of the mutual covenants,
promises and agreements herein contained, agree as follows:
ARTICLE 1
DEFINITIONS
1. The capitalized terms contained in this Agreement shall have the meanings set forth
below unless the context requires otherwise:
(a) "Activity" means Project Activity which constitutes a specific portion of the
project, and as such is covered by its own budget account.
(b) "Agreement" means this Grant Agreement between the Department and the
Grantee, together with any amendments or supplements hereto.
(c) "Authorized Representative" ~neans any member, official or employee of the
Grantee authorized by resolution, ordinance or other official act of the governing
body of the Grantee to perform the act or sign the document in question.
(d) "Director" means the Director of the Office of Purchasing and General
Services of the Department.
(e) "Grant" means the particular grant described in this Agreement, with such
changes thereto as may be approved in writing by the Department and the Grantee.
(f) "Grantee" means the entity which is the recipient of Planning Grant funds
and as such must comply with this Agreement.
Virginia Department of Health
DWSRF Program
Source Water Assessment Grant
(g) "Project" means the particular scope of work described in Exhibit A to this
Agreement.
(h) "Project Budget" means the budget for the Project as set forth in Exhibit B to
this Agreement, with such changes therein as may be approved in writing by the
Department and the Grantee.
(i) "Project Costs" means the cost of various Project Activities described in the
Project Budget.
ARTICLE II
SCOPE OF PROJECT
2. The Grantee will cause the Project to be completed as described in Exhibit A to this
Agreement. The criteria as established in the Source Water Assessment Program will be followed.
ARTICLE III
SCHEDULE
3. The Grantee will cause the Project to be completed in accordance with the schedule
in Exhibit C to this Agreement.
ARTICLE IV
COMPENSATION
4.0 Grant Amount. The total grant award from the Department under this Agreement
shall not exceed $40,000. Disbursement of the Grant will be in accordance with the payment provisions
set forth in Section 4.1 herein and the Project Budget.
4.1. Application of Grant Funds. The Grantee agrees to apply the Grant solely and
exclusively to the payment, or the reimbursement of the Grantee for the payment of Project Costs. The
Department will disburse the Grant to the Grantee at the completion of the project (unless otherwise
agreed by the Department and the Grantee) upon receipt by the Department of the following:
A requisition approved by the Department, signed by the Authorized
Representative and containing all receipts, vouchers, statements, invoices or other evidence of the actual
payment of Project Costs or that the Projects Costs have been incurred, and all other information called
for by, and otherwise being in the form of, Exhibit D to this Agreement.
4.2 Availability of Funds. The Department may terminate this Agreement for
convenience in the event that the federal funds allocated are no longer available.
4.3 Agreement to Complete Project. The Grantee agrees to cause the Project to be
completed as described in Exhibit A to this Agreement, and in accordance with the schedule in Exhibit C
to this Agreement.
2
Virginia Department of Health
DWSRF Program
Source Water Assessment Grant
When the Project has been completed, the Grantee shall promptly deliver to the Department a
certificate signed by the Authorized Representative (i) that the Project has been completed substantially in
accordance with the agreement; (ii) the date of such completion; and (iii) the amount to be released for
payment of the final Project Costs.
ARTICLE V
GENERAL PROVISIONS
5.0 Disclaimer. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as authority for either
party to make commitments which will bind the other party beyond the covenants contained herein.
5.1 Non-Discrimination. In the performance of this Agreement, the Grantee warrants
that it will not discriminate against any employee, or other person, on account of race, color, sex, religious
creed, ancestry, age, national origin or other non-job related factors. The Grantee agrees to post in
conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the
provisions of this non-discrimination clause.
5.2 Conflict of Interest. The Grantee warrants that it has fully complied with the
Virginia Conflict of Interest Act as it may apply to this Agreement.
5.3 Applicable Laws. This Agreement shall be governed in all respects whether as to
validity, construction, capacity, performance or otherwise, by tl~e laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia.
The Grantee further agrees to comply with all laws and regulations applicable to the Grantee's
performance of its obligations pursuant to this Agreement. Allowable travel costs will be guided by the
published state rules for meals, accommodations, mileage, etc.
5.4. Federal Laws. The Grantee agrees to comply in all respects with all applicable
federal laws, regulations and other requirements relating to or arising out of or in connection with the
Project and the funding thereof, including but not limited to, OMB Circular A-133, and the federal "cross-
cutting" requirements identified in the attached Schedule A, with particular emphasis on social legislation
regarding civil rights and women's and minority business enterprise.
5.5 Procurement of Services. The Grantee agrees to fully comply with the provisions
of the Virginia Public Procurement Act, with no exceptions recognized for localities under 3500 in
population, in the procurement of services pursuant to this Agreement.
5.6 Records Availability. The Grantee agrees to maintain complete and accurate books
and records of the Project Costs, and further, to retain all books, records, and other documents relative to
this Agreement for three (3) years after final payments. The Department, its authorized agents, and/or
State auditors will have full access to and the right to examine any of said materials during said period.
Additionally, the Department and/or its representatives will have the right to access work sites during
normal business hours, after reasonable notice to the Grantee, for the purpose of ensuring that the
provisions of this Agreement are properly carried out.
5.7 Liability Insurance. The Grantee shall take out and maintain during the life of this
Agreement such bodily injury and property damage liability insurance, or self-insurance as shall protect
it, to such an extent as is usual and customary for the Grantee, from claims for damages for personal
injury, including death, as well from claims for property damage, which may arise from its activities
under this Agreement.
Virginia Department of Health
DWSRF Program
Source Water Assessment Grant
5.8 Severability. Each paragraph and provision of this Agreement is severable from
the entire Agreement; and if any provision is declared invalid, the remaining provisions shall nevertheless
remain in effect.
5.9 Exhibits. All exhibits to this Agreement are incorporated herein by reference.
5.10 Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by agreement of the parties.
1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be duly executed intending
to be bound thereby.
GRANTEE
City of Roanoke, Virginia
for its Water Department
FEI/FIN:
DEPARTMENT
Virginia Department of Health
FEI/FIN:
Name:
Authorized Representative
By:
Signature:
Authorized Representative
Title:
Title:
Date:
Date:
State Health Commissioner
Thomas B. Gray Date
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program
4
Virginia Department of Health
DWSRF Program
Source Water Assessment Grant
SCHEDULE A
FEDERAL CROSS-CUTTING REQUIREMENTS~
ENVIRONMENTAL AUTHORITIES:
Archeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974, Pub. L. 86-523, as amended.
Clean Air Act, Pub. L. 84-159, as amended.
Coastal Barrier Resources Act, Pub. L. 97-348.
Coastal Zone Management Act, Pub. L 92-583, as amended.
Endangered Species Act, Pub. L. 93-205, as amended.
Environmental Justice, Executive Order 12898.
Farmland Protection Policy Act, Pub. L. 97-98.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, Pub. L. 85-624, as amended.
Floodplain Management, Executive Order 11988, as amended by Executive Order 12148.
National Environmental Policy Act, Pub. L. 91-190.
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Pub. L. 89-665, as amended.
Protection of Wetlands, Executive Order 11990.
Safe Drinking Water Act, Pub. L. 93-523, as amended.
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Pub. L. 90-542, as amended.
ECONOMIC AND MISCELLANEOUS AUTHORITIES:
Debarment and Suspension, Executive Order 12549.
Demonstration Cities and Metropolitan Development Act of 1966, Pub. L. 89-754, as amended, Executive Order 12372.
Procurement Prohibitions under Section 306 of the Clean Air Act and Section 508 of the Clean Water Act, including
Executive Order 11738, Administration of the Clean Air Act and thc Federal Water Pollution Control Act with Respect to
Federal Contracts, Grants, or Loans.
Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act, Pub. L. 91-646, as amended.
SOCIAL LEGISLATION:
Age Discrimination Act of 1975, Pub. L. 94-135.
Anti-Lobbying Provisions (40 CFR Part 30) [applies only to capitalization grant recipients].
Equal Employment Opportunity, Executive Order 11246.
Section 13 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972, Pub. L. 92-500 (the Clean Water Act).
Section 129 of the Small Business Administration Reauthorization and Amendment Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-590.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Pub. L. 93-112 (including Executive Orders 11914 and 11250).
The Drug-Free Workplace Act of 1988, Pub. L. 100-690 (applies only to the capitalization grant recipient).
Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. 88-352.
Women's and Minority Business Enterprise, Executive Orders 11625, 12138 and 12432.
~This information is provided for guidance and may not include all federal legislation as of this printing.
February4,1999
EXHIBIT A
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Grantee:
~or its
Roanoke City'Water Department
Grant #:
SWA-66466-76-97
Please provide below (or on attached sheets, if necessary) a detailed project description.
Land Use Activity Inventory
The Grantee will assure that an inventory of Land Use Activities (LUA) of concern that are present
within the source water assessment area (Zone 1) is completed. The inventory shall include those
items listed in Table 1 of Appendix F of the SWAP. PSC sites will be identified for Zone 1 and Zone
2 from data obtained from the Department. The inventory will include the longitude and latitude and
the name and address of the landowner.
The existing Botetourt County and Roanoke County GIS data will be used as the base mapping, and all
inventoried land use activities will be digitally mapped on those combined backgrounds.
Mapping will use all data base and GIS queries supplied by the Health Department, and additional land
use activities would be inventoried via windshield surveys and interviews within the watershed. The
existing geographic information systems for both counties would also be searched for relevant land use
activities.
Delineation and Mapping
The Grantee will provide a Geographic Information Systems (GIS) map and associated relational
databases of the source water assessment area including the delineation and the land use activities.
Virginia Department of Health
DWSRF Program
Source Water Assessment Grant
EXHIBIT B
PROJECT BUDGET
Grantee:
Grant #:
~or its
Roanoke City' Water Department
SWA-66466-76-97
The following budget should reflect all grant eligible costs associated with the project.
ACTIVITY ESTIMATED COST
Land Use Activity Inventory $20,000.00
Delineation and Mapping $20,000.00
TOTAL = $40,000.00
Virginia Department of Health
DWSRF Program
Source Water Assessment Grant
EXHIBIT C
PROJECT SCHEDULE
Grantee:
Grant #:
~or its
Roanoke City' Water Department
SWA-66466-76-97
The Schedule should reflect all grant eligible activities related to the project.
ACTIVITY START DATE
Land Use Activity Inventory August 1, 2000
Delineation and Mapping August 1, 2000
PROJECTED COMPLETION
DATE
November 1, 2000
November 1, 2000
Virginia Department of Health
DWSRF Program
Source Water Assessment Grant
EXHIBIT D
REQUISITION FOR DISBURSEMENT
(To Be on Grantee's Letterhead)
Date
Subject:
Water -
VDH Source Water Assessment Grant #
Mr. Thomas B. Gray, P.E.
Special Projects Manager
VDH-Office of Water Programs
1500 E. Main Street, Room 109
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Re:
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Program
Source Water Assessment Grant
Requisition for Disbursement
Dear Mr. Gray:
This requisition, Number __, is submitted in connection with the Source Water Assessment Grant
Agreement, dated ,19 between the Virginia Department of Health (Department) and the
("Grantee"). Unless otherwise defined in this requisition, all capitalized terms
used herein shall have the meaning set forth in Article I of the Grant Agreement The undersigned Authorized
Representative of the Grantee hereby requests disbursement of proceeds under the Grant Agreement in the
amount of $ , for the purposes of payment of the Project Costs as set forth on Schedule I attached
hereto.
Attached hereto are invoices relating to the items for which payment is requested.
The undersigned certifies that the amounts requested by this requisition will be applied solely and
exclusively to the payment, or the reimbursement of the Grantee for the payment, of Project Costs.
Sincerely,
Attachments
Grantee
(Authorized Representative of the [k~row~)
Virginia Department of Health
DWSRF Program
Source Water Assessment Grant
REQUISITION #
GRANTEE:
CERTIFYING SIGNATURE:
TITLE:
Amount
SCHEDULE 1
DRINKING WATER STATE REVOLVING FUND PROGRAM
FORM TO ACCOMPANY REQUEST FOR DISBURSEMENT
VDH SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT GRANT NUMBER:
Total Net
Previous Expenditures Expenditures Balance
Cost Category Budgeted Disbursements This Period To Date Remaining
TOTALS:
Total Amount $
Previous Disbursements $
This Request $
Grant Proceeds Remaining $
Virginia Department of Health
DWSRF Program
Source Water Assessment Grant
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #60-468
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 34649-011800 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1999-2000 Water Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of
$697,432.00 from Water Fund previous years' retained earnings for costs incurred for
purchased water and anticipated cost for new services, hydrants and lines. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Attachment
pc:
Dadene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Water Department
C:\MyFiles\jan 18.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34649-011800.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1999-2000 Water
Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1999-2000 Water Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are
hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Water - Operating (1-3) ....................................... $ 4,010,006
Water Capital Outlay $ 3,406,862
Water - New Services, Hydrants and Lines (4) ..................... 770,000
Retained Eaminas
Retained Eamings (5) ...... : ................................. $30,347,491
1 ) Purchased Water -
Salem (MWC)
2) Purchased Water -
Roanoke County
(MWC)
3) Purchased Water -
Vinton (MWC)
4) Water - New Services
Hydrant Lines
5) Retained Eamings
(002-056-2160-2255) $
(002-056-2160-2256)
(002-056-2160-2257)
(002-056-2178-9025)
(002-3336)
140,000
270,000
50,000
237,432
(697,432)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
· 00 JAN 12 A,8 :,~.7
Janua~ 18,2000
Repod No. 00-307
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject: Water Fund Appropriations for Capital Outlay Account-Purchased Water
I. Background:
I1.
Demand for new services, hydrants and lines created by a strong economy
has exceeded budget expenditure estimates. Revenue received to date for
new services has exceeded the budget estimate.
City Council on June 7, 1999 determined that a water supply emergency
existed and approved a Water Conservation Plan.
City has purchased water from the City of Salem, Roanoke County and
Town of Vinton from July 1, 1999 through December 22, 1999 and has
successfully reduced consumption from the Carvins Cove Reservoir by
50%.
City Council approved the appropriation of funds August 16, 1999 to fund
purchased water. Quantities, length of time and costs were estimated at
that time based on the prevailing rates in effect and length of drought.
Current Situation:
Water Fund Account 002-056-2178-9025, New Services, Hydrants and
Water Lines was initially budgeted at $532,568 for FY 99~00.
As of December 31, 1999 FY99/00 annualized expenditures for New
Services, Hydrants and Lines are projected to be $777,000, $237,432 over
the amount initially budgeted.
Cost to purchase water has exhausted the funding available in the FY99/00
budget.
Purchased water from Roanoke County, Vinton and the City of Salem has
been suspended as of December 22, 1999.
As of November 30, 1999 expenditures for purchased water are $11131,434,
which expends all funds currently appropriated in the FY99/00 budget for
purchased water. Estimated expenditures for purchased water for the
month of December, 1999 are $460,000.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Water Fund Appropriations for Capital Outlay Account-Purchased Water
January 18, 2000
Page 2
III. Issues
IV.
A. Need
B. Funding
C. Timing
Alternatives:
Bo
Council authorize the appropriation of $237,432 from Water Fund previous
years retained earnings to Water Fund Account 002-056-2178-9025, New
Services, Hydrants and Lines and the appropriation of $460,000 from
retained earnings to the following accounts:
002-056-2160-2255 - Purchase Water-Salem (MWC)
002-056-2160-2256 - Purchase Water-Roanoke Co. (MWC)
002-056-2160-2257 - Purchase Water-Vinton(MWC)
(MWC)=Mandatory Water Conservation
$140,000
$270,000
$ 50,000
$460,000
Need for funding to cover anticipated cost will be met.
Funding is available in Water Fund retained earnings.
Timing for funds required through the current fiscal year will be met.
Timing for funds required through the current fiscal year will not be
met.
2. Funding available in Water Fund retained earnings will not be utilized.
Need for funding to cover costs incurred for purchased water and
anticipated cost for new services, hydrants and lines will not be met.
Council not authorize the appropriation of $237,432 from Water Fund
previous years retained earnings to Water Fund Account 002-056-2178-
9025, New Services, Hydrants and Lines and the appropriation of $460,000.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Water Fund Appropriations for Capital Outlay Account-Purchased Water
January 18, 2000
Page 3
V. Recommendation:
Council authorize the appropriation of $697,432 from Water Fund previous years
retained earnings to the following accounts:
002-056-2178-9025 - New Services, Hydrants and Lines
002-056-2160-2255 - Purchase Water-Salem (MWC)
002-056-2160-2256 - Purchase Water-Roanoke Co.(MWC)
002-056-2160-2257 - Purchase Water-Vinton(MWC)
(MWC)=Mandatory Water Conservation
$237,432
$140,000
$270,000
$ 50,000
$697,432
City Manager
KBK/JHP,Jr./je
Attachment
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Clerk
Water Department Manager
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #5-80
Richard L. Clark, Vice-President
Customer Service Center
American Association of Retired Persons
3645 Thirlane Road, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Mr. Clark:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 34650-011800 accepting an offer of the American
Association of Retired Persons to donate a Malinois canine for use by the Police
Department's canine unit, upon certain terms and conditions. The abovereferenced
measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which
was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
The City of Roanoke appreciates the generosity of the American Association of Retired
Persons in making the canine available to the City for use in the Police Department.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc:
Dadene L. Burcham, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police
C:~yFilcs\jan 18.wpd
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #5-80
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
Your report recommending acceptance of a fully trained canine from the American
Association of Retired Persons to be used by the Police Department's Canine Unit, was
before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000.
Council adopted Resolution No. 34650-011800 accepting the gift and requested that the
City Manager and the City Clerk recommend an appropriate method to express
appreciation to the American Association of Retired Persons. It is my understanding that
the Director of Public Safety is addressing the matter and will recommend a form of
recognition at a future Council meeting.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
C:k.MyFil~\jan 1 $.wpd
IN THECOUNCILOF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34650-011800.
A RESOLUTION accepting the American Association of Retired Persons' offer to
a Malinois canine for the police department's canine unit.
donate
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. This Council, pursuant to Section 2-263 of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),
as amended, hereby accepts the donation of a fully trained Malinois canine from the American
Association of Retired Persons (AARP), upon certain terms and conditions.
2. Council hereby expresses its sincere gratitude to AARP, for its generosity in making
this canine available to the City for use in the police department.
3. The City Clerk is directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the authorized
representative of AARP.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
January 18, 2000
Council Report #00-403
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
Subject:
Gift from American Association of Retired Persons (AARP), a
nonprofit organization
I. BACKGROUND:
One of the canines, currently utilized by Roanoke City Police, has acute
hip dysplasia and has an expected active working life of no more than one
(1) year. The animal will have to be replaced.
The AARP has contacted the Police Department with the offer of donatinq
a fully trained two-year-old Malinois. This canine is trained in building
searches, tracking, article recovery and searches, suspect apprehension
and handler protection. The canine is also trained in explosives detection.
The AARP has expressed concern about the possibility of explosive
devices becoming a genuine threat within the city, due to the threat of
terrorist activities which are seen throughout the United States. A canine
trained in explosives detection cannot be trained in drug detection.
II. CURRENT SITUATION:
The Police Department currently has four (4) active canines, all of which
are trained in the areas mentioned previously with the exception of
explosives detection. The active canines are trained in drug detection.
Currently, if an explosives detectinq canine is needed, the State Police or
the Lynchburg Police Department must be contacted. The response time
could be as little as two (2) hours or as much as days, depending on
availability since there are only two (2) or three (3) canines with the proper
training in the State of Virginia.
Co
Roanoke City Police Department does, occasionally, receive bomb threat
calls and suspicious package calls. The new animal would fill the need to
provide detection services in response to these calls.
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Page 2
January 18, 2000
City Council action is required to officially accept gifts to the city in excess
of $5,000.00, in accordance with City Code 2-263.
III. ISSUES:
A. Need.
B. Opportunity.
C. Compliance with City Code.
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
Ao
City Council authorize the city manager to accept the gift offered by
AARP, a fully trained Malinois (breed) canine, valued at approximately
$8,855.00, to be used by the Police Department's Canine Unit. The cost
of the kennel for the animal is included in the estimated cost.
Need for a replacement canine for the Canine Unit would be
achieved.
Opportunity to possess and utilize a uniquely trained canine, at no
cost to the city, and have it available for immediate use in an
emergency situation, would occur.
3. Compliance with City Code would be met.
City Council reject the gift from the AARP of a fully trained Malinois for
use by the Police Department's Canine Unit.
Need for a replacement canine would not be met at this time.
Within a year a replacement canine would need to be purchased
and trained at an approximate cost of $8,855.00 to the City of
Roanoke.
Opportunity to possess and utilize a uniquely trained canine at no
cost to the City of Roanoke may not be available again in the near
future.
3. Compliance with City Code need not be considered.
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Page 3
January 18, 2000
C. RECOMMENDATION:
City Council concur with Alternative "A."
Authorize the city manager to accept the gift of a fully trained Malinois
(breed) canine, from the AARP, to be used by the Police Department's
Canine Unit.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
CC:
City Attorney
Finance Director
City Clerk
Director of Public Safety
Police Chief
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #53-60
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of. Ordinance No. 34651-011800 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1999-2000 Capital Projects and School Capital Projects Fund
Appropriations, which will reclassify $44,000.00 of 1999 general obligation public
improvement bonds. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Attachment
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Ann H. Allen, Manager, Accounting Services, Department of Finance
Alicia F. Stone, Financial Systems Accountant, Department of Finance
C:kMyFiles\jan 18.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34651-011800.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1999-2000
Capital Projects and School Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1999-2000 Capital Projects and School Capital Projects Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows,
in part:
Capital Projects Fund
Appropriations
Capital Improvement Reserve $ 21,825,357
Public Improvement Bond Series 1999 (1) ...................... 18,056,328
School Capital Projects Fund
Appropriations
Education $ 29,649,039
Public Improvement Bond Series 1999 (2) ..................... 4,112,666
1 ) Streets and Sidewalks (008-052-9709-9191) $ (44,000)
2) Schools (031-060-9709-9182) 44,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
City of Roanoke, Virginia
January 18, 2000
'00 JAN i3 All :35
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Transfer Between Categories of 1999 Bond Funds
The City's 1999 general obligation public improvement bonds have been issued and
the proceeds have been appropriated. Due to a mathematical error contained in our
original allocation to categories, we now need to transfer $44,000 to Schools and
out of Streets and Sidewalks. This does not alter the bond issue in total, but rather
is a reclassification between categories. This is done to conform to the bond
referendum approved by voters on November 4, 1997. The total, as adjusted, 1999
general obligation public improvement bonds for schools will be $5,063,687 and for
Streets and Sidewalks will be $3,702,901. We recommend that City Council approve
the attached budget ordinance which will reclassify $44,000 1999 general obligation
public improvement bonds.
I would be pleased to answer any questions Council may have.
JDG/AFS/pac
C:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
James D. Ritchie, Assistant City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Jesse A. Hall, Deputy Director of Finance
Ann H. Allen, Manager of Accounting Services
Alicia F. Stone, Financial Systems Accountant
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #53-60
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 34653-011800 reallocating certain proceeds of its
General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 1996A, of its General Obligation
Public Improvement Bonds, Series 1997A, and of its General Obligation Public
Improvement Bonds, Series 1999A for the purpose of insuring compliance with Federal
Arbitrage Rebate Requirements The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January
18, 2000.
MFP:Io
Attachment
pc:
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
The Honorable David C. Anderson, City Treasurer
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Ann H. Allen, Manager, Accounting Services
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
C:~4yFil~\jan 18.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34653-011800.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA, REALLOCATING CERTAIN PROCEEDS OF ITS GENERAL
OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1996A, OF ITS
GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS, SERIES 1997A,
AND OF ITS GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT BONDS,
SERIES 1999A.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE:
SECTION 1. Findings and Determinations. The City Council (the "Council") of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia (the "City"), hereby finds and determines as follows:
(a) In order to finance a portion of the City's ongoing program of various
categories of public improvement projects, including public schools, public buildings, streets and
sidewalks and storm drains, the City has heretofore issued (i) its $23,000,000 principal amount of
City of Roanoke, Virginia., General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 1996A, dated
January 1, 1996 (the "Series 1996A Bonds"); (ii) its $13,010,000 principal amount of City of
Roanoke, Virginia, General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 1997A, dated December
15, 1997; and (iii) its $26,020,000 principal amount of City of Roanoke, Virginia, General
Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 1999A, dated October 1, 1999 (the "Series 1999A
Bonds").
(b) For the purpose of complying with the provisions of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (the "Code") and the Treasury Regulations promulgated thereunder, including in
particular the provisions of Section 148 of the Code and Sections 1.148-0 through 1.148-1 lA of the
Treasury Regulations relating to arbitrage rebate, it is desirable for the City to expend the proceeds
of Series 19996A Bonds, the Series 1997A Bonds and Series 1999A Bonds on public improvements
projects within the categories of such projects for which the same were issued as expeditiously as
practicable.
(c) In order to ensure compliance with the expenditure requirements of the Code
and the Treasury Regulations referred to in subsection (b), the Council has determined to reallocate
the proceeds of the Series 1996A Bonds, the Series 1997A Bonds and the Series 1999A Bonds as
set forth in Section 2 of this resolution.
SECTION 2. Reallocation of Series 1996A Bond Proceeds, Series 1997A Bond
Proceeds and Series 1999A Bond Proceeds. The Council hereby reallocates the proceeds of sale of
the Series 1996A Bonds, the Series 1997A Bonds and the Series 1999A Bonds as follows:
Public School Projects
(a) (i) The Series 1997A Bond proceeds allocable in the amount of $80,906
to the Ruffner Middle School project, in the amount of $250,000 to the Grandin Court School project
and in the amount of $39,055 to the Public Schools Capital Improvement Reserve shall be
reallocated to the Series 1999A Bond issue.
(ii) The Series 1999A Bond proceeds allocable in the amount of $354,640
to the Lucy Addison Integrated Technology project and in the amount of $15,321 to the Media
Management project shall be reallocated to the Series 1997A Bond issue.
Public Building Projects
(b) (i) The Series 1996A Bond proceeds allocable in the amount of $298,521
to the City Jail Expansion project shall be reallocated to the Series 1997A Bond issue.
(ii) The Series 1997A Bond proceeds allocable in the amount of $457,025
to the Civic Center Reroofing project shall be reallocated in the amount of $298,521 to the Series
1996A Bond issue and in the amount of $158,504 to the Series 1999A Bond issue.
(iii) The Series 1999A Bond proceeds allocable in the amount of$158,504
to the Police Building project shall be reallocated to the Series 1997A Bond issue.
Street and Sidewalk Projects
(c) (i) The Series 1996A Bond proceeds allocable in the amount of $35,130
to the Sidewalk and Curbs - Phase II project shall be reallocated to the Series 1997A Bond issue.
(ii) The Series 1997A Bond proceeds allocable in the amount of $35,813
to the New Traffic Signals project shall be reallocated in the amount of$35,130 to the Series 1996A
Bond issue and in the amount of $683 to the Series 1999A Bond issue.
(iii) The Series 1997A Bond proceeds allocable in the amount of $9,276
to the Church Avenue Streetscape project and in the amount of $107,018 to the Streets and
Sidewalks project shall be reallocated to the Series 1999A Bond issue.
(iv) The Series 1999A Bond proceeds allocable in the amount of$102,052
to the Sidewalks and Bridges Phase IV project and in the amount of $14,925 to the Williamson Road
Improvements project shall be reallocated to the Series 1997A Bond issue.
Storm Drain Projects
(d) (i) The Series 1997A Bond proceeds allocable in the amount of $421 to
the Bamhart Storm Drain project, in the amount of $75,686 to the Miscellaneous Storm Drains
project, in the amount of $53,000 to Windsor - Replace Well System project, in the amount of $470
to the Bell Aire Circle Drain Sump project, in the amount of $50,600 to the Blue Ridge Park Channel
Dredging project and in the amount of $37,867 to the Murdock Creek project shall be reallocated
to the Series 1996A Bond issue.
(ii) The Series 1997A Bond proceeds allocable in the amount of $25,000
to the Storm Water Model Maintenance project shall be reallocated in the amount of $8,380 to the
Series 1996A Bond issue and in the amount of $16,620 to the Series 1999A Bond issue.
adoption
SECTION 3. Effectiveness of Resolution. This resolution shall take effect upon its
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #53-60
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 34652-011800 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1999-2000 School Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, reallocating the
Public Schools Capital Improvement Reserve, in the amount of $39,055.00, from Series
1997A Bond issue to Series 1999A Bond issue. The abovereferenced measure was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on
Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Attachment
pc:
The Honorable David C. Anderson, City Treasurer
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Ann H. Allen, Manager, Accounting Services
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator
C:~lyFiles~jan 18.wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34652-011800.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1999-2000
School Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City
of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
certain sections of the 1999-2000 School Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and
the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Education $ 29,605,039
Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1997 (1) ...................... -0-
Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1999 (2) ...................... 4,107,721
1 ) Schools (031-060-9706-9182) $ (39,055)
2) Schools (031-060-9709-9182) 39,055
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
cay o~ ao~mo~, W. Zina
January 18, 2000
~ECE~'vED
'00 JAN t3 P1:40
TO:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM:
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
SUBJECT: Reallocation of Bond Proceeds to Ensure Compliance with Federal Arbitrage Rebate
Requirements
The United States Treasury Regulations require the City to rebate to the Treasury investment earnings
on proceeds of tax-exempt bonds to the extent such earnings exceed yield on the related indebtedness.
The City is not required to make a rebate payment to the Treasury if it is able to satisfy one of the
"spending exceptions" to the arbitrage rebate requirements set forth in the Internal Revenue Code.
In order to finance a portion of the City's ongoing public improvement projects, such as public schools,
public buildings, streets and sidewalks and storm drains, the City has recently issued the following bonds:
A. $23,000,000 principal amount of City of Roanoke, Virginia, General Obligation Public
Improvement Bonds, Series 1996A, dated January 1, 1996 (the "Series 1996ABonds");
B. $13,010,000 principal amount of City of Roanoke, Virginia, General Obligation Public
Improvement Bonds, Series 1997A, dated December 15, 1997 (the "Series 1997A Bonds"); and
C. $26,020,000 principal amount of City of Roanoke, Virginia, General Obligation Public
Improvement Bonds, Series 1999A, dated October 1, 1999 (the "Series 1999A Bonds").
The City reasonably expected, at the time the Series 1997A Bonds were issued on January 15, 1998, that
it would satisfy the "construction issue" spending exception from the federal arbitrage rebate
requirements of the Internal Revenue Code. This required the City to expend specified percentages of
the bond proceeds within six months, twelve months and eighteen months atter the date the bonds were
issued, and to expend substantially all of the bond proceeds on or before January 15, 2000, the second
anniversary of the issuance.
The public improvement projects being financed with the proceeds of the Series 1996A Bonds, the
Series 1997A Bonds and the Series 1999A Bonds are interchangeable components within major bond
categories. As such, bond funding can be transferred among the projects to meet spending exceptions
without negative implications. Presently, the City will incur costs of approximately $70,000 related to
arbitrage rebate on the 1997A bonds, unless reallocations between bond issues are made to the financing
of certain projects.
Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
January 18, 2000
Page 2
In order to ensure that the City has satisfied the "construction issue" spending exception from arbitrage
rebate requirements, the Department of Finance, after consultation with the City Attorney and the City's
Bond Counsel, is submitting to City Council this report recommending adoption of a resolution
re. allocating the proceeds of the Series 1996A Bonds, the Series 1997A Bonds and the Series 1999A
Bonds among specific projects. A listing of the specific projects and funding involved is as follows:
Impact on Impact on Impact on
Project Category 1999 Bonds 1997 Bonds 1996 Bonds
Sidewalks and
Bridges Phase IV Streets and Sidewalks (102,052) 102,052 -
Williamson Road
Improvements Streets and Sidewalks ( 14,925) 14,925 -
New Traffic Signals Streets and Sidewalks 683 ( 35,813) 35,130
Church Avenue
Streetscape Streets and Sidewalks 9,276 ( 9,276) -
Streets and Sidewalks Streets and Sidewalks 107,018 (107,018) -
Sidewalks and Curbs -
Phase II Streets and Sidewalks - 35,130 (35,130)
Police Buildings Buildings ( 158,504) 158,504 -
Civic Center
Reroofing Buildings 158,504 (457,025) 298,521
City Jail Expansion Buildings - 298,521 (298,521)
Garden City Phase III Storm Drains ( 16,620) 16,620
Baker Street
Drainage Project Storm Drains - 226,424 (226,424)
Barnhart Storm Drain Storm Drains - ( 421) 421
Miscellaneous
Storm Drains Storm Drains - ( 75,686) 75,686
Windsor-Replace
Well System Storm Drains - ( 53,000) 53,000
Bell Aire Circle
Drain Stump Storm Drains - ( 470) 470
Blue Ridge Park
Channel Dredging Storm Drains - ( 50,600) 50,600
Murdock Creek Storm Drains - ( 37,867) 37,867
Honorable Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
January 18, 2000
Page 3
Impact on Impact on Impact on
Project Category 1999 Bonds 1997 Bonds 1996 Bonds
Storm Water Model
Maintenance Storm Drains 16,620 ( 25,000) 8,380
Lucy Addison
Integrated Technology Schools (354,640) 354,640 -
Media Management Schools ( 15,321) 15,321 -
Ruffner Middle School Schools 80,906 ( 80,906) -
Grandin Court School Schools 250,000 (250,000) -
Capital Improvement
Reserve - Schools Reserve 39,055 (39,055) -
Total - -
This report also recommends City Council approve the accompanying budget ordinance to reflect the
reallocation of the Public Schools Capital Improvement Reserve in the amount of $39,055 from the
Series 1997A Bond issue to the Series 1999A Bond issue. The other reallocations to be effected under
the resolution accompanying this report do not require a budget ordinance because the use of different
bond issues to finance projects does not alter the account number used in the City's Capital Projects
Fund.
The aforementioned reallocations will not affect total funding of any project while saving the City
approximately $70,000. We recommend Council's adoption of the accompanying resolution and
ordinance. We would be pleased to answer any questions the Council may have regarding this matter.
rector of F~nance
JDG/aha/pac
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
David C. Anderson, City Treasurer
Jesse A. Hall, Deputy Director of Finance
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Ann H. Allen, Manager of Accounting Services
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
2]5 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011- i 536
Telephone: {540) 853-254~
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 18, 2000
File ~467
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Pursuant to Chapter 9, Education, of The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, establishing a procedure for the election of School Board Trustees, this is to
advise you that the three year terms of office of F. B. Webster Day, Marsha W. Eilison and
Sherman P. Lea will expire on June 30, 2000.
Pursuant to Section 9-16 of The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, on or
before February 15 of each year, Council shall announce its intention to elect trustees of
the Roanoke City School Board for terms commencing July 1 through (1) public
announcement of such intention at two consecutive regular sessions of the Counci~ and
(2) advertisement of such intention in a newspaper of general circulation in the City twice
a week for two consecutive weeks.
Section 9-17 of the City Code provides that applications must be filed in the City Clerk's
Office by March 10 of each year. Application forms will be available in the City Clerk's
Office and may be obtained between the hours of 8:00 a.m., and 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Friday. Information describing the duties and responsibilities of School Board
Trustees will also be available.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
iMFP:io
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clark
January 25, 2000
File #51
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Dear Ms. Goodlatte:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 34619-011800 amending certain proffers contained
in Ordinance No. 29028, adopted on March 28, 1988, which conditionally rezoned property
located at 3113 Franklin Road, S. W., from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2,
General Commercial District. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Tuesday, January 4, 2000, also adopted by the
Council on second reading on Tuesday, January 18, 2000, and will be in full force and
effect ten days following the date of its second reading.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc:
Ms. Reva Dillon Harbour, 1129 Wasena Terrace, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ms. Reva Dillon Harbour, c/o Jarba's Italian Gourmet, 3121 Franklin Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
C:XMyFil~\jan 18.wlxl
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34619-011800.
AN ORDINANCE to amend §§36.1-3 and 36.1-4, Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 129, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in order
to amend certain conditions presently binding upon certain property previously conditionally
zoned C-2, General Commercial District.
WHEREAS, George R. Preas and Betty F. Preas, filed an application to the Council
of the City of Roanoke to amend certain conditions presently binding upon a tract of land
containing 1.786 acres and located at 3113 Franklin Road, S.W., and designated as Official
Tax No. 1290110, which property was previously conditionally rezoned by the adoption of
Ordinance No. 29028, adopted March 28, 1988; and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all
concerned as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and
after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council;
and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on said application at its
meeting on January 4, 2000, after due and timely notice thereof as required by §36.1-693,
Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which heating all parties in interest and
citizens were given an
amendment; and
WHEREAS, this
recommendation made
opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed
Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the
to the Council by the Planning Commission, the City's
Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented at the public hearing, is of the opinion that
the conditions now binding upon a tract of land containing 1.786 acres and located at 3113
Franklin Road, S.W., and designated as Official Tax No. 1290110, and the matters presented
at the public hearing, should be amended as requested.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that
§§36.1-3 and 36.1-4, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 129
of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended to reflect the changes in
proffered conditions as shown in the Second Amended Petition to Amend Proffers filed in
the City Clerk's Office on December 2, 1999, and as set forth in the report of the Planning
Commission dated January 4, 2000.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H:\ORD-REZ\OAP-Pr*a.~- 1
I~ECE!¥ED
CITY C!..SRi~,F~ OFFi'~~
Roanoke City Department of Planning
and Community Development
Room 166, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2344 (Fax) 853-1230
January 4, 2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Request from George and Betty F. Preas, represented by Maryellen F.
Goodlatte, Attorney, that proffers approved under Ordinance No. 29028,
dated 3/28/88, for property located at 3113 Franklin Road, S. W., Official
Tax No. 1290110, be amended.
I. Background:
Subject property_, originally identified as Official City Tax Numbers 1290111,
1290118, and a portion of 1290117 were conditionally rezoned in 1988 from RS-3
to C-2 in March of 1988, subject to the following conditions:
The property will be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan
prepared by Hughes Associates, dated January_ 13, 1988, a copy of which is
attached to the Petition for Rezoning as Exhibit B, subject to any changes
required by the city during site plan review.
That if no building permit has been issued and no construction commenced
within 3 years from the date of final zoning approval, the zoning shall revert
to RS-3 without further action by City Council.
o
That lot beating official tax no. 1290111 along with that portion of lot
beating official tax map no. 1290117 (0.020 acres) will be combined with
that lot bearing official tax map no. 1290110 and an approved plat of
subdivision will be recorded combining said lots.
That Petitioner will obtain a variance from the landscaping requirements of
36.1-585(b)(2) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, as
that requirement affects the boundary between the parcels of land described
above and lot beating official tax map no. 1290117.
Bo
The proposed expansion of the shopping center did not occur. However, conditions
number three and four of the rezoning were met; the lots were combined into a single
tax parcel and a variance for the landscaping requirement was obtained. The
reversion condition is not enforceable.
Roanoke City Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Board of Zoning Appeals
Members of Council
Page 2
II. Current Situation:
Petition was filed on 11/4/99 to amend the conditions of previous rezoning and a first
amended petition to amend proffered conditions was filed on 12/1/99. Following the
Planning Commission public heating on December 1, 1999, a second amended
petition to amend proffered conditions was filed on that date. The conditions in the
second amended petition to amend proffered conditions are as follows:
That the Property will be developed in subStantial conformity with the
development plan prepared by Hughes Associates Architects dated November
3, 1999, a copy of which is attached hereto, as Exhibit C, subject to any
changes that may be required by the City during development plan review.
The Property shall be used for storage and warehouse activities as permitted
by Section 36.1-206(43) of the Code of the City of Roanoke.
Any heating/air conditioning handling units located on the roof of the
warehouse shall be screened fi:om view.
Purpose of the amendment is to construct a warehouse expansion for a tenant of the
existing shopping center.
Co
Planning Commission public hearing was held on December 1, 1999. MaryEllen
Goodlatte, attorney on behalf of the petitioner, appeared before the Commission and
presented the request. Following staff report, Mrs. Duerk asked if the petitioner
would be willing to proffer a condition that any rooftop heating/air conditioning units
would be screened fi:om view. Mrs. Goodlatte was agreeable to such a proffer and
advised that she would be filing a second amended petition. There were no
comments fi:om the audience.
III. Issues:
A. Zoning.
B. Land use.
C. Traffic access.
D. Neighborhood impact.
E. Comprehensive Plan.
IV. Alternatives:
A. Ci_ty Council approve the amended proffered conditions of the rezoning.
Members of Council
Page 3
Zoning remains C-2, but conditions are changed to provide for the proposed
new development of the property for a warehouse.
o
Land use remains commercial. The proposed use of the property is proffered
to be a warehouse, as permitted by the Section 36.1-206 (43) of the City
Code. (Warehouse must be accessory to a retail use and cannot exceed fifty
percent of the gross floor area of such use. All storage must be within an
enclosed building.)
Traffic access is proposed from Franklin Road. No access is to be provided
through any adjacent residential property. Loading area is proposed at the
rear of the property just behind the existing shopping center.
Neighborhood would not be impacted by the change in conditions. Proposed
development is less intensive than what was previously proposed (7,100 sf of
retail space with 25 parking spaces). More of the existing vegetation and
trees would be preserved because of the reduced amount of grading required.
There is no established neighborhood organization for this area. Adjacent
property owners have received a letter from the petitioner's attorney
discussing the request (11/8/99).
5. Comprehensive Plan recommends that:
ao
Neighborhood character and environmental quality should be
protected. Possible changes in land use in or near residential areas
should be carefully evaluated and designed to conserve and enhance
neighborhood quality.
Development of existing commercial areas should be carefully
planned and designed to promote quality development and good land
use.
B. City Council deny the request to amend conditions of the rezoning.
Zoning remains C-2 with the proffered condition for the previously proposed
development scheme. The reversion clause is not enforceable for the subject
property and the other two conditions have been met.
Land use of the property remains vacant, unless the previous proposal is
pursued.
3. Traffic access still would be from Franklin Road.
Members of Council
Page 4
Neighborhood impact would be greater for the former proposal than with the
requested development plan; more grading and building development was
approved as part of the 1988 rezoning request.
5. Comprehensive Plan could be followed.
Recommendation:
Planning Commission, by a vote of 7-0, recommended approval of the request to amend the
conditions of the rezoning, as set forth in the second amended petition filed on December 1,
1999. The proposed development plan is a reasonable alternative for expanded commercial
development and is less intrusive than the previously approved development plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Roanoke City Planning Commission
ESL
attachments
cc: Assistant City Attorney
Attorney for the Petitioner
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE~ VIRGINIA
INRE:
Second Amended Request of George R. Preas and Betty F. Preas to amend proffers
contained in Ordinance No. 29028.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE:
The Petitioner, George R. Preas and Betty F. Preas, own land in the City of Roanoke
containing 1.786 acres located at 3113 Franklin Road, S.W. (Tax Map No. 1290110). Picadilly
Square Shopping Center is located on said parcel. Approximately 1.014 acres of this parcel is
unconditionally zoned C-2. A .77 acre portion of Tax Map parcel 12901 l0 (the "Property") was
rezoned from RS-3 to C-2, with conditions, on March 28, 1988 by Ordinance No. 29028. A copy
of said Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of the Amended Petition to Rezone and
the Additional Proffer of Condition setting forth the four proffered conditions referenced in the
Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979) as amended, the
Petitioner requests that the proffers heretofore adopted with said Ordinance be amended by the
revision of Proffers No. 1 and No. 2 of Ordinance 29028 and the Petitioner believes that the
amendment of the proffers pertaining to said Property will enable the development of the Property
in an approphate manner.
The Petitioner, therefore, petitions the City Council to amend Ordinance Number 29028
adopted March 28, 1988 to provide that Proffer No. 1 and Proffer No. 2 be deleted and the
following Proffers be substituted in place thereof:
1. That the Property will be developed in substantial conformity with the development
plan prepared by Hughes Associates Architects dated November 3, 1999, a copy of
which is attached hereto, as Exhibit C, subject to any changes that may be required
by the City during development plan review.
2. The Property shall be used for storage and warehouse activities as permitted by
Section 36.1-206 (43) of the Code of the City of Roanoke.
3. Any heating/air conditioning handling units located on the roof of the warehouse
shall be screened fi.om view.
Proffers No. 3 and No. 4 of Ordinance 29028 were complied with by your Petitioner
shortly after the Property was rezoned in 1988. The initial Request to Amend Proffers filed by
Petitioners reiterated those previously satisfied proffers. The First Amended Request asked that
said Proffers No. 3 and No. 4 be deleted, as they have been performed.
Attached as Exhibit D are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owners of all lots
or properties immediately adjacent to, immediately across a street or road fi.om the Property.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described amendment be approved
in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
2
Respectfully submitted this 1 st day of December, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
GEORGE R. PREAS
BETTY F. PREAS
Of~ounsel
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq.
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887
(540) 224-8018 - Telephone
(540) 224-8050 - Facsimile
mgoodlatte~gfdg.com - E-mail
3
9'9~1
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Tuesday, January
4, 2000, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Council
Chamber in the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., on the question of amending
proffered conditions presently binding upon a tract of land located at 3113 Franklin Road,
S.W., and designated as Official Tax No. 1290110, as set forth in Ordinance No. 29028,
adopted March 28, 1988.
A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City
Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building. All parties in interest may appear on the above date
and be heard on the question.
GIVEN under my hand this __ day of ,1999.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
H:XNOTICEklqAP-Preas- 1-4-2000
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue. S.W. Room 456
Roanoke. Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
December 3, 1999
File #51
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Barbara N. Duerk, Chair
City Planning Commission
2607 Rosalind Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Ms. Duerk:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
I am enclosing copy of a Second Amended Petition received in the City Clerk's Office on
December 1, 1999, from Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs.
George R. Preas, requesting amendment of certain proffers contained in Ordinance No.
29028, adopted on March 28, 1988, which conditionally rezoned property located at 3121
Franklin Road, S. W., from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General
Commercial District.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, P. O. Box
2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Evelyn S. Lander, Chief, Planning and Community Development
Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Edward R. Tucker, City Planner
H: XI~aZONING. 9 8\pr e.~. wpd
RECEIVED
CLERE$
'99 C-2 P3:34
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
Second Amended Request of George R. Preas and Betty F. Preas to amend proffers
contained in Ordinance No. 29028.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF
ROANOKE:
The Petitioner, George R. Preas and Betty F. Preas, own land in the City of Roanoke
containing 1.786 acres located at 3113 Franklin Road, S.W. (Tax Map No. 1290110). Picadilly
Square Shopping Center is located on said parcel. Approximately 1.014 acres of this parcel is
unconditionally zoned C-2. A .77 acre portion of Tax Map parcel 12901 l0 (the "Property") was
rezoned from RS-3 to C-2, with conditions, on March 28, 1988 by Ordinance No. 29028. A copy
of said Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of the Amended Petition to Rezone and
the Additional Proffer of Condition setting forth the four proffered conditions referenced in the
Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit B~
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979) as amended, the
Petitioner requests that the proffers heretofore adopted with said Ordinance be amended by the
revision of Proffers No. 1 and No. 2 of Ordinance 29028 and the Petitioner believes that the
amendment of the proffers pertaining to said Property will enable the development of the Property
in an appropriate manner.
The Petitioner, therefore, petitions the City Council to amend Ordinance Number 29028
adopted March 28, 1988 to provide that Proffer No 1 and Proffer No. 2 be deleted and the
following Proffers be substituted in place thereof:
1. That the Property will be developed in substantial conformity with the development
plan prepared by Hughes Associates Architects dated November 3, 1999, a copy of
which is attached hereto, as Exhibit C, subject to any changes that may be required
by the City during development plan review.
2. The Property shall be used for storage and warehouse activities as permitted by
Section 36.1-206 (43) of the Code of the City of Roanoke.
3. Any heating/air conditioning handling units located on the roof of the warehouse
shall be screened from view.
Proffers No. 3 and No. 4 of Ordinance 29028 were complied with by your Petitioner
shortly after the Property was rezoned in 1988. The initial Request to Amend Proffers filed by
Petitioners reiterated those previously satisfied proffers. The First Amended Request asked that
said Proffers No. 3 and No. 4 be deleted, as they have been performed.
Attached as Exhibit D are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owners of all lots
or properties immediately adjacent to, immediately across a street or road from the Property.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described amendment be approved
in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
2
Respectfully submitted this 1st day of December, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
GEORGE R. PREAS
BETTY F. PREAS
Ofl~ounsel
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq.
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887
(540) 224-8018 - Telephone
(540) 224-8050 - Facsimile
mgoodlatte~gfdg.com - E-mail
3
ur~,~ ~ax:l-S~u-s24-8050 Dec 9 'g9 ~0:27 P. 02
EXHIBIT D
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS OF
TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 1290110 (New Tract A, 1.785 Acres
Tax Parr, el Number 1290106
3121 Franklin Road, SW
Rcv'a D.
Lover Unit
1229 W~cna Ten'acc, SW
Roanoke, Vi~inia 24016
Tax Parcel Number Xl290136
Franklin Road, SW
Rova Dillon Hatbour
Lowor Unit
1229 Wascna Terrace, SW
Roanoke,, Virginia 24016
Tax Parcel Number 1290108
Fmnld~ Road, SW
lt~irc,ncut Community Incorporated
FAm,dship Manor Rotixe~ent
Community, Inc.
P. O. Box 5365
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Tax Par~I Number 1290126
:{026 Robmms Road, SW
Brian R_ Chocklett
3026 Roboms Road, SW
]~aXmO~ Vil'_~inin 24014
Tax Pan:el Number 1290127
3020 Robem Road, SW
Donald Fi. Orcenwood
ltudIW. Greenwood
3020 .ltobe~ Road, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24O14
Tax Parcci Number 1290128
3014 Roberts Road. SW
Nmssa M. Smith
3014 Robes Road, SW
Rmmok¢, Virginia 24014
Tax Parcel Numt~r 1290112
3012 Roberts Road, SW
Terry S. iVluliins
~012 Robcas Road. SW
Roanoke. Virsinia 24014
Tax Paroel Number 1290115
DEC-89-1999 18:28 ! 548 224 8858 94Z P.02
~:r~,~,~ ~ax:i-Sa,O-224-8050 Dec 9 '99 10:28 P. 03
928 Bcechwood Drive, SW
Tax Parch Numbcr 1290116
924 Beechwood Drive, SW
928 Beechwood Dnve, SW
Roanoke, Virgima 24014
Nancy Lyons Custer
924 Beeehwood Drive, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1290117
920 Betchwood Drive, SW
George D. Hamnan
Eleanor C. Hanmaa
920 Beechwood Drive, SW
Roanoke, Virsinia 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1290121
3001 Franklin Road, SW
Pilo~ Oil Corporation
Box 10146
Knoxville, Tennessee 37919
Tax Parcel Number 1290205
919 Beechwood Drive, SW
Angela H. Imes
Steven A. lone~
919 Beechwond Drive, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax Pax~:zi Number 1290206
915 Beechwood Drive, SW
915 Beechwood Dnve, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax parcel Number 1290213
2923 Franklin Road, SW
Peter S. l-lsing
410 Willow Oak Dzive, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1300501
Franklin Road, SW
Sound Decision Holdings, LLC
3014 Franklin Road, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1300411
3014-3016 Franklin Road, SW
Sound Decision Holdings, LLC
c/o Mr. Ge~ins
3727 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke. ¥irsinia 24014
DEC-09-1999 10:28 1 540 224 ~ 9,4X P.03
GFD&G Fax:l-540-224-8050 D~c 9 '99 ~0:28 P. 04
Tax Pa, rc~l Number 13004t2
3106 Franklin Road, SW
William M. Claytor
P. O. Box 21209
Roanoke, Virsini~ 2401~
Tax Parcel Numl~r 1300410
Franklin Road, SW
Chin A. Benson
3112 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1300409
3110 Franklin Road, SW
Chris K Benson
3 { 12 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1300413
3130 Franklin Ro~d, SW
~d O. West
3130 Fnmkim Road, SW
Roanoke, Vitsinia 24014
DEC--t~}9-1999 10:29 ! 540 224 81~-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_~ 93Y. P. 04
TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
PERTAINING TO THE CHANGE IN PROFFERS REQUEST OF:
George and Betty Preas, 3113 Franklin Road, S.W., )
Official Tax No. 1290110 )
(~ITY CLER!K$ OFFICE
NOV 23 PI2:53
A~FIDAVIT
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) TO-WIT:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she is Secretary to the
Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own
personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.2-2204, Code of
Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has
sent by first-class mail on the 22nd day of November, 1999, notices of a public hearing to be held on
the 1st day of December, 1999, on the change in proffers captioned above to the owner or agent of
the parcels listed below at their last known address:
Parcel
1290136X
1290108
Owner's Name
Reva Dillon Harbour
Reva Dillon Harbour
c/o Jarba's Italian Gourmet
Retirement Community Inc.
Friendship Manor Retirement Community
Mailing Address
1129 Wasena Terrace, SW
Roanoke, VA 24016
3121 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke VA 24014
P. O. Box 5365
Roanoke, VA 24012
327 Hershberger Road, NW
Roanoke VA 24012
1290126 Brian R. Chocklett 3026 Roberts Road, SW
Roanoke VA 24014
1290127 Donald and Ruth Greenwood 3020 Roberts Road, SW
Roanoke VA 24014
1290128 Nerissa M. Smith 3014 Roberts Road, SW
Roanoke. VA 24014
1290112 Terry S. Mullins 3012 Roberts Road, SW
Roanoke. VA 24014
Jordan A. Harvey
Nancy Lyons Custer
George and Eleanor Hartman
Pilot Oil Corporation
Angela and Steven Jones
1290115
1290116
1290117
1290121
1290205
928 Beechwood Drive, SW
Roanoke. VA24014
924 Beechwood Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA24014
920 Beechwood Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA24014
Box 10146
Knoxville, TN37919
919 Beechwood Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24014
1290213
Shih Lo and Christina You An Hsing
Peter and Mina Hsing
410 Willow Oak Drive, SW
Roanoke, VA 24014
1290110 Applicant
Martha Pace Franklin
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
this 22nd day of November, 1999.
My Commission expires:~ ~\ .., ~ ~
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I- 1536
Telephone: {540) 853-254 I
Fax: (540) 853-1145
December 3, 1999
File #51
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Cit.,, Clerk
Barbara N. Duerk, Chair
City Planning Commission
2607 Rosalind Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Ms. Duerk:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
I am enclosing copy of a First Amended Petition received in the City Clerk's Office on
December 1, 1999, from Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs.
George R. Preas, requesting amendment of certain proffers contained in Ordinance No.
29028, adopted on March 28, 1988, which conditionally rezoned property located at 3121
Franklin Road, S. W., from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General
Commercial District.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, P. O. Box
2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Evelyn S. Lander, Chief, Planning and Community Development
Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Edward R. Tucker, City Planner
H:~EZONING.98\prca~.wpd
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS OFFiCe]
'99 -1 P3:25
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY Of ROANOKE~ VIRGINIA
First Amended Request of George IL Preas and Betty F. Preas to amend proffers
contained in Ordinance No. 29028.
TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE:
The Petitioner, George R. Preas and Betty F. Preas, own land in the City of Roanoke
containing 1.786 acres located at 3113 Franklin Road, S.W. (Tax Map No. 1290110). Picadilly
Square Shopping Center is located on said parcel. Approximately 1.014 acres of this parcel is
unconditionally zoned C-2. A .77 acre portion of Tax Map parcel 1290110 (the "Property") was
rezoned from RS-3 to C-2, with conditions, on March 28, 1988 by Ordinance No. 29028. A copy
of said Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of the Amended Petition to Rezone and
the Additional Proffer of Condition setting forth the four proffered conditions referenced in the
Ordinance is attached hereto as Exhibit B.
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979) as amended, the
Petitioner requests that the proffers heretofore adopted with said Ordinance be amended by the
revision of Proffers No. 1 and No. 2 of Ordinance 29028 and the Petitioner believes that the
amendment of the proffers pertaining to said Property will enable the development of the Property
in an appropriate manner.
The Petitioner, therefore, petitions the City Council to amend Ordinance Number 29028
adopted March 28, 1988 to provide that Proffer No. 1 and Proffer No. 2 be deleted and the
following Proffers be substituted in place thereof:
1. That the Property will be developed in substantial conformity with the development
plan prepared by Hughes Associates Architects dated November 3, 1999, a copy of
which is attached hereto, as Exhibit C, subject to any changes that may be required
by the City during development plan review.
2. The Property shall be used for storage and warehouse activities as permitted by
Section 36.1-206 (43) of the Code of the City of Roanoke.
Proffers No. 3 and No. 4 of Ordinance 29028 were complied with by your Petitioner
shortly after the Property was rezoned in 1988. The initial Request to Amend Proffers filed by
Petitioners reiterated those previously satisfied proffers. This First Amended Request asks that
said Proffers No. 3 and No. 4 be deleted, as they have been performed.
Attached as Exhibit D are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owners of all lots
or properties immediately adjacent to, immediately across a street or road from the Property.
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described amendment be approved
in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke.
2
Respectfully submitted this 23rd day of November, 1999.
Respectfully submitted,
GEORGE R. PREAS
BETIW F. PREAS
By: ~~ ffT',~~
Ofl~unsel
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Esq.
Glenn, Feldmann, Dm'by & Goodlatte
P~ O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001-2887
(540) 224-8018 - Telephone
(540) 224-8050 - Facsimile
mgoodlatte~gfdg.com - E-mail
3
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
lhe 28th day of March, 1988.
No. 29028.
AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),
as amended, and Sheet No. 129, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City, subject to cer-
tain conditions proffered by the applicant.
WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of
Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned from RS-3,
Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General Commercial
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant;
and
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper
notice to all concerned as required by ~36.1-693, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended and after conducting a public hearing on
the matter, has made its recommendation to Council; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said application by the City
Council at its meeting on March 14, 1988, after due and timely notice
thereof as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),
as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were
given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed
rezoning; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid applica-
tion, the recommendation made to the Council by the Planning
Commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented
at the public hearinE, is of the opinion that the hereinafter
described property should be rezoned as herein provided.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke
that §$36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and
Sheet No. 129 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be
amended in the following particular and no other:
Property described as a tract of land, located at 3121 Franklin
Road, S.W., designated on Sheet No. 129 of the Sectional 1976 Zone
Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax Nos. 1290111 and 1290118, and
portion of the rear of the lot bearing Official Tax No. 1290117, as
more particularly described in the Amended Petition to Rezone, be, and
is hereby rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to
C-2, General Commercial District, subject to those conditions prof-
fered by and set forth in the Amended Petition to Rezone, filed with
the City Clerk on January 26, 1988, and the Additional Proffer of
Conditions filed with the City Clerk on February 8, 1988, and that
Sheet No. 129 of the Zone Map be changed in this respect.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
GFD&G Fax:l-5~O-22~-8050 Dec 9 "9!) 10:27 P. 02
EXHIBIT D
ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNERS OF
TAX PARCEL NUMBER: 1290110 (New Tract A, 1.785 Acres
Tax Parcel Number I290106
3121 Franklin Road, SW
Reva D. Harbour
Lower Unit
1229 Wa~cna Terra~, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Tax Parcel Number X1290136
Franklin Roa~ SW
~ Dillon Ha-,bour
Lower umt
1229 wascua Terrace, SW
Rmmokc, Vir~nia 24016
Tax Parcel Number 1290108
Franklin Road, SW
Retirement Community lacorporatcd
Friendship Manor Retirement
Community, Inc.
P. O. Box 5365
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Tax Pa-cci Number 1290126
3026 Robm'ts Road, SW
Brian R_ Chocklctt
3026 Roberts Road, SW
R~mokc, Vh'ginin 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1290127
3020 Roberts Road, SW
Donald H. Orcenwood
Ruth W. Orccnwood
3020 .R0bem Road. SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1290128
3014 Roberts Road. SW
Nm'issa M. Smith
3014 Robe. s Road, SW
Roanoke. Virginia 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1290112
3012 Roberts Road, SW
Ten7 S. Mullins
3012 Robc.qs Road, SW
Roanoke. Virginia 240t4
Tax Parcel Number 1290115
$otdan A. Harvey
DEC-89-1999 10:~8 1 5~0 224 8050 9~ P.02
GFD&G Fax:l-540-224-8050 Dec 9 '99 10:28 P. 03
928 Bcechwood Drive, SW
Tax ?arccl Numbcr 1290116
924 Becchwood Drive, SW
928 Bcechwood Drive, SW
Roanoke, Virgima 24014
Nancy Lyons Custer
924 lg~mehwood Drive, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1290117
920 Bccchwood Drive, SW
George D. Hartman
Eleanor C. Hattman
920 Beechwood Drive, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1290121
3001 Franklin Road, SW
Pilot Oil Corporation
Box 10146
Knoxville, Tennessee 37919
Tax Parcel Number 1290205
919 Beechwood Drive, SW
Angcla H. Jmes
Steven A. Jones
919 Beechwood Drive, SW
Roanoke, Virgmia 24014
Tax Paxc~l Number 1290206
915 tk'echwood Drive, SW
Cynthia A. Mason
915 Beechwood Drive, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax parcel Number 1290213
2923 Franklin Road, SW
Peter S. Hsing
410 Willow Oak Drive, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1300501
Franklin Road, SW
Sound Decision Holdings, LLC
3014 Franklin Road, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1300411
3014-3016 Franklin Road, SW
Sound Decision Holdings, LLC
c/o Mr. Goggms
3727 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
DEC-09-1999 10:28 t 540 224 8050 94X P.03
GFDEG Fax:l-540-224-8050 Dec 9 '99 10:28 P. 04
Tax Parcel Number 1300412
3106 Franklin Road, SW
William M. Claymr
P. O. Box 21209
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Tax Parcel Number t:~00410
Franklin Road, SW
Chin A. Benson
3112 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke, Vir~ima 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1300409
~110 Franklin Road, SW
Chris A. Benson
3112 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke, ¥irgm~a 24014
Tax Parcel Number 1300413
3130 Franklin Road, SW
Ric. hatd G. We~t
3130 Franklin Road, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
DEC-09-&999 10:29 ! 548 224 8850 93X P.04
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue. S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
November 8, 1999
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deput5 Cit.,,' Clerk
File #51
Barbara N. Duerk, Chair
City Planning Commission
2607 Rosalind Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Ms. Duerk:
Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
I am enclosing copy of a petition received in the City Clerk's Office on November 4, 1999,
from Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. George R. Preas,
requesting amendment of two proffers contained in Ordinance No. 29028, which
conditionally rezoned property located at 3121 Franklin Road, S. W., Official Tax Nos.
1290111 and 1290118 and a portion of the rear of the lot bearing Official Tax No. 1290117
from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc:
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney, Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte, P. O. Box
2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Evelyn S. Lander, Chief, Planning and Community Development
Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Edward R. Tucker, City Planner
H:kP, EZONING 98~preas.wpd
MARYELLEN F. GOODLATTE
Direct Dial (540) 224-8018
E-mail mgoodlatte~gfdg.com
POST OFFICE BOX ~887
.o.,~o~-., v~R__o,~,., ~o~ ~ ~0~ '4 P1:51
(540) ~4- 6000
FAX (~) ~4-~050
November 4, 1999
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Evelyn S. Lander
City Planner
Roanoke City Planning Department
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Municipal Building, Room 162
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Re: Petition to Amend Proffers
Dear Evie:
Enclosed please find an original and one copy of a Petition to Amend two of the
Proffers contained in Ordinance No. 29028. Our firm's check in the amount of $50.00 for
the filing fee is enclosed. Also enclosed are eight full sized copies of the site plan
referenced in the enclosed Petition.
I appreciate the time you took to meet with me yesterday to discuss this Petition. I
also appreciate the help and assistance of Mrs. Dorsey.
We understand that this matter will be set for hearing by the Planning Commission
on Wednesday, December 1 at its 1:30 p.m. meeting.
If there is anything further we can provide you in support of this Petition do not
hesitate to let us know. As always thank you for your assistance and cooperation.
Very truly yours,
Maryellen F. Goodlatte
MFG:kah:0036003
Enclosures
cc: Mr. & Mrs. George R. Preas (w/encl.)
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W, Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #209-443
Ben Laurendeau, CEO
Roanoke Valley Federal Credit Union
P. O. Box 13045
Roanoke, Virginia 24030-3045
Dear Mr. Laurendeau:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 34631-011800 authorizing and directing the proper
City officials to enter into a five-year lease between the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke
Valley Federal Credit Union leasing a small area in the Second Floor Lobby of the
Municipal Building for the placement by the Credit Union of an automatic teller machine,
pursuant to certain terms and conditions. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Tuesday, January 4, 2000, also
adopted by the Council on second reading on Tuesday, January 18, 2000, and will be in
full force and effect ten days following the date of its second reading.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
C:~MyFil~\jaa 18.wlxl
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34631-011800.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing and directing the proper City officials to enter into a
five-year lease between the City and the Roanoke Valley Federal Credit Union leasing a
small area in the Second Floor Lobby of the Municipal Building for the placement by the
Credit Union of an automatic teller machine (ATM), pursuant to certain terms and
conditions.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City Manager and the Clerk be, and they are hereby authorized and
directed, respectively, to execute and attest, for and behalf of the City of Roanoke, a lease
in such form as is approved by the City Attorney, with the Roanoke Valley Federal Credit
Union, providing for the placement of an automatic teller machine (ATM) by the Credit
Union in a small area in the Second Floor Lobby of the Municipal Building.
2. The terms and conditions of the lease shall be as set forth in the joint report of
the City Manager, Director of Finance and City Treasurer to City Council dated December
20, 1999, and as approved and required by the City Manager.
ATTEST:
l:\Clerk~o-alm 122099
City Clerk.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #5
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000, Couricil Member Swain requested a target date as to when 1999 crime
statistics for the City of Roanoke, along with a comparison of previous years, will be
submitted to Council. The Director of Public Safety advised that after conferring with the
Chief of Police, he would provide Council with a projected date for submission of the report.
Council Member Swain also requested information on the effectiveness of the COPE
offices in the four areas of the City, and a progress report on police precincts in the City,
specifically the Williamson Road/Melrose Avenue areas.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police
C:~yFiles\jan 18.wpd
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #60-144
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000, Council Member Swain referred to complaints regarding the appearance
of the recycling center which can be seen from 1-581. He called attention to the practice
of the City of Los Angeles, California, in which conCrete traffic blocks with decorative
stones are used to conceal certain unsightly areas. He suggested that the matter be
referred to the City Manager for study and report to Council during fiscal year 2000-01
budget study, with cost estimates for improving the appearance of the above referenced
area.
It was the consensus of Council to refer the matter to the City Manager for report during
fiscal year 2000-01 budget study.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Diane S. ^kers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
C:~yFilcs\jan 18.WlXt
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #20
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000, Council Member Trout called attention to parking needs in the
downtown Roanoke area, and advised that for the benefit of those businesses that have
expressed a desire to move to downtown Roanoke, the City should provide a timetable for
construction of a parking facility or a specific solution to address the parking situation.
It was the consensus of Council to refer the matter to the City Manager for report to
Council.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
C:'aM¥ Fil~\j an 18.WlXl
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #51
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
William M. Hackworth
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham and Mr. Hackworth:
I am attaching copy of a resolution proposed by Mr. Adam J. Cohen, 6035 Chagall Drive,
with regard to adding a definition for a duplex townhouse to the City's Zoning Ordinance,
which proposed resolution was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the matter was referred to the City Manager and
the City Attorney for study, report and recommendation to Council.
Sincerely, ~t~,~,~,,~,~.-
Mary F. r, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
Mr. Adam J. Cohen, 6036 Chagall Drive, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Evelyn S. Lander, Chief, Planning and Community Development
Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator
C:XMyFilm\jan 18.wpd
,.]an-05-O0 04:44P STRAUSS CONSTRUCTION I 540 989 7062
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANS. KE, VIRGINLA
IN RE:
To add a definition for a "Ouplex Townhouse" to the zoning code of the_
City of Roanoke, Virginia.
10 THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
ROANOKE -
P .0:·
Whereas, the current zoning code. of the City of Roanoke does not have. a provision
for a two family I~ome 'allowing eacll side to be individually uw~,d,
And whereas, there is a type of housin8 unit commonly referred to as a "Duplex
Townhouse" that exists in other .jurisdictions in the State of Virginia,
Now therefore, let it be enacted that a rk?w definition be. added to zoning section
36.1-25 - definitions that defines a duplex townhouse as follows:
Duplex Townhouse :
A building containing two (2) dwelling units, designed for and occupied by
not more than two (2) families and providing for the individual ownership of
each side of the dwelling.
Now II~-,refore, let it be. furttmr enacted thai Ibis type of tmusin8 unit be allowed in
any zoning distrk.1 where two family dwellings are permitted provided that the
following conditions are met:
I) Iot size, set back, road frontage, and parking requirements must be met as
per the c~Jrrent zoning code for two family dwellings for each dislrict.
2) Duplex Townhuuse lots may be subdivided for single cwvnership provided
that each lot *have one half (1/2) of the lot size, road frontage and parking
requirements as per the current zoning code for two family dwellings for each
district. In each case of subdivision, the new lot line must run through the
demising partition between the dwelling units.
.3) Each s~ of a Duplex Townhuuse taus! be .served separalely by all ulililies
incJuding buz not limited to sewer, water, electricity, phone, gas and cable.
4) Upstairs / Downstairs type duplex construction doe~ not qualify for
designation as a "l'~xplex Townhouse".
Respectfully submitted this 5~' day of January, 2000.
JAN~-~ 16:54
BY:~~~L~
1 6038'Chagall Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 2401
(540) 776-8122
1 540 9~9 7062
P. 02
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #5-66-76-137
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
William M. Hackworth
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham and Mr. Hackworth:
I am attaching copy of a communication from Jeff Aais, President, Lafayette Watchdogs,
with regard to implementation of legislation aimed at curtailing drug trafficking in the City
of Roanoke, which communication was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
The following persons addressed Council in support of the abovereferenced legislation:
John Styles
Stuart LaManna
Thomas Donnel
Kathy El-Attar
Lisa Knappe
Ray Barbour
Kathy Wheeden
Sue Snellings
Sean Arjormandinia
Kathy Hill
Brenda McDaniel
It was the consensus of Council to refer the matter to the City Manager and the City
Attorney for report to Council at the next regular meeting on Monday, February 7, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
Jeff Artis, President, Lafayette Watchdogs, 2407 Clifton Street, N. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24017
C:'dVlyFil~\jan 18.wlxi
Darlene L. Burcham
William M. Hackworth
January 25, 2000
Page 2
pc;
Mr. John Styles, 2024 Patterson Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Ms. Kathy Wheeden, 1017 Ferdinand Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Mr. Stuart LaManna, 1035 Ferdinand Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Ms. Sue Snellings, 2230 Charlevoix Court, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Mr. Thomas Donnel, 2210 Charlevoix Court, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Mr. Sean Arjormandinia, 1443 Lafayette Boulevard, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Ms. Kathy El-Attar, 1605 Chapman Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Ms. Kathy Hill, 509 Arbor Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Ms. Lisa Knappe, 2220 Westover Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Ms. Brenda 'McDaniel, 2037 Carter Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Mr. Ray Barbour, 686 Montrose Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police
¢:~,lyFilcs~anli.wlxl
January 10, 2000 11:45 AM From: Jeff Artis Fax #: (540)343-9367 Page I of 3
Date:
To:
Company
Fax Phone #:
From:
Subject:
Monday, January 10, 2000
Roanoke City Council
The City Clerk's Office
853-1145
Jeff Artis, President, Lafayette Watchdogs
Legislation to fight the drug trade.
Time: 11:45 AM
Total # of Pages (including cover): 3
Memo:
Good Morning,
I wish to address City Council at the evening session on 1/18~2000 to
ask for support in the implimentation of current legislation aimed at the
drug trade. In addition, I will be asking council to consider the passing of a
piece of legislation to help in our war on drugs. A summary of my
remarks follows.
Take care,
Jeff Artis, President Lafayette Watchdogs
if all pages were not received, please call back immediately:
JAN-10-2000 11:5~7 Je~ Act,s 97~ P.O1
12/15/99
Good Mornir~
As vice-president of the Lafayette Watchdogs, a urime watch group in Northwest Roanoke, I
am slowly coming to the conclusion that the City of Roanoke is trying to fight its war on drugs
with one hand tied behind its back. I ~ay this beca~ of a ~eminar-I attende~ on December 8,
1999. The speaker of the seminar was Sgt Douglas Backman from the Virginia Beach Police
Sgt Backman's talk was outstanding, He informed us that there was legislation passed by the
Virginia General Assembly which could be reed to curtail the drag trade in our neighborhoods.
Virginia Beach has been using this legislation for over a year. During this time, the use of this
legislation has been effective in fighting the drug trade in that city.
Civil Code 48.1 allows for five concerned citizens to request a grand jury investigation of a
public or common nuisance. Once drugs are found on the property, a public nuisance is created.
Fines for violating this c~le can range up to $10,000. This code is effective in allowing concerned
citizens to put a stop to drug dealing in their neighborhood through a grand jury investigation.
The Narcotic Common Nuisance ordinance forces a landlord or owner of a property to do
something about drug dealing by his rinse. Once the landlord has been notified of the common
nuisance he must correct the problem or be arrested for violating the ordinance; a misdemeanor
arrest for the first violation, a Class 6 felony arrest for the sw, ond violation. The ordinance allows
for the immediate termination of a lease and the eviction of drug-dealing tenants. If the person
living on the property is the owner, the first arrest for violating the ordinance is a misdemeanor.
The second an-est for violating the ordinance is a ~lass 6 felony.
The next piece of legislation is the Drug Blight Code. With tim code, a atmcture can be
condemned due to drug activity upon probable cause that the drug activity cor~titutes a public
health and safety hazard Furthermore, the landlord has the right to evict the tenant to avoid
liability of the public nuisance.
Virginia state law already allows for the immediate termination of a lease or rental agreement
for the tenant knowingly having contraband/drugs on the premises. The codes and ordinances I
have listed are triggered by finding any amount of drugs on the premises.
As I have said, the use of this legislation is working very well in Virginia Beach. In the 10
months crime and drug-dealing is down in the neighborhoods where this legislation is being used.
Early data is showing that with the reduction of drug dealing and crime, property values are going
up. In a neighborhood which is 75% African American, 94% of the people living there support
the use of this legislation and the use of evictions to fight the drug trade, 74% have reported an
improved quality of life, 45% say they have no crime related issues in their neighborhood. In
addition, this legislation is constitutional. The American Civil Liberties Union has yet to find
anything wrong with this legislation. Groups such as the SCLC and the NAACP have yet to
complain about the legislation. The Roanoke branch of the SCLC, of which I am also the vice
president, sees this legislation as a means to fight the drug trade. Local crime watch groups
support this legislation, also. The message of the legislation is simple. If you don't want to be
evicted from your home, don't sell drugs. Don't be a problem in the community where you live.
Leave law abiding citizens alone.
Currently, Roanoke City Government is not using this legislation to fight drug dealing in our
neighborhoods. I do not know why, though I certainly have my own ideas for the city's lack of
enforcement in this area. For this reason, I am calling for the immediate implementation of this
legislation by Roanoke City government. Our policemen are doing an excellent job trying to
combat the drug trade in our city. Neighborhood watch groups such as the one ! belong to are
doing what we can to help the police combat the drug trade in our neighborhoods. Implementation
of this legislation by Roanoke City government will make the job of the police and crime watch
~oups much easier and safer. The same hold true for the neil~hborhoods the police work in and
we live in.
As for the dru~ dealers, I do not pity them. You show me a drug dealer, I'll show you a blood
sucker. I'll show you someone who is trying to suck the life's blood out cfa neighborhood. Their
motivation, especially here in Roanoke, is nothing more than ~reed. We will take back our
neighborhoods. This legislation, once implemented, will be a useful tool m allowing us to do so.
It's time to stop fighting the drug dealers with one hand tied behind our backs.
Take care,
Jeff'Artis, President, Lafayette Watchdogs
2407 Clifton St. NW
Roanoke, Va. 24017
jartis6123~aol.com
342-2354
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #184
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000, Ms. Angela Norman, 1731 Michael Street, N. W., requested that City
custodial workers be provided with lockers in which to store personal items.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the matter was referred to the City Manager for
appropriate response.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
Ms. Angela Norman, 1731 Michael Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Robert K. Bengston, Acting Director, Public Works
Lynnis B. Vernon, Acting Manager, Building Maintenance
C :kMy Files\j aa 1 Ik wl:xi
81/11/2888 12:48 5488536845 FLIgET~ PAGE
2032
Jmmry i0, :2000
21~S ~ A~..
T~l I¢,~p~m~ ~ ofl,~x~ 20~2.
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #51
Edward A. Natt, Attorney
Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt, Aheron & Agee, P. C.
P. O. Box 20068
Roanoke, Virginia 20068
Dear Mr. Natt:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000, a public hearing was held on the request of Radford & Company that
property located at 2154 McVitty Road, S. W., identified as Official Tax Nos. 5100527,
5100528, 5100534 and 5100535, be rezoned from RS-l, Residential Single Family District,
to C-1, Office District, subject to certain proffered conditions.
The abovereferenced request for rezoning was denied by the Members of the Roanoke
City Council.
MFP:Io
pc:
Sincerely,
Mary F.
City Clerk
Mr. Bobby R. Caudle, 4231 Belford Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
First Virginia Bank- Southwest, P. O. Box 7585, Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Mr. and Mrs. Gene C. Comer, 5053 Gatewood Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24018
Oak Grove Church of the Brethren, 2138 McVitty Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24018
HP Properties, c/o Dr. Lee T. Helms, 1960 Electric Road, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Evelyn S. Lander, Chief, Planning and Community Development
Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator
C:hMy Fil~\jan 18wpd
Edward A. Natt
January 25, 2000
Page 2
pc:
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
J. Thomas Tasselli, Development Review Coordinator
Edward R. Tucker, City Planner
C:~yFiles\jan 18.wpd
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chapter 36.1, Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on
Tuesday, January 18, 2000, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building,
215 Church Avenue, S.W., on the question ofrezoning from RS- 1, Residential Single Family
District, to C-1, Office District, the following property:
A 1.433-acre, more or less, parcel of land located at 2154 McVitty Road, S.W.,
bearing Official Tax Nos. 5100527, 5100528, 5100534 and 5100535, subject
to certain proffered conditions.
A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City
Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building.
and be heard on the question.
GIVEN under my hand this 3rd
All parties in interest may appear on the above date
~day of January , 200___0
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
H: \NOTICE\N-REZ-Radford- 12-30-99
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia ~'
('lTV ~'
Affadavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
................................................. /~-_ -J/~ J O_ _P_~_ :!4_ .............
EDWARD A NATT, ATTORNEY
PO BOX 20068
ROANOKE VA 24018-0007
REFERENCE: 80022015
01306555
2154 McVitty
NOTICE OF PUBLIC ME
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
I, (the undersigned} an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
PUBLISHED ON: 12/02 12/09
TOTAL COST: 166.50
FILED ON: 12/15/99
.......................
Aut~ized Signat;~; ...................
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #24-51
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 34654-011800 amending {}36.1-107, Permitted uses,
{}36.1-108, Special exception uses, and {}36.1-542, General requirements, and repealing
{}36.1-541, Application, of Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, to permit accessory apartments outright, and to permit two-family
dwellings by special exception only, in the RM-1 District. The abovereferenced measure
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held
on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Attachment
pc:
The Honorable Diane McQ. Strickland, Chief Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit
of Virginia
The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable Roy B. Willett, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
C:M~dyFilcs\jaa 18.wpd
Darlene L. Burcham
January 24, 2000
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable
Virginia
The Honorable
Virginia
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
The Honorable
Richard C. Pattisall, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Robert P. Doherty, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
Julian H. Raney, Jr., Chief Judge, General District Court
George W. Harris, Jr., Judge, General District Court
Vincent A. Lilley, Judge, General District Court
William D. Broadhurst, Judge, General District Court
Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable John B. Ferguson, Chief Judge, Juvenile and Domestic
Relations District Court
The Honorable Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
The Honorable Philip Trompeter, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
The Honorable Joseph P. Bounds, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
Evelyn Jefferson, Vice-President - Supplements, Municipal Code Corporation,
P.O. Box 2235, Tallahassee, Florida 32316
Raymond F. Leven, Public Defender, Suite 4B, Southwest Virginia Building,
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Ronald S. Albright, Clerk, General District Court
Patsy A. Bussey, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
Peggy B. Stewart, Office of the Magistrate
Melvin L. Hill, Chair, City Planning Commission, 2524 Marr Street, N. W., #15F,
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Evelyn S. Lander, Chief, Planning and Community Development
Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Ronald L. Smith, Acting Building Commissioner
Chades M. Huffine, City Engineer
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
J. Thomas Tasselli, Development Review Coordinator
Edward R. Tucker, City Planner
*See attached mailing list of property owners
C:'~vlyFil~\jan I
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34654-011800.
AN ORDINANCE amending {}36.1-107, Permitted uses, {}36.1-108, Special exception
uses, and {} 36.1 - 542, General requirements, and repealing {} 36.1- 541, Application, of Chapter
36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to permit accessory
apartments outright, and to permit two-family dwellings by special exception only, in the
RM-1 District; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. Section 36.1-541, Application, of Chapter 36.1, Zoning, is hereby REPEALED.
2. Section 36.1-107, Permitted uses, {}36.1-108, Special exception uses, and
{}36.1-542, General requirements, of Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, be, and are hereby, amended and reordained to read and
provide as follows:
Sec. 36.1-107. Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted as principal uses in the RM-1
district:
(1)
(2)
Single-family detached dwellings.
Single-family detached dwellings with an accessory apartment,
subject to the requirements of section 36.1-540, et seq.
(3)
(4)
(5)
Day care homes, subject to the requirements of section 36.1-510
et seq.
Day care facilities for the elderly with no more than six (6)
clients.
Churches, synagogues and other places of worship, including
accessory columbariums.
(6) Parks and playgrounds.
(7) Home occupations, subject
36.1-500 et seq.
Sec. 36.1-108. Special exception uses.
to the requirements of section
The following uses may be permitted in the RM-1 district by special
exception granted by the board of zoning appeals subject to the requirements
of this section:
(1) Two-family dwellings, provided that the lot area is 7,000 square
feet or more.
(2) Town houses, subject to the requirements of section 36.1-460 et
seq.
(3) Halfway houses and congregate homes, subject to the
requirements of section 36.1-560 et seq.
(4) Nonprofit counseling facilities and services.
(5) Elementary and secondary schools.
(6) Day care centers with up to thirty (30) children, subject to the
requirements of section 36.1-510 et seq., and provided the use
is located no closer than fifteen hundred (1,500) feet to another
day care center.
(7) Libraries, museums, art galleries and other similar uses
including associated educational and instructional services.
2
(c) There shall be no more than one (1) accessory apartment
permitted per single-family detached dwelling.
(d) At no time shall there be more than one (1) additional bedroom
created by the provision of the accessory apartment. The accessory apartment
may not be larger than twenty-five (25) percent of the gross floor area of the
principal structure.
(e) No exterior changes shall be made to the existing foundation,
unless the zoning administrator, when the accessory apartment is a permitted
use, or the board of zoning appeals, when a special exception is required, finds
that such changes are warranted by the specific circumstances of the particular
building. Accessory apartments shall be located, designed, constructed,
landscaped and decorated in such manner that, to the maximum extent
feasible, the appearance of the principal building will remain as a single-family
detached dwelling. No exterior stairway to the second floor shall be permitted
at the front or side of the building.
(f) The owner(s) of the single-family detached dwelling in which
the accessory apartment is to be located shall occupy at least one (1) of the
dwelling units on the premises.
3. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government,
an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its
passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H:\ORD-CA\O-ZON-RM 1 - 12-99 4
Roanoke City Department of Planning
and Community Development
Room 166, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W,
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2344 (Fax) 853-1230
January 18, 2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Proposed amendments to Article III, Division 2, Subdivision B., RM-1,
Residential Multifamily Low Density District, of the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended.
I. Background
Residents of Greater Raleigh Court and other Ci_ty neighborhoods have expressed
concern about the large amount of multifamily zoning and increasing multifamily
development in established neighborhoods, particularly conversions of single-
family structures to duplex and multifamily uses. Concerns include the
compatibility and maintenance of duplex development as well as protection of
property investment.
Multifamily units have increased in the Greater Raleigh Court neighborhood
(according to U.S. Census Bureau statistics and a land use survey conducted by
the Greater Raleigh Court Civic League).
The Greater Raleigh Court Neighborhood Plan was adopted by City Council on
May 17, 1999. Five workshops were held to involve the community in the
planning process. The neighborhood plan recommended that zoning changes be
enacted to reduce housing density or hold it at current levels in certain areas of the
neighborhood and that existing homes be protected by ensuring compatibility of
residential development with the existing neighborhood.
Following adoption of the plan, the Department of Planning and Community
Development worked with the Greater Raleigh Court Civic League, residents of
Raleigh Court, Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association and Roanoke
Valley Association of Realtors representatives to explore alternatives to address
concerns about multifamily zoning and development. Three community meetings
were held to understand concerns and validate interests and consider alternatives.
Some of the things heard during those meetings were that:
Roanoke City Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Board of Zoning Appeals
Members of Council
Page 2
II.
Improved design standards were needed to address problems with parking,
green space, and architectural changes to existing houses for multifamily
development.
Investment of property owners should be encouraged.
Diversity of affordable housing types should be encouraged, while
ensuring that there is a beneficial balance of housing opportunities.
Maintenance of properties and viability of housing stock should be
encouraged.
Financial opportunities for investment should be protected and provided.
Current Situation:
Ordinance and Names and Long Range Planning Committees met on November
3, 1999, to review the proposed amendments to the zoning ordinance developed
by Planning staff.
Planning Commission public heating was held on December 1, 1999. After
presentation from staff, Mrs. Duerk opened the floor for audience comment. The
following persons spoke regarding the proposed amendments and their detailed
comments are set out in the minutes attached to this report.
Dr. Tony Stavola (1836 Greenwood Road, SW) appeared before the Commission
in support of the proposed amendments. Dr. Stavola's comments are included in
the minutes attached to this report. Mr. Henry_ Sholz, incoming president of the
Roanoke Valley Association of REALTORS spoke in opposition to making a
duplex a special exception in the RM-1 district. Mr. Andrew Friedman (2623
Vancouver Drive, N.W., Williamson Road Action Forum) spoke in support of the
amendments. Mrs. Kathy Hill (509 Arbor Avenue, S.E., Riverland Alert
Neighbors) spoke in support of the proposed amendments. Christine Proffit (424
Bullitt Avenue, S.E.) spoke in support of the amendment. Richard Nichols (1620
Kirk Avenue, S.E., president of Southeast Action Forum) spoke in opposition to
the amendment. Keith Moore (President of Williamson Road Action Forum)
spoke in support of the amendments. Peggy Blankenship (2316 Russell Avenue,
S.W., President of Norwich Neighborhood Alliance) spoke in support of the
amendments. Lisa Nappy (2220 Westover Avenue, S.W.) spoke in support of the
amendments. Sara Muse (617 6th Street, S.W.) spoke in support of the
Members of Council
Page 3
III. Issues:
amendments. Bill Skeen (1938 Avon Road, S.W.) spoke in support of the amendments.
At the conclusion of citizen comment, members of the Commission applauded the
efforts of the Greater Raleigh Court Civic League in spearheading the effort to
protect the City's housing stock.
IV.
Ao
B.
C.
D.
Appropriateness and compatibility of two-family dwellings.
Adequate lot size.
Affordable housing.
Continuance of existing duplexes, as conforming uses.
Alternatives:
mo
City Council approve the amendments.
Two-family dwellings will be changed from a permitted use to a special
exception use in the RM-1 district, thus allowing consideration of
appropriateness and compatibility with the neighborhood as part of the
public hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals.
The required lot size for a two-family dwelling will be increased from
5,000 square feet to 7,000 square feet, which provides more room for
parking and open space.
o
Compatible, affordable housing will be provided by allowing accessory_
apartments in single-family dwellings as a permitted use, as opposed to a
special exception. Section 36.1-541 is repealed and amendments to
Section 36.1-542 will allow the zoning administrator authority to act on
exterior changes to the building foundation.
Existing two-family dwelling uses in the RM-1 district may be legally
continued.
City Council deny the amendments.
Two-family dwellings will remain a permitted use in the RM-1 district.
Appropriateness and compatibility still would be an issue.
Members of Council
Page 4
Vo
The minimum lot size for a two-family dwelling will remain 5,000 square
feet. Duplex development on small lots would reduce lot open space and
crowd parking on the lot and adjacent streets.
3. Compatible, affordable housing can be provided.
4. Existing two-family dwelling uses could be continued.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 7-0, recommended approval of Alternative A,
amending the RM-1, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
Respectfully submitted,
Barbara N. Duerk, Chairman
Roanoke City Planning Commission
ESL:CLC
cc: Assistant City Attorney
PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS
DECEMBER 1, 1999
Comment: To address multifamily zoning problems expressed by the Greater Raleigh Court
neighborhood, several amendments to the RM-1 section of the zoning ordinance have been
proposed. These amendments will affect neighborhoods throughout the City.
Amend Section 36.1-107. Permitted uses. by adding the following underlined
text and deleting the stricken text.
Sec. 36.1-107. Permitted uses.
The following uses shall be permitted as principal uses in the RM-1 district:
(2)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Single-family detached dwellings.
Two-faniily dw¢llh-igs Single-family detached dwelling with accessory apartment
subject to the requirements of section 36.1-540 et seq.
Day care homes subject to the requirements of section 36.1-510 et seq.
Day care facilities for the elderly with no more than six (6) clients.
Churches, synagogues and other places of worship, including accessory columbariums.
Parks and playgrounds.
Home occupations subject to the requirements of section 36.1-500 et seq.
Amend Section 36.1-108. Special exception uses. by adding the following
underlined text.
Sec. 36.1-108. Special exception uses.
The following uses may be permitted in the RM-1 district by special exception granted by the
board of zoning appeals subject to the requirements of this section:
(1) Two-family dwellings provided that the lot area is 7,000 square feet or more.
(2) Townhouses subject to the requirements of section 36.1-460 et seq.
(3) Halfway houses and congregate homes subject to the requirements of section 36.1-560
et seq.
(4) Nonprofit counseling facilities and services.
(5) Elementary and secondary schools.
(6) Day care centers with up to fifteen (30) children subject to the requirements of section
36.1-510 et seq., and provided the use is located no closer than fifteen hundred (1,500)
feet to another day care center.
(7) Libraries, museums, art galleries and other similar uses including associated
educational and instructional services.
(8) Community centers.
(9) Outdoor recreational facilities including swimming clubs, tennis courts, athletic
facilities and other similar uses.
(10) Personal service home occupations subject to requirements of section 36.1-500 et seq.
(11)
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
(16)
Bed and breakfast establishments subject to the requirements of section 36.1-520 et
seq.
Utility substations, transmission lines and towers, booster stations, relay stations and
transformers, and similar uses provided that light, fumes, noise, unsightliness, or other
associated activities or emissions are adequately screened from the surrounding
neighborhood.
Fire stations.
Police stations.
Day care centers accessory to churches, synagogues and other places of worship,
subject to the requirements of section 36.1-510, et seq.
Medical offices in an existing structure, provided that the use is located no closer than
one thousand five hundred (1,500) feet to another medical office in a residential zone.
thirty (30) feet, or as provided in section 36.1-403.
Delete Section 36.1-541. Application., and amend Section 36.1-542. General
Requirements. by adding the following underlined text and deleting the stricken
text.
Sec. 36.1-541. General requirements.
(e) No exterior changes shall be made to the existing foundation, unless the zoning
administrator, when the accessory apartment is a permitted use, or the board of zoning appeals, when a
special exception is required, finds that such changes are warranted by the specific circumstances of
the particular building. Accessory apartments shall be located, designed, constructed, landscaped and
decorated in such manner that, to the maximum extent feasible, the appearance of the principal
building will remain as a single-family detached dwelling. No exterior stairway to the second floor
shall be permitted at the front or side of building.
Secs. 36.1- .543 542--36.1-549. Reserved
Roanoke City Planning Commission
Page 3
December 1, 1999
Request from the Roanoke City Planning Commission to amend the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, more specifically Section 36.1-107. Permitted uses, to
provide for single family detached dwellings with accessory_ apartment subject to the
requirements of Section 36.1-540; amend Section 36.1-108, Special exception uses, to
provide for two-family dwellings with a lot area of 7,000 square feet or more; and delete
36.1-541. Application. and replace with 36.1-541. General requirements.; and amend
subsection (e) of General requirements, to provide for zoning administrator or board of
zoning appeal approval of exterior changes to accessory_ apartments.
Mr. Chris Chittum, City Planner, appeared before the Commission and presented the staffreport.
Mr. Chittum gave the background which led up to the preparation of the zoning ordinance
amendments, noting that residents of Greater Raleigh Court, as well as other City neighborhoods,
had expressed concern about the large amount ofmultifamily zoning throughout the City, as well
as the increasing multifamily development, particularly conversions of single family structures to
duplex or higher intensity uses. Mr. Chittum discussed the neighborhood planning process that
had taken place in Raleigh Court, which led up to the adoption of the neighborhood plan in May
of this year. He also talked about the community meetings which had been held with the
Planning Department, civic league, residents, Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association
representatives, and the Roanoke Valley Association of Realtors representatives to discuss
concerns and consider alternatives. Mr. Chittum said that the proposed amendment before the
Commission was an attempt to address the concerns expressed by Raleigh Court and other
neighborhoods throughout the City. He said that Planning staffwas requesting the Commission
to recommend approval of the proposed amendments to City Council.
Mrs. Duerk said that she thought the amendment was going to address the fact that if a duplex
was created from a single family residence that it had to keep the appearance of a single family
structure. Mrs. Duerk further stated that she had discussed this matter with Mrs. Lander, who in
turn had advised her that could not be done because we were a Dillon's Rule state. She then
asked the City Attorney if there was a way to say that we have the power to control the
appearance in order to help preserve the single family character.
Mr. Talevi advised that those types of requests generally come from staff and are submitted as
part of the City's legislative package.
Mrs. Duerk advised that she had discussed the matter with Mayor Bowers and he had advised her
to bring the matter to Mr. Talevi's attention.
Mrs. Lander said that she would coordinate with the City Attorney's office.
Mr. Rife said he understood that the zoning ordinance amendment grew out of concerns raised by
Raleigh Court, however, he questioned how much of the City's land would be affected.
Mr. Chittum responded that the amendment would effect 38% of the parcels in the City. He said
that of the 47,000 parcels in the City, over 13,000 were zoned RM-1.
Roanoke City Planning Commission
Page 4
December 1, 1999
Mr. Rife asked if any attempt had been made to notify other neighborhoods of the amendment.
Mr. Chittum said that all neighborhood leaders had been notified and that meetings had been
held with various neighborhood organizations to discuss the amendment.
Mrs. Duerk then called for audience comment.
Dr. Tony Stavola, Greater Raleigh Court Civic League, appeared.before the Commission and
stated that the civic league had been working on the multifamily issue for about six years and
that fi:om the beginning of the process, they had been aware that this was not just a Raleigh Court
issue but a citywide issue. Dr. Stavola said that numerous public meetings had been held and he
had found strong backing for the amendment. He also referred to a number of reports prepared
during the past few years (Roanoke Renaissance, school system) that highlighted the concerns
over the changing housing patterns in the City. He said that increasing amounts of rental and
multifamily housing have an impact on the city in the following areas: school system, parking,
traffic, and public safety. He said that Raleigh Court was concerned that without the amendment,
the increasing number of conversions would reduce the value of all properties in the area. He
said the people in Raleigh Court value what they have and that Raleigh Court was an area that
offered a wide range of housing options for all citizens, ranging from renters, to young families
purchasing their first home, to the elderly. He said that the amendment relative to accessory
apartments would allow the elderly to use their larger homes for this purpose if necessary. Dr.
Stavola also noted that the Raleigh Court area had a higher percentage of multifamily and rental
housing than the City as a whole and they did not want to become a bland, upper middle class
enclave, but they did want to "preserve the balance in their current housing mix that made their
neighborhood a vital, interesting place to live."
Dr. Stavola said there would be people who opposed the amendments and say that the
amendments would take away property rights, however, he felt that without the changes,
unchecked conversions or single family homes would reduce property values of all properties in
their neighborhood because the neighborhood would become more transient in nature. He also
noted that some people would say that property rights were being restricted, however, he felt that
the whole concept of zoning was to balance rights and responsibilities.
Dr. Stavola said that Raleigh Court realized they were part of a larger community and fi:om the
beginning they had tried to look at this not only as a neighborhood issue but one that affected
many other neighborhood through the City.
Mr. Henry Scholz, IV, 2000 President of the Roanoke Valley Association of Realtors, appeared
before the Commission. Mr. Scholz read from a written statement, which is attached to and
made part of these minutes.
At the conclusion of Mr. Scholz's statement, Mr. Butler questioned how the association could be
in opposition to the amendment removing the duplex as a permitted use and also advocate the
remaining amendment. He said that seemed to be inconsistent.
Roanoke City Planning Commission
Page 5
December 1, 1999
Mr. Scholz responded that the association was very concerned about individual property rights
and he felt the blanket change to a special exception constituted a taking without some kind of
compensation.
Mr. Andrew Friedman (2623 Vancouver Drive, N.W.) appeared before the Commission on
behalf of the Williamson Road Action Forum and sated that the Forum represented over 5,000
households. Mr. Friedman said he served on his organization's neighborhood development
committee, and that the committee had unanimously endorsed the amendment.
Mrs. Kathy Hill (509 Arbor Avenue, S.E.) appeared before the Commission and stated that her
neighborhood contained about 300 households. She said that she was in favor of the zoning
proposal for several reasons. She noted the multifamily development caused many problems in
neighborhoods, such as parked cars on both sides of the street, the illegal conversions of single
family homes, the parking in front yards.
Ms. Christine Proffit (424 Bullitt Avenue) appeared before the Commission and stated that she
approved of what Raleigh Court wanted to do. She said that the conversions lowered her
property values.
Mr. Richard Nichols (1520 Kirk Avenue, S.E.) said he was president of the Southeast Action
Forum and he did not agree with the amendment. He said that he felt people needed a place to
live and that many people were moving out of the City. He said that the only way to keep people
in the City was to provide apartments for them.
Keith Moore, president of the Williamson Road Action Forum, appeared before the Commission
and stated that he was in favor of the amendments. He said that neighborhoods need to be
protected. He also said that the amendment did not prohibit duplexes, it should required them to
be approved by the Board of Zoning Appeals in an RM-1 zoning district.
Ms. Peggy Blankenship (2316 Russell Avenue, President, Norwich Neighborhood Alliance)
appeared before the Commission. Ms. Blankenship said that the Norwich neighborhood had
undergone a rezoning several years ago and their property values had increased. She said that
she worked in the mortgage field and understood the financial aspects of the proposal and was
convinced that property values would increase as a result of the amendment. She said she felt the
current zoning districts were too general and that the amendment would help preserve the value
of the neighborhood.
Ms. Lisa Knappe (2220 Westover Avenue, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and stated
that she applauded the amendment. She said that she lived on a street with duplexes and with
homes that had been converted by back to single family. She said that problems experienced on
her street were caused by persons living in the duplexes. She said that she, as a homeowner,
fully approved of the amendments.
Ms. Sara Muse (617 6th Street, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and stated that she lived
in Old Southwest and had talked with many in her neighborhood about the amendment. She said
Roanoke City Planning Commission
Page 6
December 1, 1999
that she was in favor of the amendment and felt that anything that would save the housing stock
should be supported.
Mr. Bill Skeen (1938 Avon Road, S.W.) appeared before the Commission and said he was a
former member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership and was in favor of the proposal. He
said that it was a big step, and a historic step for the community. He said that the amendment
would change the complexion of the neighborhood and was important for Roanoke's long-term
viability. He thanked the staff for working so hard for so long on the project.
Mrs. Duerk asked for further comments. There were none. She then asked for those in
opposition to the amendment to stand. Three people stood. She then asked for those in support
of the amendment to stand. Between 20 and 25 people stood.
Mr. Manetta said he wanted to applaud the civic league and residents of Raleigh Court for their
willingness to continue to participate in the process. He said there were other steps to go,
however, he appreciated their diligence and willingness to see the project through. He said that
this amendment was also the first step in saying that the City of Roanoke was going to protect its
housing stock.
Mr. Rife mentioned that the City and County Planning Commission had recently met, and
multifamily housing had been mentioned, which was not a problem in Roanoke County. Mr.
Rife said that the City had to stop carrying the load ofmultifamily housing for the entire
community.
Mrs. Duerk recognized the board of directors of the Greater Raleigh Court Civic League for their
efforts in spearheading the entire process.
Mrs. Duerk then asked that a roll call vote be taken on the request to amend the zoning
ordinance. The request was approved by a vote of 7-0, as follows:
Mr. Butler - yes
Mr. Chrisman - yes
Mr. Hill - yes
Mrs. Duerk - yes
Mr. Dowe - yes
Mr. Manetta- yes
Mr. Rife - yes
o
Other Dis~n: ,
a. Mrs. Du'~ mentioned thane Transportation/Utilities/Facilities Committee
w,o.,uld b~e,. ,~,etin~g at 6 p.m,.., o~ednesday, January 12, 1999, at Woodrow
~W_,~l_s_o_n_ ~M,'~d~,~hool to_discuss'~ TEA-21 projects. This meeting would be
fo~, .Plan~ i,ng. C,o~'t~ission meeting at 7 p.m., to hear the
request to rezone panels in Raleigh Cohrt. She also noted that election of officers
ROANOKE VALLEY ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS®
3130 Chaparral Drive, SW, Suite 202
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Phone: 540-772-0526 · Fax: 540-772-8058 ° www. rvar. com
November 30, 1999
Ms. Barbara Duerk, Chairman
Roanoke City Planning Commission
Municipal Building
215 Church Ave., SW
Roanoke VA 24011
Re: Proposed Amendment ofRM-1 District Regulations
Dear Ms. Duerk:
We certainly have appreciated the opportunity offered by the Roanoke City
Department of Planning and Community Development, to participate in several forums
concerning proposed zoning changes in the Raleigh Court Neighborhood.
The Roanoke Valley Association of REALTORS applauds the goal of increasing
single-family home ownership in Roanoke's inner city neighborhoods. Increasing
individual homeownership and protecting individual property rights is the primary mission
of the REALTOR organization. To forward that goal, the Roanoke Valley Association of
REALTORS is proud to participate in the Blue Ridge Housing project as well as being a
founding member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Renaissance Committee.
Increasing and enhancing the housing stock while maintaining and strengthening
individual property rights is the goal of our organization.
We have reviewed the proposed citywide changes to RM-1 zoning that, in effect,
will remove duplex zoning from a "by-right" use to a "special exception" use.
At this time we oppose a blanket change to "special exception" status for duplex
use in ail Roanoke neighborhoods. The Association of REALTORS feels that such a
"blanket" action is unfairly broad and constitutes a restriction of property use without
compensation to the property owner.
We do understand that while zoned for duplex use, not all properties are suited for
such conversion. We understand the demand that parking and other considerations put on
neighborhoods.
With this in mind, we do not oppose the increase in lot size requirement from 5,000
square feet to 7,000 square feet for duplex use. We feel that even though this will, in effect,
remove many properties from the possibility of duplex use, this is a reasonable
accommodation and requirement for duplex use.
REALTOR® - is a registered mark which identifies a professional in real estate who subscribes to a strict Code of Ethics as
a member of the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS
The Roanoke Valley Association of REALTORS understands and applauds
reasonable actions that seek to increase the number of stakeholders or shareholders in a
neighborhood. Strong and vital neighborhoods provide a foundation for stable and growing
property values.
We look forward to continued discussion with the Department of Planning to
address concerns of high density, multi-family use. We would applaud the development
and use of financial incentives, as outlined in the Roanoke Renaissance report, to help
reduce the number of properties available for multi-family use and to encourage the
conversion of multi-family properties back to single-family use.
2000 President
MARY E PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I- 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 21,2000
File ~-422
Shirley Wbarra, Chair
Commonwealth Transportation Board
1401 E. Broad Street, Room 414
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Ms. Wbarra:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 34656-011800 requesting that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board establish a project for gateway and streetscape improvements within
the Williamson Road Corridor. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works/Traffic Engineer
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Evelyn S. Lander, Chief, Planning and Community Development
C:~lyFile~\jan 18.WlXl
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34656-011800.
A RESOLUTION requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board establish a
project for gateway and streetscape improvements within the Williamson Road corridor.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board's construction
allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received from the local
government in order that the Virginia Department of Transportation program an enhancement
project in the City of Roanoke; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roanoke supports the gateway and streetscape
improvements within the Williamson Road corridor;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City hereby endorses and requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
establish a project for gateway and streetscape improvements within the Williamson Road corridor,
said project being more particularly described in the City Manager's report dated January 18, 2000,
to City Council.
2. Pursuant to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century, the City hereby agrees
to pay a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the total cost for planning and design, fight-of-way
acquisition, and construction of this project, and that if the City subsequently elects to cancel this
project, the City hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation (the
"Department") for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
January 21,2000
File g-422
Shirley Wbarra, Chair
Commonwealth Transportation Board
1401 E. Broad Street, Room 414
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Ms. Wbarra:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 34655-011800 requesting that the Commonwealth
Transportation Board establish a project for the rehabilitation of the historic railroad building
adjacent to the functioning Norfolk Southern Rail yard, known as the N & W General Office
Building South, in connection with the provision of 87 upscale urban housing units to assist
Roanoke's technology industry in recruiting young educated workers to newly created high
paying technology jobs. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which was held on Tuesday, January 18, 2000.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
Enclosure
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Director, Public Works/Traffic Engineer
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Evelyn S. Lander, Chief, Planning and Community Development
C :'~3,4y Fil~,j an 18. wpd
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 18th day of January, 2000.
No. 34655-011800.
A RESOLUTION requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board establish a
project for the rehabilitation of the historic railroad building adjacent to the functioning Norfolk
Southern rail yard.
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Commonwealth Transportation Board's construction
allocation procedures, it is necessary that a request by resolution be received from the local
government in order that the Virginia Department of Transportation program an enhancement
project in the City of Roanoke; and
WHEREAS, the Council of the City of Roanoke supports the rehabilitation of the historic
railroad building adjacent to the functioning Norfolk Southern rail yard, known as the N&W General
Office Building South, for the provision of 87 upscale urban housing units to assist Roanoke's
technology industry in recruiting young educated workers to newly created high paying technology
jobs;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City hereby endorses and requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
establish a project for the rehabilitation of the historic railroad building adjacent to the functioning
Norfolk Southern rail yard, known as the N&W General Office Building South, said project being
more particularly described in the City Manager's report dated January 18, 2000, to City Council.
2. Pursuant to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century, the City hereby agrees
to pay a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the total cost for planning and design, property
acquisition, and construction of this project, and that if the City subsequently elects to cancel this
project, the City hereby agrees to reimburse the Virginia Department of Transportation (the
"Department") for the total amount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the
Department is notified of such cancellation, all of which is set forth in the City Manager's report
dated January 18, 2000, to this Council.
3. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby
authorized on behalf of the City to execute and attest respectively, all necessary and appropriate
agreements with the Department providing for the programming of such projects, said agreements
to be in such form as is approved by the City Attorney.
4. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby
authorized on behalf of the City to execute and attest respectively, any necessary and appropriate
agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority in connection with this project,
said agreement to contain the terms and conditions set forth in the City Manager's report dated
January 18, 2000, to this Council, including a term which requires the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority to be responsible for all matching funds and obligations undertaken by the City
by virtue of its agreement with the Department, and said agreement to be in such form as is approved
by the City Attorney.
5. The City Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the appropriate
officials at the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
ATTEST:
H:kRI~S~R-TEA-21 -RRHA-NW-GOB- I - 18-2000
City Clerk.
Roanoke City Department of Planning
and Community Development
Room 166, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2344 (Fax) 853-1230
Januaw 18,2000
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century (TEA-21)
I. Background:
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was signed into
federal law June, 1998. This action re-authorized the federal surface
transportation programs for six (6) years, from fiscal year 1998 to 2003,
replacing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA).
Bo
TEA-21 requires state departments for transportation to set aside 10% of
their Surface Transportation Program (STP) allocation each year for
transportation enhancements.
Under Virginia's Transportation Enhancement Program, projects that
increase the value or worth of a transportation project or make it more
aesthetically pleasing could qualify for the special funding. Eligible
projects include:
Additional facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists and provision of
safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
· Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites.
Development of scenic or historic highway programs and tourist
and welcome centers.
· Landscaping or other scenic beautification.
Historic preservation.
Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildinqs,
structures or facilities.
Roanoke City Planning Commission Architectural Review Board Board of Zoning Appeals
Members of Council
Page 2
Preservation of abandoned railway corridors.
Control and removal of outdoor advertising.
e Archeological planning and research.
Pollution mitigation due to highway run-off, including projects that
reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat
connectivity for threatened or endangered species.
Establish transportation museums.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) held a public meeting
regarding the TEA-21 enhancement program in Salem on November 3,
1999, at which citizens and public officials were able to ask questions and
learn more about this program.
D. Localities must review and endorse projects submitted for funding.
II. Current Situation:
Two (2) enhancement project applications have been received for City
review and are described in Attachments A and B.
Project applications must be formally endorsed by City Council and the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (prior to submitted to VDOT by the
applicant by January 31,2000). Approval of projects is expected to occur
in June, 2000.
Planning Commission's Transportation/Utilities/Facilities Committee met
on Wednesday, January 12, 2000, to discuss the two project applications.
Although they noted various historical inaccuracies in the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority application and several
typographical errors in the City of Roanoke's application, they voted to
endorse both projects. The committee also suggested that the applicants
consider expanding their enhancement categories in order to improve
their chances of funding.
Planning Commission met on Wednesday, January 20, 2000. Kent
Chrisman, chairman of the Transportation/Utilities/Facilities Committee,
advised that the Committee recommended approval of both applications.
There were no comments or questions from the audience.
Members of Council
Page 3
III. Recommendation:
Planning Commission, by a vote of 4-0-1 (Mr. Butler abstaining) voted to
recommend endorsement of the two project applications.
/f
attachments
cc: Assistant City Attorney
City Traffic Engineer
Respectfully submitted,
Melvin L. Hill, Chairman
Roanoke City Planning Commission
A TTA CHMENT A
ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT & HOUSING AUTHORITY
This project is a joint public/private venture between Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority (RRHA) and the Limited Liability members of the project. RRHA has taken the lead as
the managing member and as a conduit for the flow of grant and deferred loans to the project.
The project is the rehabilitation of a historic railroad building adjacent to the functioning Norfolk
Southern rail yard and is eligible for the enhancement program, under the following categories:
Acquisition of an historic site
Preservation of a historic building on the National Register of Historic Places
The rehabilitation and operation of an historic railroad building
The subject building was the original corporate headquarters for the Norfolk & Western Railway
when it moved from Philadelphia in 1896. The original building and the 1906 west wing addition
were designed in-house by Norfolk & Western engineers. The building has been known as the
N&W General Office Building South (GOB South) since 1931 when a new headquarters was built
in the adjacent General Office Building North. In 1992, both buildings were vacated when the
railroad again relocated its headquarters in downtown Roanoke. The GOB North building is
currently under renovation for adaptive reuse as the Roanoke Higher Education Building.
The rehabilitation of the building will adhere to the Department of the Interior standards for the
adaptive reuse of historic properties and will preserve the architecturally significant exterior of the
Neoclassical Revival style building built in 1896. Renovation of this building is important to the
perception of vitality and security of the downtown area and to the immediate neighbors, the newly
renovated Hotel Roanoke and Convention Center and the now under construction Roanoke Higher
Education Building.
This important historical building has been vacant for eight years and is starting to show signs of
deterioration from disuse. Because of its historical significance and its proximity to major tourist
attractions and cultural centers, it is critical that this once grand building be rehabilitated to a use
befitting its heritage and that it be returned to the City's tax rolls.
The tenants will bring over $2.1 million of disposable income to the area and are expected to
contribute over $81,000 annually to the City's tax base. The introduction of 87 upscale urban
housing units is expected to assist Roanoke's technology industry in recruiting young educated
workers to newly created high paying technology jobs.
Total estimated cost is $10,650,000. The application by the RRHA is requesting $650,000 in
TEA-21 enhancement funds.
A TTA CHMENT B
WILLIAMSON ROAD STREETSCAPE REVITALIZATION
This funding request for gateway and streetscape improvements within the
Williamson Road corridor is being made by the City of Roanoke as a combined
revitalization effort with the Williamson Road Area Business Association (WRABA).
Over the past few years, both the City and WRABA members have joined together in their
commitment to revitalize the Williamson Road corridor. They realize that improvements
to the pedestrian and vehicular environment must occur to strengthen and expand the
economic development and overall quality of life for the property owners and patrons of
the Williamson Road area.
Historically, Williamson Road has developed along with the increased use of the
automobile. Businesses have sought to attract patrons traveling down Williamson Road
in their cars (currently, approximately 17,500 vehicles per day) by means of streetscape
signage and ample off-street parking. As a result, the image of Williamson Road corridor
is a cluttered collection of signage, unsafe traffic conditions due to lack of organized curb
cuts for vehicular ingress/egress onto business properties.
Currently, the City of Roanoke has committed $575,000.00 for the funding of preliminary
planning and design of the entire corridor and construction of infrastructure improvements
at the Orange Avenue (Rt. 460)/Williamson Road intersection.
The goal of the Williamson Road revitalization project is to improve the safety and
efficiency of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic along this urban road. New sidewalks,
bus shelters and redesigned ingress/egress points onto Williamson Road will all enhance
the surface transportation element
Numerous public meetings and workshops have been held throughout the planning
process for this project. The Williamson Road Area Business Association and The
Williamson Road Action Forum, a neighborhood interest group, have been involved
throughout the course of the project and have committed their support. Meetings have
been held with the property/business owners to fully explain the project and how it will
affect their properties.
Total estimated cost is $1,000,000. The application by the City of Roanoke is requesting
$800,000 in TEA-21 enhancement funds.
~ECEIVEO
CITY CL
'00 J~NIO P3:0~
January 18, 2000
No. 00-106
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Background:
Transportation Equity Act for the 21 =t Century (TEA-21)
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) was signed into
federal law June, 1998. This action reauthorized the federal surface
transportation programs for six (6) years, from fiscal year 1998 to 2003,
replacing the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). The
new law provides $215 billion in spending authority for highways and transit,
including $3 billion for transportation enhancement projects.
TEA-21 requires state departments for transportation to set aside 10 percent
of their Surface Transportation Program (STP) allocation each year for
transportation enhancements.
Under Virginia's Transportation Enhancement Program, projects that
increase the value or worth of a transportation project or make it more
aesthetically pleasing could qualify for the special funding. Eligible projects
include:
Additional facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists and provision of
safety and educational activities for pedestrians and bicyclists.
Acquisition of scenic easements and scenic or historic sites
Development of scenic or historic highway programs and tourist and
welcome centers
Landscaping or other scenic beautification
Historic preservation
Rehabilitation and operation of historic transportation buildings,
structures or facilities
Preservation of abandoned railway corridors
Control and removal of outdoor advertising
Archeological planning and research
Pollution mitigation due to highway run-off, including projects that
reduce vehicle-caused wildlife mortality while maintaining habitat
connectivity for threatened or endangered species
Establish transportation museums
Mayor Bowem & Members of Council
No. 00-106 TEA-21
Page 2
Janua~ 18,2000
II.
II1.
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) held a public meeting
regarding the TEA-21 enhancement program in Salem on November 3,
1999, at which citizens and public officials were able to ask questions and
learn more about this program.
Current Situation:
Two (2) enhancement project applications have been received and are
described in Attachment A (Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority)
and Attachment B (City of Roanoke).
Proiect applications must be formally endorsed by City Council and the
Metropolitan Planning Organization (prior to submittal to VDOT by the
applicant by January 31, 2000). The Commonwealth Transportation Board
approval of projects is expected to occur in June, 2000.
Co
Planning Commission received these requests on January 12, 2000, and has
submitted a recommendation to City Council under separate cover.
Do
City Council resolutions that would endorse these two (2) project applications
also require, according to VDOT, that the City of Roanoke agree to pay a
minimum of 20 percent of the total cost for planning and design, right-of-way
and construction of the project, and that, if the City subsequently elects to
cancel a project, the City agrees to reimburse VDOT for the total amount of
the costs expended by VDOT through the date of cancellation of that project.
The project funding summaries, including the proposed source of the local
match, are described in Attachment C. An agreement to be executed
between the City and a project applicant will require the applicant to be fully
responsible for the matching funds as set forth in Attachment C and, if the
project is canceled, the agreement will also require the applicant to
reimburse the City for all amounts due VDOT.
Issues:
A. Timing
B. Funding
C. Legal
Mayor Bowers & Members of Council
No. 00-106 TEA-21
Page 3
January 18,2000
IV. Alternatives:
City Council endorse the project applications which are described in
Attachments A and B, and agree to pay the percentages described in
Attachment C, respectively, of the total cost for each project.
Timing is important. The project applications must be submitted by
the applicants to VDOT by January 31, 2000.
Funding for the projects, if approved by the State, is a maximum of
80 percent federal funds and a minimum of 20 percent local funds.
(VDOT requires the City to agree to pay a minimum of 20 percent of
the total project cost for these projects).
Legal requirements include, subject to project approval by VDOT, a
City/State Agreement by which the State holds the City as the
responsible agency for any approved project. A project applicant that
receives VDOT Enhancement Program funds must enter into a
separate agreement with the City by which the applicant shall fulfill all
of the obligations undertaken by the City, and perform all of the tasks
undertaken by the City, by virtue of the City's execution of the
City/State Agreement and will comply with each of the requirements
set forth in the City/State Agreement and all federal and state
regulations and requirements applicable to all work performed on the
Project, including performing, or contracting to perform, tasks relating
to the preliminary engineering and construction phases of the Project,
and procuring consultant services contracts and construction
contracts in accordance with the Virginia Public Procurement Act.
City Council not endorse the project applications described in Attachments
A and B.
1. Timing would not be an issue.
Funding, in the amount of up to 80 percent federal funds, would not
be received.
3. Legal requirements would not be an issue.
Mayor Bowers & Members of Council
No. 00-106 TEA-21
Page 4
January 18,2000
¥. Recommendation is that City Council approve Alternative "A" and:
A. Endorse by separate resolutions the project applications which are
summarized in Attachments A and B.
Agree to pay the respective percentages of the total cost for each project (as
described in Attachment C) and that, if the City elects to cancel any project,
the City would reimburse VDOT for the total amount of costs associated with
any work completed on either project through the date of cancellation notice.
Authorize the City Manager to execute, on behalf of the City, City/State
Agreements for project administration, subject to approval of project
applications by VDOT.
Authorize the City Manager to execute on behalf of the City, a legally binding
agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
(RRHA), subject to their application being approved by VDOT, requiring the
RRHA to be fully responsible for their matching funds (as described in
Attachment C) as well as all other obligations undertaken by the City by
virtue of the City/State Agreement.
City Manager
DLB/RKB/gpe
Attachments
copy: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Manager, Office of Management & Budget
Chief, Planning and Community Development
Traffic Engineer
A TTA CHMENT A
ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT & HOUSING AUTHORITY
This project is a joint public/private venture between Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority (RRHA) and the Limited Liability members of the project. RRHA has taken the lead as
the managing member and as a conduit for the flow of grant and deferred loans to the project.
The project is the rehabilitation of a historic railroad building adjacent to the functioning Norfolk
Southern rail yard and is eligible for the enhancement program under the following categories:
Acquisition of an historic site
Preservation of a historic building on the National Register of Historic Places
The rehabilitation and operation of an historic railroad building
The subject building was the original corporate headquarters for the Norfolk & Western Railway
when it moved from Philadelphia in 1896. The original building and the 1906 west wing addition
were designed in-house by Norfolk & Western engineers. The building has been known as the
N&W General Office Building South (GOB South) since 1931 when a new headquarters was built
in the adjacent General Office Building North. In 1992, both buildings were vacated when the
railroad again relocated its headquarters in downtown Roanoke. The GOB North building is
currently under renovation for adaptive reuse as the Roanoke Higher Education Building.
The rehabilitation of the building will adhere to the Department of the Interior standards for the
adaptive reuse of historic properties and will preserve the architecturally significant exterior of the
Neoclassical Revival style building built in 1896. Renovation of this building is important to the
perception of vitality and security of the downtown area and to the immediate neighbors, the newly
renovated Hotel Roanoke and Convention Center and the now under construction Roanoke Higher
Education Building.
This important historical building has been vacant for eight years and is starting to show signs of
deterioration from disuse. Because of its historical significance and its proximity to major tourist
attractions and cultural centers, it is critical that this once grand building be rehabilitated to a use
befitting its heritage and that it be returned to the City's tax rolls.
The tenants will bring over $2.1 million of disposable income to the area and are expected to
contribute over $81,000 annually to the City's tax base. The introduction of 87 upscale urban
housing units is expected to assist Roanoke's technology industry in recruiting young educated
workers to newly created high paying technology jobs.
Total estimated cost is $10,650,000. The application by the RRHA is requesting $650,000 in
TE^-21 enhancement funds.
A TTA CHMENT B
WILLIAMS ON ROAD S TREE TSCAPE RE VITA L IZA TION
This funding request for gateway and streetscape improvements within the
Williamson Road corridor is being made by the City of Roanoke as a combined
revitalization effort with the Williamson Road Area Business Association (WRABA).
Over the past few years, both the City and WRABA members have joined together in their
commitment to revitalize the Williamson Road corridor. They realize that improvements
to the pedestrian and vehicular environment must occur to strengthen and expand the
economic development and overall quality of life for the property owners and patrons of
the Williamson Road area.
Historically, Williamson Road has developed along with the increased use of the
automobile. Businesses have sought to attract patrons traveling down Williamson Road
in their cars (currently, approximately 17,500 vehicles per day) by means of streetscape
signage and ample off-street parking. As a result, the image of Williamson Road corridor
is a cluttered collection of signage and unsafe traffic conditions due to lack of organized
curb cuts for vehicular ingress/egress onto business properties.
Currently, the City of Roanoke has committed $575,000.00 for the funding of preliminary
planning and design of the entire corridor and construction of infrastructure improvements
at the Orange Avenue (Rt. 460)/Williamson Road intersection.
The goal of the Williamson Road revitalization project is to improve the safety and
efficiency of pedestrian, bicycle and vehicular traffic along this urban road. New sidewalks,
bus shelters and redesigned ingress/egress points onto Williamson Road will all enhance
the surface transportation element
Numerous public meetings and workshops have been held throughout the planning
process for this project. The Williamson Road Area Business Association and The
Williamson Road Action Forum, a neighborhood interest group, have been involved
throughout the course of the project and have committed their support. Meetings have
been held with the property/business owners to fully explain the project and how it will
affect their properties.
Total estimated cost is $1,000,000. The application by the City of Roanoke is requesting
$800,000 in TEA-21 enhancement funds.
ATTACHMENT C
Total Project Federal TEA-21 Non-federal total Applicant's Proposed
Project Applicant Cost Funds Requested by Applicant (%) Source of Funds (local match)
Roanoke Redevelopment and Equity capital and
Housing Authority $10,650,000 $650,000 $10,000,000 (94%) mortgages
Donation of private
property for additional
City of Roanoke $1,000,000 $800,000 $200,000 (20%) right-of-way
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
The Roanoke City Council will hold a public hearing on Tuesday, January 18, 2000, at
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber,
fourth floor of the Municipal Building, in order to consider previously received applications
for federal funds made available through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
(TEA-21) for transportation enhancement projects in FY 2000-2001.
Applicants must submit their project applications to the Virginia Department of
Transportation by January 31, 2000, with formal endorsement of the jurisdiction in which
the project would be constructed.
More details of the TEA-21 p.rogram are available in the Traffic Engineering Office
(853- 2686) or the Planning and CommUnity Development Office (863-2344).
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public
hearing, contact the City Clerk's Office (853-2541).
Given under my hand this day of December, 1999.
Mary Parker
City Clerk
.Please publish in January 4 and January 11,2000, editions of the Roanoke Times and in appropriate issue
of the Roanoke Tdbune. Publish in display ad format, not legal ad.
Bill to:
Robert K. Bengtson, P.E., Traffic Engineer
Public Works Service Center
1802 Courtland Road, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File ¢¢-468
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Linda F. Wyatt, Chair
Water Resources Committee
2543 Round Top Road, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Dear Ms. Wyatt:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000, a public hearing was held to consider proposed changes to the sewer
exemption meter credit program which would require all customers, where practical, to
place meters in meter boxes to facilitate the reading of meters by City employees.
Inasmuch as a number of persons spoke in opposition to the proposed changes, on
motion, duly seconded and adopted, the matter was referred back to the Water Resources
Committee for further study, report and recommendation to Council.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
Mr. George Gunther, P. O. Box 12353, Roanoke, Virginia 24024
Mr. Brian Allen, 1330 Lakewood Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Ms. Barbara Duerk, 2607 Rosalind Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mr. Charles Legg, 3602 Ridgewood Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Mr. William Hagan, 440 Canterbury Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Ms. Suzanne Osborne, 1702 Blair Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Dana D. Long, Chief, Billings and Collections
C:hMyFiles\janl 8.wpd
Dear Mayor Bowyers and Members of City Council, ~c~
/
The drat~ proposal requesting modification to the procedures for reporting outside water
use arrived at my home l0 days before tonights meeting.
t a staff member regarding the changes and expressed my concerns
for issues that affect me personally and the process in general.
a plumber to connect three outside spickets to a meter that is
located inside our home. This was done when a large amount of landscaping was being
done to modernize our 1920's home. At the same time we purchased a Maytag washing
machine that would pump water up to grade. A pipe was attached to allow wash water to
collect in holding tubs for outside water use.
The letter indicates~Ms-is-a draft d c ~%0,~"~ ,
It states that _ itizens and -businesses are affected by this change of policy.
It also states that the city is willing to work with businesses if they have water circulating
units on their rooves.
The system currently in use now does need to be modified to be more time effecient and
cost effective. I question that the proposed solution (I know this is what the county does)
is the.best one for all current customers.
I was not able to get a plumber on site before this meeting to estimate cost of a new T
location, moving the T fi.om inside my basement to a convenient lo{:ation outside my home
that would attach the the water line. l~'~ ~ c~l~ +0 "~ttl~/c~F~ oT /01um.,~4£_3
The quoted cost in the letter is approximately $200 for the plumber and then the cost of a
permit. At my residence, cost would include machinery to dig an additional line to
connect to the outside water line, extending the metered line outside my exterior wall and
the cost of moving the meter. Over the phone, two plumber's gave me a considerably
higher estimate than $200.
It is right to conserve precious resources such as water.
It is right to expect a time effection and cost effective system of accounting.
It is OK to add user fees to services.
It is NOT OK, it is NOT RIGHT, to tax a citizen for a product not used.
I am willing to work with the city to establish a system that is a WIN-WIN situation for
both the city and the citizen.
I urge city council to ask the Roanoke City billings and collections department to work
with citizens to find a viable way to work with businesses and citizens to resolve, perhaps
grandfather, the citizens presently utilizing this servi.ce.
Barbara Duerk
2607 Rosalind Ave., S.W.
Roanoke, Va 24014
Janua
Honorable Mayorand City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Sewer Exemption Meter Credit Program
The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at
its regular meeting on December 20, 1999. The Committee recommends to City
Council the change to the sewer exemption meter program which would require all
customers, where practical, to place the meters in meter boxes to facilitate reading of
these meters by city employees in accordance with Alternative "B" of the attached
report in order to maximize operational efficiency and to avoid increased costs of
manual processing with an effective date of February 1, 2000.
The Committee, also, recommends that City Council schedule and hold a public
hearing to give the public an opportunity to comment before Council enacts this
change.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Wyatt, Chairperson
Water Resources Committee
LFW: KBK:afm
Attachment
CC;
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations
Jesse Hall, Deputy Director of Finance
Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Water Department Manager
Dana D. Long, Chief of Billings & Collections
JAMES D. GRISSO
Director of Finance
December 20,
1999
CITY OF ROANOKE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 461
R O. Box 1220
Roanoke, Virginia 24006-1220
Telephone: (540) 853-2821
Fax: (540) 853-2940
JESSE A. HALL
Deputy Director
Members of Water Resources Committee
Roanoke, Virginia
RE: Sewer Exemption Meters
Dear Ms. Wyatt and Members of the Water Resources Committee:
The current procedures for sewer exemption meters provide poor internal control and
create operating inefficiencies due to manual processing. On September 20, 1999, the
Office of Billings and Collections implemented a new water/sewer billing System. This
system offers us new opportunities for enhanced services and has moved us into an
environment that is more automated. We need to continue to take advantage of
automation by moving away from manual processes.
This past year has brought to the forefront the city's need for a long-term water
conservation plan. This has also created an opportunity to increase our efforts in
conservation while taking advantage of automation and operational efficiency.
I concur with the Recommendation A in the attached report. However, ff this
Committee would not prefer this alternative, I fully support and concur with
Recommendation B. Either alternative would provide for operational efficiency, cost
avoidance, water conservation and have little impact on commercial operations.
Sincerely,
Director of Finance
JDG:s
Attachment
C:
James D. Ritchie, Acting City Manager
Wllliam M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Jesse Hall, Deputy Director of Finance
Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., M .anager, Water Department
December 20, 1999
Members of the Water Resources Committee
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Sewer Exemption Meter Credit Program
Dear Chairperson Wyatt and Members of the Water Resources Committee:
I. Back,round:
The City of Roanoke has had in effect a program whereby residential
customers and commercial customers can apply to the Director of
Utilities and Operations for permits to install a sewer exemption
meter which is used to obtain credits on their water/sewer bill. Out
of 40.000 customers, there are 279 sewer exemption meters privately
owned by both residential and commercial customers. Residential
customers own 215 of these meters and commerCial customers own
64. Sewer exemption meters are used primarily for lawn and garden
watering.
There is also a swimming pool credit program based on volume
calculated from the pool dimensions and an irrigation meter program
involving city-owned meters installed in the right-of-way and used
only for irrigation. The latter two programs are not addressed by this
report.
Once customers install the sewer exempt meter, they register with the
Office of Billings and Collections and subsequently marl in their
meter readings to obtain a credit on the sewer portion of their bill.
Adjustments are manually calculated and entered into the computer
billing system. The majority (65.4%) of the residential credits range
from $1.47 - $25.00. This manual process is particularly
burdensome because customers frequently fail to mail in their
readings and later call inquiring about a credit which results in
manual re-calculations and re-m~iling of the bill.
II. Current Situation:
The City of Roanoke has endured the worst drought in our history.
Through an extensive public information campaign, we have asked
citizens to conserve water through whatever means available. While
some conservation measures help in the immediate short term. a long
Members of the Water Resources Committee
December 20, 1999
Page 2
III.
term conservation plan is essential to protecting our water supply.
This is an appropriate time to examine existing programs that may be
counter to conservation efforts.
On April 5, 1999, City Council eliminated the permits for sewer
exemption meter credits effective May 1, 1999 due to the low water
levels in the Carvin's Cove reservoir.
In September 1999, a new water/sewer utility billing program was
implemented to allow us to maximize the benefits of automation.
Manual programs such as sewer exemption meter credits will not
allow optimal use of the new system.
Issues:
Cost Avoidance
B. Operational Efficiency
C. Water Conservation
D. Impact on Commercial Customers
Alternatives, in order of feasibility:
Water Resources Committee recommend to City Council the
elimination of sewer exemption meter program for residential
customers only. The sewer exemption meter credit program would
continue for those commercial customers whose water use is
essential to their business operations. Where practical, commercial
customers would be reqnired to place meters in a meter box as
outlined in Attachment A.
1. Cost Avoidance will be re~lized.
2. Operational Efficiency will be realt~l.
3. Water Conservation will be positively impacted.
Most commercial customers would receive little impact. Some
commercial customers would incur meter installation expense.
Members of the Water Resources Committee
December 20, 1999
Page 3
Water Resources Committee recommend to City Council changes to
the sewer exemption meter credit program whereby both residential
customers and commercial customers, where practical, would be
required to place meters In a meter box which could be read by the
City's meter readers. This program as outlined In Attachment A
would have no "grandfathering~ of prior procedures.
Cost Avoidance will be realized, but to a lesser degree than A
above. We would still be Incurring staff and operational costs.
There would be some cost savings for customers.
Operational Efficiency will be retails, ed, but to a lesser degree
than A above. Benefits of automation would be realized:
however, staff would still be Involved In reading the meters,
generating and bills, handling Inquiries, and m~lling bills.
Water Conservation will be negatively impacted as an Incentive
for water saving will be removed.
4. Residential customers will Incur meter Installation expense.
5. Commercial Customers would receive little impact. Some
customers would Incur meter Installation expense.
Water Resources Committee recommend to City Council no changes
to the sewer exemption meter credit program. This program would
resume upon lifting of the mandatory conservation measures or when
so enacted by City Council.
Cost Avoidance will not be realized. This program would
continue with staff Intensive manual processIng.
Operational Efficiency will not be realized. The benefits of
automation would not be re~li=ed.
Water Conservation will be negatively impacted as customers
would have no Incentive to save water. The issuance of credits
encourages non-essential water use.
4. Commercial Customers would have no impact.
Members of the Water Resources Committee
December 20, 1999
Page 4
V. Recommendation:
Authorize Alternative A, which recommends the elimination of the sewer
exemption meter program for residential customers only which will
maximize operational efficiency, avoid increased costs of manual
processing, and provide for long term water conservation; and, provide for
an amendment to §26-27 of the Code of the City of Roanoke.
Sincerely,
Dana D. Long, Chief
Office of Billings and Collections
DDL:s
Attachments
C:
James D. Ritchie, Acting City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Jesse Hall, Deputy Director of Finance
Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Water Department
Attachment A
Proposed Sewer Exemption Meter Program Procedures:
Customers desidng sewer credits for use of water that does not enter the sanitary
sewer system must obtain and install an AVVVVA approved meter in a standard meter
vault as per the attached diagram. The meter is to be located between the City's water
meter and the structure or dwelling on the customer's property. Meter readings will be
obtained by the City's meter readers dudng the regular meter reading cycle. These
readings will be automatically uploaded into the new water/sewer billing system to
generate an automatic credit on the customer's regular bill.
It is important that the meter be placed in a vault as depicted on the attached diagram
to ensure the ease in locating the meter and to ensure the safety of the meter readers.
Meter readers due to time and safety concerns will not be able to enter into backyards
or heavily landscaped areas to read meters.
There will be no "grandfathedng" of existing meters which are not located in a meter
vault.
Additional Draft Procedures:
1. A customer or their plumber will be required to obtain a plumbing permit and to
purchase an AWWA approved meter.
2. The sewer exemption meter must not be attached directly in line with the customer's
service line prior to the line entering, the structure. The sewer exemption meter shall be
placed On a "T' off the service line.
3. The sewer exemption meter must be located between the City's water meter and the
structure on the customer's property. This will allow City meter readers to easily locate
the meter in a safe and efficient manner.
4. Consumers are allowed to install any standard meter vault and setter as long as the
following requirements are met:
a. The meter can be easily removed for installation and maintenance.
b. The meter depth from the top to ground shall be a minimum of 12-15 inches.
c. The meter vault must be 2 feet in depth from the top of the ground.
d. The diameter of the vault opening shall be a minimum of 18 inches.
5. Once the customer or their plumber has completed the installation, a plumbing
inspection must be scheduled with the Roanoke City Building Inspections Department.
6. These procedures do not apply to city-owned irrigation meters and to large
commercial sewer exemption metem or to commercially owned sewer exemption
meters where it would be impractical or impossible to locate the meter in a meter vault
as per the diagram.
Estimated costs to the customer to install a sewer exemption meter:
Meter $23.00
Plumbing Permit $20.20
Do-it-yourself installation of the meter vault $50-$80 depending on quality of materials
used
Plumber's installation $200+ depending on hourly rates
Sewer Subtraction Meter
Installation D'~[afl
£EioUng V&ter ~e~,ice
Detail
t~o Scale
Sewer Exempt Meter Accounts
Note: some accounts have both sewer exempt meters and irrigation meters
Number of accounts
Citizens = 213
2 Nurseries --
-Cindy's Greenery- 1
Obenchains - 1
2
Misc Businesses = 33
*(see list below)
Mfg = 9 accounts
Valley Rich Dairy 4 meters
Walker Foundry
Gifford Hill Concrete 3 accounts
Coca Cola
Roanoke Electdc Steel
Roanoke Linen
Rainbo Bread
Roanoke Concrete Supply
Roanoke City Mills
Exterminators- 1
Lawn Dr - 1
Roanoke Country Club - 1
Church - 5 @ St Andrews
* Miscellaneous includes businesses such as Shenandoah Life, Roanoke Times,
Faison, AEP, Grand Piano, Brandon Oaks, Glen AsSociates, VA Hospital, Valley View
Assoc., Halmode Apparel, JC Penney, N & W, Cadlion, Fast Service Laundry
AD Number:
THE ROANOKE TIMES
'O0 d/lt'~ 14 P2:38
Publisher's Fee $ ~ ~- ~ d
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, (the undersigned), an authorized representative
of the Roanoke Times, which corporation is publisher
of The Roanoke Times, a daily newspaper published in
Roanoke, in the State of Virginia, do certify that the
annexed notice was published in said newspapers on
the following dates:
RUNDATES: :,~.-~. /,2./~::269t9~
Witness, this ! t//~ay of t,999-
NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING
TO WHOM IT M~y CONCERN:
Pursuant to the pro.dons of
,¥,$.2~:2204, ~ of Vlrglnla
~195u! as amended, ~le Coun-
u ~ Public He~ng on Tues-
the mater m~y be he~d, in
~ Council Chortler in the
MUmclpel Bu~ 21~ Church
k~Ue~ $.W., In ~ to con-
~' ~ ~ 28, ,~/ERS
me ~y of Roanoke
?he I}rO~o~®d ~m®ndm®nt
~ ~ ~ct~on 28-27
~ IREA?M[NT ~ND DIS-
(Authorized Signature)
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #5-51
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000, Mr. Martin Jeffrey, 517 Rutherford Avenue, N. W., requested that
Council consider the impact of the proposed amendments to Article III, Division 2,
Subdivision B., RM-1, Residential Multifamily District, Low Density District, Chapter 36.1,
Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, on other City
neighborhoods, specifically the Loudon/Melrose neighborhood that currently has 219
vacant lots.
Mr. Eric Minor, 819 Seventh Street, N. W., appeared before Council in connection with
alleged harassment by Police Officer W. G. Boucher, and requested that a committee be
appointed to investigate his concerns.
Mr. Jeffrey also spoke in regard to the concerns expressed by Mr. Minor. He addressed
the issue of perfection of justice which should be of concern to all citizens and to law
enforcement that is accountable for its actions. He expressed concern regarding an
incident involving another citizen and Police Officer Boucher which is currently under
investigation by the City.
It was the consensus of Council to refer the remarks of Mr. Jeffrey and Mr. Minor to the
City Manager.
C:~lyFil~s\j an 1 $.WlXi
Darlene L. Burcham
January 25,2000
Page 2
MFP:Io
pc:
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Mr. Martin Jeffrey, 517 Rutherford Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Mr. Eric Minor, 819 Seventh Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police
C:~vly Files\jan 18. wpd
August 25. 1999
MR ERIC MINOR
819 SEVENTH ST NW
ROANOKE VA 24016
Denr Mr. Minor:
On ~Tuly 25, 1999, you filed o formal complaint against Officer W. f. Boucher alleging that he harassed you
on that some dote by stopping you and issuing o summons for o violation that hod been previously dismissed
in court. Also, you allege that Officer Boucher is continually harassing you by intentionally being present near
your residence or wherever you may be.
On August 1, 1999, I sent you o letter advising you that the Professional Standards Unit would be
investigating that incident and encouraging you to contact our office to establish on appointment. On August
t2, 19gg, 5gt. C. ,T. Goons coiled your residence and spoke to o Michael Poyne who stated he would relay the
message to you to contact our office. Since that time I have had personal contact with you during the break
at the August iCh. City Council meeting confirming an appointment for the next morning. Sgt. C. ,T. Goons
then contacted you by telephone the next day rescheduling that appointment from [0:00 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. on
the same day. You were agreeable to that. However, you hove failed to appear at the scheduled times for
an interview.
This letter is again to encourage you to contact our office to schedule on appointment for the interview. If
you do not contact the Professional Standards Unit office by August 3I, 1999, the investigation into this
incident will be terminated. For your convenience the number is (540)853-2085 and the address is 312
Campbell Ave. S.W., Roanoke, Va. 24011.
Sincerely,
Lt. R. L. Ross
Office of Professional Standards
tlr
POLICE DEPARTMENT, 309 THIRD STREET, S.W., ROANOKE, VIRGINIA. 24011
OFFICE OF TIlE CilIEF OF POIJCE
July 9, 1998
Eric Jay Minor
1228 Orange Avenue NW
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Mr. Minor:
On March 13, 1998, you initiated three complaints with Roanoke City Police
Department, alleging that an officer acted improperly during the times you were
arrested.
After a thorough investigation of this incident, and an evaluation of the facts, I find
the officer acted appropriately and professionally. If I may be of further assistance,
please do not hesitate to contact this office.
Sincerely,
· /
A. L/JGasldns
ChiOl' of Police
POi.ICE DEPARTMENT, 309 TilIRI} STREET, S.W., ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #5
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000, Mr.. Cad Cooper, 2120 Carroll Avenue, N. W., recommended that
cameras be installed in all police vehicles as soon as possible.
It was the consensus of Council to refer the matter to the City Manager for appropriate
response.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc~
Mr. Carl Cooper, 2120 Carroll Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
A. L. Gaskins, Chief of Police
C:~lyFilcs\jan 18.WlXt
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
January 25, 2000
File #132
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
William M. Hackworth
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hackworth:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on Tuesday,
January 18, 2000, you were requested to prepare the proper measure providing that the
7:00 p.m. regular session of Council to be held on Tuesday, February 22, 2000, will be
held in the Exhibition Hall of the Roanoke Civic Center.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
C:h¥1yFilc~\j an 18.WlXt