HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 11-17-97WYATT
33645
ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
November 17, 199 7
12:lSp. m. ~'
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
Call to Order-- Roll Call. AU Present.
Ao
A report of the City Manager with regard to the Jefferson Center
Master Plan. (20 minutes)
File #337-405
At 12:55 p.m., the meeting was declared in recess until 2:00 p.m.
H?u~,G ENDA.g~NOV17.AG E 1
ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
November 17, 1997
2:00p. m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
A GEND.~I FOR THE COUNCIL
Call to Order-- Roll Call. All Present.
The Invocation was delivered by The Reverend Larry Atkin, Pastor,
Edgewood Christian Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Mayor David A. Bowers.
Welcome. Mayor Bowers.
Introduction of Ukrainian delegation. Mayor Bowers.
The Mayor presented photographs of the Roanoke Valley and logo
lapel pins.
File #80
H:~,AGENDA.9'/~NOV17.AGE 2
Meetings of Roanoke City Council are televised hve on RVTV Channel 3.
Today's meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Thursday, November 20,
1997, at 7:00 p.m.
0
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
MONDAY COUNCIL MEETING TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME
FOR REVIEW OF INFORMATION. CITIZENS WHO ARE
INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF ANY ITEM LISTED ON
THE AGENDA MAY CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE,
ROOM 456, MUNICIPAL BUILDING, OR AT 853-2541.
CONSENT AGENDA
C-1
C-2
(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.
Minutes of the special meetings of City Council held on Tuesday, July 15,
1997, Monday, July 28, 1997, and Tuesday, July 29, 1997.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading thereof and approve
File/t132 as recorded.
A communication fi.om Mayor David A. Bowers recommending
consideration of an appropriate means of recognition for former Mayor Noel C.
Taylor.
File #80-132-200
H:~AG ENDA.g7~OV17. AGE 3
C-3
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
File #80-132
Refer to the City Planning Commission for
review and recommendation as to an appropriate
means of recognition for former Mayor Noel C.
Taylor.
A communication from Gilbert E. Butler, Jr., Secretary, Roanoke City
Electoral Board, transmitting an abstract of votes cast in the general and special
election held in the City of Roanoke on Tuesday, November 4, 1997.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
File #40-53-132
C-4
C-5
A communication from Richard S. Winstead tendering his resignation as
a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Parmership Steering Committee.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file the communication and accept
File #110-488 the resignation.
Qualification of Robert Williams, Jr., as a member of the Blue Ridge
Community Services Board of Directors for a term ending December 3 l, 1999.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
File #15-110-335
REGULAR AGENDA
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
None.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
A communication from the Roanoke City School Board requesting
appropriation of funds to certain school accounts; and a report of the
Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 33645-111797, Resolution No. 33646-
111797, and Resolution No. 33647-111797. (7-0)
File 060-53-236-467
H:~GENDA.97~OV17.AGE
4
bo
A communication from Council Member C. Nelson Harris with regard to
the International Sculpture Garden on Mill Mountain.
A motion that the International Sculpture Garden developed by
Roanoke Sister Cities be approved to be located in Mill Mountain
Park at the site outlined in the Master Plan developed by David Hill,
PC, was defeated. (Council Members Parrott, Swain, Trout and
White voted no).
File #67-230-311-327
At the request of the petitioners, a public hearing on the request of
ManorCare Health Services, Inc., and Roanoke Lodge #197
Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the United States of
America, that a tract of land containing 3.62 acres located at 1147
Persinger Road, S. W., be fez#ned from RS-3, Residential Single
Family District, to RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioners,
was continued until the regular meeting of Council on Monday,
December 15, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard.
File 051
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
a. CITY MANAGER:
None.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
A report recommending execution of Amendment No. 2 to the
Community Development Block Grant Agreement between the
City and the Blue Ridge Small Business Development Center, Inc.,
for funding of the Small Business Incubator program.
Adopted Resolution No. 33648-111797. (7-0)
File #236-384-450
H:~,GENDA. OT~IOV17.AGE
5
A report recommending purchase of two new ambulances from
Wheel Coach Industries, Inc., at a total cost of $121,762.00.
Adopted Resolution No. 33649-111797. (7-0)
File #188-472
A report recommending acceptance of a DUI Enforcement Grant
offer made to the City by the Commonwealth of Virginia's
Transportation Safety Board; and appropriation of funds in
connection therewith.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 33650-111797 and Resolution
No, 33651-111797, (7-0)
File #60-5-20-236-316
A joint report of the City Manager and Director of Finance
recommending authorization to issue $13,010,000.00 of General
Obligation Public Improvement Bonds approved by the voters on
November 4, 1997, and authorization to award the w/nning bid and
to affix the interest rates to be borne by the bonds; and a report of
the City Attorney in connection with the matter.
Adopted Ordinance No. 33652-111797. (7-0)
File #53-217-467
b. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
A report transmitting the audited fiscal year 1997 Comprehensive
Annual Financial Report for the City of Roanoke.
Received and fried.
File #1-10
A report recommending certain funding adjustments in connection
with the Huff Lane School Improvement Project.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 33653-111797 and Resolution
No. 33654-111797. (7-0)
File #20-60-53-77-455-467
H:~,GENDA.g7~NOV17.AG E
6
6. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
ao
A report of the Board of Trustees, City of Roanoke Pension Plan, with
regard to a review of pension benefits. F. Wiley Hubbell, Chairperson,
and James D. Grisso, Secretary-Treasurer.
Referred to 1998-99 Budget Study.
Richard B. Sarver, representing the Roanoke Firefighters
Association, advised that a survey of other governmental pension
plans in Virginia show that five retirement plans offer a fifty percent
automatic spousal allowance with no reduction to the retiree. He
requested that Council adopt a measure revising the actuarial table
used to calculate the reduction factor for electing a spousal benefit
and instead of a nine percent reduction for no age difference, use a
five percent reduction for up to five years age difference.
File tt60-70-184-429
bo
A report of the Legislative Committee recommending adoption of a
Resolution endorsing the City's 1998 Legislative Program. Council
Member William White, Sr., Chairperson.
Adopted Resolution No. 33655-111797. (7-0)
File 11132-137-467
7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
Ordinance No. 33640, on second reading, amending and reordaining
Section 6-40, Ro_qllk_~, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, to require licensing of dogs which are four months old or older,
H:~AGENDA.g'/~NOV17.AGE
7
and mending and reordaining subsection (a) of Section 6-62, Xagar, klatiml
of dogs and cats, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
to require rabies vaccinations of any dog or cat which is four months old
or older.
Adopted Ordinance No. 33640-111797. (7-0)
File #24-54-322
bo
Ordinance No. 33643, on second reading, authorizing the abandonment
of a certain 15' wide public utility easement located on property owned by
the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, upon certain terms
and conditions.
Adopted Ordinance No. 33643-111797 (7-0)
File #28-178-330
c. A Resolution memorializing the late William R. Hackley, Sr.
Adopted Resolution No. 33656-111797. (7-0)
File #80-367-467
d. A Resolution memorializing the late Andrew W. Hull.
Adopted Resolution No. 33657-111797. (7-0)
File #80-367-467
9. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
a. Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council.
The City Clerk was in.gtructed to confer with the Members of Council
regarding tentative meeting dates in January and/or February for a
status report on the Council's visioning/team building process,
f'mancial planning, and Council technology enhancements.
File #60-132-404
H:~AGENDA.g'~NOV17.^GE
8
Council Member Swain applauded efforts of the City Manager to
organize a committee to address core community problems. He
advised that the term "core community" should be def'med in greater
detail, and inquired as to how average citizens who live in the core
communities may communicate their input.
File#II0-200
Council Member Swain referred to areas in the City that are in need
of trash cleanup, removal of junk cars, and removal of dilapidated
structures, and advised that he would provide the City Manager with
specific information following the Council meeting.
File 0144-178-200
Council Member Swain referred to a recent newspaper article in
regard to acquiring property in the Southern Hills neighborhood by
a private developer in which it was quoted that the developer paid the
best it could for black properties. He advised that the comment
indicates that there might be a double standard in dealing with
citizens in the City of Roanoke.
File #2-66
Council Member Harris requested that the City Attorney be
instructed to prepare the proper measure expressing appreciation to
the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Roanoke
Central Council P.T.A. and any other appropriate organizations for
their work in promoting the successful $39 million bond referendum
which was approved by the voters of the City of Roanoke on Tuesday,
November 4, 1997.
File #53-80
Council Member Harris advised that on Monday, September 22,
1997, Council tabled a request of Bobby Lee Willis that a certain
tract of land located at 1102 Centre Avenue, N.W., Official Tax No.
2112311, be rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to
RS-3, Residential Single Family District, in order to resolve certain
H:~,GEN DA.gT~OV17.AGE
9
issues. Council adopted a motion that the matter be taken from the
table for continuation of the public hearing at the regular meeting to
be held on Monday, December 15, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard.
File #51
Council Member White advised that due to personal reasons, The
Reverend Cedric Malone who was appointed by Council to serve on
the City Planning Commission on Monday, September 22, 1997, is
unable to fulfill his responsibilities, and inquired as to the procedure
to declare the position vacant.
It was the consensus of Council that the City Clerk would request a
written resignation from Reverend Malone and the vacancy would be
assigned to Council Member White to recommend a replacement.
File #110-200
bo
Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees
appointed by Council.
10. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR OUR
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. IT IS THE CITIZENS' TIME TO SPEAK
AND COUNCIL'S TIME TO LISTEN. MATTERS REQUIRING
REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED,
WITHOUT OBJECTION, IMMEDIATELY FOR ANY NECESSARY
AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT
BACK TO COUNCIL.
At 5:20 p.m., the meeting was declared in recess until 7:00 p.m.
ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
November 17, 199 7
7:00p. m.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
Call to Order-- Roll Call. An Present.
The Invocation was delivered by Mayor David A. Bowers.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Mayor Bowers.
Welcome. Mayor Bowers.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1.
Continuation of a public hearing on the request of Elizabeth W.
McMichael and Daniel Lee Beamer for an amendment to proffered
conditions presently binding on property located at 2219 Franklin Road,
H:~qE_NQA ~7~0V17 ^OE
11
S. W., described as Official Tax No. 1150108, previously conditionally
rezoned pursuant to Ordinance No. 32574-072495 adopted on July 24,
1995. Steven L. Higgs, Attorney.
Denied. (Council Members Wyatt, Harris, Swain, Trout and White
voted no)
File #51
Public hearing on the request of ManorCare Health Services, Inc., and
Roanoke Lodge No. 197, Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks of the
United States of America, that a tract of land containing 3.628-acres,
more or less, located at 1147 Persinger Road, S. W., being a portion of
Official Tax No. 1260214, be rezoned fi.om RS-2, Residential Single
Family D/strict, to RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioners.
Maryellen F. Goodlatte, Attorney.
The public hearing was continued until the regular meeting of
Council on Monday, December 15, 1997, at 7:00 p.m.
File 051
o
Public hearing on the request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., that 32.68
acres, more or less, identified as Official Tax Nos. 6440117 - 6440119,
inclusive, be rezoned fi.om RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium
Density District, RS-3, Residential Single-family District, and C-2,
General Commercial District, respectively, to C-2, General Commercial
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Edward
A. Natt, Attorney.
Adopted Ordinance No. 33658 on first reading. (7-0)
File #51
Council Member White expressed concern with regard to safety
issues and inquired if there are plans to extend the sidewalk from
Cove Road to Peters Creek Road, N.W., whereupon, the City
Manager advised that the matter will be investigated with a report
to Council within thirty days.
File #20-51-57
H:~AG. E[NDA.971~OV'I ?.AGE
12
Public hearing on the request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., for
amendment of the proffered conditions for rezoning of a tract of land
containing 13.261 acres, more or less, located on the north side of
Hershberger Road, identified as Official Tax Nos. 6450101, 6450118 and
6450117 (formerly 6450101 and 6450102), which property was
previously rezoned by the Council of the City of Roanoke, pursuant to
Ordinance No. 25204, adopted on July 28, 1980, fi.om RG-1, General
Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to
certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Edward A. Natt, Attorney.
Adopted Ordinance No. 33659 on first reading. (7-0)
File 051
B. OTHER HEARING OF CITIZENS:
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR OUR
CITIZENS TO BE HEARD. IT IS THE CITIZENS' TIME TO SPEAK
AND COUNCIL'S TIME TO LISTEN. MATTERS REQUIRING
REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED,
WITHOUT OBJECTION, IMMEDIATELY FOR ANY NECESSARY
AND APPROPRIATE RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT
BACK TO COUNCIL.
Mr. Jeff Artis, 727 Highland Avenue, S. E., requested that Council
investigate the following school related matters:
Change the policy of requiring Roanoke City Schools to pay rent for
use of Victory Stadium and the Roanoke Civic Center for sporting
events;
0
Change the policy regarding the manner in which concessions are
handled at Victory Stadium and the Roanoke Civic Center to allow
the Roanoke City Schools to operate concession stands at William
Fleming and Patrick Henry High School basketball games and that
the revenue be used to decrease the athletic deficit of the school
system;
A commitment from City Council to assist the Roanoke City Schools
to increase revenues by either constructing or renovating a sports
facility which will include a football complex comparable to that at
Salem High School and an eight lane track facility which will allow
sports programs to become self-sufficient.
Vice-Mayor Wyatt requested that the City Manager review the policy
whereby the School system and the City impose rental fees on each other
for use of City and School facilities.
It was the consensus of Council that the remarks of Mr. Artis would be
referred to the City Manager for report to Council within thirty days and
that the Roanoke City School Board be requested to address the matter at
a joint meeting of Council and the School Board on Monday, December 15,
1997, at 12:00 noon.
File #166-467
RECEIVED
CITY CLERI~,S PF'FiCF
'97 NOV 10 / 10:14
November 17, 1997
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council:
Subject: Briefing - Jefferson Center Master Plan
Please reserve space on your 12:15 p.m. session agenda for a briefing regarding the
above subject.
Respectfully,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:WFC:pr
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS
CITY OF ROANOKE
'97 ~¥ l0 P4:40
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Mary Parker, City Clerk
Dolores Daniel~st. to the City Manager for Community Relations
Nov. 10, 1997
Ukrainian Delegation to be introduced at City Council on Nov. 17, 1997
On Monday, November 17, 1997, there will be five Ukrainian delegates attending City Council at
2:00 p.m. Attached is the list of these delegates. We are requesting that Mayor Bowers introduce
and present them with appropriate girls from the city. They will be arriving here Wednesday,
November 13, 1997 and will visit with us through next Monday.
Also, you and members of council have been invited to a luncheon on Monday at 11:30 a.m. That
should give each of us enough time to meet them personally. Only one of the five speaks English.
The other four will have interpreters.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
LEGACY INTERNATIONAL
Community Connections
Government Officials Program/Lviv, Ukraine
November 10-November 26, 1997
Serhiy Bida- Head of Computer and Technology Department at Lviv City Council. His responsibilities
include maintaining the computer network, assigning, personnel for specific tasks, and planning computer
courses for City Council staff. He would like to master computer networking skills while in the US. DOB
8/26/55
Yaroslava Bilostotska - Deputy Director of the Shevchenko District Administration. The District
Administration directs social and economic development, and as well as develops various ecological,
welfare, and cultural programs. Mrs. Bilostotska also heads the human resources department. She would
like to see the work of human resource departments in the US, the electoral campaign, and the relationship
between the communities of the districts and the local government. DOB: 3/19/59
Zinaviy Guzar - Head of Health Department at Lviv City Council. The Department leads and controls the
activity' of 29 medical institutions (hospitals, polyclinics, etc.) with 15,000 employees. Mr. Guzar heads the
State programs in health protection, addressing the organizational, financial, and human resource problems
of the medical network of Lviv. Mr. Guzar has implemented paid medical services, created a network of
family doctors, and opened the first hospital in the region for terminally ill patients. He is interested in the
family doctor medical system in the US. DOB: 8/13/57
Yuri Hrynchyshyn - Manager of Halych District Administration of Lviv City Council. Halych District
Administration is a subdivision of Lviv City Council and is responsible for adherence to the legislation
requirements and city council decisions. Mr. Hrynchyshyn administrates social welfare, education, and
lodging. He would like to learn about professional skills of employees at US local government institutions,
become acquainted with the social welfare system, and the educational system. DOB: 5/30/94'
Natalia Kirtchiv - Leading Specialist at the Committee tbr International Relations. Duties include logistics
coordinator for foreign official delgations, diplomatic protocol, correspondence with foreign embassies and
other diplomatic representatives in Ukraine. She also provides translation, interpretation, and preparation of
analytical reviews. Ms. Kirtchiv would like to learn about planning, budgeting, and estimation of
effectiveness of PR campaigns in the US, and to establish contacts with American colleagues to "sell" Lviv
to the outside world. DOB:7/22/59
156
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL ........... SPECIAL MEETING
July 15, 1997
8:30 a.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke held its first special meeting/workshop to
discuss a report of the Modified Election District Task Force on Tuesday, July 15,
1997, at 8:30 a.m., in the Social Services Conference Room, Room 306, Municipal
Building North, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor David A.
Bowers presiding, pursuant to a motion adopted by the Members of City Council at
its regular meeting held on Monday, July 7, 1997.
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, John H. Parrott (arrived at 9:45
a.m.), Carroll E. Swain, James O. Trout, William White, Sr., Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor
David A. Bowers ........................................................................................... 7.
ABSENT: None ...................................................................................... 0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: James D. Ritchie, Assistant City Manager; Wilburn C.
Dibling, Jr., City Attorney; James D. Grisso, Director of Finance; Willard N. Claytor,
Director of Real Estate Valuation; Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor; and Sandra H.
Eakin, Deputy City C'~rk.
OTHERS PRESENT: William F. Clark, Director of Public Works; John R.
Marlles, Chief of Community Planning; Matthew J. Miller, Manager of Information
Services, Fifth Planning District Commission; William D. Bestpitch, Member,
Modified Election District Task Force; Michael F. Urbanski, Member, Modified
Election District Task Force; Mary Allen, Member, Modified Election District Task
Force; The Reverend Charles T. Green; and Mary Bishop, The Roanoke Times.
The Mayor advised that the purpose of the meeting was to conduct the first
of three work sessions of Council to review and approve a modified election district
plan, including the boundaries of the proposed election districts, to be the subject
of a referendum on November 4, 1997. He explained that by motion adopted on April
22, 1996, City Council created the Citizens Task Force to Recommend a Modified
Election District System for the Election of Members of the Roanoke City Council,
and after an extensive public participation process, including the conduct of
workshops in eleven neighborhoods of the City, the Task Force rendered its final
report to City Council on June 16, 1997; and Council intends to afford additional
ample opportunity for public participation as to alternative election procedures,
including the condu ~. of a public hearing at 7:00 p.m., on Monday, July 28, 1997.
157
The City Attorney referred to the notebook on the Modified Election District
Plan dated July 15, 1997, advising that the Citizens Task Force to Recommend a
Modified Election District System for the Election of Members of the Roanoke City
Council rendered its final report to City Council on June 16, 1997; and at its regular
meeting held on Monday, July 7, 1997, Council considered the Chronology Part I for
the Referendum on the Modified Election District System and set the dates for three
work sessions to be held by Council on July 15, July 29, and August 12, 1997( if
needed), as well as a public hearing to be held on Monday, July 28, 1997, at 7:00
p.m., and also decided to hold a referendum as to the proposed Charter amendment
on November 4, 1997.
The City Attorney referred to tab 2 in the notebook containing Guidelines and
Procedures for the Creation of Election Districts, advising that attempting to provide
legal advice as to the drawing of election districts is an extremely dangerous
activity; the Department of Justice's views have been out of sync with Supreme
Court (see Shaw v. Hunt (June 13, 1996) 64 LW 4437, 4438 (Shaw II); there has been
considerable disagreement between the Justices of the United States Supreme
Court as to what the Constitution and Voting Rights Act (VRA) require; racial
gerrymandering that classifies citizens by race, like any other government action
that classifies citizens on the basis of race, is constitutionally suspect, and courts
will apply strict scrutiny (Shaw II, 64 LW at 4439); the constitutional wrong occurs
when race becomes the dominant and controlling consideration (Shaw II, 64 LW at
4439); strict scrutiny does not apply merely because districts are created with
consciousness of race; and as long as traditional districtin~j principles are not
subordinated to race, a majority-minority district should pass constitutional muster
(Bush v. Vera, 64 LW at 4454).
With regard to Traditional Districting Principles, the City Attorney referred to
the "one person-one vote" principle, advising that guidelines for creation of election
districts include the following: districts should be drawn, as nearly as practicable,
to give representation in proportion to the population of a district (Article VII, §5,
Constitution of Virginia); equal protection guarantee of "one person, one vote"
requires that representatives of elected bodies be elected from districts of
substantially equal population (Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 577 (1964); it should
be recognized that it is practically impossible to draw districts so that each one has
an identical number of persons (Reynolds v. Sims, at 577); relatively minor
population deviations among districts do not substantially dilute the weight of
individual voters so as to create a constitutional violation (White v. Regester, 412
U.S. 755, 764 (1973); as a general rule, an apportionment plan with a maximum
population deviation under 10 percent falls within the category of minor deviation;
a plan, however, with larger disparities in population creates a prima facie case of
158
discrimination that must be justified by the government (Brown v. Thomson, 462 U.
S. 835, 842-843 (1983), thus, total deviation of less than 10 per cent between districts
should be a goal; in drawing district lines, population figures from the most recent
decennial United States Census should be used (Section 15.1-37.5, Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended); districts should be composed of contiguous and compact
territory (Article 7, §5, Constitution of Virginia; §24.2-305); contiguity requires that
a district be one ge[.~raphical unit; compactness is difficult to define, but lack of
compactness is evidence of gerrymandering; election districts should follow clearly
defined and clearly observable features, such as roads, highways, rivers, streams,
railroad tracks (Section 24.2-305, Code of Virginia); census blocks should not be
split in drawing district lines; each precinct shall be wholly contained within an
election district (Section 24.2-307); neighborhoods, particularly minority
neighborhoods, should not be split up; and "communities of interest" should be
protected in drawing district lines, defined as a recognizable area with similarities
of interest, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, geographic, economic, social,
cultural or historic interests, as well as commonality of communications and
transportation links (H JR 57, 1991 Session of General Assembly).
With regard to the Voting Rights Act, the City Attorney advised that Section 2
prohibits any voting practice or procedure that denies or abridges the right of any
citizen to vote on account of race or color; the 1982 Amendment to Section 2
provides that violation does not require proof of intent to discriminate, violation may
occur if a practice or procedure has the effect, based on the totality of
circumstances, of denying minoritieS of equal opportunity to participate in the
political process and elect representatives of their choice; violation of Section 2 may
occur if district line= are drawn to fragment politically cohesive minority voters
among several districts or if they are packed into one district to dilute minority
voting strength (Shaw II, 64 LW at 4442); in order for there to be Section 2 liability,
a minority group must be "geographically compact" (Shaw II, 64 LW at 4442); does
not require the creation of majority-minority district that is not reasonably compact
(Bush v. Vera, 64 LW at 4460); the VRA does not require political subdivisions to
maximize the number of majority-minority voting districts (Shaw II, 64 LW at 4441);
Section 5 requires every jurisdiction in the South, as well as certain other areas
around the nation, to obtain Department of Justice preclearance of any voting
change; preclearance applies all the requirements of Section 2 to any changes in
voting plans or election practices; no plan may dilute minority voting strength;
Section 5 has a limited goal, which is to insure that voting changes will not lead to
retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to effective exercise
of the electoral franchise (Bush v. Vera, 64 LW at 4461); and Section 5 does not
guarantee electoral success for a minority group, it merely mandates that minority's
o_~_oortunity_ to elect representatives of its choice will not be diminished by State
action (Bush v. Vera, 64 LW at 4461).
The City Attorney referred to other districting principles, as follows:
a. Objective guidelines should be followed in creating districts.
Minority group members must have the opportunity to participate
in the decision-making process.
Districts should provide proportional representation to the
minority community.
H)
Number of majority-minority districts should
approximate the percentage of minority population
of the community.
(2)
If there are at-large seats, the minority percentage
will be measured against all seats rather than just
against election district seats.
minority districts consisting of
population.
(1) purpose of the policy was to account for
The
alleged higher percentage of persons under
eighteen years of age in minority communities,
lower voter registration rates and lower rates of
voter turnout.
Department of Justice has traditionally sought "super majority"
60-65 percent minority
159
(2)
Under recent Supreme Court decisions holding that
race cannot be a dominant or controlling factor in
creating districts, this rule of thumb is in question.
Use of total population versus voter age population:
There has been much conflict and uncertainty as to
whether total population or voter age population
should be the constitutional standard.
(2)
Use of total population furthers representational
equality.
160
(3) Use of voter age population furthers electoral
e ~.*~ality.
(4) Daly v. Hunt, 93 F.3d 1212 (4th cir. 1997)
(a)
Mecklenburg County, N.C., plan for
election of County commissioners; 3
at large and 6 from single member
districts.
(b)
Deviation between districts:
Total population - 8.33%
Voter age population - 16.17%
(c)
Because deviation, based on total
population, was within acceptable
limits, Court approved the plan.
(5) Rule of thumb:
When the issue is one person, one
vote, use total population.
(b)
When the issue is minority
representation, use voter age
population.
The City Attorney advised that the legal procedural steps in establishment of
an election district system are set out in the notebook in the Chronology Part I
attachment to the Guidelines and Procedures for the Creation of Election Districts;
and the Chronology Part II attachment sets forth steps for implementation of a
modified election district system if approved by the electorate, which assumes a
favorable response from the Department of Justice and no litigation. Mr. Dibling
stated that according to the legal procedural steps set forth in the Chronology Part
I, Council should adopt a resolution approving the language of the proposed Charter
amendment and question to be placed on the ballot and directing the City Attorney
to take the necessary action to cause a referendum to be held.
161
ACTION:
Mr. Trout offered the following resolution:
(#33496-071597) A RESOLUTION adopting guidelines to be adhered to by City
Council in reviewing and approving a modified election district plan for the election
of members of City Council and in the drawing of election districts for City Council.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 60, page 57.)
Mr. Trout moved the adoption of Resolution No. 33496-071597. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris.
The Mayor inquired as to whether the guidelines in the report are substantially
the same as those recommended by the Task Force; whereupon, the City Attorney
advised that the guidelines are substantially the same with some minor revisions.
The Mayor also inquired as to whether this plan is legally defensible; whereupon, the
City Attorney advised that the plan is legally defensible.
Mr. Harris stated it is his understanding that the boundaries as currently
drawn would essentially be what will be used in the referendum, and inquired as to
whether the boundaries could be changed; whereupon, the City Attorney advised
that the resolution adopting guidelines endorses no plan, it only sets guidelines;
that the Department of Justice could recommend changes; and the courts ultimately
have jurisdiction over boundary changes, disputes, etc.
Following discussion, Resolution No. 33496-071597 was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Swain, Trout, White, Wyatt, and
Mayor Bowers ................................................................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................... 0.
(Mr. Parrott had not entered the meeting.)
The City Attorney referred to tab 4 in the notebook containing a draft of the
proposed Charter amendment, as follows:
Composition of council; election of mayor, vice-mayor and
members; terms; creation of election districts; continuinq body'
vacancies.
162
(a)
On and after July 1, 2000, the council shall consist
of the mayor, vice-mayor and five (5) other
members to be elected and to serve for the terms
set forth in this section.
(b)
The mayor of the city shall be elected at large by the
qualified voters of the city on the first Tuesday in
May, 2000. The mayor shall serve for a term of four
(4) years from the first day of July next following the
date of election and until a successor is elected and
qualified.
(c)
The vice-mayor of the city shall be elected at large
by the qualified voters of the city beginning with the
regular councilmanic election on the first Tuesday
in May, 2002. The vice-mayor shall serve for a term
of four (4) years from the first day of July next
following the date of election until a successor is
elected and qualified.
[Insert here method of electing vice-mayor
for time period of July 1, 2000 through June
30, 2002]
(d)
In addition to the mayor and the vice-mayor, the
council shall consist of five (5) members who shall
be elected from and be qualified voters in election
districts established by council with one council
n%-nber to be elected from each district. The
election districts shall be designated district 1,
district 2, district 3, district 4 and district 5, and the
boundaries of each district shall be established by
ordinance of city council pursuant to subsection (e)
of this section. On the first Tuesday in May, 2000,
three (3) council members shall be elected, one (1)
each from districts , as successors to the three
(3) council members whose terms expire on June
thirty (30) next following. On the first Tuesday in
May, 2002, two (2) council members shall be
elected, one (1) each from districts , as
163
(e)
successors to the two (2) council members whose
terms expire on June thirty (30) next following.
Council members shall serve for a term of four (4)
years from the first day of July next following the
date of election and until their successors are duly
elected and qualified.
The Council shall, by ordinance and in accordance
with the general laws of the Commonwealth, divide
the City into five election districts for the purpose of
electing one member of council from each such
district.
(g)
(h)
Nothing herein contained shall be construed to
affect the terms of council members elected or
appointed under the provisions of this charter prior
to the regular councilmanic election in the year
2000 or thereafter until their respective terms
expire.
No person may be a candidate for the office of mayor or
the office of vice-mayor and for the office of council
member in the same election.
Any vacancy in the office of mayor, vice-mayor or
council member shall be filled within thirty days,
and until the day upon which the terms of office of
council members elected in the next following
regular councilmanic election shall commence, by
a majority vote of the remaining members of
council, and if as much as two years of any such
unexpired term of the mayor, vice-mayor or member
of council remains at the time of such next regular
councilmanic election, a mayor or vice-mayor or
council member, as the case may be, shall be
elected at said election for the remaining portion of
such unexpired term. Any vacancy in an election
district shall be filled by a qualified voter of such
d:~.rict.
1'64
(i)
TI, e council shall be a continuing body, and no
measure pending before such body shall abate or
be discontinued by reason of the expiration of the
term of office or removal of the members of said
body, or any of them.
The City Attorney advised that a referendum can be held only by amendment
to the Charter, by one of two ways:
(1) draft an amendment to the Charter and send it to the General
Assembly; or
(2)
draft an amendment to the Charter, hold a referendum and send it to the
General Assembly.
There was discussion with regard to items 4(d), 4(e), 4(g) and 4(h) of the
proposed Charter amendment.
The Mayor suggested that Council approve the language as set forth in the
Charter amendment The City Attorney noted that the wording needs to be fine-
tuned, and any motion to approve the language would be conceptual with the City
Attorney being authorized to make any necessary changes.
Ms. Wyatt stated she felt Council needed to receive more information, and
recommended that no action be taken on the proposed Charter amendment until the
next work session after the additional information has been received by Council.
Mr. White requested that the City Attorney explain item 4 (f) of the proposed
Charter amendment which states that "nothing herein contained shall be construed
to affect the terms of council members elected or appointed under the provisions of
this charter prior to the regular councilmanic election in the year 2000 or thereafter
until their respective terms expire"; whereupon, the City Attorney advised that the
purpose of the language was to ensure that each Council Member would be able to
serve out their full term.
At this point, 9:45 a.m., Mr. Parrott entered the meeting.
Mr. Harris stated he believes it will be necessary for Council to make specific
provisions for the tr,.:,sition period for those Council Members in the 1998 to 2002
terms.
Upon question from Mr. Trout with regard to the length of terms in the 1998
election, the City Attorney advised it would be possible to cut the terms short in
1998, to provide for two year terms.
At 9:55 a.m., the meeting was declared in recess.
At 10:01 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with Mayor
Bowers presiding, and all Members of the Council in attendance.
Mr. Bestpitch referred to item 4(h) of the Charter amendment, which states that
any vacancy in the office of mayor, vice-mayor or council member shall be filled
within thirty days, and until the day upon which the terms of office of council
members elected in the next following regular councilmanic election shall
commence, by a majority vote of the remaining members of council, and if as much
as two years of any such unexpired term of the mayor, vice-mayor or member of
council remains at the time of such next regular councilmanic election, a mayor or
vice-mayor or council member, as the case may be, shall be elected at said election
for the remaining portion of such unexpired term, and any vacancy in an election
district shall be filled by a qualified voter of such district. He pointed out it was the
understanding of the Task Force that any vacancy in the Mayor's office would
automatically be filled by the Vice-Mayor; whereupon, the City Attorney advised that
the Vice-Mayor would move into the position of Mayor for the remainder of the term,
up to two years, and ~.hen a new Mayor would be elected in the next election.
Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council that no action would
be taken at the present time on the proposed Charter amendment.
The City Attorney referred to tab 7 in the notebook with regard to the Ballot
Question, as follows:
BALLOT QUESTION
Shall the Roanoke City Charter of 1952, as amended, be amended to
provide for a seven member City Council consisting of a Mayor and
Vice-Mayor separately elected at large and five (5) Council members
who shall be elected from and be qualified voters in election districts
established by Council with one Council member from each district?
[] YES
[] NO
165
166
The Mayor advised that a public hearing is scheduled to be held on the matter
on July 28, 1997, and a second work session will be held on July 29, and he was of
the opinion that Council could wait until after the July 29 work session to review the
Ballot Question and vote on the matter. The Mayor suggested that the date be
placed at the end of the Ballot Question.
Matthew J. Miller, Manager of Information Services, Fifth Planning District
Commission, review~,d maps identifying the boundaries of the proposed modified
election districts, and explained that the five districts were developed following
meetings with the Task Force, using census block and voting precinct information
and boundary adjustments. He explained the percentages relating to population
deviation in the 5 districts.
The City Attorney referred to tab 12 in the notebook which contains certain
demographic information relating to the 5 districts. He called attention to the four
pages under tab 12, advising that the first page shows the total population in the five
district map recommended by the Task Force, in which district 1 is 52.64 per cent
African-American and district 2 is 52.14 per cent African-American, with a population
deviation of 7.90 per cent; the second page shows the voter age population in the
five district map recommended by the Task Force, in which district 1 is 51.21 per
cent African-American and district 2 is 49.79 per cent African-American, with a
population deviation of 12.28 per cent; the third page shows the total population in
the amended five district map recommended by the Task Force, in which district 1
is 52.64 per cent African-American and district 2 is 58.43 per cent African-American,
with a population deviation of 9.70 per cent; and the fourth page shows the voter age
population in the amended five district map recommended by the Task Force, in
which district 1 is 5~.71 per cent African-American and district 2 is 55.99 per cent
African-American, with a population deviation of 10.79 per cent. Mr. Dibling
recommended approval of the amended five district map, inasmuch as it promotes
compactness, contiguity, and communities of interest, and minority voting strength
would not be diluted.
Ms. Wyatt expressed concern with regard to the make-up of district 4, which
has the southeast and south Roanoke areas lumped together. She stated that
southeast Roanoke has historically been treated differently and this bothers her;
that Tinker Creek has more in common with the southeast area, and if southeast is
put in the same district as south Roanoke, it will make southeast more
disenfranchised with the system.
Mr. Miller explained that the ideal district Would contain approximately 19,200
people and having larger voting precincts made it difficult to do this, so he started
with districts 1 and 2, and then created districts 3, 4 and 5 with what was left; and
it would be extremely difficult to move districts 1 and 2 in order not to dilute the
minority population.
Mr. Marlles pointed out that the only way to create a southeast district or ward
would be to increase the number of districts and the numberof Council Members;
it would be difficult to change district 4 because of the demographics; and it would
require a nine member Council, and even then, Garden City would still be included
in the same district as south Roanoke.
167
Upon question from Mr. Harris as to whether all three maps would be
displayed at the public hearing on July 28, the City Attorney advised that it would
not be a problem to display all three maps (five district map, amended five district
map and six district map) at the public hearing.
Upon question from the Mayor as to why the Task Force recommended five
districts, Mr. Bestpitch explained that the Task Force's recommendation was based
on input from public hearings held; that the question was asked as to whether
citizens wanted to have a 7 or 9 member Council and 5 or 6 districts, and the vast
majority said they wanted to keep a 7 member Council and thought 5 districts would
work better, with the exception of Raleigh Court which preferred that we have a 9
member Council with 5 members to be elected from districts and 4 members to be
elected at large.
With regard to the format for the public hearing to be heldon Monday, July 28,
1997, at 7:00 p.m., in the Exhibit Hall of the Roanoke Civic Center, the Mayor
recommended that Council adhere to the five minute rule for speakers unless more
than 20 speakers register, and then he would allow each speaker three minutes.
Mr. Parrott advised that he would not be present for the July 28 public hearing
and stated he believes it is important to let the citizens know they are not there to
discuss the pros and cons of a ward/election district system, but rather the public
hearing is being held for the purpose of discussing the recommendations made by
the Task Force.
Mr. Harris agreed it is important that it be made clear to citizens that the
purpose of the public hearing is to consider the $ district plan recommended by the
Task Force.
168
Mr. Swain stated that he agreed with Mr. Parrott and Mr. Harris, and he
believes citizens want to see this issue on the ballot in November and he would like
to see Council move it along quickly.
At 11:05 a.m., Mr. Trout left the meeting.
Following further discussion, it was the consensus of the majority of Council
to display all three maps (five district map, amended five district map and six district
map) at the public hearing on July 28.
Them being no further business, the special meeting/workshop was adjourned
at 11:08 a.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Sandra H. Eakin
Deputy City Clerk
Mayor
228
SPECIAL MEETING ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
July 28, 1997
7:00 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in special session on Monday, July 28,
1997, at 7:00 p.m., in the Exhibit Hall of the Roanoke Civic Center, 710 Williamson
Road, N. E., City of Roanoke, Virginia, pursuant to motion adopted by Council at a
regular meeting held on Monday, June 16, 1997, with Mayor David A. Bowers
presiding, for the purpose of receiving citizen comments on a report of the Modified
Election District Task Force under date of June 16, 1997.
PRESENT: Council Members Carroll E. Swain, James O. Trout, Linda F. Wyatt
and Mayor David A. Bowers .......................................................................... -4.
ABSENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, John H. Parrott and William
White, Sr.- .................................................................................................... 3.
OFFICERS PRESENT: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager; Wilburn C. Dibling,
Jr., City Attorney; James D. Grisso, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by Mayor Bowers.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Bowers.
ELECTIONS-COUNCIL: Legal advertisement of the public hearing was
published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, July 18, 1997, and in the Roanoke
Tribune on Thursday July 17, 1997.
(See publisher's affidavits on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
The Mayor extended a welcome to all attendees and advised that the purpose
of the public hearing was to hear comments regarding the Modified Election District
Plan presented to Council on June 16, 1997, by a task force composed of citizens
from the various neighborhoods in the City of Roanoke. He explained that pursuant
to motion adopted by Council at its meeting on April 22, 1996, Council created a
citizens task force and gave the task force the charge of devising the best modified
229
election district plan for the City of Roanoke; however, the task force was not
charged with the responsibility to recommend whether the City should have a
modified election district plan. He advised that the task force rendered its final
report to Roanoke City Council on June 16, 1997, members of the task force have
complied with their charge, and it is now the responsibility of Council to carefully
review the proposed plan and adopt a final plan to present to the voters on
November 4, 1997 in referendum. He stated that the task force required
approximately one year to complete its work and if a November referendum is to
occur, Council Members must complete their work by August 18, 1997. He explained
that on July 15, Council held its first work session in respect to the recommended
plan and Council has r)een briefed by the City Attorney and others on applicable law,
adopted a resolution establishing objectives and guidelines for Council's work and
begun to scrutinize the plan presented to Council. He stated that on July 29, at 2:00
p.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Council will hold its
second work session.
The Mayor recognized the following members of the Modified Elction District
Task Force: Michael F. Urbanski, Chair, William L. Bova, Vice-Chair, Mary S. Allen,
William D. Bestpitch, R. Jean Bevins, Robert S. Callahan, Farley Childress, Lisa W.
Farthing, Minnie G. Jones, Margie M. Jumper, Maynard L. Keller, R. Matthew Kennell,
Tony G. Martin, Jim H. Phillips, Jeri N. Rogers, Norma R. Smith, Clarice E. Walker,
Peter White, and Linda Ferguson, Staff Coordinator.
The Mayor called upon the City Attorney for a summary of the proposed plan
recommended by the task force.
The City Attorney advised that all members of Council are currently elected
at large which means that seven members of Council, including the Mayor and the
Vice-Mayor who are members of City Council, represent all of the citizens of
Roanoke, and the qualified voters of the City vote for each of the seven members of
Council which constitutes an at-large system. He stated that it would also be
possible to have an all district or an all ward system and in this type of system each
member of Council would live in and represent one election district of the City; and
qualified voters of the City would vote only for a Council Member from their district,
or one of seven members of the City Council. He added that in a modified election
district system, some members of City Council are elected at large and some are
elected from election districts, and this type of system is somewhat of a compromise
or a hybrid between a fully at large and a fully district system. He explained that it
is a modified election district system that the task force was directed by Council to
230
devise; and the task force was directed to present a proposed plan to be put to the
voters. He added that the plan of the task force is set forth on Page 19 of the final
report, which is available for review by citizens in the City clerk's Office, at the main
library and at each branch library, and the report may be accessed on the City's
Home Page via the Internet. He advised that the task force proposes that City
Council continue to be comprised of seven total members, five members would
represent and be elected from five different election districts of the City and the
Council would have two at-large members, viz: the Mayor and the Vice-Mayor. He
stated that candidates would declare for and run for the office of Mayor and Vice-
Mayor in separate elections; and according to the plan of the task force, the Mayor
and three district representatives would be elected in May 2000 and the Vice-Mayor
and two district representatives would be elected in May 2002. He added that the
Mayor and the Vice-Mayor and five district representatives would serve for four year
terms; the task force also proposed a map setting out the boundaries of the five
election districts and the map has been posted at five different locations throughout
the room for review by citizens. He advised that the plan which is presented is a
modified election district system, the Mayor and Vice-Mayor would be elected at
large and five members of the City Council would be elected from districts; and
rather than the current all at large system which allows citizens to vote for all seven
members of City Council, or a total election district or ward system which would
allow citizens to vote for only one member of Council, the proposed system would
allow citizens to vote for the Mayor, the Vice-Mayor and one district representative.
He stated that the task force recognized that its work must comply with all of the
legal mandates of the United States Constitution, the Constitution of Virginia,
Federal law including the Voting Rights Act, and the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia and, accordingly, the task force adopted guidelines to be adhered to in
devising its plan and in drawing its recommended map. He added that City Council
has also recognized the need to have objective guidelines to be adhered to by the
Council in reviewing and approving a modified election district plan and in drawing
election districts, and at the special meeting/work session on July 15, 1997, Council
adopted Resolution No. 33496-071597, setting forth the following guidelines:
E~_ual _r)o_~ulation. The total number of persons in each election
district,,i,all be as nearly equal as is practicable. Any deviation
from equality of population is justified only when it is the result
of following another guideline set forth below. In no case shall
the total deviation from the most populous district to the least
populous district exceed ten percent (10%) following the
methodology approved by the Supreme Court of the United
States in Board of Estimates of New York City v. Morris, 489 U. S.
688 (1989).
Votin_, Riphts Act. The dilution of racial or minority voting
strength is contrary to law and public policy. Accordingly, no
districting plan shall dilute racial or minority voting strength, and
nothing in these guidelines shall be construed to supersede any
provision of the Constitution of the United States or the Voting
Rights Act of 1965, as amended.
Com_oactness. Districts shall be in reasonably compact form.
Conti~luity. Districts shall be comprised of one contiguous
geographic unit and not be separated by other boundary lines.
Population base. The 1990 Federal Decennial Census numbers
shall be the sole basis for determining the population of election
districts. .
Boundaries. Election district boundaries shall where possible
follow clearly defined and clearly observable features, such as
roads, highways, railroad tracks, rivers, streams and other
permanent features.
Census blocks. No election'district lines shall divide a census
block. By using whole census blocks, the population of each
election district can be determined solely by reference to the
census reports and without relying on estimates.
Precincts. Each precinct shall be wholly contained within an
election district.
Communities of interest. Election districts shall be established
in such a way as to preserve existing communities of interest
where that can be done in compliance with the preceding
guidelines. Communities of interest are defined as recognizable
areas with similarities of interest, including but not limited to
racial, ethnic, geographic, economic, social, cultural, or historic
interests, as well as commonality of communications and
transportation links.
231
232
Mr. Dibling advised that Resolution No. 33496-071597 recognizes that the
guidelines of equal population and the Voting Rights Act are paramount and should
be given priority in the application of criteria; that November 4, 1997, is the date of
the proposed referendum; and citizens will be asked to vote yes or no on a proposed
amendment to the City Charter that would incorporate the plan adopted by City
Council. He added that if there is a successful referendum, the plan would then be
presented to the 1998 Session of the General Assembly as a bill to amend the City's
Charter; and if the proposed Charter amendment is adopted by the 1998 Session of
the General Assembly, as soon as possible after the Session, the plan would be
presented to the United States Department of Justice for pre-clearance under the
Voting Rights Act. He explained that it is hoped that the Department of Justice will
complete its action in late spring or summer 1998 and thereafter, the first election
under the new plan could occur in May 2000.
The Mayor requested those persons who favor the plan as proposed by the
Modified Election District Task Force to stand; whereupon, approximately 30
persons stood. He asked those persons who are in favor of a modified election
district plan, but would prefer changes to stand; whereupon, three persons stood.
He asked those persons who are against the modified election district system to
stand; whereupon, approximately ten persons stood. Finally, he asked those
persons who are undecided to stand; whereupon, approximately ten persons stood.
The Mayor adv:~,ed that each speaker would be allowed up to five minutes to
make their presentation; whereupon, the following persons addressed Council:
Mr. Michael F. Urbanski, 2108 Mount Vernon Road, S. W., advised that he
served as Chair of the Modified Election District Task Force. He stated that the
members of the task force worked well together in a collegial atmosphere and a
spirit of mutual respect. He advised that the charge to the task force was to
recommend a plan for a modified ward system to Council, not to debate or
recommend whether a modified ward system or an at large system of election is best
for the City, and not to advocate for any one plan. He stated that their charge was
to devise the best possible plan for presentation to City Council which has been
done and the job of the task force is complete. At this point, he advised that he
would like to speak in his capacity as a private citizen of the City of Roanoke. He
stated that if Council chooses to put the issue on the ballot for referendum, he will
vote against the plan because the modified ward system will result in a balkanized
and divided City Council which will be more concerned with the issues of specific
neighborhoods than with the welfare of the City as a whole. He stated that the
modified ward system could lead to more political infighting and could reduce the
ability of the City to compete with other cities. He added that his opinion is based
on concerns presented by representatives of other cities in Virginia and government
specialists from Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia. He stated that his
position found further support during the public input phase of the work of the task
force, and called attention to a meeting of the Greater Raleigh Court Civic League,
where the clear consensus was that there should be no change to the current
election system. He further stated that there has been much discussion about
accountability, that City Council acts by majority vote rather than at the bidding of
any one Council member, and under the plan recommended by the task force, a
voter may participate in the election of only three members of Council, viz: the
Mayor, Vice-Mayor and one ward member. He added that three is less than a
majority of Council and under the proposed plan, the majority of Council is not
accountable to any one voter, and by its very nature, the proposed system prevents
a voter from participating in the selection of a majority of Council members. He
stated that should Council decide to present this proposal to the voters, a 5 - 4
system rather than the proposed 5 - 2 system would provide for a more balanced
Council which would not be as wedded to the interest of any specific ward. He
explained that under a 5 - 4 system, five members would be elected from wards and
four would be elected at large, and under that plan, Council would have a more
balanced, and broader perspective which would be a City-wide perspective, and
each voter would have the ability to vote for a majority of the members of Council,
thus, City Council as a whole would be more accountable to and more representative
of each voter. He stated that he is strongly in favor of retaining the current at large
system; however, since Council has chosen to pursue a referendum on this issue,
he requested that Council strongly consider departing from the recommendation of
the task force and present a 5 - 4 modified district plan to the voters.
Mr. William D. Bestpitch, 381 Washington Avenue, S. W., Chair, Committee for
Better Representation, advised that it is important to note that the charge to the task
force was widely understood by its members and by many other citizens of Roanoke
as an indication that both supporters and opponents of election districts could
agree that a referendum was the best way to settle the question after more than two
decades of debate in the City of Roanoke. He stated that every citizen in the City of
Roanoke should have the right to have their voice heard on this issue through
referendum in November. He explained that the task force thoroughly explored
many issues and heard from many speakers from around the Commonwealth of
Virginia; and the task force considered a number of options and held 11 public
meetings in various neighborhoods throughout the City, and received input from
over 250 citizens. He advised that the one thing the task force did not have to work
233
234
with during the time prior to submittal of its report was the knowledge that there was
more than one way to draw an election district map that met the criteria and create
five districts, and it came as a great surprise when it was discovered that there is at
least one other way to draw the district lines. He stated that based on that
information, he calculated the numbers and discovered that there is a third way to
draw the map while still meeting the criteria; however, he added that that is not the
important issue this evening, nor will it be the important issue on November 4. He
advised that if the citizens from any particular area in the City feel strongly enough
and they want to have their voices heard regarding any change that still meets all
of the requirements, they should make their wishes known before the plan is
presented to the U. S. Department of Justice. He added that 11 meetings were held
by the task force, the task force heard from over 250 people and when they asked
the question, the overwhelming majority of the citizens said that the number of
Council Members should remain at seven rather than nine, and citizens
overwhelmingly expressed a preference for five districts with two members elected
at large. He advised that the overwhelming majority of citizens also preferred that
the two at-large seats should be the Mayor and the Vice-Mayor who would run
specifically for those offices. He stated that while full disclosure is important, the
Committee for Better Representation believes that the 5 - 2 plan is best because it
does not increase the cost for salaries of City Council members and other expenses,
it allows for creation of two majority/minority districts thereby avoiding possible
United States Department of Justice problems, and it allows direct election of the
Vice-Mayor creating more of a mandate from the citizens for that office.
Mr. Thomas W. Goodwin, 856 Marshall Avenue, S. W., advised that the
modified district system is not a perfect solution, although the ward system
unmodified would be better. He stated that the current one ward or the at large
system shuts out the disadvantaged more so than a multi-ward system. He further
stated that fear of the chaos of different perspectives, interests or viewpoints on City
Council should not frighten anyone; however, what should be frightening is an
overly unified mindset in City government that makes citizens think that everything
is already a "done deal." He added that an open mind may be subject to inner and
outer debate in chaos, but it is a requirement of democracy that the merits of all
viewpoints and ideas should be given proper consideration and representation. He
noted that government and other powers in society listen too much to the educated
elite and not enough to people with more direct and personal connections to real
problems. He stated that real life and personal experience give unique insight and
in the future, he would hope that people resources will be more valued and utilized
by government, and the modified election district system locally should be a positive
step towards that end.
Ms. Estelle H. McCadden, 2128 Mercer Avenue, N. W., stated that changes to
the district maps have further segregated the City. She advised that regardless of
race, maps should not be drawn to suit minorities, but should be drawn for the
betterment of the total community. She stated that it would appear that government
is trying to decide how she, as a citizen, should vote by establishing specific district
lines. If the referendum is approved, she inquired as to which Council seats will be
elected first, and will citizens be involved in the logistics of implementation. She
stated that if the referendum is approved by the voters in November, a considerable
amount of work will have to be done to insure proper implementation. She
requested that when the work begins, Council members should be mindful of the
citizens they serve and call for their involvement at the beginning of the process.
Ms. Mary S. Allen, 1461 22nd Street, N. W., advised that meetings held by the
task force provided a forum for wholesome community discussion on genuine
concerns that could be addressed through a modified election district plan. She
stated that the modif'ed election district system offers the advantage of having
representatives from each community with an obligation to be committed and
accountable to the ward that he or she serves; and she has voted for individuals to
serve on Council who were capable of looking at the total picture with interest and
concern. She stated that it is impossible to serve the City without showing some
concern and interest for at least 50 per cent or more of a specific neighborhood, and
while no system will provide a utopia for any form of election district, it will give
citizens a sense of having a slightly improved chance of achieving certain goals in
their neighborhoods. She advised that the recommendation of the Modified Election
District Task Force is commendable for the Roanoke Valley because of the way that
the process evolved and because most neighborhood organizations recommended
appointees and were urged to send representatives to the meetings regularly. She
stated that with strong unity of purpose and provision for involvement in a Modified
Ward Task Force recommendation, a majority of the citizens who took an active role
in the process should be satisfied. As a citizen, she recommended endorsement of
a 5 - 2 modified election district system, and advised that she is pleased to have an
opportunity to vote on the issue on November 4.
Mr. Charles J. Jordan, 214 Summers Circle, Boones Mill, Virginia, advised that
Roanoke is a fine City with a good reputation which is the reason many people have
chosen Roanoke and continue to choose Roanoke as their home. He stated that the
five district map addresses geographically segregated variation in the population
for the factors of race and to some degree economics, and is less effective in
addressing non-geographic variety including minorities of politics and age. He
further stated that a system of proportional representation would be more effective
235
236
in providing diversity in representation; however, if one wishes to keep a plurality
based system, the five district map would be difficult to improve upon. He added
that the wards appear to represent distinct parts of the City; however, the legend of
the map states a percentage of African-American citizens which is misleading
because the Census does not ask people their citizenship or visa status, therefore,
the numbers of Americans cannot be assumed and, in fact, the voting age
population is somewhat more European-American in ward one according to the 1990
Census figures which could end up with an equally divided electorate in that ward.
He stated that the current proposal recommends election of the Mayor and three
Council Members in the year 2000, and the Vice-Mayor and two Council members in
the year 2002, and this schedule appears to be unconstitutional as initially providing
ward representation for 60 per cent of the City and disenfranchises the other 40 per
cent of the citizens for a period of two years. He stated that there is also a reason
to change precinct boundaries, because there are wide differences in size between
the voting precincts; Jefferson No. 2 Precinct combines parts of three distinct
neighborhoods and that portion of Old Southwest which is in Jefferson No. 2 should
be combined with Hiahland No. 2 Precinct in district two, and the portion south of
the river should be combined with South Roanoke No. 1 Precinct in district 4 to
cover neighborhoods undivided between wards. He pointed out that a six district
map is not as representative of the City's geography as a five district map. He
explained that the City would be more likely to attract the most capable people for
Council positions if any City resident could run in any district, otherwise,
demographic variations can be a problem. He stated that at times, those areas with
apartments and starter housing may develop high proportions of children and
immigrants who cannot hold office, or young parents and overtime workers who
may not have the time to run for office, and such districts might be better off
expanding their pool of talent to allow residents of neighboring districts to run for
Council seats, such as the United States Constitution allows for Congressional
seats.
Mr. H. Joel Kelley, 3038 Melrose Avenue, N. W., Apartment 402, advised that
none of the previous speakers expressed total satisfaction with the proposed
modified election district system; therefore, the question should be included on the
ballot in November and, if approved, details of implementation should receive further
study. He stated that the district maps should be discarded, because northwest City
under the proposed F.',~n would be divided. He advised that what is proposed is not
a modified ward plan, but a total ward system. He stated that the question is not a
race issue, although Roanoke is noted as being the most racially segregated City in
the Commonwealth of Virginia.
Mr. Henry H. Craighead, 1625 Orange Avenue, N. W., advised that he supports
a 5 - 2 modified election district system.
Mr. James P. Armstrong, 619 Highland Avenue, S. W., advised that he lived in
a city that had a ward system and he lived in a city that elected its City Council at
large, but the one question that continues to surface relates to responsiveness and
representativeness of the people who are elected to City Council. He stated that he
could not understand how a City Council would be more responsive when citizens
vote for three Council members as opposed to voting for all seven members. He
stated that in the past when voicing concerns to the members of Council, he has
received informed responses which indicated that his views were taken into
consideration, and he did not understand how having four fewer people to address
would provide more input into local affairs. He added that he previously lived in one
of the most racially polarized cities in the Commonwealth; however, the African-
American community in that city was successful in electing a Mayor who was a most
effective spokesperson for the community, and they did so through political
organization, informing the voters, and a technique of "one-shoting." He advised
that he resided in another city which had a City Council that was elected on the
basis of a ward system, and it appeared that major decisions were made not in any
rational manner, but by cuffing deals among Council members who communicated
in pairs so that they did not violate the "Sunshine Law" and traded favors in order
to accomplish what they felt was needed for their individual wards, and, as a result,
upper income neighborhoods received water and sewer service years before Iow
and moderate income neighborhoods. He stated that a modified election district
system would raise the level of influence available to neighborhood associations,
which may or may not be representative, because they would gain a great deal of
access to the City Council member from their district and would also tend to
concentrate decisionmaking because of the "deal cuffing" that would go on under
this system. He stated that the recommendation of the Modified Election District
Task Force is not satisfactory, he is opposed to the modified election district system
because it is not as effective as the current at-large system, and expressed concern
that a ward system in the City of Roanoke will have a deleterious effect on an already
overly rambunctious political environment.
Mr. Marvin N. Lougheed, 2905 Wycliffe Avenue, S. W., advised that the district
system is a way to isolate the citizens by working for only those citizens in a specific
district, and he agreed with a previous speaker that it will cause balkanization of
government. He stated that he does not want to be labeled by the district where he
lives which causes sections of the City to be categorized. He advised that Council
237
238 "
should not take the suggestion of the task force as being ideal, although the task
force did the best it could with the knowledge it had and the opinions it received.
He stated that he is opposed to the modified election district system and would
prefer to see a greater membership on City Council.
Mr. William L. Bova, 2719 Lofton Road, S. W., advised that he served as Vice-
Chair of the Modified Election District Task Force. He expressed support for holding
the referendum on the modified election district system; however, he stated that he
could not support the system or any other configuration of a ward system. He
advised that this is an issue that at long last must come to vote, but it is hoped that
between now and November 4, the citizens will become sufficiently informed about
the ramifications of the issue and vote against the district system. He stated that a
district system could isolate Roanoke's neighborhoods into competing blocks and
interests, and will make permanent the social and economic divisions already
present in the City. He stated that while he agrees that Council Members and the
City Administration should pay more attention to both the 'overall health of the
neighborhoods and the specific concerns voiced by residents of those
neighborhoods, a district system will not empower neighborhoods. Instead, he
stated that voices will become diluted and focused only on one member of Council
rather than on all seven, and the ability to influence a majority vote on Council will
be less than at present. He explained that currently, voters are allowed seven votes
for members of City Council, but under the proposed district system, they are
entitled to only three votes, which translates into less citizen influence.
Mr. William Ballentine, 3321 Birchwood Street, N. W., advised that the problem
is not in determining whether there should be wards or an at large Council, but the
problem involves thc ~ssue of empowerment, the disenfranchised, the disaffected
and the apathetic citizen which is evidenced by the small number of persons in
attendance at the public hearing this evening (approximately 65). He added that
most citizens do not feel that they are a part of the decisionmaking process because
deals are cut before citizen input occurs, and the only reason for a ward system is
to insure that at least one person will be held accountable to the wishes of a specific
neighborhood. He stated that wards may be a solution, although they are not an
ideal solution, and perhaps more than five or six wards should be considered
because any person who can get 5,000 signatures on a petition to run for Council
is someone who has a good constituency. He added that persons involved in an
election system should not be allowed any type of paid advertising, because there
are inequities in the affluence of persons and those who are able to purchase the
highest exposure will most likely get the most votes, whether or not they are the
most competent to represent their section of the City. He advised that there are
various types of alternatives that could be explored rather than the one vote, up or
down system, that is currently in place. He stated that citizens should look for
people to serve on City Council who have the good of the people at heart rather than
their own personal enrichment; the citizenry should consider voting for a ward
position annually until such time as political opportunists can be weeded out and
genuine public servants can be elected; and election campaigning should be on foot
and personal and should be taken into the schools in the various neighborhoods so
that citizens will be privy to open debates and question and answer forums.
Ms. Jeri N. Rogers, 3734 Lake Drive, S. W., advised that the Modified Electrict
District Task Force recommended a proposal after many months of study and advice
by experts on the issue. She stated that the majority of the task force supported a
$ - 2 system as the best way to go, and anything above that number would probably
be defeated by the citizens of Roanoke. She further stated that many neighborhoods
feel that they do not have a Council representative to whom they may voice their
concerns. She added that overwhelmingly, the people in her neighborhood have
said the issue should be taken to the voters in the form of a referendum and she
applauded the Members of Council for their willingness to place the question on the
November 4 ballot. She explained that with a district system, a person could run for
office for a small amount of money and conduct a door-to-door campaign which
would take democracy to the doorstep of each citizen. She advised that the United
States Government is based on districts and she does not feel that she is being
pitted against the States of California or Texas because she lives in the
Commonwealth of Virginia. She explained that under the district system, citizens
will feel that they are involved in government.
Ms. Lisa W. Farthing, 4023 Lake Drive, S. W., advised that the most important
question is that the voters want a referendum to decide the issue. She stated that
those who do not favor the ward system use fear tactics such as isolation and
balkanization of government. She further stated that with the present structure of
Council, some areas receive more representation than others which is why those
areas feel that they need representation. She spoke in support of better educating
the public because most people do not understand the district system or the
modified ward system. She stated that members of the task force worked well
together, and they took concerns of the neighborhoods and tried to resolve those
concerns to insure that neighborhoods were represented and citizens were heard.
She advised that it is important for the voters to get to know their representative,
and because she votes for one member of City Council does not mean that she
cannot take her concerns to the entire City Council. She added that if she has a
239
24O
concern that is City-wide, she would expect her Council representative to support
not just her neighborhood, but to support what is best for Roanoke City as a whole.
She stated that the United States is built on a district system, and referred to the
successful ward system in the City of Lynchburg. She noted that it is time for the
matter to go to referendum for a clear vote by the citizens of Roanoke.
Mr. Robert D. Gravely, 1524 Hanover Avenue, N. W., advised that the purpose
of a ward system is to elect people who will insure a good quality of life for the
citizens of their district. He stated that the ward system is needed; however, there
is a division within the neighborhoods with various groups working for the same
purpose, but pulling against each other, and the groups must be brought together
for the common good of the community. He noted that the inner city has been
neglected because funds are being taken away from the inner city by government
and businesses to construct large buildings at the expense of the taxpayers.
Ms. Esther B. Cirasunder, 436 Arbutus Avenue, S. E., advised that under the
modified election district plan, any Council member who is elected will be charged
with not only representing the district in which he or she lives, but will be held
accountable for making decisions that encompass the entire City. She stated that
the modified election district system will insure, at the least, equal representation
from each area of the City which is the basis upon which America was founded. She
advised that she plans to support the modified election district plan at the
referendum on November 4.
Mr. Willie F. Bratcher, 4715 Autumn Lane, N. W., advised that the citizens are
unhappy with the current at-large system of electing Council members, therefore,
a change is needed.
There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the special meeting
adjourned at 8:35 p.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk Mayor
241
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL ........... SPECIAL MEETING
July 29, 1997
2:00 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke held its second special meeting/workshop
to discuss a report of the Modified Election District Task Force on Tuesday, July 29,
1997, at 2:00 p.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room
159, Municipal Building South, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with
Mayor David A. Bowers presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, Carroll E. Swain, James O.
Trout, William White, Sr., Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor David A. Bowers ................... 6.
ABSENT: Council Member John H. Parrott .............................................. 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager; Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.,
City Attorney; James D. Grisso, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
OTHERS PRESENT: Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations; Michael M.
Gray, Transportation Planner, Fifth Planning District Commission; Matthew J. Miller,
Manager of Information Services, Fifth Planning District Commission.
ELECTIONS-COUNCIL: The Mayor reviewed the following issues to be
resolved:
Which three districts should be up for election in 2000 and which two
districts in 2002?
Alternatives:
a. Numerical order: 1, 2 and 3 in 2000; 4 and 5 in 2002
b. Odd-even: 1, 3 and 5 in 2000; 2 and 4 in 2002
c. Determine by lot
d. Other method
How should the Vice-Mayor be elected for the time period of July 1,
2000, through June 30, 2002?
Alternatives:
a. City Council elects Vice-Mayor from its membership
b. The person elected Vice-Mayor in May, 1998, serves a four year term
242
During the transition period, should an at-large Council Member elected
to a four year term in 1998 be permitted to retain his or her at large seat
and run for a district seat in 2000? (This is not prohibited by the draft
Charter amendment; before assuming the district seat the Council
Member would be required to resign from the at large seat. Even if
prohibited, an at large Council Member could always resign his or her
seat anti run for a district seat.)
Should the Vice-Mayor or a Council Member, who has two years
remaining on his or her term, be permitted to run for Mayor? (This
would be permitted under the draft Charter amendment. A Council
Member may currently run for Mayor at mid-term.)
5. Is January 1, 2000, the appropriate effective date for the Charter
amendment?
Does the question to be placed on the ballot fairly state the question in
plain English?
7. What district map should be adopted?
8. When will the matter be placed before the voters?
When will the matter be _r)laced before the voters?
Mr. White moved that the referendum on the modified election district system
be held on Tuesday, November 4, 1997. The motion was seconded by Mr. Trout and
adopted.
What district mar) should be adopted?
Mr. Swain moved that the amended five district map be adopted. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Trout.
In clarification, the City Attorney referred to Tab No. 12 in a notebook entitled,
"City Council Workshop on Modified Election District Plan" dated July 15, 1997,
which contains demographics illustrating the primary reason that the change was
made. He called attention to the four pages under Tab No. 12, the first page showing
the total population in the five district map recommended by the Task Force, with
District 1 at 52.64 per cent African-American and District 2 at 52.14 per cent African-
American. He stated that figures were tabulated after the Task Force completed its
work regarding voter age population since there is a difference between total
population and voter age population, and it was discovered that District 2 dropped
from 52.14 per cent African-American to 49.79 per cent African-American, which
created concern inasmuch as the Department of Justice favors a majority of African-
Americans in a district that is intended to be a minority district. Also, he stated that
one of the principles adopted by Council pursuant to Resolution No. 33496-071597
was that minority voting strength should not be diluted; therefore, Jefferson No. 2
Precinct was moved from District 1 to District 4. He referred to page 3 of Tab No. 12
which shows that District 2 went up on total population to 58.43 per cent African-
American, but even more importantly voter age population stayed as high as 55.99
per cent African-American which is a much more solid district, and the City will be
less likely challenged on diluting the minority voting strength by adopting the
amended five district map. Mr. Dibling stated that other reasons for suggesting the
amended map are that it promotes compactness and communities of interest
because it is believed that Jefferson No. 2 Precinct would have a greater community
of interest than District 4 and District 2.
(See notebook on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
The Mayor advised that the Task Force worked diligently to devise the original
map and expressed concern with "tinkering" with the map after the Task Force spent
approximately one year and 11 public hearings to come up with its recommendation.
Secondly, he pointed out that under the proposed map, the total population from all
precincts is about even and the voter age population of the precincts, with one
variation, is even; therefore, if the proposal adjustment is made to go by the
amended five districts, the population of one district, meaning the inner-city district,
drops by about 3,000 people.
The City Attorney explained that it is conceivable when the plan goes through
the preclearance process of the Department of Justice, the Justice Department could
suggest changes to the map.
The motion to adopt the amended five district map was adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Swain, Trout, White, Wyatt and
Mayor Bowers .................................................................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Parrott was absent.)
243
244
Does the question to be _~laced on the ballot fairly state the question in plain
En,lish?
The City Attorney advised that it is a requirement of State law that the
question to be placed on the ballot be stated in plain English, and the question will
be subject to review by attorneys for the State Board of Elections and the Division
of Legislative Services. He suggested that an effective date of January 1, 2000 be
added to the ballot question.
Mr. Trout moved that Council approve the following ballot question with the
inclusion of "effective January 1, 2000." The motion was seconded by Mr. Swain.
"Shall the Roanoke City Charter of 1952, as amended, be amended,
effective January 1, 2000, to provide for a seven member City Council
consisting of a Mayor and Vice-Mayor separately elected at large and
five (5) Council Members who shall be elected from and be qualified
voters in elec',~n districts established by Council with one Council
Member from each district?"
Vice-Mayor Wyatt expressed concern that it was her understanding that a
candidate must live in the district from which he or she is elected and, as presently
drafted, the ballot question is not clear.
Following discussion, the City Attorney proposed the following language for
the ballot question:
"Shall the Roanoke City Charter of 1952, as amended, be amended,
effective January 1, 2000, to provide for a seven member City Council
consisting of a Mayor and Vice-Mayor separately elected at large and
five (5) Council members who shall each be elected from and be a
qualified voter in an election district established by Council with one
Council member from each district?"
Ms. Wyatt offered a subsidiary motion to amend the main motion as above set
forth. The subsidiary motion was seconded by Mr. Swain.
Upon question as to the appropriate heading on the ballot question, the City
Attorney suggested, "Special Election - City of Roanoke Charter Amendment". He
explained that the only legal method available for a referendum is through a
procedure to amend the City Charter. Mr. White stated that if the heading is "City of
Roanoke Charter Amendment", citizens will be confused, therefor, the heading
should be listed as a ward district, and there should be as much consistency as
possible by using the same terminology between now and the time that the question
appears on the ballot on November 4.
The subsidiary motion was adopted.
The main motion, as amended, was then adopted.
Should the Vice-Mayor or a Council Member who has two years remainin_~ on his or
her term, be _oermitted to run for Mayor or Vice-Mayor?
Mr. Trout moved that the Vice-Mayor or a Member of Council who has two
years remaining on his or her term be permitted to run for Mayor or Vice-Mayor as
currently provided. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swain and adopted.
During_ the transition Deriod. should an at-lar_~e Council Member elected to a four
year term in 1998 be _oermitted to retain his or her at larqe seat'end run for a district
seat in 2000?
Mr. Harris moved that during the transition period, any at large Council
Member elected to a four year term in 1998 shall be permitted to retain his or her at
large seat and run for a district seat in 2000, except that he or she cannot hold both
seats. The motion was seconded by Mr. Swain and adopted.
There was discussion with regard to the Vice-Mayor not being permitted to
succeed the Mayor in the event that the Mayor's seat is vacated. The City Attorney
pointed out that under current City Charter provisions, the Vice-Mayor does not
automatically succeed the Mayor; however, if Council is so inclined, it might be
preferable under the new plan to place the two positions on the same term of office
which would provide that the Mayor and the Vice-Mayor would run at the same time
so that they both would have the same amount of time left on their terms and, if
necessary, the Vice-Mayor could move into the Mayor's position and the Vice-
Mayor's position would then become vacant.
Following discussion, it was noted that succession of the Mayor's position
may not be something that should be addressed in the modified election district
vote, but could be handled separately from that issue at a later date.
The City Attorney clarified that the question is not a matter for referendum and
any change could be addressed through a regular City Charter amendment
procedure; whereupon, it was the consensus of the majority of Council to leave the
matter in the status quo.
245
246
How should the Vice-Mayor be elected for the time period of July 1, 2000, throu~lh
June 30. 2002?
Mr. Harris moved that the person elected as Vice-Mayor in May 1998 shall
serve for a four year term. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted.
Which three districts should be up for election in 2000 and which two districts in
200'2?
The Mayor advised that according to the City Attorney, there may be certain
Constitutional issues that need to be reviewed, and suggested that the question be
deferred until the August 18, 1997 meeting of Council, at which time the City
Attorney will provide Council with a resolution which will set forth the proposed City
Charter amendment language, set forth the ballot question, ordain the approved
district map, and authorize the City Attorney to take all actions necessary to
implement a November 4, 1997 referendum.
Without object;~n by Council, the Mayor advised that the question would be
referred back to the City Attorney for report to Council at its regular meeting on
Monday, August 18, 1997.
It was agreed that if necessary, the time period between 12:15 and 2:00 p.m.,
on Monday, August 18, could be used as a work session, or another workshop could
be held on August 12 as tentatively scheduled.
There being no further business, the special meeting/workshop was adjourned
at 3:45 p.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
City Clerk
David A. Bo~/ers
Mayor
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
November 19, 1997
File ~.80-132
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Gilbert E. Butler, Chair
City Planning Commission
Post Office Box 2152
Roanoke, Virginia 24009
Dear Mr. Butler:
I am enclosing copy of a communication from Mayor David A. Bowers recommending
consideration of an appropriate means to recognize former Mayor Noel C. Taylor for his
many contributions to the City of Roanoke, which communication was before the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on Monday, November 17, 1997.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the communication was referred to
the City Planning Commission for study, report and recommendation to Council.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Enc.
pc:
Mr. Robert A. Garland, 1345 Lakewood Drive, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015-3723
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
John R. Marlles, Chief, Planning and Community Development
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
H:~AGENDA.g'/~NOVI 7.WPO
DAVID A. 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
November 11, 1997
The Honorable Vice-Mayor and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Few men or women in the 113 years since the chartering of the City
of Roanoke have made such a lasting and significant impact on our
community as has my immediate predecessor, Reverend Noel C. Taylor.
It is time to appropriately honor his distinctive and distinguished
contribution to ~The Star City".
Reverend Taylor became the first African-American to serve on
Roanoke City Council and then the first African-American to serve
as Mayor in our city's history. Not only that, but he served for
17 years as Mayor, longer than any previous Mayor. His
contribution and record of success as Mayor helped Roanoke win the
coveted and prestigious All-America City award three times during
his tenure.
He deserves a place of high honor in our history and recognition
from Roanoke's citizens now.
You will find attached correspondence dated October 2, 1997, from
former Councilman Robert A. Garland, joining in this suggestion.
I am respectfully requesting that this letter be placed on the
consent agenda of Council for the November 17, 1997 meeting, and
thereafter be referred to the Planning Commission for review and
recommendation as to an appropriate means of recognition for our
good friend and colleague, former Mayor Taylor.
I further ask that our citizens let us know their thoughts about
the accomplishments of Noel Taylor, and how they might have us
appropriately honor him. Their recommendations as to a suitable
honor will be considered.
Sincerely,
David A. Bowers
Mayor
DAB:jj
Enclosure
RECEIVED
OCT - 6 1997
MAYOR'S OFFICE
k4u'~ ,
RECEIVED
CITY CLEi;KS OFF!CF
'c)7 Nt]V-7 P3:57
November 7, 1997
Roanoke City Bectoral Board
Charles T. Green, Chairman
Frances V. Garland, Vice Chairman
Gilbert E. Butler, Jr., Secretary
Mrs. Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Room 454, Municipal Building
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mrs. Parker:
Pursuant to Section 24.2-675 of the Virginia Election Laws,
attached is a certified copy of the abstract of votes cast in the
General & Special Election held in the City of Roanoke on November
4, 1997.
Yo~s very truly,
/ Y///~.~:~"..' ,; __ ....
~ilg~ert E. B~ ..~:b"'~" '~'r. Secretary
Roanoke City~lectoral Board
GEB, JR./lct.
Attachment
Room 109, Municipal North
215 Church Avenue, S. W, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
P. O. Box 1095, Roanoke, Virginia 24005
(540) 981-2281
Fax (540) 224-3025
ARSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 4, 1997 General £1ection, for:
· Virginia,
GOVERNOR
NAMES OF CANDIDATES ON BALLOT
SUE HARRIS DoBAUCHE
DONALD S. BEYER, JR.
JAMES S. "Jim" GILMORE III
TO TAL VOTE$
RECEIVED
lIN F/OURES)
598
11~857
11,628
Total Write-In Votes [SEE CERTIFICATION] ..............
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 5th day of November. 1997.
copy teste:
· Chairman
Vice Chairman
· Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
Roanoke
[] COUNTY ~ CITY
Governor
OFFICE TITLE
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Write-Ins
[LIST IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER}
Invalid Write-Ins ..........................
Charlton Heston
David Lystlund
Betty Small
l~att Womack
General Election
November 4, 1997
Page 1 of
TOTAl Vo TES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
CONTINUED ON PAGES THROUGH
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, !997, do hereby certify that, with the continuation pages
indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast at said election for the office
indicated above.
Given under our hands this Srh day of November, 1997.
A copy teste:
, Chairman
, Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
.z. RSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 4, 1997 General Election, for:
· Virginia,
LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR
J~AME$ OF CANDIDATES ON BALLOT
BRADLEY E. EVANS
L. F. PAYNE, JR.
JOHN H. HAGER
Total Write-In Votes [SEE CERTIFICATION] ..............
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
1~075
12 ~ 683
~.5~8
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this
day of November, 1997.
copy teste:
Secretary, Electoral Board
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
Roanoke
[] COUNTY ]~ CITY
L~eutenant Governor
OFFICE TITLE
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Write-Ins
[LIST IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER!
Invalid Write-Ins ..........................
ltatt l/omack
General Election
November 4, 1997
Page 1 of I
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
1
1
CONTINUED ON PAGES THROUGH
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examinaiion of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that, with the continuation pages
indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast at said election for the office
indicated above.
Given under our hands this ~th day of November, 1997.
A copy testa:
~ <~/~/~.,~V~ , Chairman
f ,x~~~~, Vice Chairman
,Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
ARSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 4, 1997 General Election, for:
· Virginia·
ATTORNEY GENERAL
NAMES OF CANDIDA TE$ ON 8ALLOT
WILLIAM D. "Bill" DOLAN III
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN F~C, URES)
10.991
MARK L. EARLEY ......... ]1.883
Total Write-In Votes [SEE CERTIFICATION] ..............
4
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this ~ th day of November, 1997.
copy teste:
"T"~ ~.~V' , Chairman
Secretary, Electoral Board
Chairman
Secretary
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
Roanoke
I-I COUNTY :~[ CITY
General Election
Attorney General
OFFICE TITLE
November 4, 1997
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Write-Ins
ILIST IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER]
Invalid Write-Ins ..........................
Michael D. Craighead
Chris Shepard
Matt Womack
Page I of 1
To TAI VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
1
1
1
1
John Paul Woodley, Jr.
CONTINUED ON PAGES THROUGH
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examinaiion of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that, with the continuation pages
indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast at said election for the office
indicate(~ above.
Given under our hands this 5th day of November, 1997.
A copy teste:
Elec
Bo:rd
'~'~1'~~ [~~~a'~'~'t~ . Chairman
Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
.z. RSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 4· 1997 General Election· for:
· Virginia,
NAMES OF CANDIDATES ON BAttOT
Clifton A.
MEMBER
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
16th
ENTER DISTRICT NAME
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIOUt~ES)
"Chip" Woodrum ......... 9,546
Total Write-In Votes [SEE CERTIFICATION] .............. 2
We, the undersigned Electoral 8oard, upon exam/nat/on of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the elect/on held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 5th day of November, 1997.
A copy teste:
, Chairman
Vice Chairman
, Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
Roanoke
[] COUNTY ]~[ CITY
General Election
House of Delegates biember
OFFICE TITLE
16th
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Write-Ins
ILIST IN ALPHABETICAL ORDER!
Invalid Write-Ins ..........................
Susan Small
November 4, 1997
Page 1 of
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(I. F~ounzsl
1
1
CONTINUED ON PAGES TtlROUGH
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examinaJion of tile official records deposited with tile Clerk of tile
Circuit Court of tile election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that, with the continuation pages
indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast at said election for the office
indicated ?hove.
Given under our hands this 5th day of November, 1997.
A copy teste:
t , Chairman
,../ ~' II//?~"vvv~ Secretary, Electoral Board
ARSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 4, 1997 General Election· for:
· Virginia,
MEMBER
HOUSE OF DELEGATES
17th
ENTER DISTRICT NAME
NAMES OF CANDIDATES ON BALLOT
A. Victor "Vic" Thomas
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIGURES)
7,920
Total Write-In Votes [SEE CERTIFICATION] ..............
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the off/cia/records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 5th day of November, 1997.
copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Seal
, Vice
,Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
Chairman
Chairman
WRITE-INS CERTIFICATION
Roanoke
[] COUNTY
~i~ CITY
General Election
~tll-~lm ~ Dele_~af;¢~ Member
OFFICE TITLE
17th
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Write-Ins
[LIST IN ALPHABETICAL ORDERI
Invalid Write-Ins ..........................
November 4, 1997
Page I of ]
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
Curt Woods
CONTINUED ON PAGES THROUGH
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that, with the continuation pages
indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the write-in votes cast at said election for the office
indicated above.
Given under our hands this 5th day of November, 1997.
A copy teste:
~ ~J~~ [~/~,~..~l,~ , Chairman
,../ / II/'/?~'~'v"~ Secretary, Electoral Board
,RSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 4· 1997 General Election· for:
· Virginia,
COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY
J~IAMES OF CANDIDA TES ON BALL O T
Domald S. Caldwell
TOTAL VOTES
FIECEIVED
lIN F~OOSES)
18,222
3
Total Write-In Votes [SEE CERTIFICATION] ..............
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this 5th day of November, 1997.
copy teS te:
,'~_~_--~'~'~-~ ~' ~~-~,c~ Chairman
/~~J .Secretary
/ ~~~ Secretary. Electoral Board
Roanoke
E] COUNTY ]~J CITY
Commomeeal th* s Attorney
OFFICE TITLE
General Election
November 4, 1997
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Page 1 of
Write-Ins
ILIST IN ALPIIABETICAL OnDEIt!
Invalid Write-Ins
G. David NLxon
TOTAl VOTES
REC£1VED
(IN F~au~s]
1
1
1
Hatt Womack
CONIINUEO ON PAGES ~ 111ROI)GII --
We, the varlet'signed Electotg Board, upon examinat~o, of the official ~'ecords deposited with the Cle/k of tile
Citcuit Coutt of the electio, held on November 4, 1997, do he~ebv certify that, with the continuation pages
indicated, the above is a tTUe and conect certification of the wfite-fl~ voles cast at said election for the office
indicateg above.
Given u.deT om hands this ~th da)/of IVovembe~; 1~97.
A COPV
~ [~//~,,"~d~ .., . Chairman
Secretary, Electoral Board
,RSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the Cic¥ of Roanoke
at the November 4, 1997 General Election, for:
· Virginia,
SHERIFF
iilAME$ OF CANOIOATES ON aALLOT
George H.
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN F=UR;S)
16,749
Total Write-In Votes [SEE CERTIFICATION] ..............
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under Our hands this 5th day of November, 1997.
A copy teste:
Electoral
Board
Seal
~.~ Secretary, Electoral Board
W. ;H.I.I -.INS ICAII. ON
Roanoke
E] COUNTY ~l~ CITY
Sheriff
OFFICE TITLE
General Election
November 4, 1997
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER. IF APPLICABLE
Page I of
Write-Ins
IL,ST IN ALr'IIABETICAL onoEnl
Invalid Write-Ins
Jim Phiklips
TOTAL VOTES
REC£1V£O
lt. F~ua~s)
1
1
1
M. Womack
CONTINUED ON PAGES ~ 71IROUOll ~
We. lbe ondersigned Electoral Board. upon examh~at'ion of tile official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Co[.t of the election held on November 4. 1997, do hereby certify that. wiU; the continuation pages
indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of the wrile-in votes cast at said election for ff~e office
Given under our hands this 5th day of Novembe6 1997.
A copy
~ ~/~./[~..~'1.~ , Chairman
y . ' . ' ~ c.~-~(~7 , Vice Chairman
~'¥' , Secretary
~/~~ Secretary, Electoral Board
.ARSTHACT OF VOTES
cast in the city nE Roanoke
at the November 4, 1997 General Election, for:
· Virginia,
COMMISSIONER OF REVENUE
NAMES OF CANDIDATES ON BALLOT
Sherman A. Holland
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIOURES)
11,711
Guy N. Bvrdt Jr .......... 10~721
Total Write-In Votes [SEE CERTIFICATION] ..............
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
Abstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this ~th day of November, 1997.
A copy teste:
Secretary, Electoral Board
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
Roanoke
COUNTY
CITY
Commissioner of Revenue
OFFICE TITLE
General Election
November 4, 1997
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Page 1 of t
Write-l.s
|LIST IN ALPIIABETICAL onvEnl
Invalid Write-Ins
Mnr~lm CompLon Fleider
TOTAL VOTES
/TECEIVED
(l~v Ftaun~s)
MaLL Womack
CONIINUEI~ ON PAGES, TIIROU611__
We. the ondersigned Electoral Board. opon examhlaiion of the official records deposited w/tlr tim Cle~k of the
Circoit Coopt of the electio, held on November 4. 1997. do hereby cettify that. wilh the continoatio, pages
ind/cated, the above is a true and correct certification of the wdte-in votes cast at said election for the office
indicale~ above.
Given u/~der GU, /rands t/tis 5 th (lay of November. 1997.
~."""~/'~,/[~,,~1,~ , Chairman
Secretary, Electoral Board
.RSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke
at the November 4, 1997 General Election, for:
· Virginia,
TREASURER
J~fAMES OF CANDIDATES ON BALLOT
David C. Anderson
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN FIOORES)
18,234
Total Write-In Votes [SEE CERTIFICATION] ..............
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with the Clerk of the
Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct
,~bstract of Votes cast at said election for the office indicated above.
Given under our hands this ~rh day of November, 1997.
copy teste:
Chairman
Chairman
Secretary
Secretary, Electoral Board
W.I{I I.h,-INS Cl.,l{.! IP .ICA.I I. ON
Roanoke
COUNTY
CITY
Treasurer
OFFICE TIFLE
General Election
November 4, 1997
DISTRICT NAME OR NUMBER, IF APPLICABLE
Page 1 of t
Write-Ins
lUST ,N ALPHABETICAL onvEn]
Invalid Write-Ins
~am Darb¥
TOTAl VOTES
RECEIVED
lin Ftaun~sl
Matt Womack
CONIINUEO ON PAOE$ , IlIROUGII__
We, the undersigned Electoral Bored, upon examilmt'ion of the official :ecords deposited with t/ye OmA of the
Circuit Cotnt of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify that, with the continuation pages
indicated, the above is a true and correct certification of tbe write-in votes cast at said election for the office
indicate¢~ above.
Given onder our hands lhis ~th day of November, 1997.
A copy tcsfe:
t-'"'~~~ ' , Chairman
~ ~ Vice Chairman
Secretary, Electoral Board
. ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
at the November 4, 1997 Special Election, for:
BOND ELECTION
QUESTION: Shall Ordinance No. 33497-072197, adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
on July 21, 1997, entitled:
"AN ORDINANCE authorizing the issuance of Thirty-Nine Million Thirty Thousand Dollars
($39,030,000) principal amount of general obligation bonds of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, for the
purpose of providing funds to defray the cost to the City of Roanoke of needed permanent public
improvements of and to public bridges, public buildings, economic development, parks, public schools,
storm drains, streets and sidewalks, and acquisition of real property for the foregoing; and providing for an
emergency.", be approved?
TOTAL VOTES,
RECEIVED
(1~1 F/~JnES,)
YES 16.778
NO 4,641
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for and against
the question or proposition set forth above.
Given under our hands this 5ch day of November, 1997.
A copy teste:
~./~.~ ~. ~. Vice Chairman
. fiecr.ary
Secretary, Electoral Board
.ARSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
at the November 4, 1997 Special Election, for:
PROPOSED CHARTER AMENDMENT
QUESTION: Shall the Roanoke City Charter of 1952, as amended, be amended effective January
1, 2000, to provide for a seven member City Council consisting of a Mayor and Vice-Mayor separately
elected at large and five (5) Council members who shall each be elected from and be a qualified voter in an
election district established by Council with one Council member from each district?
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(I. FIC-UnES)
YES~.527
NO
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records deposited with
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 4, 1997, do hereby certify
that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at said election for and against
the question or proposition set forth above.
Given under our hands this Sth day of November, 1997.
A copy teste:
Secretary, Electoral Board
ABSTRACT OF VOTES
cast in the City of Roanoke, Virginia,
at the November 4, 1997 Special Election, for:
OFFTRACK PARI-MUTUAL WAGERING
QUESTION: Shall pari-mutuel wagering be permitted in the City of Roanoke at satellite
facilities in accordance with Chapter 29 (§ 59.1-364, et seq.) of Title 59.1 of the Code of Virginia?
TOTAL VOTES
RECEIVED
(IN F/OUnES)
YES 9~044
NO12.371
We, the undersigned Electoral Board, upon examination of the official records
deposited with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the election held on November 4,
1997, do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct Abstract of Votes cast at
said election for and against the question or proposition set forth above.
Given under our hands this 5th day of November, 1997.
A copy teste:
Secretary, Electoral Board
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 19, 1997
File #110-488
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Richard S. Winstead
1402 2nd Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Mr. Winstead:
Your communication tendering your resignation as a member of the Roanoke
Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee, was before the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting on Monday, November 17, 1997.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, your resignation was accepted and the
communication was received and filed.
The Members of City Council requested that I express sincere appreciation for your
willingness to serve the City of Roanoke as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood
Partnership Steering Committee from December 9, 1991, to November 17, 1997. Please
find enclosed a Certificate of Appreciation and an aerialview photograph of the Roanoke
Valley which was issued by the Mayor on behalf of the Members of the Roanoke City
Council.
MFP:js
Enclosure
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
H:~AGENDA. g~IOV17.WPO
'Richard S. Winstead
November 19, 1997
Page 2
pc:
William E. Skeen, Chair, Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee,
32 Church Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Madam A. Stacey, Coordinator, Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
H:~AGENDA,gTU~QV17.WPO
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS
'97 NOV-3 ~11:18
William E. Skeen, Chair
Mariam K. Alam, Partnership Coordinator
Room 162 Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
November 2,1997
Dear Bill & Madam;
This is one of the hardest letters I have ever had to send. Because of my present
involvement with business development and new ventures in Santa Monica, I have very
little time for anything. I have enclosed an article from the business journal that may
help you to understand that involvement. The new venture will come on line m
December, and another in Orlando, in 1998. I am one of two financial backers living
here in Roanoke, and we both will be returning to Santa Monica for the Cmmd Opining
in December.
It is with great regret that I am compelled to turn in my resignation as member
of Steering Committee for the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership. With my time
limited so much at the present and in the near future; I feel that someone else would
be in a better position for serving on the Steering Committee. I have enjoyed working
with everyone involved in making Roanoke a better place in which to live.
We still have a lot of work to do, in the areas of Economic Development,
Neighborhood cleanup and development, crime prevention and safety. Each
Neighborhood league has made tremendous strides in all areas and should be in-oud of
their achievements. I am proud to have been associated with such fine civic minded
individuals while working toward a brighter furore for our children.
With my sincere regrets and best regards to everyone.
Sincerely
Richard S. Winstead
e: Mary Parker City Clerk
¢: lite Honorable David Bowers and members of Roanoke City Council.
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 19, 1997
File #15-110-335
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Susan J. Cloet~r, Chair
Blue Ridge Community Services
Board of Directors
301 Elm Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Ms. Cloeter:
This is to advise you ~that on November 12, 1997, Robert Williams, Jr., qualified as a
member of the Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors for a term ending
December 31, 1999.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
pc: Pamela K. Cox, Secretary, Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors, 301
Elm Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk
H:~.GENOA.97~IOV17.WPO
RECEI'~EO
CiTY CLERKS OFFICE
:40
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Robert Williams, 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 Blue Ridge Community Services Board of
Directors for a term ending December 31, 1999, according to the best of my ability. So
help me God.
/
Subscribed and sworn to before me this /c~.. day of~'~CTD
1997.
ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK
, DEPUTY CLERK
H:~,GENDA.I)7~IOV3.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 2401 I- 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
November 19, 1997
File ~60-53-236-467
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy Ci[y Clerk
Marsha W. Ellison, Chair
Roanoke City School Board
2030 Knollwood Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Ms. Ellison:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33647-111797, declaring the intent of the City of
Roanoke to reimburse itself from the proceeds of a tax exempt financing for certain
expenditures to be made in connection with construction, renovation and/or equipping or
certain capital improvements at Addison Middle School. The abovereferenced measure
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on Monday,
November 17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Enc.
pc:
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
Cindy H. Ramsuer, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Ila C. Farris, Senior Accountant, Finance Department
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
H:~AGENDA. gT~IOV17.WPO
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33647-111797.
A RESOLUTION declaring the City's intent to reimburse itself from the proceeds of a tax
exempt financing for certain expenditures to be made in connection with the construction, renovation
and/or equipping or certain capital improvements.
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke, Virginia ("Issuer") is a political subdivision organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Issuer may have made expenditures within 60 days prior to the date hereof,
and will make expenditures on and aRer the date hereof, with respect to expenses incurred and to be
incurred ("Expenditures") in connection the construction, renovation and/or equipping of Addison
Middle School ("Project"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the Issuer ("Council") has de~ermined that the funds
advanced and to be advanced to pay Expenditures are or will be available for a temporary period and
it is necessary to reimburse the Issuer for Expenditures paid up to 60 days prior to, on or after the
date hereof with respect to the Project from the proceeds of one or more issues of tax exempt
obligations ("Bonds").
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The Council hereby adopts this declaration of official intent under Treasury Regulation
Section 1.150-2 and declares its intent to reimburse the Issuer with the proceeds of a tax exempt
financing for Expenditures made up to 60 days prior to, on or at~er the date hereof with respect to
the Project.
2. On the date of the Expenditures, all reimbursable cost of the Project will be ora type
properly chargeable to a capital account under general federal income tax principles, a cost of
issuance for a bond, or an expenditure described in §1.148-6(d)(3)(ii)(B).
is $9,720,000.
4.
The maximum principal amount of obligations expected to be issued for the Project
The adoption of this resolution is consistent with the budgetary and financial
circumstances of the Issuer and all other entities that are part of any controlled group, within the
meaning of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-1 (e), of which Issuer is deemed a part.
5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER, CMC~AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
November 19, 1997
File ~60-53-236-467
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Marsha W. Ellison, Chair
Roanoke City School Board
2030 Knollwood Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Ms. Ellison:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33646-111797, declaring the intent of the City of
Roanoke to reimburse itself from the proceeds of a tax exempt financing for certain
expenditures to be made in connection with construction, renovation and/or equipping of
certain capital improvements at Woodrow Wilson Middle School, in an amount not to
exceed $9,030,000.00. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on Monday, November 17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Enc.
pc:
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
Cindy H. Ramsuer, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Ila C. Farris, Senior Accountant, Finance Department
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator, Office of Management and Budget
H:~AGENDA.g'/~NQVlT.WPD
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33646-111797.
A RESOLUTION declaring the City's intent to reimburse itself from the proceeds of a tax
exempt financing for certain expenditures to be made in connection with the construction, renovation
and/or equipping of certain capital improvements.
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke, Virginia ("Issuer") is a political subdivision organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, on December 16, 1996, the City Council oftbe Issuer ("Council") adopted a
resolution ("Reimbursement Resolution") declaring its intent, in accordance with Treasury
Regulations Section 1.150-2 to reimburse expenditures ("Expenditures") made by the Issuer in
connection with the construction, renovation and/or equipping of certain improvements at Woodrow
Wilson Middle School ("Project") from the proceeds of debt to be incurred by the Issuer in an
amount not to exceed $7,500,000; and
WHEREAS, because of an increase in the projected total cost of the Project since the
Reimbursement Resolution was adopted on December 16, 1996, the Issuer now expects to finance
the Project from the proceeds of debt in an amount not to exceed $9,030,000.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The Council hereby amends the Reimbursement Resolution to provide that the
maximum principal amount of debt that the Issuer expects to be issued for the Project is $9,030,000.
2. Except to the extent modified hereby, the Reimbursement Resolution is hereby ratified
and shall remain in full force and effect.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY IV. 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 19, 1997
File ~t60-53-236-467
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33645-111797, amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1997-98 School and Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, to provide
$10,771.00 for one grant for the Impact Aid program, and $4,650,000.00 in front funding
from the Capital bond issue to be used for Woodrow Wilson Middle School renovations,
middle school asbestos abatement, and Addison Middle School renovations. The
abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting on Monday, November 17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Enc.
pc:
Marsha W. Ellison, Chair, Roanoke City School Board, 2030 Knollwood Road,
S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
Cindy H. Ramsuer, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Ila C. Farris, Senior Accountant, Finance Department
H:~AGENOA.g'~NOV17.WPO
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33645-111797.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1997-98 School
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 1997-98 School and Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and
the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
School Fund.
Appropriations
Education
Impact Aid 1997-98 (1-2) ....................................
Revenue
Education
Impact Aid 1997-98 (3) ......................................
$109,254,134
10,771
$106,606,817
10,771
Capital Projects Fund
Appropriations
Education
Wilson Middle School Renovation (4) ..........................
Middle School Asbestos Abatement (5) .........................
Addison Middle School Renovation (6) .........................
Capital Improvement Reserve
Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1998 (7) .....................
$ 27,231,584
8,967,669
300,000
500,000
4,682,582
(6,000,000)
1 ) Part-time Teachers (030-060-6971-6000-0121 )
2) Social Security (030-060-6971-6000-0201)
3) Federal Grant Receipts (030-060-6971-1102)
4) Appropriated from
Bond Funds
5) Appropriated from
Bond Funds
6) Appropriated from
Bond Funds
7) Schools
(008-060-6088-9001)
(008-060-6091-9001)
(008-060-6090-9001)
(008-052-9706-9182)
10,000
771
10,771
3,850,000
300,000
500,000
(4,650,000)
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, VA.
November 17, 1997
FROM:
SUtMF, Cr:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council ' ~
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
School Board Requests for the Appropriation of School Ftmds
and Bond Proceeds
We have reviewed the attached request to appropriate funding for the
School Board. This report will appropriate funding for one grant in the School Fund.
This grant is funded with federal funds.
The School Board further requests the appropriation of $4,650,000
from the 1998 anticipated bond issue proceeds. These funds will be used for
Woodrow Wilson Middle School renovations, Middle School Asbestos Abatement and
Addison Middle School renovations. Internal Revenue Service regulations
(Section 1.150-2) require that the City declare its intent to reimburse itself from the
proceeds of its general obligation bonds. A resolution of this type is attached to this
report.
We recommend that you concur with this request of the School Board.
// Director oi' Finance
JDG/ICF/bls
Attachments
c: Ila Farris, Senior Accountant
.~~ Marsha W. Ellison, Chairman Charles W. Day
.-~ Melinda J. Payne, Vice Chairman F.B. Webster Day
Harry F. Davis Sherman P. Lea
Roanoke
/'City School Board P.O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 · 540-853-2381
Brian J. Wishneff
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent
Cindy H. Ramsuer, Clerk of the Board
° Fax: 540-853-2951
November 12, 1997
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Members of Council:
The School Board requests the following appropriations as the result of official Board
action at its November 11 meeting:
Grant No. 6971 - $10,771.00 for the Impact Aid program to provide funds for the
operation of the Homework Helpline for the 1997-98 school year. This is a continuing program
and federal funds have been received.
$3,850,000.00 in front funding from the Capital Bond Issue approved by referendum on
November 4, 1997, for the balance of the renovation costs for Woodrow Wilson Middle School
and a change order contingency for middle school renovations.
$300,000.00 in front funding from the Capital Bond Issue approved by referendum on
November 4, 1997, for asbestos abatement in middle school renovations.
$500,000.00 in front funding from the Capital Bond Issue approved by referendum on
November 4, 1997, for design plans and surveys for the Addison Middle School renovation.
The Board appreciates the approval of these requests.
Sincerely,
Cindy H. Ramsuer, Clerk
re
cc:
Mrs. Marsha W. Ellison
Dr. E. Wayne Harris
Mr. Richard L. Kelley
Mr. Kenneth F. Mundy
Mr. William L. Murray
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
/~lr. Wilburn C. Dibling
r. James D. Grisso
· ffMrs. Ila Farris (with accounting details)
Excellence
in Education
NOU-O?-1997 13:48 5488532951 P.02/06
ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD
Roanoke, Virginia
~_ROPRIATION REQUEST
Impact Aid 97-98
6971
050-060-6971-6000~0121
030-060-6971.60000201
Appropriation Unit ZgS
030-060.6971-1102
Part-time Teachers $ 10,000.00 02.8%
~ocial Security 771,00 7.2%
$ 10,771.00 100.0%
Federal Grant Receipts
$ 10,771,00 100.0%
The Impact Aid program will provide funds for the operation of the Homework Helpline Program for the
1997-98 school year. The federal funds have been received. This is a continuing program.
November 11, 1997
ROANOKECITY~CHOOLBOARD
Roanoke, Vl~lnis
APPROPRIATION REClUEgT
1997 Capital Bond Issue
Woodrow Wilson Middle School Renovation
008-0606088-6896-0809
008-060-6088-6896.0851
Appropriation Unit ZM2
008-060-6088-6896-9001
Middle School Change Orders
Woodmw Wilson Renovation
100,000.00 2.6
3,750,000,00 97.4
3,850,000.00 100,0
Bond Funds $ ....3,850,000.00 100.0 %
The above additional appropriation request will provKle bond funds for the balance of the renovation
costs for Woodmw Wilson Middle School and a change o~ler contingency for middle school renovations.
November 11, 1997
ROANOKE CITYSCHOOLBOARD
Roanoke, V~ginla
APPROPRIATION. REQUEST
1997 Capital Bond Issue
Middle School Asbestos Abatement
6091
008~060-6091-6896-0809
Appropriation Un~ ZM7
Asbestos Abatement $ 300,000.00 100.0 %
008-060-6091-689~-9001
Bond Funds $ 30.0,000.00 100.0 %
The above appropriation request will provide bond funds for asbestos abatement in middle school
renovations.
November 11, 1997
ROANOKE ClTY SCHOOLBOARD
Roanoke, Virginia
APPROPRIATION REQUEST
lg97 Capital Bond Issue
Addison Middle School Renovation
6090
008-060-6090-6896-0809
Appropriation Unit ZM6
Design Plans and Surveys $ .600,000,00
100,0 %
008-060-6090-6896-9001
Bond Funds $ 500,000.00 100.0 %
The above appropriation request will provide bond funds for design plans and surveys for the Addison
Middle School Renovation.
November 11, 1997
.~~ Marsha W. Ellison, Chairman Charles W. Day
Melinda J. Payne, Vice ~r4~Lr~a,_ E~ F.B. Webster Day
Harry F. Davis CITY CLER,~S O?!:ICSherman P. Lea
fRoanoke 'vi 12 P1:04
City School Board P.O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Brian J. Wishneff
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent
Cindy H. Ramsuer, Clerk of the Board
· 540-853-2381 · Fax: 540-853-2951
November 12, 1997
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Members of Council:
The School Board requests the following appropriations as the result of official Board
action at its November 11 meeting:
Grant No. 6971 - $10,771.00 for the Impact Aid program to provide funds for the
operation of the Homework Helpline for the 1997-98 school year. This is a continuing program
and federal funds have been received.
$3,850,000.00 in front funding from the Capital Bond Issue approved by referendum on
November 4, 1997, for the balance of the renovation costs for Woodrow Wilson Middle School
and a change order contingency for middle school renovations.
$;300,000.00 in front funding from the Capital Bond Issue approved by referendum on
November 4, 1997, for asbestos abatement in middle school renovations.
$500,000.00 in front funding from the Capital Bond Issue approved by referendum on
November 4, 1997, for design plans and surveys for the Addison Middle School renovation.
The Board appreciates the approval of these requests.
Sincerely,
Cindy H. Ramsuer, Clerk
re
cc:
Mrs. Marsha W. Ellison
Dr. E. Wayne Harris
Mr. Richard L. Kelley
Mr. Kenneth F. Mundy
Mr. William L, Murray
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling
Mr. James D. Grisso
Mrs. Ila Farris (with accounting details)
Excellence in Education
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 19, 1997
File ~67-230-311-327
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
The Reverend C. Nelson Harris
Member, Roanoke City Council
2813 Edgewood Street, S. W.
Roanoke Virginia 24015
Dear Reverend Harris:
Your communication with regard to the International Sculpture Garden on Mill Mountain
was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on Monday, November
17, 1997.
A motion that the International Sculpture Garden developed by Roanoke Sister Cities be
approved, to be located in Mill Mountain Park at the site outlined in the Master Plan
developed by David Hill, PC, was defeated.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMClAAE
City Clerk
MFP:Io
pc:
Brook E. Dickson, Chair, Roanoke Arts Commission, 523 Highland Avenue, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Carl H. Kopitzke, Chair, Mill Mountain Advisory Committee, 4581 Oakland Blvd.,
N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
David K. Lisk, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley Sister Cities, 909 Carrington
Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
H:~AQ ENOA.g?~IOVI 7.WPO
The Reverend C. Nelson Harris
November 19, 1997
Page 2
pc:
John W. Coates, Manager, Parks and Recreation
Lynn B. Vernon, Parks Planner, Parks and Recreation
H:~AGENDA.97~NOV17.WPO
NOU-15-1997 15:04 PANASONIC P.O1
DAVID A. BOWERS
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE RECEIVED
CITY COUNCIL f.:ITY CLE~!<,S OFF!~F
21.5 Church Avenue, S.W. Room 456
~,,~,o~,,,. v~,,~,~, ~o~,-, s::o '97 NOV 1.3 P 4:18
Telephone: (540) tj53-2541
Fax: t540) 85%1145
C. Neb,.n [-.{arrlx
John H, Parrott
Carroll E Swam
Same, O. Trout
Wilfianl wtme. Sr
Linda F Wyatt
November 13, 1997
Dear Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council:
It is my privilege to serve as Council's liaison to the Roanoke Arts Commission. In that
capacity, I have become well acquainted with the International Sculpture Garden
developed by our Sister Cities organization. This project received conceptual approval
from City Council in January of 1996 (almost two years ago), and now the artists, Arts
Commission and Sister Cities orgamzation are ready for final approval. Final approval is
necessary for the initiation of fund raising and site preparation. It is, therefore, my
intention to introduce a motion at our Council meeting on November I7 for final
approval of the International Sculpture Garden and its being located in Mill Mountain
Park.
Attached is some additional background information. If you have any questions, please
call me. I respectfully request that this letter be placed under the Petitions and
Communications section of our agenda.
Sincerely,
C. Nelson Harris
Attachments
NOU-15-1997 14:52
96X
P.O1
PANASON I C
P. 82
NOU-13-1997 14:53
TOTal,.,. P.81
P. 02
Mill Mountain Park/Sister Cities Sculpture Garden
'97
Statement of M. Rupert Cutler, Executive Director
Western Virginia Land Trust
to the Roanoke City Council
November 17, 1997
Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
Art, outdoor recreation, and environmental protection are all important to our way
of life. We have an opportunity to provide all three in Mill Mountain Park.
As a professional environmentalist who grew up in a family of artists and
musicians, I am very snpportive of etTorts to provide our community with outdoor art--
including that being proposed to honor our "sister cities" on Mill Mountain.
On behalf of the 200 me~nbers of our new Western Virginia Land Trust, I would
like to be recorded as in favor of positive action toward building out the David Hill-
designed plan for improvements of the modest facilities atop Mill Mountain including the
proposed Sister Cities sculptured columns.
The land trust's main goal in this regard is protection in perpetuity of most of Mill
Mountain Park in its present undeveloped condition. To assure that protection I will
recommend at the appropriate time that the City enter into a conservation easement
designed to limit development on the mountain. I will "go through channels" with this
proposal and take it to your Mill Mountain Advisory Committee for its consideration with
the expectation that it will forward the idea to you for your ultimate decision.
Meanwhile I hope you will move ahead soon with the carefully thought-out Sister
Cities Sculpture Garden project on Mill Mountain.
Thank you.
· .N0~-15-1997
15: 05 PANASON I C P.
(Excerpt from minutes of 1/16/96 Roanoke City Council meeting)
CITY CLERK:
ACTION:
SCHOOLS: The City Clerk submitted a written report advising
that pursuant to Chapter 9, Education, of the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, the three year terms of Charles W. Day
and Finn D. Pincus, as Trustees of the Roanoke City School Board will
expire on June 30, 1996, and inasmuch as 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, applications for the upcoming vacancies will be
received in the City Clerk's Office until 5:00 p.m., on Monday, March 11,
1998.
(For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
Ms. Wyatt moved that the report be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. McCadden and adopted.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
PARKS AND RECREATION-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION-
SISTER CITIES: Carl H. Kopitzke, Chairperson, Mill Mountain
Development Committee, presented a written report on behalf of the
Committee, advising that the Roanoke Art~ Commiesion has requested
that the Mill Mountain Development Committee approve in concept a
project that would allow the placement of a sculpture in Mill Mountain
Park, the purpose of which is to acknowledge and celebrate the
involvement of the Roanoke Valley in the worldwide Sister Cities
Program; the theme of the sculpture would be based on international
understanding and peace, with the piece of art to be located adjacent
to the walkway to the Mill Mountain Zoo in the vicinity of the Sister
ClUes trees which were planted and dedicated in 1993; by approval of
the project in concept, the Roanoke Arts Commission would be able to
make a call for artists who may be interested in submitting a proposal
and would begin a fund raising campaign for the project; and the
propoeed budget goal is $15,000.00, with installation projected for the
spring of 1997.
The Mill Mountain Development Committee recommended that
Council approve the project, in concept, as presented by the Roanoke
Arts Gommlesion.
The City Manager submitted a written report advising that the
City Parks and Recreation Depa~nt has been working u--Iosely with
the Sieter Cities Sculpture Committee since April 1995 on various
NOU-15-1997 14:55
P. 03
~0U-13-1997
ACTION:
15:05
PANASONIC
details of the proposed project; therefore, he concurred in the
recommendation as submitted by the Mill Mountain Development
Committee that Council approve, in concept, the project as proposed
by the Roanoke Arts Comnds~on; and Council will be kept informed as
the project progresses.
Communications from Ann Weinstein, representative of the
Roanoke Arts Commission to the Sister Cities Committee; W. Conrad
Stone, Member, Sister Cities Committoo; Robert F. Roth, President,
Roanoke Valley Sister Cities; Beth Poff, Executive Director, Blue Ridge
Zoological Society of Virginia; and Betty Boxley, the Mill Mountain
Garden Club, in support of the project, were also before Council.
(For full text, see reports and contrnuni~~ on file in the City Clerk's
Omce.)
Mr. Parrott moved that Council conour in the recommendation of
tho Mill Mountain Development Committee. The motion was seconded
by Mr. McCadden and adopted.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS: None.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS
OF COUNCIL:
ELECTIONS-COUNCIL-CITY GOVERNMENT: Council Merrd~r
McCaddan presented a statement with regard to eliminating party
affiliation as a moans of electing local officials, advising that in this
way, citizens will have the opportunity to elect the parr, on best able to
set the direction of the City rather than worry about what party a
cmtdidate is affiliated with; it would allow the City Manager to have the
full Council direction in his administration of City policies and
proceduro~; and it would insure that the individual has the good of the
City at heart and not the direction of a political party behind him or her
as they set the policy and tho tone for the City.
(For full text, see staterrmnt on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
NOU-13-1997 14:54
TOTAL P.04
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 20, 1997
File #236-384-450
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 3,.3648-111797, authorizing execution of Amendment
No. 2 to a Subgrant Agreement between the City of Roanoke and the Blue Ridge Small
Business Development Center, Inc., for a Small Business Incubator, dated November 1,
1995, for funding of the Small Business Incubator program, in order to extend the period
of the agreement and add additional funds. The abovereferenced measure was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on Monday, November 17,
1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/ME
City Clerk
MFP:js
Enc.
pc:
Lisa C. Ison, President, Blue Ridge Small Business Development Center, 212 South
Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator
Phillip F. Sparks, Chief, Economic Development
Frank E. Baratta, Grants Monitor, Office of Grants Compliance
H:~AGENDA.97~IOVl 7.WPD
IN THE COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33648-111797.
A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of Amendment No. 2 to a
Subgrant Agreement between the City and the Blue Ridge Small
Business Development Center, Inc., for a Small Business Incubator,
dated November 1, 1995, for funding of the Small Business Incubator
program.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager or Assistant City Manager is hereby
authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute Amendment No.
2 to the Subgrant Agreement between the City and the Blue Ridge
Small Business Development Center, Inc., for a Small Business
Incubator Agreement, dated November 1, 1995, said Amendment No. 2
to extend the period of the agreement and add the additional funds
for this Incubator Program, as more particularly set out in the
report to this Council dated November 17, 1997.
2. The amendment shall be approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
H:'~.ES'~R.-A-INCU.2
RECEIVED
CITY CI. EE~¢c, :., CFFt¢¢~,-~-
'97 -3 / 9'.17
Roanoke, Virginia
November 17, 1997
97-39
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Amendment 2 to the Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG")
Agreement with the Blue Ridge Small Business Development Center, Inc.
(the "Center") for a Small Business Incubator (the "Incubator")
The Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce (.the "Chamber") requested fundine
assistance for the Incubator in response to the CDBG request for proposals issued
by the City in January, 1995. An "incubator" is a building which rents space and
offers shared services to reduce the financial burdens on, and increase the potential
for success of, start-up and developing businesses.
City_ Council originally authorized $60,000 in CDBG funding for the Incubator as
part of the Consolidated Plan approved for submission to the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development ("HUD") on May 8, 1995, by Resolution 32476-
050895.
Co
Council authorized execution of a subgrant agreement between the City and the
Chamber by Resolution 32555-071095 on July 10, 1995, to implement the CDBG-
funded Incubator activities.
Do
The Center was organized as the private, non-profit corporation which would
actually operate the Incubator.
Uo
Amendment 1 to the Agreement provided $30,000 additional CDBG funding and
redesignated the Center as the Subgrantee. The funds had been authorized as part
of the 1996/97 Annual Update to the Consolidated Plan approved for submission
to HUD on May 13, 1996, by Resolution 32939-051396. Changing the Subgrantee
streamlined payment processing and ensured that accountability for performance
would rest with the entity operating the Incubator.
II. Current Situation:
Council authorized $45,000 in further CDBG funding for the Incubator as part of
the 1997/98 Annual Update to the Consolidated Plan approved for submission to
HUD on May 12, 1997, by Resolution 33402-051297.
Members of Council
Page 2
III.
IV.
TO date, the Incubator has assisted 14 small businesses, including two minority-
owned businesses and two women-owned businesses. The businesses have created
44 full and part-time jobs, 26 of which have been filled by low- and moderate-
income individuals.
An amendment to the existing agreement is needed to extend the period of the
agreement and add the additional $45,000 funding.
Issues:
A. Cost to the City.
B. Small business development.
C. Consistency with the Consolidated Plan.
Alternatives:
Authorize the City. Manager or the Assistant City. Manager to execute, and the City
Clerk to attest, Amendment No. 2 to the CDBG Subgrant Agreement with the
Center (similar in form and content to Attachment A), said amendment to be
approved as to form by the City Attorney.
~ would be $45,000 in CDBG funding, which is available in
the following account:
035-098-9830-5092 Small Business Incubator $45,000
Small business development will continue to benefit through the City's
support of the Incubator. There is currently no other incubator facility in
the City to assist start-up and developing small businesses to increase their
viability. The $45,000 in CDBG funds being provided by the City will be
used for necessary operating costs of the Incubator.
Consistency with the Consolidated Plan would be achieved. This plan,
approved by City Council, includes the $45,000 additional funds for the
Incubator.
Bo
Do not authorize the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager to execute, and
the City Clerk to attest, Amendment No. 2 to the CDBG Subgrant Agreement with
the Center.
1. Cost to the City would not be a factor.
Members of Council
Page 3
Vo
;Small business development assistance could be jeopardized. The loss of
$45,000 in planned revenue would impair the Incubator's ability to operate
effectively and could result in decreased services to businesses. This, in
turn, could affect attainment of performance expectations.
Consistency with the Consolidated Plan would not be achieved in the
absence of an amendment to add the $45,000 in approved funding to the
Incubator agreement.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council concur with Alternative A, authorizing the City
Manager or the Assistant City Manager to execute, and the City Clerk to attest,
Amendment No. 2 to the CDBG Subgrant Agreement with the Center (similar in form and
content to Attachment A), said amendment to be approved as to form by the City
Attorney.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:FEB
Attachment
C:
Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Budget Administrator
Chief of Economic Development
Office of Grants Compliance
President, Blue Ridge Small Business Development Center
Attachment A
AMENDMENT No. 2
This Amendment No. 2 is entered into this ~ day of ., 1997, by and between the City of Roanoke
(the "Grantee") and the Blue Ridge Small Business Development Center, Inc. (the "Subgrantee").
WHEREAS, by Resolution No. 33434-061697 and by Ordinance No. 33433-061697, adopted June 16,
1997, the Roanoke City Council approved the 1997 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG)
program and appropriated funds therefor; and
WHEREAS, by Resolution No .... adopted November 3, 1997, the Roanoke City Council
approved the execution of Amendment No. 2 to the Agreement between the Grantee and the Subgrantee.
NOW THEREFORE, the Grantee, the Subgrantee and the Center do mutually agree to amend the
Agreement as follows:
1. Part 1.c. shall read as follows:
1.c. Schedule -- This agreement shall be for the period of July 1, 1995, through
December 31, 1998.
2. Part 1.d. shall read as follows:
1.d. B_adgeX -- The total CDBG funding to be provided by the Grantee toward this
project is $135,000. These funds will be designated "project funds."
The Agreement shall remain unchanged in all other terms and provisions.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the day and year
hereinabove written:
ATTEST:
FOR THE GRANTEE:
By
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
By
City Manager/Assistant City Manager
ATTEST:
FOR THE SUBGRANTEE:
By
Bruce Wood, Secretary
Blue Ridge Small Business
Development Center
By
Lisa C.Ison, President
Blue Ridge Small Business
Development Center
Attachment A
Page 2
APPROVED AS TO CDBG ELIGIBILITY
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Office of Grants Compliance
Assistant City Attorney
APPROVED AS TO EXECUTION
APPROPRIATION AND FUNDS REQUIRED
FOR THIS AMENDMENT CERTIFIED
Assistant City Attorney
Director of Finance
Date
035-098-9830-5092
035-095-9530-5092
035-094-9430-5092
Account # 035-097-9730-5092
($45,000 Project)
($60,000 Project)
($6,671 Projec0
($23,329 Projec0
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
November 20, 1997
File #188-472
Pimm A. Hiller, District Sales Manager
Wheel Coach Industries, Inc.
Post Office Box 5574
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23471
Dear Mr. Hiller:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33649-111797, accepting the bid of Wheel Coach
Industries, Inc., for the purchase of two new ambulances, at a total cost of $121,762.00.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting on Monday, November 17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Enc.
pc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Public Safety
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, Supply Management
Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
James A. McClung, Manager, Fleet Management
James Grigsby, Fire-EMS Chief
H:~AGENDA. g7~NOV17.WPD
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33649-111797.
A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of Wheel Coach Industries, 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 Wheel Coach Industries, Inc., to furnish two new ambulances
at a total cost of $121,762, 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 City Attorney.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid items are hereby REIECTED,
and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation
for such bid.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
97-371
Roanoke, Virginia
November 17, 1997
RECEIVED
"'~' "' 0FF!q:F
CITY Ct.~K ~
NOV 1.3 A 9:31
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
SUBJECT:
Bid to Purchase Two (2)
Emergency Vehicles,
Bid No. 97-9-18
I. Background on the subject in chronological order is:
Ao
The Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program
has identified the need to replace Two (2) ambulances used in
Emergency Medical Services.
Bo
Bid specifications were developed and along with request for
quotations, were sent to Four (4) manufacturers of emergency
vehicles. A public advertisement was also published in The
Roanoke Times and The Roanoke Tribune.
Co
Bids were received until 2:00 p.m. on September 19, 1997, in the
Office of the Manager of Supply Management at which time all bids
appropriately received were publicly opened and read.
II. Current Situation is:
Only One (1) bid was received. That bid submitted by Wheel
Coach Industries, Inc. meets all required specifications at a cost of
$60,881.00 per unit.
Bo
Some contacts were made to Firms that did not respond. Due to
production schedules and long delivery schedules, they chose not
to take additional orders at this time.
III. Issues in order of importance are:
A. Need
B. Compliance with Specifications
C. Funding
IV. Alternatives in order of feasibility are:
Emergency Vehicles
Bid No. 97-9-18
Page 2
City Council authorize the purchase of Two (2) New Ambulances
from Wheel Coach Industries, Inc. for a cost of $60.881.00 each.
Need for the requested equipment is for the continued
support of appropriate Emergency Medical Services to the
citizens of the City.
Compliance with Specifications has been met by the
response submitted by Wheel Coach Industries, Inc.
Funding is available in Fleet Management account 017-052-
2642-9010.
B. Reject the bid.
Need for the most efficient and effective Emergency Medical
Services to the citizens would not be accomplished by this
alternative.
Compliance with Specifications would not be a factor in this
alternative.
Funding designated for this purchase would not be
expended at this time with this alternative.
Recommendation is for City Council to concur with Alternative "A" to
authorize the purchase of Two (2) New Ambulances from Wheel Coach
Industries, Inc. for a total cost of $121.762.00.
Respectfully Submitted,
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Clerk
Director, Utilities & Operations
Director, Public Works
Director, Public Safety
Manager, Fleet Management
Fire/EMS Chief
Management & Budget
Supply Management
W. Robert Herbert
City 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
November 20, 1997
File ~60-5-20-236-316
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 33651-111797, accepting a certain Driving Under
the Influence Enforcement Grant offer made to the City of Roanoke by the Commonwealth
of Virginia Transportation Safety Board, in the amount of $10,000.00 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 on
Monday, November 17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Attachment
pc:
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Public Safety
J. L. Viar, Acting Chief of Police
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator
H:~,GENDA.9"/~,IOV17.WPD
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINI&
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33651-111797.
A RESOLUTION accepting a certain Driving Under the Influence Enforcement Grant offer
made to the City by the Commonwealth of Virginia's Transportation Safety Board 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 does hereby accept the offer made to the City by the
Commonwealth of Virginia's Transportation Safety Board of a Driving Under the Influence
Enforcement grant in the amount of $10,000.00, such grant being more particularly described in the
report of the City Manager, dated November 17,1997, upon ail the terms, provisions and conditions
relating to the receipt of such funds.
2. The City Manager or his successor in office, 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 City 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's Transportation Safety Board in connection with the
City's acceptance of the grant.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 l- 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
November 20, 1997
File ~0-5-20-236-316
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33650-111797, amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1997-98 Grant Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of
$10,000.00 in connection with acceptance of a DUI Enforcement Grant from the State
Transportation Safety Board. The aboveraferenced measure was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on Monday, November 17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Attachment
pc:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Public Safety
J. L. Viar, Acting Chief of Police
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator
H:~AGENDA.97~K:)V17.WPD
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33650-111797.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1997-98 Grant
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 1997-98 Grant Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby,
amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
Appropriation
Public Safety $ 1,123,779
DWI Enforcement Enhancement Program 97-98 (1) ................ 10,000
Revenue
Public Safety $ 1,123,779
DWI Enforcement Enhancement Program 97-98 (2) ................ 10,000
1) Overtime Wages (035-050-3403-1003) $ 10,000
2) State Grant Receipts (035-035-1234-7269) 10,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall
be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
RECEIVED
[:]TY CLERKS ~]FFiCF
'97 NOV 10 AI0:14
November 17, 1997
Council Report #97-417
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT: State Transportation Safety Board
Driving Under the Influence (DUI) Enforcement Grant - Renewal
I. Background
Ao
State Transportation Safety Board awards state grants for districts
throughout Virginia for the enhancement of selective DUI
enforcement efforts. The Board awarded $10,000 to the City of
Roanoke during FY 96-97 for this purpose.
Bo
Application for a grant to be renewed for the City of Roanoke is based
on the necessity to continue to raise DUI arrests to a level that will
positively impact the total number of alcohol-related crashes and
fatalities.
Co
Funds received may be used only as stated in the application for DUI
enforcement.
Do
The agency requesting the grant funds agrees to provide items and
equipment necessary to carry out selective enforcement.
II. Current Situation:
Ao
In Roanoke City, 33% of all traffic-related deaths involved alcohol for
the period 1994 through 1996.
Bo
There were 15 DUI arrests and 120 related charges as a 'direct result
of the FY96-97 DUI grant.
Co
Local funding for overtime for extra-duty assignments is limited and
reduces the Police Department's ability to intensely conduct
successful selective DUI enforcement.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Page 2
Do
State Transportation Safety Board approved Roanoke's application for
grant continuation from October 1, 1997 to September 30, 1998 in the
amount of $10,000 on October 1, 1997.
City Council was briefed on Selective DUI enforcement on January 6,
1996.
III.
IV.
Issues:
A. Need.
B. Funding expenditures and accountability.
Alternatives:
Ao
City Council accept funding from the State Transportation Safety
Board in the amount of a $10,000 grant to run from October 1, 1997
to September 30, 1998 and appropriate these funds to Grant Fund
accounts to be established by the Director of Finance.
Need exists to provide additional funding to enhance selective
DUI enforcement with the goal of reducing alcohol-related
crashes.
Funding expenditures and accountability will be controlled
through the Police Department's Traffic Bureau in coordination
with the Department of Finance. All documentation required
by the Department of Motor Vehicles, Transportation Safety
Division, for reimbursement will be maintained by the Police
Department.
City Council reject funding from the State Transportation Safety
Board and not authorize the Director of Finance to establish a special
account for funding of a selective DUI enforcement effort.
Need for additional funding to enhance selective DUI
enforcement will not be met.
Funding will not be applied for or received from the State
Transportation Safety Board.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Page 3
Recommendation:
Council approve Alternative "A" to:
ho
Accept the grant from the State Transportation Safety Board and
authorize the City Manager to execute, on behalf of the City, any
grant agreement or other documentation required by the State
Transportation Safety Board; and
Appropriate $10,000 of selective DUI enforcement grant funds to
revenue and expenditure accounts to be established by the Director of
Finance in the Grant Fund.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/jm
CC~
Director of Finance
City Attorney
Acting Chief Viar
Director of Public Safety
Budget Administrator
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 20, 1997
File #53-217-467
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
The Honorable Arthur B. Crush, III
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Crush:
For filing with the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, pursuant to Section 15.1-
227.9, Code of Virginia, 1950, I am attaching a certified copy of Ordinance No. 33652-
111797 authorizing the sale of thirteen million ten thousand dollars ($13,010,000) principal
amount of City of Roanoke, Virginia, General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series
1997A, and not to exceed fifty million dollars ($50,000,000) principal amount of City of
Roanoke, Virginia, General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, Series 1997B, as part
of a combined issue of not to exceed sixty-three million ten thousand dollars ($63,010,000)
aggregate principal amount of General Obligation Bonds of the City of Roanoke, Virginia;
fixing the form, denomination and certain other details of such bonds and delegating to the
City Manager and the Director of Finance certain powers with respect thereto; authorizing
the preparation of a preliminary official statement and an official statement and the
distribution thereof; and authorizing the City to execute and deliver a continuing disclosure
certificate of such City relating to such bonds. The abovereferenced measure was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on Monday, November
17, 1997.
H:~AGENDA. OT~NOV17.Wi=O
The Honorable Arthur B. Crush, III
November 20, 1997
Page 2 ·
Pursuant to provisions of Section 10 of Ordinance No. 33652-111797, I am required to file
a certified copy with the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in accordance with
Section 15.1-227.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950.
Sincerely,
Mary F.
City Clerk
CMC/AAE
MFP:js
Attachment
pc:
Donald G. Gurney, Bond Counsel, Hawkins, Delafield and Wood, 67 Wall Street,
New York, New York 10005
George B. Pugh, Jr., Cmigie, Inc., 823 E. Main Street, P. O. Box 1854, Richmond,
Virginia 23219
The Honorable David C. Anderson, City Treasurer
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Jesse A. Hall, Deputy Director of Finance
Ann H. Allen, Manager of Accounting Services
H:~.G ENDA. 9'~NOV 17.WPD
IN ~ COUNCIL OF ~ CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of November, 1997.
ORDINANCE N(~.3 6 5.2111797
AN ORDINANCE AUTHORIZING THE SALE OF THIRTEF_~
MU.LION TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($1~,010,000) PRINCIPAL
AMOUNT OF CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, GENERAL
OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMF. NT BONDS, SERIFS 1997A,
AND NOT TO EXCEED FIFTY MILLION DOLLARS ($50,000,000)
PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEMF.~ BONDS,
SERIFS 1997B, AS PART OF A COMBINED ISSUE OF NOT TO
EXCEED SIXTY-THREE MII.LION TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS
($63,010,000) AGGREGATE PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF GENERAL
OBLIGATION BONDS OF ~ CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA;
FIXING THE FORM, DENOMINATION AND CERTAIN OTFIF. R
DETAII.S OF SUCH BONDS AND DELEGATING TO THF. CITY
MANAGER AND THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE CERTAIN
POWERS WITH RESPECT TFIE~TO; AUTIIORIZING ~
PREPARATION OF A PRELIMINARY OFFICIAL STATEMF. N~
AND AN OFFICIAL STATEMENT AND TFfE DISTRIBUTION
TI~.~OF; AUTHORIZING SUCH CITY TO EXECUTE AND
DELIVER A CONTINUING DISCLOSURE CERTWICATE OF
SUCH CITY RELATING TO SUCH BONDS; AND PROVIDING
FOR AN EMERGENCY
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
VIRGINIA:
SECTION 1. (a)(i) Pursuant to Section 47 of the Charter of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia (the "City"), an election duly called and held in the City on November 4,
1997, and Ordinances Nos. 3349%072197 and 33498-072197 adopted by this Council on July
21, 1997, there were authorized to be issued, sold and delivered general obligation bonds of the
City in the principal amount of $39,030,000, for the purposes specified in Ordinances Nos.
33497-072197 and 33498-072197.
(ii) This Council deems it advisable and in the best interest of the City to
authorize and provide for the issuance, sale and delivery of an issue of general obligation public
improvement bonds of the City in the aggregate principal amount of $13,010,000 authorized for
issuance pursuant to the election and ordinances referred to in subsection (a)(i) hereof to be
known and designated as "City of Roanoke, Virginia, General Obligation Public Improvement
Bonds, Series 1997A" (hereinafter referred to as the "1997A Bonds").
189346.1 018370 ORD
-2-
(b) (i) Pursuant to Chapter 5.1 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia, 1950,
recodified effective December 1, 1997 as Chapter 26 of Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia, 1950,
being the Public Finance Act of 1991, and Resolution No. 33373-050597 adopted by this Council
on May 5, 1997, this Council has authorized the issuance of general obligation public improvement
refunding bonds of the City in the principal amount of not to exceed $50,000,000, for the purposes
specified in Resolution No. 33373-050597.
(ii) This Council deems it advisable and in the best interest of the City to provide
at this time, and contemporaneously with the issuance, sale and delivery of the 1997A Bonds, for
the issuance, sale and delivery of an issue of general obligation public improvement refunding bonds
in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $50,000,000 authorized for issuance pursuant to
the resolution referred to in subsection (b)(i) hereof to be known and designated as "City of
Roanoke, Virginia, General Obligation Public Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1997B"
(hereinafter referred to as the "1997B Bonds" and, collectively with the 1997A Bonds, as the
"Bonds").
SECTION2. (a) This Council hereby authorizes the sale of the Bonds,
consisting of the 1997A Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of $13,010,000 and the 1997B
Bonds in the aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $50,000,000, or a combined aggregate
principal amount of not to exceed $63,010,000, in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance.
(b) The Bonds of each series shall be dated such date as shall be determined by
the City Manager and the Director of Finance in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 hereof.
The Bonds of each series shall be numbered from No. R-97A-1 upwards in order of issuance in the
case of the 1997A Bonds and from No. R-97B-1 upwards in order of issuance in the case of the
1997B Bonds or as shall otherwise be provided by the Director of Finance; shall be issued in fully
registered form in the denomination of $5,000 each or any integral multiple thereo~, and shall bear
interest from their date payable on such date and semiannually thereafter as shall be determined by
the City Manager and the Director of Finance in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 hereof.
The Bonds of each series shall be issued in such aggregate principal amounts (not exceeding in the
aggregate the principal amount specified in Section 2(a) hereof); and shall mature on such dates and
in such years (but in no event exceeding forty (40) years from their date or dates), and in the
principal amount in each such year, determined by the City Manager and the Director of Finance
in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 hereof. Interest on the Bonds shall be calculated on
the basis of a three hundred and sixty (360) day year comprised of twelve (12) thirty (30) day
months.
(c) The Bonds (or portions thereof in installments of $5,000) shall be subject to
redemption at the option of the City prior to their stated maturities, in whole or in part from time
to time on any date, in such order as may be determined by the City (except that if at any time
less than all of the Bonds of a given maturity are called for redemption, the particular
Bonds or portions thereof in installments of $5,000 of such maturity to be redeemed shall be
selected by lot), upon payment of such redemption prices (expressed as a percentage of the
189346.1 018370 ORD
-3-
principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed), together with the interest accrued thereon to the
date fixed for the redemption thereof, as shall be determined by the City Manager and the
Director of Finance in accordance with the provisions of Section 8 hereof.
(d) If any Bond of either series (or any portion of the principal amount thereof
in installments of $5,000) shall be called for redemption, notice of the redemption thereof,
specifying the date, number and maturity of such Bond, the date and place or places fixed for
its redemption, the premium, if any, payable upon such redemption, and if less than the entire
principal amount of such Bond is to be redeemed, that such Bond must be surrendered in
exchange for the principal amount thereof to be redeemed and a new Bond or Bonds issued
equalling in principal amount that portion of the principal amount thereof not to be redeemed,
shall be mailed not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption, by first class
mail, postage prepaid, to the registered owner thereof at his address as it appears on the books
of registry kept by the Registrar as of the close of business on the forty-fifth (45th) day next
pre, ceding the date fixed for redemption. If notice of the redemption of any Bond shall have
been given as aforesaid, and payment of the principal amount of such Bond (or the portion of
the principal amount thereof to be redeemed) and of the accrued interest and premium, if any,
payable upon such redemption shall have been duly made or provided for, interest thereon shall
cease to accrue from and after the date so specified for the redemption thereof. So long as the
Bonds are in book-entry only form, any notice of redemption shall be given only to DTC or to
its nominee. The City shall not be responsible for providing any beneficial owner of the Bonds
any notice of redemption.
SECTION 3. The full faith and credit of the City shall be and is irrevocably
pledged to the punctual payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the
Bonds as the same become due. In each year while the Bonds, or any of them, are outstanding
and unpaid, there shall be assessed, levied and collected, at the same time and in the same
manner as other taxes in the City are assessed, levied and collected, a tax upon all taxable
property within the City, over and above all other taxes, authorized or limited by law and
without limitation as to rate or amount, sufficient to pay when due the principal of and premium,
if any, and interest on the Bonds to the extent other funds of the City are not lawfully available
and appropriated for such purpose.
SECTION 4. (a) The Bonds shall be executed, for and on behalf of the City,
by the manual or facsimile signatures of the Mayor and City Treasurer of the City and shall have
a facsimile of the corporate seal of the City imprinted thereon, attested by the manual or
facsimile signature of the City Clerk of the City.
(b) The Director of Finance is hereby authorized to appoint a Registrar and
Paying Agent for the Bonds.
(c) The Director of Finance shall direct the Registrar to authenticate the Bonds
and no Bond shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose unless and until the certificate of
authentication endorsed on each Bond shall have been manually executed by an authorized
189346.1 018370 OR.D
-4-
signator of the Registrar. Upon the authentication of any Bonds the Registrar shall insert in the
certificate of authentication the date as of which such Bonds are authenticated as follows: (i)
if a Bond is authenticated prior to the first interest payment date, the certificate shall be dated
as of the date of the initial issuance and delivery of the Bonds of the series of Bonds of which
such Bond is one; (ii) if a Bond is authenticated upon an interest payment date, the certificate
shall be dated as of such interest payment date; (iii) if a Bond is authenticated after the fifteenth
(15th) day of the calendar month next preceding an interest payment date and prior to such
interest payment date, the certificate shall be dated as of such interest payment date; and (iv) in
all other instances the certificate shall be dated as of the interest payment date next preceding
the date upon which the Bond is authenticated. ·
(d) The execution and authentication of the Bonds in the manner above set
forth is adopted as a due and sufficient authentication of the Bonds.
SECTION 5. (a) The principal of and premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be
payable in such coin or currency of the United States of America as at the respective dates of
payment thereof is legal tender for public and private debts at the office of the Registrar.
Interest on the Bonds shall be payable by check or draft mailed by the Registrar to the registered
owners of such Bonds at their respective addresses as such addresses appear on the books of
registry kept pursuant to this Section 5.
(b) At all times during which any Bond of either series remains outstanding
and unpaid, the Registrar for such series shall keep or cause to be kept at its office books of
registry for the registration, exchange and transfer of Bonds of such series. Upon presentation
at its office for such purpose the registrar, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe,
shall register, exchange, transfer, or cause to be registered, exchanged or transferred, on the
books of registry the Bonds as hereinbefore set forth.
(c) The books of registry shall at all times be open for inspection by the City
or any duly authorized officer thereof.
(d) Any Bond may be exchanged at the office of the Registrar for such series
of Bonds for a like aggregate principal amount of such Bonds in other authorized principal sums
of the same series, interest rate and maturity.
(e) Any Bond of either series may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred
upon the books of registry by the person in whose name it is registered, in person or by his duly
authorized agent, upon surrender of such Bond to the Registrar for cancellation, accompanied
by a written instrument of transfer duly executed by the registered owner in person or by his
duly authorized attorney, in form satisfactory to the Registrar.
(f) All transfers or exchanges pursuant to this Section 5 shall be made without
expense to the registered owners of such Bonds, except as otherwise herein provided, and except
that the Registrar for such series of Bonds shah require the payment by the registered owner of
189346.1 018370 ORD
-5-
the Bond requesting such transfer or exchange of any tax or other governmental charges required
to be paid with respect to such transfer or exchange. All Bonds surrendered pursuant to this
Section 5 shall be cancelled.
(g) (i) The Bonds shall be issued in full book-entry form. One Bond
representing each maturity of each series of the Bonds will be issued to and registered in the
name of Cede & Co., as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York
CDTC"), as registered owner of the Bonds, and each such Bond will be immobilized in the
custody of DTC. DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds. Individual purchases will
be made in book-entry form only, in the principal amount of $5,000 or any integral multiple
thereof. Purchasers will not receive physical delivery of certificates representing their interest
in the Bonds purchased.
(ii) Principal, premium, if any, and interest payments on the Bonds will be
made by Registrar to DTC or its nominee, Cede & Co., as registered owner of the Bonds, which
will in mm remit such payments to the DTC participants for subsequent disbursal to the
beneficial owners of the Bonds. Transfers of principal, premium, if any, and interest payments
to DTC participants will be the responsibility of DTC. Transfers of such payments to beneficial
owners of the Bonds by DTC participants will be the responsibility of such participants and other
nominees of such beneficial owners. Transfers of ownership interests in the Bonds will be
accomplished by book entries made by DTC and, in turn, by the DTC participants who act on
behalf of the indirect participants of DTC and the beneficial owners of the Bonds.
(iii) The City will not be responsible or liable for sending transaction statements
or for maintaining, supervising or reviewing records maintained by DTC, its participants or
persons acting through such participants or for transmitting payments to, communicating with,
notifying, or otherwise dealing with any beneficial owner of the Bonds.
SECTION 6. (a) CUSIP identification numbers may be printed on the Bonds,
but no such number shall constitute a part of the contract evidenced by the particular Bond upon
which it is printed; no liability shall attach to the City or any officer or agent thereof (including
any paying agent for the Bonds) by reason of such numbers or any use made thereof (including
any use thereof made by the City, any such officer or any such agent) or by reason of any
inaccuracy, error or omission with respect thereto or in such use; and any inaccuracy, error or
omission with respect to such numbers shall not constitute cause for failure or refusal by the
successful bidder to accept delivery of and pay for the Bonds in accordance with the terms of
its bid. All expenses in connection with the assignment and printing of CUSIP numbers on the
Bonds shall be paid by the City; provided, however, that the CUSIP Service Bureau charge for
the assignment of such numbers shall be the responsibility of the successful bidder for the
Bonds.
(b) A copy of the final legal opinion with respect to the Bonds, with the name
of the attorney or attorneys rendering the same, together with a certification of the City Clerk,
executed by a facsimile signature of that officer, to the effect that such copy is a true and
189346.1 018370 ORD
-6-
complete copy (except for letterhead and date) of the legal opinion which was dated as of the
date of delivery of and payment for the Bonds, may be printed on the Bonds.
SECTION 7. (a) The proceeds of sale of the 1997A Bonds shall be applied to
the payment of the costs of the permanent public improvements specified in Ordinances
Nos. 33497-072197 and 33498-072197.
(b) The proceeds of sale of the 199715 Bonds shall be applied to the refunding
of all or a portion of the outstanding issues of general obligation bonds of the City described in
Section 1 of Resolution No. 33373-050597.
(c) The City covenants and agrees to comply with the provisions of Sections
103 and 141-150 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and the applicable Treasury Regulations
promulgated thereunder throughout the term of the Bonds.
SECTION 8. (a) The Bonds shall be sold at competitive sale on such date or
dates as shall be determined by the City Manager and the Director of Finance. The Director
of Finance is hereby authorized to prepare or cause to be prepared a Summary Notice of Sale
of the Bonds and to cause such Summary Notice of Sale to be published in The Bond Buyer, a
financial journal published in the City of New York, New York, and to prepare or cause to be
prepared and distributed a Preliminary Official Statement, a Detailed Notice of Sale and an
Official Proposal Form relating to the Bonds. The City Manager and the Director of Finance
are hereby authorized to determine the principal amount of the Bonds of each series and are
hereby further authorized to receive proposals for the purchase of the Bonds and, without further
action of this Council, to accept the proposal offering to purchase the Bonds at the lowest true
interest cost to the City; provided, however, in no event shall the true interest cost with respect
to the Bonds exceed eight percent (8.00%). The City Manager and the Director of Finance are
further authorized to fix the rates of interest to be borne by the Bonds of each maturity as
specified in the proposal accepted by them in accordance with the immediately preceding
sentence. The City Manager and the Director of Finance are hereby authorized to determine the
provisions relating to the redemption of the Bonds set forth in Section 2 hereof upon the advice
of the City's f'mancial advisor; provided, however, in no event shall any redemption premium
payable by the City exceed three percent (3.00%).
Co) The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver to the
purchasers an Official Statement of the City relating to the Bonds, in substantially the form of
the Preliminary Official Statement relating to the Bonds, after the same has been completed by
the insertion of the maturities, interest rates and other details of the Bonds and by making such
other insertions, changes or corrections as the Mayor, based on the advice of the City's financial
advisors and legal counsel (including the City Attorney and Bond Counsel), deems necessary or
appropriate; and this Council hereby authorizes the Official Statement and the information
contained therein to be used by the purchasers in connection with the sale of the Bonds. The
Preliminary Official Statement is "deemed f'mal" for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 promulgated by
the Securities and Exchange Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ("Rule
189346.1 018370 ORD
-7-
15c2-12"). The City Manager and the Director of Finance are hereby authorized and directed
to execute on behalf of the City and deliver to the purchasers a certificate in substantially the
form to be included in the Official Statement under the caption "Certificate Concerning Official
Statement".
(c) The City Manager and the Director of Finance are hereby authorized to
execute and deliver to the purchasers of the Bonds a Continuing Disclosure Certificate relating
to the Bonds evidencing the City's undertaking to comply with the continuing disclosure
requirements of Paragraph (b) of Rule 15c2-12 in such form as shall be approved by the City
Manager and the Director of Finance upon advice of counsel (including the City Attorney or
Bond Counsel), such approval to be conclusively evidenced by their execution thereof.
(d) All actions and proceedings heretofore taken by this Council, the City,
Manager, the Director of Finance and the other officers, employees, agents and attorneys of and
for the City in connection with the issuance and sale of the Bonds are hereby ratified and
confmned.
SECTION 9. (a) The 1997A Bonds, the certificate of authentication of the
registrar, and the assignment endorsed on the 1997A Bonds, shall be substantially the following
forms, respectively, to-wit:
(FORM OF 1997A BOND)
UNITED STATES OF AMF~CA
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
CITY OF ROANOKE
GENERAL OBLIGATION PUBLIC IMPROVEM~NT BOND
SERIES 1997A
No. R-96A-1
MATURITY DATR: INTERF_ST RATI~:
DATE OF BOND:
CUSIP NO.:
--'~ m, 1997 770077
REGISTERI~.D OWNER:
PRINCIPAL SUM:
DOLLARS
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS, that the City of Roanoke, in the
Commonwealth of Virginia (the "City"), for value received, acknowledges itself indebted and
hereby promises to pay to the Registered Owner (named above), or registered assigns, on the
Maturity Date (specified above) (unless this Bond shall be subject to prior redemption and shall
have been duly called for previous redemption and payment of the redemption price duly made
189346.1 018370 ORD
-8-
or provided for), the Principal Sum (specified above), and to pay interest on such Principal Sum
on ~ __, and on each and thereafter (each such date is
hereinafter referred to as an "interest payment date"), from the'--date hereof or from the interest
payment date next preceding the date of authentication hereof to which interest shall have been
paid, unless such date of authentication is an interest payment date, in which case from such
interest payment date, or unless such date of authentication is within the period from the
sixteenth (16th) day to the last day of the calendar month next preceding the following interest
payment date, in which case from such following interest payment date, such interest to be paid
until the maturity or redemption hereof at the Interest Rate (specified above) per annum, by
check or draft mailed by the Paying Agent hereinafter mentioned to the Registered Owner in
whose name this Bond is registered upon the books of registry, as of the close of business on
the fifteenth (15th) day (whether or not a business day) of the calendar month next preceding
each interest payment date. Interest on this Bond shall be calculated on the basis of a three
hundred and sixty (360) day year comprised of twelve (12) thirty (30) day months. The
principal of, and premium, if any, on this Bond are payable on presentation and surrender
hereof, at the office of , the Registrar and Paying Agent, in the
City of , Principal of, premium, if any, and interest on this Bond
are payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America which, on the respective
dates of payment thereof, shall be legal tender for public and private debts.
This Bond is one of an issue of Bonds of like date, denomination and tenor except
as to number, interest rate and maturity, and is issued for the purpose of providing funds to
defray the cost to the City of needed permanent public improvements, including acquisitions,
construction, additions, betterments, extensions and improvements of and to public bridges,
public buildings, economic development, parks, public schools, storm drains, streets and
sidewalks, and the acquisition of real property for the foregoing, pursuant to an ordinance of the
Council of the City, adopted on the 21st day of July, 1997, and ratified by a majority of the
qualified voters of the City voting at an election legally called, held and conducted on the 4th
day of November, 1997, and under and pursuant to the Constitution and statutes of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and the Charter of the City, as amended.
The Bonds of the issue of which this Bond is one (or portions thereof in
installments of $5,000) maturing on and after 1, ~ are subject to redemption at the
option of the City prior to their stated maturities, on or after 1, ~ in whole or in
part from time to time on any date, in such order as may be determined by the City (except that
if at any time less than all of the Bonds of a given maturity are called for redemption, the
particular Bonds or portions thereof in installments of $5,000 of such maturity to be redeemed
shall be selected by lot), upon payment of the following redemption prices (expressed as a
percentage of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed), together with the interest
accrued thereon to the date fixed for the redemption thereof:
189346.1 018370 ORD
-9-
Redemption Dates
O~oth Dates Inclusive)
Redemption Prices
(Percentages of Principal Amount)
1, ~ to
1, ~ to
1, ~ and thereafter
If this Bond is redeemable and this Bond (or any portion of the principal amount
hereof in installments of $5,000) shall be called for redemption, notice of the redemption hereof,
specifying the date, number and maturity of this Bond, the date and place or places fixed for its
redemption, the premium, if any, payable upon such redemption, and if less than the entire
principal amount of this Bond is to be redeemed, that this Bond must be surrendered in exchange
for the principal amount hereof to be redeemed and a new Bond or Bonds issued equalling in
principal amount that portion of the principal amount hereof not to be redeemed, shall be mailed
not less than thirty (30) days prior to the date fixed for redemption, by fa'st class mail, postage
prepaid, to the Registered Owner hereof at his address as it appears on the books of registry kept
by the Registrar as of the close of business on the forty-fifth (45th) day next preceding the date
fixed for redemption. If notice of the redemption of this Bond (or the portion of the principal
amount hereof to be redeemed) shall have been given as aforesaid, and payment of the principal
amount of this Bond (or the portion of the principal amount hereof to be redeemed) and of the
accrued interest and premium, if any, payable upon such redemption shall have been duly made
or provided for, interest hereon shall cease to accrue from and after the date so specified for the
redemption hereof.
Subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges, if any, provided in
the proceedings authorizing the Bonds of the issue of which this Bond is one, this Bond may be
exchanged at the office of the Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of Bonds of other
authorized principal amounts and of the same issue, interest rate and maturity. This Bond is
transferable by the Registered Owner hereof, in person or by his attorney duly authorized in
writing, on the books of registry kept by the Registrar for such purpose at the office of the
Registrar but only in the manner, subject to the limitations and upon payment of the charges,
if any, provided in the proceedings authorizing the Bonds of the series of which this Bond is
one, and upon the surrender hereof for cancellation. Upon such transfer a new Bond or Bonds
of authorized denominations and of the same aggregate principal amount, issue, interest rate and
maturity as the Bond surrendered, will be issued to the transferee in exchange herefor.
This Bond shall not be valid or obligatory unless the certificate of authentication
hereon shall have been manually signed by the Registrar.
The full faith and credit of the City are irrevocably pledged to the punctual
payment of the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on this Bond as the same become
due. In each year while this Bond is outstanding and unpaid, there shall be assessed, levied and
collected, at the same time and in the same manner as other taxes in the City are assessed, levied
and collected, a tax upon all property within the City, over and above all other taxes, authorized
189346.1 018370 ORD
- 10-
or limited by law and without limitation as to rote or amount, sufficient to pay the principal of
and premium, if any, and interest on this Bond to the extent other funds of the City are not
lawfully available and appropriated for such purpose.
It is certified, recited and declared that all acts, conditions and things required to
exist, happen or be performed precedent to and in the issuance of this Bond do exist, have
happened and have been performed in due time, form and manner as required by law, and that
the amount of this Bond, together with all other indebtedness of the City does not exceed any
limitation of indebtedness prescribed by the Constitution or statutes of the Commonwealth of
Virginia or the Charter of the City.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Bond to be executed by the
manual or facsimile signatures of its Mayor and its City Treasurer; a facsimile of the corporate
seal of the City to be imprinted hereon attested by the manual or facsimile signature of the City
Clerk of the City; and this Bond to be dated the __ day of ... ,1997.
CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
[SEAL]
Mayor
Attest:
City Treasurer
proceedings.
City Clerk
CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION
This Bond is one of the Bonds delivered pursuant to the within-mentioned
, Registrar
By:
Date of Authentication:
189346.1 018370 ORD
ASSIGNME~
POR VALUED RECEIVI~I~ the undersigned hereby sell(s), assign(s) and
transfer(s) unto
(Please print or type name and address, including postal zip code of Transferee)
PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR
OTHER IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF TRANSFEREE
the within Bond and all rights thereunder, hereby irrevocably constituting and appointing
, Attorney, to transfer such Bond
on the books kept for the registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises.
Dated:
Signature Guaranteed
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed
by a member finn of The New York Stock
Exchange, Inc. or a commercial bank or
trust company.
(Signature of Registered Owner)
NOTICE: The signature above must
correspond with the name of the Registered
Owner as it appears on the front of this
Bond in every particular, without alteration
or enlargement or any change whatsoever.
189346.1 018370 ORD
- 12-
Co) The 199711 Bonds, the certificate of authentication of the registrar, and the
assignment endorsed on the 1997B Bonds, shall be in substantially the forms set forth in Section
10 of Resolution No. 33373-050597.
SECTION 10. The City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of this Ordinance,
certified by such City Clerk to be a true copy hereof, with the Circuit Court of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, all in accordance with Section 15.1-227.9 of the Code of Virginia, 1950.
SECTION 11. All ordinances and proceedings in conflict herewith are, to the
extent of such conflict, repealed.
SECTION 12. In order to provide for the public health and safety and 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:
Date of Filing with the Circuit Court
of the City of Roanoke, Virginia:
November~,~, 1997
City Clerk
189346.1 018370 ORD
November 17, 1997
'97 NOV 13 A8:03
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council:
The Citizens of Roanoke approved the $39,030,000 General Obligation Public
Improvement Bond Issue on November 4, 1997. City Council, on May 5, 1997,
approved a resolution authorizing the Director of Finance and the City Manager to
execute a refunding bond issue for a portion of the 1988, 1992A and 1992B General
Obligation Bonds not to exceed $50,000,000, a true interest cost not to exceed 8% or
redemption premium not to exceed 3%.
The present tax-exempt interest rates would provide the City approximately $1,580,000
interest cost savings over the remaining life of the 1988, 1992A and 1992B outstanding
General Obligation Bonds if they were refunded.
In order to provide bond funds to initiate some of the capital projects approved in the
recent referendum it would be cost beneficial to include that portion of the new bond
issue with the refunding bond issue. We would recommend that $13,010,000 of the
$39,030,000 bond issue be issued in the following categories:
Bridges
Buildings
Economic Development
Parks
Schools
Storm Drains
Streets and Sidewalks
Total
$ 750,000
4,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
4,541,000
1,000,000
719,000
We plan to request public bids on approximately $42,500,000 of refunding bonds and
$13,010,000 of the new issue for a total bond issue of approximately $55,010,000 on
December 17, 1997.
Due to the varying interest rates bid throughout the life of the bond issue, the bond
maturity schedule and interest rates must be provided to the City's f'mancial advisors,
Craigie Incorporated, to compute the overall net interest cost. We propose to use the
same procedure that was used in obtaining bids on the 1996 bond issue. Using that
procedure, bids will be delivered to Craigie's Richmond office and Craigie, with
oversight of certain City representatives, would open and compute the overall interest
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
November 17, 1997
Page 2
rate on the bids for purchase of the bonds. Craigie then reviews the bids with the City
representatives and recommends acceptance of the lowest bid. City representatives
accept the lowest bid with a follow up communication to City Council summarizing the
bids and acceptance of the bid with the lowest interest amount.
We recommend that City Council approve the accompanying ordinance to authorize the
issuance of $13,010,000 of the new General Obligation Bonds and authorize the City
Manager and Director of Finance to award the winning bid and to aff'm the interest
rates to be borne by the bonds. We would be pleased to answer any questions you may
have.
City Manager
JDG/AHA/ps
Attachment
' or of Finance
c:
W~flburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Jesse A. Hall, Deputy Director of Finance
Ann H. Allen, Manager of Accounting Services
WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR.
CITY ATrORNEY
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
TELEPHONE: 540-853-2431
FACSIMILE: 540-853-1221
F~MA1L:cityatty @ ci.roanoke, va.us
November 17, 1997
RECEIVED
'"'
CITY ~.,._ :?
WILLIAM X PARSONS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
GLADYS L. YATES
GARY E. TEGENKAMP
ASSISTANT CITY ATrORNEYS
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: General Obligation Bond Issue
Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members:
Attached is an ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of $13,010,000 of the
bonds approved by the voters at the referendum held on Tuesday, November 4, 1997, to be
designated as "City of Roanoke, Virginia, General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds,
Series 1997A", to be sold together with the not to exceed $50,000,000 principal amount of
refimding bonds authorized for issuance by Resolution No. 33373-050597, adopted by the
City Council on May 5, 1997, such refunding bonds to be designated as "City of Roanoke,
Virginia, General Obligation Public Improvement Refunding Bonds, Series 1997B".
For the information of City Council, the provisions of the bond ordinance are
summarized as follows:
Authorizes the sale of Series 1997A and 1997B bonds of the
City in the total amount not to exceed $63,010,000.
2. Pledges the full faith and credit of the City to payment of
principal, premium, if any, and interest on the bonds.
Authorizes the Director of Finance to appoint a Registrar and a
Paying Agent.
o
Sets out the procedures for payment of principal, premium, if
any, and interest on the bonds.
Requires that the proceeds of the bonds be used only for the
purposes set out in Ordinance Nos. 33497 -072197 and 33498-
072197 and Resolution No. 33373-050597.
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
November 17, 1997
Page 2
o
Provides for competitive sale of the bonds on such date as shall
be determined by the City Manager and Director of Finance.
Authorizes the Director of Finance to publish a Notice of Sale
in The Bond Buyer. a Preliminary Official State and other
fornlso
Authorizes the City Manager and the Director of Finance to
receive proposals for the bonds and to accept the proposal
offering to purchase the bonds at the lowest tree interest cost not
to exceed 8%.
Provides for the Mayor to execute and deliver an Official
Statement in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official
Statement.
10. Establishes the form of the bonds.
11.
Directs the City Clerk to file a certified copy of the bond
ordinance with the Circuit Court.
If City Council has any questions with respect to the provisions of this bond
ordinance, I will be pleased to discuss them.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
WCD:f
Attachment
cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
H:\COUNCIL\L-~ODE.1
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 20, 1997
File #1-10
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
Your report transmitting the audited fiscal year 1997 Comprehensive Annual Financial
Report for the City of Roanoke was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting on Monday, November 17, 1997.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the report was received and filed.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
H:~AGENDA, g'/1NOV17.WPD
JAMES D. GRISSO
Director of Finance
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
RECEi~,,E~
glTY CL~%~-SK:S OFFiCF
'97 NOV 11 P12:27
JESSE A. HALL
Deputy Director
November 17, 1997
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
We are very pleased to present our audited fiscal year 1997 Comprehensive Annual
Financial Report for the City of Roanoke. This document has an unqualified (the
best) opinion from our external certified public accountants.
The unaudited General Fund Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement
Program (CMERP) reported to you on August 4, 1997 is unchanged. This audited
balance was allocated between the City and School Administration in the amounts
of $4,253,789 and $1,877,074, respectively, to provide capital equipment and
maintenance funding. These balances are available for future appropriation
ordinances to be approved by City Council. The sound financial condition of our
governmental, proprietary, and fiduciary operating funds is attributable to those
difficult decisions which City Council makes to allocate the City's limited resources
to meet the needs of our customers, the citizens of Roanoke.
A special thank you goes to Mr. Jesse A. Hall, Deputy Director of Finance, Mr.
Michael R. Crew, former Manager of Accounting Services, Ms. Ann Allen, Manager
of Accounting Services, Ms. Patti Saunders, Ms. Patty Canady, Ms. Becky Starnes,
Ms. Angelita Plemmer, Public Information Officer, Mr. Phillip Sparks, Chief of
Economic Development, Ms. Linda Bass, Economic Development Specialist, and the
entire Department of Finance staff for their professional and dedicated work in the
preparation of this complex Annual Financial Report.
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
November 17, 1997
Page 2
I would be pleased to answer any specific questions you may have regarding the
Annual Financial Report.
Sincerely,
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
JDG:s
Enclosures
CC:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
James D. Ritchie, Assistant City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Will Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor
Arthur B. Crush, III, Clerk of Circuit Court
David Anderson, Treasurer
W. Alvin Hudson, Sheriff
Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney
Marsha C. Fielder, Commissioner of the Revenue
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Public Safety
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Glenn Radcliffe, Director of Human Development
Phil Sparks, Chief, Economic Development
Wayne Harris, Superintendent of Schools
Richard Kelley, Assistant Superintendent of Operations
Angelita Plemmer, Public Information Officer
Dana Long, Chief, Billings and Collections
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 20, 1997
File ~60-20-53-77-455-467
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Marsha W. Ellison, Chair
Roanoke City School Board
2030 Knollwood Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Ms. Ellison:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33654-111797, declaring the City's intent to
reimburse itself from the proceeds of a tax exempt financing for certain expenditures to be
made in connection with construction, renovation and/or equipping of certain capital
improvements at Huff Lane Elementary School. The abovereferenced measure was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on Monday, November
17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Attachment
pc: Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
Cindy H. Ramsuer, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Richard L. Kelley, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, Roanoke City Public
Schools
Ann H. Allen, Manager of Accounting Services, Finance Department
Rosemary R. Trussell, Accountant, Finance Department
H:~AGENDA.G'/~'~OVl 7,WPO
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33654-111797.
A RESOLUTION declaring the City's intent to reimburse itself from the proceeds of a tax
exempt financing for certain expenditures to be made in connection with the construction, renovation
and/or equipping of certain capital improvements.
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke, Virginia ("Issuer") is a political subdivision organized and
existing under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, on September 22, 1997, the City Council of the Issuer ("Council") adopted a
resolution ("Reimbursement Resolution") declaring its intent, in accordance with Treasury
Regulations Section 1.150-2 to reimburse expenditures ("Expenditures") made by the Issuer in
connection with the construction, renovation and/or equipping of certain improvements at HuffLane
Elementary School ("Project") from the proceeds of debt to be incurred by the Issuer in an amount
not to exceed $1,250,000; and
WHEREAS, because of an increase in the projected total cost of the Project since the
Reimbursement Resolution was adopted on September 22, 1997, the Issuer now expects to finance
the Project from the proceeds of debt in an amount not to exceed $2,000,000.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The Council hereby amends the Reimbursement Resolution to provide that the
maximum principal amount of debt that the Issuer expects to be issued for the Project is $2,000,000.
2. Except to the extent modified hereby, the Reimbursement Resolution is hereby ratified
and shall remain in full force and effect.
3. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
November 20, 1997
File ff60-20-53-77-455-467
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33653-111797, amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1997-98 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, appropriating $1,350,000.00
in connection with the Huff Lane School Improvement Project. The abovereferenced
measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on
Monday, November 17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Attachment
pc: Marsha W. Ellison, Chair, Roanoke City School Board, 2030 Knollwood Road,
S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
Cindy H. Ramsuer, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Richard L. Kelley, Assistant Superintendent for Operations, Roanoke City Public
Schools
Ann H. Allen, Manager of Accounting Services, Finance Department
Rosemary R. Trussell, Accountant, Finance Department
H:~AGENDA.g7~NOV17
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33653-111797.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1997-98 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 1997-98 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are
hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Education
Huff Lane School Improvements (1-2) ........................
Capital Improvement Reserve
Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1998 (3) ..................
Fund Balance
Reserved for Fund Balance - Unappropriated (4) ................
$ 22,406,584
1,350,000
$ 9,332,582
(1,350,000)
$ 1,739,839
1) Appropriated from
Bond Funds
2) Appropriated from
General Revenue
3) Schools
4) Reserved for Fund
Balance -
Unappropriated
(008-060-6089-9001)
(008-060-6089-9003)
(008-052-9706-9182)
(OO8-3325)
$1,350,000
(1,350,000)
(1,350,000)
1,350,000
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. VA.
November 17, 1997
RECEI~/ED
,"' C'~KS
CITY v~_~_,, ·
11 P2:19
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
FROM:
James D. Grisso
SUBJFX2T: Funding Adjustments to Huff Lane School Improvement Project
On July 21, 1997, City Council authorized the City Manager to execute an agreement
with the Roanoke City School Board related to properties needed for road construction
at Valley View. In order to certify funds available for the contract, we elected to
appropriate unencumbered economic development funds. The successful November 4,
1997 bond referendum included under the School category $1,350,000 for Huff Lane
School improvements. Funding for this project, therefore, should be adjusted to reflect
the proper source.
IRS regulations require that the City adopt a resolution indicating its intent to
reimburse itself the amount of $1,350,000 upon issuance of the 1998 bonds.
We recommend that City Council approve the following actions:
Deappropriate funding by $1,350,000 in the Capital Projects Fund account
008-060-6089-9003 entitled, Huff Lane School improvements.
Appropriate 1998 General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds in the amount
of $1,350,000 from the Capital Projects Fund account 008-052-9706-9182
entitled, Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1998 - Schools, to the Capital
Projects Fund account 008-060-6089-9001 entitled, Huff Lane School
improvements.
Adopt a resolution indicating the City's intent to reimburse itself $1,350,000
upon issuance of the 1998 bonds.
JDG/AH~s
C:
Director of Finance
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Richard Kelley, Assistant Superintendent for Operations
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
Ann H. Allen, Manager of Accounting Services
Rosemary Trussell, Accountant
MARY F. PARKER, CMCIAAE
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 20, 1997
File ~60-70-184-429
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Mr. James D. Grisso
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
A report of the Board of Trustees, City of Roanoke Pension Plan, with regard to a review
of pension benefits, suggesting that the following recommendations be referred to 1998-99
budget study for consideration, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting on Monday, November 17, 1997.
1. Calculate the basic benefit by applying the Rule of 70 for public safety
employees with a minimum age of 45, and the Rule of 80 for general
employees with a minimum age of 50.
2. Pay a monthly supplement (in an amount equal to that which the City
supplements active employees' health insurance) to each future City retiree
under the age of 65, with at least 20 years of service, to help defray the cost
of health insurance. This benefit would cease upon retiree attaining age 65.
3. A pedod of time of one month be available for members of the ERS to have
the opportunity to transfer to the ESRS (May 15 - June 15, 1998).
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the report was referred to 1998-99
budget study.
Richard B. Sarver, representing the Roanoke Firefighters Association, requested that
Council adopt a measure revising the actuarial table used to calculate the reduction factor
H:W, GENDA.g'/~NOVl 7.WI=O
Mr. James D. Grisso
November 20, 1997
Page 2
for electing a spousal benefit and instead of a nine percent reduction for no age difference,
use a five percent reduction for up to five years age difference.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
pc: F. Wiley Hubbell, Chair, Board of Trustees, City of Roanoke Pension Plan, Post
Office Box 1220, Roanoke, Virginia 24006
Richard B. Sarver, Roanoke Firefighters Association, 115 Patterson Avenue, S.W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Joyce L. Sparks, Retirement Administrator
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator
H:~AGENDA,g'/~NQV17.WPO
Jam~ ~ D. Grisso
Secretary- Treasurer
Joyce L. Sparks
Retirement Administrator
November 17, 1997
OF ROANOKE
LAN
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council:
On August 4, 1997, City Council referred to the Board of Trustees of the City of
Roanoke Pension Plan a request to review pension benefits for members of the
Pension Plan. The requested improvements are:
Increase the multiplier rate from the present 2% to 2.3% for all employees
over the next three years with a maximum of 70% of final average salary.
Credit % Per Year
Maximum
% of AFC
Actuarial
Contribution
Rate Increase
Approximate
Dollar Contribution
Increase
2.1% 70% 0.50% $ 282,600
2.2% 70% 0.73% 412,500
2.3% 70% 0.93% 525,600
Change spousal options: unreduced 50% survivor annuity to all City
employees.
The actuarial contribution rate increase for only this modification is 0.44%
and the approximate dollar contribution increase would be $248,700.
The actuarial contribution rate increase including increasing the multiplier
and an unreduced 50% survivor annuity is shown below:
Approximate
Actuarial Dollar
Credit % Maximum % 50% Spousal Contribution Contribution
Per Year of AFC Allowance Rate Increase Increase
2.1% 70% Automatic 0.97% $548,200
2.2% 70% Automatic 1.36% 768,600
2.3% 70% Automatic 1.84% 1,039,800
215 Church Avenue, Room 461, P.O. Box 1220 · Roanoke, Virginia 24006 ° (540) 853-2062 · Fax: (540) 853-2940
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
November 17, 1997
Page 2
Reduction of normal retirement to 25 years of service for public safety
employees and 30 years for general employees regardless of age with no
penalty.
The actuarial contribution rate increase for this modification is 0.73% and
the approximate dollar contribution increase would be $412,500.
The actuarial contribution rate increase including increasing the multiplier,
unreduced 50% survivor annuity and providing for the elimination of age
50/55 is shown below:
Credit Maximum % No Age
Per Year of AFC Requirement
2.1% 70% 25/30 years
2.2% 70% 25/30 years
2.3% 70% 25/30 years
Actuarial
Contribution
Rate Increase
Approximate
Dollar
Contribution
Increase
2.49% $1,407,200
3.31% 1,870,600
4.01% 2,266,200
There are eleven individual plans in the Commonwealth of Virginia which include
the Virginia Retirement System (VRS) and ten local government plans. A
comprehensive study was conducted of these plans to compare the pension
benefits offered by Roanoke's Pension Plan and those provided by the ten other
Pension Plans (Exhibit A). This study disclosed that our Pension Plan is
competitive with other plans in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The chart below
shows comparative factors:
Locality % p~r year
Public Safety
Employee
Maximum Contribution
General Employee
Employee
% per year Maximum Contribution
Arlington 1.50% 45% None 1.50% 45% None
Charlottesville 1.35%
60%
(44.4 yrs.)
Danville 2.00%
60%
(30 yrs.)
6O%
None 1.35% (44.4 yrs.) None
60%
None* 1.42% (42.2 yrs.) None
Fairfax 60%
Fire/EMS 2.30% (26.1 yrs.)
Fairfax Police 2.50%
60%
(24 yrs.)
7.08%
60%
2.00% (30 yrs.) 5.33%
60%
2.00% (30 yrs.) 5.33%
12.0%*
Falls Church 2.25% 78.75%
3.0% 1.60%
60%
(37.5 yrs.)
3.0%
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
November 17, 1997
Page 3
60% 60%
New-pod News 1.86% (32.3 yrs.) None 1.86% (32.3 yrs.) None
Norfolk 2.2%/2% 65% None* 1.75% 61.25% None
Richmond 1.65% 57.50% None 1.75% 61.25% None
Roanoke 2.00% 60% None 2.00% 60% None
58% 58%
VRS 1.65% (35 yrs.) None 1.65% (35 yrs.) None
*Do not participate In Social Security.
The study discloses that the 2% credit per year is very competitive. Three
localities use higher credit factors per year, but an employee contribution is
required ranging from 3% to 12%. The City of Norfolk (Public Safety employees -
only) has a 2.2% credit factor limited to 25 years and 2% on the next 5 years
which equals a 65% maximum of AFC. No employee contributions are required.
When you consider our pension plan requires no employee contribution we are
very competitive with other pension plans and the Board of Trustees does not
recommend any increase in the multiplier.
Five of the pension plans provide a 50% spousal allowance with no reduction.
Our pension plan requires a 9% reduction of the calculated benefit if no age
difference exists between the employee and spouse. The Board of Trustees
recommends no change in this benefit.
There are only two plans that do not require a specific age to retire. The Newport
News and Richmond plans both use 25 years of service for public safety and 30
years of service for general employees. Our pension plan compares favorably
when all plans are considered and no change is recommended by the Board of
Trustees.
On October 15, the Pension Plan's actuary, Slabaugh Morgan White and
Associates, presented the valuation report for June 30, 1997. As of that date, the
Pension Plan is fully funded. There is no unfunded accrued liability. The primary
reasons that our Pension Plan is currently fully funded are:
City Council has continued to approve the recommended contribution rate
each year.
The investment performance over the past three years has exceeded the
actuarial assumed rate.
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
November 17, 1997
Page 4
The contribution rate may be reduced from the current 10.5% to the actuarial
recommended 8.75%. This would allow limited improvements to the plan without
increasing the current contribution rate.
The Board of Trustees met several times and spent considerable time reviewing
numerous alternatives, their financial impact to the Pension Trust Fund, and the
public policy goals concerning the citizens of the City of Roanoke.
Current Policy
For unreduced benefits, firefighters and deputized police officers (public
safety) must have the attainment of age fifty (50) and twenty-five (25) years
of creditable service. All other employees must have the attainment of age
fifty-five (55) and thirty (30) years of creditable service. This is the definition
of normal retirement age for members of the Employees' Supplemental
Retirement System (ESRS).
Discussion
Job demands of public safety employees require a specific fitness level of
personnel. Entry level positions for these personnel are usually employed
around the age of twenty-one. A career of 25 years for these employees
usually makes them younger than the requirement of age 50 to be eligible
to retire.
Statistics of the City's workers' compensation claims for heart and lung
benefits to public safety personnel show that original claims are made on
the average at age 49. Workers' compensation benefit awards include
payment of approximately 2/3 of salary (nontaxable) for 500 weeks and
medical payments for life on the covered injury or illness. The Pension Plan
job-related disability monthly payments begin after the conclusion of the
500 weeks of workers' compensation payments. This is a significant
liability for the City of Roanoke and continues to increase annually.
All other employees must have the attainment of age 55 and 30 years of
creditable service to retire with unreduced benefits. Professional employees,
on the average, usually make career moves around age 30. At age 55 they
only have 25 years of service and are required to take a reduction of 30%
of their retirement benefit to retire. These employees may be ready to retire,
or need to retire, but are unable to afford the penalty required on their
benefit. In these circumstances, the City and its citizens may benefit from
a more motivated, energetic, and lower salaried personnel.
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
November 17, 1997
Page 5
Consideration could be given to a new definition of normal retirement age.
Firefighters and deputized police officers normal retirement age could be
"the rule of 70 with a minimum age of 45". The rule of 70 method defines
normal retirement as when the combination of age and years of service
equal 70. (Example: an employee is hired at age 21 and works for 25 years.
The employee would be age 46 plus 25 years of service equals 71.) The
actuarial contribution rate increase would be 0.84% and the approximate
dollar contribution increase would be $474,700.
All other employees could have normal retirement age de£med as "the rule
of 80 with a minimum age of 50". (Example: an employee is hired at age 30
and works to age 55. The employee would have 25 years of service plus age
55 equals 80. This employee could retire with an unreduced benefit.) The
actuarial contribution rate increase would be 0.59% and the approximate
dollar contribution increase would be $333,400.
Current Policy
City of Roanoke retirees less than age 65 with 15 years of continuous
service may elect health insurance coverage through the City group health
insurance program by paying the entire premium.
Discussion
A separate survey of other plans was compiled on health insurance program
coverage. Seven of the localities make some payment toward health
insurance premiums for retirees. During retirement consultations, City
employees emphasize that one reason for not retiring earlier is the cost of
medical insurance until they become eligible for Medicare at age 65.
In December of 1995, City Council supported open enrollment for group
health insurance for all retirees under age 65. All eligible retirees were
provided the opportunity effective March 1, 1996 and fifteen retirees elected
to participate. Currently forty retirees participate in retiree group health
insurance.
Begirming January 1, 1998, premiums for retirees group health insurance
will be the same as the total premium for employees. Those retirees that
choose comprehensive coverage have a higher deductible and co-payment
than employees. There is no difference in the point of service contract.
The City should consider paying a monthly supplement (in an amount equal
to that which the City supplements active employees' health insurance) to
future City retired employees under the age of 65, with at least 20 years of
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
November 17, 1997
Page 6
sex-vice, to help defray the cost of health insurance. This supplement would
be paid to the month the retiree reaches age 65. There are currently
approximately 200 employees eligible to retire if the rule of 70/80 is
adopted. Using the employer health insurance payment to employees of
$159 a month, the maximum payment to retirees would be $381,600.
The supplement could be included in the retiree's pension payment and the
appropriate operating fund could reimburse the Pension Plan Trust Fund.
The City would only be paying for City retired employees while other
participating organizations such as the Resource Authority, Schools, and
Airport would determine if their retirees should be provided this benefit
until age 65.
Current Policy
As of June 30, 1997, there were 382 employees who are members of the
Employees' Retirement System (ERS).
Discussion
If the definition of normal retirement or any other benefit is changed for the
members of ESRS, an opportunity for members of the ERS to transfer to the
ESRS should be made available.
Recommendation
The Board of Trustees recommends that City Council refer to fiscal year
1998-99 budget study for consideration with other budget priorities of the
City, the following recommendations:
Calculate the basic benefit by applying the Rule of 70 for public
safety employees with a minimum age of 45, and the Rule of 80 for
general employees with a minimum age of 50.
Pay a monthly supplement (in an amount equal to that which the
City supplements active employees' health insurance) to each future
City retiree under the age of 65, with at least 20 years of service, to
help defray the cost of health insurance. This benefit would cease
upon retiree attaining age 65.
A period of time of one month be available for members of the ERS to
have the opportunity to transfer to the ESRS (May 15 - June 15,
1998).
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
November 17, 1997
Page 7
The Board's recommendation passed by a vote of 6 to 1 with Robert E. Tonkinson,
Jr. voting in the negative. W. Robert Herbert abstained from voting since the
recommendation referred this request to budget study.
We sincerely appreciate the time devoted by each Board Member and the data
assembled by the Retirement Staff.
Respectfully submit.ted, ~
Chairman, B6ard of Trustees
S~eretary-Treasurer, Board of Trustees
City of Roanoke Pension Plan
FWH/JDG/JS:s
Attachments
c:
Robert E. Tonkinson, Jr., Vice Chairman, Board of Trustees
W. Robert Herbert, Member, Board of Trustees
Earnest C. Wilson, Member, Board of Trustees
E. Douglas Chittum, Member, Board of Trustees
Martha P. Franklin, Member, Board of Trustees
David T. Altman, Member, Board of Trustees
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Joyce Sparks, Retirement Administrator
Exhibit A
Govenamental Pension Benefit Survey
Executive Summary
October 15, 1997
1. This survey includes 11 Pension Plans.
Interest Rate Assumptions
3 Plans 7.5%
1 Plan 7.75%
6 Plans 8.0%
1 Plan 8.5%
Average 7.9%
Salary Scale Assumption
Range 4% - 6.5%
Average 5.3%
Contribution Rate
6 Plans use Blended rates Average 8.7%
(combining percentages for General employees and Police & Fire)
5 Plans use Separate rates
for General and Public Safety
General - Average 8.5%
Public Safety - Average 17.6%
(3 Plans have employee contributions)
Normal Service - General Employees
6 Plans have multiple combinations of age/service and percentages
(ex: Age 65, or age 55 w/30 yrs.)
(1.42% for first $9,500 + 1.82% thereafter)
5 Plans have one criteria for normal retirement (ex: Age 62)
Below are the age and/or service combinations used by the 11 Plans:
Age 60 Age 62
2 1
Age 50 w/30 Age 55 w/30
1 2
A~!e 62 w/5 Age 65 w/5
i 2
Percentages range from 1.35% - 2%
A~e 65 30 years
2 1
Age 55 w/35 Age 60 w/25
1 1
Normal Semrice - Public Safety
5 Plans have multiple combinations of age/service and percentages
(ex: Age 60 or age 55 w/30) (3% for first 20 yrs., 2% next 5 years,
1% thereafter)
6 Plans have one criteria for normal retirement.
(ex: 25 yrs. of service - any age)
Below are the age and/or service combinations used by the 11 Plans:
Age 50 Age 55 Age 60 20 years 25 Years
1 1 3 1 3
Age 50w/25 Age 52w/5 Age 55w/25 Age 55w/30 Age 60w/5
4 1 1 1 1
Percentages range from 1.35% - 3%*
* Plan w/3% - P & F do not participate in Social Security and as of 7/1/95 that System is
closed - All new hires are members of VRS.
Early Service - General Employees
5 Plans have multiple combinations
(ex: Age 50 w/25 years, or age 55 w/5 years - w/reduction)
6 Plans have one criteria for Early Service
(ex: Age 50 w/5 years - w/reduction)
Below are the age/or service combinations used by the 11 Plans:
A~e 55 25 years 30 years Age 50 w/5
2(WR) I(WR) i(WR) i(WR)
A~e 50 w/10 Age 50 w/25 Age 52 w/20 Age 54 w/17
i(WR) 2(WR) I(WR) i(WR)
Age 55 w/5 Age 55 w/30 Age 60 w/5
2(WR) i(NR) I(NR)
WR - With reduction
NR - No reduction
Percentages range from 1.35% - 2%
Reduction percentages per month range from .25% -. 5%
Early Service - Public Safe~
2 Plans have multiple combinations of age/service and percentages.
(ex: Age 55 w/5 (WR), or age 55 w/25 (NR)
8 Plans have one criteria for Early Service
(ex: Age 55)
I Plan has NO Early Service
Below are the age and/or service combinations used by the 11 Plans:
No Early Service Age 50 A~e 55 20 years
1 I(WR) i(WR) 2(WR)
25 years Age 42 w/5 A~e 50 wi5 Age 50 w/25
2(WR), 1 (NR) 1 (WR) I(WR) 1 (NR)
Age 55 w/5 A~e 55 w/20 A~/~e 55 w/25
2(WR) 1 (WR) 1 (NR)
Percentages range from 1.35% - 2.3%
Reduction percentages range from. 18% -. 5%
Spousal Options
5 Plans offer 50% Automatic Spousal allowance w/no reduction to
retiree's benefit.
10 Plans offer different variations of the following percentages,
0%, 25%, 50%, 66%%, 75%, 100% w/benefit reduced.
7 Revert reduced benefit to original amount at spouse's death.
3 Do not revert to original amount
8 Plans continue benefit to spouse after remarriage.
3 Plans cease benefit to spouse after remarriage.
10.
Del'tuition of AFC
10 Highest 36 months
i Highest 60 months
11.
Maximum Benefit of AFC
4 Plans - no stated maximum
1 Plan - 45%
2 Plans - 61.25% - General Employees
I Plan - 60%
i Plan - 65% - Public Safety
2 Plans - 75%
I Plan - 76.5% - Public Safety
i Plan - 78.75%
12.
Creditable Service for Unused Sick Leave
8 Plans allow creditable service from unused sick leave balance
(50%, 60%, 75%, 100%, maximum I year)
3 Plans do not allow creditable service from unused sick leave
13.
Deferred Compensation
11 Plans offer a 457 Deferred Compensation Plan
9 Plans - No employer contribution
1 Plan - $20/month to employee earning $30,000 or less
I Plan - $5 biweekly employer match
14.
Social Security Participation
11 Plans - General employees participate in Social Security
7 Plans - Police & Fire participate in social security
4 Plans - Police & Fire pay Medicare only
15.
Mandatory Retirement Age for Public Safety
6 Plans - No mandatory retirement age.
5 Plans - Mandatory retirement age.
I Plan - Age 60
I Plan - Age 62
I Plan - Age 62 (70 for Chief)
i Plan - Age 63 (Chief exempt)
I Plan - Age 70
16.
Health Insurance Premium Partially Paid by Locality
7 Plans - pay some of the health insurance premium
4 Plans - no payment of the health insurance premium
c:\wp60\pp\survey, com
[Datel
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke. Virginia
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council:
On August 4. 1997. Clty'.cotmcll'i'efen~l:it0ithe Board of.T~ustees of t.he City of
,,. ,; ~ -~' ,;..; ~
Roanoke Pension Plan a request to review'pension benefits for members of the
Pension Plan. The request~l lmpro~ments ar~:
Increase the mulUpHer rate from the p~t 2% to 2.3% for all employees
over the next three years with a maximum of 70% of .flnnl average salary.
Credit % Per Year Maximum % of AFC
2.2% 70%
2.3% 70%'
Actuarial UabillW
$ 8,260,992
$10,397,463
$11,965,441
Change spousal opUono: unreduc~,~50% survivor annuity to all City
employees.. '
The scmart~l hbmty for only Ods modlfl~Uon is $5,411,557.
The nettmrinl liability Including Item :.1, above and an unreduced
survivor annuity lo shown below:,
Credit % Per Year . of AF~
2.1% 70~
2.2% 70q$
2.3% 7094,
50~ Spousal Actuarial
Allowance Liability
AutomaUe $14,074.236
Automatic $16,314.591
AutomaUc $17,958.812
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Cotmcfl
IDatel
Page 2
Reduction of normal retirement to 215 years of.service for public safety
employees and 30 years for general employees regardless of age with no
penalty.
The actuarial UablUty for only this modlflcaUon Is $I 1,590,140.
The actuarial ilablilty tncludlng Item 1. and. Item 2 above and providing for
the elimination of age 50/55 Is shownbelow: ·,~...
Credit Maximum % No Age Actuarial
Per Year 0fAFC ' Reoulremeftt Liability
2.1% 70~ 25/30 yearn $21.042.420
2.2% 70~ .25/30 years $24,213,189
2.3% 70~ 25/30 years $26,830,597
There are eleven Indlvldunl plans in the Commonwealth of Vlrglnla which include
the Virginia Retirement System {VRS} ,,.n~,.~.i..,,. ten local government plans. A
comprehensive study wan conducted of.', these phns to compare the pension
=,~ ,~.:~.
benefits offered by Roenolm's Permlon Plan. ,..and those provided by the ten other
Pension Plans {Exhibit A}. ~ study,!!~osed that our Pension Plan Is
competitive Mth other p~ ~ .th...e ~i..n~m~~t.~l,,. ofVlrflrda. A chart showing
compnrutt~ factors Is shown below:.' ~,, '%'~~, , ,~:" ·
Zm~
Arlinfton 1.50~ 45~ None .... 1.50~
Chtrbtteovflle1.31~ (44.4 yrs.)None" ' 1.3f~
Dnnvtlle 2.00~ (30 yrs.) None . 1.42~,
Em pioyee
IW'"~lmm ConUtbutlon
None
(44,4 yrs.) None
(42.2 yrs.) None
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
[Datel
Page 3
FaC, fax 60~
FIre/EM9 2.30~ {26.1 yrs.) 7.08~
60~
Fairhx Polfce 2.50~ (24 yrs.) 12.0~
Falls Church 2.25~ 78.75% 3.0~
Newport News l.a6~ (32.3 ~.}
60%
2.00~ (30 yrs.) 5.33%
6O%
2.00~ (30 IriS.) 5.33%
1.60~ {3'/.5 yrs.} 3.0%
' 1.86~' (32.3 y~.) None
1.75~ 61.25% None
1.7.~N~ .: 61.25% None
2.0(0 60~ None
The study discloses that the 2% credit :Per l year Is very compeUUve. Three
locMIUes use higher credit factors per ye~f, but an employee contrtbuUon is
required ranging from 3% to 12%. The City ~,Norfolk (PubUc Sat'ety employees-
onlyj hu a 2.2% credit factor limited to 2~,. years and 2% on the next 5 years
which eqtmls a 65% maximum of AFC. No employee con~lbuUons are required.
When you consider our pension plan requires no employee contribution we are
very compeUUve with other pension plans.
Five of thq pension plmm provide a ~~ allowance with no reducUon.
· ....: ,. · . ..~. ,~:... ,:~..~R!II~'~I~IIg'~ .. .
Om' perM= plan req~.&' ,l~!~U.c.~~e, Mcul~ted benefit with no age
difference ~ the'employee and
There ~e o~y two plans that do not require, &~ specific age to retire. The Newport
News and Richmond ph~ both u~ ~5 ye~'S of ~'~dce for public s~l'ety and 30
~ ' .., :~ ,:.",.~?'
y~"~ of ~'vlce for generM employee~.' 0~. ~on plan compares favorably
when all plans are considered, ..
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
IDatel
Page 4
On October 15. the Pension Plan's actuary. Slabaugh Morgan White and
Associates. presented the valuation report for June 30. 1997. As of that date. the
Pension Plan Is fully funded. There Is no unfunded accrued liability. The primary
reasons that our Pension Plan Is currently funded are:
City Council has continual to approve the recommended contribution rate
each year. · ,~'.¥:~.,,.~,
The Investment performance over the'past three years has exceeded the
actuarlai assumed rate.
The contribuUon rate n~y be reduced from the 10.5~ to 8.75o~. This would allow
limited ndJustments to the plan without, lnc~, .I/lg the current contribution rate.
The Board of Trustees spent considerable ~ reviewing numerous alternatives
and their flrmnelnl Impact to the Pension TrustFund. The IBo~d reeonunends the
following amendments for your consideration: '
Cun~t Policy_
City of Roanoke retirees less than,?g? ;.65 with 15 years of continuous
/!:was: compiled on
separate survey of other plans ..... health Insurance
coverage. .Soven of the locailtiea ,make some payment toward health
An annual. supplement of . { ,pa~. le monthly} to be paid to age 65
for future retirees who retire with at least 20 years of creditable service.
HonorAble Mayor and Members
· of City Council
[Datel
Page 5
An Increase In the recommended actuarlM contribuUon rate by
$ annually.
°/(0 or
Ournmt Polic~
When a married employee applies for retirement, the employee and spouse
elect a spousal opUon of 0~ ~, 7~ or 100~ Choosing an opUon other
,,...~+~,....
thnn 0~ will cause a reduction In th~ pension' payment.
The survey of other go~mmentnl pinna In Virginia show that five plans offer
a ~ aUtomatic s~sal allowance with'no reduction to retiree.
R~ommendntion
~ th~ ~:~tt~ti~ tnh~ ~ to enleuln,te.~ the reduction factor for electing
a spotmnl belnellt tnstesd of n 9~ reduetl~ for no age dllference, use a 5%
'~ ~.?~'F~,,, .
reduction for up to live years age dltference.
An Incrense in the recommended actuarial contrlbuUon rate by % or
$ annunll o
· .:,,, ~,~......
'fhe attnch~ . n~ provides,;'the!'.~n~;ich~,qg,-n!-to. Chapter 22.1,
"Pennlons nnd Retlmnent, of the Ronnoke Cl~,~....ode {1979}, ns amended, related
to ottr reeo~nnnendntionn for benefit ImprOVements. We sincerely appreciate the
' ' . 'i'i~:~,~.~.~.
time devoted by eneh Board Member .nad the.....dn..' tn a~embled by the Retirement
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
[Datei
Page 6
Respectfully submitted,
Chnlrmnn, Board of Trustees
City of Roanoke Pension Plnn
C:
Robert E. Tonklnaon, Jr., Vice Chairman; Board of Trustees
W. Robert Herbeti, Member, Board of..Truatece
Earnest C. Wilson, Member, Board of Trustees
g. Douglns Chlttum, Member. Boerd of Trustees
Mnrtha P. Frnnklln. Member. Board of Trustece
David T. Altmnn. Member, Board of
WHburn D. DlbHn~, Jr., City
Joyce 5parlm, Re~t Admlnlstrntm'.i '
Jam~.s D. Grisso
< r
Secre,~.'y- Treasure
Doris B. Peters
Retirement Administrator
'F7 0CT16
P 3:34
CITY OF ROANOKE
ENSlON
LAN
October 15, 1997
Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
As you will recall, Richard B. Sarver, representing the Roanoke Firefighters
Association, made a presentation to Council August 4, 1997. In his
presentation he requested certain proposed improvements to the City of
Roanoke Pension Plan. These improvements were referred to the Pension
Plan Board of Trustees for study with a report due back to City Council on
November 3, 1997.
This is to request an extension of time. Your understanding will be
appreciated. Please call if you have questions or concerns.
Secretary-Treasurer
JDG:s
c: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wflburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Joyce Sparks, Retirement Administrator
Wiley Hubbell, Chairman, Board of Trustees
Richard B. Sarver, Roanoke Fireflghters Association
215 Church Avenue, Room 461, P.O. Box 1220 · Roanoke, Virginia 24006 · (540) 853-2062 ° Fax: (540) 853-2940
Presentation by Richard Sarver to Roanoke City Council
Roanoke City Employee Pension Plan
August 4, 1997
Thank you Vice Mayor Wyatt and members of council -
Last year I appeared before council and presented an actuarial study of the City of
Roanoke Pension Plan. We asked council to make changes in the system that would save
the city money in its contribution to the plan and also to make improvements that would
benefit employees.
Four minor changes were made to benefit employees and two changes were made that
decreased the City's co,ntribution rate by 1.1%. ,
The net result was an estimated $495,900 in annual savings to the City.
Today I am here again on behalf of City employees to ask for improvements to our
system:
1. Increase the multiplier rate from the present 2% to 2.3% for all City employees over
the next three years with a maximum of 70% of final average salary.
2. Change spousal options: unreduced 50% survivor annuity to all City employees.
Page I
Reduction of normal retirement to 25 years of service for public safety employees and
30 years for general employees regardless of age with no penalty.
How can improved benefits to its employees help the City?
1. If employees know they can retire at a reasonable age with reasonable benefits they
will be better employees.
2. The City presently has two pension system, commonly called the old system and the
new system. By making improvements in the new system, employees in the old system
would be given the opportunity to switch, and perhaps we could have one system that
would be an obvious help in bookkeeping.
3. Senior employees at or near the top of their pay range would have more incentive to
retire and be replaced by employees at the lower end of the pay range.
4. The City, being seW-insured for workman's compensation, would benefit from savings
in job-related disabilities by having a younger work force. This is especially true with
public safety employees due to state presumption laws.
Last year, the Board of Trustees reported that our system was competitive with the eleven
other plans in the Commonwealth of Virginia, therefore they could see no reason to make
any major changes in our system.
Page 2
We have reports that show the City of Newport News, the City of Richmond, the City of
Norfolk, and Fairfax County have all made changes and increased benefits in their plans.
The Virginia Retirement System (VRS) had bills before the state legislators that would
increase benefits to their system.
We feel that even if we are competitive with the other systems in the state, the City of
Roanoke has the opportunity to be the leader in this field.
In conclusion, thanks to Mr. Grisso and his staff (and the stock market), the City of
Roanoke Pension Plan is well managed and well funded.
When I was here last year in March, the assets of the system were $170 million, by June
30, 1996 they had increased to $212.5 million, and by June 30 of this year they had
reached $261.2 million, a return of 22.9% in one year's time.
There is money available in the pension system at this time to improve benefits to all City
employees. We urge you to use your influence as leaders of this City to have the Pension
Board come back with a positive recommendation to our concerns.
Thank you.
Page 3
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 20, 1997
File #132-137-467
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
The Honorable John S. Edwards
Member, Senate of Virginia
Post Office Box 1179
Roanoke, Virginia 24006
The Honorable Clifton A. Woodrum, III
Member, House of Delegates
Post Office Box 1371
Roanoke, Virginia 24007
The Honorable A. Victor Thomas
Member, House of Delegates
1301 Orange Avenue, N. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33655-111797, adopting and endorsing a
Legislative Program for the City of Roanoke to be presented to the City's delegation to the
1998 Session of the General Assembly. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on Monday, November 17, 1997.
You are cordially invited to meet with the Members of the Roanoke City Council and the
Roanoke City School Board on Monday, December 15, 1997, at 12:15 p.m., in the
Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S. W., to discuss legislative matters.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
H:~AGENOA.~/U~IOV17.WPO
The Honorable John S. Edwards
The Honorable Clifton A. Woodrum, III
The Honorable A. Victor Thomas
November 20, 1997
Page 2
MFP:Io
Enc.
pc:
Marsha W. Ellison, Chair, Roanoke City School Board, 2030 Knollwood Road,
S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
Cindy H. Ramsuer, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor
Willard N. Claytor, Director of Real Estate Valuation
James D.Grisso, Director of Finance
Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director, Human Development
George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
H:~AGENDA.97~IOVl 7.W~D
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33655-111797.
A RESOLUTION adopting and endm~ing a Legislative 1~o~ for the City to
be presented to the City's delegation to the 1998 Session of the General Assembly.
WHEREAS, the members of City Council a~e in a ,,,~que position to be aware
of the le~islative needs of this City and its people;
WHEREAS, previous Legislative p~ogr-m- of the City have been responsible
for improving the efficiency'of local goverument and the quality of life for citizens
of thi~ City;
WHEREAS, Council is desirous of adopting and endorsing a Legislative
Program to be advocated by the Council and its representatives at the Genem~l
Assembly; and
WHEREAS, the Legislative Comm~ttse of City Council has by repo~-t, dated
November 3, 1997, recommended to Council a Legislative P~o~m to be presented
at the 1998 Session of the Gene~l Assembly, and Council concurred in such
recommendation by motion adopted at its November 3, 1997, meeting;
WHEREAS, the Roanoke City School Board appreved its Legislative Pregr-m
for the 1998 Session at the School Board meeting of November 11, 1997, and the
Board recommends tb~ Program to City Council for inclusion in a joint Legislative
P~ogrsm on beh,]~' of City Council and the School Board; and
WHEREAS, the Council is desirous of formally adopting the City and School
Board elements to be merged into a joint Legislative Pro~;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
1. The City portion of the Le~slative 1~o~ t~m~mitted by report of the
Le~s' lative Core--tree, dated November 3, 1997, and the School Boa~l poz~ion of the
Legislative pregr~m t~n.~mitted by ~eport of the Legislative Committee, dated
November 17, 1997, are hereby endowed and adopted by this Council, and the City
Attorney is directed to merge the two Pro~l~m~ into a joint Legislative Program to
be advocated at the 1998 Session of the General Assembly.
2. The Clerk is directed to issue eorrii~l invitations to the City's Senator
and Delegates to the 1998 Session of the General Assembly to attend Council's
meeting relating to legislative matters, to be held at 12:15, on December 15, 1997.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
DAVID A. BOWERS
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
CITY COUNCIL
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
November 17, 1997
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: 1998 Legislative Program
RECE~'vED
cITY CLERKS
NOV 13 All :53
Council Members:
C. Nelson Harris
John H. Parrott
Carroll E. Swain
James O. Trout
William White, Sr.
Linda F. Wyatt
Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members:
On October 27, 1997, City Council's Legislative Committee met to review the
proposed 1998 Legislative Program. Subsequently, by report dated November 3, 1997, the
Committee recommended the City portion of the proposed Legislative Program to City
Council, and, by motion, City Council approved the City portion of the Program.
The School Board portion of the Program was also reviewed by the Legislative
Committee on October 27, 1997. Thereafter, the School Board portion was approved by the
School Board at its meeting of November 1 l, 1997. The legislative priorities of the School
Board for the 1998 Session are as follows:
1. To improve the State's share of funding public education;
To address inconsistencies in the State Board of Education's
new Standards of Learning and Standards of Accreditation that
penalize schools and children;
To require the State Department of Taxation to properly record
a locality's reported personal adjusted gross income;
To maintain flexibility in the local taxes that may be assessed by
Virginia localities in accordance with their fiscal needs; and
5. To enhance funding of school capital outlay projects.
At this time, the Legislative Committee recommends to City Council that it adopt the
attached resolution by which Council formally endorses the City and School Board elements
which will be merged into one joint Legislative Program.
The Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
November 17, 1997
Page 2
The Legislative Committee recommends that we continue the format for presentation
of the Program to the legislators instituted in 1995. It has proven to provide a better
organized, more concise and, hopefully, more effective presentation. After brief
introductory remarks by the Mayor and School Board Chairman, Tom Dick, the City's
Legislative Liaison, and a School administrator will present the highlights of the Program on
behalf of the Council and School Board. After their presentations, the format would provide
for a response from our legislators and an opportunity for comments by individual Council
members and School Board members. As you know the annual meeting with our legislators
has been scheduled for 12:00 noon on December 15, 1997.
This report highlights key provisions of the School Board portion of the Legislative
Program. My report to you of November 3, 1997, highlighted key provisions of the City
portion of the Program. Please note that the Program includes the amendment requested by
City Council on November 3 as to disposal of fires. As Chair of the Legislative Committee,
I commend the entire Program to City Council for its careful study and review. Upon
completion of this review, I am confident that the members of Council will agree that the
recommended Program will advance the legislative interests of this City and its people.
Respectfully submitted,
William White, Sr., Chairman
Legislative Committee
WWSr:f
Attachment
cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Marsha W. Ellison, Chair, School Board
F. B. Webster Day, Member, School Board
Brian J. Wislmeff, Member, School Board
E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent
Richard L. Kelley, Assistant Superintendent for Operations
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Thomas A. Dick, Legislative Liaison
H: \ COUNCI L\ L-HMCOM. 9 8
PROPOSED
1998 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM
Outline of Issues
POLICY STATEMENTS
Effective Government
Mandates
Clarification of State and Local Responsibilities
Revenue and Finance
Special Needs of Central Cities Without Annexation Power
Economic Development
Transportation
Zoning and Land Use
KEY ISSUES AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
Personal Property Taxes
Higher Education Center
Public Rights-of-Ways
Transportation (Including Mass Transit) Funding
Regional Competitiveness Act Funding
Juvenile Facility Security
Recording of Deeds
LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
Taxation; Revenue
State-Tax Structure
Local Funding Issues
BPOL Tax
Comprehensive Services Act
Education
To be provided by School Board
Transportation
Interstate 73
Smart Road - Improved Access to Blacksburg/Virginia Tech
Interstate 66
Extension of Passenger Rail Service
Highway Maintenance
General Government
Virginia Museum of Transportation
Governmental (Sovereign) Immunity
Notice of Claims
Heart, Lung and Cancer Presumptions
Collective Bargaining
POLICY STATEMENTS
EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT
Local governments were originally organized to provide essential services and protection that
citizens could not or would not provide for themselves. Examples of such essential local services
are edu~on, provision for health and welfare, police and fire protection, delivery of safe water and
sewage treatment. Local governments and their officials are continually striving for economy,
effectiveness, responsiveness, efficiency and productivity in delivery of such services.
Unfommtely, the essential services for which local governments were originally created have been
overshadowed by numerous less critical programs mandated by the federal and State governments.
The federal and State governments should recognize that local governments are the best vehicle for
the delivery of basic public services because local governments are closest to the people and most
responsive to their needs. Furthermore, basic public services cannot be provided in the most
effective way if the State attempts to dictate in minute detail the structure of all local govemment,
the administrative and legislative procedures to be followed uniformly by all local governments and
the details of all programs administered at the local level. The City opposes State intrusions in the
way local governments conduct their business, including the way council meetings are conducted,
procedures for adopting ordinances, what can be addressed by ordinance and what by resolution,
purchasing procedures and establishment of hours of work, salaries and working conditions for
employees.
MANDATES
According to the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission, Virgim'a's local govemments are
subject to 391 Federal and State mandates. These mandates require localities to perform duties
without consideration of local circumstances, costs or capacity and require localities to redirect their
priorities to meet federal and State objectives regardless of other pressing local needs and priorities
affecting the health, safety and welfare of citizens. The cumulative effect of federal and State
legislative and regulatory mandates has exacerbated the already serious financial problems of local
govemments.
Several years ago, the General Assembly began the fiscal note process by which cost estimates for
proposed legislation are completed prior to final review of the legislation by a committee.
Additionally, the 1993 Session amended the State Code to require (1) that all State agencies review
all mandates imposed on local govemments with the objective of determining which mandates may
be altered or eliminated and (2) that the Commission on Local Govemment prepare and annually
update a catalog of Federal and State mandates. It is essential that the state fully fund all state
mandates, including public employee salaries.
CLARIFICATION OF STATE AND LOCAL RESPONSIBILITIES
The increasing trend towards community-based programs requires carefully addressing the
significant long-term issues of local vs. state roles and responsibilities for administration and
funding of these programs. The City asks the General Assembly to request JLARC to update its
1993 study on state/local service delivery responsibilities to reflect the changes that have occurred
in state/local relations and federal/state relations.
To improve the relationship of the state and local governments, the state must: leave the taxing
authority and revenue sources of local governments alone; pay a greater share of the costs of
education; grant local governments the authority to deal effectively with social problems; recognize
lhe auldaority oflocal government in planning and land use control; develop a state urban policy that
a) addresses issues of local govemmental structure and intergovernmental relations, b) encourages
the retention or expansion of state facilities or operations in existing urban centers, and c) defines
how state and local govemments deal with each other.
REVENUE AND FINANCE
The City is vitally concerned over the continued erosion of local revenue sources. The General
Assembly is urged not to cap, remove or further restrict any revenue sources that are currently
available to localities, including taxing authority and user fees.
Historically, real and personal property taxes have been the foundation of local tax revenues. The
State's restriction and erosion of other local sources, however, has resulted in over reliance on
property taxes, placing local governments in financial jeopardy. The Joint Legislative Audit and
Review Commission's (JLARC's) own study shows that the real property tax rate in Virginia is the
second highest among fifteen Southem states and fifty percent higher than nine Southem States.
The City supports additional and more equitable sources of revenue, but the decision on which, if
any, local revenue sources should be reduced or eliminated should be strictly a local decision.
SPECIAL NEEDS OF CENTRAL CITIES WITHOUT ANNEXATION POWER
The larger, more urbanized, central cities of the Commonwealth, such as this City, provide a full
range of public housing, health, mental health, transportarion, social and humanitarian services.
School systems in these cities provide excellent special education programs, and private charities
located in central cities provide a broad range of charitable assistance. These factors make the
Commonwealth's central cities a magnet for those in need of services.
The City has made tremendous strides in economic development. Downtown has been revitalized;
industrial parks have been established; and new businesses and industries have been attracted. It
is unlikely, however, that these recent successes can be sustained over the long tenn. In this regard,
the major problem facing the City is an inadequate inventory of developable land. Much of our
mountainous terrain is either undevelopable or developable only at tremendous costs. Other land
in the heart of the Roanoke Valley is subject to flooding and undevelopable.
RoanokCs peculiar problems are compounded by the need of central cities to provide welfare, public
safety, transportation, and water and sewer services at a level not required in adjoining suburban or
mmllocaliries. These services benefit the entire region, but are paid for primarily by City taxpayers.
Historically, the fiscal stress of central cities has been relieved by annexation. The power of
annexation has, without logic, been denied to the central cities which need it most. If the central
cities of the Commonwealth are to remain strong, viable units of government, which is in the best
interest of the Commonwealth, decisive action needs to be taken. Ultimately, the General Assembly
should reevaluate Virginia's unique system of independent cites, which requires the City to fund
services benefiting adjoining localities. In the meantime, the legislature should: a) provide special
state funding for such regionally beneficial services; b) create financial incentives to encourage
governmental integration of independent dries with adjoining counties; and c) allow for cities with
populations of less than 125,000 to make the transition to town status.
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
City Council calls upon the Govemor and the General Assembly to develop an economic
development strategy for the Commonwealth and its local governments. The Commonwealth is
implored to form a partnership with local governments, the business community and economic
development experts to develop the strategy. The strategy should recognize the intemational
economy in which Virginia local governments are competing and include special funding for
internationallrade missions. The strategy should also recognize small business incubators as a vital
element and provide fnnding, perhaps on a State matching basis, to local governments that undertake
to develop and operate incubators. The strategy should include special programs for those areas
west of the Blue Ridge mountains and central cities across the Commonwealth.
Each of these areas will need special financial assistance from the State if we are to have balanced
growth across the Commonwealth. The economic strategy should include additional educational
funding for central dries. With shrinking labor pools in central dries across the State, new and
existing businesses cannot afford to have young adults in these cities become unemployable. Special
efforts must be made now through additional educational funding to save these at risk children.
Tourism and convention activities that enhance the economic well being of the Commonwealth and
its political subdivisions should be recognized as legitimate components of economic development.
We urge the General Assembly to look closely at the way State tourism dollars are spent and to
insure their fair distribution. Western Virginia has, in the past, not received a proportionate share
ofthe dollars spent by the State tourism office, and there has been little emphasis on promoting the
Virginia mountains.
TRANSPORTATION
An adequate transportation system is vital to the economic well-being of the Commonwealth and
this region. Safe, convenient and efficient movement of people, goods and services is essential for
the Commonwealth and its regions to compete successfully in the global marketplace. Public
transportation is an essential element of the transportation system which should be an integrated and
balancedintermodal system. Reliable, dedicated sources of funding for public and other modes of
transportation need to be determined and put in place.
ZONING AND LAND USE
One of the most important functions of local governments is local planning and land use control.
This is appropriate because there is no entity better suited to make key land use decisions on behalf
ofanylocality than the local governing body. In making land use decisions in this City, Council is
guided by a comprehensive plan developed through a citizen-based planning process.
City Council views with increasing alarm recent efforts of the General Assembly to control local
landuses. The Council opposes any legislation that would restrict present land use powers of local
governments to establish, modify and enforce zoning classifications. Local governments should
remain free to adopt and enforce zoning changes that address local land use needs.
KEY ISSUES AND LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS
PERSONAL PROPERTY TAXES
In the City of Roanoke, for the 1997-98 budget, personal property tax revenue is $20.5 million, or
13% of the total budget. The personal property tax is the City's second largest revenue source.
Protecting local revenue sources has become more and more vital to local governments because they
5
derive less oftheir revenue from the federal and State governments than was formerly the case. Any
repeal or modification limiting this tax would adversely affect the ability of local governments to
fund critical services.
It is unlikely the State can afford more than one billion dollars per year to reimburse localities for
loss of personal property tax revenues. The State has been unable to carry through on its previous
obligations to localities many times in the past. For example, the State has paid localities $420
million less than it committed to under House Bill 599 (Police Block Grants) since 1981. Any
modification of local taxing authority should only enhance local government, s ability to meet
funding needs and not further restrict local officials.
HIGHER EDUCATION CENTER
Educafimhas long been recognized as a critical component for economic development. The higher
education infrastructure of the Roanoke Valley is presently inadequate to meet the area's needs and
to support economic growth. A higher education center, providing for-credit programs and much
needed workforce preparation and technology training (not-for-credit programs) is critical to the
region.
The State Council for Higher Education in Virginia (SHEV) has recently recognized the need for
additional education and worker training in the Roanoke region. In a legislatively authorized study,
SHEV determined that "...the work£orce development needs [o£the region] cannot be served by a
single institution such as the Virginia Western Community College. The many organizations that
provide (and house) work£orce development programs need coordination through an approach that
~okers' the needs o£the marketplace to the program providers." The study fin-ther concludes that
there "is a need £or a higher education center in The Roanoke Valley".
A 1995 study, also authorized by the General Assembly, determined that renovating the former
Norfolk & Western headquarters building in Roanoke was cost competitive, in comparison with new
construction, to house such an education/training center. State funding, matched in part from local
sources, is necessary to establish the Center, which will meet the higher education infrastructure
needs of the Roanoke Valley well into the 21st century. The General Assembly is urged to
adequately fund this important Roanoke based center.
PUBLIC RIGHTS-OF-WAYS
The Federal Telecommunications Act, adopted in 1996 has led to rapid changes and fostered
additional competition in the telecommunications industry. In Virginia, local governments have
been besieged by many segments of the telecommunications industry seeking to use the public
rights-of-ways for construction or upgrade of their facilities. Local exchange telephone companies,
long distance carders, competitive access providers, competitive local exchange companies and
cable television operators all seek to install fiber optic systems in the public rights-of-way.
Continual opening and closing of the streets reduces their life and causes inconvenience to the
public. Private facilities also often come into conflict with and cause disruption to publicly owned
water, sewer and storm drainage facilities. The public is also concerned that the aesthetics of our
public rights-of-way be maintained.
Local public streets and fights-of-way are property that a local government holds on behalf of the
public and is paid for by the taxpayers. All private businesses that place wires, conduits or pipes
over, on or under the public property are, therefore, tenants of the public. Just as any property
owner, the public, through its local govemment, is entitled to compensation bom those who use
public property for profit and to manage the use of the property to make sure it is used efficiently
and safely.
The federal Act protects the right of local governments to receive fair and reasonable compensation
from the telecommunications industry for the use of public rights-of-way. The Act also allows local
governments to impose nondiscriminatory requirements relating to street use, such as street opening
or fights-of-way permits, bonding, insurance and indemnity requirements. The General Assembly
is monitoring discussions between the telecommunications industry and local governments to
develop legislation on this matter for the 1998 General Assembly. The legislature is urged to protect
the fundamental rights of local govemments to manage their rights-of-way and to receive fair and
reasonable compensation for the use of public fights-of-way by private industries.
TRANSPORTATION (INCLUDING MASS TRANSIT) FUNDING
Mass transit is critical to a large number of citizens of the Roanoke Valley. These citizens require
mass transit for transportation to their jobs, medical and professional appointments and for doing
their shopping. Not only is mass transit critical to those citizens who utilize it, but it is also vital to
large employers whose work forces rely on Valley Metro for transportation to the workplace and
to retail businesses and medical facilities whose customers and patients patronize Valley Metro.
Studies of the Commonwealth's transportation needs and funding sources confirm that there is a
widening gap between needs and the funding available to meet those needs. The State's current
transportation program simply cannot keep up with growing needs statewide. Adequate funding is
critical to keep Virginia's transportation system viable and responsive to increasing economic
development, workforce, tourism, and quality of life issues. Funding for new initiatives should be
made in addition to existing funding arrangements to meet intermodal and inter-regional needs.
While increased federal funding may narrow the gap somewhat, it is clear that the state must re-
examine and adjust its funding sources and commitments as well. Public-private initiatives must
play a role as well. Ensuring adequate funding and planning for Virginia's growing needs may be
accomplished through a number of means, including the following:
Adjusting fund sources, such as the motor fuels tax, to keep pace with
inflation;
Imposi~ moderate increases in state transportation-related taxes and
fees, including the motor fuels tax, the road use tax, the motor vehicle
sales anduse tax, motor vehicle license fees and motor vehicle rental
tax;
Authorizing more options for using long-term financing for major
transportation proj cots;
7
Authorizing, at the request of regions, the creation of regional
transportation districts with the ability to impose, without
referendum, up to two percent motor fuels tax, dedicated to
transportation funding;
Seeking equity among various road users by ensuring that tracks pay
their proportionate share of road costs;
6. Promoting mass transit solutions on a regional and statewide basis.
REGIONAL COMPETITIVENESS ACT FUNDING.
The 1996 Session of the General Assembly enacted the Regional Competitiveness Act. This Act
establishes a formula and machinery for distribution of incentive funding to local governments that
implement joint activities. The Act was initially funded with a $3 million appropriation and $5
million l~om the Governors Opportunities Fund. The 1997 General Assembly appropriated an
additional $3 million to fund the Act.
The General Assembly is urged to increase funding for the Regional Competitiveness Act to make
it a viable program. Adequate funding is needed for local governments to be able to pursue
substantive regional initiatives. Sufficient and proportional funding should be provided to all
regions of the state.
JUVENILE FACILITY SECURITY
The City maintains and operates two juvenile facilities in Botetourt County. The City las enjoyed
a good relationship with Botetourt officials and wants to continue to see that all possible steps are
taken to ensure that the security needs of its juvenile facilities are met. Present state restrictions
appear to limit the options of the City to adequately meet these needs. Statutory relief may be
required to permit necessary and appropriate security measures to be taken at this facility. The
General Assembly is requested to allow the City the authority to effectively address this situation.
RECORDING OF DEEDS
Currently, most deeds recorded by the Clerk of the Circuit Court provide a "metes and bounds"
description of the property. These are often vague and are difficult to read and record. A substantial
amount oflime is required for identification of the property. Legislation to allow the City to require
the official tax map number to be a part of any new deeds would allow records and tax bills to be
updated in a more timely and cost effective fashion. An amendment to Virghm Code §17-79.3 is
needed to allow Roanoke to do what Alexandria, Fairfax, Chesterfield, Fauquier, Loudoun,
Montgomery county and several other localities are already doing.
8
FUNDING FOR TIRE AMNESTY DAY
The Virginia Departm~t of Environmental Quality (DEQ) provides funding for the removal,
lramtx~aation, and disposal of waste tires that have been collected during locally sponsored events
called Tire Amnesty Days, as long as the locality is a participant in the Waste Tire Management
Program. The City understands that DEQ is not allowing the renewal of contracts with numerous
localities so the localities can continue as a participant in the Waste Tire Management Program.
Therefore, those localities will not be entitled to the funding set forth above for Tire Amnesty Day
events.
City Council requests the General Assembly to require DEQ to provide funding for annual
Tire Amnesty Day events sponsored by localities without requiring the locality to be a participant
inflae Waste T~re Management Program. Such required funding would include the cost of removal,
transportation, and disposal of waste tires during such annual events.
City Council understands that there is a statewide problem with the effective management
and disposal of waste tires. Therefore, City Council further requests the General Assembly to
establish a committee to study and develop a statewide plan for the effective management and
disposal of waste tires.
LEGISLATIVE POSITIONS
TAXATION; REVENUE
STATE-LOCAL TAX STRUCTURE
A sound state and local tax structure is vital to the long-term fiscal vitality of the Commonwealth
andils local governments. Virginia is a low-tax state. Only four states in the country have a lower
combined state-local tax burden than Virginia (per $1,000 of personal income).
Virginia's state-local tax structure should be reexamined in light of economic and demographic
changes such as the emergence of new industries, the shift from a goods-based economy to a
service-based economy and the effect of an aging population. Another reason to reexamine
xrnginia's state-local tax structure is to determine whether it is producing sufficient revenue to fund
the level of services citizens want. Examples of increased demands for services include school
construction, education technology, human services programs, juvenile programs and environmental
initiatives.
The State's tax structure should provide sufficient resources to local govemments so that they are
able to deliver the services required by the State.
9
LOCAL FUNDING ISSUES
Localgovemments must retain control of their existing revenue sources so that they have a reliable
revenue base to meet the needs of their cilizens. This is essential in light of local governments'
historical experience with state funding commitments. Examples include inadequate state funding
for education, failure to share lottery revenues, erosion of HB 599 funding and erosion of funding
for constitutional officers and juvenile block grant funding.
The Gene~ Assembly should not reduce or narrow the taxing authority of local governments. This
includes the elimination or alteration of any existing taxes or fees, the imposition of caps and any
other restrictions on existing local revenue sources. The erosion of local revenue sources increases
local governments' reliance on the property tax.
The state should permit local govemments maximum flexibility in their sources of local revenue.
Ix)cal officials know the needs of their residents and businesses and are therefore best able to make
judgements about local tax policies. Likewise, local govemments are more easily held accountable
by residents and businesses for their local tax decisions.
BUSINESS, PROFESSIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE (BPOL~ TAX
The 1996 Session of the General Assembly undertook major reform of the local business,
professional and occupational license (BPOL) tax. In spite of this major reform of the BPOL tax,
a small segment of the business community continues to agitate for elimination of the tax.
Elimination ofthe BPOL tax would reduce the stability and diversification of the local revenue base.
As to the altematives, most local governments akeady rely heavily on the property tax, and many
local governments have seen sales tax revenue decline. BPOL revenue cannot realistically be
replaced by other local taxes or fees. Therefore, City Council opposes any efforts to repeal the
BPOL tax or restrict its application.
COMPREHENSIVE SERVICES ACT
The costs of the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA) for at-risk youth and their families should be
fully funded in the State's base budget. The State should give local govemments maximum
flexibility in service delivery and use of funds, and allow localities to maximize the use of other
funding sources.
TRANSPORTATION
INTERSTATE 73
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ("ISTEA") authorized the
development of a national highway system to serve major population centers and major travel
destinations. ISTEAidenlities the Interstate 73 corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, to Detroit,
Michigan, as being a high priority.
10
The City supports an alignment of 1-73 following the right-of-way of U. S. 460 from the West
Virginia line, then following the rights-of-way of the proposed "Smart Highway", Interstate 81 and
Interstate 581 in the City of Roanoke, and then generally following the right-of-way ofU. S. Route
220 from Roanoke to the North Carolina line. This alignment would provide access to the largest
population center in Virginia west of Charlottesville, the medical and financial centers of
Southwestern Virginia, the largest airport in Southwestern Virginia and one of the State's major
universities. The City's preferred alignment would strengthen both interstate and intrastate
commerce and provide direct economic benefits to the Commonwealth.
SMART ROAD - IMPROVED ACCESS TO BLACKSBURGNIRGINIA TECH
Direct access between the Roanoke Valley and Blacksburg/Vir~ Tech is important to economic
development efforts in Southwest Virginia. The State Transportation Commission has already
recognized that a direct link from Blacksburg to 1-81 is a different project from solving traffic
congestion on U.S. Route 460 in Montgomery County, and its importance was high-lighted when
it was placed in the State's 6-year plan. Recently, the Virginia Department of Transportation has
begun construction on the "Smart Road" Project. The City applauds the commencement of
construction and supports State funding for this important regional project which will be a catalyst
for the creation of new jobs in the Roanoke and New River Valleys.
INTERSTATE 66
A new transportation link between Tidewater, Virginia, and central California, via mid-America,
has been proposed. This project is sometimes known as the Interstate 66 or the Transcontinental
Highway Project.
An east-west interstate serving the southem part of Virginia, including Lynchburg and Roanoke
would be a boon to the economic vitality of the Commonwealth. Therefore, the City supports an
alignment of this important transportation link that would take it from Norfolk to Richmond, then
follow the U. S. 460 corridor through Lynchburg and Roanoke, and then on to West Virginia.
EXTENSION OF PASSENGER RAIL SERVICE
City Council has previously urged support for the extension of AMTRAK mil service from New
York to Atlanta via Roanoke. See Resolution No. 31374-030893. More recently, the Virginia
Department of Rail and Public Transportation has completed Phase I of a study of passenger rail
service between Washington, D. C. and Bristol, and/or between Richmond and Bristol. Roanoke
would be a station along both proposed routes. Phase I of the study concludes that the proposed
passenger rail service is feasible. Phase II of the study is now being conducted to consider in more
detail the preliminary conclusions of Phase I.
New passenger rail service would provide badly needed transportation access and act as a catalyst
to development of local economies. Passenger rail service to downtown Roanoke would provide
additional support and increased visibility to such local economic development projects as the Hotel
Roanoke and Conference Center, the Historic City Market, the Virginia Museum of Transportation,
Center in the Square, Henry Street and other attractions and businesses in downtown Roanoke.
11
City Council endorses the proposal to extend AMTRAK service between New York and Atlanta via
Roanoke and urges completion of the Bristol Rail Passenger Study by the Virginia Transportation
Board.
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE
Interstate 581 is a heavily traveled portion of the interstate system and a major entrance into the
City. Many visitors to the City get their first impression of the City from the appearance ofi-581.
Unfortunately, 1-581 is not mowed frequently enough, nor is litter kept in control. Furthermore,
there is little landscaping to improve the aesthetics of this major entrance into the City. The General
Assembly is urged to insure that the Virginia Department of Transportation provides regular
maintenance of 1-581, both as to mowing and litter control, and that adequate landscaping is
provided to improve the aesthetics of this major interstate corridor through the heart of Roanoke.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
VIRGINIA MUSEUM OF TRANSPORTATION
The Virginia Museum of Transportation, located in downtown Roanoke, attracts visitors to
downtown and is important to people of this region in understanding our railroad heritage. With the
constmction of the railside linear park, which will connect the Market area and the Museum, and
capital improvements being made at the Museum, the Museum's potential as a tourist destination
is vastly improved.
City Council, therefore, is very appreciative of the General Assembly's funding of the Museum at
the level of $250,000 for the second year of the 1996-98 Biennium. The General Assembly is urged
to maintain operating funding at the level of $250,000 per year during the next Biennium.
In addition, the City Coundl supports the Museum's request that the Commonwealth provide
$500,000 ($250,000 each year) in capital funds during the next Biennium to complete construction
of a pavilion to protect the Museum's artifacts and provide a viewing area of the adjacent working
railroad for visitors.
GOVERNMENTAL (SOVEREIGN) IMMUNITY
In recent years, the General Assembly has considered proposals to eliminate or roll back
governmental (sometimes referred to as sovereign) immunity for the Commonwealth's dries,
counties and towns and official immunity for local government employees. These doctrines should
be retained, and in fact strengthened, for, among others, the following reasons:
I.,oml governments would be forced by loss of immunity to eliminate or cut
back high risk functions or services, such as operation of nursing homes,
parks and playgrounds and athletic programs, and such action is not in the
public interest.
12
Frivolous suits would be encouraged. Local governments would be viewed
as a "deep pocket" making them an easy target for plaintiffs who could bring
suit without even attempting to identify the employee allegedly at fault.
Cost of local government would increase rapidly at a time when localities can
ill afford a new major drain on financial resources. Cost of defense of
litigation may be a more serious problem than the obvious cost of paying
judgments. When the City and an employee are sued, conflicts may require
a separate attorney for each party. A recent authoritative study shows that,
of every $4 paid out by local government in litigation, $3 goes to legal costs;
only $1 actually goes to compensate plaintiffs.
o
Threats of harassing lawsuits may make local government officials less likely
to act decisively where courageous or difficult actions are in order. Good
government is difficult to achieve when officials operate under constant fear
of lawsuits.
The cap on liability under the Virginia Tort Claims Act is illusory. The
$25,000 cap on liability under the Act was first raised to $75,000 and was
more recently raised to $100,000. Constant pressure will keep the cap
spiraling upward.
The City is opposed to any diminishment to govemmental immunity of the Commonwealth's cities,
counties and towns or the official immunity of local government employees or the extension of the
Virginia Tort Claims Act to localities. In fact, official immunity should be extended to certain
groups of municipal employees and volunteers who are particularly vulnerable to suits which
jeopardize the very existence of programs desired by the community, such as employees and
volunteers serving as coaches and officials in youth athletic programs sponsored by the City.
NOTICE OF CLAIMS
Section 8.01-222, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, requires that notice of personal injury and
property damage claims against cities and towns be given in writing within six months after the
occurrence. Compliance with §8.01-222 is simple; a claimant merely needs to state the nature of
the claim and the time and place at which the injury occurred. Bills have been introduced at several
recent sessions of the General Assembly to repeal this valuable notice requirement.
Although comphance with §8.01-222 is simple, the notice requirement is vital to the
Connnonwealth's cities and towns. First, the notice provides the opportunity to correct any defect
on public property which may have caused injury before another injury occurs. Second, the notice
requirement affords the city or town a fair opportunity to investigate the facts and circumstances
relating to a claim. The city has hundreds of miles of streets and sidewalks and usually becomes
aware of a slip and fall or trip and fall only when notice is filed. Fresh notice is essential to the
conduct of any meaningful investigation. If §8.01-222 is repealed, cities and towns w/Il frequently
first learn of a claim two years after the fact when suit is filed. This will deny any reasonable
opportunity to conduct an investigation of the facts and circumstances relating to the injury. In this
13
regard, a locality is unlike a private property owner who is usually aware immediately of an injury
on his property.
The City believes that the notice requirement of §8.01-222 represents sound public policy and urges
the defeat of any bill weakening or repealing §8.01-222.
HEART, LUNG AND CANCER PRESUMPTIONS
Pohce officers, deputy sheriffs and firefighters have the advantage of nearly irrebuttable
presumptions that heart disease and hypertension are occupational diseases under the Workers'
Compensation Act. Firefighters have additional presumptions with respect to lung disease and
certain forms of cancer. The City has expended or reserved $6.7 million for 38 heart, hypertension,
lung and cancer awards made to public safety officers as a result of the statutory presumptions.
The City supports legislative action to restore balance to the rebuttal process for the heart,
hypertension, lung and cancer presumptions as was the intent of the original legts' lation.
Compensability should be determined by establishing whether work or nonwork related risk factors
are more likelythe primary cause the claimant:s condition. The City is further opposed to extension
of the current presumptions to other categories ofpubhc employees.
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
Any legislation authorizing collective bargaining for public employees in general or for any public
employee group should be opposed.
All local government employees now have a State-mandated grievance procedure. The City has
strived to develop effective means of communication which permit public employees to voice their
concerns. Collective bargaining would be a detriment to the progress which has been made.
14
ROANOKE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS
LEGISLATIVE ISSUES, 1~ga-2000 BIENNIUM.
STATE VISION
The Report of the Governor's Commission on the Future of Public
Education in Virginia indicates the State vision for public education is to
help all students reach their highest potential. A broad array of high
quality educational opportunities will be provided to students in order
that all children c_a_n excel.
In order to achieve this vision the State Department of Education has
launched an aggressive program to implement new Standards of Learning
and it has substantially revised the Standards of Accreditation. The State
initiatives are profound and they will have dramatic effects on the
delivery of education services during the next decade.
ROANOKE CITY SCHOOLS' EXPECTATIONS
The Roanoke City Public Schools legislative program for the next
Biennium will emphasize the implementation of these new State
initiatives in conjunction with the accomplishment of the educational
objectives the School Board has set for the schools. Our legislative
agenda highlights a number of concerns with the new State initiatives
that must be addressed by the Governor and General 2Kssembly if we are
to be successful in meeting the public's expe~tions for elementary and
secondary education.
The Roanoke City School Board and Superintendent have established
high expectations and standards for schools and students to achieve
during the next Biennium. The objectives include: 1) Improving student
achievement by 4% annually; 2) Increasing the student attendance rate
by 10% each year; 3) Improving physical education scores on the State
test by 7% annually; and 4) Decreasing the student drop-out rate by 1%
each year. The Board also plans to raise local teacher salaries to the
national average for teacher salaries by the 1998-99 school year.
2
During the current Biennium, area legislators were able to promote and
adopt legislation that has greatly assisted the School Board in the
accomplishment of its priorities and objectives. Roanoke Valley
legislators are to be commended on their work in securing additional
State funds for education and channeling these funds into student
learning initiatives.
The Roanoke City Schools will receive $5.1 million more in State
incentive funds during the current Biennium in order to implement and
enhance local educational programs. Additional State funds are being
provided to: 1) Further reduce class size at the primary grade level to 15
to 1; 2) Raise teachers salaries; 3) Reduce student absenteeism and
truancy; and 4) Increase school-based technology. The Roanoke City
School Board's legislative package for the 1998-2000 Biennium asks that
the General Azsembly continue to provide the funding and program
support necessary to make the State's vision for public education a reality
in the Commonwealth.
EDUCATIONAL PRIORITIES
The legislative priorities of the Roanoke City School Board are for the
State:
4 To improve its share of funding public education
4 To add.tess inconsistencies in the State Department of
Educataon's new Standards of Learning and Standards of
Accreditation that penalize schools and children
To require the State Department of Taxation to properly record
a localitafs reported personal adjusted gross income
To maintain flexibility in the local taxes that may be assessc~
by Virginia localities in accordance with their fiscal needs
To enhance funding of school capital outlay projects
B
AS stated in the Report of the Governors Commission on Virginia's
Future, education should be the highest priority of the Commonwealth.
Yet, the Report notes that Virginia has not honored fully its commitment
to fund public education, although action taken by the State during the
current Biennium has helped to reestablish education as a funding
priority. Such legislative attention must continue. Public surveys, both
at the State and local levels, indicate the public believes the legislature
should continue this emphasis on educational initiatives and funding.
The School Board urges the General Assembly to examine State funding
for the new Standards of Learning. State funding for implementing
the new standards is woefully inadequate in the areas of instructional
materials and textbooks, student testing, teacher inservice, and
technology.
The General Assembly should continue its emphasis on reducing
disparity as it relates to student performance. State incentive
programs for reducing primary grade class size and educating preschool
age children should be expanded. Roanoke City has taken advantage of
both these State incentive programs. All 19 of its 21 elementary schools
eligible to participate in the primary dass size initiative are participating
in the program, while eight preschool classes have been added in the last
three years.
Teacher salary data for FY95-96 shows that Virginia's average teacher
salary is about $2,760 less than the national average. In order to attract
and retain the best teaching talent, the State should set a goal of
reaching the national average teacher salary by the end of the next
Biennium. To meet the goal would require that State funding for teacher
salaries increase by an additional 8% in addition to the nominal increases
in teacher salaries funded by the State during the current Biennium.
Accountability for school and student performance has become an
issue of vital importance to the State and locality. The School Board has
adopted a school incentive program that relates its objectives to
measurable standards for schools and students. The State Department of
Education has adopted new accreditation standards based on student test
performance that may result in inconsistencies in the comparison of
school accreditation among localities. The General Assembly is
encouraged to review the accreditation standards in order to ensure that
they do not penalize any school or student because of demographic
differences in terms of family income and baseline student achievement.
The composite index is the prime determinant in calculating the amount
of State educational funds each locality receives. Recent information
received by the City from the State Department of Taxation indicates
that the value of the composite index for urban localities may be too
high relative to suburban localities resulting in a reduced share of
State funding for cities. The increase in the cities' composite index is
the result of the State Department of Taxation recording personal
adjusted gross income from residents in areas with overlapping zip codes
to cities rather than to the city or county where the resident actually
resides. The General Assembly is requested to adopt legislation to require
the State Department of Taxation to correct the errors in recording
adjusted gross income and to hold localities harmless for any loss of State
revenue during the next Biennium.
Several proposals have been advanced by State candidates for public
office regarding the reduction or revocation of the personal property tax.
Roanoke City allocates about $7.5 million of its personal property
tax receipts to public education. The elimination or reduction of the
tax would have severe long-term fiscal consequences for local schools.
The General Assembly must maintain local governments' taxing authority
if adequate financial support of public schools is to continue. Legislation
must not be adopted that reduces the locality's taxing powers.
The inadequacy of State funding for school construction needs is
readily apparent in Roanoke City. The City Schools need about $30.0
million in capital funds to meet school capital needs during the next
five years. These capital projects include school renovation, additional
classrooms and physical education facilities, instructional technology
enhancements, and air conditioning improvements. State capital funds
5
through the State Literary Loan Fund are available to fund only 55% of
the total requirement.
Statewide over $4.0 billion in unfunded school capital requirements
exist with only about $110 million available annually from the Literary
Fund to meet these needs. This does not include the potential need for
additional classroom space ff the State continues to fund further
reductions in class size. The General Assembly should adopt legislation
to create a school construction fund to finance direct grants for school
construction needs, particularly for school districts that must add
classroom spa. ce to implement class size initiatives.
STANDARDS OF LEARNING
The State Department of Education has adopted a comprehensive set of
learning standards for students and new accreditation standards for
schools. The new standards of learning combined with the standards of
accreditation are the basis for a system of school and student
accountability. The General Assembly should review these standards to
address the following issues:
4 The new accreditation standards are punitive in nature.
Consequences for failure should not penalize children because of
family demographics or the child's baseline level of achievement.
4 School improvement should be evaluated over time based on
continuous progress.
4 School accreditation should be based on a combination of factors
which at a minimum should include mastery of the standards of
learning (SOL) and compliance with standards that are actually
funded by the State.
4 The new standards of learning and accreditation must be adequately
funded by the General Assembly prior to their fadl implementation.
6
PUPIL SERVICES
Legislative actions related to pupil services issues must be oriented to
improving student achievement and reducing educational disparity.
Localities must retain flexibility in dealing with issues regarding student
placement and a student's school attendance. Issues of concern during
the next legislative session include:
The State should not impose new mediation standards for special
education students until new Federal IDEA regulations are
implemented.
State funding for truancy and absenteeism programs should be
expanded and additional alternative education sites funded
throughout the State to include multiple sites within a school
district. Alternative education funding provided by the State should
recognize the high cost of transportation and facility setwices needed
to support the program.
Localities must retain flexibility in the educational placement
required by the State for suspended or expelled students.
The State should fund student health related services on the basis of
one nurse for every 1,000 pupils in membership.
CONSTRUCTION AND TECHNOLOGY
The maintenance and construction of school facilities has reached a crisis
situation in Virginia with over 65% of all buildings being over 25 years
old. Local funds to resolve the crisis are not readily available and State
funding through the Literary Fund does not have the capacity to support
the immediacy of the requirement. Technology dictated by the new
Standards of Learning requires a massive infusion of new equipment and
retooling of facility infrastructures. Additional technology persormel are
required to assist schools with technology operations and training. The
General A~sembly is urged to address construction and technology issues
as follows:
7
4 Restore and protect the funding capacity of the Literary Fund over
the next two Biennia in order that additional capital funds may be
loaned to localities.
4 State maintenance fund should be continued and increased from its
present level by $10 per pupil for each year of the next two Biennia.
The present level of funding is $15 per pupil.
4 A school construction fund should be created to provide direct
construction grants to schools in order to address the current crisis
for building modernization and to provide for the additional
classrooms required by State initiatives for smaller classes.
4 Student technology requirements required by the new Standards of
Learning should be incorporated into the Standards of Quality in
order that funding may be secured for these requirements. The
Standards of Quality should include a minimum of one technology
assistant for every school.
SCHOOL GOVERNANCE
Local control and flexibility in school operations is a priority for school
boards if the State expects accountability standards to be meaningful and
achievable by schools and students. Such flexibility involves management
of school finances without mandates to relinquish control to the local
governing body. Governance issues of legislative concern during the next
legislative session include:
The local school board should have control over the school calendar
and the opening and closing dates for the school year.
The present system of State waivers for school accreditation
standards should be retained and expanded.
Drug testing of students and school personnel should be a local
option and not mandated by the State.
A State study should be conducted on increasing the length of the
school year in conjunction with the feasibility of extending the school
year as a .local option.
8
4
State funding should be continued for the Standards of Quality
regarding elementary guidance counselors and reading teachers where
the State Department of Education has revised the mandate.
GOVERNOR'S SCHOOL PROGRAM
A total of nine Governor's Schools now serve 3,350 students statewide.
State funding for ongoing Governor's Schools has been frozen since
1992 at $2,765 per pupil. It is imperative that State funding for the
program be increased on an annual basis to account for higher teacher
salaries and operating costs. The General Assembly is asked to eliminate
the freeze and to provide funds for an annual rate of increase equivalent
to the annual rate of increase in per pupil cost as computed for the State
Standards of Quality.
The Governors Schools also are penalized during the second year of the
Biennium since State funding is based on enrollments for the first year of
the Biennium. Enrollment growth during the second year has not been
budgeted by the State. The General Assembly should include additional
funding in the second year of the Biennium budget to account for
enrollment growth.
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 20, 1997
File #24-54-322
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33640-111797, amending and reordaining ~6-40,
~, of The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to require the licensing
of dogs which are four months old or older and amending and reordaining subsection (a)
of §6-62, Vaccination of dogs and cats, of The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, to require rabies vaccinations of any dog or cat which is four months old or
older. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
on first reading at a regular meeting held on Monday, November 3, 1997, also adopted on
second reading on Monday, November 17, 1997, and will be in full force and effect ten
days following the date of its second reading.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Attachment
H:~AGENDA. g'/~NOV17.WPO
W. Robert Herbert
November 20, 1997
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Chief Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable Roy B. Willett, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit
of Virginia
The Honorable Richard C. Pattisall, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable Robert P. Doherty, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable Jonathan M. Apgar, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable Julian H. Raney, Jr., Chief Judge, General District Court
The Honorable George W. Harris, Jr., Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Vincent A. Lilley, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable William D. Broadhurst, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable John B. Ferguson, Chief Judge, Juvenile and Domestic
Relations 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 32304
Raymond F. Leven, Public Defender, Suite 4B, Southwest Virginia Building,
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
The Honorable Arthur B. Crush, III, Clerk, Circuit Court
The Honorable David C. Anderson, City Treasurer
The Honorable Marsha Compton Fielder, Commissioner of the Revenue
Ronald S. Albright, Clerk, General District Court
Patsy A. Bussey, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
Bobby D. Casey, Office of the Magistrate
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Public Safety
J. L. Viar, Acting Chief of Police
Molly L. Rutledge, M.D., Director of Health
H:~AGENDA.9?~NOV17.WPO
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33640-111797.
AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining {}6-40, Required, of the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, to require licensing of dogs which are four months old or older and
amending and reordaining subsection (a) of {}6-62, Vaccination of dogs and cats, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to require rabies vaccinations of any dog or cat which is four
months old or older.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. Section 640, Required, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is
hereby amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
§6.40. Required.
It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keep or maintain a dog four (4) months old
or older in the city, unless such dog is licensed pursuant to the provisions of this
division.
2. Subsection (a) of Section 6-62, Vaccination of dogs and cats, of the Code of the City
of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
§6-62. Vaccination of dolls and cats.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to own, keep or harbor any dog or cat four (4)
months old or older within the dry, unless such dog or cat has been vaccinated against
rabies, within a period of three (3) years, either at a clinic established in the city by the
dty manager for this purpose or by a duly licensed veterinarian. A reasonable charge
shall be made for vaccinations made at clinics established by the city manager;
provided, however, that in any case in which such charge would result in a
demonstrable hardship, no charge shall be made.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR.
CITY ATTORNEY
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
TELEPHONE: 540-853-2431
FACSIMILE: 540-853-1221
E. MAIL:cityatty @ ci.roanoke.va.us
CITY CLD~:KS OFFiC~
'97 0gl 30 M2:09
WILLIAM X PARSONS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
GLADYS L. YATES
GARY E. TEGENKAMP
ASSISTANT CITY A'ITORNEYS
November 3, 1997
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, VA
Re: Recommended City Code Amendments
Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members:
There are two sections of the City Code which need to be amended in order to bring our code
into conformity with the requirements of state law. Section 6-40 of the Code of the City of Roanoke
currently requires that dogs which are six months or older be licensed. The comparable section of
the State Code requires that licenses be purchased for dogs which are four months old. In addition,
§6-62 of the City Code requires that every dog or cat which is six months or older must have a
current rabies vaccination. The State Code requires that rabies vaccinations be obtained when these
animals attain the age of four months.
Attached is an ordinance which amends the City Code to conform its provisions to state law.
I have conferred with the Acting Chief of Police, the City Treasurer, and the City's Director of
Health about this matter. I am pleased to advise that each of these officials concurs in my
recommendation to amend the City Code.
With kindest personal regards, I am
City Attomey
WCD/lsc
cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Public Safety
Major J. L. Viar, Acting Chief of Police
The Honorable David C. Anderson, City Treasurer
Molly L. Rutledge, M.D., Director of Health
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
November 20, 1997
File #28-178-330
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 33643-111797, authorizing abandonment of a
certain r~een foot wide public utility easement located on property at the northwest corner
of Church Avenue and Williamson Road, S. E., Official Tax No. 4011413, owned by the
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. The abovereferenced measure
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading at a regular meeting
held on Monday, November 3, 1997, also adopted on second reading on Monday,
November 17, 1997, and will be in full force and effect ten days following the date of its
second reading.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Attachment
H:L~GENDA.g7~IOV17.WPD
W. Robert Herbert
November 20, 1997
Page 2
pc:
John P. Baker, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority,
2624 Salem Turnpike, N.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Attorney, Post Office Box 14125, Roanoke, Virginia 24038-
4125
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Delores D. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations
Sarah E. Fitton, Engineering Coordinator
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator
H:~AGENDA.gT~NOV17.WPO
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33643-111797.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the abandonment of a certain 15' wide
public utility easement located on property owned by the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority, upon certain terms and
conditions.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and
attest, respectively, in form approved by the City Attorney, the
appropriate document abandoning the City's interest in a 15' wide
public utility easement located on a lot at the northwest corner of
Church Avenue, S.E., and Williamson Road, S.E., and bearing
Official Tax No. 4011413, owned by the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, to enable the property owners to utilize this
portion of their real estate, upon certain terms and conditions,
and as more particularly set forth in the report to this Council
dated November 3, 1997.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
1 I:'~ORD\O-AB-RRI I. 1
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
OCT 24 P4:00
November 3, 1997
Report No. 97-369
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Abandonment of Public Facilities and Easements
Downtown East Renewal Project
The attached staff report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its
regular meeting on October 22, 1997. The Committee recommends that Council authorize
the vacation of the existing public utility easement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney,
in accordance with conditions stated in the attached report.
Respectfully submitted,
Linda F. Wyatt, Chairperson
Water Resources Committee
LFW:KBK: afm
Attachment
CCZ
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities & Operations
Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Delores D. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations
Sarah E. Fitton, Engineering Coordinator
Diane S. Akers, Budget Administrator
Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Woods, Rogers & Hazelgrove, P.L.C.
Report No. 97-369
CITY OF ROANOKE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
October 22, 1997
.embers, ~/ater Resources Committee
Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations thru
W. Robert Herbe t 't
~1~ Manager
Abandonment of Public Facilities and Easements
Downtown East Renewal Project
Background in chronological order is as follows:
Roanoke Redevelo_Dment and Housing Authority (RRHA) owns a parcel
of land located at the northwest corner of Church Avenue and
Williamson Road, SE, which is to be part of the proposed Ice Park.
City sanitarv sewer lateral is located in a 15' Public Utility Easement
that runs through a portion of the lot, which currently serves no
purpose as there are no structures on the lot.
II.
Current Situation is as follows:
A. The developer of the Ice Pi~rk
easement be abandoned in
encumbrance on the parcel.
has requested that the lateral and
order to remove an unnecessary
Existing easements must be vacated by City Council. The parcel
involved is identified as Tax No. 4011413, and is shown on the
attached map.
II1.
Issues in order of importance are:
A. Need
B. Pro_oertv Owner's Concerns
C. Cost to City
IV.
Alternatives in order of feasibility are:
Water Resources Committee recommends that City Council authorize
the vacation of the existing public utility easement, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney.
Need to vacate easement and remove unnecessary encumbrance
on this parcel will be met.
Property Owner's Concerns to allow full utilization of the parcel
will be met and the City will be relieved of maintenance
obligations on the easement area.
Cost to City will be minimal. The only expense will be in
plugging the sewer lateral, which can be done inside the
manhole.
Water Resources Committee does not recommend that City Council
authorize the vacation of the existing public utility easement, in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney.
Need to vacate easement and remove unnecessary encumbrance
on this parcel will not be met.
Pro_Dertv Owner's Concerns to allow full utilization of the parcel
will not be met.
Cost to City will be expense of continued maintenance of the
easement.
Members, Water Resources Committee
Abandonment of Public Facilities and Easements
Downtown East Renewal Project
October 22, 1997
Page 3
Committee recommends that Cit_v Council authorize the vacation of the
existing public utility easement, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney,
in accordance with Alternative "A".
WRH/KBK/SEF/
Attachments
CC:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities and Operations
Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations
City Engineer
Budget Administrator
Engineering Coordinator
DANIEL F. LAYMAN, JR.
540 983-7653
INTERNET: layman~woodsrogers.com
Mr. Kit B. Kiser
City of Roanoke
Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
WOODS, ROGERS
& HAZLEGROVE i
Attorn~s at Law
September 29, 1997
In Re: City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Homing Authority -- Request for Abandonment
of Sewer Easement
Dear Kit:
The Housing Authority owns a lot at the northwest comer of Church Avenue, S.E. and
Williamson Road which is to be part of the proposed Ice Park. This lot is in the Authority's
Downtown East Renewal Project, and the Revised Map of the Project shows a 15-foot public utility
easement running through a portion of the lot. The City's sewer map for the area shows a lateral
in place here, but of course it presently serves nothing since there are no buildings on this lot.
The developer of the Ice Park has asked that this easement be removed from the title to the
lot, and we therefore request that the City abandon it.
Enclosed are copies of the relevant portions of the Downtown East Renewal Project Map and
the sewer map, with the easement marked in red.
We ask on behalf of the Authority that you bring this request before the Water Resources
Committee and then City Council, for abandonment of the easement. (We have been unable to
determine how the easement originated and so cannot pursue the quicker and easier route of
administrative vacation.)
RKEIt0502697.WPD
C/M: 077836.00000-01
P. O. Box 14125 / Roanoke, Virginia 24038-4125
10 South Jefferson Street, Suite 1400 / Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I
540 983-7600 / 800 552-4529 / Fax 540 983-7711
lnternet-- mail@woodsrogers.com
Offices also itt Charlonesville, Danville and Richmond, Virginia
Mr. Kit B. Kiser
September 29, 1997
Page 2
If we can provide you with other necessary information, please let me know.
your help.
Yours truly,
WOODS, ROGERS & HAZLEGROVE, P.L.C.
Daniel F. Layman, Jr.
DFLJr:gfw
Enclosures
Thanks for
RKE#O502697.WPD
C/M: 077836-00000-01
~70.04
I$0.00
ENC~O4C~ef~T 8Y .17'5 ':
O. ~.
217.86
I
70 O0
0
MARY F. ?~,RKER, 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 20, 1997
File ~t.80-367-467
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clark
Mrs. Mary D. Hackley
3426 Pittsfield Avenue, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Mrs. Hackley:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33656-111797, memorializing the late William R.
Hackley, Sr., and extending to you and the members of your family, the sympathy of the
Roanoke City Council and the citizens of the City of Roanoke. The abovereferenced
measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on
Monday, November 17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMClAAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Enc.
H:~,G ENDA. ~/~OV 17.WPO
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of November, 1997
No. 33656-111797.
A RESOLUTlONmemorializing the late William R. Hackley, Sr.
WHEREAS, the members of this Council have learned, with sorrow, of the passing
on October 16, 1997, of William R. Hackley, Sr.;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hacldey, a Roanoke native, served with distinction for over 30years
in the Roanoke City School Division;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hackley's service included being a teacher, guidance counselor,
assistant principal, principal and assistant superintendent prior to his retirement in 1994;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hackley while serving as coordinator of human relations at several
City schools played an integral role in facilitating desegregation in the City Schools;
WttE~, Mr. Hackley had a keen love for and interest in children and was known
for his ability to resolve problems and to work successfully with adults and children of all ages; and
WtlEREAS, this Council desires to take special note of Mr. Hackley's passing and
to pay respect to the memory of this former school administrator.
follows:
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
1. Council adopts this means of recording its deepest regrets at the passing of
the late William R. HacMey, Sr., and extends to Mrs. Mary D. HacMey, his widow, and Mr.
William R. Hacldey, Jr., his son, the sympathy of this Council and that of the citizens of this City.
Mrs. Hackley.
The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to
Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this seventeenth day of
November nineteen hundred and ninety-seven.
ATTEST:
Sandra H. Eakin
David A. Bowers
Mayor
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 2, 1997
File #80-367-467
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Mrs. Nellie Alderman
812 West 11th Street
Spencer, Iowa 51301
Dear Mrs. Alderman:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33657-111797, memorializing the late Andrew W.
Hull and extending to the members of the family the sympathy of the Roanoke City Council
and the citizens of the City of Roanoke. The abovereferenced measure was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on Monday, November 17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Enc.
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
November 20, 1997
File ~80-367-467
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Ms. Mary Hull Swiers
1231 Rowe Street
Fredericksburg, Virginia 22401
Mr. George A. Hull
337 Ridge Road
Barrington Hills, Illinois 60010
Dear Ms. Swiers and Mr. Hull:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 33657-111797, memorializing the late Andrew W.
Hull and extending to you and the members of your family the sympathy of the Roanoke
City Council and the citizens of the City of Roanoke. The abovereferenced measure was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting on Monday, November
17, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Enc.
H:~AGENOA.O'/%NOV17.WPO
IN THECOUNCILOFTHECITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of November, 1997.
No. 33657-111797.
A RESOLUTION memorializing the late Andrew W. Hull.
WHEREAS, Andrew W. Hull, a longtime resident of the Roanoke Valley passed away on
October 16, 1997;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hull had a distinguished career as a teacher, band director, and school
administrator;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hull founded the band at Monroe Junior High School and served as director
of the band for twenty years prior to becoming the band director at Jefferson High School;
WHEREAS, under Mr. Hull's direction, his bands won many local, state and national honors,
including "Best in the Parade" in national competitions;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hull helped to organize and then served as bandmaster of the Virginia Army
National Guard 90~ Army Band, a band which won the "Governor's Trophy" for proficiency in
training for several years;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hull and his late wife Dr. Duvahl Boone Ridgeway-Hull were generous
supporters of Longwood College in Farmville, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, this Council desires to take special note of Mr. Hull's passing and to pay respect
to the memory of this former music educator.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. Council adopts this means of recognizing the many contributions of Andrew W. Hull,
and extends to his daughter Mary Hull Swiers and his son George A. Hull and other members of the
family the sympathy of this Council and that of the citizens of this City.
children.
The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of this resolution to Mr. Hug's
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
November 20, 1997
File #110-200
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
At a regular meeting of Roanoke City Council on Monday, November 17, 1997, Council
Member Swain applauded your efforts to organize a committee to address core community
problems. He advised that the term "core community" should be defined in greater detail,
and inquired as to how average citizens who live in the core communities may
communicate their input.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
pc: Rose M. Woodford, Executive Secretary, City Manager's Office
H:~AGENDA.g'/UflOV17.WPO
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 20, 1997
File #53-80
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Dibling:
At a regular meeting of Roanoke City Council on Monday, November 17, 1997, Council
Member Harris requested that the proper measure be prepared expressing appreciation
to the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce and the Roanoke Central Council P.T.A.
and any other appropriate organizations for their work in promoting the successful $39
million bond referendum which was approved by the voters of the City of Roanoke on
Tuesday, November 4, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. P~rker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
H:'~AGENDA.gT~NOV17,WPO
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 20, 1997
File #51
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Ms. Elizabeth W. McDaniel
Mr. Daniel Lee Beamer
2219 Franklin Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Ms. McDaniel and Mr. Beamer:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, November 17,
1997, a public hearing was held on your request for amendment to proffered conditions
presently binding on a .48-acre tract of land located at 2219 Franklin Road, S. W.,
described as Official Tax No. 1150108, which was previously conditionally rezoned
pursuant to Ordinance No. 32574-072495 adopted on July 24, 1995.
Pursuant to a roll call vote of City Council, the request for amendment to proffered
conditions was denied.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
pc:
Steven L. Higgs, Attorney, Post Office Box 1784, Roanoke, Virginia 24008-1784
Keith T. Austin, Vice President and General Manager, Lamar Advertising Company,
45 Patrick Road, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Mr. Price H. Hurst, Jr. and Ms. Maureen Hurst, 5216 Flintlock Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Holdrens of Virginia, Post Office Box 1700, Garner, North Carolina 27529
Mr. Douglas R. Irvin, 2239 Franklin Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
H:~AGENDA. 9?~V17.WI=O
Ms. Elizabeth W. McDaniel
November 20, 1997
Page 2
Mr. Mack D. Cooper, II, 1410 Main Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Gilbert E. Butler, Chair, City Planning Commission, Post Office Box 2152, Roanoke,
Virignia 24009
John R. Marlles, Agent, City Planning Commission
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator
Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
H:~,GENDA. gT~NOV17.WPD
DAVID A. 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
November 13, 1997
File #51
Ms. Elizabeth W. McDaniel
Mr. Daniel Lee Beamer
2219 Franklin Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Ms. McDaniel and Mr. Beamer:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, I have advertised a public hearing to be held on
Monday, November 17, 1997, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be,.
heard, in the Roanoke City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S. W., on the request of Elizabeth W. McMichael and Daniel Lee Beamer
for an amendment to proffered conditions presently binding on a .48-acre tract of land
located at 2219 Franklin Road, S. W., described as Official Tax No. 1150108, previously
conditionally rezoned pursuant to Ordinance No. 32574-072495 adopted on July 24, 1995.
It will be necessary for you, or your representative, to be present at the November
17 public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the matter until a
later date.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
Enc.
H :~EZONING. 9'/~.~3CCER, AME
DAVID A. 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
November 13, 1997
File #51
Ms. Elizabeth W. McDaniel
Mr. Daniel Lee Beamer
2219 Franklin Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Ms. McDaniel and Mr. Beamer:
The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 17,
1997, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the Roanoke City.
Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., on the~
request of Elizabeth W. McMichael and Daniel Lee Beamer for an amendment to proffered
conditions presently binding on a .48-acre tract of land located at 2219 Franklin Road,
S. W., described as Official Tax No. 1150108, previously conditionally rezoned pursuant
to Ordinance No. 32574-072495 adopted on July 24, 1995.
Sincerely,~~pa~er C~"MC~
Mary F. ,
City Clerk
MFP:js
pc:
Keith T. Austin, Vice President and General Manager, Lamar Advertising Company,
45 Patrick Road, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Mr. Price H. Hurst, Jr. and Ms. Maureen Hurst, 5216 Flintlock Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Holdrens of Virginia, Post Office Box 1700, Garner, North Carolina 27529
Mr. Douglas R. Irvin, 2239 Franklin Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Mr. Mack D. Cooper, II, 1410 Main Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015
H:~REZONING .9'/~OCCER. AME
RECEIVED
CITY CLERKS (3FFi,7i!'~
Roanoke City Planning Commission
'97 OCT 13 AIO :07
October 22, 1997
The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Request from Soccer Stop, Inc., that conditions proffered under Ordinance
No. 32574-072495, dated 7/24/95, rezoning the property at 2219 Franklin
Road, S.W., Official Tax No. 1150108, be amended.
Property was the subject of a conditional rezoning request approved by Roanoke City
Council on July 10, 1995. Property was rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing
District, to C-2, General Commercial District. Purpose of the previous rezoning
request was to place the subject properties into a zoning classification that would
permit the continued use of the structure as a retail store.
Bo
Petitioner, Soccer Stop, Inc., agreed to proffer that an existing nonconforming
billboard located on the property to be rezoned would be removed within two years
if the requested rezoning was approved.
.Existing nonconforming billboard was acquired by Lamar Advertising in December,
1995. Representatives of Lamar Advertising were aware of the existing proffer when
they acquired the outdoor advertising structure.
Current petition to amend proffered conditions was filed on July 21, 1997. Petitioner
seeks to eliminate the existing proffered condition requiring the existing
nonconforming billboard to be removed within two years (by July 10, 1997) and to
substitute the following proffer in its place.
"The nonconforming billboard to remain under the following conditions:
The current size of the billboard will be reduced from 12'6"x42" to 11'x24',
per side.
The height of the billboard will be reduced from 46'9" to 35'.
The billboard will be no closer to the road.
Room 162 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (540) 853-2344
Members of Council
Page 2
4. The new structure will be a monopole."
Eo
Planning Commission public hearinE, was held on September 3, 1997. Mr. Keith
Austin appeared before the Commission on behalf of Danny Beamer. Mr. Austin
stated he would like to amend the existing condition so that he could take down the
current sign structure and erect a monopole billboard. Mr. Austin said that his
company had lost many billboard "faces" during the last year and he felt the erection
of the monopole would be a compromise.
Mr. Marlles gave the staff report. He said that during the Commission's discussion
of the original rezoning, the issue of the existing nonconforming billboard did come
up. He said that the petitioner did agree voluntarily to have the billboard removed
within two years. He also said that staff had received two letters from adjoining
property owners that were in favor of the removal and opposed to the request to
amend the proffered condition. He further stated that Peter White, President of
Neighbors in South Roanoke, had called the office and stated that the neighborhood
organization was also opposed to the amendment of the proffer. He said that staff
was recommending that the request be denied. He said that he would like, however,
to recognize that Keith Austin and Lamar Advertising had tried to work with staff
to at least come in with a proposal that would reduce the degree of nonconformity.
He said that Lamar had also discussed with him the possibility of eliminating some
other sign within the same corridor, but regardless of whether an existing or new
sign was erected, it would still be nonconforming. He said that staff felt it was the
intent of the State Code that nonconformities eventually be phased out. He noted
again that the proffer to remove the billboard within two years was voluntary.
II.
Issues~
Zoning of the property is conditional C-2, General Commercial and to the north and
south on the same side of Franklin Road is LM, Light Manufacturing. Zoning across
Franklin Road is C-2, General Commercial and RM-2, Residential Multifamily,
medium density.
B. Land use of the subject property is retail commercial.
Co
Existing nonconforming billboard is located on the site. Current City regulations
prohibit outdoor advertising signs within 200 feet of a residential district and within
250 feet of the 1-581/Roy L. Webber Expressway.
Neighborhood organization is Neighbors in South Roanoke. Planning office has
received several calls from the president and members of the neighborhood
organization objecting to the proposed amendment to proffered conditions. Staff has
also received several calls from nearby property owners objecting to the proposed
amendment to the proffered conditions.
Members of Council
Page 3
Comprehensive plan recommends that neighborhood character and environmental
quality should be protected.
III. Alternatives:
A. City Council deny the request to amend proffered conditions.
~ of property would remain C-2, conditional. Existing proffered
condition requiring removal of nonconforming billboard would be enforced.
Principal land ~ would continue to be retail sales. Nonconforming outdoor
advertising structure on property would be eliminated.
Conditions of the previous rezoning upheld and nonconforming structure
would be eliminated. The condition to remove the nonconforming billboard
was voluntarily proffered as a condition of the original rezoning.
Neighborhood organization concerns would be addressed.
Comprehensive plan would be followed. City environment and 1-581/Roy
L. Webber Expressway corridor would be enhanced.
B. City Council approve the request to amend proffered conditions:
Zoning of subject property would remain C-2, conditional. Amended proffer
would permit the construction of a new billboard which may be less intrusive
than the existing structure.
Principal land use would continue to be retail sales. Proposed new billboard
would still violate setback requirements from residential districts (200') and
the 1-581/Roy L. Webber Expressway.
Conditions of the previous rezoning change. New condition allows a new
nonconforming outdoor advertising structure to be erected.
4. Neighborhood concerns would not be addressed.
Comprehensive plan not followed. Environmental quality of the City not
enhanced.
IV. Recommendation:
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 5-0 (Mr. Hill absent) recommends denial of the
request to amend the proffered conditions. The previous petitioners voluntarily proffered
Members of Council
Page 4
that the existing nonconforming billboard would be removed within two years if the rezoning
was approved. The new owners were aware of the proffered condition when they acquired
the outdoor advertising structure in 1995. Removal of the existing nonconforming sign
structure would enhance the character of the neighborhood and the 1-581/Roy L. Webber
Expressway corridor.
JRM:mpf
attachments
cc: Assistant City Attorney
Petitioner
Sincerel_y, ~
Gilbert E. Butler, Jr., Chairman
Roanoke City Planning Commission
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 l- 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
November 24, 1997
File #20-51-57
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
At a regular meeting of Roanoke City Council on Monday, November 17, 1997, Council
Member White expressed concern with regard to safety issues in connection with the
request of Home Depot, U.S.A., Inc., that 32.68 acres, more or less, identified as Official
Tax Nos. 6440117 - 6440119, inclusive, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-family,
Medium Density District, RS-3, Residential Single-family District, and C-2, General
Commercial District, respectively, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain
conditions proffered by the petitioner. Mr. White inquired if there are plans to extend the
sidewalk from Cove Road to Peters Creek Road, N. W.; whereupon, he was advised that
the matter will be investigated with a report to Council within thirty days.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMCIAAE
City Clerk
MFP:js
pc: Rose M. Woodford, Executive Secretary, City Manager's Office
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
November 20, 1997
File #166-467
Marsha W. Ellison, Chairman
Roanoke City School Board
2030 Knollwo0d Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Ellison and Mr. Herbert:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday, November 17,
1997, Mr. Jeff Artis, 727 Highland Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia, 24013 requested that
Council investigate the following city/school related matters:
Change the policy of requiring Roanoke City Schools to pay rent for use of Victory
Stadium and the Roanoke Civic Center for sporting events;
Change the policy regarding the manner in which concessions are operated at
Victory Stadium and the Roanoke Civic Center to allow the Roanoke City Schools
to operate concession stands at William Fleming and Patrick Henry High School
basketball games and that revenue be used to decrease the athletic deficit; and
Commitment from City Council to assist the Roanoke City Schools to increase
revenues by either constructing or renovating a sports facility which will include a
football complex comparable to the facility used by Salem High School and an eight
lane track facility which will allow sports programs to become self-sufficient.
H:~.GENDA, 9'/INOV17.WPO
Marsha W. Ellison
W. Robert Herbert
November 20, 1997
Page 2
The remarks of Mr. Artis were referred to the City Manager for report to Council within
thirty days, and the Roanoke City School Board was requested to address the matter at
a joint meeting of City Council and the School Board on Monday, December 15, 1997, at
12:15 p.m.
Sincerely,
City Clerk
MFP:js
pc;
Mr. Jeff Artis, 727 Highland Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24013
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
Cindy H. Ramsuer, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Rose M. Woodford, Executive Secretary, City Manager's Office
H:~AGENDA. gT~IOV17.WPD