HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 10-28-97 JtMtgROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING
Roanoke County Administration Center
4th Floor Conference Room
5204 Bernard Drive
Tuesday, October 28, 1997 - 12:00 P.M.
AGENDA
A. WELCOME
Bob L Johnson, Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
INVOCATION AND LUNCH
C. ROLL CALL:
D=
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Roanoke City Council
OPENING REMARKS
Chairman Johnson
Vice Mayor Wyatt
REQUESTS TO ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA
ITEMS:
F. ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. Approval of Joint Dental Insurance Plan (Diane Hyatt, Roanoke
County Finance Director and Kenneth Cronin, Roanoke City
Manager of Personnel Management)
ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION
(ITEMS 2, 3, 4 and 5 CONTINUED FROM JUL Y 7 MEETING)
Nm
Update on air service at the Roanoke Regional Airport.
(Jacqueline Shuck, Executive Director)
Update on Storm water Management Project on Peters Creek
Road. (George Simpson, Roanoke County and Greg Reed,
Roanoke City )
Consideration of a Regional Teen Center similar to the
Brambleton Teen Center. (Elmer Hodge, Roanoke County
Administrator)
Update on Joint Water and Sewer Lines. (Kit Kiser, Roanoke
City Director of Utilities and Operations)
o
Report on Low Band Tourist Radio System. (Elmer Hodge,
Roanoke County Administrator)
Report from Fifth Planning District Commission on the Virginia
Regional Industrial Facilities Act of 1997. (Lee B. Eddy,
representing the Fifth Planning District Commission)
COMMENTS
Members of Roanoke City Council
Members of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
ADJOURNMENT
Board of Supervisors
City Council
2
MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
November 6, 1997
File #58-184
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 33636-102897, authorizing execution of a contract
and related documents with Delta Dental Plan of Virginia for group dental insurance for
employees of the City and members of their families, for a term of three years beginning
January 1, 1998, and ending December 31, 2000. The abovereferenced measure was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a joint meeting of the Roanoke City
Council and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, October 28, 1997.
Sincerely,
Mary F. ~r,
City Clerk
MFP:js
Attachment
pc:
Audrey R. Levicki, Account Executive, Delta Dental Plan of Virginia, 4818 Starkey
Road, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Mary H. Allen, Clerk, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, Post Office Box
29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Director of Finance
Kenneth S. Cronin, Manager, Personnel Management
H:~AGENDA.gT~)CT28.WPD
IN TI-IECOUNCILFORTHECITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 28th day of October, 1997.
No. 33636-102897.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of a contract and related documents with Delta
Dental Plan of Virginia to provide group dental insurance for employees of the City and members of
their families.
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 a contract with Delta Dental Plan of Virginia, for group dental insurance for
a term of three years beginning January 1, 1998, and ending December 31, 2000, and any other
necessary and appropriate documents setting forth the obligations of each party thereto, and setting
forth such terms as shall be consistent with the terms negotiated by and between the City and Delta
Dental Plan of Virginia and described in a report to Council by the City Manager dated October 28,
1997, and the attachments thereto.
2. Said contract shall be delivered, if possible, to the City not later than December 15,
1997, fully executed by Delta Dental Plan of Virginia and ready for execution by the City. Such
contract and any other necessary and appropriate documents shall be in form approved by the City
Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
October 28, 1997
97-42
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
SUBJECT: DENTAL INSURANCE CONTRACT WITH THE ROANOKE VALLEY
CONSORTIUM
II.
BACKGROUND ON THE SUBJECT IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER IS AS
FOLLOWS:
The present one year dental insurance contract with Delta Dental Plan of
Virginia expires on December 31, 1997.
Bo
City currently contributes $9.46 per month towards the "employee only"
rate for dental insurance.
The City of Roanoke has joined with other government entities in the
Roanoke Valley to consider joint purchasing of dental insurance.
Competitive sealed bidding was not practicable because of the large
number of different options and plans available.
Specifications were developed in consultation with the consulting firm of
Slabaugh Morgan White to obtain competitive proposals for the Roanoke
Valley Consortium group dental insurance plan. Proposals were issued
on March 24, 1997.
Eo
19 companies were mailed request for proposals. A listing of those
compames is provided. (Attachment A)
F. Five responses for dental insurance were received.
CURRENT SITUATION IS AS FOLLOWS:
Regional cooperation in the form of joint purchasing of dental insurance
provides the City of Roanoke with an opportunity to improve the level of
dental coverage for employees at a reasonable rate and receive a multi
year contract. Roanoke County Government, Roanoke County Schools
and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority currently have the coverage
recommended in Alternative A, below.
The Employee Benefits Awareness Committee was briefed by the
Consultant twice to discuss regional dental and health care benefits.
Co
Slabaugh Morgan White ranked Delta Dental Plan of Virginia as the
company most responsive to the Consortium's request for proposal.
Members representing each government entity agreed with this ranking.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 2
III.
IV.
ISSUES IN ORDER OF IMPORTANCE ARE AS FOLLOWS:
A. Coverage.
B. Qualifications of company.
C. Cost.
D. Funding.
ALTERNATIVES IN ORDER OF FEASIBILITY ARE AS FOLLOWS:
Council approve the contract for dental care insurance with Delta Dental
Plan of Virginia for a period of three years beginning on January 1, 1998
and ending December 31, 2000.
Coverage provides for an improved level of benefits which includes
additional services for bridges, partial dentures, complete dentures
and crowns. The payment level is 50%. The coverage also raises
the per patient per year maximum allowance from $1,000 to
$1,500. (Attachment B)
2. Qualifications of Delta Dental Plan of Virginia:
a. Local marketing representatives will service the account.
Participating network of dentists has 71% participation in the
Roanoke Valley.
Choice of type of coverage is optional and separate from
health insurance.
do
Working relationships with the City and other members of ·
the Consortium are established.
3. Cost is:
a. Current rates are as follows:
Total
Monthly
Rate
City Pays
Employee
Employee/Dependent
Family
11.04
18.90
32.24
9.46
9.46
9.46
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 3
b. Monthly rates with the increased coverage would be:
Total City Pays
Monthly
Rate
Employee 16.02 14.42
Employee/Dependent 26.10 14.42
Family 45.16 14.42
c. Employee cost after City contribution would be as follows:
Additional
Current Proposed Monthly
Monthly Monthly Cost
Employee 1.58 1.60 .02
Employee/Dep 9.44 11.68 2.24
Family 22.78 30.74 7.96
City. cost increases $57,393 for the remainder of FY98 and
includes raising the City contribution from 86% to 90% of the
employee rate.
Maximum annual rate increase for the City and the
employee would not exceed 7% annually for 1999 and 2000.
Funding for the recommended rates above is available in the 1997-
98 operating budget from Risk Management Fund reserve funds for
the term of the contract.
Council approve a contract for dental care insurance with Delta Dental
Plan of Virginia for a period of three years beginning on January 1, 1998
and ending December 31, 2000.
Coverage provides for the same benefits available under the
current contract with Delta Dental Plan of Virginia. (Attachment C)
2. Qualifications of Delta Dental Plan of Virginia:
a. Local marketing representatives will service the account.
Partici0ating network of dentists has 71% participation in the
Roanoke Valley.
Choice of type of coverage is optional and separate from
health insurance.
Working relationships with the City and other members of
the Consortium are established.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 4
Cost is:
a. Current rates with Delta Dental Plan of Virginia are:
Total City Pays
Monthly
Rate
Employee 11.04 9.46
Employee/Dependent 18.90 9.46
Family 32.24 9.46
Monthly rates with the same level of benefits available under
the current contract would be:
Total City
Monthly Pays
Rate
Employee 10.76 9.69
Employee/Dependent 17.52 9.69
Family 30.27 9.69
Employee cost after City contribution would be as follows:
Vm
Additional
Current Proposed Monthly
Monthly Monthly Cost
Employee 1.58 1.07 -.51
Employee/Dep 9.94 7.83 -2.11
Family 22.78 20.58 -2.20
City cost increases $2,661 for the remainder of FY98 and
includes raising the city contribution from 86% to 90% of the
employee rate.
Funding for the recommended rates above is available in the 1997-
98 operating budget from Risk Management Fund reserve funds for
the term of the contract.
RECOMMENDATION:
City Council concur in Alternative "A" and approve the award of the
contract for dental insurance to Delta Dental Plan of Virginia for the period
of three years beginning January 1, 1998 and ending December 31, 2000.
This is for the coverage and rates described under Alternative A of this
report, and under the terms and conditions contained in the City's present
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 5
contract with such firm, except as otherwise noted in said report, and
authorize the City Manager to execute the same in form as approved by
the City Attorney and with the understanding that Delta Dental Plan of
Virginia provide the City Manager with said contract, for execution no later
than December 15, 1997.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:jl
DENTALCARRIERS
ATTACHMENT A
Aetna Health Plans
Ameritas Life Insurance Co.
Carilion Health Plans
CIGNA Health Care
Delta Dental Plan of VA
Guarantee Mutual
Hartman Group (Agency)
John Deere Health Care
Life of Virginia
MDIPA
MetLife
Partners National Health
QualChoice of Virginia Health
Shenandoah Life Insurance
Southern Health
The Guardian
The Prudential
Trigon BlueCross BlueShield
United HealthCare
ATTACHMENT B
DIAGNOSTIC & PREVENTIVE SERVICES (100% UCR)
- Oral examination and prophylaxis (cleaning) twice in a 12 consecutive month period. Topical
fluoride applications for those under 19 years of age, but not more than once in any 12 month
period.
Bitewing x-rays once every 12 month period; full-mouth or panelipse x-rays once every three years.
- Space maintainers.
BASIC SERVICES (80% UCR)
- Routine Restorative Services - Amalgam (silver) fillings; composite (white) fillings (limited to the
upper and lower front teeth); stainless steel crowns (for baby teeth only).
- Oral surgery - Extractions of teeth and other oral surgery.
Endodontics - Root canal therapy.
Periodontics (the disease of bone and tissue supporting the teeth) - Surgical and non-surgical
periodontal treatment.
Denture Repair & Recementation - Provides for repair of existing dentures; recementation of
crowns, inlays and bridges.
Sealants - Provided for non-carious, non-restored permanent molar teeth for children under the age
of 14. Coverage limited to one application per tooth in a 3-year period. Third molars are excluded.
MAJOR SERVICES (50% UCR)
Prosthetic Coverage (removable and fixed) - Provides bridges, partial dentures and complete
dentures. Allowable once each five-year period.
- Gold/Crown Coverage - Provides for gold restorations (inlays, onlays and crowns) when teeth
cannot be restored with another filling material. Allowable once each five-year period.
DEDUCTIBLE (Applies to Basic and Major Services Only)
- $25 per patient per calendar year; $75 maximum per family unit.
MAXIMUM
$1500 per patient per calendar year.
ATTACHMENT C
DELTA DENTAL PLAN OF VIRGINIA
GROUP DENTAL PROGRAM
DIAGNOSTIC AND PREVENTIVE CARE (100% UCR)
- Oral examination and prophylaxis (cleaning) once every 6 months.
- Bitewing x-rays once every 12 month period; full-mouth or panelipse x- rays once every three years.
- Topical fluoride applications for those under 19 years of age, but not more than once in any 12
month period.
- Space maintainers.
BASIC CARE (80~20% UCR)
- Sealants - provided for non-carious, non-restored permanent molar teeth for children under age 14.
Coverage limited to one application per tooth in a 3 year period.
- Routine restorative services - amalgam (silver) fillings; composite (white) fillings; stainless steel
crowns (for baby teeth only).
- Oral surgery - extractions of teeth and other oral surgery. (Surgical removal of impacted wisdom
teeth must be filed with medical carrier first; Delta Dental Plan of Virginia as secondary)
- Endodontics - root canal therapy.
- Periodontics (the disease of bone and tissue supporting the teeth), surgical and non-surgical
periodontal treatment.
- Emergency treatment for relief of pain.
DENTURE REPAIR AND RECEMENTATION OF CROWNS AND BRIDGES (80~20% UCR)
- Provides for repair of existing dentures; recementation of crowns, inlays, and bridges.
MAXIMUM BENEFIT: $1000 per patient per contract year.
DEDUCTIBLE: $25 deductible per patient per contract year; $75 per family unit. (Does not apply to
Diagnostic and Preventive Services)
NON-COVERED SERVICES: Crowns, Bridges, Full and Partial Dentures, Orthodontics.
.l
RKE
BQ~RD SUPERVISORS
TEL:5~O-772-2193 Oct 2~'97 13:35 No.O01
ACTION NO. ~
AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA I~LD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
DATE: Octol:~' 28, 1997
AGENDA ITEM: Approval of Dental Insurance Contract with the Roanoke Valley Consortium
COUNTY, ADMINISTRATOR'S COMMENTS: ~.~ o.~ '" '
SUMMARY OF INFO~TION: For the past eightcea months the County of Roanoke has been
working with a regional team to explore the possibility of purchasing joint health and dental insurance
for our employees. This team was composed of the County of Roanoke, County of Roanoke Schools,
City of Roanoke, City of Roanoke Schools, City of Salem, Roanoke Regional Airport Comm/~on and
the Roanoke Housin~ Author/ry. While cost savings for health care could not justify consortium
pur~ at this time, dental benefits clearly offer an opportunity to ~nit/ate regional cooperation.
Delta Dental Plan of V'~rginia has been selected as thc vendor to provide regional dental benefits. Thc
initinl Dian part/dplts will include the County of Roanoke, County of Roanoke Schooh, City of
Roanoke, Roanoke Re~onal Airport and the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority. Roanoke City
Schools are unable to part/c/pate/n this pro~ram at this time due to the timing of the/r dental
renewal. As is the case with health/nsurnnce we expect bo~h Roanoke City Schools and poss~vly the
Cb of Salem to consider thc benef~s ofjoin~ dental insurance when the consortium seel~ proposals at
the ~nd ofthis contract.
The new joint dental insurance plan with Delta Dental will offer the County of Koanoke and County of
Roanoke Schools minimal cost savings. The premium cost for the current employees and the retirees
will r~nain the same however, there are several additional advantages to pursuing the joint dental
1. The annual maximum payout for individuals is increased from $1,000 to Sl,500.
2. The group effort with Roanoke City will help to encourage dentis~ participation in the progran~
3. This new ra~e will be good through December 31, 1998 (which ia an additional aix montha
antanaion of our currant contract).
4. The maximum annual rate increase for 1999 and 2000 ia 7%.
5. TI~ periodontal cap has been rcmovcd from thc program.
~~I~t~,& ~ll, I~:
0CT-24-~? ~4:52 540 772 2193 97~ P. 04
RKE
BOARD SUPERVISORS TEL:5dO-772-2193 Oct 2d'97 13:36 No.O01
The staff of the County of Roanoke, County of Roanoke Schools, City of Roanoke and Roanoke
Resional Airport nrc excited to have this opportunity to begin workir~ tosether on the Roanoke Valley
The City will be adopting their own resolution at the joint meeting They will be increasin8 the
coverage for their ~mployees from the basic coverage to the level that the County employee~ ~'eady
e~joy, whic~ includes coverage for caps and crowns.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION- Staff recommends for the County of Roanoke and the County of
Roanoke Schoots to parti~pate as part of the Roanoke Valley Consortium in a contract for dentnl
insunmce with Delta Dental Plan of V'tr~inia for the three year period beffinnin~ January 1, 1998 and
end~ D~ 3 I, 2000.
P .05
SUBMITTED BY:
APPROVED:
Diane D. Hyatt
Director of Fie
Elmer C. Hodge ~
County Administrator
Approved ( )
D~ed ( )
Received ( )
.~ferred ( )
To ( )
Eddy
Harrison
Johnson
Nickens
No Yes Abs
~{~D~.A Oetoher { I.
OCT-24-i9cJ? 14:5:3 540 ??2
RKE BOARD SUPERVISORS
TEL:540-??2-2193 Oct. 24'97 13:36 No.O01 P.06
AT A ~ MEETING OF TH~ BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ROANOKE COUNTY,
VIRGINIA, HELD ATTHE ROANOK~ COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER ON TUESDAY,
OCTOBER 28, 1997
I~SOLUTION AUTHORIZING T~E ~X~CUTION OF A THINE YEAR CONTRACT
FOR DENTAL INSURANCE FOR ROANOKE COUNTY EMPLOYEES AS PART OF
TH~ ROANOKS VALLEY CONSORTIUM
WHERKRS, the County of Roanoke has partici~ated with the other local
governments in the Roanoke Valley in exploring the possibilitiee of
purchasing Joint health and dental insurance ~or local govertlment
employees; and,
WHEREAS, after compliance with the provisions of the Virginia Public
Procurement Act, Delta Dental Plan of virginia has been selected am
vendor to provide =e~ional dental inmurance benefits for the employees
of the participating local governments; and,
WHEREAS, initial plan partic~pants shall include the County of
Roanoke, County of Roanoke SchooZs, City of Roanoke, Roanoke R~g~onal
Airport and the Roaz~oke Valley Resource Authority (the Roanoke Valley
Consortium).
BE IT RESOLVED, By the Board o~ Supervisore of Roanoke County,
.... V~r~inia, am
1. T~at the Cov/ltyAdm~nistra~or is hereby authorized to execute,
on behalf of the County of Roanoke, a contract for dental ~n~urancw w~th
Delta Dental Plan of V~rg~nia for a three year period beginning January
1, 1998 and ending December 31, 2000, all upon from approved by the
County Attorney. Roanoke County will participate in thie contract ae
a member o£ ~he Roanoke Valley Consortium of local governmente.
0CT-24-1997 14:55 540 ??2 219~ 95X
SUPERVISORS TEL:540-772-2193 Oct 24'97 13:37 No.O01P.07
RKE
BORRD
~
ITEM NUMBER
AT A JOINT MEETING OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISOR8
AND THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
DATE:
October 28, 1997
,A_ ~KNDA I~'l:
Consideration of a Regional Teen Center in Downtown
Roanoke
_M~__-KGRC~ND:
At the July 7 meeting, thi8 iuue wti continued to the next joint meeting. At that time,
Supervisor Harry Nic~<ens advised that many young people he had talked with had
~ locating a Teen Center in the market similar to Roanoke County's Teen Center
on 9mmbleton Avenue.
.qUIILM~ OF INFORMATION:
Roenc)ke County's Teen Center opened in September 1994. Approximately $15,000 was
spent for equlpnlent arc minor renovations. The current membership is 300 ~, In
1995-96, 6,069 attended events, and in 1996-97, 4,311 attended events. These figures
do not include attefxlance at periodic special events such es the Battle of the Bam~.
The current annual budgat for the facility is $87,000 which c~overs staff of four people and
minor expenses. This cost is offset somewhat by annual membership du. of S12.00,
$4,000 received fmrn secial events, 50% of the gross revenues from arcade games and
16% of the ven¢ling machine sales.
It is estimated that if a Teen Center were located in the market area of Downtown
Roanoke, costs would be Iimilar for renovations and other operational exi~ntes.
'" However, rent and utilities would be an additi ,orml factor to consider. ~ factor would
be additional staff, depending on the hours of operation. The Brambleton Teen Center
~ primarily to middle school teens, while a Teen Canter in downt~ Roanoke might
q~Hd to older teens.
STAFFIEGOIIENDA _TI(~_
If the Board of 8upervisor~ and City Council are interested in a regional pmjed of this
nature ~ t~ both localities, it is recommended that a need~ a----amenl be conducted
by the Roanoke City and Roanoke County Parks and Recreation De~. The
needs ~ would ascertain whether there is sufficient interest from young people
in the ~ area to move forward, and if there is, where the best Iocat~ would be to
0CT-24-1997 14:54 54~
P. 07
RKE
BOARD SUPERVISORS
TEL :540-?72-2193
Oct 24'97
13:38
No.O01P.08
Reepectfully Submitted by:.
County Administrator
0CT-24-1997 14: 54
548 ??2 2195
P. 08
RKE RORRD. SUPER~ISORS TEL:5~O-?72-2195
Oct 24'97
15:$8 No.OO1 P.09
ACTION NO.
ITEM NUMBER
AT A JOINT MEETING OF THE ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
AND THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
HELD AT THE ROANOKE COUNTY ADMINISTRATION CENTER
Ms~KI'ING DATE:
October 28, 1997
~GENDA ri'EM:
Report on Low Band Tourist Radio System
BACKGROUND
At the July 7 joint meeting, the Board of Supervisors and City Council requested that a
written report be brought back to the next joint meeting on ttm installation of a Iow band
tourist radio system. Previous discussions on this issue centered around installation on
Interstate 81, but at the July 23 meeting, the possibility of installation on the Blue Ridge
Pm~,'ay was discussed.
~U_M_P~_RY OF INFORMATION:
There is no federal funding available for installation of a Iow band radio system, but the
~t~te would participate ff the radio system ware installed on Interstate 81. If the system
were installed on the Blue Ridge Parkway, the participating local govemrnent$ would have
to fund the entire project. VDOT estimated the cost of installation at between $50,000 and
$90,000, and annual maintenance costs are estimated to be approximately $10,000.
The Blue Ridge Parkway philosophically supports the installation of a radio system on the
Blue Ridge Parkway. However, the National Park Service has regulations which limit the
use of the system to public information and no commercial advertising.
If there is general consensus from both the Board of Supervisors and City Council that this
is · woritwvhile proj~, the staffs can proceed with a proposal. Officials at the Blue Ridge
Parkway has recommended that tho proposal include the following:
1. From where to where on the Blue Ridge Parkway the Iow band radio would cover.
2. How many antennae sites are expected and where they would be located.
3. V~tere sign8 would be needed and how many.
0CT-24-199"7 14:55 548 7?2 2193
P. 09
I
RKE~BOflR'D
$UPERYISORS
TEL :540-772-2193 Oct 2z], ' 97
13:39 No.O01 P.iO
What agency or government would administer the system.
What ~:~I ~d Information would be broadcast on the system.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
0CT-24-199'7 14: 55
540 ??2 2193
P. 10
PROVIDING
ANALYTICAL SERVICES
FOR THE AiR TRANSPORTATION
INDUSTRY
/NC.
1466 Waterfront Road
Reston, VA 20194
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
Air Service Development Program Evaluation
and Opportunities Assessment
TASK
The Roanoke Regional Airport Commission contracted in June 1997 with AIRTRANS, Inc., a
Reston, Virginia based aviation consulting firm, to:
a. review industry trends/market environment and how these trends relate to the type of
service and fares available to the user of the Roanoke Regional Airport;
b. assess the relative quality of commercial air service available to the users of the
Roanoke Regional Airport and how the available service compares to other similar-sized
cities;
c. evaluate the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission's (RRAC) Air Service
Development Program; and
d. identify underserved and emerging markets/routes and the carder(s) likely to provide
air service in those markets.
BACKGROUND
The Current Operating Environment and How It Was Shaped
In the face of mounting financial losses for the airline industry beginning in 1990 and continuing
through 1993, a period where the airline industry lost more money that it had made since Kitty
Hawk, a fundamental change in the way airlines viewed the U.S. domestic market occurred. The
airlines moved from a market share mentality to a profit mentality.
The move began as American Airlines began to look at its system critically, analyzing routes on
a fully allocated financial approach rather than on a marginal approach. American had opened a
significant number of new hubs during the late 1980's. This was done to ensure its market
AIRTRANS in Washington, D.C.
TEL: 703/707-9007 · FAX: 703/707-9005
EMaih WSSwelbarOaol. corn
AIRTRANS in Austin
TEL: 512/472.9516 · FAX: 512/477-5844
EMail: DWAkins~aol. corn
William S, Swelbar, Managing Partner Dar)tel W Akins, Managtng Partner
position in any number of U.S. cities in nearly every region of the U.S., particularly in the
eastern U.S.. Not every new route, or every new hub, was profitable on its own; however, when
results were viewed on the whole, American's U.S. domestic operation was increasingly
profitable.
On the surface, the performance was positive for stakeholders. However, a micro analysis
would suggest that profit margins were compressing, and that there were a number of weak links
in the vast American system. In order to address this, American announced that it would begin
closing the hubs that it had opened during the latter part of the 1980's - San Jose, CA, Nashville,
TN and Raleigh/Durham, NC. As American began closing its secondary and tertiary hubs, as
well as rationalizing capacity at its three primary hubs at Dallas/Ft. Worth, Chicago and Miami,
the remainder of the industry followed by reducing capacity and eliminating service to some
unprofitable markets.
Whereas, it was American's strategy during the "Go-Go 80's" to add capacity through internal
growth, the remainder of the industry chose external growth strategies by purchasing, in many
instances, their largest competitors. The huge losses suffered by the industry then gave each
carrier the "excuse" to curb capacity growth and in many instances the opportunity to shed
unprofitable and even many marginally profitable routes.
Since 1994, U.S. domestic airline capacity has grown at a slow 2-3% annual rate versus the
8-10% annual growth rate enjoyed during much of the 1980's. This strategy of strict capacity
management by the U.S. industry has resulted in unprecedented profitability for the airlines and
their shareholders. Based on current projections for 1997 profits, the industry will have earned
back nearly three-quarters of the $13 billion in losses suffered during the 1990-1994 period.
THE EFFECT OF THE INDUSTRY'S PROFIT FOCUS ON LOCAL DEMAND
For many U.S. communities, particularly smaller cities, the airline industry's new focus on
profitability is viewed as negative. Many have lost significant capacity, as well as service to
competitive hubs. From an economic development perspective, this loss of air carrier
capacity puts many U.S. cities and communities at a significant competitive disadvantage
when vying for conventions, leisure travel and new businesses. The loss of air carrier
capacity for many smaller U.S. cities/communities is expected to continue well into the next
millennium.
For those cities maintaining air service, recent air carrier profitability is largely a result of "top
line" growth. The conflict between airlines and airports is best explained by looking simply at
the revenue equation: VOLUME X PRICE = REVENUE. Or to put into airline speak:
TRAFFIC X FARE = REVENUE. What all communities, regardless of size, have in common is
that they are paying significantly more today for many air services than they were last year and
the year before.
The air carriers employ very sophisticated pricing tools in their capacity planning which
allocates a certain number of seats at a specific fare for every flight operated each day. The
number of seats allocated to be sold at a certain fare are adjusted many times per day as the
departure time for that particular flight approaches. This is done to maximize revenue, not
necessarily to generate the highest level of traffic. Thus the conflict: The current trend finds
fares on non-stop services into hubs increasing at a greater rate than traffic flying beyond a
carrier's hub.
Why then would you pay less for a longer journey than a shorter one? We are not suggesting
that sophisticated pricing tools are rational. What is emerging is a fallout of tight capacity
growth strategies for the airlines, where prices are held high in the local market (hub), yet fares
to points beyond the hub market are competitive with a competing carrier's hub. On September
9, 1997 American announced that it was going to unveil an O&D-focused yield management
technology which is expected to address some of the short-term fallout.
This is an issue monitored closely by Roanoke's air service development program to ensure
that competitive fares are available, particularly to the Roanoke leisure traveler. The
airlines understand the elasticity of demand for each market very well and understand the fare
levels at which both the business and leisure travelers will pay.
The Commercial Air Service Airports l~thin the Commonwealth of Virginia Have Been
Negatively Impacted by the Recent Air Carrier Strategies
In July 1996, at the request of Governor Allen, the Virginia Deparunent of Aviation solicited for
an aviation consulting fu'm to analyze overall air service demand within the Commonwealth's
commercial airport system. An additional charge of the study was to determine the
Commonwealth's competitive position among U.S. states in terms of current air service received
and to identify the most recent and long-term trends with respect to air service. The study
focused on the seven commercial air service airports in the Commonwealth other than
Washington National and Dulles. The study was presented by AIRTRANS to the air carder
airports in the spring of 1997.
The statistical analysis of Virginia's commercial air service was designed to identify and quantify
two critical aspects of air traffic demand in the State: (1) to establish a "benchmark" for
Virginia's current level of demand for air services relative to other markets in the U.S.; and (2)
to attempt to identify the causal relationships between various demographic and economic
factors as they relate to Virginia's air service demand over time. Essentially AIRTRANS set out
to determine how much "leakage" [demand which lives or works closest to one airport yet
chooses to use a different airport for its ultimate travel] there was from Virginia's air service
demand, and to identify the factors responsible for such leakage.
/NC
The causal factors identified in the study negatively impacting demand at the state's seven
commercial air service airports were:
· despite a growing economy, the Commonwealth has experienced passenger traffic
growth at a rate less than one-third of the national average since 1990,
· traffic generated per capita was less than the national average, yet Roanoke was
the best performer among the commercial air service airports analyzed;
· the Commonwealth has experienced a 20% decrease in the number of jet seats
available;
· immediately following the full operational integration of Piedmont into the USAir
system, turboprop operations comprised the majority of services offered, and now
account for 59% of the frequencies offered within the state,
· this trend has negatively impacted the quality of service offered;
· air fares in Virginia have increased 15.3% since 1990 while the U.S. on average has
enjoyed a 2.9% decline,
* the average one-way fare in Virginia is 26% higher than the national average,
· the change in air fares within the state explains 75% of the variation in demand
at the Commonwealth's commercial air service airports since 1990;
· as a result of decreasing quality of service and increasing air fares, actual traffic at the
Commonwealth's seven commercial air service airports is estimated at 43% less
than expected traffic.
Figure 1.
10.0
8.0
0.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
Per Capita O&D Passenger Ranking By Urban Area
Calendar Year 1996
11 45 79
28 62 96
i
RIchmond 2.08 Shenandoah Valley .li
! I Charlottesville 1.85 I
~ i Lynchburg .~4 I
113 147 181 215 249 283 317 351 385
130 164 198 232 266 300 3.~s4 368 402
SourGe: U.S. DOT and Woods & Poole Economics, Inc.
4
ROANOKE PERFORMS WELL WHEN COMPARED TO OTHER COMMERCIAL
AIR SERVICE AIRPORTS WITHIN THE COMMON~NEALTH
Demand Elasticity Table
GorrMalson IncOme Air ~'VIGe
Airport CoefT~mnt [R SKI) Price Elasticity Elasticity Elaselcit~
Charlottesville 61.7% -0.42 n/a 0.52
Ly~hburg 51.7% -0.65 n/a
NiwpMt News (a) 84.7% .1.89 n/a n/a
Norfolk 78.9% -1~6
n~o~ (~) ~.o% -0.65
Shenandoah Valley 0~) 65.5% nla nla 0.60
Expect~l v.
-37%.
-70~
-77%
'2
State ToM (c) 78.2% -1.12
Notes: Charlottesville, Lynchburg, Norfolk and ~tete regressions use real fares es a p,ce indicator.
(a) Regression results were stronger for real yields as price indicator.
(b) Regression results for available seats were reliable as an ak' ssntice indicator.
(c) ~te total is composite for the seven study aiqx)rte.
nla = insignificant statistical reiationship to establish elasticity of demand for specified, variable.
The~e 9ul~T~ l'lltdklgS ~hoq~l It~ ~ul~*ele ~lO~re fl11~ar Iiy~I the ,~,,T. ,~Ci~I ii setvibe kl~M, However. i should be no/d lint the
Siate's owmN d~mand retBfloeShil~ ire heavl~, weloltled towage ak' sefvtces provkted 't Norlok a~ Riglmoed. v/eich when combk~l.
r~om~ent ovM 75~ of ~ Irdtg damand kl ~te 81ale.
ak sendce MKI ib .nM mlelimlsltip lo ~ Mmogfaphics and econ(]m~c$ It eech of the seven confluent Ikpo/~s. before besklO Iny c~mclusions
ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT'S CURRENT AIR SERVICE
Roanoke v. Other U.S. Cities With Similar Economic and Demographic Profiles
Based on the strong predictive nature of population, we chose to look at air service attributes of
ten metropolitan statistical areas closest to Roanoke in population. The ten cities were:
Ashland, KY; Fayetteville, NC; Savannah, GA; Columbus, GA; Charleston, WV; South Bend,
IN; Lincoln, NE; Green Bay, WI; Lynchburg, VA; and Ft. Smith, AK Of the six markets larger
than Roanoke in population, Roanoke generates more traffic per capita than four - Ashland, KY,
Fayetteville, NC, Columbus, GA; and Charleston, WV. The only market smaller than Roanoke
that generates more traffic per capita is Green Bay, WI, and the amount is only fractionally
higher.
Of the three markets which generate more traffic per capita than Roanoke, jet service offerings
by three different carder networks is the prevalent service trend at Savannah and South Bend.
Green Bay, WI, on the other hand, exhibits strong per capita traffic because of a lack of
competitive airport alternatives.
SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS OF SIMILAR MARKETS
All Service J~
Airport Hub~ Served GarriMs Hubs Served
· Ashland, KY 0 0 0
Fayettewlle, NC 2 2 1
SaVannah, GA 4 5 2
· Columbus, GA 3 3 0
South Bend, IN 6 7 3
Roanok~ vA ; 5 3
Uncohl, NE 4 4 2
i{3~een Bay, WI 4 4 2
tnchburgo VA 4 3 0
smith, AR 3 4 0
Note: Roanoke will go to four hubs sewed by jets In October 1997 when
Atlanta service by Atlantic Southeast Airlines.
i raHIc
Carriers Per Capita
0 0.4
I 1.1
3 4.1
0 0.7
I 1.6
3 3.4
2 2.5
2 2.0
I 2.6
0 0.7 ·
0 O;9
mglonM Jets am bw, orporsted into
Overall Assessment of the Quantity and Quality of Roanoke's Current Air Service
When compared to other cities of similar population and earnings, only South Bend has more
carriers serving its market than Roanoke. When jet service is considered, only South Bend and
Savannah receive service from more carriers than Roanoke. This level of competition relative to
other cities of similar size also contributes to Roanoke's strong per capita traffic generation.
Figure 2.
(thousands)
Jet Seats Available Comparison at Roanoke v. Similar Markets
Calendar Year 1996
~02
6O2
~2
0
Green Bay
$ou~ Bend
No Jet Service at Ashland
Source: U.S. DOT T-100
RMn~e
LMcoln
Feyettevllle Fort Smith
Charleston Columbu~ L ynchburg
6
Air Fares - How Roanoke is Defined and How It Compares to Cities of Similar Size
Roanoke's strong performance in per capita traffic generation, despite fares that are 27% higher
than the national average, underscores Roanoke's price inelastic (business-oriented)
marketplace. It is further underscored when one considers that Roanoke's real fares have
increased 3.4% since 1990 versus a 2% decline for the U.S. as a whole.
When compared to cities of like size, Roanoke's average fares exhibit similar absolute levels.
The aberrant markets are South Bend, IN, Savannah, GA and Lincoln, NE. Each of those
markets of similar size to Roanoke has a unique market characteristic which explains their
respective average fare: South Bend is heavily influenced by pricing in the Chicago market;
Savannah, being a leisure market naturally enjoys lower average fares, and is also a market
where low fare ValuJet offers sen, ice and influences fares; and Lincoln, NE is influenced by
Southwest's presence at both Omaha and Kansas City (this point to be discussed later).
Figure 3.
Revenue Passenger Fare Comparisoa at Roanoke v, Sirnilar Markets
Calendar Year 1996
(s)
200
lO0
L ynchlwr9 Roanoke Flyettevllle Green Bay Sou~h Bend
CharlMton Fort Smllh Columbu~ A~hland SaVannah
Source: U.S. DOT
In terms of price paid, Roanoke's position relative to other similar U.S. markets is depicted in
Figure 4 using average passenger yield because it introduces an important concept of itinerary
mileage. Passenger yield is defined as average fare per passenger per mile. Average fares,
however, do not take into account the concept of distance, which is an important analytical
adjustment. Fares are expected to be higher if a certain population tends to fly longer distances
than one which flies shorter distances. /IIRTRANS has found that cities which lie in Quadrant A
of Figure 4 tend to underperform (in terms of actual v. expected demand), whereas
/NC
leisure-oriented destination markets like Savannah tend to lie in Quadrant C and tend to
overperform.
Figure 4.
AIRTRANS'Airport Traffic Performance Matrix
Average Passenger Yield (¢cenLs)
3O
' QuadrantA~'lal~,,; ~ ,. .... LyH:~ ~, I' QuadrlntB
--~--' . _i_ . I Mark,,e- Tend to
28
~0
Quadrant C
Merket. s Tend to :~ -~ Quadrant D
1,3O0 1,400 1,500 1,600
12
200 300 400 500 800 700 800 900 1.000 ~ 1,100 1.200
Average Paaa~':Trip Length (miles)
Plot of 383 lower 48 airports with at least 10,000 fared passengers for Calendar Year 1996.
Source: U.S. DOT vdth anM) sis by JU/~'RANS, Inc.
EVALUATION OF ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT'S AIR SERVICE
DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Despite serving a relatively small U.S. market, the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
devotes a considerable mount of attention and limited resources on its air service development
prOgram. The Commission has established:
· a primary research program which is based on regular passenger traffic
surveys,
· this program is an efficient mechanism to augment passenger demand data
available from the U.S. Department of Transportation. Given that it is limited
to two weeks per year, its sample size is relatively small; however, the most
recent survey confirmed those markets previously identified through secondary
research sources as strategic targets for Roanoke to pursue. Furthermore, this
data can then be shared with both incumbent and new carrier targets since this
kind of communication with the carriers is critical to any program's success;
· airfare and quality of service tracking mechanisms,
· Roanoke devotes considerable time to monitoring both schedules and air tares
of airlines serving Roanoke Regional Airport. Roanoke utilizes an airline
computer reservations system to monitor air fares available to both the Roanoke
business and leisure traveler. If competitive fares are not available,
Commission staff can then address any disparity with the air carriers. This is
another element of information flow between the airport and the airlines which
is critical. Roanoke's monitoring of air fares compares favorably to air service
development programs at even the largest U.S. airports, another critical element
which defines service quality in a community is the monitoring of schedule
changes announced by air carriers. Given that nearly all service at Roanoke is
to a hub airport, the timing of flights which connect to the banks at the hub
airport is critical. It was found that the airport does an excellent job of
monitoring schedule changes;
· tracking current economic trends and air carrier operating environment,
· one of the most difficult issues facing any air service development program is
tempering the expectations of the community. Thus, the monitoring of industry
trends, airline economics and air carrier.operating strategies by U.S. region is
critical in order to maintain a realistic air service development program. For an
airport its size, Roanoke accomplishes these tasks adequately by paying close
attention to events that are shaping the industry;
· air service presentations to airline planning officials,
· the Commission's internally generated airline presentations provide a
realistic presentation of the air service area, sufficient analysis of relevant
economic and demographic trends, excellent depiction of long-term trends in
traffic generated and carrier specific schedules offered. In addition, the
presentations make excellent use of information gathered from the
Commission's passenger surveys discussed earlier and provide a timely
presentation of air fares available.
If there is a weakness in the presentations, it is suggested that there is a
lack of a story. AIRTRANS believes that air service presentations should
incorporate industry trends and market performance and tell the carrier a story
as to why a market fits the mold for service expansion. Air carrier decision
makers will not decide immediately following the verbal presentation to add
service; rather, it will incorporate an airport's research into its own. Therefore,
a presentation should be able to tell the same story to a planner who was not in
the meeting as was told verbally. Examples reviewed by AIRTRANS did not
reveal a clear strategy.
9
AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT STRATEGIES AND OPPORTUNITIES
A. Expand Service by an Incumbent or New Full-Service Airline
The Roanoke Regional Airport Commission's strategy has been to work diligently with
incumbent carriers to ensure that existing service is preserved. It is important to recognize
however, that the nature of the Roanoke marketplace is predominately business-oriented. As a
result, the market is inelastic in terms of passenger demand and therefore provides for a positive
revenue environment for the air service provider. The positive revenue environment and
business-oriented travel are attractive to full service providers and together are two of the
primary reasons why the airport receives the level of air service it does when compared to cities
of similar size.
Air service at Roanoke is competitive given its economic and demographic characteristics. Over
the near-term, maintaining current levels of air service should continue to be the primary
priority. Fare competition will intensify as the numbers of carders and hubs served increase.
The continuing pursuit of upgrades in aircraft will further improve the quality of service, but
should not be courted under the facade that fares will decline significantly in the near-term,
absent an exogenous event such as a wide spread fare war or a deep economic recession.
B. Viability of Recruiting a Low-fare Carrier in Roanoke
ValuJet, AirTran Airways, Air South, Western Pacific, Frontier, Vanguard and Tower
Given the prevailing air fares in the Roanoke marketplace, air service development efforts are
understandably focused on attracting a low fare carder. While each of the low fare carders
evaluate markets in different ways in order to match with their operating strategies, one of
Roanoke's strengths, in reality, is potentially a weakness: just as Roanoke's geographic location
is somewhat of a deterrent to excessive passenger leakage, its geographic position makes it
difficult for a low fare carrier to offer service from Roanoke and realize a significant "drive
effect" on its traffic. A further contributor to this is Roanoke's lack of national recognition as a
leisure destination.
Officials of the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission have met with ValuJet, Air South and
Southwest Airlines to discuss bringing low fare service to the region. Currently, Roanoke's
profile best meets the composition of ValuJet, but given that carrier's pending merger with
AirTran Airways, decisions regarding new markets for the combined carrier will not be at the
forefront. In addition, the combined carriers have inherent inconsistencies in the way each
approaches a market - ValuJet has offered frequencies of at least three times per day over its
Atlanta hub whereas AirTran is an Orlando-focused carder offering frequencies one time per
day.
Air South recently filed for bankruptcy protection, and have ceased operations, and therefore
should not be considered a near-term target. Furthermore, cities served by Air South include
10
those cities where competitive leisure fares are made available by current carriers over their
respective hub airports.
Other low-fare providers with route structures that are primarily east-west oriented are: Western
Pacific; Frontier; Vanguard; and Tower. Each of these carriers tend to look at the larger U.S.
metropolitan areas and offer very little service, if any, to smaller cities.
AIRTRANS suggests that the best opportunity for success with a low fare provider is with
ValuJet/AirTran. There is some risk here, however, in that the merger will compete directly
with Roanoke's current Atlanta and Charlotte services. The size of the Roanoke community is
compatible with the low-fare carrier's market choices and Roanoke's north-south traffic
orientation fits well with the carrier's route structure.
An example of hub competition currently enjoyed by Roanoke to the Southeastern U.S. includes
both US Airways and Delta Connection over their respective hubs at Charlotte and Atlanta.
Imbedded in that service are connections to Orlando and other points ia Florida. Leisure fares to
these large destination markets are currently available to the Roanoke originating passenger and
are generally competitive with fares offered at other U.S. communities.
Newport News, following the entry by ValuJet into its marketplace, experienced a US Airways'
reduction in capacity. One of the conflicts faced by air service development programs is that it
is important to maintain what you have before aggressively attracting a carrier that could
potentially cause significant downward fare pressure. This could ultimately cause the incumbent
to reduce or eliminate service and result in a loss of critical connections to points other than
leisure destinations.
Southwest
Roanoke is not considered a near-term candidate for Southwest service. This is based on a
simple analysis of population which places Roanoke near the bottom of the list among
Southwest cities currently served. The primary market served by the Roanoke Regional Airport
ranks in the bottom 10 percent of cities Southwest serves. If the expanded market area of
750,000 is used, the Roanoke market would rank in the bottom 25 percent.
Like any Iow-fare carrier, Roanoke's geographic location is a deterrent to Southwest service
since it would be difficult for it to offer service from Roanoke and realize a significant "drive
effect" on its traffic. In addition, national recognition of western Virginia as a leisure destination
is not present. Southwest's strategy is clearly to serve leisure destinations, and operate from
airports within large metropolitan/geographic areas which can attract substantial levels of drive
traffic.
Southwest Airlines will eventually enter Richmond and/or Norfolk and/or Greensboro.
Southwest has indicated through its choice of east coast markets that the CALite experiment
gave a real indication of where pockets of pent-up demand were present. Since Richmond,
11
Norfolk and Greensboro were important focus cities for CALite, it can be deduced that they will
be future markets for Southwest as the carrier expands along the eastern seaboard.
US Airways laid down the competitive gauntlet on Continental's incursion into its U.S. market
stronghold. It aggressively matched fares in markets where it competed both directly and
indirectly with the carrier. This widespread drop in fares at each of its Virginia markets resulted
in traffic stimulation to record levels. A similar response could be expected from US Airways
should Southwest enter any of the three markets listed above. The Roanoke air travel consumer
can very likely expect to enjoy certain pricing advantages which currently are not available. The
cities served, however, will be select as Southwest does not have the vast network of feed traffic
compared to that of Continental.
Under a Southwest entry into Greensboro scenario, for example, US Airways should offer
competitive fares in the Roanoke market in order to protect its current traffic from taking to the
highways. At the same time, it would be expected that levels of service which will satisfy the
business traveler would be maintained.
There is little that the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission can do to deter Southwest's market
choices on the east coast other than to employ the tools it currently has in place. It is suggested
that internal fare monitoring continue to be a priority in order to ensure that Roanoke's air
travelers are not provided a "fare excuse" to use an alternative airport. Furthermore, it is
suggested that the number of travel agent ticket lift surveys be increased to more closely monitor
traffic and leakage. This will provide the RRAC with real-time passenger data to provide to
both current and prospective air carriers.
The Regional Jet Phenomenon and Prospects for Roanoke
The Roanoke Regional Airport Commission's air service development program reflects an
understanding of the marketplace as being predominantly business-oriented. Appropriately,
therefore, Commission staff have aggressively, and successfully, pursued regional jet operators.
Currently, regional jet service is provided by Delta Connection carrier Comair to Cincinnati, and
regional jet service to Atlanta was recently inaugurated. It has been written that the regional jet
is the biggest air service development opportunity for small cities in two decades or more.
AIRTRANS agrees that the regional jet is a technology that has changed, and will continue to
change, the competitive landscape in smaller cities since an airport's quality of service is vastly
improved relative to the turboprop equipment it replaces. ,4/RTRANS' statistical analysis
indicates that Roanoke exhibits some air service elasticity which would suggest that regional jet
service should be expected to improve traffic levels. What cannot, and should not, be expected
from the introduction of regional jet service, however, is immediate fare relief.
Currently, the regional jet is being utilized strictly to feed a major carrier's hub operations.
Initially it was expected that the regional jet would be used for point-to-point and select hub
bypass service but these missions have yet to come to fruition. This is a trend, however, that
will ultimately develop and should be monitored carefully as part of the Commission's air
12
service development program. Continued pursuit of regional jet service should remain a top
priority in the Commission's air service development efforts.
D. Intra-State Service
With a history of market knowledge, particularly in the area of the traffic/fare relationship,
Roanoke should consult with carrier(s) contemplating offering intra-state service. While an
iatra-state service would benefit many, the absence of such service at reasonable prices will
make for a significant effort to change the attitudes of those currently using the highway. It is
suggested that a critical analysis of the effort/incremental traffic tradeoff be debated internally
before making this a top priority.
E. What Can Roanoke Do About the Current Fare Environment
Air fares at Roanoke are priced based on its business-oriented traffic base. Since this creates a
positive revenue environment for the air service providers, Roanoke receives excellent service
when compared to cities of similar size. Moreover, it is this profitable pricing environment
which has provided the market with significant levels of air carrier and hub competition.
Because of the current levels of air service, competitive leisure fares are available over any of
the competing hubs. The marketplace will dictate fares, not the air service development
program. Monitoring of fares at Roanoke v. competitive airports to ensure that fare-induced
leakage is not widespread is a program currently in place, and as mentioned earlier, is a program
that can be easily retooled.
13
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The current airline operating environment is not conducive to sweeping ak service development
efforts by any U.S. community, regardless of its size. While seat capacity is being added to the
system, it is being done at a significantly slower rate than in the past. It is important to
recognize that the nature of the western Virginia marketplace is heavily oriented toward business
travel. As a result, market demand is inelastic and is one of the core reasons why Roanoke
realizes the level of service it does when compared to similar-sized cities. Overall, air service at
Roanoke is most competitive given its economic and demographic characteristics.
Suggested Priorities:
1. Ensure that incumbent carriers continue to provide current levels of service;
2. Continue to pursue aircraft upgrades to increase quality of service;
3. Continue to closely monitor schedule changes in order that the Roanoke passenger
enjoys the maximum number of connecting opti°ns available;
4. Pursue service to major hubs which do not currently receive service;
a. Chicago (United Express and American Eagle)
1. an alternative is to talk to Midwest Express about Milwaukee service
b. Memphis (Northwest)
c. Regional jet service to Washington Dulles from Atlantic Coast Airlines
5. Pursue intra-stateJregional initiatives as they present themselves
a. consult with the Virginia Department of Aviation on problems with prior
service
6. Pursue service from a low-fare provider;
a. ValuJet/AirTran Airways
b. Monitor closely US Airways' strategy for its US2 operation
c. Keep Southwest updated on the market
d. Continue to evaluate new carrier business plans/proposals
Suggested Improvements:
1. Take a more strategic and tactical approach in air service presentations
a. There's a story to tell, tell it.
14
Roa qoke Regional Airport
Selected Major Air Travel Markets
Round Trip Fares as of: 4 SEPTEMBER 97
'New York, LGA $306J $328 I $449 8646 $702J $602J $756
Chicago :. $30~I $427i $449i $405 ~,:~:::: ;!i:.:!*~i $822i $756i ~756
Atlanta ~372~ ~251,
~: :::1 I I , I I
:~: ?::: :::::: ::::::: I I I :~ :::: ?::::: ::: :1 I I
¥: :::: I I I
Philadelphia :~350[ ~394] ~372~ ~372 ~746~ ~598~ ~668
~:. :.: :.:.~:: ~ ~ :.~: I I I I I
Los Angeles ::::::: :~: ~:.~6~q[ ~600[ ~298[ ~603 ~1.592~ ~1.636~ $1.570
~ $328~ $361 ~ ~ ~7~6, ~712] ~734~ ~778
Miami ~ :.: ~ : :.~339::~:~:~ ~361,
I I :: :: :::: ::::: :1 I I
Washington (DCA) ::~ :: ~73, ~240~ ~218~ S350 : :: ~82] ~458~ ~438~ ~624
Boston ~3~5[ ~438~ ~198~ ~460 :. ::~7~:~ ~8001 ~658[ ~800
I I I I I
Houston :. ~ :: ~::~2~ ~4491 ~603~ ~493 :~:' ~866~ ~8661 ~8441 S954
::: ~:::1 I I : I I I
:~ ............ ~ ' ' [ $570~ ~646
Baltimore ~ [~: ~273, $284[ $350~ ~350 =~ ~62A~ ~592,
Denver =:::. ~ :::.~60~ ~460[ ~552~ $563 :.:::::~!~2~ $1.2621 ~1.284~ $1,196
: : i I I ::::: ~1 I I
:::: I I :::::::::::::::::::::: I I
Detroit ~350~ ~449] ~350~ S350 ~768~ ~636~ ~636
I I I I
Pittsburgh ~317~ ~3391 $339~ ~339 :. ~598~ ~646~ ~614~ ~658
i I I
Ft. Lauderdale ~240 ~240~ ~198! S317 ~664[ $690~ ~624~ S658
:::::::::::::::::::::: I I
' = ,493] ,383 ,690
'New Orleans ~ ~47t~ ~416, ~702~ ~954[ ~778
: :1 I I'::':~::':'~J I I
:: ' ~ ~778
' ~ ~91 ~449 ~6~4~ ~712~ ~614,
Ha~ford. CT ~348~ ~449,
~ :1 I I I I
: ':: : I I I :::: : ::1 I I
Cleveland ~350[ ~350~ ~339[ ~339 ~594~ $592~ ~690~ S624
I I I I I I
Selected Major Air Travel Markets - Leisure Fares Reflect Special Fare Sale for Thanksgiving Holiday
Round Trip Fares as of: 27 October 1997
iNewYork, LGA : :::$118i $1181 $118 I $178 $7861 $5981 $844
:: :~:¥: ' ' :~746 ' '
Chicago $1781 $178! $118 $9181 $918[ $720
Atlanta $118 I $118] $108 $6961 $768] $616
I ::i::i:i:::i: :i: :::?i:i:i :::?::::i:: ::~I I I
Dallas/Ft. Worth ::::: i i::.::~:.198 $178~ ~198~ ~178 ~ ~:.t~;~:::::.1~i ~1,116~ ~1,290~ ~1,086
Orlando $156~ ~ 154[ ~ 156 ~798; ~786i ~872
Philadelphia ::~ :~:~:~:/.~::~ i ~:~ ~ ~ 118~ ~ 108~ ~ 118 : ~::. ::~:~ :: ::~6~ ~ 754~ ~628~ ~ 748
Los Angeles ::~ ~ :~:~:~ ~ ~ ~:.3~8:~ $3181 ~3181 ~358 ;~ ~ 1~ ~1.634~ $1.8281 ~1.606
iami ,822i 8T2
:: :::1 I I ................................... I I
:~:::::::::;: I I :?~:~::~::: ~:~:::~::~:~:~:::~ ::::~:::~: :::
Washington (DCA) :~: ~:~: ~108~ ~ 108~ $108~ $118 :~:::~?~:?~:?~::::::~6::!~4:~[ ~530~ ~486i $ 700
:: ~:~ ~ :1 I I :::::::: ~:'~ ! I I
~ : :: :::::$::::~1 I I
Boston ~:~ :: ~1~i ~ 178i $118~ ~ 178 :~ ~:~21 ~828~ ~782 ~ $894
· : : I I ::?::. :. I I
:: ::::::: :1 ?~:::~::::~ :: ::':'::~:::?:::1 I I
Houston : ~::98~ ~ 178~ $198 I ~ 178 ~ ~:.~;::~:.;000~ ~968~ ~ 1.290~ ~ 1.082
:::: : :?::::: :::::~ ::::::: , ,I ,i I ,
Baltimore ~ 1:.08:I ~118] ~108[ $118 ~734 ~ $498~ ~722
I I ~ I
I ::::~ I I
Denver :. ~1~, $198~ $198~ $198 ::~1~36~ $1.414~ $1.400~ ~1.146
:.:: ::.?.:.1 I I I I
:::1 I I :::: ':1
Detroit ~ 1 ~:.8~ $118~ ~118~ $118 ~86:~ $858! ~7441 $712
I I I I I
Pittsburgh ~i081 ~118 ~ ~1181 ~118 ~8~, ~8~8~ ~7~i ~712I
Ft. Lauderdale $178~ $1781 $1981 $178 ~7721 $814i ~920
: I ~ [ I I
Nashville : ~18 $118~ $178~ $108 $688j $822~ ~590
~1 I I :.:: ~:::: ,'~ 1
:: ::::::: I I I
New Orleans ~:178 ~ 178[ $178~ $178 ~786i ~ 1.042~ ~872
i , ,
He.ford. CT ~ 1:78[ ~ 178~ ~ 178~ $178 $7981 ~688~ ~872
~ I
: ::I I I I I
' ' , ,
Cleveland $118~ ~118[ ~118 636:,: $6541 ~770] ~700
: :: I I I I I I
* Reflects fare sale with travel starting November 24 or 27, 1997 and return travel by midnight November 28,
1997.
RKE BORRD SUPERVISORS TEL:S40-7?2-2193 Oct 2~'97 13:34 No.O01P.02
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
JOINT MEETING
Roanoke County Administration Center
4th Floor Conference Room
$204 Bernard Drive
Tuesday, October 28, 1997 - 12:00 P.M.
WELCOME
AGENDA
Bob L Johnson, Chairman
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
Roanoke City Council
INVOCATION AND LUNCH
ROLL CALL:
1.
2.
OPENING REMARKS
1. Chairman Johnson
2. V'.:e Mayor Wyatt
REQUESTS TO ADD TO OR CHANGE THE ORDER OF AGENDA
ITEMS:
ITEMS FOR ACTION
1. Approval of Joint Dental Insurance Plan (Diane Hyatt. Roanoke
1
0CT-24-1997 14: 51
RKE BOARD SUPERUISORS TEL:540-??2-2193 Oct 2~'97 13:35 No.O01P.03
County Finance Director and Kenneth Cronin, Roanoke City
Manager of Personnel Management)
ITEM8 FOR DISCUSSION
(ITEMS 2, 3, 4 and 5 CONTINUED FROM JULY ? MEETING)
Update on air service at the Roanoke Regional Airport.
(Jacqueline Shuck, Exec~ve Director)
Update on Storm water Management Project on Peters Creek
Road. (George Simpson, Roanoke County and Greg Reed,
Roanoke City )
Consideration of a Regional Teen Center similar to the
Brambleton Teen Center. (Elmer Hodge, Roanoke County
Administrator)
Update on Joint Water and Sewer Lines. (Kit Kiser, Roanoke
City Director of Utilities and Operations)
Report on Low Band Tourist Radio System. (Elmer Hodge,
Roanoke County Administrator)
o
Report from Fifth Planning District Commission on the Virginia
Regional Industrial Facilities Act of 1997. (Lcc B. Eddy,
representing the Fifth Planning District Commission)
COMMENTS
Members of Roanoke City Council
Members of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors
ADJOURNMENT
Board of Supervisors
City Council
2
0CT'24-1997 14: 51
540 '7?2 2195
96Y~
P. 03
Bill Tracking - 1997 session
3S'1,5.1-1703. Procedure for creation of authorities.
The governing bodies of any three or more localities within the region, provided that two or more of the
localities are cities or counties or a combination thereof, may, in conformance with the procedure set
forth herein, create a regional industrial facility authority by adopting ordinances proposing to create
an authority which shall (i) set forth the name of the proposed regional industrial facility authority
(which shall include the words "industrial facility authority"); (ii) name the member localities; (iii)
contain findings that the economic growth and development of the locality and the comfort, convenience
and welfare of its citizens require the development of facilities and that joint action through a regional
industrial facility authority by the localities which are to be members of the proposed authority will
facilitate the development of the needed facilities; and (iv) authorize the execution of an agreement
establishing the respective rights and obligations of the member localities with respect to the authority
consistent with the provisions of this chapter. Such ordinances shall be filed with the Secretary of the
Commonwealth. Upon certification by the Secretary of the Commonwealth to the governing bodies of
each of the member localities that the ordinances required by this chapter have been filed and, upon the
basis of the facts set forth therein, satisfy such requirements, and upon the entry of such certification in
the minutes of the proceedings of the governing bodies of each of the member localities, the proposed
authority shall be and constitute an authority for all of the purposes of this chapter, to be known and
designated by the name stated in the ordinances. Each authority created pursuant to this chapter is
hereby created as a political subdivision of the Commonwealth.
http::'/le g I .state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp5047971 + fuI+CHAP02'7 ~'
:~15.1-1 709. Board of the authority.
A. All powers, rights and duties conferred by this chapter, or other provisions of law, upon an authority
shall be exercised by a board of directors. A board shall consist of two members for each member
locality. The governing body of each member locality shall appoint two members to the board, who shall
be residents of the appointing member locality. Each member of a board shall serve for a term offour
years and may be reappointed for one additional term.
B. Each member of a board shall, before entering upon the discharge of the duties of his office, take and
subscribe to the oath prescribed in 3~ 49-1. Members shall be reimbursed for actual expenses incurred in
the performance of their duties from funds available to the authority.
C. A majority of the members of a board shall constitute a quorum, and the affirmative vote ora quorum
of the board shall be necessary for any action taken by the board. No vacancy in the membership of a
board shall impair the right of a quorum to exercise all the rights and perform all the duties of the
board. The board shall determine the times and places of its reomdar meetings. Special meetings of a
board shall be held when requested by a majority of the members of the board. Any such request for a
special meeting shall be in writing, and the request shall specify the time and place of the meeting and
the matters to be considered at the meeting. A reasonable effort shall be made to provide each member
with notice of any special meeting. ,No matter not specified in the notice shall be considered at such
special meeting unless all the members of the board are present.
D. Each board shall elect from its membership a chairman for each calendar year. The board may also
appoint an executive director and staff who shall discharge such functions as may be directed by the
board. The executive director and staff shall be paidfromfunds received by the authority.
E. Each board;-promptly following the close of the fiscal year, shall submit an annual report of the
authority's activities of the preceding year to the governing body of each member locality. Each such
report shall set forth a complete operating and financial statement covering the operation of the
authority during such year.
~'15. l-! 7l O. Office of authority; title to property.
Each board shall maintain the principal office of the authority within a member locality. All records
shall be kept at such office. The title to all property of every kind belonging to an authority shall be
titled to the authority, which shall hold it for the benefit of its member localities.
10/04/97 02:27:06
Bill Tr~acking - 1997 session
ht-tp://leg I .state.va.us/c gi-bin/legp5047971 + ful+CHAP027(
3~15, 1-I 711. Powers of the authority.
Each authority is vested with the powers of a body corporate, including the power to sue and be sued in
its own name, plead and be impleaded, and adopt and use a common seal and alter the same as may be
deemed expedient. In addition to the powers set forth elsewhere in this chapter, an attthority may:
1. Adopt bylaws, rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this chapter;
2. Employ, either as regular employees or as independent contractors, consultants, engineers,
architects, accountants, attorneys, financial experts, construction experts and personnel,
superintendents, managers and other professional personnel, personnel, and agents as may be necessary
in the judgment of the authority, and fix their compensation;
3. Determine the locations of, develop, establish, construct, erect, repair, remodel, add to, extend,
improve, equip, operate, re, date, and maintain facilities to the extent necessary or convenient to
accomplish the purposes of the authority;
4. Acquire, own, hold, lease, use, sell, encumber, transfer, or dispose of in its own name, any real or
personal property or interests therein;
5. Invest and reinvest funds of the authority;
6. Enter into contracts of any kind, and execute all instruments necessary or convenient with respect to
its carrying out the powers in this chapter to, accomplish the purposes of the authority;
7. Expend such funds as may be available to it for the purpose of developing facilities, including but not
limited to (i) purchasing real estate; (ii) grading sites; (iii) improving, replacing, and extending water,
sewer, natural gas, electrical, and other utility lines; (iv) constructing, rehabilitating, and expanding
buildings; (v) constructing parkingfacilities; (vi) constructing access roads, streets, and rail lines; (vii)
purchasing or leasing machinery and tools; and (viii) making any other improvements deemed
necessary by the authority to meet its objectives;
8. Fix and revise from time to time and charge and collect rates, rents, fees, or other charges for the use
o f facilities or for services rendered in connection with the facilities;
9. Borrow money from any source for any valid purpose, including working capital for its operations,
reserve funds, or interest; mortgage, pledge, or otherwise encumber the property or funds of the
authority;'and contract with or engage the services of any person in connection with anyfinancing,
includingfinancial institutions, is.suers of letters of credit, or insurers;
10. Issue bonds under this chapter;
11. Accept fitnds and property from the Commonwealth, persons, counties, cities, and towns and use the
same for any of the purposes for which the authority is create&
12. Apply for and accept grants or loans of money or other property from any federal agency for any of
the purposes authorized in this chapter and expend or use the same in accordance with the directions
and requirements attached thereto or imposed thereon by any such federal agency;
13. Enter into agreements with any other political subdivision of the Commonwealth for joint or
cooperative action in accordance with 3~ 15.1-21; and
14. Do all things necessary or convenient to carry out the purposes of this chapter.
~'l,~. 1-[ 7t2. Donations to authority; remittance of machinery and tools tar revenue.
3 of 7 10/04/97 02:27:0
Bill Tracking - 1997 session
A. Member localities are hereby authorized to lend or donate money or other property to an authority
for any of its purposes. The member locality making the grant or loan may restrict the use of such grants
or loans to a specific facility owned by the authority, within or without that member locality.
http://leg 1 .state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp5047971 +fuI+CHAP027(f
B. The governing body of the member locality in which a facility owned by an authority is located may
direct, by resolution or ordinance, that all machinery and tools tar revenue collected with respect to
machinery and tools located upon the facility shall be remitted to the authority. Such revenues may be
used for the payment of debt service on bonds of the authority and other obligations of the authority
incurred with respect to such facility, but shall not constitute a pledge of the credit or taxing power of
such locality.
3~15.1-1713. Revenue sharing agreements.
Notwithstanding the requirements of Chapter 26.1.'1 (3~15.1-116 7.1 et seq.) of this title, the member
localities may agree to a revenue and economic growth-sharing arrangement with respect to tax
revenues and other income and revenues generated by any facility owned by an authority. The
obligations of the parties to any such agreement shall not be construed to be debt within the meaning of
Article VII, Section 10 of the Constitution of Virginia. Any such agreement shall be approved by a
majority vote of the governing bodies of the member localities reaching such an agreement but shall not
require any other approval.
3~15.1- I 714. Applicability of land use regulations.
[n any locality where planning, zoning, and development regulations may apply, an authority shall
comply with and is subject to those regulations to the same extent as a private commercial or industrial
enterprise.
3~15.1-1715. Bond issues.
A. An authority may at any time and from time to time issue bonds for any valid purpose, including the
establishment of reserves and the payment of interest. In this chapter, "bonds" includes notes of any
kind, interim certificates, refunding bonds, or any other evidence of obligation.
B. The bonds of any issue shall be payable solely from the property or receipts of the authority,
including, but not limited to:
Taxes, rents, fees, charges, or other revenues payable to the authority;
2. Payments by financial institutions, insurance companies, or others pursuant to letters or lines of
credit, policies of insurance, or p?chase agreements;
!
3. Investment earnings from funds or accounts maintained pursuant to a bond resolution or trust
agreement; and
4. Proceeds of refunding bonds.
C. Bonds shall be authorized by resolution of an authority and may be secured by a trust agreement by
and between the authority and a corporate trustee or trustees, which may be any trust company or bank
having the powers of a trust company within or without the Commonwealth. The bonds shall:
1. Be issued at, above, or below par value, for cash or other valuable consideration, and mature at a
time or times, whether as serial bonds or as term bonds or both, not exceedingforty years from their
respective dates of issue;
2. Bear interest at the fixed or variable rate or rates determined by the method provided in the
resolution or trust agreement;
4 of 7 10/04/97 02:27:0~
Bill Tracking - 1997 session
hrtp ::';leg 1 .state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp5047971 +ful+CHAP027
3. Be payable at a time or times, in the denominations and form, and carry the registration and
privileges as to conversion and for the replacement of mutilated, lost, or destroyed bonds as the
resolution or trust agreement may provide;
4. Be payable in lawful money of the United States at a designated place;
5. Be subject to the terms of purchase, payment, redemption, refunding, or refinancing that the
resolution or trust agreement provides;
6. Be executed by the manual or facsimile signatures of the officers of the authority designated by the
authority, which signatures shall be valid at delivery even for one who has ceased to hold office; and
7. Be sold in the manner and upon the terms determined by the attthority including private (negotiated)
sale.
D. Any resolution or trust agreement may contain provisions which shall be a part of the contract with
the holders of the bonds as to:
1. Pledging, assigning, or directing the use, investment, or disposition of receipts of the authority or
proceeds or benefits of any contract and conveying or otherwise securing any property rights;
2. Setting aside loan funding deposits, debt service reserves, capitalized interest accounts, cost of
issuance accounts and sinking fitnds, and the regulation, investment, and disposition thereof;
3. Limiting the purpose to which, or the investments in which, the proceeds of the sale of any issue of
bonds may be applied and restrictions to investments of revenues or bond proceeds in government
obligations for which principal and interest are unconditionally guaranteed by the United States of
America;
4. Limiting the issuance of additional bonds and the terms upon which additional bonds may be issued
and secured and may rank on a parity with, or be subordinate or superior to, other bonds;
5. Refitnding or refinancing outstanding bonds;
6. Providing a procedure, if any, by which the terms of any contract with bondholders may be altered or
amended and the amount of bonds the holders of which must consent thereto, and the manner in which
consent shall be given;
7. Defining the acts or omissions which shall constitute a default in the duties of the authority to
bondholders and providing the rights o for remedies for such holders in the event ora default which may
include provisions restricting individual right of action by bondholders;
8. Providing for guarantees, pledges of property, letters of credit, or other security, or insurance for the
benefit of the bondholders; and
9. Addressing any other matter relating to the bonds which the authority determines appropriate.
E. No member of an authority, member ora board, or any person executing the bonds on behalf of an
authority shall be liable personally for the bonds or subject to any personal liability by reason of the
issuance of the bonds.
F. An authority may enter into agreements with agents, banks, insurers, or others for the purpose of
enhancing the marketability of, or as security for, its bonds.
G. A pledge by an attthority of revenues as security for an issue of bonds shall be valid and binding from
the time the pledge is made.
5 of 7
10/04/97 02:27:0~
Bill Tracking - 1997 session
¥,
The revenues pledged shall immediately be sub. ject to the lien of the pledge without any physical delivery
or further act, and the lien of any pledge shall be valid and binding against any person having any claim
of any kind in tort, contract or otherwise against an authority, irrespective of whether the person has
notice.
htrp://leg I .state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp5047971 + ful+CHAP02.7~.
No resolution, trust agreement or financing statement, continuation statement, or other instrument
adopted or entered into by an authority need be filed or recorded in any public record other than the
records of the authority in order to perfect the lien against third persons, regardless of any contrary
provision of public general or local law.
I-[. Except to the extent restricted by an applicable resolution or trust agreement, any holder of bonds
issued under this chapter or a trustee acting under a trust agreement entered into under this chapter,
may, by any suitable form of legal proceedings, protect and enforce any rights granted under the laws of
Virginia or by any applicable resolution or trust agreement.
I. An authority may issue bonds to refund any of its bonds then outstanding, including the payment of
any redemption premium and any interest accrued or to accrue to the earliest or any subsequent date of
redemption, purchase or maturity of the bonds. Refunding bonds may be issued for the public purposes
of realizing savings in the effective costs of debt service, directly or through a debt restructuring, for
alleviating impending or actual default and may be issued in one or more series in an amount in excess
of that of the bonds to be refi~nded.
3~15.1-1716. Investments in bonds.
Any financial institution, investment company, insurance company or association, and any personal
representative, guardian, trustee, or other fiduciary, may legally invest any moneys belonging to them or
within their control in any bonds issued by an attthority.
3~15.1-1717. Bonds exempt from taxation.
An authority shall not be required to pay any taxes or assessments of any la'nd whatsoever, and its
bonds, their transfer, the interest payable on them, and any income derived from them, including any
profit realized in their sale or exchange, shall be exempt at all times from every Ia'nd and nature of
tctxation by this Commonwealth or by any of its political subdivisions, municipal corporations, or public
agencies of any kind.
3~15.1-1718. Tax revenues of the Commonwealth or any other political subdivision not pledged.
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed as authorizing the pledging of the faith and credit of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, or any of its revenues, or the faith and credit of any other political
subdivision of the Commonwealth, ,or any of its revenues, for the payment of any bonds issued by an
authority.
3~15.1-17 [ 9. Forms of accounts and records; audit of same.
The accounts and records of an authority showing the receipt and disbursement of fitnds from whatever
source derived shall be in such form as the Auditor of Public Accounts prescribes, provided that such
accounts correspond as nearly as possible to the accounts and records for such matters maintained by
corporate enterprises. The accounts and records of an attthority shall be subject to audit pursuant to
3~2.1-164. and the costs of such audit services shall be borne by the attthority. An authority's fiscal year
shall be the same as the Commonwealth's.
~'1,~. 1-! 720. Tort liability.
No pecuniary liability of any kind shall be imposed on the Commonwealth or on any other political
subdivision of the Commonwealth because of any act, agreement, contract, tort, malfeasance or
nonfeasance by or on the part of an authority, its agents, servants or employees.
6 of 7 10/04/97 02:27:0t
Bill Tracking - 1997 session
http :,,'/'leg I .state.va.us/cgi-bin/legpS04797 l +ful+CHAP027(
3~ 15, l- 172 I. Dissolution of authority.
A member locality of an authority may withdraw from the authority only upon dissolution of the
authority as set forth herein. Whenever the board determines that the purpose for which the authority
was created has been substantially fulfilled or is impractical or impossible to accomplish and that all
obligations incurred by the authority have been paid or that cash or a sufficient amount of United States
government securities has been deposited for their payment, or provisions satisfactory for the time&
payment of all its outstanding obligations have been arranged, the board may adopt resolutions
declaring and finding that the authority shall be dissolved. Appropriate attested copies of such
resolutions shall be delivered to the Governor so that legislation dissolving such authority may be
introduced in the General Assembly. The dissolution of an authority shall become effective according to
the terms of such legislation. The title to all funds and other proper~, owned by such authority at the
time of such dissolution shall vest in the member localities which have contributed to the authority in
proportion to their respective contributions.
3~15.1-1722. Chapter liberally construed.
This chapter, being necessary for the welfare of the Commonwealth and its inhabitants, shall be
liberally construed to effect the purposes thereof
]Go to (General Assembly Home)
7 of 7
10/04/97 02:27:(
PERCENT OF SITES LESS THAN 50 ACRES AND
NUMBER OF SITES GREATER THAN 200 ACRES WITH WA TER AND SEWER
% Sites TM 80%
Sites = 0
/o Sites = 67%
# Sites = I
% Sites = §9%
# Siles = 2
% Sites = 50%
# Siles = t!
% Sites = 42%
Siles = 3
% Sites = 60%
[les = 4
Siles = 55%
les = 2
% Siles = 48%
# Sites = 3
% Sites = 40%
Sites = 2
Sites = 52%
# Sites = 6
% Sites = 66%
% Sites = 57°/,,
Sites = 19
% Sites = 33%
Sites -- 3
Sites = 49%
Sites
Sites ~- 33%i
es- I I
% Sites = 41%
Sites = 9
% Sites = 56%
Sites
Sou[ce: Vifginio Eco~omic Development Paltneiship, 9/97
PERCENTAGE OF SITES LACKING WATER OR SEWER
40%
58%
33
41%:
39%
31%
§6%
34%
28%
51% 52%
54% 50%
77%,
42%
33%
Source: Virginia Economic Development Parlnefship, 9/97
CORRELATION OF SITES WITH UTILITIES TO PROSPECT VISITS
Siles = 6%
Visils = 6%
Siles: 3%
Visits I
Siles = 4%
Visits = 1%
Sites = 2%
Visits: 3%
Sites = 5%
Visits 4%
Sites = 8%
Visits
Sites = 2%
Visits = 4"/,,
Siles -- 4%
Visits = 5%
Sites = 5%
Visits =
Sites = 24%
Visits = 25%
Sites = 1%
Visits 1
Sites = 4% Sites = 8%
Visits = 3% Visits = 13%
Sites -- 4%
Visits = 6%
Sites = 6%
:Visits = 3%
Sites = 16%
Visits = 14%
Isiles = '1% I
lVisils =
Based on 1996 VEDP Pfospecl Visils. exclusive of Nodhefn Virginia
SIZE CONSIDERATIONS
Recent trends emerging for larger sites
(40 to 70 acre projects)
150 to 300 acre project demand is
strong along major highways
Most regions of the state have no more
than 2 or 3 sites greater than 200 acres
Source: Virginia Economic Development Padnership, 9/97