The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Actions 12-19-94REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ROANOKE CI1T COUNCIL December 19, 1994 10:00 a.m. AGENDA FOR THE CO UNCIL BO~ 32296 Call to Order Roll Call. All Present. The Invocation was delivered by the Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Bowers. Welcome. Mayor Bowers. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The Audit Committee will meet immediately following the Council meeting in the Council's Conference Room. City PUBLIC HEARINGS: Public heating to receive citizen comments with regard to proposed amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended, which amendments are informatively summarized as follows: Amend subsection (18) of Section 2, Powers of the city, by adding authority for City Council to adopt an ordinance regulating or prohibiting the carrying of handguns in City parks. Amend Section 42, Alterations or modifications of contracts, to provide for an increase in the amount of change orders to be handled administratively by the City Manager from five thousand dollars to twenty-five thousand dollars. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney. Adopted Resolution No. 32296-121994. (7-0) File ff24-137-467 0 CONSENT AGENDA (APPROVED 7-0) ALL MATI'ERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION IN THE FORM, OR FORMS, LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. C-1 A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers requesting an Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1- 344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 2 C-2 RECOMMENDED ACTION: File #110-132 Concur in request for Council to convene in Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. A report of the City Manager requesting Council's concurrence in advertising a public hearing to be held on Monday, January 9, 1995, with regard to Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Enhancement projects to be recommended to the State for funding. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in request. File #20-77 C-3 Qualification of the following persons: Louise C. Williams as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals for a term of three years commencing January 1, 1995 and ending December 31, 1997; File #15-51-110 Zaman K. McManaway as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board for a term ending June 30, 1996; and File #15-110-323 Gene Wirt as a member of the Building Maintenance Division of the City's Board of Building Code Appeals for a term of five years ending November 10, 1999. File #15-32-110 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. A report of the City Attorney requesting that Council convene in Executive Session to discuss actual litigation, being a civil suit pending in the Circuit Court for Roanoke County, pursuant to Section 2.1-3a. ~. (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. File #132-214 3 REGULAR AGENDA 3. I-~~~G OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATI~RS: ae Presentation of the Annual Report of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership for the period 1992 - 1994. Lawrence M. Taylor, Past- President, Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee. (5 minutes) Received and filed. File #109-488 b. OTHER HEARING OF CITIZENS: Mr. John Miller, 2529 Longview Avenue, S. W., addressed Council with regard to the Hotel Roanoke/Conference Center skywalk. File//66-247-258 4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers in regard to the Urban Summit which was sponsored by the Urban Partnership of Virginia on Thursday, December 8, 1994, in Richmond. Received and filed. File g200-450 5. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: a. CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: 4 A report with regard to City Information Systems computer upgrade. (15 minutes) Received and filed. File #301-472 ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION' A report recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by Print Masters, Inc., to provide commercial printing services for the City of Roanoke for a period of one year; acceptance of the highest offer from Printers Services and Supplies for certain printing equipment owned by the City; and appropriation of funds in connection therewith. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32297-121994 and Resolution No. 32298-121994. (7-0) File g60-299-472 e A report recommending appropriation of $175,000.00 in undesignated capital funds for purchase of additional cabling, communications link, infrastructure and equipment for The Conference Center of Roanoke. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32299-121994. (7-0) File g60-247-258-472 A report with regard to an agreement between the City and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for site improvements at the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32300-121994 and Resolution No. 32301-121994. (7-0) File g60-178-207 5 Se A report recommending execution of Amendment No. 2 to the HOME Program Subrecipient Agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32302-121994 and Resolution No. 32303-121994. (7-0) File g60-178-236 o A report recommending implementation of the Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 and related activities required by the City for compliance; and transfer of funds in connection therewith. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32304-121994. (7-0) File 860-76-184 e A report recommending execution of contracts to acquire the services of two contract land acquisition specialists at a total cost not to exceed $118,560.00, in connection with certain capital improvement projects. Adopted Resolution No. 32305-121994. (7-0) File g27-57-102-217-405-514 e A report recommending an amendment to the City Code to allow contracts for goods and services to be approved by the City Manager in amounts up to $75,000.00 and provided that funding is available in a City Council adopted budget. Adopted Ordinance No. 32306-121994. voted no.) File g24-50-60-183-472 (6-1, Mayor Bowers e A report recommending execution of Amendment No. 5 to the engineering agreement with Mattern and Craig, Inc., for infiltration/inflow reduction design; and appropriation of funds in connection therewith. 6 Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32307-121994 and Resolution No. 32308-121994. (7-0) File//27-28-60-405 10. A report recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by AKZO Salt, Inc., in the total amount of $45,850.00, for supplying 1,000 tons of deicing salt for the City. Adopted Resolution No. 32309-121994. (7-0) File//184--410-472 11. A report recommending approval of Change Order No. 1 to the Cityts contract with J. M. Turner & Co., Inc., for construction of the Roanoke City Jail Annex in order to reroute certain piping, in the amount of $21,114.00. Adopted Ordinance No. 32310-121994. (7-0) File #123 12. A report recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by Ford Motor Credit Co., for a period of 48 months, at a cost of $430.38 per unit, for lease/purchase of two new automobiles for the Sheriffs Department. Adopted Resolution No. 32311-121994. (7-0) File #121-373-472 13. A report recommending execution of a contract with Bell Atlantic for the purchase of Integrated Services Digital Network telephone equipment for the City of Roanoke/City Schools. Adopted Resolution No. 32312-121994. (7-0) File #112-383-472-467 7 14. A report recommending acceptance of a Driving Under the Influence Enforcement grant, in the amount of $19,500.00, from the State Transportation Safety Board; and appropriation of funds in connection therewith. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32313-121994 and Resolution No. 32314-121994. (7-0) File #5-20-60-76-236 15. A report recommending execution of a contract with the Virginia Department of Health relating to operation of the 'local Health Department. Adopted Resolution No. 32315-121994. (7-0) File//22 16. A request of the City Manager that Council convene in Executive Session to discuss acquisition of real property for public purpose, specifically the terms and conditions of a lease of property to be occupied by City departments, pursuant to Section 2.1-3,l.~. (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. (7-0) File #2-132 b. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: Financial report for the month of November, 1994. Received and filed. File #10 6. REPORTS OF COMMITI'EES: A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending abandonment of sanitary sewer easements across certain properties in connection with the Williamson Road Storm Drain Project. Council Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairperson. 8 Adopted Ordinance No. 32316 on first reading. File g27-166-468 (7-0) be A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending acquisition of property located at 515 Church Avenue, S. W., for the cost of $10,000.00, in connection with the Employee Parking Project; and transfer of funds in connection therewith. Council Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairperson. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32317-121994 and Ordinance No. 32318-121994. (7-0) File ~o0-2-184-468 A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending renewal of a lease agreement between the City and Old Southwest, Inc., for a certain City-owned structure known as the Alexander-Gish House located at 641 Walnut Avenue, S. W., upon certain terms and conditions. Council Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 32319-121994 on first reading. (7-0) File #165-166-373-468 de A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending authorization of a revocable permit to enable construction and maintenance of a private pressurized sewer line in the public fight-of- way of Belle Aire Circle, S. W. Council Member Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 32320-121994 on first reading. (7-0) File #27-166-468-514 7. UNFINISHF~D BUSINESS: None. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: OF 9 ae Ordinance No. 32294, on second reading, rezoning a parcel of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., identified as Official Tax No. 2761409, from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Adopted Ordinance No. 32294-121994. (7-0) File #51 be Ordinance No. 32295, on second reading, rezoning a parcel of land located in the 2900 block of Epperly Avenue, N. W., containing .8 acre, more or less, described as Lots 19 - 21, inclusive, Block 1, Map of Epperly Court, Official Tax Nos. 2160612 - 2160614, inclusive, from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Adopted Ordinance No. 32295-121994. (7-0) File #51 9. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: ae Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council. The School Board was requested to give further study with regard to the matter of charter schools. File #137-467 10. Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council. OTHF R HE GS OF CITIZENS: 10 Mr. Hoskins M. Sclater, 2723 Crystal Spring Avenue, S. W., appeared before Council in connection with the Hotel Roanoke/Conference Center skywalk. File #247-258 Ms. Evelyn B. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke in support of purchasing state-of-the-art voting equipment and a timing device to be used during City Council meetings, as well as installation of carpet in the City Council Chamber. The matter was referred to the City Manager for appropriate response. File #132-209-472 CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. (6-0, Council Member Parrott was absem.) Reappointed the following persons: Ann Francis - Blue Ridge Community Services Board of Directors File #15-110-314-335 Kit B. Kiser - File #15-110-253 Roanoke Valley Resomr~ Authority Board Waived City residency requiremem 11 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 20, 1994 File #50-137-467 The Honorable A. Victor Thomas Member, House of Delegates 1301 Orange Avenue, N. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Delegate Thomas: I am enclosing two copies of Resolution No. 32296-121994 requesting the 1995 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended. It is respectfully requested that the amendments be placed in the form of a bill to be introduced at the 1995 Session of the General Assembly. Resolution No. 32296-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. F. , CMC/AAE Mary a City Clerk MFP: sm Eno. 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 20, 1994 File #50-137-467 The Honorable Clifton A. Woodrum, III Member, House of Delegates P. O. Box 1371 Roanoke, Virginia 24007 Dear Delegate Woodrum: I am enclosing two copies of Resolution No. 32296-121994 requesting the 1995 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended. It is respectfully requested that the amendments be placed in the form of a bill to be introduced at the 1995 Session of the General Assembly. Resolution No. 32296-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 20, 1994 File #50-137-467 The Honorable J. Brandon Bell, Senator Senate of Virginia 3721 Franklin Road, S. W. Apartment No. 1 Roanoke, Virginia 24014-2260 Dear Senator Bell: I am enclosing two copies of Resolution No. 32296-121994 requesting the 1995 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended. It is respectfully requested that the amendments be placed in the form of a bill to be introduced at the 1995 Session of the General Assembly. Resolution No. 32296-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, ~t~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MF, P:sm Enc. IN THE COUNCIL' OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32296-121994. A RESOLUTION requesting the 1995 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended. WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on December 19, 1994, at 10:00 a.m., in the Council Chamber, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia, after due and proper publication of the notice of public hearing pursuant to §15.1-835, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which notice contained inter alia, an informative summary of the proposed amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952 hereinafter referred to, a public hearing with respect to such proposed amendments was held before the City Council at which all citizens so desiring were afforded opportunity to be heard to determine if the citizens of the City desire that the City request the General Assembly to amend its existing Charter in the form and manner hereinafter referred to and as provided in the aforesaid notice; and WHEREAS, upon conclusion of such public hearing and upon consideration of the proposed amendments to such Charter, the Council is of opinion that the 1995 Session of the General Assembly should be requested to amend this City's Charter as hereinafter set forth. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The General Assembly of Virginia is hereby requested at its 1995 Session to amend subsection (18) of S2, Powers of the city, and §42, Alterations or modifications of contracts, of the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as presently amended, by adding the words hereinafter shown as underscored and deleting the words hereinafter shown as stricken: ~2. Powers of the city. In addition to the powers mentioned in the preceding section, the said city shall have power: (18) To direct the location of all buildings for storing gunpowder or other explosive or combustible substances, to regulate or prohibit the sale and use of dynamite, gunpowder, firecrackers, kerosene oil, gasoline-, nitroglycerine, camphene, burning fluid, and all explosive or combustible materials, the exhibition of fireworks, the discharge of firearms, the possession by any person of a handqun in any public park of the City provided that the exemptions set out in §18.2-308 of the Code of Virqinia shall apply~ mutatis mutandist the use of candles and lights in barns, stables and other buildings, the making of bonfires and the carrying of concealed weapons, and to regulate the movement over its streets of dangerous, explosive, or highly combustible materials. §42. Alterations or modifications of contracts. When it becomes necessary in the prosecution of any work or improvement under contract to make alterations or modifications of such contract, such alterations or modifications shall be made on order of the city council. However, when the amount involved in the proposed alterations or modifications does not exceed fivc thousand dollars twenty-five thousand dollars, such alterations or modifications may be made on the order of the city manager. No such order shall be effective until the price to be paid for the work and material, or both, and the credits, if any, to be allowed to the City, under the altered or modified contract, shall have been agreed upon in writing and signed by the contractor and by the city manager. 2. The City Clerk is directed to forthwith, as provided by §15.1-834, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, transmit to each of the members of the General Assembly of Virginia representing the City of Roanok~ at the 1995 Session of the said General Assembly two copies of this resolution setting forth the requested amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as presently amended, to be put into the form of a bill to be introduced at the 1995 Session of the General Assembly. ATTEST: City Clerk. WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR. CITY ATI'ORNEY CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY ATTOR i 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595 TELEPHONE: 703-9~ 1-2431 TELECOPIER: 703-224-3071 December 19, 1994 WILLIAM X PARSONS STEVEN J. TALL=VI KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU GLADYS L. YATES ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: Proposed Charter Amendments Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members: On December 19, 1994, City Council will hold the public hearing required by State law with respect to two proposed Charter amendments. In accordance with State law, ten days' notice of the time and place of this public hearing and an informative summary of the proposed Charter amendments have been published in a newspaper of general circulation. Section 15.1-835, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. If City Council desires to request the proposed amendments from the General Assembly, the attached resolution, which incorporates the proposed language of the Charter amendments, should be adopted. Bills to amend a City Charter must be introduced prior to the first day of any session of the General Assembly unless requested by the Governor. See §30-19.1. For your information, Delegate Woodrum has, once again, agreed to handle the City's Charter amendments. Substantively, the first proposed amendment to the City Charter authorizes City Council to adopt an ordinance regulating or prohibiting the carrying of handguns in City parks. Any ordinance would exempt law enforcement officers and other persons who are exempted from the State concealed weapons statute as well as those persons who hold concealed weapons permits. In drafting any ordinance, care would be taken to exempt from coverage a person merely passing through a park in a motor vehicle who might have a handgun in the motor vehicle. The second proposed Charter amendment relates to §42 of the City Charter which requires City Council approval of change orders to construction contracts when the amount of the alteration or modification exceeds $5,000. This limit has not been increased since 1978, and the proposal is to increase the limit to $25,000. Change orders of less than $25,000 would be handled administratively by the City Manager. The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council December 19, 1994 Page 2 Should City Council have any questions with respect to the procedures or the substance of the proposed Charter amendments, I would be pleased to attempt to address them. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney WCD:f Attachment cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mary F. Parker, City Clerk RC!~q(')KE TIM~S & ~2RLU-N~]~NS pUi:~LiSHER,S ~cSr _ :i, 72 o 8O CITY UF R~]~N~3K~: CITY (]LURKS OFFtC~ STATE OF VIRGI'~I?, CITY CiF !z');~N':3KE ; FF I.":;~ V IT PU:~L lC ~$T I ON I, (F!tE U!'~OEg~SIGhiED) Ah AUTHORIZED RFPk::S~NF,?TIVF OF THE TIM~::S-WORLO COR- POK$,TIC)N, WHICH C{JKPORATI(]N IS PU3LISHER OF Th[ F<OS?'~F]KE TIFI~]S & ~CRLO-NEwS, ~ D~,ILY t~SP,~,PE~< PUbLISH[~L) IN ROANOKE~ IN THE ST~.T~ UF VI:'L~I~iI?~ C)O CERTIFY Tft~T THE ~:N~JSX[ D NJ)TIC:. w~,~S PU~LtSH~D IN SAID NE¥~SP",Pb'<S ~.)~ Tile FOLLJ)WI[~G D~TES 1 ? / 0 ;!3 / .'0 q. '1 !.) < N i "'; '~ SiGNaTURE NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING TO CmZENS OF THE C~ ROANOKe: ' '"'"":': NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN th~::.::~:.;: the Council of the C~y Roanoke will, pursuant to (letO), a" ~1, ~ a,.::..: Dncember 19, 1994, ~t 10:0~:?:::: a.m., in the Co~ncil Che~hel? Munlcip~l Buil~ 215 Avenue, in the City of Roam:~e,.iii:i: Virginia, ~ which time have an oppottunlt~ t~ ¢lnla to ma~e ~ ~a~l~e~d~.;m· of z.~2, as ,mond~ ~:~i summarized as follows: }2, Powers of the C~; by add; adopt am ordinance handguns in City parks. :.:.:.:.: 2. Amend ~42, Alterations o¢':': :. handled edmtn~ith~ by the:;:.:.:- City IVlana~er from five thou:~':':~:':' · ,nd de.a,* to t~emy-r~e'i!:::' (18) of §2, Powers of the CRY; and §42, Nteratlohs or Charter ere on file In the of tim C~ Ch~f~, Building, Room 456, 2'15 c.u,:, A..~., *.w.. ao,.,~i! VIr~nla. day of December, 1994. :.:.=~.:.. Ma~y F. Paemer, CRy Clerk :':':-:+: (1360~9) ' :': :':' NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the City of Roanoke will, pursuant to §15.1-835, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, hold a public hearing on Monday, December 19, 1994, at 10:00 a.m., in the Council Chamber, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, at which time citizens of the City of Roanoke shall have an opportunity to be heard to determine if such citizens desire Council to request the General Assembly of Virginia to make certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended, which amendments are informatively summarized as follows: Amend subsection (18) of §2, Powers of the city, by adding authority for City Council to adopt an ordinance regulating or prohibiting the carrying of handguns in City parks. Amend §42, Alterations or modifications of contracts, to provide for an increase in the amount of change orders to be handled administratively by the City Manager from five thousand dollars to twenty-five thousand dollars. The full text of the proposed amendments to subsection (18) of §2, Powers of the city, and §42, Alterations or modifications of contracts, of the Charter are on file in the office of the City Clerk, Municipal Building, Room 456, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia. GIVEN under my hand this 5th day of December, 1994. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Note to Publisher: Please publish in full once on Thursday, December 8, 1994, in the Roanoke Times & World News. Please send bill and Publisher's Certificate to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 456, Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (703) 98 !-2541 December 1, 1994 File #50-137-467 Council Members: Elizabeth T. Bowles John S. Edwards Delvis O. "Mac" McCadden John H. Parrott William White, Sr. Linda F. Wyatt The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32272-112894 adopting and endorsinga Legislative Prol~.am for the City to be p~esented to the City's delegation to the 1995 Session of the General Assembly. Resolution No. 32272-112894 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, November 28, 1994. Pursuant to the abovereferonced resolution, Council authorized a public hearing to be held on Monday, December 19, 1994, at 10:00 a.m., or as soon thel~.~fter as the matter may be heard, with regard to certain proposed City Charter amendments. A special meeting of Council with the City's delegation to the 1995 Session of the Virginia General Assembly and Members of the Roanoke City School Board will be held on Monday, December 12, 1994, at 12:30 p.m., in the Social Services Conference Room, Room 306, Municipal North. Max~ F. Parker, CMC/AAE/ City Clerk Enc. pc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Wflburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Willard N. Claytor, Director of Real Estate Valuation Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 28th day of November, 1994. No. 32272-112894. A RESOLUTION adopting and endorsing a Legislative Pro~ for the City to be presented to the City's delegation to the 1995 Session of the General Assembly. WHEREAS, the members of City Council are in a unique position to be aware of the legislative needs of this City and its people; WHEREAS, previous Legislative Programs of the City have bccn responsible for improving the efficiency of local government and the quality of life for citizens of this City; WHEREAS, Council is desirous of agmin adopting and endorsing a Legislative Program to be advocated by the Council and its representatives at the General Assembly; and WHEREAS, the' Legislative Committee of City Council hRs by report, dated November 28, 1994, r~eommended to Council a Legislative Program to be presented at the 1995 Session of the General Assembly; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The Legislative P~ogr~un t~nsmltted by report of the Legislative Committee, dated November 28, 1994, is hereby adopted and endorsed by the Council as the City's offieiR! Legislative Prog~*am for the 1995 Session of the C, ene~al Assembly. 2. The City Attorney is authorized to cause publication of notice of a public hearing with respect to proposed Charter amendments to be held at 10:00 a.m. on December 19, 1994. 3. The Clerk is dil, ected to issue ce~iisi invitations to the City's Senator and Delegates to the 1995 Session of the General Assembly to attend Council's Special Meeting relating to legislative rotters, to be held at noon on December 19., 1994. ATTEST: City Clerk. DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 November 28, 1994 Council Members: Elizabeth T. Bowles John S. Edwards Delvis O. "Mac" McCadden John H. Parrott William White, Sr. Linda F. Wyatt The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: 1994 Leqislative Proqram Dear Council Members: On November 21, 1994, City Council's Legislative Committee met to review the proposed 1995 Legislative Program, a copy of which is attached, prepared by the City Attorney. After careful review, the Committee approved the Program and recommended that City Council adopt the attached resolution endorsing the Program and commending it to the City's delegation to the 1995 Session of the General Assembly. Unfunded federal and State mandates have recently been the topic of much discussion, and the Policy Statements Section of the 1994 Legislative Program includes a strong statement on Mandates (pages 1-2). The Policy Statements again highlight the plight of the Commonwealth's central cities and request that the General Assembly address this critical issue (pages 5-6). The paramount issue included in the Legislative Proposals is the City Council and School Board request that the Commonwealth provide more equitable funding for the City's School Division (pages 9-10). Previous Legislative Programs of the City have been responsible for improving the efficiency of local government and the quality of life of citizens of this City, and the Program that the Legislative Committee now recommends to you should continue this tradition. Please note that the proposed Charter amendment will require a public hearing, and it is recommended that Council, by motion, establish a public hearing on the proposed Charter amendments for December 19, 1994. The City Attorney has recommended this date which will permit him to complete the required public advertising and still allow for introduction of our Charter amendment bill prior to the first day of the 1995 Session as required by State Code. The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council November 28, 1994 Page 2 As you know, the annual meeting with our legislative delegation has been scheduled for noon on December 12, 1994. The School Board will again be invited to attend and participate in the presentation to our legislators of a combined City Council and School Board Legislative Program. Thank you for your consideration of the 1995 Legislative Program. Respectfully submitted, William White, Sr. Co-Chairman, Legislative Committee WWSr:f Attachments John S. Edwards Co-Chairman, Legislative Committee cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 1995 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL SCHOOL BOARD David A. Bowers, Mayor Elizabeth T. Bowles C. Nelson Harris, Chairman Marilyn L. Curtis John S. Edwards Charles W. Day Delvis O. "Mac" McCadden Marsha W. Ellison John H. Parrott Finn D. Pincus William White, Sr. Linda F. Wyatt Clubert G. Poff John H. Saunders CITY MANAGER SUPERINTENDENT W. Robert Herbert E. Wayne Harris Wilbum C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney 464 Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 703-981-2431 INTRODUCTION The City Council is pleased to commend this Legislative Program for consideration by the 1995 Session of the General Assembly. The..City Council representing all the people of our great City is uniquely qualified to understand the legislative needs of City government and our people. I am of the opinion that this Program is responsive to those needs. With the support of our legislators, and this City is fortunate to have legislators who are most supportive and responsive to the needs of our City and its citizens, I know that our City government and School Division will be improved and that the quality of life for our citizens will be advanced. This Program has been prepared by our City Attorney, Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., with the assistance of comments and suggestions from Council members, School Board members, City and School administrators and citizens. It has been carefully reviewed by City Council's Legislative Committee consisting of Co-Chairman John S. Edwards and Co-Chairman William White, Sr., and Members Delvis O. "Mac" McCadden, Finn D. Pincus and The Reverend C. Nelson Harris. Upon the recommendation of the Legislative Committee, the Program was adopted and endorsed by City Council on November 28, 1994. See Resolution No. -112894, at App. A-1. The Program consists of three parts. The first part is a series of policy statements which represent the philosophy of Roanoke City Council on a number of important policy issues. Obviously, it is impossible to anticipate all the legislative issues that will arise during the course of any session of the General Assembly, and these policy statements should provide helpful guidance to our legislators throughout the Session. The second part of the Program consists of specific legislative proposals of the City, and the third part consists of recommended Charter amendments. A Resolution requesting a Charter amendment is included at App. A-2. If during the course of the Session our legislators have questions concerning the position of the City on legislative matters, they are encouraged to contact our City Attorney who I k~now will be pleased to respond after consultation with Council's Legislative Committee or the School Board and any other appropriate officials. I also know that the City Attorney will be in contact with our legislators on many occasions during the 1995 Session, and their consideration of his communications is deeply appreciated. David A. Bowers Mayor i EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT POLICY STATEMENTS 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 education, 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. Unfortunately, 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 government, 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, Virginia's local governments 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 governments. The Governor and General Assembly should be commended for recently showing increased sensitivity to the mandate issue. 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 governments with the objective of determining which mandates may be altered or eliminated and (2) that the Commission on Local Government prepare and annually update a catalog of Federal and State mandates. The Governor and General Assembly are urged to promote State and local partnerships in the area of mandates by requiring: A review of current mandates in specific areas (a) to establish the full costs to local governments of implementing mandates and (b) to develop an appropriate basis for determining State and local funding responsibilities. Completion of cost estimates for proposed legislation prior to its first full review by a legislative committee. Submittal of legislation negatively affecting local governments' revenue raising ability to the Commission on Local Government for a fiscal impact analysis. More local government involvement in implementation decisions, including funding arrangements, deadlines and prescribed methods of meeting mandates, so that impacts at the local level are identified before implementation. A performance based approach to mandates that (a) focuses on outcomes, (b) offers incentives for achieving State objectives and (c) gives local governments autonomy to determine the best way to achieve the desired result. FULL FUNDING OF STATE MANDATED EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMSt INCLUDING STANDARDS OF QUALITY The General Assembly should recognize the long standing support of public education by local governments. For many years, ~ocal governments have funded educational costs beyond their required share in efforts to provide quality education. Increased funding for education, including full funding of the State's share of the actual costs of the Standards of Quality and full funding of categorical educational mandates, is a top priority of the City Council and School Board. Increased State funding should be achieved without reduction to other funding components of the State's public education budget or to other State funding items affecting local governments. The State has begun to factor public school capital improvement costs into the Standards of Quality and should increase its share of funding such costs. JLARC studies on state mandates have recommended that State funding be increased substantially for special education. The City Council and School Board strongly support this recommendation. Finally, no changes to educational funding formulas, which would reduce State funding of any school divisions, should be recommended without specific notice of such proposed changes being given to each school division and the Virginia School Boards Association. Public hearings should be held with respect to such proposed changes at locations throughout the Commonwealth. Notice with respect to any changes to be presented to any Session of the General Assembly should be given at least ninety days prior to the commencement of the Session. CLARIFICATION OF STATE AND LOCAL RESPONSIBILITIES The 1991 Session of the General Assembly is commended for ~equesting that the Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) undertake a comprehensive review of State and local service delivery responsibilities and the funding mechanisms that support them. The sorting out process of determining which services should be performed by the State and which by its local governments is vitally important, and more rational assignment of service delivery responsibility will advance the interests of the State and local governments. The General Assembly is urged to carefully consider JLARC's 1993 recommendations, particularly those relating to State assumption of service delivery responsibility where service or performance standards are defined by federal or State law and/or regulations. GOVERNOR'S ADVISORY COMMISSION ON THE DILLON RULE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT By Executive Order No. 42, promulgated October 28, 1991, Governor Wilder created the Governor's Advisory Commission on the Dillon Rule and Local Government and charged the Commission with the responsibility of considering current local government powers in the Commonwealth; assessing the ability of local governments to deal with local and regional issues within the framework of ~xisting law; and evaluating the need for changes to the Code of Virginia deemed necessary to provide local governments with improved ability to address local and regional issues. Former Senator J. Granger Macfarlane was appointed to chair the Commission which rendered its report to the Governor in November, 1992. The CommiSsion has performed an important service to the Commonwealth, and its recommendations are commended to the General Assembly. These recommendations include the following: Title 15.1, Counties~ Cities and Towns, of the Code of Virginia should be recodified. Title 15.1 has not been revised since 1962, and 3 persons testifying before the Commission uniformly criticized it as disorganized, inconsistent and confusing. Recodification of Title 15.1 is currently being carried out by the Code Commission with the assistance of a Committee including the Roanoke City Attorney and other local government representatives. The General Assembly should carefully consider JLARC's recommendations as to the assignment of service delivery responsibilities between State and local governments. The State should consider assuming responsibility for services when service and performance standards are dictated by State law and/or regulation. Also, the ability to raise revenue should more closely correspond to the requirement to provide services. The General Assembly should establish a legislative commission composed of State legislators and local government officials to study and make recommendations relating to the unique problems of central cities in the Commonwealth. While the central cities of the Commonwealth are making a vigorous effort to raise revenues, data provided by the Commission on Local Government demonstrates that they are still suffering from extreme fiscal stress. A thorough study and development of an action plan to address the special problems of central cities is needed. This effort should include an assessment of the impact of the "magnet effect", municipal overburden and related social ills that are unique to urban centers. Amend S15.1-510, Powers of counties, and S15.1-839, General grant of powers to municipalities, to provide that the authority delegated to local governments by the General Assembly shall be broadly construed to effect the purpose of the delegation. Such proposal represents a modest and reasonable relaxation of current restrictions which does not do violence to the principle that local government~ can exercise only those powers specifically delegated to them by the Commonwealth. 4 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 Southern states and fifty percent higher than nine Southern 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 com- monwealth, such as this City, provide a full range of public housing, health, mental health, transportation, 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. Consider these facts: That the City has over 4110 subsidized housing units while Roanoke County and Salem have only 198 and 216, respectively; · That the City's elderly population is at 22% and increasing; · That 23% of the City's population is below the age of 19 meaning that nearly 45% of the City's population are consumers of governmental services with little ability to pay for these services; and That, by 1991, 52% of children in the City Public School System came from economically deprived homes (up from 15.8% in 1980). In spite of these demographic negatives, 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 term. 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. Roanoke's 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 rural localities. 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. Recently, however, 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. Among those actions which should be considered are: Reevaluation of Virginia's unique system of independent cites which imposes upon cities the unfair responsibility of providing regional services without reimbursement from adjoining beneficiary localities; Special funding by the Commonwealth of those services provided by central cities which benefit the entire region; As recommended by the Grayson Commission (House Bill 550 introduced at the 1990 Session), creation of financial incentives to encourage governmental integration of independent cities with adjoining counties; and Also as recommended by the Grayson Commission, authority for cities with populations of less than 125,000 to make the transition to town status. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT City Council calls upon the Governor 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 international economy in which Virginia local governments are competing and include special funding for international trade missions. The strategy should also recognize small business incubators as a vital element and provide funding, 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. Finally, the strategy should include additional educational funding for central cities. With shrinking labor pools in central cities 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 of the dollars spent by the State tourism office, and there has been little emphasis on promoting the Virginia mountains. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY Every session of the General Assembly brings new assaults on the doctrines of governmental immunity for political subdivisions and official immunity for local government employees. These doctrines should be retained, and in fact strengthened, for, among others, the following reasons: Local 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. 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 in litigation by local government, $3 goes to legal costs; only $1 actually goes to compensate plaintiffs. 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 7 difficult to achieve when officials operate under con- stant fear of lawsuits. The cap on liability under the Virginia Tort Claims Act is illusory. The $25,000 cap on liability has already been increased to $75,000. Constant pressure will keep the cap spiraling upward. The City is opposed to any extension of the Virginia Tort Claims Act to localities and supports extension of immunity 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. An example of a group of employees and volunteers needing immunity is coaches and officials serving in youth athletic programs sponsored by the City 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 of any locality 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 land uses. 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. LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS EDUCATIONAL PRIORITY The School Board's legislative priority for the 1994-96 Biennium calls for increased funding for education, including full funding of the State's share of the actual cost of the Standards of Quality (SOQ) and full funding of categorical educational mandates. The Report of the Governor's Commission on Virqinia's Future states that education should be the highest priority of the Commonwealth. Yet, the Report notes that Virginia has not honored its commitment to education. The General Assembly is urged to study the methodology used by JLARC in calculating the costs of the SOQ to determine whether the formula reflects the actual costs of meeting the SOQ. The methodology appears to be inadequate in several respects. First, it artificially lowers the State average salary instead of using actual salary figures. Second, it uses an artificially low limit on the number of professionals per thousand students for which State aid is .given. Third, the methodology does not address the cost differences in providing education to students with special needs, such as the inner city school population served by our School Division. Inadequacy of State funding of education is readily apparent in Roanoke City. For Fiscal Year 1994-95, the General Assembly set the per pupil cost of the Standards of Quality at $2,876. Actual per pupil cost for City students, however, is estimated to be $5,789 for Fiscal Year 1994-95. Moreover, the City schools actually receive only $1,434 per pupil for this fiscal year after application of the composite index and State sales tax to the SOQ funding formula. EQUITY IN FUNDING EDUCATION The Governor's Commission on Educational Opportunities made the following fiscal recommendations that should be adopted by the General Assembly in order to benefit the majority of Virginia school divisions and urban school divisions in particular: Revise and fund the Standards of Quality to recognize ~he additional cost of students with special ne~ds such as those from disadvantaged homes; and Provide a better measure of ability to pay for distributing state aid which meets the following criteria: More accurate representation of local fiscal stress than the 'uomposite index; and Better representation of taxpayer ability to pay. EDUCATIONAL DISPARITY The General Assembly adopted legislation in 1994-95 to provide additional funds for reducing primary grade class size and increasing educational technology based on the number of free lunch children enrolled in the School Division. The General Assembly is to be complimented on their actions to target the needs of low- income children. Educational disparity funding should be expanded to include the reduction of class size at the upper elementary grade levels and to extend educational technology funding to elementary schools. SAFE SCHOOL LEGISLATION School safety and violence are increasing concerns of parents and teachers as community problems are carried over into school activities. The General Assembly adopted a "Safe School Act" during the 1992-93 session. The Act provides a coordinated and comprehensive approach to ensure safe classrooms. The features of the Act should be enhanced by adoption of the following recommendations by the General Assembly: State funding assistance for security personnel and equipment, including resource officers to facilitate safe schools through drug prevention, firearm education, and police awareness; Coordination of school safety programs among the appropriate state and local agencies to include the development of school safety audits; State funding assistance education programs; and for alternative 10 Implementation of public agency outreach programs to promote responsibility by parents for the actions of their children. STATE LITERARY FUND During the 1992-94 Biennium the General Assembly transferred $192 million from the State Literary Fund into the General Fund to cover teacher retirement contributions. Only minimal funding is now available to meet Literary Fund requests of over $95 million in FY 94-95 for school construction and the five year need is estimated to be over $3.0 billion. The General Assembly is encouraged to adopt legislation that returns a reasonable level of loan authority to the Literary Fund and to develop other low-cost financial alternatives for school construction funding. HEALTH SERVICES FOR DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN Disadvantaged children throughout Virginia are suffering from a lack of affordable health services. In the City of Roanoke, over 4,000 children lack access to comprehensive health care and about 50% of school age children reside in low-income families--most of whom do not have adequate health insurance. Teenage pregnancy rates throughout the Commonwealth are at an all-time high and continue to escalate. The Roanoke City Schools have limited financial resources to finance health services. The General Assembly is urged to support funding for the 1994-96 Biennium that would provide at least one school-based nurse for every 1,000 children residing in the locality. The services provided by these additional school-based nurse positions would be targeted to disadvantaged children. CHARTER SCHOOLS The Charter School concept offers a unique opportunity for local schools to develop educational programs at the site level. We support legislation that allows local school boards to establish Charter Schools and the waiver of state mandates as applied to these schools. The establishment of Charter Schools outside the jurisdiction of the local school board is opposed. TUITION CREDITS Private school tuition credits to parents and guardians whose children attend private schools would significantly reduce state revenue available to local school boards without a corresponding 11 decline in per pupil cost. We are opposed to any system of tax or tuition credits that would reduce federal or state revenue to local public schools. ADMINISTRATIVE SALARIES AND POSITIONS The state of Mississippi recently enacted legislation to limit administrative salaries and the number of administrative positions in local school divisions. Similar legislation is being studied in Virginia. The State funds less than one-third of the cost of administrative positions and the number of positions and salary level is a local option. Consequently, no State mandate should be imposed on administrative salaries or positions that should remain a local prerogative based on the needs and policies of the locality. ELIMINATION OF SCHOOL AGE CENSUS Every three years all school divisions conduct a census of school age children residing in the locality. The census becomes the basis for the distribution of State educational sales tax to the locality. Legislation has been proposed to use pupil average daily membership (ADM) rather than the school census as the basis for computing the locality's sales tax entitlement. This methodology would reduce the sales tax distribution to urban localities with declining enrollment. It is estimated that Roanoke City would lose $760,500 in State educational aid if such a change were to occur. This legislation should be opposed unless it incorporates a mechanism to protect urban school divisions from losing State aid. EMPLOYEE GRIEVANCE PROCEDURES Legislation has been introduced and defeated in prior years that would impose binding arbitration on the grievance process for teaching employees. School Boards should retain the final authority for all teacher personnel matters rather than a third party administrative official. The General Assembly is asked to reject any legislation requiring binding arbitration for teacher grievances. PUPIL TRANSPORTATION The last Session of the General Assembly defeated a state-wide legislative proposal for the transportation of private school students on public school buses. The enactment of such legislation would place an undue burden on the public school transportation system and subsidize private school transportation cost. The 12 General Assembly is requested to defeat this legislation if it is introduced. SCHOOL OPENING DATE School divisions are now required to open after Labor Day which creates difficulties in scheduling for western Virginia school divisions that may have an abnormal number of closing days for inclement weather conditions. It may also require schools to remain open until the third week in June if Labor Day falls on September 6 or 7. The General Assembly is requested to remove the restriction on school opening prior to Labor Day. BUSINESS LICENSE TAX Pursuant to HJR 526, adopted by the 1993 Session of the General Assembly, a subcommittee has been reviewing the appropriateness and administration of the business, professional and occupational license (BPOL) tax The BPOL tax is an extremely important local revenue source, accounting for $267,000,000 Statewide and $7.76 million locally. City Council is open to alternatives to the BPOL tax that are revenue neutral to the City of Roanoke, but Council opposes any alternative that is not revenue neutral. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS - FUNDING The 1994 Session of the General Assembly reduced the State's share of funding of fringe benefits for constitutional officers and their staffs by $25,000,000 and shifted this cost to cities and counties. The City urges the Commonwealth to fully fund its share of fringe benefits for constitutional officers and their staffs without making other reductions in the budget of the Compensation Board. In the alternative, the General Assembly should pass Senate Bill 560, introduced at the 1994 Session to compensate localities for the loss of revenue required to pay fringe benefits for constitutional officers. Senate Bill 560, which was passed by the Senate but carried over in the House, increases the fees charged by sheriffs for the service of certain types of civil process. Unless the General Assembly agrees to fully fund it share of fringe benefits for constitutional officers or, in the alternative, passes Senate Bill 560, the cost of fringe benefits for constitutional officers and their staffs will become a liability of the City. INTERSTATE 73 The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ("ISTEA") authorized the development of a national highway system 13 to serve major population centers and major travel destinations. ISTEA identifies the Interstate 73 corridor from Charleston, South Carolina, to Detroit, Michigan, as being a high priority. The states of West Virginia and North Carolina have proposed alignments for 1-73, but the Commonwealth of Virginia is still studying where 1-73 should be located within this State. The interests of the Commonwealth would be better served by an 1-73 alignment following U.S. Routes 460 and 220 because such 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. Alignment of 1-73 along U.S. Route 460 and U.S. Route 220 would strengthen both interstate and intrastate commerce and provide direct economic benefits to the Commonwealth. TRANSPORTATION - IMPROVED ACCESS TO BLACKSBURG/VIRGINIA TECH Direct access between the Roanoke Valley and Blacksburg/Virginia 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. Thus far, the federal government has allocated nearly $6 million to the "Smart Road" project. The City 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. EXTENSION OF AMTRAK RAIL SERVICE The National Railroad Passenger Corporation ("AMTRAK") has recently completed an internal study of proposed new rail routes, including a new line from New York to Atlanta by way of Roanoke. The proposed new route will connect major northeast cities with Atlanta through the western Virginia cities of Charlottesville, Lynchburg and Roanoke, as well as the eastern Tennessee cities of Nashville and Chattanooga. The new AMTRAK route would provide badly needed transportation access and act as a catalyst to development of local economies. Faster rail service to downtown Roanoke would provide additional support and increased visibility to such local economic development programs 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. 14 City Council endorses the proposal to extend AMTRAK service between New York and Atlanta via Roanoke and urges the City's delegation to the General Assembly to work with the City and our congressional delegation in bringing about this vital transportation link and economic catalyst. JAIL - STAFFING REQUIREMENTS OF EXPANDED CITY JAIL Fifty-one new deputies will be required to operate the expanded Roanoke City Jail when construction is completed on December 1, 1995. Seven weeks of mandated State training is required before the new deputies can begin working in the expanded jail. If State funding is provided for the required new deputies only from the date construction is completed, then operation of the expanded facility will be delayed at least seven weeks in order to train the new deputies. Therefore, it is essential that the State Budget provide funding for the fifty-one new deputy positions at least sixty days prior to the projected occupancy date. JAIL - FUNDING OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS In 1987, Governor Baliles initiated a literacy program for inmates incarcerated in the Virginia Department of Corrections. This program was intended to reduce recidivism among inmates by encouraging them to obtain a GED level of education and thereby increase their abilities to obtain jobs once released from custody. The Roanoke City Jail has two educational programs, the Adult Basic Education Program and a Special Education Program, available to inmates. While not mandated, the Adult Basic Education Program has proven extremely valuable to inmates in the Jail. A total of 806 inmates have been enrolled in this Program since Fiscal Year 1989, and 320 inmates have completed the Program. Of these inmates, 110 inmates were tested by the State Department of Education and received their GED certificates. The Special Education Program is a mandated program which serves a more limited population. It is available only to inmates under the age of eighteen or inmates between the ages of eighteen and twenty-two with documented learning or mental disabilities. The goal of this Program is also to provide educational opportunities leading to a GED. For Fiscal Years 1992, 1993 and 1994, this Special Education Program was funded as a pilot project by the General Assembly. In April of this year, however, the City was abruptly notified that funding for this program was terminated. In order to continue to provide this service to juveniles, the City has absorbed the total cost of this program for Fiscal Year 1994- 1995 which amounts to about $45,000. 15 These educational programs for adult and juvenile jail inmates ~epresent a progressive crime fighting tool. The General Assembly is encouraged to provide increased funding for educational programs for jail inmates. The General Assembly should also recognize that many of the Roanoke City Jail inmates taking advantage of these educational opportunities are State prisoners, and full funding should be provided with respect to these inmates. NURSING HOME The City-owned Nursing Home is subject to a State-imposed ceiling on Medicaid reimbursement. This ceiling applies to locally-owned facilities, but does not apply to facilities operated by the Commonwealth. Because the employees of our Nursing Home are better paid than employees in private facilities, Medicaid does not fully reimburse our costs, and our Nursing Home is running a $410,000 annual deficit. The State is urged to treat locally-owned nursing homes the same as State facilities for purposes of Medicaid reimbursement. LAW LIBRARY The Roanoke Law Library is a public library providing services to private citizens, students, teachers, government agencies and businesses as well as the Bar. The Law Library is supported primarily by a filing fee of $4.00 levied on each civil action filed in the Circuit Court or the General District Court. Recently, the number of filings has, however, been down sharply. In Fiscal Year 1991-1992, the Law Library received $163,311 in filing fees, whereas in Fiscal Year 1993-1994, the Law Library is projected to receive only $118,000 in fees. At the same time, over the same three-year period, the cost of legal publications increased twenty-four percent and the Library's budget for these publications decreased eleven percent. The $4.00 ceiling on filing fees levied on civil actions was established by the 1988 Session of the General Assembly. In order to provide adequate support for the Law Library, the General Assembly is urged to increase the allowable fee ceiling under §42.1-70, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, from $4.00 per case to $6.00 per case. The General Assembly is also requested to apply this fee to criminal cases as well as civil cases. VIRGINIA MUSEUM OF TRANSPORTATION The Virginia Museum of Transportation, located in downtown Roanoke, attracts visitors to downtown and is important to people 16 of this region in understanding our railroad heritage. With the construction 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 $100,000 for each year of the current Biennium. The General Assembly is urged to increase its funding of this important educational and cultural facility in the future. EVICTION OF TENANTS - COSTS OF REMOVING AND DISPOSING OF PERSONAL PROPERTY Section 8.01-156, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, seems to require, when personal property is removed from rental property pursuant to a court-ordered eviction, that the sheriff store the property and later conduct a public sale unless the owner of the property removes it from the public way. In practice, personal property is placed in the public right-of-way and then picked up by the City Department of Solid Waste Management and hauled to the Transfer Station and then ultimately to the Regional Landfill. All this occurs at great expense to the taxpayers of the City. Of course, the placement of old sofas, mattresses and other household items in the public right-of-way creates a terrible aesthetic situation and certainly negatively impacts the quality of life of neighborhoods where this occurs. Storage and sale of this personal property is not a viable alternative since there is no storage area, and, if one existed, the costs of storage and sale would generally far exceed the value of the property. Rather than burdening the general public with the cost of removing the personal property of evicted tenants and disposing of it, the City submits that this should be a cost and responsibility of the property owner who sought and obtained the eviction. Therefore, the City submits that S8.01-156 should be amended to provide that removal of the possessions of evicted tenants is the responsibility of the landlord, rather than the public. BINGO - REGULATION IN GENERAL There are major inconsistencies in the way that localities administer and enforce bingo and raffle laws and regulations. One locality may administer and enforce such laws consistently with the State Code while another locality allows illegal games and does not monitor compliance with the laws. This disparity in enforcement is unfair to charities that conduct legitimate bingo operations and fails to protect the public from unethical operators. An 17 organization that conducts bingo operations in a locality that enforces the State law may lose patrons to bingo parlors in localities that offer illegal games and prizes in excess of legal limits. Uniform enforcement of bingo laws and regulations is needed throughout the Commonwealth. Administration and enforcement of the State's bingo laws and auditing of bingo operations should be a State responsibility. BINGO - REGULATION OF MANUFACTURERS AND DISTRIBUTORS OF BINGO SUPPLIES There is currently no regulation of persons who sell bingo papers and supplies. This omission is a critical defect in the State's bingo regulatory scheme. Vendors can mark bingo cards, and the winning cards can then be sold to friends or to players "for the house". Moreover, localities have no ability or authority to audit sales of bingo paper. A supplier may sell bingo paper worth $150,000 when sold to players. If the permittee thereafter only reports $75,000 in sales from paper supplies, the current lack of regulation with respect to manufacturers and suppliers makes it extremely difficult for the local government to detect under- reported gross receipts. The General Assembly is urged to require the State to monitor, license, and audit distributors and manufacturers of bingo and raffle supplies on a Statewide basis. VIRGINIA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - LOCAL GOVERNING BODY APPROVAL OF PROJECTS Section 36-55.39(B), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, provides that the Virginia Housing Development Authority (VHDA) will not finance any new construction or substantial rehabilitation of any proposed multi-family residential housing development if the governing body of the locality in which such development is to be located has certified to VHDA in writing its disapproval of the proposed development. House Bill 1235 enacted by the 1994 Session of the General Assembly repeals the local approval requirement of S36-55.39; however, House Bill 1235 does not become effective unless reenacted by the 1995 Session of the General Assembly. City Council is of the view that local governing body approval affords a valuable opportunity to influence the characteristics of housing developments and demographics of local population. The General Assembly is therefore, urged not to reenact House Bill 1235. 18 TAX COLLECTION PROCEDURES - SUSPENSION OF COLLECTION PROCEDURES DURING ADMINISTRATIVE APPEAL The 1994 Session of the General Assembly amended §58.1-3916 of the State Code to authorize the State Department of Taxation to recover the costs of litigation and collection agency fees from tax delinquents. The Governor, however, returned the bill with an amendment which provides that collection procedures shall not be enforced during the pendency of any administrative appeal. The Governor's amendments were adopted during the veto session. Section 58.1-3916 applies to all local taxes, including real and personal property taxes and business license taxes. The Governor's amendment represents a dramatic change to previous law which required the taxpayer to pay an appealed assessment by the statutory deadline and called for the application of late payment penalty and interest and collection action if the tax was not paid on time. The amendment to §58.1-3916 implies that penalty and interest do not apply to tax bills which have remained unpaid during lengthy periods of administrative appeal. Under the amended law, any taxpayer who wants to delay paying a tax assessment need only to file an appeal to get an automatic extension of payment deadline. It would appear that the General Assembly did not have adequate time during the veto session to scrutinize the Governor's amendment. With a backlog of appeals filed by large taxpayers, local governments could accumulate millions of dollars in unpaid tax assessments every year. The 1995 Session is, therefore, urged to repeal the "surprise" amendment made to §58.1-3916. VIRGINIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RETIREMENT SYSTEMS - PORTABILITY OF BENEFITS The recruitment and retention by the Commonwealth and local governments of qualified officers and employees is critical to maintaining and improving the quality of public service in the Commonwealth. Intrastate mobility of public service professionals would facilitate and enhance the recruitment of qualified personnel. Some political subdivisions of the Commonwealth do not participate in the Virginia Retirement System. State law does not currently provide for portability between local retirement systems or the local retirement systems and the Virginia Retirement System. To address the portability issue, the 1994 Session of the General Assembly ad.opted HJR 104 which requires the Virginia Retirement System to conduct a study in conjunction with the Association of Municipal Retirement Systems. The 1995 Session is requested to enact any proposals resulting from this study which would advance portability of public employees. 19 CURFEW VIOLATIONS In 1992, a Citizens' Task Force recommended that the City's curfew ordinance be modernized and streamlined. Subsequently, City Council adopted a new ordinance, and the City administration, in conjunction with the Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court and its Court Service Unit, developed and implemented a juvenile citation program which provides for Juvenile Court intervention in the case of repeat offenders. Dispositional alternatives, however, are severely limited because curfew violation is considered a status offense. In order to provide teeth for local government curfew ordinances, the General Assembly is urged to amend Title 16.1 to treat violation of local curfew ordinances the same as a traffic violation. Availability of fines and driver license revocation as dispositional alternatives in curfew cases would create a substantial deterrent to recidivism. 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 S8.01-222 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 compliance with §8.01-222 is simple, the notice requirement is vital to the Commonwealth'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 S8.01-222 is repealed, cities and towns will 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 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. 20 COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Any legislation authorizing collective bargaining for public employees in general or for any public employee group, including School Board employees, should be opposed. Ail public employees now have effective grievance procedures. Both the City and the School Board have developed 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. 21 CHARTER AMENDMENTS CHANGE ORDERS ON CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS Section 42 of the City Charter requires City Council approval of change orders to construction contracts when the amount of the alteration or modification exceeds $5,000. This limit has not been increased since 1978, and City Council requests that this limit be increased to $25,000. Change orders of less than $25,000 would be handled administratively by the City Manager. HANDGUNS IN PUBLIC PARKS Under current State law, firearms may be openly carried in City parks without fear of arrest. The risks inherent in the carrying of firearms in City parks are a grave concern to City officials and citizens. The General Assembly has recently prohibited possession of firearms on school grounds. Virginia State Park Regulations prohibit the carrying or possessing of firearms in State parks. Regulations already applicable to school grounds and State parks should logically be extended to public parks. The General Assembly is requested to amend §2(18) of the City Charter to authorize City Council to adopt an ordinance regulating or prohibiting the carrying of handguns in City parks. Such ordinance would exempt law enforcement officers and persons who hold concealed weapons permits. 22 INDEX POLICY STATEMENTS Clarification of State and Local Responsibilities 3 Economic Development ........ Effective Government ...................................... 6 Full Funding of State Mandated Educational Programs, Including Standards of Quality ........................... 2 Governmental Immunity ................................... 7 Governor's Advisory Commission on The Dillon Rule and Local Government .................................... 3 Mandates ........... Revenue and Finance ...................................... 1 Special Needs of Central Cities Without Annexation Power ............. 5 Zoning and Land Use ........... ~~ .......... ~ ....... 8 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSAL~ Administrative Salaries and Positions ................... 12 Bingo - Regulation in General ........................... 17 Bingo - Regulation of Manufacturers and Distributors of Bingo Supplies ......................................... 18 Business License Tax .................................... 13 Charter Schools ......................................... 11 Collective Bargaining ................................... 21 Constitutional Officers - Funding ....................... 13 Curfew Violations ....................................... 20 Education Priority ....................................... 9 Educational Disparity ........... Elimination of School Age Census ........... 12 Employee Grievance Procedures ........................... 12 Equity in Funding Education .............................. 9 Eviction of Tenants - Cost of Removing and Disposing of Personal Property ................................... 17 Extension of Amtrak Rail Service ........................ 14 Health Services for Disadvantaged Children .............. 11 Interstate 73 ..... '' '''''''''''''''''-..-...............13 Jail - Staffing Requirements of Expanded City Jail ...... 15 Jail - Funding of Educational Programs ....... Law Library ............... '. ' ......... 15 Notice of Claims ......... Nursing Home ........... ~ .............................. 20 pil ................................ 16 Pu Transportation ............... ..................... 12 Safe School Legislation ................................ 10 ary · State Liter Fund ...................... School Opening Date ...... ' .............. 11 ''''''''''''''''''---...-......13 Tax Collection Procedures - Suspension of Collection Procedures During Administrative Appeal ................ 19 Transportation - Improved Access to Blacksburg/Virginia Tech ................................................... 14 Tuition Credits ......................................... 11 Virginia Housing Development Authority - Local Governing Body Approval of Projects .............................. 18 Virginia Museum of Transportation ....................... 16 Virginia Public Employee Retirement Systems - Portability of Benefits ................................ 19 CHARTER AMENDMENTS Change Orders on Construction Contracts ................. 22 Handguns in Public Parks ................................ 22 DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, $.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1594 Telephone: (703) 981-2444 December 19, 1994 The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1- 344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Since.~el~x~__~ David A. Bowers Mayor DAB: se 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #20-77 W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: Your report requesting Council's concurrence in advertising a public hearing to be held on Monday, January 9, 1995, with regard to Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act Enhancement projects to be recommended to the State for funding, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, Council concurred in the request to schedule a public hearing for Monday, January 9, 1995, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm pc: Wilburn C. DibHng, Jr., City Attorney Office of the City Manager December 19, 1994 Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Intermodal Surface Act Enhancement Projects Transportation Efficiency The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) was signed into federal law December 1991 representing a new vision for transportation in America. The law provides for $155 billion to be spent nationwide to rebuild and redirect surface transportation over 6 years (1992-1997) The intent of IS is to move out of the interstate hi hw'TEA localities to . . ~ ay age and to encourage states and make transportation decisions that make communities more livable, that are environmentally sound and economically efficient. For the first time federal transportation legislation places the power of de ' · _ ' ~nd local government. The Du ~ ~ ~a ~ ....... caslon making with st · nput in how federal funds = r~os~ ~ ~u ~uw ~ncreased flexibility and pub~ can be spent to solve local transportation problems. ISTEA requires state departments for transportation to set aside a MINIMUM of 10 percent of their Surface Transportation Program (STP) allocation each year to be used for ten specific types of "enhancement,, activities that enhance the physical environment. In Virginia, this minimum 10 percent figure equals $7.5 million in enhancement funds annually. While any one locality is not assured any of these funds, every effort will be made by VDOT for an equitable distribution of these funds. Enhancement projects may be initiated by any group or individual, and need to be formally endorsed by City Council prior to being submitted to VDOT. This year, one (1) application will be submitted to Council on January 9, 1995. While ISTEA does not require recommended that Council concur in the a public hearing by localities, it is hearing for January 9 1995, in order to provide maximum citizen input into the , City administration advertising a public selection of projects to be recommended to the state for funding under this new transportation enhancement program. WRH:RKB:gpe copy: Assistant City Manger City Attorney Director of Finance Respectfully submitted W. Robert Herbert City Manager Director of Public Works Economic Development Specialist Chief, Planning and Community Development City Engineer Building Commissioner Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations Traffic Engineer Room 364 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591 (703) 981-2333 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #15-51-110 John R. Marlles, Chief Planning and Community Development Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Marlles: This is to advise you that Louise C. Williams has qualified as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals for a term of three years commencing January 1, 1995 and ending December 31, 1997. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC'/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Louise C. Williams, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals for a term of three years commencing January 1, 1995, and ending December 31, 1997, according to the best of my ability. So help me God. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22,. 1994 File #15-110-323 Dr. Frank J. Eastburn, Chairperson Roanoke Public Library Board 1810 Denniston Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Dear Dr. Eastburn: This is to advise you that Zaman K. McManaway has qualified as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board for a term ending June 30, 1996. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm pc: M. Emily Keyser, Acting City Librarian Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Zaman K. McManaway, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Roanoke Public Library Board for a term ending June 30, 1996, according to the best of my ability. So help me God. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK BY "~~ ~/~%9q~ , DEPUTY 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #15-32-110 Stanley G. Breakell, Chairperson Building Maintenance Division of the City's Board of Building Code Appeals 3256 Allendale Street, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Breakell: This is to advise you that Gene Wirt has qualified as a member of the Building Maintenance Division of the City's Board of Building Code Appeals for a term of five years ending November 10, 1999. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner H. Daniel Pollock, Jr., Housing Development Coordinator Patti C. Hanes, Secretary, Building Maintenance Division of the City's Board of Building Code Appeais Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Gene Wirt, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, 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 Building Maintenance Division of the City's Board of Building Code Appeals for a term of five years ending November 10, 1999, according to the best of my ability. So help me God. Subscribed and swom to before me this day of ~2E~994. ARTHUR B. CRUSH, III, CLERK ,DEPUTY CLERK WILBURN C. DIBMNG, JR. CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE. SW ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595 TELEPHONE: 703..981-2431 TELECOPIER: 703-224-3071 December 19, 1994 WILLIAM X PARSONS STEVEN J. TALEVI KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU GLADYS L. YATES ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: Request for Executive Session Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members: This is to request that City Council convene in Executive Session to discuss actual litigation being a civil suit pending in the Circuit Court for Roanoke County, pursuant to §2.1-344(A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney WCD:ff CC: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations RNP ANNUAL REPORT PRESENTATION ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 19, 1994 10:00 A.M. GOOD MORNING! MR. MAYOR, MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL. IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE TO REPRESENT THE ROANOKE NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP AND TO PRESENT THE ORGANIZATION'S ANNUAL REPORT FOR THE YEARS 1992-94. I HOPE YOU HAVE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW OUR PUBLISHED REPORT WHICH WAS SENT TO YOU LAST WEEK IN YOUR COUNCIL PACKET (HOLD UP A COPY). THE THEME FOR THIS YEAR'S ANNUAL REPORT IS "FOURTEEN YEARS CELEBRATING PEOPLE AND PROGRESS." STARTING WITH FOUR PILOT NEIGHBORHOODS IN 1980, THE PARTNERSHIP HAS GROWN TODAY TO INCLUDE 25 NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS AND THREE BUSINESS ASSOCIATIONS. WE ALSO ANTICIPATE THAT SEVERAL ADDITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS WILL BE APPLYING FOR MEMBERSHIP IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THE PREMISE OF THE ROANOKE NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP HAS REMAINED THE SAME OVER THE PAST 14 YEARS. THAT IS, PEOPLE REALLY DO WANT TO LIVE IN A BETTER PLACE AND THEY ARE WILLING TO COMMIT THEIR TIME AND RESOURCF..S IF THEY FEEL THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS WILL MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THE FOUR GOALS OF THE PARTNERSHIP HAVE ALSO REMAINED CONSISTENT OVER THE YEARS ALTHOUGH THEY EVOLVE WITH EACH NEW NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUE: THEY ARE: 1. TO PROVIDE A FORUM FOR TWO-WAY COMMUNICATION BETWEEN CITIZENS AND GOVERNMENT; 2. TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO RESOURCES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUSINESS, NON-PROFIT AND GOVERNMENT SECTORS; 3. TO INVOLVE CITIZENS IN DECISIONS WHICH AFFECT THEIR LIVES AND THEIR QUALITY OF LIFE; AND 4. TO GUIDE CITIZENS THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT SYSTEM SO THEY CAN LEARN HOW TO ADDRESS NEIGHBORHOOD ISSUES. FOR THE NEXT SEVERAL MINUTES, I'D LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT JUST A FEW OF THE MANY ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND PROJECTS THAT WERE UNDERTAKEN BY THE PARTNERSHIP AND ITS MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. IN THE PAST, IT HAS OFTEN BEEN DIFFICULT FOR NEIGHBORHOODS TO ARTICULATE THEIR NEEDS OR ISSUES AND ORGANIZATIONS HAVE TRIED TO IDENTIFY TO FOCUS RESOURCES. GOALS, LEARN HOW TO FUNCTION AS VOLUNTEER ORGANIZATIONS AND SEEK LEADERS. TO ADDRESS THE NEEDS OF EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS, THE PARTNERSHIP DEVELOPED A HANDBOOK FOR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS CALLED "THE PARTNERSHIP IN ACTION: A SELF-HELP MANUAL" (PASS OUT COPIES TO CITY COUNCIL). THE MANUAL PROVIDES: (1) AN OVERVIEW OF THE PARTNERSHIP'S PHILOSOPHY AND SERVICES; (2) INFORMATION AND EXAMPLES FOR EMERGING AND EVOLVING NEIGHBORHOODS; AND (3) A PRIORITY SET'rING/PLANNING PROCESS WHICH CAN BE USED BY NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS TO HELP IDENTIFY PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES. THE MANUAL AND THE RELATED TRAINING PROVIDED BY THE PARTNERSHIP STAFF AND CONSULTANTS HELP NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS TO REMAIN FOCUSED. THE MANUAL IS ALSO STARTING TO AT'rRACT NATIONAL AT'FENTION. REQUESTS FOR THE MANUAL HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM A NUMBER OF COM2MUNITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY. CRIM~ PREVENTION IS ANOTHER AREA THAT THE PARTNERSHIP AND 1TS MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS HAVE FOCUSED ON OVER THE PAST TWO YEARS. MAKING NEIGHBORHOODS SAFE PLACES FOR RESIDENTS WAS THE ORIGINAL IMPETUS FOR THE FORMATION OF MANY OF THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING THE RIVERLAND ALERT NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE VILLA HEIGHTS CRIME PREVENTION ORGANIZATION. SINCE 1991, PARTNERSHIP MEMBERS HAVE HOSTED OVER 23 POLICE/PUBLIC SAFETY APPRECIATION EVENTS TO FORGE A CLOSER WORKING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CITIZENS AND THE CITY'S POLICE AND PUBLIC SAFETY EMPLOYEES. ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF THE PARTNERSHIP WHICH IS OCCURRING BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS AND THE POLICE IS TIKE NEIGHBORHOOD/POLICE LIAISON PROGRAM. THIS IS A NEW PROGRAM WHICH WILL BE IMPLEMENTED IN EARLY 1995. THIS PROGRAM WILL TAKE COMMUNITY POLICING ONE STEP FURTHER BY TEAMING UP A REPRESENTATIVE FROM EACH NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATION AND A POLICE OFFICER WHO WILL BE DESIGNATED AS LIAISONS. ON A MONTHLY BASIS, THESE REPRESENTATIVES WILL SHARE INFORMATION ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD CONDITIONS AND POLICE ACTIVITIES. IT IS OUR BELIEF THAT TH'ESE AND OTHER CRIME PREVENTION ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY PARTNERSHIP MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO ROANOKE'S SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND LOW CRIME RATES OVER THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS. IN ADDITION TO THE MANY SPECIAL PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY THE PARTNERSHIP OVER THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, PARTNERSHIP STAFF AND THE STEERING COMMITTEE HAVE CONTINUED TO PROVIDE A NUMBER OF BASIC PROGRAMS AND SERVICES. THESE INCLUDE: 1. OPERATION PAINTBRUSH WHICH HAS PAINTED THE EXTERIOR OF 30 OWNER-OCCUPIED HOMES IN THE CITY'S OLDEST INNER-CITY NEIGHBORHOODS SINCE 1992. ANOTHER 14 HOMES WILL BE PAINTED IN THE COMING YEAR. NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT GRANTS RANGING FROM $2,000- $10,000 WHICH HAVE BEEN USED BY NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS TO REHABILITATE COMMUNITY CENTERS, ACQUIRE VACANT HOUSES AND REFOREST HIGHLAND PARK. ONE OF THE MORE POPULAR PROJECTS FUNDED BY NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT GRANTS ARE THE NEIGHBORHOOD GATEWAY SIGNS THAT YOU SEE THROUGHOUT 4 THE CITY WHICH HELP PROMOTE PRIDE IN THE CITY'S NEIGHBORHOODS. o MINIGRANTS WHICH RANGE UP TO $1,500 WITH A 20% MATCH FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP ALSO REMAIN POPULAR AND HAVE BEEN USED AS SEED MONEY TO FUND A WIDE RANGE OF SELF-HELP PROJECTS SUCH AS NEWSLETI'ERS, VACANT LOT MAINTENANCE, SIGNAGE, CRIME PREVENTION MATERIALS, AND YOUTH PROJECTS. FINALLY, OVER 94 EYES ORES, INCLUDING WEEDED LOTS, ABANDONED VEHICLES, LITTER, ETC., IDENTIFIED BY NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS THROUGH THE EYESORE ALERT PROGRAM HAVE BEEN CORRECTED THROUGH PROMPT ACTION BY CITY DEPARTMENTS. I'D LIKE TO CLOSE BY THANKING YOU - THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY ADMINISTRATION FOR THE SUPPORT YOU HAVE SHOWN THE PARTNERSHIP OVER THE PAST 14 YEARS. I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE MEMBERS OF THE PARTNERSHIP STEERING COMMFITEE AND NEIGHBORHOOD LEADERS FOR THEIR HARD WORK AND DEDICATION OVER THE TWO YEARS THAT I WAS PRIVILEGED TO SERVE AS CHAIRMAN. THE PARTNERSHIP HAS REALLY DEMONSTRATED THAT WORKING TOGETHER WE CAN MAKE A DIFFERENCE. THANK YOU. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO TRY AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. *LAWRENCE - FEEL FREE TO ADD ANY COMMENTS. 5 DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1594 Telephone: (703) 981-2444 December 14, 1994 The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Municipal Building Roanoke, VA 24011 RE: Urban Summit Dear Vice-Mayor and Members of Council: I'm pleased to report to you that the Urban Summit sponsored by the Urban Partnership of Virginia at the Richmond Center last Thursday, December 8, 1994 was, in my estimation, a huge success. The historic importance of the event was that for perhaps the first time in many decades, the business community of the Commonwealth joined with the mayors of our leading cities to forge a coalition for reform of state urban policy here in Virginia. It really seemed that the overriding theme throughout the day, expressed by dozens of speakers and participants, was that Virginians, both business leaders and city leaders, are frankly tired of being outpaced by the cities of the Carolinas. Whatever it is that they're doing to the south of us is something that we should take a very serious look at, and try to incorporate into Virginia's way of doing business and conducting local government. Approximately 330 people participated in the Urban Summit and, I would guess, unanimously agreed that the plight of the urban cities of Virginia is an impediment to the economic growth of their respective regions and, indeed, the entire Commonwealth. Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council December 14, 1994 PAGE 2 This was an important meeting for the history of our city, and all cities in Virginia, and I want to thank the Council for supporting me in this statewide initiative. I'm pleased to report to you that approximately 20 people attended the conference from Roanoke, including City Manager W. Robert Herbert, City Attorney Wil Dibling, Brian Wishneff, John Lambert, Warner Dalhouse, Tom Robertson of Carilion Health Systems, Councilmember Jack Parrott, John Marlles of the Community Planning staff, and civic leaders such as Charles Hancock from Garden City, Eva Hughes from the Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization, Paula Prince and Petie Cavendish from Old Southwest, Louise Williams from the Fairlawn Civic Organization, and Doris Bundick of the Rid~way Park Neighborhood Forum. The Roanoke paper covered the story excellently through a reporter with their Norfolk paper, and I did see Margie Fisher representing the editorial staff of the Roanoke paper present at the Urban Summit. Following the opening session with a welcome by Mayor Leonidas Young of the City of Richmond, reports were given by the co-chairman of the Urban Partnership, namely Jean Clary, who is also the chairman of the Virginia Chamber of Commerce, and the Honorable James L. Eason, Mayor of Hampton, Virginia. Dr. Michael Pratt, of the Virginia Center for Urban Development at VCU, then presented the results of a survey. The survey is rather lengthy, so I'm providing you with a copy of the Richmond Times-Dispatch article regarding the survey, which was printed in that paper on December 8, 1994. That newspaper article best summarizes the key results of the statewide survey conducted by the Urban Partnership. The main address was then presented by James T. Rhodes, President and CEO of Virginia Power, who emphasized that Virginians and our cities must "get our act together,, in order Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council December 14, 1994 PAGE 3 that our Commonwealth and our urban regions cannot only compete with the urban areas of the south, but, once again, surpass them in terms of prominence and economic development. A panel discussion was also arranged, and Warner Dalhouse of Roanoke participated in that along with Richard Tilghman, CEO of Crestar, Valerie Lemmie, the City Manager of Petersburg, and Delegate John Watkins from Chesterfield County, who has sponsored in the General Assembly legislation regarding the regional government for the Richmond area. Breakout sessions were held in the afternoon on topics ranging from economic development, poverty, crime, local government structure, local government finance, education regionalism, and community based development. The participants assembled seemed to be quite interested in the article which I held up from the News and Observer of Raleigh, North Carolina boasting that that state has "The Nation's Best Urban Policy (which) Made Raleigh Bigger, Better." As for Virginia, discussion continued throughout the afternoon about the fact that the artificial political boundaries of Virginia's independent cities is an impediment to the economic growth of our regions and our Commonwealth. It was noted that Virginia has been organizing and reforming local government since the founding of Jamestown in 1607, and we don't have the same local government now (thank goodness) that we did 387 years ago. It was noted that North Carolina cities and counties fight among themselves, too, but that the "structure,, of North Carolina urban areas is such that it ultimately encourages cities and counties to work together. There are incentives to merger and cooperation in North Carolina that do not exist under Virginia's concept of local government. For instance, in North Carolina, they have non-threatening city/county resolution procedures to address their structural concerns of urban growth. It was expressed that Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council December 14, 1994 PAGE 4 Virginia should have a "win win" urban reform policy which allows for the mutual advantage of our urban areas. There were five specific recommendations which came out of the group in which I was involved with, including: 1. Increased financial incentives (bonus) for cooperation and merger. 2. That all government units be involved, including suburbs and counties, to formulate non-threatening solutions. 3. That the reversion statute proposed recently for Virginia cities be enhanced and liberalized to allow more cities to become part of their local counties. 4. Improved revenue sharing among the cities and counties, and even to be required if necessary. 5. Utilization of the North Carolina local government model. We had a very interesting commentary by Carter Glass, IV., an attorney with Mays & Valentine in Richmond, who has long overseen legal problems regarding this issue. He proposed ten solutions for Virginia: 1. Incentives to merger and elimination of the referendum requirement. 2. Incentives for regional governments authorized by the General Assembly. 3. New enabling legislation to allow cities within counties, like the North Carolina model. 4. Financial incentives for local government cooperation; i.e., sufficient monetary incentives to encourage cooperation. 5. Expansion of the current city/county reversion legislation with the General Assembly allowing a broader cap on inclusion. 6. Allowing the city to institute legal action in court to merge with a surrounding county. Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council December 14, 1994 PAGE 5 7. State involuntary intervention by which the General Assembly will step into force local government mergers in certain areas in Virginia. 8. New revenue sharing allowing for court petition and judgment as a means for cities and counties to share revenue. 9. Severing public education from being bound by current city/county boundaries; i.e., allowing school systems to merge or draw their own distinct district lines. 10. Simplification and development of non-threatening annexation processes here in Virginia for towns and cities, again similar to the North Carolina model. As you know, this has been an issue of great interest to me. The Summit was, in a sense, the culmination of a conversation I had with former Mayor Walter Kenney of Richmond, and former Mayor Mason Andrews of Norfolk, at the United States Conference of Mayors at Rockefeller Center in New York City, in June of 1993. In my brief remarks towards the end of the Summit to the delegates assembled, I again emphasized that Virginia local governments have been reforming their way of doing business since the founding of Jamestown back in 1607, and that it was time, once again, for us to have the grit and the guts to reform our state urban policy so that our cities and our urban regions can compete economically with the cities and urban regions of the Carolinas and other cities to the south. We must be successful in this effort, and, more importantly, we must have the "collective will" to change Virginia's urban policy. It's important to note, and to thank, the business community for their support in this effort. We must understand that the structure of our local government is, if not the most important factor, certainly one of the most important factors that must be dealt with, and that the concept of urban reform for Virginia should and must be a popular Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council December 14, 1994 PAGE 6 issue for all Virginians, those in the business community, as well as those in the cities and the suburbs, so that we can effectuate a new urban policy that will be, for Virginia, the "best urban policy in the nation.', Thank you for allowing me to provide you with this report on our most successful Urban Summit. Meetings will continue throughout the winter and spring with another Urban Summit scheduled for May, which might just possibly be held at the Hotel Roanoke. Best personal regards to each of you for the holiday season. Sincerely, DAB/bs cc: Warner Dalhouse W. Robert Herbert Tom Robertson John Lambert Brian Wishneff Nell Barber John Steadman Jean Clary Honorable James L. Eason, Mayor December 19, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and Members of Council: SUBJECT: CENTRAL COMPUTER UPGRADE - AN INFORMATION REPORT The City operates a central host computer system which is used to support a variety of city services such as payroll, general ledger, billings, accounts receivable, tax collections, police records, and many others. The system is composed of a number of critical components including the central processor, the data storage subsystems (both disk and tape), and the data communication subsystem. Most of these components were purchased between July 1983 and December 1987 (11 1/2 and 7 years ago). Because of age, limited speed, limited capacity, increasing hardware failure rates, and technology changes, a number of the system's components are no longer adequate to meet the City's information processing needs. The direct access data storage subsystem was purchased in parts between 1983 and 1988. Data storage capacity is no longer adequate. The devices have high maintenance costs and failure rates have been increasing. The tape storage subsystem was purchased in 1983 and is used primarily for data back-up and recovery. The technology is becoming unreliable. Tape failures present some serious operational problems and maintenance costs are high. The Central Processing Unit (CPU) was purchased in December 1987. Primary storage and processing speed of the CPU are inadequate to handle projected work loads and deliver needed services. New versions of our operating system software will not work on the current CPU. The City's data communication system also needs to be updated in order to handle a variety of new technologies required in conjunction with many new systems and services. Current and future data communications needs are under study. It is anticipated that recommendations on updates to that system will be made during fiscal year 1995-96. The current system has operated effectively over the years and has provided the capability needed to implement a number of significant new and enhanced systems. A number of these include: an enhanced Personal Property System, a City Wide (miscellaneous) Billing and Accounts Receivable System, an Employee Retirement System, a Jail Management System, a Parking Ticket System, an Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Incident Reporting System, and a Payroll Time Entry System. A number of new and improved services are currently in progress and are planned for implementation in the near future. These include: a Delinquent Tax Collections System, a Risk Management System, a Parks and Recreation Scheduling System, a Business License System, Purchasing System enhancements, and Building Permits System enhancements. A number of additional needs will be considered by the City's Information Technology Committee (ITC) within the next few months. A few of these include: a Geographical Information System, a City Wide Electronic Mail System, a new Police Records System, Enhancements to the Jail Management System, and a new Real Estate Assessing System. The ITC will review these as well as other needs of the City, establish priorities, and will make recommendations to the City Manager. In order to provide the necessary central computing resources to accommodate these new and improved services, a number of central system components need to be replaced. These include the CPU, the disk storage subsystem, and the tape storage subsystem. A set of bid specifications for replacement' of that equipment were prepared with both short and long term needs in mind. Bid responses have been received and are currently being evaluated. We plan to have a report for City Council consideration for bid award within the next few weeks. Upgrades to the central system have been anticipated for a number of years and funding for this purpose has been planned. Funds are available in CIS Internal Service Fund Retained Earnings. This letter is provided for information purposes. No action by City Council is required. For additional questions or information, please contact Archie Harrington at 981-2966. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert, City Manager CC: Mr. James D. Ritchie, Assistant City Manager Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Mr. James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Barry Key, Manager of OMB Ms. Mary Parker, City Clerk Mr. Archie Harrington, Manager CIS MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF TH£ CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W.. Room 456 Roanoke. Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy C/tv Clerk December 22, 1994 File #299-472 Curry Copy Dominion Graphics Gurtner Jamont Press Print Masters, Inc. Print Services and Supplies Roanoke Reprographics Swift Print Woody Graphics Roanoke City Public Schools Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32298-121994 accepting the bid of Print Masters, Inc., to provide commercial printing services at various costs per impression for a one-year period, upon certain terms and conditions; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract for such work; rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work; and accepting an offer from Print Services and Supplies to purchase from the City certain printing and related equipment used to provide in-house printing services for the sum of $6,500.00. Resolution No. 32298-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bids on the abovedescribed printing services and equipment. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Eric. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32298-121994. A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of Print Masters, Inc., to provide commercial printing services, upon certain terms and conditions, and awarding a contract therefor; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract for such work; rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work; and accepting an offer for purchase of certain printing and related equipment owned by the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The bid of Print Masters Inc., to provide, for a one-year period, commercial printing services at various costs per impression, as is more particularly set forth in the December 19, 1994, report of the City Manager to this Council, such bid being in full compliance with the City's plans and specifications made therefor and as provided in the contract documents offered said bidder, which bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, be and is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute and attest, respectively, the requisite contract with, the successful bidder, based on its proposal made therefor and the City's specifications made therefor, said contract to be in such form as is approved by the City Attorney, and the cost of said work to be paid for out of funds heretofore or simultaneously appropriated by Council. 3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid services are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation for such bid. 4. The offer from Print Services and Supplies to purchase from the City certain printing and related equipment used to provide in-house printing services for the sum of $6,500.00 is hereby accepted, and the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the requisite documentation, in form approved by the City Attorney, to provide for such sale. ATTEST: City Clerk. IN THE COUNCHL OF THE CHTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGHNHA The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32297-121994. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1994-95 Management Services 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 1994-95 Management Services Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to'read as follows, in part: Management Services Other Charges (1) ................................. $ 441,931 273,483 Revenu______me Operating Outside Third Parties (2) ......................... 467,801 1) Postage 2) Outside Third Parties (015-002-1617-2160) $ 6,500 (015-020-1234-1104) 6,500 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. December 19, 1994 #94-47 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and Members of Council: Subject: Bid to Provide Commercial Printing Services for the City of Roanoke Bid Number 94-9-70 I. Back~lround on the subject in chronological order is as follows: Zo The Department of Management Services is charqed with the responsibility of providinh .offset printing, as well as courier, photocopying, postage and graphics services for all City departments and agencies. B. Printing services provided consist of two basic types: 1. Continuous production of widely used (stock) City forms held in inventory for future use. 2..Special requests received from other City departments and agencies for forms, brochures, flyers, etc., and providing finishing services, such as folding, cutting, padding and collating. C.. The annual print volume is approximately 2.3 million impressions at a cost of approximately $74,837 for FY 1994-95. Do The means of service provision is predominantly "in-house" through the City's print shop on the first floor of the Municipal Building. The shop is staffed by a full-time employee who operates the printing press and related equipment. Some specialized printing is outsourced to various vendors in the area. In October, 1993, Council Member White requested the City Manager to review alternatives to providing the City's printing/photocopying services in-h(~use, such as combining printing operations with the Roanoke City Schools. II. Current Situation is.' A. The Office of Manaqement & Budget (OMB) has identified and studied alternatives for providing printing services. These alternatives are as follows: 1. Combining printing operations with Roanoke City Schools - OMB staff members met with School administrative officials to determine their interest in combining and/or providing printing services for the City of Roanoke. A tour of School facilities was also conducted for City staff to determine the School's capability of providing these services. Interest and capability were positive. Consequently, this alternative was deemed feasible for further study. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET Page 2 December 12, 1994 Co Fo Go Roanoke City Schools were asked to submit printing cost information along with other potential private providers to identify the lowest possible cost of providing this service. o Outsourcinq (privatizin.cl) the City's printing operations to a private contractor(s) - There are numerous commercial printing companies located in and around the Roanoke Valley that have the interest and capability of providing printing services for the City of Roanoke. Consequently, this alternative was deemed feasible for further study. Purchasinq more "production oriented" equipment - High-speed equipment that is capable of providing the quality and quantity of service needed is available from various vendors. However, the cost is prohibitive and would dramatically increase the cost of providing printing services. Consequently, this alternative was not deemed feasible. Printing specifications were developed and formal bid requests were sent to twenty (20) commercial printing firms listed in the Roanoke area with ten (10) firms responding. A public advertisement was also published in the Roanoke Times & World-News and the Roanoke Tribune. A separate request for cost information was also sent to the Roanoke City Schools. Bids for certain printin.q and related equipment owned by the City of Roanoke and used to provide in-house printing services were also requested from outside vendors. Three firms responded. Formal bids were received, after due and proper advertisement, until 2:00 p.m., on October 10, 1994, at which time, all bids so received were publicly opened and read in the Office of the Manager of General Services. Cost information from Roanoke City Schools was also received on this date. All bids were evaluated in a consistent manner by representatives of the Office of Management & Budget and the Department of General Services. The bid tabulation is attached (see Attachment A). The lowest responsible bid, meetin.q specification,-, was submitted by Print Masters, Inc. Based on the costs per impression bid for various types of printing, the annual cost of the contract is estimated to be $29,765. All other bids were not the lowest bidder and/or did not meet required specifications. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET Page 3 December 12, 1994 III. Issues in order of importance are: A..Cost. B. Quality/Timeliness of servicP,. C..Compliance with Specifications. D. Qualifications of the Bidder Selected, E. Impact on Employees. IV. Alternatives in order of feasibility are: Council accept the lowest responsible bid meetin.q specifications from Print Masters, Inc., thereby authorizing the City Manager to enter into a one-year agreement for the provision of commercial printing services at the various costs per impression bid. Council also accept the highest offer from Printers Services & Supplies in the amount or $6,500 for certain printing and related equipment owned by the City of Roanoke and used to provide in-house printing services. Cost projected to provide in-house printing services for FY 1994-95 is $74,837. Accepting the lowest responsible bid at an estimated annual cost of $29,765 will result in an annual _savinqs of approximately $24,343, or 32.5%. Management Services will still be responsible for desktop publishing services and specialized contract printing at an estimated annual cost of $20,729. Quality/timeliness of services to be provided were important issues included in the formal specifications. The lowest responsible bidder is more than capable of meeting the City's quality printing needs in a timely manner. 3..Compliance with specifications would be met by Print Masters, Inc. 4. Qualifications of the Bidder Selected - This company is a full-service printing company and is qualified to provide printing services for the City of Roanoke. 5. Impact on Employees - The existing print shop employee will be transferred to a vacant City position with no reduction in pay or benefits. B. Council reject all bids for services and equipment and not authorize the City of Roanoke to enter into a one-year agreement for the provision of commercial printing services. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT & BUDGET Page 4 December 12, 1994 1..Cost, as stated previously, to provide in-house printing services for FY 1994-95 is $74,837. Services would continue to be provided at the current level; however, no cost savings would be realized. 2. Quality/timeliness of services would continue to be provided through in-house personnel and equipment. 3..Compliance with specifications would not be an issue in this alternative. 4. Qualifications of the bidder selected would not be an issue in this alternative. 5. Impact on employees would not be an issue in this alternative. Recommendation: Council concur with Alternative "A", and accept the lowest responsible bid meeting specifications from Print Masters, Inc., and authorize the City Manager to enter into a one- year agreement for the provision of commercial printing services at the various costs per impression bid. Co Council also accept the hi.qhest offer from Printers Services & Supplie,,; in the amount of $6,500 for certain printing and related equipment owned by the City of Roanoke and currently used to provide in-house printing services. .Appropr ate $6,500 to the Management Services Fund, account number 015-002-1617- 2160 and increase the Management Services revenue estimate for Outside 3rd Parties account number 015-020-1234-1104 in the amount of $6,500. D..Reject all other bids. WRH:BLK:MDS CC: City Attorney Director of Finance Manager, Management & Budget City Clerk Manager, General Services Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager MANAGEMENT SERVICES - PRINTING BID WORKSHEET Attachment A < 1,000 1,035,000 $41,400 1,000 or more 1,035,000 16.5~0.000 Tota~ - sec.o. ~ $28,840 $33,~0 S.~,441 $~,oso S,~,782 $4s,s40 ~S~,TSO ~ST,S~o ~ .o45 < ~,00( : ::::: :i¥:'::: 20,000 Impressions (front only) .i: :i!::::: i i :: :' < ~,000 15,0co S675 1,000 or more 5,000 110.000 Total - Section 2 i:$2~16 $314 $500 $478 $251 $600 $480 $960 $785 ! ......, ::::::::: :: :::: ::.: ..i::.ii.:: ::: Section 3:8 1/2 X 14. White 20 lb. : i:: 0,0~1'1 .0174 0.020 .02281 .01; .03 .02( .054 .019 1M or More 20,000 Im presslons (front only) ?ii: i < 1,000 15,000 95.000 Total- Section 3 $348 $400 $456 $340 $600 $520 $1,020 $920 Section 4:8 1/2 x 14. Colored 20 lb. .02~ 0.040 .03072~ .01855 .0~ .027 .0TS .023 1M or MoT{ ........ .06 < 1,00( < 1,000 9,000 i $3o7 1,000 or more 1,000 : ::::::::;: 60.000 Total- Section 4 $240 $400 $307 $186 $300 $270 $790 $267 * Woody Graphics has a $35 minimum charge for 1,000 copies or less, I.e., requests for 200, 300 e~c., up to 1,000 would cost $35 each regardless of number d copies. Page I MANAGEMENT SERVICES - PRINTING BID WORKSHEET Attachment A Section S. 8 1/2 x 11. White 90 lb. Index .04C 0.040 0.045 .02835~ .05 0.033 .09 0.0~ ......... ~0,0o0 imp,....k~,~ (f,'ont on~y) To,-,,- S~,o. S $50O ~ Sm $.--7 $,,ooo $66. $1,~ $72o Section 6:8 1/2 x 11. Colored 90 lb. Index i? : i ::0;025 .048 0.040' 0.052 .0297E .06 .035 .0~ .03~ 15,000 impressions (front only) To,al - Section 6 $'~ $600 $7.-- $447 $900 $525 $1,350 $540 S~-cZ;on 7: Label., (Crack 'n Peel. Piri~anenft ~;!42 .10~ 0.700 .1885 .2058 .3( .175 .18 0.240 To,al - Section 7 ~5 $324 $600 $566 $517 $900 $52.5 $540 $720 Section 8:8 1/2 x II Carbonleee Pa~er : 2-Pm't 3,000 Sets $~25i~00...... 216.000 $600.000 $405.610 $172.770 $192.000 $183.000 $330.000 $195.S99 3-Part 8,000 Sets 494~400 900.000 2,400.000 1,418.610 767.200 768.000 566.000 1,440.000 712 4-Pm't 1,000 sets :~i~ 1.".000 3,000.000 315.620 138.620 1.--.000 140.000 248.000 156 5. Pm't 2,000 Sels : : 456.000 Not In-Hous~ ."8.7{;KI 351.36{I 3,56.000 045.000 700.000 365 To,al - Section 8 ~: $1,740 $6,000 $2,709 $1,430 $1,466 $1,4734 $2,718 $1,429 Section 9:8 1/2x5 1/2 Carbonlee, PaDer i; ::i~021 .0564 0.400 .0211 0.016 .01,~ .10' .03 To,el- Section 9 $1,128 $800 $652, $989 $900 $790 $1,800 $535 Page 2 MANAGEMENT SERVICES - PRINTING BID WORKSHEET Attachment A : ;' :'.:" ": :.::~'~~"~: .': ' :.':.;.~; :::~::' ~: :. ;:i'i;;;:::~'°~:::.;.' ..::; ::::::::::::::::::::::::: : i~n~:::. ';:;?:i:;i~~: ~lon 10:81AX il. Whfle'~Hole Pu 'nch " : :: '::::: ::' :"~: ~'~ .0i~: ' 0'~0 ' 0~'~i ~,~ im~m ~ont one) :" ~:'': ~::::.: T~al - ~ion 10 . $~ ~ $1 ,~ $795 ~lon 11:11 x 17. Blue ~ lb, ::?" :: .:' ~ 0~013 .~ 0.~ .~E .018~ .~ .~ .07~ ~,~ ~ont ~d ~ ' :' ::::'::: TMal - ~lon 11 :$516 $672 $1,~ $~1 : ~lon lZ: 8 lA x II. Gil~. Blue & Grin Ink ~ad: ~,~ ImprisOns ; 9~8.~: 2,1~.~ N~ ~-Ho~e 1,1~.0~ 1,~5.~ $~ $7,~ 1,691.7~ ~,~5 ~: ~,~ ~i~s :t~9~.~ ~9.~ ~ ~-Ho~ 1.5~.9~ 2.749.~ 1.701 5.~ 2.~.1~ 3.~ TMal - ~ion 12 ~2,87~ ~,~9 NM ~-Hou~ $2,631 $3,975 $2,~1 $12,~ ~,3~ ~,0~ suMM,~on= ~.~2 r .. :: *~4,7a~ . rS=~89S '....q~;0a0 ~47,6~ : . ':~S" ~;~ '::~74 .':.:: :': :*~e;2~'~ *?O~: :::~:":~:::::':;~:: Page 3 MANAGEMENT SERVICES - PRINTING BID WORKSHEET Attachment A (~ ~) ~ ~ 3 6 6 9 6 Page 4 MANAGEMENT SERVICES - PRINTING BID WORKSHEET Attachment A P~ M?..E PRiNT'REQUEST ORDER~ 2,000 sets Stores Requisitions, 3-Prat, 8 1/2x 5 1/2 :.~: ~ ,: ~::.::::: 115.000 No~ 216.600 102.240 Supplied $117 180.00( $119 Cost per Set 0;03811 0.0575 Supplied 0.1083 0.0511 Nter Deadline 0.0585 0.0900 0.0593 1,000 Sets Invoices, 4-Part Carbonless, 8 1/2 x 77~t 370 102.000 167.600 89.640 99.000 136.200 108.000 co,tpe, set o.1= o.1676 0.0666 o.o~o o.1302 o.1= 5,000 Sheets Telephone Pads, 4 1/4 x 5 1/2 ~i~0 48.870 66.250 33.140 47.000 46.250 25.000 co~t per sheet 0.00~ 0.0133 0.00~ 0.0004 0.0003 0.0050 3,0o0 ,LAS, 6 ~/2 x 7 36.000 72.500 35.66O 47.000 95.500 31.500 co,t pe, S~eet 0.0117 0.0242 0.0120 0.0157 0.0266 0.0105 ~ F~pe, of Co,lemons. 3-P~ 70.000 10a.300 102.240 ~r.060 50.000 06.000 C~t per Set 0.1400 0.2106 0.2045 0.12~0 0.1~00 0.1320 300 Request for Funds Transfer 35.000 22.500 18.300 7.200 14.400 12.560 Cost per Sheet 0.1167 0.0750 0.0610 0.0240 0.0480 0.0419 200 Capital Asset Form (FAP 900), Front & Back 35.000 22.000 17.320 8.800 10.0001 18.750 c~t per Sheet o. 1750 o. 1100 o.os~ 0.044o 0.050o 0.0~30 !i:: ::'::::::' 1,000 Travel Authorization 2 l-A, Front & Back 19~ 35.000 70.190 31.760 48.000 66.000 44.000 Cost per Sheet : :0,0'100 0.0175 0.0351 0.0159 0.0240 0.0480 0.0220 : = Motor w~,cle ^cc=ont R~pe. Form, Front & ack 36.~ 52.500 25.~40 ~4.750 49.500 2~.200 Cost per sheet ~5 0.0706 0.1050 0.0505 0.0495 0.0990 0.0584 250 sets Personnel Req., 2-Part, Front & Back 35.000 57.600' 51.460 88.000 55.000 95.000 C~t per Set 01~S 0.1400 0.23O4 0.2058 0.3520 0.220O 0.380O Total- Sample Pdnt Requeat Order~ : ::~.?~ $545.87 $806.04 $507.30 $~-~-.75 $7r,-~ ,,~ $S48.$1 Page5 MANAGEMENT SERVICES - PRINTING BID WORKSHEET Attachment A : : ::: ~ ~i ~i? : ~ ::::::::::::~:::: ......................... ~:~:~:~ ~ ~. B. Dick ITEK Camera $2,575.00 Manu~J Etch System 1,000.00 :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: A. B. Dick 15-Statio~ Co#a~o~ 0.00 Large Floor Model Cuffing Machine 0.00 TOTAL- laIDS ON EQUIPMENT Page 6 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32299-121994. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1994-95 Capital and Hotel Roanoke Conference Center 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 1994-95 Capital and Hotel Roanoke Conference Center Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Capital Fund Appropriations General Government $ 30,688,038 Conference Center (1) .............................. 175,000 Fund Balance Reserved Fund Balance - Unappropriated (2) ....................... 1,496,154 Hotel Roanoke Conference ~e~tor Fund ADDrODriatioDs CQnference Center (3) ................................ 14,288,700 1) Appropriated from General Revenue 2) Reserved Fund Balance - Unappropriated 3) Appropriated from General Revenue (008-002-9652-9003) (008-3325) (010-002-9657-9003) $ 175,000 (175,000) 175,000 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. December 19, 1994 94-48 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Capital Funding for The Conference Center of Roanoke I. BACKGROUND $12.8 million in General Obligation Bonds were issued in order to construct and equip an approximate 90,000 square foot conference center which is attached to the Hotel Roanoke. Bo Construction is well underway and is expected to be completed and the Conference Center open on April 3, 1995. Co Anticipated project expenditures yet to be funded from the capital project's contingency account include: 1. Ergonomic furniture for the ballroom. 2. Additional irrigation and landscaping. 3. Banquet wares and equipment. Do Major marketing advantages are seen for the Conference Center, the Roanoke business community and Virginia Tech if a higher level of communications, data, audio and voice technology could be installed and available at the Conference Center for use by potential customers of the facility. However, funding is not available for such project expenditures in the capital project;'s contingency account. Additional cabling, communications links, infrastructure and equipment have been identified to achieve this marketing edge and are estimated to cost an additional $175,000 over what has already been budgeted. They include: Internal cable television system to send audiovisual signals to every room within the Conference Center. Members of Council December 9, 1994 Page 2 HI. Ethernet and internet systems and access. Digital compressed Codec equipment for video conferencing via telephone. ISSUES ALTERNATIVES Ao Appropriate $175,000 of undesignated capital funds to a new Capital Project fund account and to Hotel Roanoke Conference Center Commission Fund, Account Number 010-002-9657-9003, to fund the additional cabling, communications link, infrastructure and equipment identified. 1. ~ is available from undesignated capital funds. M&r, kt~,~ would be achieved in that additional technology would be available in the building giving it a great distinction from other competitors for conference center customers. Timing is important in that decisions need to be made now if this technology is going to be made available in the building by April 3, 1995. Bo Do not appropriate $175,000 of undesignated capital funds to a new Capital Project fund account and to Hotel Roanoke Conference Center Commission Fund, Account Number 010-002-9657-9003, to fund the additional cabling, communications link, infrastructure and equipment identified. 1. F_ua_d_iag is not an issue. 2. MsqxKe, Iiag_e~ opportunity would be lost. 3. Iimillg is not an issue. Members of Council December 19, 1994 Page 3 IV. RECOMMENDATION Appropriate $175,000 of undesignated capital funds to a new Capital Project fund account and to Hotel Roanoke Conference Center Commission Fund, Account Number 010-002-9657-9003, to fund the additional cabling, communications link, infrastructure and equipment identified. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/BJW:kdc cc: James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attomey Barry L. Key, Manager, office of Management and Budget James G. Harvey, II, Chairman, HRCCC Brian J. Wishneff, Acting Director, HRCCC 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #178-207 Neva J. Smith Executive Director City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Ms. Smith: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32301-121994 authorizing an agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, providing for the Housing Authority to construct and expand a parking lot at the Vitramon site at the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology, upon such terms and conditions as are deemed appropriate by the City Manager and in accordance with recommendations contained in a report of the City Manager under date of December 19, 1994. Resolution No. 32301-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Enc. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The ~gth day of December, ~994. No. 3230~-~2~996. A RESOLUTION authorizing an agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, ("RRHA") providing for RRHA to construct and expand a parking lot at the Vitramon site at Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and attest, respectively, an agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority ("RRHA") providing for RRHA to construct and expand a park/ng lot at the Vitramon site at the Roanoke Centre for IndusUy and Technology, upon such terms and conditions as are deemed appropriate by the City Manager and in accordance with the recommendations comained in the City manager's report to this Council dated December 19, 1994; said agreement shall be in such form as is approved by the City Attorney. ATTEST: City Clerk. 1994-95 Capital emergency. WHEREAS, IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32300-121994. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the Fund Appropriations, and providing for an 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 1994-95 Capital Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: General Government $ 30,763,038 RCIT - Site Improvements (1) ....................... 150,000 Fund Balance Reserved Fund Balance - Unappropriated (2) ........... 1,346,154 1) Appropriated from General Funds (008-052-9693-9003) 2) Reserved Fund Balance - ' Unappropriated (008-3325) $ 150,000 (150,000) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. December 19, 1994 94-50 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: Subject: City/Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) agreement for Site Improvements at the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology (RCIT) I. Background Vitramon, Incorporated, a manufacturer of ceramic micro-chip capacitors, has agreed to expand its Roanoke plant, conditioned upon the construction of an expanded parking lot and related site improvements to be done by the RRHA. B. Economic benefits to Roanoke as a result of this plant expansion are as follows: 80 new "high tech" jobs $13 million capital investment Approximately $200,000.00 per year in direct local taxes II. Current Situation Statutory authorization to make site improvements at industrial site has been granted to the RRHA. An agreement will be entered into between the RRHA and Vitramon, Incorporated, to construct an expanded parking lot in connection with the plant expansion. Funding from the City in the amount of $150,000.00 is needed by RRHA to fund this construction project. Do RCIT Capital Funds are requested for donation to the RRHA, pursuant to an agreement approved by the City Attorney, in the amount of $150,000.00. Funds are available from undesignated capital funds. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council December 19, 1994 Page 2 III. Issues IV. A. Timing. B. Funding. C. Economic Development. Alternatives: Council take the following actions: h. · Appropriate $150,000.00 from undesignated capital funds to a new Capital Projects Fund account to be established by the Director of Finance. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement, approved by the City Attorney, between the City and the RRHA providing for the RRHA to construct an expanded parking lot at the Vitramon site at the RCIT. Timing is crucial due to construction schedule necessary for Vitramon to be operational by April 1~ 1995. 2. Funding is available from undesignated capital funds. Economic Development in the City would be greatly enhanced. All the economic benefits in terms of jobs and new tax revenue described above would be forthcoming to the City. Be Do not direct the Director of Finance to establish a new account to provide funding to the RRHA and do not direct the City Manager to execute an agreement with the RRHA. 1. Timing would not allow Vitramon to complete the plant expansion. 2. Funding would be moot. 3. Economic Development benefits would not be realized. Recommendation: City Council concur in Alternative A and take the following actions: Appropriate $150,000.00 from undesignated capital funds to a new Capital Projects Fund account to be established by the Director of Finance. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council December 19, 1994 Page 3 Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement, approved by the City Attorney, between the City and the RRHA providing for the RRHA to construct an expanded parking lot at the Vitramon site at the RCIT. WRH:EDC:js Attachment City Attorney Director of Finance Manager, Management and Budget Director of Public Works Director of Utilities and Operations City Engineer Director, RRHA Respectfully submitted, 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #178-236 Neva J. Smith Executive Director City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Ms. Smith: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32303-121994 authorizing the appropriate City officials to enter into Amendment No. 2 to the HOME Investment Partnership Program Subrecipient Agreement with Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, upon certain terms and conditions, in the amount of $557,346.00. Resolution No. 32303- 121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, MFP: sm ary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk gnc. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32303-121994. A RESOLUTION authorizing the appropriate City officials to enter into Amendment No. 2 to the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program Subrecipient Agreement with Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA), upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the City, upon form approved by the City Attorney, Amendment No. 2 to the City's HOME Program Subrecipient Agreement with Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. 2. Such amendment shall provide for services set forth in the City Manger's report to this Council dated December 19, 1994 and the amendment shall be in the amount of $557,346.00. ATTEST: City Clerk, IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32302-121994. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1994-95 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 1994-95 Grant Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: ADoroDriations Community Development HOME Investment Partnership 92-93 (1-2) .......... $ 1,859,000 756,000 1) Rental Rehabilitation 2) Rental Rehabilitation Staff Support (035-052-5300-5236) ( 035-052-5300-5271 ) $ ( 9,479) 9,479 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia December 19, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: Subject: Amendment No. 2 to the HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program Subrecipient Agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) Backqround: ao The RRHA administers a variety of HOME funded programs. City Council approved a contract for services with the RRHA for the administration of these activities in the 1993 fiscal year by Resolution No. 31688-091393. C o City Council approved Amendment No. 1 to the 1993-1994 Contract for Services under the HOME Program with the RRHA for the continued administration of the HOME Program by Resolution No. 31923-032194. Do The duration of the current HOME Aqreement is until June 30, 2009 or the expiration of the terms of any federally- insured mortgage on subject properties. E o The regulations have been updated by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) since the execu- tion of the 1993-94 HOME Agreement. II. Current Situation: ao Additional funding has been appropriated by Council in Roanoke's HOME program allocations from HUD to continue existing programs in the current Agreement. Bo Changes in the Aqreement are needed revised HOME regulations. to reflect the Co New programs have been developed that need to be implemented. Do Rental Rehabilitation Account needs to be divided into two accounts: one for project costs and one for staff support. $9,479 needs to be transferred to a new Rental Rehabilitation staff support account. E o Amendment No. 2 to the 1993-94 HOME Agreement is neces- sary to increase the RRHA budget for administration and project costs by $557,346. Members of City Council RRHA/HOME Amendment No. 2 Page 2 Increase the dollar amount for the following programs: (Appendix A) a. Owner-occupied Rehab Program - by $150,000 b. Rental Rehab Program - by $14,946 C o Down Payment and Closing Costs Program - by $73,500 ii. Add the following new programs to the RRHA Agree- ment: (Appendix A) a. Supplemental Rehab Program - at $100,000 b. Purchase Rehab Program - at $98,600 c. Relocation Assistance Program - at $40,000 iii. Increase the RRHA administrative and support costs by $80,300. (Appendix A) III. Issues: A. Cost to the City B. Funding C. Compliance with applicable regulations D. Timing IV. Alternatives: ao Authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No.2 to the HOME Agreement with the RRHA, which will increase the Agreement amount with the RRHA by $557,346 and transfer $9,479 from the Rental Rehabilitation project account #035-052-5300-5236 to Rental Rehabilitation staff support, an account to be established by the Director of Finance. Cost to the City will not effect General Funds, however, an additional $557,346 in HOME funds will be committed. 2. Funding is available for administration and projects in both the FY 1993-1994 and 1994-1995 HOME accounts. Members of City Council RRHA/HOME Amendment No. 2 Page 3 o Compliance with applicable regulations is assured through contract review and project monitoring by the City's Office of Grants Compliance. o Timing is important since the RRHA is currently administering HOME funded programs and funds are necessary to continue the RRHA's administration of these programs. Bo Do not authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 2 to the HOME Agreement with the RRnA which will increase the Agreement amount by $557,346 and transfer $9,479 form the Rental Rehabilitation project account #035-052-5300-5236 to Rental Rehabilitation staff support, an account to be established by the Director of Finance. 1. Cost to the City is not an issue. o Funding for additional HOME program activities will not be utilized. o Compliance with applicable regulation~ will continue to be assured through contract review and project monitoring by the City's Office of Grants Compliance. 4. Timing will not be an issue. V. Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to execute an Amendment No.2 to the HOME Agreement with the RRHA which will increase the Agreement amount with the RRHA by $557,346 and transfer $9,479 from the Rental Rehabilitation project account #035-052-5300-5236 to Rental Rehabilitation staff support, an account to be estab- lished by the Director of Finance. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Members of City Council RRHA/HOME Amendment No. 2 Page 4 WRH/CAH/vst Attachments cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Assistant City Manager Director of Public Works Building Commissioner Office of Grants Compliance Housing Development Coordinator Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment & Housing Authority Appendix A 1. Owner-Occupied Rehab Program This program consists of loans and/or grants for the rehabilitation of substandard homes owned and occupied by low-moderate income households. Administration of the program by the Subgrantee shall include marketing and outreach, receiving and processing applications, packaging applications to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) for loans from the "Urban Rehabilitation Program", overseeing rehabilitation, and holding any deeds of trust for the Grantee's HOME funds. Loan funds made available to the Grantee by the DHCD from its Urban Rehabilitation Program will be used to supplement this program. HOME funds may also be used to supplement loans privately financed loans obtained by low-moderate income homeowners. Increase this program by $150,000 to a new total of $350,000. 2. Rental Rehab Program This program consists of rehabilitation subsidies loaned by the Subgrantee to owners of small rental properties, from HOME funds allocated to the Program by the Grantee, and supplemented by an equal amount of loan funds allocated to the Grantee by DHCD for loans from the Urban Rehabilitation Program. The Subgrantee shall oversee rehabilitation, hold any deeds of trust for the Grantee's HOME funds, and monitor the projects after rehabilitation in accordance with the requirements of federal HOME regulations. Increase HOME funds in this program by $14,946 to a new total of $444,921. 3. Down Payment and Closing Costs Program This program shall consist of grants to low and moderate income buyers of their first homes, to pay for up to one- half of the required down payment, all closing costs, and all pre-paid expenses, including buy-downs of interest rates. Administration of the program by the Subgrantee shall include marketing and outreach, receiving and processing applications, and holding any deeds of trust for the Grantee's HOME funds. Increase this program by $73,500 to a new total of $223,500. 4. Supplemental Rehab Loan Subsidies Upon request of the Subgrantee and approval of the Grantee, the Grantee administratively may allocate supplemental HOME funds to the Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Program and/or the Purchase/Rehabilitation for Homebuyers Program. The amount of HOME funds available to supplement those programs may not exceed $100,000. Page 1 Appendix A 5. Purchase/Rehab Program This new program shall consist of loans and/or grants for the purchase, rehabilitation, and occupancy of vacant substandard houses by low-moderate income households. Administration of the program by the Subgrantee shall include marketing and outreach, receiving and processing applications, packaging applications to DHCD for loans from its "Urban Rehabilitation Program, overseeing rehabilitation, and holding any deeds of trust for the Grantee's HOME funds. This program is supplemented by loan funds made to the Grantee by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development under DHCD's Urban Rehabilitation Program. The program shall be funded by a $98,600 allocation of HOME funds provided by the Grantee, supplemented by an allocation of loan funds made to the Grantee by the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development under DHCD's Urban Rehabilitation Program. 6. Relocation Assistance The Subgrantee shall assume responsibility for the administration of relocation assistance and guidance to be provided to residents displaced by HOME-funded projects and activities undertaken or financially supported by the Grantee, in accordance with HUD regulations and guidelines. Included principally in this category is relocation of residents displaced by certified Community Housing Development Organizations (CHDOs) as the result of projects funded by the Grantee with HOME funds. The amount of relocation assistance available to the Subgrantee for the purpose of this section is $40,000. 7. Administration and Staff Support Costs This amendment increases the HOME funds available for general administration costs and staff support costs for the programs listed above by $80,300 for a total of $146,421 in HOME funds. Page 2 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINI& The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32304-121994. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1994-95 General 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 1994-95 General Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: &DDroDri&t~onm General Government Personnel Management (1-3) ........................ Nondepartmental Contingency - General Fund (4) .................... $ 9,616,160 733,547 48,304,128 250,007 1) Drug Testing 2) Expendable Equipment 3) Other Equipment 4) Contingency (001-002-1261-2111) (001-002-1261-2035) (001-002-1261-9015) (001-002-9410-2199) $ 27,585 1,613 3,949 (33,147) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia December 19, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: SIIBSECT: Drug and Alcohol Testing of CDL Drivers Back~round on the subject in chronological order is: The City of Roanoke currently employs approximately two hundred fifty (250) drivers who must possess a Commercial Driver's License (CDL) to perform their job duties. Any vehicle which has a gross vehicular weight exceeding 26,000 pounds or carries hazardous materials or can carry sixteen (16) or more passengers must be operated by an employee who holds a CDL. The Omnibus Transportation Employee Testin~ Act of 1991 (the Act), 49 CFR (Code of Federal Regulation) Part 40 requires drug testing of CDL drivers. However, prior to January 1, 1995, all government CDL drivers other than those transporting hazardous materials have been exempt from the Act. Ce 1994 amendments to the Act which go into effect on January 1, 1995, remove the exemption of City CDL drivers from drug testing. The amendments also require alcohol testing of CDL drivers, as well as biennial physical examinations. No funding is provided by the federal government to local governments for compliance activities, therefore, it is an additional unfundin~ mandate. De Ail City holders of CDLs will be required to pass pre-employment physical examinations and biennial physical examinations. They will be subject to the following types of alcohol and drug testing: 2. 3. 4. 5. Pre-employment Random Post-accident Reasonable suspicion Return-to-duty and follow-up Extensive record keepin~ and reportin8 procedure~ are also required by the Act. II. Current situation is: A. In order to be in compliance with the Act, the City must: Personnel lqanagement Proposal Page 2 III. IV. Perform the required alcohol and drug testing. Perform the required physical examinations. Purchase alcohol testing equipment. Implement a two hour training program for all supervisors of CDL drivers as required by the Act. Train the Occupational Health Nurse and Risk Management personnel as Breath Alcohol Technicians. Implement an information and training program for all CDL drivers to familiarize them with the Act's effect upon them. Issues in order of importance are as follows: A. Legal B. Timing C. Funding Possible Alternatives in order of feasibility are as follows: A. City Council approve implementation of the Act and the necessary activities required by the City to comply. 1. Legal compliance with the Act will be achieved. 2. Timing requirements would be met. Funding of $33,147 to assure compliance with the Act is available in the Contingency Reserve Account 001-002-9410-2199. City Council not approve implementation of the Act and the necessary activities required by the City to comply. 1. Legal compliance with the Act will not be achieved. 2. Timing will not be an issue. Funding designated for the implementation of this required project would not be expended. Personnel Hanagement Proposal Page 3 V. Recommendation A. City Council concur with alternative A as follows: Implementation of Omnibus Transportation Employee Testing Act of 1991 and the related activities required by the City to comply. Transfer $33~147.00 from Contingency Reserve Account 001-002-9410-2199 to the following Personnel Management Accounts: 001-002-1261-2111 001-002-1261-2035 001-002-1261-9015 $27,585 $ 1,613 $ 3,949 Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager CC: City Attorney Director of Finance City Clerk Management and Budget Director of Utilities & Operations Director of Public Works Director of Public Safety Director of Human Resources Manager of Personnel Management Manager of City Information Systems Manager of General Services A~TA~ #1 DEC]~BER 19, 1994 COST TO IMPLENENT ALCOHOL AND DRUG TESTING ON JANUARY 1, 1995 Physical Examinations: Physical Examinations include drug and alcohol testing Biennial Physical Examm - 200 employees x $70.00 Pre-employment exams - 50 applicants x $73.00 estimated to 6/30/95 $14,000.00 $ 3,650.00 TOTAL $17,650.00 Random Screenings: Random Alcohol Screen Random Drug Screen $ 1,815.00 $ 4,000.00 TOTAL $ 5,815.00 Post-Accident/Reasonable Cause Testing: (Provided by External Vendor) Projected 25 Employees per year TOTAL $ 2,320.00 Equipment Required: Alco-Sensor IV (1) Calibration Equipment IBM 360 Think Pad Laptop Computer Okidata Printer Model 590 Windows 3.1 to run DOT software Secured Fax Machines (2) @ $399.00 $ 2,150.00 $ 349.00 $ 1,799.00 $ 387.00 $ 79.00 $ 798.00 TOTAL $ 5,562.00 Training: Supervisory Required DOT Training Staff Training for Breath Alcohol Technician (BAT) $ 400.00 $ 1,400.00 TOTAL $ 1,800.00 TOTAL PROJECTED COST: $33,147.00 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #27-57-102-217-405-514 Mr. Luther W. Nicar, Jr. 2020 McVitty Road, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 CTG & B, Inc. 1115 Jeanette Avenue P. O. Box 754 Vinton, Virginia 24179 Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32305-121994 authorizing the City to enter into certain contracts with Luther W. Nicar and CTG & B, Inc., to provide real estate acquisition management services in connection with the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project, the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, the Second Street/Gainsboro Road Street Improvement Project, the Carvins Cove Improvement Project, the Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer Replacement Project, the Tinker Creek Interceptor Replacement Project, the Bridge Maintenance Projects and other miscellaneous projects on an as needed basis in the sole and exclusive discretion of the City on an hourly basis subject to a maximum of $39,500.00 for Mr. Nicar and $79,040.00 for CTG & B, Inc., and upon such other terms and conditions as are deemed to be in the best interest of the City, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of December 19, 1994. Resolution No. 32305-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, MFP: sm Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Eric. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32305-121994. A RESOLUTION authorizing the City to enter into certain contracts for real acquisition management services upon certain terms and conditions. estate BE rr RESOLVED by the Council ofthe City of Roanoke that the City Manager or Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, in form approved by the City Attorney, appropriate contracts with Luther W. Nicar and CTG & B, Inc. to provide real estate acquisition management services in connection with the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project, the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, the Second Street/Gainsboro Road Street Improvement Project, the Carvins Cove Improvement Project, the Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer Replacement Project, the Tinker Creek Interceptor Replacement Project, the Bridge Maintenance Projects and other miscellaneous projects on an as needed basis in the sole and exclusive discretion of the City on an hourly basis subject to a maximum of $39,500.00 for Mr. Nicar and $79,040.00 for CTG & B, Inc., and upon such other terms and conditions as are deemed to be in the best interest of the City, as more particularly set forth in the report to this Council dated December 19, 1994. ATTEST: City Clerk. December 19, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia RE: REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION - PROFESSIONAL SERVICES Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council: The City is undertaking several major capital improvement projects that, in varying degrees, will involve the acquisition of real property rights. These property rights may be in the form of easements or fee acquisition. Specifically, we anticipate significant right of way needs for the replacement of the interceptor sewers along Tinker Creek and the Roanoke River. Other projects include the bridge maintenance program funded by the recent bond referendum as well as the sanitary sewer infiltration/inflow program, the street, sidewalk and curbs program, and neighborhood storm drains. The success of all of these programs is dependent upon the timely acquisition of necessary property rights. The attached report recommends supplementing existing staff resources with contract real estate acquisition services. These services will be provided to the City on a demand basis and compensation will be on an hourly basis. The current hourly rate for all consultants working under the proposed agreement is $19.00 per hour. If these services were to be provided by our architect and engineering consultants, we could expect to pay 2 to 3 times the proposed hourly rate. In terms of total cost exposure, the recommended $118,560could potentially reach $250,000 or more. · The consultants' activity and progress are closely monitored by the Engineering department on a weekly basis. The consultants' work schedule is carefully monitored for performance and value received. The two proposed consultants have been interviewed by City staff and are well qualified for the work. Mr. Nicar is a retired employee of the Virginia Department of Transportation with more than thirty years of experience. CTG & B, Inc. (Consultants to Government & Business) is a firm formed by Mr. George Nester and Mr. Richard Burrow. Both of these individuals bring a wealth of local government experience as well as direct experience with land acquisition. I hope you will find this information helpful in considering the attached report. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, W; Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/PCS/kh December 19, 1994 Report No. 94-194 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members. of City Council: Subject: CONTRACT EMPLOYEES REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION Background on the subject in chronological order is as follows: City Council previously authorized the hiring of contract personnel to provide land acquisition services for the City. This initial authorization was by Ordinance No. 26965, dated April 9, 1988. Bo Two (2) contract employees were hired on December satisfy the need on several capital improvement projects. projects are listed below: 10, 1990, to These capital 2. 3. 4. Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project 2nd Street/Gai.nsboro Road Improvement Project Carvins Cove Water Improvement Project C. These contract employees worked under two (2) year contract terms. D. Renewal of these contracts for an additional two year period was approved by Council on October 26, 1992. II. Current situation is as follows: Significant progress has been made on all proiects listed in Item I.B. above except the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project which is stalled pending resolution of environmental issues. Even on the Flood Reduction Project, right of access permits were obtained for surveying and on-site environmental testing. Advertisement for Professional Services was published in the October 30, 1994 edition of the Roanoke Times & World News. Staff received four (4) responses (listed in Attachment A). Interviews have been held and Mr. Luther W. Nicar and CTG & B, Inc. (Consultants to Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CONTRACT EMPLOYEES REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION Page 2 December 19, 1994 Government and Business) are determined as best qualified to provide the specified services to the City. A previous contract employee, Mr. John Bowman, is now a temporary employee of the City due to Internal Revenue Service requirements. Current capital improvement projects require acquisition of real property and easements prior to bidding and construction. Listed below are active projects with the number of remaining parcels noted: 1. Peters Creek Flood Reduction 14 Parcels 2. 2nd Street/Gainsboro Road 10 Parcels 3. Sewer Infiltration/Inflow Projects 40 Parcels 4. Roanoke River .Flood Reduction (currently inactive) 200 Parcels New capital improvement projects have added a siqnificant demand for land acquisition services. Listed below are expected demands for new Capital Projects: 1. Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer Replacement 150-200 Parcels 2. Tinker Creek Interceptor Replacement 20 Parcels 3. Bridge Maintenance Projects 20-50 Parcels 4. Miscellaneous Projects 20 Parcels III. Issues in order of importance are as follows: Project schedules Cost Funding IV. Alternatives in order of feasibility are as follows: City Council authorize the execution of the necessary contracts to acquire the services of two (2) contract land acquisition specialists for a term not to exceed two (2) years. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CONTRACT EMPLOYEES REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION Page 3 December 19, 1994 Bo Project schedules will proceed to permit the timely implementation of needed capital Improvements. Cost for the contract personnel has been established on an hourly basis totaling an amount not to exceed $118,560.00 for a two year contract term. CTG & B, Inc. contract will not exceed $79,040, and the Luther W. Nicar contract will not exceed $39,500. Funding for the contract is available in existing capital projects for the estimated cost. Current and future capital projects will be charged on an hourly basis as services are provided. City Council not authorize the execution of necessary contracts for land acquisition services. 1. Project schedules will be delayed. 2. Cost will not be incurred. 3. Funding will remain available in existing capital accounts. Recommendation is as follows: City Council concur in Alternative "A" authorizing the City Manger to execute a contract, in a form acceptable to the City Attorney, for land acquisition services at a total cost not ~o exceed $118,560.00. The cost of the subject personnel shall be borne by Capital Improvement Projects and shall not impact the General Fund. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/PCS/kh Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CONTRACT EMPLOYEES REAL ESTATE ACQUISITION Page 4 December 19, 1994 CC: City Attorney City Clerk Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Utilities and Operations Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations City Engineer Construction Cost Technician Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets Budget Administrator Attachment "A" Respondents to Professional Services Advertisement John M. Bowman C T G & B, Inc. "Consultants to Government & Business" (George Nester and Richard Burrow, Principals) Stephen J. Jones Luther W. Nicar 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #24-50-60-183-472 Evelyn Jefferson Vice President - Supplements Municipal Code Corporation P. O. Box 2235 Tallahassee, Florida 32304 Dear Ms. Jefferson: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 32306-121994 amending and reordaining subsections (a) and (b) of Section 23.1-4, Requirement of bidding; power to reiect bids; subsection (c) of Section 23.1-4.1, Requirement of competitive negotiation; and subsection (c) of Section 23.1-10, Bid openings; bid acceptance and evaluation, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to provide that the City Manager may accept bids, determine ff only one offeror is fully qualified to provide professional services and award public contracts not in excess of $75,000.00; and to provide that the City Manager shall report to City Council with respect to bids in excess of $75,000.00. Ordinance No. 32306-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Please include Ordinance No. 32306-121994 in Supplement No. 33 to the Roanoke City Code. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm 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 2401 l-1536 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #24-50-60-183-472 Raymond F. Leven Public Defender Suite 4B Southwest Virginia Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dea~, Mr. Leven: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 32306-121994 amending and reordaining subsections (a) and (b) of Section 23.1-4, Requirement of bidding~ power to reject bids; subsection (c) of Section 23.1-4.1, Requirement of competitive negot~n_tion; and subsection (c) of Section 23.1-10, Bid openinl~s; bid acceptance and evaluation, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to provide that the City Manager may accept bids, determine ff only one offeror is fully qualified to provide professional services and award public contracts not in excess of $75,000.00; and to provide that the City Manager shall report to City Council with respect to bids in excess of $ 75,000.00. Ordinance No. 32306-121994 was adop ted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker AE City Clerk MFP: sm Enc. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day o£ December, 1994. No. 32306-121994. AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining subsections (a) and (b) of §23.1-4, ~ of biddinu: nower to reject bids: subsection (c) of §23.1-4.1, p~equirement of cornpetitive ~ and subsection (c) of §23.1-10, Bid openings: bid acceptance and evaluation, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to provide that the City Manager may accept bids, determine if only one offeror is fully qualified to provide professional services and award public contracts not in excess of $75,000.00; to provide that the City Manager shall report to City Council with respect to bids in excess of $75,000.00; and providing for an emergency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: Subsections (a) and Co) of §23.1-4, Requirement of biddin_~: power to reject bids, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: §23.1-4. Requirement of bidding: power to reject bids. (a) Any contract with a nongovernmental contractor for the purchase or lease of goods or for the purchase of services or construction the consideration for which is expected to exceed frffeen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) shall be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, or highest responsible bidder, where applicable, such as where the city is leasing or selling public property or awarding concession rights, after public advertisement and competition. With respect to bids for any purchase, public work or improvement costing more than seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) the city council shall have the power to reject any and aH bids. With respect to bids for any purchase, public work or improvement costing seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) or less, the City Manager shall have the power to reject any and aH bids. (b) Any conm~ct with a nongovernmental contractor for the purchase or lease of goods or for the purchase of services or construction the consideration for which is not expected to exceed fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000.00) may be bid and awarded to the lowest responsible bidder, or highest responsible bidder, where applicable, such as where the city is leasing or selling public property or awarding concession rights, after public advertisement and competition. Small purchase procedures shall provide for competition wherever practicable. 2. Subsection (c) of §23.1-4.1, Requirement of co _rn!~itive negotiation, Code of' the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: §23.1-4.1. Reauirement of comr~etitive negotiation~ (c) If the contract is expected to exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), should the City Council determine in writing and in its sole discretion that only one offeror is fully qualified, or that one offeror is dearly more highly qualified and suitable than the others under consideration, a contract may be negotiated and awarded to that offeror. If the contract is not expected to exceed seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), should the City Manager determine in writing and in his sole discretion that only one offeror is fully qualified, or that one offeror is clearly more highly qualified and suitable than the others under consideration, a contract may be negotiated and awarded to that offeror. 3. Subsection (c) of §23.1-10, Bid openings_; bid accentance and evaluation, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended and reordained as follows: §23.1-10. Bid openin_~s: bid accentance and evaluation. (c) In any case where a bid requires an appropriation to be made by the Council, where a bid is for the award of a concession, or where the low bid for purchase or lease of goods or purchase of services or construction is in excess of seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00), a report shall be made to the Council by the City Manager with an appropriate recommendation. 4. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. D, ecemb~r~ 19, 1.994 RbPbrt N°i 94-202 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council: SUBJECT: CONTRACT/PURCHASING LIMITS Background on the subject in chronological order is as follows: Co Section 42 of the City Charter was amended in 1978 to provide that alterations or modifications of a contract in excess of $5,000 shall be approved by City Council. The City Council has recently requested the General Assembly to amend the City Charter to increase this $5,000 limit to $25,000. The City Code requires competitive sealed bidding for goods, services or construction where the value exceeds $15,000. These limits cannot be changed as they are established by the Virginia Public Procurement Act. Section 23.1-4 of the' City Code requires the City Council to approve all contracts and purchases in excess of $15,000. II. Current situation is as follows: The purchasing and contract limits of other Virginia Cities have been researched by City Staff. The majority of other cities have no limit on contracts or purchases approved by the City Manager provided funding is available in a City Council adopted budget. The survey of other jurisdictions is summarized in Attachment A. A 3:1 ratio exists between current contract value approval limits of $15,000 and change order limits of $5,000. To maintain this same relationship, given the change order limit is raised to the recommended level of $25,000, contract approval limits should be correspondingly increased to $75,000. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CONTRACT/PURCHASING LIMITS. December 19, 1994 Page 2 III. Issues in order of importance are as follows: Administrative cost Schedules Timing IV. Alternatives in order of feasibility are as follows: Request the current City Code be amended to allow contracts for goods and services to be approved by the City Manager in amounts up to $75,000 provided furiding is available in a City Council adopted budget. Administrative cost of contracts will be reduced because less staff time will be required to write, review, and present numerous Council Reports dealing with small contracts. Approval authority cost limits are fixed. Schedules will be improved because delays associated with most minor contracts will be eliminated. Timing of contract approval will permit staff to respond to changed conditions and avoid project delays and payment delays. Request the current City Code be amended to allow contracts for goods and services to be approved by the City Manager to some other value limit as decided by City Council provided funding is available in a City Council adopted budget. Administrative cost of contracts will be reduced because less staff time will be required to write, review, and present numerous Council Reports dealing with contracts. Schedules will be improved because delays associated with almost all contracts will be eliminated. Timing of contract approval will permit staff to respond to changed conditions and avoid project delays and payment delays. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CONTRACT/PURCHASING LIMITS December 19, 1994 Page 3 Do not request the City Code be amended to alter the limits for contracts. Administrative cost of contracts will remain the same. Schedules may be delayed due to lengthy approval process. Timing of contr.acts will continue to delay progress and payments. Recommendation is that City Council concur in Alternative A, and take the following specific action: Amend the City Code to allow approval of contracts for goods and services by the City Manager up to a value of $75,000 provided funding is available in a City Council adopted budget. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/PCS/kh Attachment CC: City Attorney City Clerk Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Utilities and Operations Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations City Engineer Construction Cost Technician Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets Budget Administrator ATTACHMENT A LOCALITY City of Salem City of Lynchburg Town of Blacksburg City of Martinsville City of Charlottesville County of Botetourt County of Roanoke City of Harrisonburg City of Staunton City of Hampton City of Norfolk City of Richmond City of Alexandria County of Hendco County of Chesterfield City of Newport News City of Portsmouth VALUE No Limit No Limit No Limit No Limit No Emit No Limit No Emit No Emit No Umit No Emit No Limit No Emit No Emit Over $100,000 See Comments No Emit No Emit CONTRACT/PURCHASE COMMENTS Funding available in Council adopted budget. Funding available in Council adopted budget. available in Council adopted available in Council adopted available in Council adopted available in Council adopted available in Council adopted available in Council adopted Currently to Council for Construction contracts over $20,000 and professional services over $15,000. All other requirements unless additional funds are needed. They are working on a code change to remove requirement on construction contracts and professional services. Funding available in Council adopted budget. Funding budget. Funding budget. Funding budget. Funding budget. Funding budget. Funding budget. Funding available in Council adopted budget. Funding available in Council adopted budget. Funding available in Council adopted budget. Funding available in Council adopted budget. Board approval is required for any contracts over $250,000. Funding available in Council adopted budget. Funding available in Council adopted budget. 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #27-28-405 Steven A. Campbell, Engineer Mattern and Craig, Inc. Consulting Engineers and Surveyors 701 First Street, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Dear Mr. Campbell: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32308-121994 authorizing execution of Amendment No. 5 to the Cityts contract with Mattern & Craig, Inc., to provide for adctitionai engineering services in connection with the Infiltration/Inflow Reduction Design, in the amount of $26,900.00. Resolution No. 32308-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Enc o IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32308-121994. A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of Amendment No. 5 to the City's comract with Mattem & Craig, Inc., for additional engineering services in connection with the Infiltration/Inflow Reduction Design. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is hereby authorized to execute for and on behalf of the City, upon form approved by the City Attorney, Amendment No. 5 to the City's contract with Mattem & Craig, Inc., Consulting Engineers, dated March 8, 1993, in order to provide for additional engineering services related to the Infiltration/Inflow Reduction Design. 2. Such amendment shall provide for services as set forth in the City Managers report to this Council dated December 19, 1994 and the cost of these additional services in the total amount of $26,900.00. ATTEST: City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 3230~-121994. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1994-95 Sewage 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 1994-95 Sewage Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: AooroDri&tions Capital Outlay Sewershed I/I Project Design Phase (1) ............ $ 19,546,658 416,037 Retained E&rni~qS Retained Earnings - Unrestricted (2) ................ 16,356,252 1) Appropriated from General Fund 2) Retained Earnings - Unrestricted (003-056-8459-9003) (003-3336) $ 30,000 ( 30,000) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. December 19, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council: Subject: AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH MATTERN & CRAIG, INC. FOR INFILTRATION/INFLOW (I/I) REDUCTION DESIGN There is on your agenda for December 19, 1994 a report recommending Amendment No. 5 to the contract with Mattern & Craig, Inc. for infiltration/inflow (I/I) reduction design. The original contract authorized by council on March 8, 1993 provided for preliminary studies of a number of sanitary sewer mains throughout the City for the purpose of identifying those lines which contributed the greatest quantities of storm water flow to the treatment plant due to their deteriorated conditions. Only after the sewers were studies and potential corrective actions prioritized were the consultants to proceed with actual design of improvements; those design costs were the basis of Amendment No. 2. Other than a couple of small changes which could be handled by administrative change orders we have not had to seek further city council approval on this consultant contract until now. Recently we have discovered a deteriorated corrugated metal pipe which is functioning as a part of the city's sanitary sewer system. This pipe material is not normally used for collection of sewage wastes, but somehow was installed a number of years ago. Now the bed of the pipe has deteriorated and a 670 foot section must be replaced. Whenever we present council with an amendment to a consultant contract it is based on negotiations with the consultants as to scope of work and reasonable fees for accomplishing the requirements of the job. The city engineers discuss with the consultants just how much time will be required for additional surveys, engineering calculations, preparation of plans and specifications, and in this case dealing with Norfolk Southern Railroad and the Virginia Marine Resources Commission for permits. Only after we feel that we have negotiated a reasonable fee for the proposed services do we bring the recommended change to council. If any member of council has further questions regarding this recommended amendment I invite you to contact Bill Clark at 981-7741. Respectfully, W. Robort Herbert City Manager WRH/WFC/ebl cc: William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations December 19, 1994 Report No. 94-209 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council: Subject: AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH MATTERN & CRAIG, INC. FOR INFILTRATION/INFLOW (I/I) REDUCTION DESIGN Background on the subject in chronological order is as follows: A. Consultant contract awarded at City Council's regular meeting of March 8, 1993 included various design services identified through the sewershed infiltration/inflow (I/I) reduction studies. The contract anticipated subsequent phases to be based on preliminary design studies. B. Current contract status is as follows: 1. Peters Creek Sewershed, Project PC-1 - Construction is complete. 2. Peters Creek Sewershed, Proiect PC-2 - Construction is complete. 3. Peters Creek Sewershed, Projects PC-3 and PC-4- Are in final design. 4. Lick Run Sewershed, Projects LR-2, LR-3, and LR-5 - Are in final design. Four (4) Contract Amendments have been executed to date. Original Contract Amount Amendment No. 1 Add five (5) additional easement plats, City change in alignment 4O, 8OO. 00 2,300.00 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH MATTERN & CRAIG, INC. FOR INFILTRATION/INFLOW (I/I) REDUCTION DESIGN Page 2 December 19, 1994 Amendment No. 2 Add design (Phase II) and contract administration (Phase III) - Peters Creek PC-3 - Peters Creek PC-4 - Lick Run LR-2 - Lick Run LR-3 - Lick Run LR-5 Amendment No. 3 Add five (5) additional temporary construction easement plats, PC-3 and PC-4 Amendment No. 4 Add six (6) additional temporary construction easement plats, LR-2 and LR-3 Current Contract Amount $197,737.O2 2,000.00 2,400.00 9345,237.02 II. Current Situation is as follows: During field investigation a portion of old 30" corruqated sewer line was found to be have holes in it and is leaking into Peters Creek. This line is not underground but sits on concrete piers above the creek inside a box culvert. Attempts by the City to make repairs have not been successful. B. Approximately 670 lineal feet of sewer line needs to be replaced. Amendment No. 5 to Mattern & Craig, Inc. contract needs to be approved to provide enqineering services for the design, preparation of permit applications to Norfolk Southern and Marine Resources, development of easement plats, and construction administration; project to be named PC-6A. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH MATTERN & CRAIG, INC. FOR INFILTRATION/INFLOW (I/I) REDUCTION DESIGN Page 3 December 19, 1994 III. Issues in order of importance are as follows: A. Need B. Reasonableness of fee C. Funding IV. Alternatives in order of feasibility are as follows: City Council authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 5 in a form suitable to the City Attorney. o Need has been identified. Reasonableness of fee has been established for a lump sum for each element of work through negotiations of the scope of work; $21,800 Phase II Design, $4,300 Phase III Construction Administration, and $800 for easement plats, for a total amendment of $26,900. Funding is available in the current Sewer Fund Retained Earnings account. Do not authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 5. 1. Need would not be met. 2. Reasonableness of fee of $26,900 would not be an issue. 3. Funding would remain in Sewer Fund Retained Earnings account. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO ENGINEERING AGREEMENT WITH MATTERN & CRAIG, INC. FOR INFILTRATION/INFLOW (I/I) REDUCTION DESIGN Page 4 December 19, 1994 Recommendation is as follows: City Council concur in alternative "A" and take the following action: Appropriate the sum of $30,'000 ($21,800 Phase II - Design, $4,300 Phase III - Construction Administration, $800 easement plats for a total amendment of $26,900 and establish a contingency of $3,100) from the Sewer Fund Retained Earnings account to the existing account number 003-056-8459-9003, Sanitary Sewershed Replacement Design. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/JGB/kh City Attorney City Clerk Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Utilities and Operations Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations City Engineer Construction Cost Technician Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets Budget Administrator 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #184-410-472 Robert H. Jones Vice President Bidding and Marketing AKZO Salt, Inc. Abington Executive Park Clark Summit, Pennsylvania 18411 Dear Mr. Jones: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32309-121994 accepting the bid of AKZO Salt, Inc., made to the City for furnishing and delivering 1,000 tons of deicing salt, in the amount of $45,850.00, and rejecting all other bids made to the City. Resolution No. 32309-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk MFP: sm 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 2401 l-1536 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #184-410-472 Robert T. Taylor, President Southern Salt Co., Inc. P. O. Box 2556 Norfolk, Virginia 23501 Dear Mr. Taylor: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32309-121994 accepting the bid of AKZO Salt, Inc., made to the City for furnishing and delivering 1,000 tons of deicing salt, in the amount of $45,850.00, and rejecting all other bids made to the City. Resolution No. 32309-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on deicing salt. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CI~IC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Enc o IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32309-121994. A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of AKZO Salt, Inc., made to the City for furnishing and delivering 1,000 tons of deicing salt, and rejecting all other bids made to the City. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The bid of AKZO Salt, Inc., made to the City, offering to supply 1,000 gallons of deicing salt at $45.85 per ton delivered, meeting all of the City's specifications and requirements therefor, for the total bid price of $45,850.00, which bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, be and is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby authorized and directed to issue the requisite purchase orders therefor, incorporating into said orders the City's specifications, the terms of said bidder's proposal, and the terms and provisions of this resolution. 3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid equipment are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation for such bid. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia December 19, 1994 95-101 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Bids on Deicing Salt, Bid Number 94-11-25 I. Background on the subject in chronological order is: ae Deicing Salt is necessary to provide successful Snow and Ice Removal Program. for a November 7~ 1994 specifications were developed for Deicing Salt. These specifications, along with a request for quotation, were sent to eight (8) Firms that are currently on the City's bid list. A public advertisement was also published in the Roanoke Times and Roanoke Tribune. Bids were received, publicly opened and read on November 21, 1994, in the Office of the Manager of General Services. De Bid specifications require the quoted price to remain firm until March 31, 1995. Ee Two (2) bid responses were received. of the bids received is attached. A tabulation Fe Deicing Salt for FY '93-'94 was purchased at $43.10 per ton. The lowest bid submitted for FY '94-'95 will cost $2.75 per ton more. II. Current Situation is: ae The bids that were received were evaluated in a consistent manner by representatives of Public Works, Street Maintenance and General Services. Be The lowest bid meeting specifications is submitted by AKZO Salt, Inc. for the amount of $45.85 per ton delivered. III. Issues in order of importance are: A. Need Deicing Salt Bid Number 94-11-25 Page 2 cc: B. Compliance with Specifications C. Fundinq IV. Alternatives in order of Feasibility are: ae City Council authorize the award of the bid for Deicing Salt to AKZO Salt, Inc. to supply to the City 1,000 tons, more or less, for the amount of $45.85 per ton, delivered. Need for deicing salt is essential for a successful Snow and Ice Removal Program. Compliance with Specifications is met with the response recommended in this alternative. Fundinq is available in FY '94-'95 Snow Removal Account 001-052-4140-2045 to provide for this purchase. B. Do not award the bid for Deicing Salt. Need for Deicing Salt would not be addressed by this alternative. Compliance with Specifications would not be a factor in this alternative. Fundinq designated for Deicing Salt would not be expended with this alternative. Recommendation is that City Council concur with Alternative "A" and award the bid for Deicing Salt to AKZO Salt, Inc. for the amount of $45.85 per ton delivered. Respectfully, W. Robert Herbert City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance City Clerk Director of Utilities & Operations Director of Public Works Manager, Street Maintenance Manager, General Services Manager, Management & Budget Bid Tabulation Bids received and opened in the Office of General Services, November 21, 1994, 2:00 p.m. For Highway Deicing Salt Bid Number 94-11-25 Southern AKZO Salt Company, Salt, Inc. Inc. 1,000 tons, more or less, of course highway deicing salt, furnished and delivered to the City owned salt pit at 1802 Courtland Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia. Salt must conform to the Virginia Department of Highways Specifications. $46.00 ton * $45.85 ton Delivery 2-3 Days 2-5 Days Chairman: William F. Clark \ William' L.' Stuart Darwin Roupe'~Fz~ * Indicates Recommendation MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #123 James M. Turner, Jr., President J. M. Turner and Co., Inc. 130 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mr. Turner: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 32310-121994 approving the City Manager's issuance of Change Order No. 1 to the City's contract with J. M. Turner and Co., Inc., in connection with the Roanoke City Jail Annex, in the amount of $13,739.00, for a total contract amount, including Change Order No. 1, of $7,266,828.00. Ordinance No. 32310-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, E City Clerk MFP: sm Eno. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32310-121994. AN ORDINANCE approving the City Manager's issuance of Change Order No. 1 to the City's contract with J.M. Turner and Company, Inc., in connection with the Roanoke City Jail Annex; and providing for an emergency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is authorized and empowered to issue, for and on behalf of the City, upon form approved by the City Attorney, Change Order No. 1 to the City's contract with J.M. Turner and Company, Inc., in connection with the Roanoke City Jail Annex. 2. performed: Such Change Order shall provide for the following changes in the work to be ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: Relocate storm drain piping between the present jail and the Dam-Safe Building. $7,253,089.00 $ 13,739.00 TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $ 13,739.00 CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 $7,266,828.00 ADDITIONAL TIME REQUIRED FOR CHANGE ORDER NONE 3. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an emersency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. December 19, 1994 Council Report No. 94-210 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council: Subject: CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ROANOKE CITY JAIL ANNEX Background on the subject in chronological order is as follows: Bids for this project, following proper advertisement, were publicly opened and read aloud by D. Darwin Roupe, Manager of General Services, in the Council conference room at 4:00 p.m. on September 7, 1994. Three (3) bids were received with J. M. Turner and Company, Inc. submitting the Iow qualified bid in the amount of $7,324,500 and 456 consecutive calendar days. By negotiation this bid was reduced by the sum of $71,411 to the contract amount of 97,253,089. City Council approved the contract with J. M. Turner and Company, Inc. at their September 26, 1994 meeting. The notice to proceed was issued to begin work on October 10, 1994, or within ten (10) days. Work actually began on October 17, 1994. II. Current Situation is as follows: A. Contract documents indicate the installation of the followin,q piping in the access road between the Jail and the Data Safe building. 2. 3. 4. One 8" fire water main serving the Courts facility. One 6" fire water main serving the new Jail Annex. One 6" domestic water main serving the new Jail Annex. Two 18" storm drain pipes serving the drainage area upstream of the Jail Annex plus the roof drains from the Annex. One 8" sanitary sewer serving the alley west of the Jail Annex. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ROANOKE CITY JAIL ANNEX Page 2 December 19, 1994 First floor elevation of the present jail is 5 ft. 8 3/4 in. lower than the elevation of the adjoining Data-Safe building, which is being remodeled for the jail annex. The kitchen storage room will be expanded into the area presently occupied by a service road between the existing jail and former Data-Safe building. Water, sewage and storm drain lines under the service road will be severed by the construction of the kitchen storage room. These utilities can be relocated under the floor of the former Data-Safe building due to the difference in elevations described at the beginning of this paragraph. By relocating the storm drain piping from between the two structures to an alignment below the floor of the Data-Safe building, which is 5' - 8 3/4" above the jail floor, will permit drainage from the alley to the existing storm water system in Campbell Avenue. III. Issues in order of importance are as follows: Engineering concerns. Funding of the change. Time of construction. IV. Alternatives in order of feasibility are as follows: Authorize the City Manager to execute change order No. 1 with J. M. Turner and Company, Inc., to reroute the piping as described above for the sum of $21,114.00 and no additional construction time. Engineering Concerns would be met in that the storm drain piping would be raised to drain into the existing storm water system in Campbell Avenue. The 8" fire water main to the Court Facility would be out for a very short period of time (instead of two weeks). o Funding is available in the City Jail Expansion Account (008-052-9685-9060). Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ROANOKE CITY JAIL ANNEX Page 3 December 19, 1994 4. Time of construction of the project would remain the same. Reject the change order. Engineering concerns would not be met in a timely manner. The problem would still have to be resolved. Fire main would not be effected. Funding would not be encumbered at this time. Time of construction would be extended. Recommendation is as follows: City Council concur in Alternative "A", and take the following actions: Authorize the City Manager to execute the change order No. 1, in form acceptable to the City Attorney, with J. M. Turner and Company, Inc., in the amount of $21,114.00 and 0 additional consecutive calendar'days construction time. Respectfully submitted, WRH/LBC/ebl W. Robert Herbert City Manager CC: City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Administration and Public Safety Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations City Engineer Construction Cost Technician Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 ROANOKE CITY JAIL ANNEX Page 4 December 19, 1994 Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets 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 2401 l-1536 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #121-373-472 Jesse B. Sellers, Jr. Fleet Manager Magic City Motor Corporation P. O. Box 12807 Roanoke, Virginia 24028 Dear Mr. Sellers: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32311-121994 providing for lease-purchase of two new automobiles for use by the Sheriff's Department, upon certain terms and conditions, by accepting a bid made to the City for the lease-purchase of such vehicles; and authorizing execution of a lease-purchase agreement and an opinion of counsel concerning the tax-exempt status of the interest payments to lessor. Resolution No. 32311-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Enc o 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #121-373-472 Charles Pickle Fleet Manager Magic City Motor Corporation P. O. Box 12807 Roanoke, Virginia 24028 Dear Mr. Pickle: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32311-121994 providing for lease-purchase of two new automobiles for use by the Sheriff's Department, upon certain terms and conditions, by accepting a bid made to the City for the lease-purchase of such vehicles; and authorizing execution of a lease-purchase agreement and an opinion of counsel concerning the tax-exempt status of the interest payments to lessor. Resolution No. 32311-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, MFP: sm Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Eno. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32311-121994. A RESOLUTION providing for lease-purchase of two new automobiles for use by the Sheriffs Depamnent~ upon certain terms and conditions, by accepting a bid made to the City for the lease-purchase of such vehicles; and authorizing execution of a lease-purchase agreement and an opinion of counsel concerning the tax-exempt status of the interest payments to lessor. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The bid submitted by Ford Motor Credit Company to provide for the lease-purchase of two (2) new full sized automobiles for use by the Sheriffs Department at a monthly rental rate of $430.38 per month per vehicle, for a term of 48 months, is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby authorized and directed to issue any required purchase orders for the lease-purchase of such vehicles, and the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City, any required lease- purchase agreement with respect to the aforesaid vehicles, such agreement, which may include indemnification of lessor by the City, to be in such form as shall be approved by the City Attorney. 3. The City Attorney is hereby authorized to issue an opinion of counsel concerning the tix-exempt status of interest payments to be made to lessor and other related issues as may reasonably be required by lessor. The City Attorney is also authorized to take any other action which he deems appropriate and nec.essary to effectuate the tax-exempt status of the transaction. ATTEST: City Clerk. 94-337 Roanoke, virginia December 19, 1994 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Bids For Lease/Purchase for Sheriff's Vehicles Bid Number 94-10-101 I. Background on the subject in chronological order is: ae The City Sheriff, in order to perform assigned duties and responsibilities, needs vehicular equipment. Be Two (2) Vehicles currently are in replacement due to high milage and maintenance cost. need of increased Specifications were developed to lease/purchase two (2) new full size automobiles for the Sheriff. Specifications, along with Request for Quotations, were sent to ten (10) vendors currently listed on the City's bid list. A public advertisement was also published in the Roanoke Times and Roanoke Tribune. Bids were received, publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m. on November 14, 1994 in the Office of the Manager of General Services. II. Current Situation is: Only one (1) bid was received. That bid was submitted by Ford Motor Credit Company at a monthly cost of $430.38 per unit. SJ The bid submitted was evaluated by the City Sheriff and Manager of General Services and was determined to meet required specifications. Co The bid requires that the City enter into an equipment lease-purchase agreement under which the lessor can exclude from federal gross income the interest of each lease payment and the City will assume liability for any additional taxes for which lessor may be liable if the tax-exempt status is not recognized. The lease agreement also requires that the City Attorney issue an opinion of counsel for lessor's benefit that the interest paid by the City would be exempt from tax and that other requirements of law have been met. The agreement also provides that the City will indemnify lessor from claims related to purchase, possession, use and operation of the vehicle. Sheriff's Vehicles Bid No. 94-10-101 Page 2 III. IV. Issues in order of importance are: A. Need B. Expense Reimbursement C. Fundinq Alternatives in order of feasibility are: ae City Council accept the bid to lease/purchase two (2) full size automobiles for the City Sheriff. These units are to be provided by Ford Motor Credit Company at a monthly cost of $430.38 per unit. Need for the requested vehicles is to allow for the continued performance of required duties of the Sheriff's Department. Expense Reimbursement will be provided by the State Compensation Board, on a monthly basis, at $.2705 per mile for each vehicle. The State will not reimburse for upfront capital outlays. Fundinq is available in the Sheriff's Equipment Rental Account 001-024-3310-3070. Purchase the requested vehicle Sheriff's Department. for the City Need for the requested vehicles for the continued performance duties of the City Sheriff. is to allow of required Expense Reimbursement would be received from the State on mileage as the units are used. Funding for the initial Capital Outlay is not available in the Sheriff's Account 001-024- 3310-3070. An additional Funding source would have to be identified. Reject the bid received to lease/purchase two (2) full size automobiles for the City Sheriff's Department. Need for replacement of necessary vehicle would not be accomplished. Expense Reimbursement would continue for the units that are in service. Sheriff's Vehicles Bid No. 94-10-101 Page 3 cc: Fundinq available for the replacement of these units, in the Sheriff's Equipment Rental Account, would not be expended. Recommendation is that City Council concur with Alternative "A" and accept the bid to lease/purchase two (2) new full size automobiles from Ford Motor Credit Company, for a period of 48 months, at a cost of $430.38 per unit; authorize the apropriate City officials to enter into the equipment lease-purchase agreement with lessor, including the provision for indemnification of lessor; and authorize the City Attorney to issue the opinion of counsel requested by lessor and to take other actions deemed necessary to comply with the conditions of such opinion of counsel. Respectfully Submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Utilities & Operations Director of Public Works Director of Public Safety Director of Human Resources City Sheriff Management & Budget 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #112-383-472-467 AT&T BCS Bell Atlantic Executone RCI ROLM Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32312-121994 accepting the bid of Bell Atlantic for providing certain telephone equipment for a period of three years to the City and the City school division, upon certain terms and conditions; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract; and rejecting aH other bids made to the City. Resolution No. 32312-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bids on the abovedescribed telephone equipment. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Enc· pc: E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent of Roanoke City Public Schools IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32312-121994. A RESOLUTION accepting the bid of Bell Atlantic for providing certain telephone equipment upon certain terms and conditions and awarding a contract therefor; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract; and rejecting all other bids. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The bid of Bell Atlantic, to furnish Integrated Service Digital Network (ISDN) telephone equipment for a period of three (3) years, to the City and the City school division, as more particularly set forth in the December 19, 1994, report of the City Manager to this Council, such bid being in full compliance with the City's plans and specifications made therefor and as provided in the contract documents offered said bidder, which bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, be and is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute and attest, respectively, the requisite contract with such firm based on its bid to the City and the City's specifications therefor, such contract to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid equipment is hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation for such bid. ATTEST: City Clerk. December 19, 1994 94-415 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: SUBJECT: BID ON CITY OF ROANOKE/CITY SCHOOLS TELEPHONE SYSTEMS BID NUMBER 94-7-19 I. BACKGROUND on the subject in chronological order is as follows: FeW new telephone purchases have been made in recent years. Required purchases (school refurbishment, etc.) have been handled by one-time bids on a site per site basis. There exists a need to have a contract in place from which modem telephone equipment can be ordered. An opportunity_ exists to modernize City. and School telephones. In 1993, City Council approved the purchase of installed, leased telephones for $199,000, thus terminating annual lease costs of $312,000. As a result, funds are available each year to update the oldest telephone equipment. Most of the City's telephones do not have speakers, conferencing, speed dial, redial, caller ID, and other features which successful businesses use to enhance customer service. Normal procurement guidelines apply for the purchase of new telephone equipment. H. CURRENT SITUATION is as follows: Ther~ i~ the n~ed for a long term contract for the purchase of City telephone equipment. Recurring needs for the purchase of telephones are driven by school refurbishment, office relocations, and organizational changes. Advantages of a long term contract include lower prices due to competition and volume purchases, administrative economies, efficiencies in maintaining a single product line, and ready availability of new telephones. Bill specifications for such a contract were prepared and advertised in the Roanoke Times and Roanoke Tribune. Specifications were also sent to vendors that can provide this type of equipment. The Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 2 The specifications called for: Three (3) year contract All new equipment Manufacturer with a minimum of five (5) years experience Meet FCC requirements Expandability Touch tone, speakers, LED's, and other modem features Seven (7) vendors responqlcd representing three (3) different types of telephone technologies. Some vendors offered more than one bid. The type of technologies offered are: PBX (premise Based Exchange) - Two (2) bids proposed the City's purchase of its own telephone switch. The City becomes responsible for many of the switching functions currently accomplished by the telephone company (Bell Atlantic). Advantages of a City owned switch are the potential to save telephone line costs. This is accomplished by the ability of the PBX to instantly allocate idle telephone lines to any telephone, regardless of its location. This means fewer total lines are needed. The disadvantage is the requirement to have an additional employee to operate and administer the PBX system, the requirement to enter into a maintenance contract, and the potential for a major outage. Electronic Key System - These are small systems to serve offices or entire departments. These systems provide modem features over existing telephone lines. They require expertise in troubleshooting and repair. There were five (5) bids for electronic key systems. o ISDN (Inte_m-ated Services Digital Network) - This technology offers reduced maintenance, some reduction in the number of telephone lines, larger volume computer file transfers, and live video over telephone lines. There were three (3) bids for ISDN telephones. A bid Committee evaluated all bids. The Bid Tabulation is provided on Attachment "A". All offers were deemed to be qualified. The lowest bids for each technology are: The Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 3 o PBX - Rolm $398.00 per telephone o Electronic Key - Executone $298.00 per telephone o ISDN - Bell Atlantic $538.00 per telephone A life cycle cost comparison (Attachment "B") was conducted. Life Cycle Cost Comparison shows: 0 0 0 PBX systems have higher life cycle costs due to up-front, maintenance and staffing costs. These switches are capable of incorporating add-on features, but at additional costs. Require no increase in personnel or maintenance costs, yet do not provide line savings or significant increase in capabilities. For less costs over a ten (10) year cycle, ISDN provides significant increases in capabilities, reduced maintenance, and is recommended. Ten (10) years was chosen as the life cycle, based on the City's experience and operating environment. Most City telephones are ten (10) years or older. The ISDN telephones provide si_maificant improvements: 0 0 Increased telephone line speed permits more rapid desktop computer access to distant information centers such as libraries and universities in cases where the accessed computers offer ISDN services. The proposed ISDN system does not provide capability for city data communication needs and is not being proposed for that purpose. The CIS Department is currently in the process of defining long term requirements for city wide data communications. The faster telephone lines are capable of carrying live video between callers. o Maintenance costs are significantly less. The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Page 4 o Features include: - Drop Disconnect Redial - Transfer Speaker/Hands Free - Hold LED Indicators - Conference Volume Control - Caller ID - Time/Date IH, ISSUES in order of importance are: A. Need - The City needs a contract to purchase required telephones upon demand. Costs - Purchases from long term contract are less expensive than individual purchases because vendors include volume discounts in their bids. Additionally, by purchasing the same equipment over an extended period of time, fewer repair parts are required to be kept in stock. C. Fundin~ IV. ALTERNATIVES in order of feasibility are: City Council authorize the City_ Manager to execute the necessary documents to put in place a contract with the lowest bidder for ISDN telephones which was submitted by Bell Atlantic. 1. Need will be met for a contract to buy City and School telephones. Costs over a ten (10) year period are comparable to other solutions. The higher purchase costs are offset by reduced maintenance and reduced line costs. Purchase price of $538 per telephone set will be fixed over the three year life of the contract. Funding is available in the current year and future years due to the termination of telephone equipment leases in 1993. The termination freed up approximately $232,000 annually for modernization. The proposed contract will specify no minimum purchase requirements. Modem telephones can be purchased based on need and funding availability. The cost of replacing every older City telephone is $807,000. City Council not authorize a long term contract with any bidder to provide telephone instruments to the City. The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Page 5 Need will not be met. Required purchases will be competitively bid each time the City needs telephones. Costs will be affected by the requirement to issue bid specifications for each telephone system purchased. Vendors have in many cases offered a lower cost per user based upon anticipation of volume purchases. Maintenance costs will also rise as the City potentially installs a different brand of telephone system for each bid. o Fundine will not be affected. V. RECOMMENDATION; City_ Council authorize the City_ Manager to execute the necessary document as approved by the City Attorney, to put in place a contract with Bell Atlantic for the purchase of ISDN telephone equipment over the next three (3) years. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert, City Manger Mr. James D. Grisso, Director, Finance Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Mr. George C. Snead, Director, Public Safety Ms. Diane Akers, Budget Administrator, OMB Mr. Robert J. Agnor, Manager, Communications Mr. Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor Mr. Richard L. Kelley, School Administration ATTACHMENT "A" BID TABULATION Bids were received, publicly opened, and read at 2:00 p.m. on For Telephones Bid Number 94-7-19 COST PER USER INTEGRATED SERVICES DIGITAL NETWORK BIDS: BELL ATLANTIC $538 * AT&T $565 RCI $681.25 KEY SYSTEM BIDS: EXECUTONE $298 RCI $380 AT&T $46O BELL ATLANTIC $476 BCS $518 PREMISE BASE EXCHANGE (PBX) BIDS: ROLM $398 AT&T $795 August 12, 1994 Geoffgte C Snead Richard L. Kelley ~. Darwin Roupe * Recommended for Bid award ATTACHMENT "B" LIFE CYCLE COST COMPARISON (CHANGES FROM CURRENT EXPENDITURES) ISDN PBX ELECTRONIC KEY PURCHASE COST (1500 Phones) 10 YEAR PHONE LINE COSTS 10 YEAR MAINTENANCE COSTS 10 YEAR PERSONNEL COSTS +$807,000 +$1,200,000 +$447,000 -$100,000 -$700,000 0 -$300,000 +$225,000 0 0 +$250,000 0 TOTAL +$407,000 +$975,000 +$447,000 Notes: + Denotes increases over current expenditures Denotes decreases over current expenditures * Denotes recommendation Maintenance costs for 1994 on existing telephones is $80,000 PBX solution includes switch and telephones CONCLUSION: PBX systems have higher life cycle costs due to up-front, maintenance, and staffing costs. Electronic Key systems have the least expensive life cycle costs with little increase in capabilities. ISDN provides significant increases in capabilities, reduced maintenance, and is recommended. 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #5-20-76-236 Steven D. Goodwin, Manager State Transportation Safety Division District II c/o Department of Motor Vehicles Crossroads Mall 5010 Airport Road, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Mr. Goodwin: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32314-121994 accepting a certain Driving Under the Influence Enforcement Grant offer made to the City by the State Transportation Safety Board, in the amount of $19,500.00, and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. Resolution No. 32314-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Since~ly, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Enc. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32314-121994. A RESOLUTION accepting a certain Driving Under the Influence Enforcement Grant offer made to the City by the State Tramportafion 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 State Transportation Safety Board of a Driving Under the Influence Enforcement grant in the amount of $19,500.00, such grant being more particularly described in the report of the City Manager, dated December 19, 1994, upon all the terms, provisions and conditions relating to the receipt of such funds. 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, any documentation required in connection with the acceptance of such grant and to furnish such additional information as may be required by the State Transportation Safety Board. ATTEST: City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32313-121994. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1994-95 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 1994-95 Grant Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: ADDrooriations Public Safety DUI Enforcement Grant 94-95 (1-2) ................. $ 1,652,058 19,500 Revenue Public Safety DUI Enforcement Grant 95-95 (3) ................... 1,652,058 19,500 1) Overtime Wages (035-050-3401-1003) $ 18,100 2) FICA (035-050-3401-1120) 1,400 3) State Revenue (035-035-1234-7186) 19,500 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. December 19, 1994 94-418 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: SUBJECT: State Transportation Safety Board Driving Under the Influence Enforcement Grant - Renewal I. Back~round: State Transportation Safet_v Board awards state grants for districts throughout Virginia for the enhancement of selective DUI enforcement efforts. The Board awarded $30,000 to the City of Roanoke during FY 93-94 for this purpose. Bo Application for a _erant 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. Funds received may be used only as stated in the application for DUI enforcement. The agency requesting the grant funds agrees to provide items and equipment necessary to carry out selective enforcement. II. Current Situation: In Roanoke City, 50% of all traffic-related deaths involved alcohol for the period 1990 through 1993. B. Arrests for DUI have increased by 34% for 1992-93. 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 Alcohol was found to be involved in 40% of FY 93-94 fatality accidents and in 50% of related deaths in the City of Roanoke. Eo State Transportation Safety Board approved Roanoke's application for grant continuation from October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1995 in the amount of $19,500 on October 1, 1994. Fo City Council was briefed on Selective DUI enforcement on December 20, 1993. III. Issues: A. Need. B. Funding expenditures and accountability. IV. Alternatives: City Council accept funding from the State Transportation Safety Board in the amount of a $19,500 grant to run from October 1, 1994 to September 30, 1995 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. Bo 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. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Page 3 Funding will not be applied for or received from the State Transportation Safety Board. V. 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 $19,500 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 Chief Hooper 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #22 Dr. Donald R. Stern Acting State Health Commissioner Virginia Department of Health P. O. Box 2448 Richmond, Virginia 23218 Dear Dr. Stern: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32315-121994 authorizing the City Manager or his designee to enter into a contract with the Virginia Department of Health relating to the operation of the local Health Department, upon certain terms and conditions. Resolution No. 32315-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, C City Clerk MFP: sm ~Jnc. pc: Molly L. Hagen, Acting Director, Health Department IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32315-121994. A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager or his designee to enter into a contract with the Virginia Department of Health relating to the operation of the local Health Department, upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City Manager or his designee, and the City Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute and attest, respectively, the requisite contract with the Virginia Department of Health, pursuant to §32.1-31, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, such contract establishing the financial contributions of the City and the Commonwealth to the local Health Department and the public health services to be rendered by such Department, a copy of such contract being attached to the report of the City Manager, dated December 19, 1994, such contract to be in form approved by the City Attorney. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia December 19, 1994 94-524 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: SUBJECT: VIRGINIA STATE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND THE CITY OF ROANOKE CONTRACT FOR SERVICES I. BACKGROUND Health Laws of Virqinia, Chapter 1, Article 5, Paragraph 32.1-31, "Operation of local health department under contract with Board; district health departments," states (in part): A governing body of a city may enter into a contract with the Board for the operation of the local health department in such city. The contract between the City and the Board shall specify the services to be provided in addition to the services required by law and shall contain other provisions as the Board and the governing body may agree upon. Be Local commitment statement was used in previous years to certify that City Council appropriated a given amount for the support of the Roanoke City Health Department. Contract establishes that leqal defense with respect to services performed pursuant to local ordinance, enabling legislation set out in Title 15.1 of the State Code, and other services set out in Attachment A(2) of the contract will be provided by the City Attorney. This requirement will continue to impose an additional burden on this office. II. CURRENT SITUATION ae Contract and services checklist must be completed per instructions received by the State Health Department from Dr. Robert B. Stroube, Deputy Commissioner for Community Health Services, dated September 27, 1988. Contract between the Commonwealth of Virginia and City of Roanoke is necessary for proper billing to localities for health and environmental services. The 1994-95 Health Department Budget is based on approved funding as follows: a. State - $1~562~604.00 b. Local Match - $1,057,456.00 The local required match amount of $1,057,456 (40.36% of total cooperative budget) was included in the fiscal year 1994-95 resource allocation plan adopted by City Council on May 17, 1994. Services to be in contract include the following: 10. 1. Communicable Disease Services 2. Child Health Services 3. Maternal Health Services 4. Family Planning Services 5. Environmental Health Services 6. Management and Support Services 7. Dental Health Services 8. Specialty Clinic Services 9. Other Public Health Services a. Including medicaid nursing home screening Public Health Service provided under local ordinance a. Including insect control, rodent control, swimming facilities and grocery store delicatessens. III. ISSUES A. Services to citizens. B. Fundinq. C. Legal. IV. ALTERNATIVES ae City Council authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract approved by the City Attorney with the State Health Department as provided for in the Health Laws of Virginia. 1. Services to citizens would be continued. Fundinq has been approved by the State and City. 3. Legal requirements would be met. B. Do not authorize the City Manaqer or his desiqnee to execute a contract with the State Health Department as provided for in the Health Laws of Virginia. Services to citizens could be discontinued by the State, and eligible Roanoke City citizens would not receive health department services. Funding would not be made available by the State. Legal requirements and compliance with Health Laws of Virginia would not be met. V. RECOMMENDATION City Council concur in the implementation of Alternative A and authorize the City Manager or his designee to execute a contract, form approved, by the City Attorney with the State Health Department as provided for in the Health Laws of Virginia. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/MHR/GDR/gor cc: James Grisso, Director of Finance Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director of Human Development Dr. Molly Rutledge, Acting Director, Roanoke City Health Department Diane Akers, Manager, Management & Budget Attachment COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT WITH of the City of Roanoke City Council (Board of Supervisors or City Council of County or City) Under this agreement, which is created in satisfaction of the requirements of R 32.1-3'1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Virginia Department of Health, over the course of one fiscal year, will pay an amount not to exceed ~ 1,562~604 , in accordance with appropriations by the General Assembly, and in like timeframe, the City Council (Board ofSupervisors orCityCouncil), will provide by appropriation a sum of $ 1~057,~,56 These joint funds will be distributed in timely installments, as services are rendered in the operation of the Roanoke City Health Department, which shall perform public health services to the commonwealth as indicated in Attachment A(1.), and will perform services required by local ordinances as indicated in Attachment A(2.). The term of this agreement is one year, beginning July 1, 19 % The parties agree that: 1. Under this agreement, as set forth in paragraphs A, B, C, and D below, the Commonwealth of Virginia and the Virginia Department of Health shall be responsible for providing liability insurance coverage and will provide legal defense for state employees of the local health department for acts or occurrences arising from performance of activities conducted pursuant to state statutes and regulations. A. The responsibility of the Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health to provide liability insurance coverage shall be limited to and governed by the Self-Insured General Liability Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia, established under R 2.1-$26.8 of the Code of Virginia. Such insurance coverage shall extend to the services specified in Attachments A(1.) and A(2.), unless the locality has opted to provide coverage for the employee under the Public Officials Liability Self-Insurance Plan, established under R 2.1-526.8:'1 of the Code, or under a policy procured by the locality. B. The Commonwealth and the Virginia Department of Health will be responsible for providing legal defense for those acts or occurrences arising from the performance of those services listed in Attachment A(1.), conducted in the performance of this contract, as provided for under the Code of Virginia and as provided for under the terms and conditions of the Self-Insured General Liability Plan for the Commonwealth of Virginia. C. Services listed in Attachment A(2.), any services performed pursuant to a local ordinance, and any services authorized solely by Title ~5.1 of the Code of*Virginia, when performed by a state employee, are herewith expressly excepted from any STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT Page :2 requirements of legal defense or representation by the Attorney General or the Commonwealth. For purposes of assuring the eligibility of a state employee performing such services for liability coverage under the Self-Insured General Liability Plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the Attorney General has approved, .pursuant to R2.1-121 of the Code of Virginia and the Self-Insured General Liability Plan of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the legal representation of said employee by the city or county attorney, and the__City Counci[ (Board of Supervisors or City Council) hereby expressly agrees to provide the legal defense or representation at its sole expense in such cases by its local attorney. D. In no event shall the Commonwealth or the Virginia, Department of Health be responsible for providing legal d~fense or insurance coverage for local government employees. 2. Title to equipment purchased with funds appropriated by the local government and transferred to the state, either as match for state dollars or as a purchase under appropriated funds expressly allocated to support the activities of the local health department, will be retained by the Commonwealth and will be entered into the Virginia Fixed Asset Accounting and Control System. Local appropriations for equipment to be locally owned and controlled should not be remitted to the Commonwealth, and the local government's procurement procedures shall apply in the purchase. The locality assumes the responsibility to maintain the equipment and all records thereon. 3. Amendments to or modifications of this contract must be agreed to in writing and signed by both parties. State Health Commissioner Virginia Department of Health Local authorizing officer Title Date Date Approved as to form: (Office of the Attorney General) Date Attachments: LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(1.) LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(2.) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH Addendum to STATEMENT OF AGREEMENT with City co.nci! (Board of Supervisors or City Council of the City of Roanoke (City or County) beginning July 1~ 1994 Both parties agree that in order to meet critical public health needs of the Commonwealth, should a local health department have an emergent need for a given resource, the State Health Comm. issioner reserves the option of moving state resources on a temporary basis from one locality to another to meet the{e needs. Documentation detailing the use and costs of these resources will be maintained by the District office having administrative supervision of the local health department{s) receiving the service. Reimbursement of the donor localtty's share of the resource so used will be made from the recipient locality's share of the funds deposited with the Treasurer of Virginia to support the operating budget for th~ recipient locality. Such transfer of funds will be the responsibility of District management and must occur within the same F{scal Year in which the service was provided. State Hearth Co.m. tssioner Virginia Department of Health Oate Local Authorizing Officer Title date LOCAL GOVERHNENT AGREEHEHT, ATTACHMENT A(1.) VIRGIHIA DEPARTHENT OF HEALTH CC~I,F, UNITY HEALTH SERVICES ~EDICAL CARE SERV1C£S SASIC PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES TO BE PROVIDED BY LOCAL HEALTH DEPARTHEHTS 1gCl:~qE LEVEL A IS DEFINED BY THE BOARD OF HEALTH TO SE NEOICALLY I~D1GEHT For Each Service Provide~, Chec~ Btoc~ C:~qHUNIOABLE DISEASE SERVICES for Hi ChiLc~ooct lamuniza~ions As providKI for in 32.1-~6 SexuaLLy :ransmi::eci disease screening, ~2.1-57 IAi SurveiLLance of re!oor:a~Le comuqicaOLe diseases, food t~orne disease at~ ocher unusual disease out~reKs ~2.1-39 ar~ RuLes anc~ TuioercuLosis control serenity, diagnosis, treKaent, an:l surveiLLance ~2.1-~9 and 32.1-5~ CHILD ~EALTH SERV]CES uett chiLd care up to ill~__~(Inter year}I EPSOT C~eciicaid) A I I I I x I I x I x I ghest ~nco~e Level Served s I c I o E I [ x I x I x x x X x x x C O x x , L I I t x I x I x x I x Ix x I x I x x I x I x i ' X X X X REVISED JUNE, 1991 PAGE 1 OF 8. PAGES OF ATTAC~NTS V[RG[~[A OEPARTMENT QF ~EALTH CC~qMUN[T¥ ~EALT~ SERVICE5 HEALTH SERVICES TO ~E ~RCVIDEg ~¥ LOCAL ~EALT~ 0E~ARTMENTS IS 0EFiXE~ ~Y THE BOARD CF ~EALT~ TC SE MEgICALL? INO[OEXT (3~.i-~l For Eac~ Serv[ca Pravice~, ChecX ~locx far Highest [ncmme Level MATERNAL HEALT~ SERViCeS q x ~ C ~ Prena:al ancJ ~:x~st ~ar~ care ;or tow risZ and in:erme~iate risZ w~en X X X X ~amycare Services X X X ~AMILT ~LAN~ING SERVICES ~ A ~ ~ 0 CLinic services incL~ing ~r~s a~ c~ncrace~c~ve summLies i ~ X X REVISED JU#E, 1~1 LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGREEMENT, ATTACHMENT A(i.) \';RG]N~A DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH COMMUNITY HEALTH SERVICES ~KV]ROR~iAL HEALTH SERVICES The ~o[tewin~ serv!ces ~er~orme~ in [ accor~a~:e with the provisions c~ the Coca cf Virginia, the re;utations c,f Board of ~ea~th an~/or VOX a~reements w~th ct~er state or federal ~encies. STATE ]ce Cream/~rczen Dessert X ~r~nas X ~i~r~nt L~r Camps X ~iLk x On Size Se~e ~isposal ~S~R) X Ra~ies Control X Restaurants X S~nitary Surveys X SinDle H~me Seu~e Discx~r~ (',';gE~) X Touris~ Establishment !m~estion X Water SupDiy Sanitation X Wells X Homes For A~ults X Deycare Centers X Su,,-raer GamCs X REVISED JUNE, 1991 PAGE 3 OF 8 FAGES OF ATTACHmEnTS LOCal GOVERNMENT AGRE~qENT, ATTACHMENT A(~.) V~RG;~[A OEPARTME~T OF ~EALT~ CC~MMUNIT¥ MEALT~ SERVICES CTHER PUgL[C HE~LT~ SERV[~S The following services ~erforme~ in accoraance w~tn :ne ~rovis~ons of :ne C~e of virginia, :ne reguta:ion~ of :ne Boarm of Heal:n ancO/or :ne ~oL~¢ies aha oroce~ures of :he Scare Oe~ar:~n: of ~eal:n. STATE Me~icai~ ~ursing H~ne Screening ~ Me~ica~C Preautnor~za:~m~$ X vital Retorts (Oea:~ Cer:~fica:es) X Other (tis:~ Comprehensive Services Act for At-Risk Youth & Families X Early intervention services for infants and toddlers with disabilities x ~EV!Sb'~ JUNE, 1~1 PAGE & OF & laAG~$ OF ATTAC~(ME.qT$ LOCAL GOVERR~E~T AGREEHE~T, ATTACHHERT A(1.) \']RGIfiIA DEPARTmEnT OF HEALTH CO~H~K]iY HEALTH SERVICES OPTIOKAL PUGLIC HEALTH SERVICES For Each Service Provioed, Chesk Clock for Highest ]ncome Leve~ Served [ ...... ~\, A ~ C D E F Foreign Travel ]..~'nuniza:ions ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Community Education CHILD HEALTH SEA'¢iCES A B C D E F Eabycere Services ~ ~ ~ Sick chito care ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~[ood lead level testing X X X X X X X X X X School Hea~tm Services Outreach ~ X X X X Co..-rnuniry Edusation X X X X O~her: CHIP × X X MAlE~WAL HEALTH SERVICES A B C D E F Funds for dekiYer!es X X X X X X Funds for special tests and dru~s Diagnosis, treatment, and referral X X X X X X for gynecological ~robte=s Co~rmJni~y Education X X X X X X outreach X X X X X X Outreach X X X X X X ot~er: ~EVISED JU~E, 1991 PAGE 5 OF 8 PAGES OF ATTACHMERTS LOCAL GOVERHMEHT VIRGINIA DEPARTmEnT OF HEJkLT~ ¢OI~UHITY ~EALT~ SERV~C£S For Each Service Proviae~, Cheez BlocX ;or Highest Incoe~ Level Serve~ GENERAL MEO{CAL SERVICES A Activities of Daily Living X X X X X X C~ni:y ~ucation X X X X X X General Clinic Services X X X X X X H~ Meal:~ Services CsZilL~ nursing X , X X X X X a~ :heraoy) ~:reacn X X X X X X Oc:~ma:~ona~ Meat:n Services X X X X X X aerscna~ Care X X X X X X ~ar~cy Services X X X X X X HyDer:ens~on screening, referral, a~ X X X X X X :~seL Reso~:e Care Services City Emp~,,~ Web,ness C~n. x x x x x x Refugee Phamacy Services Free ~i~O~:. Genet,~ Relief " City ~, ue:entqen. Home, LOA x x x x x x OENTAL H~LTH Prev~t~vm CLinic Se~c~ - Children X X X X Prev~t~ve C~inic Semites - A~LtS X X X C~ity E~ati~ X X X X X X R~SEO JUHE, 1~1 PRGE 6 OF 8 PkGES OF ATTAC~ENT$ LOCAL &OVE~K~E~T AGRE~EKT, ATTACHMENT A(2.) V]~G1K]A DEPARTmEnT OF HEALTH COMMUNITY HEALT~ SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER LOCAL O~;]KANCE Keither the Code of Virginia nor Regulations of the Scar~ cf Hearth requires the following services to De provided ~y ~he iocal he~h Oepartment. AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE SERVICE :S LOCAL Accident Prevention Air :dj [ution ~ird Control Employee Physicals General Enviror,men~a[ Housing - ~OCA & Lo:a[ ~uilcing Co:es ~. nsec t Control P l ~ ing Radiclo~{cel Health Rodent Con:rol Solid 6'asr e Swiping Facilities ~eeds Smok~n~ OrOani ces Re,on O:her Environmental Serv~ces (identify) ~ & ~ S~OP GR~RY S~ D~IS REVISED JU~E, 1991 PAGE 7 OF 8 PAGES OF ATTACH~EKiS VIRGINIA OEPARTMENT OF HEALTH C~geJNITY HEALTH SERVICES PUBLIC ~EALTH SERVICES PROVIDED UNDER LOCAl-ORDINANCES OR CONTRACT ~ITH LOCAL GOVeRNmEnTS 1 For E&ch Service Provided, Chec[ 8LocX for Hignes: income Level Serve~ J A B C o ~[oyee PhysicaLs X X X X Other ~e~lica[ Ser¥i'ce$ (List) REVISE'l) JUNE. 1991 PAGE ~ OF 8, PAGES OF ATTAC:Ig'IENTS DATE: 12 AUG q% *= CITY DF ROANOKE ** I PAGE: 686 TZH£: 21:%8:29 DETAIL LISTING DF OBLIGATZONS VS. BUDGET REPORT [~: FNB532 FO~ BUDGET FISCAL YEA~ 1995 AS OF C7131/e~ ~URRENT-P~R[~ FI SCAL YEAR-TO-~AT~ ~ T*L~APP R~UN! T---- "'~'~E'- ~ ~[~ PF~JU'/C~'E' M E'4T S C.~ .......... ~-'C~ ' 7. GO O~At--APPR' UN[ T HD6 .............. C-. C'~ .... ! ~,~9~ ..... C'. 0:, .......................................... 9 ~'~ L'-ACT -zV I'z'Y .................. 86.52- 86. ~2 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE CITY OF ROANOKE. VA. December 19, 1994 :51 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council James D. Grisso, Director of Finance November Financial Report This financial report covers the first five months of the FY94-95 fiscal year. The following narrative discusses revenue and expenditure trends to date. REVENUE Total General Fund revenues have a positive variance of 4.71% over fiscal year 1994 on a year-to-date basis. Variances in the specific categories of revenue are as follows: General Property Taxes are up 2.88% over this time last year. This category reflects the approximate anticipated growth in real estate tax revenue after receiving the first half of real estate taxes during October. Other Local Taxes are up 5.33% over last year. Business license tax revenue collected year to date is $244,819 as compared to $79,517 in the preceding year. This is the result of an increased level of business license return auditing which the Commissioner of the Revenue has implemented. Cumulative sales tax revenue for collections through November is also up 12% over FY94 year to date revenue. Permits, Fees and Licenses are up 12.63% over last year. This is attributable to increased building permit fees based on construction activity. Revenue from Use of Money and Property reflects a 13.89% increase over the prior year. Investment earnings from idle cash are up, and the city is receiving increased rent from the State for space occupied by Social Services in Municipal North, and other rent accruals. Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth is up 4.92% reflecting recordation tax received from the State in FY95, accrual based revenue in FY95 for rental car tax and shared expenses, and a timing difference in the receipt of certain grant revenue. Grants-in-Aid Federal Government reflects a blizzard damage reimbursement of 856,500 in FY94, and none in FY95, which accounts for the decrease in revenue for FY95. Charges for Services is up 21.51% due to increased court fee revenue, increased EMS billings on a year to date basis, and accrual based weeds and demolition revenue in the current year. Miscellaneous Revenue reflects a large variation compared to the prior year due to an increased amount of surplus property sold in FY95 as compared to FY94. Honorable Mayor and Members Roanoke City Council December 19, 1994 Page 2 Internal Services revenues are up 16.71% over fiscal year 1994. This increase is due to increased rates for the fiscal year 1995, increased engineering work related to Water Fund projects, and a timing difference in building maintenance billings. EXPENDITURES AND ENCUMBRANCES Expenditures and encumbrances for the General Fund are up 12.06% over the last fiscal year. Most of the increase in each category is due to the fact that one more payday has occurred on a year to date basis in FY95 than in FY94. Additional variances are explained as follows: General Government expenditures are up 11.05%, reflecting increased ClS billings to various departments in FY95 along with the increase caused by the extra payday. Public Safety expenditures are up 9.30% due to the extra pay period and increased equipment purchases in FY95 for Emergency Services. Public Works expenditures are up 9.22% due to the extra pay period, an increase in the City's annual paving contract, and equipment purchases in certain departments such as Communications. Parks Recreation and Cultural expenditures show an increase of 9.70%. This is due to the number of pay periods and increased subsidies in FY95 for the Convention Bureau and Hotel Roanoke Conference Center Commission. Community Development expenditures are up 22.80% due to the extra pay period, a new position transferred to the Department of Planning and Community Development, and transfer of existing positions from other departments. Transfers to Debt Service Fund increase reflects principal and/or interest payments on the 1992 and 1994 bond issues. Nondepartmental expenditures show a significant increase in FY95 due to a timing difference of transfers to the Capital Projects Fund. I would be pleased to answer any questions which City Council may have regarding the Monthly Financial Statements. JDG/pc Attachments Director of Finance CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY BALANCE NOVEMBER 30, 1994 General Contingency: Ord. No. 32165 32173 CMT 051 32191 CMT 073 CMT 094 Department Contributions Commonwealth's Attorney Commissioner of Revenue Transfer to Capital Projects Office of Management and Budget City Council Total Contingency Balance Balance July 1, 1994 Purpose Partnership for Urban Virginia Personnel, Furniture and Equipment Furniture - DMV Office Jail Annex Solid Waste Collection Study Fax Machines for Council Members 366,911 10,000) 13,273) 3,995) 53,589) 2,000) 900) 283,154 Revenue Source General Property Taxes Other Local Taxes Permits, Fees and Licenses Fines and Forfeitures Revenue from Use of Money and Property Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth Grants-in-Aid Federal Government Charges for Services Miscellaneous Revenue Internal Services Total CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA GENERAL FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUE Year to Date for the Period Jul 1-Nov 30 Jul 1-Nov 30 Percentage 1993-94 1994-95 of Change $ 19,989,187 $ 20,565,485 2.88% $ 11,690,709 12,314,330 5.33% 298,164 335,823 12.63% 280,451 333,578 18.94% 293,463 334,227 13.89% 8,966,222 9,407,356 4.92'% 63,290 19,504 ( 69.18%) 676,961 822,549 21.51 % 43,357 107,886 148.83% 437,549 510,644 16.71% $ 42~739,353 $~44,751,382 __ 4.71% $ Current Fiscal Year Reviaed Revenue Estimates 56, 201 ,OOO 43,697,750 724,500 716,992 1,026,600 29,916,682 41,000 2,671,399 287,500 1 ~718f500 137r001,923 Percent of Revenue Estimate Received 36.59% 28.18% 46.35% 46.52% 32.56% 31.45% 47.57% 30.79% 37.53% 29.71% 32.66% General Government Judicial Administration Public Safety Public Works Health and Welfare Parks, Recreation and Cultural Community Development Transfer to Debt Service Fund Transfer to School Fund Nondepartmental Total STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES AND ENCUMBRANCES Year to Date for the Period Jul 1-Nov 30 1993-94 3,719,513 1,448,262 12,160,586 8,479,542 6,038,246 2,225,642 405,948 4,333,252 14,092,454 1,954, 231 54,857,676 Jul 1-Nov 30 1994-95 $ 4,130,616 1,560,199 13,291,062 9,261,689 6,306,423 2,441,454 498,515 5,934,631 14,894,423 3,153f 496 $ 61,472,508 Percentage of Change 11.05% 7.73% 9.30% 9.22% 4.44% Current Fiscal Year Unencumbered Balance $ 5,452,397 2,329,404 19,036,233 11,739,425 12,362,551 Revised Appropriations $ 9,583,013 3,889,603 32,327,295 21,001,114 18,668,974 Percent of Budget Obligated 43.10% 40.11% 41.11% 44.10% 33.78% 9.70% 22.80% 2,486,834 654,331 4,928,288 1,152,846 49.54% 43.24% 36.96% 5.69% 61.37% 12.06% 2,176,034 20,240,559 1,938~132 $ 78~415t900 8,110,665 35,134,982 5,091 ~628 $ 139f888t408 73.17% 42.39% 61.93% 43.94% 2 Revenue Source State Sales Tax Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth Grants-in-Aid Federal Government Charges for Services Transfer from General Fund Special Purpose Grants Total CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SCHOOL FUND STATEMENT OF REVENUE Year to Date for the Period Current Fiscal Year Percent of Revised Revenue Jul 1-Nov 30 Jul 1-Nov 30 Percentage Revenue Estimate 1993-94 1994-95 of Change Estimetes Received $ 2,386,635 $ 2,569,211 7.65% $ 9,756,299 11,015,430 12.91% 264,015 271,672 2.90% 696,971 425,260 ( 38.98%) 14,188,771 15,095,909 6.39% 3f213,957 3~326~391 3.50% $ 30,506,648 $ 32,703,873 { 7.20%) $ 7,480,506 26,697,649 2,342,068 2,288,916 35,449,049 5f106~543 79,364,731 34.35% 41.26% 11.60% 18.58% 42.58% N/A 41.21% Instruction General Support Transportation Operation and Maintenance of Plant Food Services Facilities Other Uses of Funds Special Purpose Grants Total STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES AND ENCUMBRANCES Year to Date for the Period Jull-Nov 30 1993-94 18,087,755 739,005 821,936 Jul 1-Nov 30 Percentage 1994-95 of Change $ 18,842,621 4.17% 996,899 34.90% 767,094 ( 6.67%) Current Fiscal Year Unencumbered Balance $ 35,602,494 1,928,432 2,040,877 Revised Appropriations $ 54,445,115 2,925,331 2,807,971 Percent of Budget Obligated 34.61% 34.08% 27.32% 3,425,250 3,902,730 13.94% 5,041,821 8,944,551 43.63% 895,062 1,536,236 1,588,271 5~745,922 32,839,437. 1,008,130 12.63% 1,655,939 7.79% 1,681,521 5.87% 5,106,543 ( 11.13%) $ 33,961,477 3.42% 2,186,161 495,238 277,939 47,572,962 3,194,291 2,151,177 1,959,460 5,106,543 $ 81,534,439 31.56% 76.98% 85.82% N/A 41.65% 3 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND STATEMENT OF EXPENDITURES, ENCUMBRANCES, AND UNENCUMBERED APPROPRIATIONS SUMMARY AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1994 General Government Public Safety Education Recreation Streets and Bridges Sanitation Projects Traffic Engineering & Communications Other Infrastructure Projects Capital Improvement Reserve Total Expenditures Unexpended Outstanding Unencumbered Budget To Date Balance Encumbrances Balance $30,513,038 $ 21,767,046 $ 8,745,992 $ 606,885 $ 8,139,107 9,169,051 1,599,849 7,569,202 7,183,380 385,822 10,187,287 6,581,220 3,606,067 3,091,376 514,691 44,710 29,145 15,565 878 14,687 7,949,478 4,876,173 3,073,305 832,743 2,240,562 4,004,869 2,702,725 1,302,144 1,184,577 117,567 1,243,300 1,187,390 55,910 5,700 50,210 7,258,965 4,264,274 2,994,691 785,446 2,209,245 2,604,843 2,604,843 2,604,843 $72~975~541 $ 43~007~822 $ 29~967~719 $ 13~690~985 $ 16~276~734 4 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA WATER FUND COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE 5 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1994 Operating Revenue: Commercial Sales Domestic Sales Industrial Sales Town of Vinton Roanoke County Customer Service Total Operating Revenue Less: Operating Expenses Personal Services Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income Add: Non-Operating Revenue Interest on Investments Rents Miscellaneous Total Non-Operating Revenue Net Income 1994 1,400,394 1,223,635 116,408 10,935 363,359 202,981 3,317,712 525,237 1,026,000 332,946 1,884,183 1,433,529 27,210 1,475 8,135 36,820 1,470,349 1993 $ 1,360,585 1,241,368 110,180 7,37O 549,228 137,179 3,405,910 421,211 911,775 337,171 1,670,157 1,735,753 30,631 1,475 1,463 33,569 5 WATER FUND NOVEMBER 30, 1994 (CONTINUED) Capital Outlay Not Included in Operating Expenses: Proiect New Services, Hydrants, and Lines Fire Hydrants FY 86 Project Design Carvins Cove Improvement Phase I Carvins Cove Improvement Phase II Carvins Cove Filter Plant Water Plant Expansion Bonds 92 Carvins Cove Filter Plant Phase I Falling Creek Finished Water Res. Carvins Cove Phase II Cont B-2 Carvins Cove Phase II Cont C-1 Carvins Cove Phase II Cont C-2 Fifth Street Bridge Replacement RCIT Water Storage Tank Carvins Cove Phase II Cont B-1 RCIT Water Tank Carvins Cove Phase II Cont A-1 Carvins Cove Phase II Cont A-2 VDOT Waterline Betterment Total Project Expenditures Less Prior Year Expenditures Total Current Year Expenditures Year to Date Expenditures 180,859 5,666 12,103 1,834,153 1,190,934 233,311 2,174,834 2,631,267 268,296 2,038,755 1,422,621 2,016,217 62,592 93,572 2,445,235 558,940 1,005,732 702,938 39,819 28,917,844 22,631,903 6,285,941 NOTE: Some of these projects are continued from prior years with inception to date totals. 6 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA SEWAGE TREATMENT FUND COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE 5 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1994 Operating Revenue: Sewage Charges - City Sewage Charges - Roanoke County Sewage Charges - Vinton Sewage Charges - Salem Sewage Charges - Botetourt County Customer Services Interfund Services Total Operating Revenue Less: Operating Expenses Personal Services Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating (Loss) Add: Non-Operating Revenue (Expenses) Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Interest Expense Net Non-Operating Revenue Net (Loss) 1994 1,938,563 282,633 71,380 236,258 29,319 44,613 18,830 2,621,596 672,218 1,662,716 398,176 2,733,110 ( 111,514) 18,141 9,369 ( 4,740) 22,770 $ ( 88,744) 1993 $1,990,151 325,144 92,810 211,582 27,299 58,074 9,020 2,714,080 580,053 1,892,258 404,202 2,876,513 (162,433) 21,891 5,247 ( 8,398) 18,740 ${ 143,693) 7 CITY OF ROANOKE SEWAGE TREATMENT FUND NOVEMBER 30, 1994 (CONTINUED) Capital Outlay Not Included in Operating Expenses: Project Other Equipment Unidentified Construction FY86 Projects Design Sewershed I/I Project Design Phase I Sewershed I/I Reduction II Sewershed I/I Reduction WPCP-Chemical Storage Tanks STP Expansion Bonds - 94 Issue RCIT Sewer Line Extension Tinker Creek Interceptor Sewer Roanoke River Interceptor Sewer Renovation/Expansion - Water Pollution Control Total Project Expenditures Less Prior Year Expenditures Total Current Year Expenditures Year to Date Expenditures $ 17,170 66,347 270,437 96,762 285,545 166,491 128,038 63,217 5,093 1,082 1,100,182 701,225 398,957 NOTE: Some of these projects are continued from prior years with inception to date totals. 8 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CIVIC CENTER FUND COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE 5 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1994 Operating Revenue: Rentals Parking Fee Event Expenses Advertising Admissions Tax Commissions Novelty Fees Total Operating Revenue Less: Operating Expenses Personal Services Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating (Loss) Add: Non-Operating Revenue Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Operating Supplement General Fund Total Non-Operating Revenue Net Income 1994 149,051 54,505 63,246 1,370 58,048 66,157 14,677 407,054 410,630 408,568 140,115 959,313 (552,259) 12,620 3,350 644,196 660,166 107,907 1993 $ 144,037 41,673 43,738 997 37,632 42,912 17,301 328,290 353,495 333,882 137,555 824,932 (496,642) 6,166 1,814 618,631 626,611 $ 129,969 9 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA CIVIC CENTER FUND NOVEMBER 30, 1994 (CONTINUED) Capital Outlay Not Included in Operating Expenses: Proiect Parking Lot Paving Other Equipment Total Project Expenditures Less Prior Year Expenditures Total Current Year Expenditures Year to Date Expenditures $ 84,834 3,426 88,260 $ 88,260 10 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA TRANSPORTATION FUND COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE 5 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1994 Operating Revenue: Century Station Parking Garage Williamson Road Parking Garage Market Square Parking Garage Church Avenue Parking Garage Tower Parking Garage Surface Parking Lots Total Operating Revenue Less: Operating Expenses Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income Add: Non-Operating Revenue (Expenses) Transfer from General Fund Interest on Investments Miscellaneous Operating Subsidy for GRTC Interest Expense Net Non-Operating Revenue (Expenses) Net Income 1994 117,344 83,272 67,952 165,728 99,421 46,6O5 580,322 218,757 217,116 435,873 144,449 657,211 ( 1,237) 2,987 (400,000) (294,926) (35,965) $ 108,484 1993 114,795 97,718 68,891 187,077 68,731 23,590 560,802 285,364 218,058 5O3,422 57,380 827,000 471 563 (338,516) (303,631) 185,887 $ 243,267 11 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA NURSING HOME FUND COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE 5 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1994 Operating Revenue: Private Patient Fees Medicaid Patient Fees Medicaid Reimbursements Total Operating Revenue Less: Operating Expenses Personal Services Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Loss Add: Non-Operating Revenue Interest on Investments Operating Supplement Total Non-Operating Revenue Net Income 1994 60,325 109,351 333,840 503,516 498,385 173,939 10,444 682,768 (179,252) 440,750 440,750 $ 261,498 1993 65,424 100,384 319,371 485,179 453,296 139,741 15,017 608,054 (122,875) 3,965 404,419 408,384 $ 285,509 12 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA HOTEL ROANOKE CONFERENCE CENTER FUND COMPARATIVE INCOME STATEMENT FOR THE 5 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1994 Operating Revenue: Operating Revenue Total Operating Revenue Less: Operating Expenses Operating Expenses Total Operating Expenses Operating (Loss) Add: Non-Operating Revenue City Contributions Contribution from Virginia Tech Proceeds from Brick Sales Interest on Investements Total Non-Operating Revenue Net Income 1994 1993 - 164,962 48,907 164,962 48,907 164,962) ( 48,907) 276,500 123,350 276,500 92,782 39,800 1,533 594,333 216,132 429,371 $ 167,225 (1) (1) Virginia Tech paid $30,568 for feasibility study and received credit toward its operating subsidy for that amount, 13 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA HOTEL ROANOKE CONFERENCE CENTER FUND NOVEMBER 30, 1994 (CONTINUED) Capital Outlay Not Included in Operating Expenses: Project Conference Center Total Project Expenditures Less Prior Year Expenditures Total Current Year Expenditures Year to Date Expenditures $ 7,374,887 7,374,887 3,256,136 $ 4,118,751 14 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS FOR THE 5 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1994 Operatint~ Revenue Charges for Services Total Operating Revenue Operatin~l Expenses Personal Services Operating Expenses Depreciation Total Operating Expenses Operating Income (Loss) Nonoperatint:l Revenue Interest Revenue Total Nonoperating Revenue Net Income (Loss) City Information Materials Management Utility Line Systems Control Services Services 1,050,910 $ 65,932 $ 182,717 $1f173,292 1,050,910 65~932 182,717 1,173,292 569,914 32,689 32,425 916,565 250,395 6,180 118,492 210,035 87,285 729 15,861 71,812 907,594 39,498 166,778 1,198,412 143f316 26f434 15f939 { 25~120) TOTALS Fleet Management 1994 1993 ,470,480 $ 3,943~331 $ 3~562,453 ,470~480 3,943~331 3~552~453 491,247 2,042,740 1,824,070 278,744 863,846 815,750 427,024 602,711 618~539 1,197~015 3,509,297 3,258,359 273~465 434,034 294f094 17,988 3,046 2,898 16,383 10,822 51,137 45~970 17~988 3~046 2,898 16,383 10,822 51,137 46,970 161,304 $ 29,480 $ 18,837 9{ 8f737) $ 28_4,287 $ 485,171 $ 340,064 15 CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS NOVEMBER 30, 1994 (CONTINUED) Capital Outlay Not Included in Operating Expenses: Project CIS - Other Equipment MS - Other Equipment MS - Furniture and Equipment ULS - Vehicular Equipment ULS - Other Equipment ULS - Sewershed Study FM - Vehicular Equipment FM - Other Equipment Total Year to Date Expenditures $ 43,448 1,100 2,615 78,810 42,300 9,257 448,866 13,808 640,204 16 CITY TREA,SURER'S OFFICE GENEP, N.. STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY FOR THE MONTH ENDED NOVEMBER 30. 1994 TO THE DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: GENERAL STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTABILITY OF THE CiTY TREASURER OF THE CiTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA FOR THE FUNDS OF SAID CITY THE MONTH ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1994. GENERAL $7,440,192.07 $6,914,364.56 WATER 10,586,887.37 433,821.92 SEWAGE 17,552,470.08 1,236,162.80 AIRPORT 5,447.97 0.00 crvIc CENTER 920,676.45 170,226.35 TRANSPORTATION 136, 993.70 82,174.47 CAPITAL 19,573,650.83 1,750,705.34. NURSING HOME 623,358.16 101,178.20 RKE CONFERENCE CEN 7,648,099.84 21,601.65 DEBT SERVICE 6,564,525.54 1,300,255.07 ClS 1,456,606.82 53,920.61 MATERIALS CONTROL 256,495.42 97,781.46 MANAGEMENT SERVICE 223,346.98 27,949.68 UTILITY LINES SERV 1,331,157.84 0.00 FLEET MAINTENANCE 1,141,793.62 47,566.23 PAYROLL (6,037,647.72) 13,561,164.23 PENSION 48,953.37 523,298.04 ~,..HOOL. FUNO 11,712,075.06 3,652,176.03 FDETC (60,360.16) 262,060.93 GRANT PROGRAMS 301.098.27 323.416.71 TOTAL $82,423,820.50 $30,449,823.27 $13,418,650.78 1,172,103.10 1,241,816.43 0.00 209,487.21 208,863.46 983,827.62 173,828.62 705,217.62 95,194.57 18,711.16 37,293.48 32,820.51 12,029,164.13 741,323.90 4,347,769.73 262,835.53 330.178.17 $36,021,677.11 $398,919.35 24,191,312.06 1,506,543.45 6,276,213.45 549,910.31 172,440.20 12,177,852.02 405,862.71 (495,935.71) 151,320.75 1,360,930.98 283,605.62 266,659.00 757,336.79 1,240,350.24 3,929,047.77 (234,100.28) 8,850,634.18 (68,oee.37) 61o.676.oo I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE FOREGOING IS A TRUE STATEMENT OF MY ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE CiTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, FOR THE FUNDS OF THE VARIOUS ACCOUNTS THEREOF FOR THE MONTH ENDED NOVEMBER 30, 1994 THAT SAiD FOREGOING: CASH tN HAND CASH IN BANK INVESTMENT8 ACQUIRED FROM COMPETITIVE PROPOSN.,8: COMMERCIAL PAPER REPURCHASE AG REEMENTS U. S. TREASURY NOTES' VIRGINIA AIM PROGRAM (U. S. SECURITIES) TOTAL DATE: DECEMBER 12, 1994 17 Revenu City's Invest~ Gain or Bond D Expens Pensior Fees fo Active Bond P Admini CITY OF ROANOKE PENSION PLAN STATEMENT OF REVENUE AND EXPENSES FOR THE 5 MONTHS ENDING NOVEMBER 30, 1994 ~ntributions ent Income Sale of Investments scount Amoritization Total Revenue 1994 1993 2,250,545 $ 2,243,071 1,243,244 2,199,935 5,200,066 2,900,078 82,497 104,047 8,776,352 $ 7,447,131 ~S Payments 'Professional Services ~ervice Death Benefit emium Amortization ,trative Expense Total Expenses Net Income Year to Date 3,038,195 $ 3,038,868 193,044 180,328 12,181 200,650 240,144 13,280 3,211 3,445,169 3,474,732 5,331,183 $ 3,972,399 18 CITY OF ROANOKE PENSION PLAN BALANCE SHEET AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 1994 Assets Cash Investments: (market value - Due from Other Funds Other Assets Total Assets 1994 9161,262,590 1993 9159,534,423) 1994 9( 172,400) 151,212,333 279 18,000 9 151,058,212 1993 9( 234,100) 140,484,069 18,000 $140,267,969 Liabilities and Fund Balance Due to Other Funds Total Liabilities Fund Balance, July 1 Net Income Year to Date Total Fund Balance Total Liabilities and Fund Balance 9 609,599 9 571,179 609,599 571,179 145,117,430 135,724,391 5,331,183 3,972,399 150,448,613 139,696,790 9151,058,212 $ 140,267,969 19 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #2-184-468 Ms. Margie Langston Property Manager Brothers Investments 120 Church Avenue Suite B Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Ms. Langston: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 32318-121994 providing for acquisition of real estate commonly known as 515 Church Avenue and identified by Roanoke City Tax Map No. 1113410, upon certain terms and conditions, for the consideration of $10,000.00. Ordinance No. 32318-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 19, 1994. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Enc. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32318-121994. AN ORDINANCE providing for the acquisition of real estate commonly known as 515 Church Avenue and identified by Roanoke City Tax Map No. 1113410, upon certain terms and conditions; and providing for an emergency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. For the Employee Parking Project, the City wants and needs fee simple title to real estate commonly known as 515 Church Avenue and identified by Roanoke City Tax Map No. 1113410, as more specifically set forth in the report and attachments thereto to this Council dated December 19, 1994. The proper City officials are authorized to acquire for the City from the owner the fee simple title to the parcel, for the consideration of $10,000.00. 2. Upon delivery to the City of a deed, approved as to form and execution by the City Attorney, the Director of Finance is directed to pay the consideration to the owner, certified by the City Attorney to be entitled to the same. 3. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32317-121994. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1994-95 General and Capital 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 1994-95 General and Capital Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Gener&l Fund ADDroDriations Nondepartmental Contingency (1) ................................... Transfers to Other Funds (2) ...................... CaDit&l Fund Aooropriations General Government Employee Parking (3) .............................. 1) Employee Parking Initiatives 2) Transfer to Capital Project Fund 3) Appropriated from General Revenue (001-002-9410-2246) $ (100,000) (001-004-9310-9508) 100,000 (008-056-9698-9003) 100,000 $ 48,262,185 416,037 47,421,536 $ 30,613,038 100,000 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. December 19, 1994 ~,~o~t~ ND!. 94-342 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Acquisition of Property Located at 515 Church Avenue, S.W. The attached report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at its regular meeting on December 12, 1994. The Committee recommends that Council authorize the following in accordance with conditions stated in the attached report: 1. Transfer $100,000 from the Contingency Employee Parking Initiatives Account 001-002-9410-2246 to a Capital Projects Fund Account to be established by the Director of Finance to be used to purchase this property, raze the building, grade the lot and make future acquisitions as approved by Council. 2. Purchase the house and lot located at 515 Church Avenue, S.W. for the proposed amount of $10~000. Respectfully submitted, E l~i z~~t h~T .~ B~ e s~, C~ha i r~~p er s on Water Resources Committee ETB:KBK:afm Attachments cc: City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Utilities & Operations Director of Real Estate Valuation City Engineer Manager, General Services Manager, Management and Budget Margie Langston, Property Manager, Brothers Investments 94-342 DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 12, 1994 ~ember~, Water Resources Committee er, Direct ilities and Operations thru W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Acquisition of Property Located at 515 Church Avenue, S.W. II. III. Background on the subject in chronological order is: ae In September, 1994, a plan was developed to address the Employee Parking recommendation. A copy of that plan is attached. $100~000 was designated in Contingency Employee Parking Initiatives Account 001-002-9410-2246 to provide for the beginning implementation of the parking plan. A house and lot, located at 515 Church Avenue, S.W., has been identified as a possible site to acquire to implement phase I of the parking project. Current Situation is: ae The house located on the lot at 515 Church Avenue, S.W. has been damaged by Fire and will have to be demolished. Bo The property owner has offered to sell, to the City of Roanoke, the property for $10~000.. Attached is the letter of offer. The property has been reviewed by Mr. Will Claytor, Director, Real Estate Valuation, and has been determined to be a fair price for the amount proposed. De Funding currently approved for the employee parking program needs to be transferred to a capital fund account. Issues in order of importance are: A. Need B. Timing C. Fundinq Acquisition of Property located at 515 Church Avenue, S.W. Page 2 IV. Alternatives in order of feasibility are: Committee recommend that City Council authorize the purchase of the house and lot located at 515 Church Avenue, S.W., official Tax Number 1113410, for the cost of $10,000. 1. Need of the requested property is for the implementation of phase I of the Employee Parking Project. Timing is critical to allow for the acquisition of the property which is currently available to the City at a fair price. Funding is available in Contingency Employee Parking Initiatives Account 001-002-9410-2246 to allow for the purchase. Committee not recommend that City Council authorize the purchase of the house and lot located at 515 Church Avenue, S.W. Need for the acquisition of property for the Employee Parking Project would continue to exist. 2. Timing would not be a factor in this alternative· Funding designated for the Employee Parking Project would not be expended at this time. Recommendation is that the Committee approve Alternative "A", and recommend that City Council authorize the following: Transfer $100,000 from the Contingency Employee Parking Initiatives Account 001-002-9410-2246 to a Capital Projects Fund Account to be established by the Director of Finance to be used to purchase this property, raze the building, grade the lot and make future acquisitions as approved by Council. Acquisition of Property located at 515 Church Avenue, S.W. Page 3 Purchase the house and lot located at 515 Church Avenue, S.W. for the proposed amount of $10,000. Attachment cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Utilities and Operations Director of Real Estate Valuation City Engineer Manager, General Services Manager, Management and Budget Margie Langston, Property Manager, Brothers Investments BROTHERS INVESTMENTS 120 Church Avenue, Suite B Roanoke, VA 24011 November John Bow'man City of Roanoke, Engineering Dept. Municipal Building Roanoke, VA 24011 De~Mr. Bowman: This is to inform you that Brothers Investments would like to offer for sale to the City of Roanoke the house and lot located at 515 Church Ave., S.W. for a purchase price of $10,000. This price is only slightly higher than the amount bid at the foreclosure sale in September in order to cover attorney's fees, etc. Please let us know if this in line with your interests and budget. I look forward to hearing fi.om you. Sincerely, Margie Langston Property Manager 3,70,o CITY OF ROANOKE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: September 8, 1994 BRober~ Herbert, City Manager .~~, Director of Utilities Employee Parking Team Recommendations & Operations Reference your August 15, 1994 memo, copy attached. You requested a recommendation from me regarding the feasibility and, if feasible, an implementation plan for the Parking Team recommendations listed. After having met with the following listed personnel, I will address the Parking Team recommendations in like manner as listed in the attached memo: Attendees at August 30, 1994 discussion meeting: Kit Kiser Gladys Yates Beth Carter John Bowman Doc Roupe Ann Mundy Steve Mancuso Bob Bengtson Kathy Cox Bob Chapman Mark Collins ae Develop a ~oint-use parking lot in the immediate vicinity of the Jefferson Center that will accommodate 400 vehicles. Funding available: $100,000 annually with perhaps $1,000,000 plus incorporated in a future bond issue. Feasible: Yes, over a long term as funding and property become available. 3. Plan: Pursue acquisition of properties and options for some subject to funding available, 1poking for the "best deals" in terms of dollars per space generated. Limit improvement funding to grading and graveling, for short term until appreciable progress is made, e.g. at least 100 "new spaces". Page 2 Je Once 50 new spaces have been created, work out a formal "sharing" agreement with Jefferson Center and YMCA. de Timing - As soon as "c" above is completed, initiate a drawing system for full-time permanent employees for use of this space (and subsequent space) as well as all other programs described herein. Stage subsequent drawings to provide annual commitments for space to the extent possible and striving to give six (6) months' notice . Also have subsequent drawings for new space as it becomes available. Funding - Use $100,000 budget figure supplemented by any other funding identified that is agreeable. Quit acquiring property when employees quit signing up to draw for spaces provided. Consider the acquisition or use of other properties in the vicinity of the Municipal Complex for employee parking if needed as funding becomes available. Plan: Consider as part of the "Plan" for recommendation "A" with priority being given to spaces that can be shared with the Jefferson Center and the YMCA. Allocate 20 spaces as they become available in the City-owned lot (assumed surface lot) on Williamson Road that is managed by Republic Parking for Main Library staff. Preamble: Timed walks at 9:30 a.m. (light traffic) reveal the following: Side door of Main Library to "Republic Parking" sign on surface lot - 5 minutes ii. Side door of Main Library to Tower Garage Elevator - 8 minutes iii. 'Municipal Building Church Avenue door to Tower Garage Elevators - 6 minutes iv. For future reference, the time from the Municipal Building Church Avenue door to the commercial residue parcels (from VDOT) on Franklin Road - 6 minutes Page 3 Ce 1. Feasible - Yes Recommended - No, this surface lot is full and has a waiting list. Plan - Offer unreserved free parking for Library Staff in the Tower Garage which routinely has at least 200 unused spaces. That number of unused spaces is expected to diminish in the near future with the Hotel/Conference Center use. Allow City employees in the downtown area who work second and third shifts to utilize the Church Avenue Parking Garage for permanent parking spaces from 4:45 p.m. until 7:15 a.m. - Employees can park on first come basis in any space available. 1. Feasible - Yes Workable - Unknown until we try. Suggest hours be extended from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. to give as much opportunity for use as possible. Expect to lose a minimal amount of revenue ($5.00/day range) due to extended hours of free parking for all. 3. Plan Special colored bumper sticker or mirror hangar with vehicle license number will be issued to employees for use on their personal vehicle. be If garage is entered before 3:30 p.m. or exited after 7:30 a.m., the time difference will be paid at the prevailing rate. Allocate available parking spaces in the Church Avenue Parking Garage on floors 4A and 5B for free parking by City employees that would be willing to car pool with other City employees. 25 spaces are suggested. Preamble: Unless parking on 4A or 5B is enforced for current employees enjoying the privilege of free parking, there should be no prohibition on parking level for car poolers. Two employees per car are considered a car pool. 1. Feasible - Yes Page 4 Ge Bob: Plan Institute draw system on semi-annual basis for employees who have an interest, once and if 25 spaces have been utilized on a first come basis. b. Issue special colored mirror hangar. Employees interested must identify employees to car pool with them and two identifiable employees must exit the garage. If only one employee is in the vehicle, attendant will make a note of the hangar number and turn that number in to the parking administrator. Generally, five (5) "single" exits in a month would be considered acceptable. If person exits with only one person, pause for attendant to record number for later verification. Reimburse the cost of monthly bus passes for City employees on Valley Metro. 1. Feasible - Yes Plan - Just do it. (Decide with Valley Metro how beSt to identify employees and who issues passes at what location). Probably best to issue ride passes rather than "reimburse" employees. Must decide how best to prevent passes from being used by non-employees (printed and signed employees names on passes will help, or perhaps the requirement that a City Employee I.D. card be shown - misuse will void ticket/privilege). Offer a free "park and ride" program at the Civic Center or other strateqic parking locations in conjunction with a downtown shuttle bus service. Feasible - Yes, but not now, Valley Metro will need an additional $24,000 annually to match a $12,000 verbal commitment from a bank in order to fund the downtown shuttle. I offer the following further recommendations: Designate an additional number of spaces in the Church Avenue Parking Garage, said number to be determined on an annual basis depending on availability and decided by the Manager of General Services after consultation Page 5 with the parking garage management personnel, initially set at 100 spaces to be used by City employees on a drawing basis. Designate an additional number of unreserved spaces, similar to (1) above but in the Tower Garage, said number to be set at 50 initially. Mark the City (VDOT) residue lots on Franklin Road as "Authorized Vehicles Only, Others Towed at Owners Expense", determine how many vehicles can park, then have a drawing for interested City employees. Attached map shows property location. OVERALL PLAN Acquire and develop initially, approximately 50 gravel parking spaces in the vicinity of the Jefferson Center, between the Municipal Building and Jefferson Center or at other locations within an 8-minute brisk walk of the MUnicipal Building. Continue to acquire, develop, and improve those spaces as long as there are permanent full-time City employees (including the employees of the courts and constitutional offices) who desire the free use of those spaces. After Item #1 is Accomplished Upon acquisition of 50_+ spaces, negotiate joint use agreements with the Jefferson Center and the YMCA. Desiqnate available space in the Church Avenue and Tower Garaqes for use by Library staff, car pool and extra space. "Sign" Franklin Road residue space "Authorized Vehicles Only, Others Towed at Owners Expense" and invite employees to draw for that space. Provide free Valley Metro passes to City employees for transportation to and from work (STAR service passes are excluded from this program since that would be an additional cost and not part of the existing service cost). Desiqnate the Office of General Services to initiate, officiate, and implement the City employee parking program. Employees desiring to have access to limited free space will be chosen by a semi-annual to annual draWing (depending on expected turn over with annual drawings preferred) after all employees have been Page 6 notified. Employees will be asked to sign some form of agreement for such things as noting the space is a privilege for the person as a City employee and parking is provided "at risk" with no liability being assumed by the City. Funding will eventually be needed for litter pick-up, designated security, regrading, snow removal, etc. of surface lots unless those functions are undertaken by existing department. Operating cost will need to be explored as part of routine budgeting functions. Make spaces available to interns, volunteers, and extra help employees to the extent those spaces are available and not used by full time employees. Offer free parking to any City employee -- to the extent space is available -- from 3:30 p.m. to 7:30 a.m. in the Church Avenue Garage. Defer commitment to Civic Center Parking Lot and downtown bus shuttle service at this time. Please advise if you concur with the above recommendations and plan, if a report is needed for City Council, and/or if we are ready to proceed with land acquisition. Concur: 1. Above Plan: 2. Need Report to Council: W. Robert Herbert We R%~er t Herbert W. Robert Herbert Report to Council when ready to ask for authority to purchgse. ~ ~ I specific property: W. Robert Herbert Page 7 No enforcement of parking deck location for employees receiving free parking in Church Avenue Garage: W. Robert Herbert No free parking will be issued to any additional current City employee or new City employee below Pay Grade 15 except in keeping with the above plan except on the expressed written approval of the City Manager (e.g. no delegation of authority to make exceptions): ~ ~ W. Robert Herbert KBK:afm Attachment cc: Discussion Group Directors Barry Key DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Interdepartmental Communication Office of the City Manager August 15; 1994 Kit B..Kiser, Di~r~f Utilities and Operations W. Robert I-IerbLe~, City Manager Employee Parking Team Recommendations f,,FFIC,F. The Employee Parking Team included eleven separate recommendations to address the employee parking problem in their final report to me, including the following two related recommendations: Develov a Joint-use varkine lot in the immediate vicini~_ of the Jefferson Center that will accommodate apprdximate-ly 400 vehicles. The lot could be used jointly by City employees, the Jefferson Center and Young Men's Christian Association (134CA). As stated previously, the Jefferson Center and YMCA have been approached about a joint-use parking facility, and are very positive in their desire to work with the City on this venture. However, additional work is necessary to finalize the details of such an arrangement. Approximately 100 of the total 400 spaces created would be allocated to the YMCA and Jefferson Center to meet their needs, leaving 300 spaces for use by City employees. There should be no charge for parking by City employees in this lot. Emt>lovee parking needs in the downtown area would be partially met with this action. The employee survey indicated that approximately 600 City employees that currently do not receive free parking privileges would use a parking facility within a reasonable walking distance if it were provided free by the City. Some of these employees work varying shifts, so the maximum number of employees using the lot during daytime should be less. A second employee survey should be conducted if this alternative is approved in order to determine the exact number of spaces needed per shi~. If only 300 parking spaces can be provided initially, and this is not adequate for the daytime shift, then the spaces could be awarded to employees on a the basis of seniority, or a higher priority could be awarded to those employees who would be willing to carpool. F,~ should not be a problem if the parking lot is well lighted and patrolled regularly by the Police Department. It should be noted also that designated parking for Police Department employees will be here also, and police presence in the area should help to mitigate possible safety concerns. Emolovee morale should be positively affected with this action. However, there will be -employees who are either physically unable to walk this distance to park or simply do not want to walk the distance to the lot location. The shuttle bus service recommended in alternative G. may help to mitigate some of these concerns.' Some employees in the survey asked that some type of parldng cost reimbursement be J. considered so that they could continue to park in their current location. Business and neighborhood imoact should be generally positive. Blighted conditions and public safe, concerns in the area would be mitigated to a great extent. Also, the parking needs of the Jefferson Center and YMCA would be addressed in the amounts indicated below: Jefferson Center- Daytime - 150 spaces Jefferson Center - Nighttime - 440 spaces (for use when Auditorium is completed) YMCA - 30 spaces However, some opposition from the community should be expected from various community groups, as mentioned previously. On the positive side, the majority of property owners in the area have indicated preliminarily that they would be willing to sell under the right terms. The team does not recommend condemnation of properties for the purpose of creating employee parking. Cost and fundine - Cost for acquisition and development of these properties is estimated at a minimum of $1,056,000, as detailed below: Acquisition cost - $703,000 Development cost- $353,000 Please note that costs for environmental assessments and landscaping have not been included. Also, the annual tax loss from removing this privately owned property from the tax rolls would be approximately $8,000 annually. Funding could be arranged through the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA). Hopefully, the RRHA can arrange financing for acquisition and development of the property, and then lease the property to the City over a period of 30 years. At an interest rate of 7.5 %, the annual lease payment wouM be .approximately $90,000 annually depending on the terms of the financing arrangement. 6. ~ would be determined by the amount of effort required to purchase the property and develop it. The best guess of the team is that this may take a minimum of 12 months, once a funding scenario is determined and approved. Consider the acauisition or use of other t~rooerties in th~- vicinity o£ the Municit~al Complexfor .e. rn~.lo~_ ee.~tlg ff ~eded as-~tional funding for-employee tnirking becomes avatlable, particular emphasis should be placed on using properties owned by the City. e Enmlovee tnzt~n~ needs may be only partially met under the previous alternatives. Tt~ acquiiitlon 6f additional property may be necessary if the previous alternatives are not effective in meeting the entire employee parking need. ~ should continue to be an issue for any properties that are considered for purchase.. Enmlovee mo~ should be positively affected if additional properties are purchased to meet the entire parking need. 4. · Business and neiehborhood imoact should continue to be an issue for any properties Page 2 that are considered for purchase. Cost and_funding would depend on the properties selected for acquisition and development. Timing would depend on the availability of the properties to be purchased. As you know, I included a capital project entitled "Parking Facility - Jefferson Center" in the Capital Improvement Program that was recently approved by City Council (see attached project description shee0, with funding to come from $100,000 included in the FY 1994-95 and FY 1995-96 budgets and a $1,056,000 general obligation bond issue in 1996. Since this project will involve the acquisition of real estate, I would like you to chair a development team to be comprised of staff and other individuals of your choosing that will begin immediately to plan and design this project. I would like a recommendation from you on how to proceed and who to involve by September 15th. In addition, the employee team made the following recommendations as well: Bo Allocate 20 soaces as they become available in the City-owned lot on WHliamson Road that is mana~_ed by_ Republic ~, for use by libraky employees during the daytime shift. Emvlovee t~arking needs wouM be met at the Main Library with this alternative. Pai, king fiir employees working at night is not a problem due to an ample supply of free parking. 2. F,~ should not be an issue with this alternative during the daytime. 3. Emvlovee morale should be positively affected. Business and neighborhood imtmct would be positive since surface property in the downtown area Could not be trequired for some 20 surface parking spaces. Cost and funding - annual revenue lost in the City-owned lot would be approximately $7,20O. ~ would depend on when the parking lot in alternative A could be made ready. All free parking spaces should be made available the same date. Allow C~tv enmlovees in the downtown area who work secot~d god third shi~s to utilize the ' ' from until7:15 parki4n~45p'm' level. Enmlovee tntrkint needs wouM be partially met with this alternative since 214 employee~ t'ndic~ed in the survey that they work evening, night or rotating shifts. Unfortunately, there is not adequate space in the garage for second shift employees to park at the very beginning of their sh~. ~ should not be a major issue with this alternative, except from 3 a.m. to 6 a.m., when no security is on duty. The facility is lighted at all times, however. 3. Emolovee morale should be positively affected. Page 3 Business and neighborhood impact would be positive as long as employees are out of the garage by 7.'15 a.m. when the garage begins to fill with paying customers. Se Cost and_funding would not be an issue since free parking is available to the general public during these hours. No revenue would be lost. '6. Timine would depend on when the parking lot in alternative A could be made ready. All free parking spaces should be made available the same date. Allocate available parking spaces in the Church Avenue ~arking Garage on_flOQr~ 4A qnd 5B_for_free parking by_ Ci~_ erapIoyees that would be willing to caroool with other Ci~_ employees, and thereby reduce the number of surface parking spa~es required in the parking lot proposed in alternative A. The parking policy recommended later in this report should include administrative provisions for the use of these parking spaces by qualified employees. Emplavee parl{ing needs would be partially met with this recommendation. If the minimum requirement for carpooling is two employees, then 50 employees could be provided parking in a total of 25 spaces, for example. 2. F~ should not be an issue. e Employee mor~tle should be positively affected. One of the major issues surrounding employee parking in the downtown area is the fai:t that certain employees receive free parking in the garage, a $45 per month benefit that other employees do not recetve. This alternative would allow other employees to park in the garage as well. Business and neiehborhood imt~act would be positive since surface property in the downtown area Could not be ~equired for surface parking spaces. Some negative impact could result if these spaces are ever needed to attract new downtown businesses, and timely alternatives do not exist for transferring employee parking elsewhere. However, there should be some reduction in the number of employees parking in the garage over time if the recommended administrative procedure is adopted. Cost and_fundittg would not be an issue. However, 25 spaces in the parking garage would be used with no revenue generated. ZIttl~g would depend on when the parking lot in alternative A could be made ready. All free parking spaces should be made available the same date. G. Reimburse the cost o_£monthly bus passes_for Ci~_ em_~loye¢$ on Valley Metro. would be reduced by the number of employees who take bus passes. Eight employees in the survey indicated they an un, now. many whowork at sites downtown area employees outside of the would take advantage of such an offer if it were offered to them as well. Emolovee sat'etv would not be an issue. Employee morale would be positively affected. Business and neighborhood imtntct would be positive since surface property in the Page 4 downtown area would not be required for surface parking spaces that would otherwise be needed by the employees who choose this option. Cost and_fuMing - The current cost of these passes is $32, but they are proposed to increase to $40. However, there is no direct cost increase related to this alternative. The Manager of the Greater Roanoke Transit Company (GRTC) has indicated that as long as he receives the budgeted amount of City revenue support, it does not matter if this is in the form of a direct local cash match or the purchase of bus passes for City employees. This would not be a taxable benefit per the Finance Department. Timine would depend on when the parking lot in alternative A could be made ready. All fr~e parking spaces and bus passes should be made available the same date. Qffer a free 't~ark and ride' program at the Civic Center or other strcltegic parkine locations in donjunction with the downtown shuttle bus now under consideration b~ Valley Metro and a guaranteed ride program. Conceptually, a Valley Metro shuttle bus would operate a downtown route with service to and from the Civic Center parking lot. The use of the Civic Center parking lot for employee parking would require approval of the Civic Center Commission. It is conceivable that the shuttle could include the Jefferson Center lot as pan of the route. Also, there would have to be 'blackout days' when large events are scheduled during the daytime at the Civic Center, and adequate parking is not available. The guarameed ride program wouM generally consist of an organized group of employees who would be willing to give rides to fellow employees participating in the program if they have an emergency situation where they need to get to their car quickly. Emolovee oarking needs would be partially met based on the number of employees tluit Would take ddvantage of such an opportunity. Emvlovee safety should not be a problem. Enmlovee morale should be positively affected for those that choose to use this set'ce. l[lusiness and neisthborhood inmact would be positive if the service were expanded to included other d~wntown busiitesses that were willing to contribute toward the cost of operaaon. Cost and fundino - the cost of the shuttle would be $24,000 per year. This is the amount the Matiager of GRTC says will be needed to provide free service in addition to planned support from a local bank. ~ is such that this alternative could be implemented as soon as Civic Center Commission approval is received. Valley Metro can have the shuttle bus ready within the same time frame. Providing this service in advance of other parking options ~may encourage employees that currently pay to park to use the service and get comfortable with it. It may not be used as much if other options are offered at the same time. Each of these recommendations affect either an existing City-owned parking facility, Valley Metro or the Civic Center, all of which fall under your direction. For that reason, I ' would like a recommendation from you by September 15th as to the feasibility of each Page 5 recommendation. If you deem a recommendation to be feasible, I would like you to provide a recommended implementation plan. Thank you for your help with this important issue. If you have questions, please call. cc: James D. Ritchie, Sr., Assistant City Manager Page 6 Project Category: Project Title: Project Account(s): MISCELLANEOUS Parking Facility - Jefferson Center This project would consist of the construction of a joint-use parking facility in the vicinity of the Jefferson Center complex to satisfy parking needs for (1) City employees in the downtown area, (2) Jefferson Center tenants and patrons, and (3) other interested businesses in the area. This project is the direct result of a request by City Council in November, 1993, for the City Manager to evaluate the City employee parking problem in the downtown area and recommend a solution. The City Manager appointed an employee team to review the problem and make recommendations on how to address the problem. The employee team responded with ten alternative solutions, including this project. While only preliminary design and community research has been completed, it is hoped that a minimum of 400 additional parking spaces can be generated in the area. Other recommendations of the employee team that do not affect the capital improvement program are currently being reviewed as to feasibility. Approximately 830 City employees in the downtown are· ddve a private vehicle to and from work each day. 150 of these employees receive free parking privileges from the City in various locations, as do all other City employees working at sites outside of the downtown are·. The remaining employees either pay to park at private lots at an average monthly cost of almost $21, or park on City streets or City-owned lots after routine office hours. 600 City employ·el that responded to an employee teem survey said they would utilize a parking facility within · reasonable walking distance if it were made available free of charge by the City. None of these employees currently receive free parking privileges. Cost Summary: Planning/Engineedng/Leg·l Acquisition of Property Construction Equipment~Furniture Other:. (Explain Below) TOTAL $ 200,000 703,000 353,000 0 9 118 ~ource of Estimates: Engineering Department and Real Estate Information System (property values), Construction ~tatus: Not started. Soendina bv Fiscal Year: PHor Yrs.' FY 1994 FY 1995 FY 1996 FY 1997 FY 1998 Spending -0- $100,000 $1,156,000 -0- -0- Fundina Status: General Funds set aside for parking Future General Obligation Bond Issue Total $1,256,000 (FY 1995 and 1996) Impact on Ooeratlna Budaeb i~iiii!~_,.,.~.,:.,. .... FY 1994 FY 1996 FY 199~ FY 1991 FY 1998 P~ Servicms ~- ~- ~ ~- -O- Op~ ~~ ~ ~- ~ ~- -0- Parking facility would require re-paving every 20 years. 119 I VDOT Parcel No. RESIDUE PARCELS Franklin Road Widening Project VDOT Acquired Residue Parcel From: Area Sq. Ft. Consideration 006 007 008 009 011 012 013 Emmitt Elli's & Bonny W. Aesy David L. & Teresa Crandall Leo A. Maier June B. Burgess John P. & Patricia H. Joplin Professional Opthalmic Laboratories, Inc. John & Katherine W. Prosak 2,032 3,434 2,853 1,476 16,405 17,786 789 16,076 $ 32,585 19,728 6,273 131,753 143,574 5,663 TOTAL 44,775 (or 1.028 acre) $355,652 MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Awnue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke. Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (7031 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN DepuD Cit5 ¢'lcrk December 22, 1994 File #51 Mr. Michael A. Wells 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Mr. Wells: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 32294-121994 rezoning a parcel of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., identified as Official Tax No. 2761409, from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Ordinance No. 32294-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, December 12, 1994, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday, December 19, 1994, and will take effect ten days following the date of its second reading. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, E City Clerk MFP: sm gnc. Trustees of Fairview Methodist Church, 1310 Van Buren Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Ms. Anna L. Pryor and Ms. Ruth L. Pryor, 3901 Virginia Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Mr. Marvin L. Hickson, 3833 Virginia Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Roanoke Real Estatg Exchange Corporation, 2302 Colonial Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Mr. Ralph L. Austin, 3723 Greenland Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Whiting Oil Company, P. O. Box 13026, Roanoke, Virginia 24030 John R. Marlles, Agent, City Planning Commission Evelyn D. Dorsey, Zoning Administrator IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32294-121994. AN ORDINANCE to amend S36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 276, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City, subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant. WHEREAS, Michael A. Wells has made application to the Council of the City of Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by S36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on said application at its meeting on December 12, 1994, after due and 6imely notice thereof as required by ~36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the recommendation made to the Council by the Planning Commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented at the public hearing, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described property should be rezoned as herein provided. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that S36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 276 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other: The rear twenty-five (25) feet of a tract of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N.W., and designated on Sheet No. 276 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map City of Roanoke as Official Tax No. 2761409, be, and is hereby rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to the following proffers: the use of the subject property to be rezoned shall be an automobile cleaning facility in the existing garage, and signage will be restricted to a single wall sign, not to exceed 20 square feet, to be located on the front of the existing garage facing Westside Boulevard, as more fully set forth in the Third Amended Petition, filed in the Office of the City Clerk on November 9, 1994, and that Sheet No. 276 of the Zone Map be changed in this respect. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke City Planning Commission December 12, 1994 The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Request from Michael A. Wells that a tract of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N.W., designated as Official Tax Number 2761409 be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. I. Background: Purpose of the request is to permit the continuation of an existing automobile cleaning facility. Be Automobile cleaning business was established after the petitioner was incorrectly informed by City staff of the zoning designation of the subject property. Ce Petition to rezone was filed on October 12, 1994. Condition proffered by the petitioner was as follows: The hours of business operation will be limited to 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Second amended petition was filed on October 31, 1994. Conditions proffered by the petitioner were as follows: 1. The hours of business operation will be limited to 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The use of the property to be rezoned shall be an automobile cleaning facility in the existing garage. Signage will be restricted to a single wall sign, not to exceed 20 square feet, to be located on the front of the existing garage facing Westside Boulevard. Room 162 Municipal Building 215Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2344 Members of the Commission Page 2 Fo II. Issues: Ao Bo Ce Planning Commission public hearing was held on November 2, 1994. Mr. Wells stated that he needed to have the property rezoned to continue his existing business. Mr. Marlles presented the staff report. He noted that staff had worked with the petitioner to develop proffers that would allow the car cleaning business to continue operation in the existing garage and would protect the neighborhood. After discussion between the petitioner and Commission members, Mr. Wells agreed to amend his petition by deleting the proffer restricting the hours of operation and to only request a rezoning of the rear 25 feet of his property containing the existing garage and automobile cleaning facility. Third amended petition was fried on November 9, 1994. Conditions proffered by the petitioner were as follows: The use of the subject property to be rezoned shall be an automobile cleaning facility in the existing garage. Signage will be restricted to a single wall sign, not to exceed 20~square feet, to be located on the front of the existing garage facing Westside Boulevard. Zoning is presently RS-3, Residential Single Family District. Zoning to the north across Virginia Avenue and to the west is RS-3, Residential Single Family District. Zoning to the east across Westside Boulevard is C-l, Office District. To the south the zoning is C-2, General Commercial District. l_and use of the parcel to be rezoned is single family and commercial. The existing nonconforming automobile cleaning facility is located in a garage at the rear of the subject property. Land use to the north and west is single family residential. Land use to the east is office. Land use to the south is highway commercial. Utilities are available. Traffic impact is minimal. Access to the existing automobile cleaning facility is from Westside Boulevard. The petitioner has indicated that only a small percentage of the existing business is "drive in." Neighborhood is not presently organized. The petitioner has been advised to try to meet with the surrounding property owners prior to the public hearing. As of this writing, no comments have been received by the Planning office. Members of the Commission Page 3 III. F. Comprehensive Plan recommends that: Development of commercial sites shall be carefully planned and designed to promote quality development and good land use. Neighborhoods should be protected from encroachments of incompatible use through appropriate land use decisions and design/buffeting requirements. Alternatives: A. City Council approve the rezoning request. Zoning becomes conditional C-2, allowing the petitioner to continue the existing automobile cleaning business. The zoning of the property will revert to RS-3, Residential Single Family District, if the use is discontinued or the ownership of the property changes. Land use of the parcel remains single family and commercial. The existing automobile cleaning facility becomes a permitted use. 3. Utilities would not be affected. 4. Traffic would not be affected. Neighborhood would largely be unaffected. The existing automobile cleaning facility is located at the rear of the subject property separated from the residential uses in the neighborhood by the difference in topography and existing natural buffering. 6. Comprehensive plan would be followed: B. City_ Council deny the rezoning request. Zoning of the subject property would remain RS-3, Residential Single Family District. The existing use of the garage as an automobile cleaning facility would be in violation of the use provisions of the RS-3 District. o Land use would remain a single family residence and a garage available for any use that is permitted by right or through special exception in the RS-3 District. 3. Utilities would not be an issue. Members of the Commission Page 4 4. Traffic impact would not be an issue. 5. Neighborhood would remain unchanged. 6. Comprehensive plan issues as set forth could still be followed. IV. Recommendation: By a vote of 5-0 (Messrs. Price and Jones absent), the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the requested rezoning finding that the proposed proffers and the topographic difference between the existing automobile cleaning business and the residential uses fronting on Virginia Avenue should minimize any impact on the residential position of the neighborhood. Respectfully submitted, Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman Roanoke City Planning Commission JRM:mpf attachments cc: Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works City Engineer Building Commissioner Petitioner TIMES & WURLD-N~wS :~':' NUM[.3ER - 112530643 PUf~LISHER'S FEE - C/O MARY F- PA~IK~R CITY CLFRKS OFFICC <or]q ~56 MUNICIPAL 3LOG ~ (jB Nr!K~ V~B 24011 $98.80 STAT~' OF VIR. GIi'~IA CITY O~ Ri]~:~',~CIKF~ AFFIC'LVIT :3~= P[J['~L ICATIO,"I I, I THE UND,~RSIGN~D) ~,N a, UTHORIZED R~PR~!SFNTATIVF OF THE! TI~I~:S-NORLD COR- Pt3RATION~ ~HICH COFqpor~,TION IS PUBLISHER OF T~F RO.~NI]K~ TI'q~S & ,~R. LD-N~WS~ A DAILY NEWSPAPER PU~LISHED IN ROr~NOKE, IN TH~ STqTF} OF VIR~,,I~'~I~t DC CERTIFY THAT Tide 4NN~C:XFU ~JOTICP WAS PU~LISriED IN SAID NEWSPAPERS ON TH~ FOLLOWING DATES '-'5 WITNESS, THIS 6TH 9AY OF ~ECEMt~ER 199~r ~UTHC F~' I Z ,F:D S IGNATUR[ NOTICE OF PUBUC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: PursUant to ~he provleJons of ArUcle VII of Chapter 36.1, Code'~of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Court. clJ of~l:he' CRy of Roanoke will hold a Public Honrlng on Mon- day, Oeoan'~er /2, 1994, at 7:00 P.m., In the Council Chamber in the Municipal 8uildlnlL' 215 Church Avenue, S.W. on the question of rezon- lng from R$~3, Residential Single:Family Dismct, to C-2, Generll Commercial District, the folk)win~ prop~: 111e rear twenty-live (29) feet of a frast of land located at 3904 "virglnle Avenue, N.W., and I~adng Official Tax No. 2761409, Such rezonlng to be $ul~M':t to certain proffered' CondO. A copy of this P~I I$ avail. able for punic inSPeCtion In the 456, Munic/pel Building. AJI patbes In interest may appear bP the above date and be heard on the question. GIVEN undar rpy hand this 23M daY of November, 1994. '" ,.~M~_ F: Parker, Cltv.C'd,M. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chapter 36.1, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, December 12, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., on the question of rezoning from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, the following property: The rear twenty-five (25) feet of a tract of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N.W., and bearing Official Tax No. 2761409, such rezoning to be subject to certain proffered conditions. A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building. All parties in interest may appear on the above date and be heard on the question. GIVEN under my hand this _~ day of N0¥e~er , 1994. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ~OANOKE, VIRGINIA PERTAINING TO THE REZO~G REi~,ST.OI~/ ' :' :] -/ John David Fralin to rezone property in 2900 block of Epperly Avenue,) NW, Tax Nos. 2160612-2160614, from RS-3 to RM-2, conditional. )AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she Secretary of the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-341, Code of Virginia, (]950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 28th day of November, 1994, notices of a public heating to be held on the 7th day of December, 1994, on the rezoning captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels listed below at their last known address: Parcel 2161001 2161025 2161013 216O6O3 0wnCr, Agent or Occupant Trustees of Trinity Evangelical Luthem Church of Roanoke Jane E. Moseley 2160604 Wilfred C. & Irma E. Nash 2160605 Charles E. Scruggs 2160606 Linda Faye Whimack 2160607 Graham S. Garland 2160608 Ruby F. Woods 2160609 2160610 2160611 Melanie S. Miller Douglas B. Bowman Warren T. Delafield Barbara E. Delafield Michael W. and Daphalene L. Wolfe Address 2921 Eppedy Avenue, NW Roanoke, VA 24012 4201 Greenlawn Avenue Roanoke, VA 24012 4111 Greenlawn Avenue Roanoke, VA 24012 6531 Garman Drive, NE Roanoke,VA 24019 4103 Greenlawn Avenue Roanoke, VA 24012 2913 Ravenwood Avenue Roanoke, VA 24012 2917 Ravenwood Avenue Roanke, VA 24012 2921 Ravenwood Avenue Roanoke, VA 24012 4031 Runnymeade Lane Roanoke, VA 24018 2929 Ravenwood Avenue Roanoke, VA 24017 Ftmaklin SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 28th day of November, 1994. My Commission Expires: Notar~ Public //~ ~s -~/ 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk November 23, 1994 File #51 Mr. Michael A. Wells 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Mr. Wells: 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 for Monday, December 12, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on your request that the rear 25 feet of a tract of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., identified as Official Tax No. 2761409, be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. For your information, I am enclosing copy of a notice of the public hearing, an Ordinance and a report of the City Planning Commission with regard to the request for rezoning. Please review the documents and if you have questions, you may contact Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, at 981-2431. Questions with regard to the Planning Commission report should be directed to John R. Marlles, Chief of Community Planning, at 981-2344. It will be necessary for you or your representative to be present at the December 12 public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the request for rezoning until a later date. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Dec Eno. Mr. Michael A. Wells November 23, 1994 Page 2 pc.' Trustees of Fairview Methodist Church, 1310 Van Buren Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Ms. Anna L. Pryor and Ms. Ruth L. Pryor, 3901 Virginia Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Mr. Marvin L. Hickson, 3833 Virginia Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Roanoke Real Estate Exchange Corporation, 2302 Colonial Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Mr. Ralph L. Austin, 3723 Greenland Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Whiting Oil Company, P. O. Box 13026, Roanoke, Virginia 24030 THIRD AMENDED PETITION TO REZONE -IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA IN RE: Rezoning of the rear twenty five (25) feet of a tract of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., designated as Official Tax Number 2761409 from RS-3, Single-Family Residential, to C-2, General Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions specified herein. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The Petitioner, Michael A. Wells, owns land in the City of Roanoke containing less than one acre, located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W. and designated as Official Tax Number 2761409· Said tract is currently zoned RS-3, Single Family Residential District. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Single Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of an automobile cleaning facility. The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will provide a needed commercial service. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: The use of the subject property to be rezoned shall be an automobile cleaning facility in the existing garage· Signage will be restricted to a single wall sign, not to exeeed 20 square feet, to be located on the front of the existing garage facing Westside Boulevard. Attached as Exhibit 2 are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent to and immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 9th day of November, 1994. Respectfully submitted, By: Michael A. Wells Petitioner and Owner 3904 Virginia Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Rezoning // r~ 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk November 4, 1994 File #51 Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Price: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a second amended petition from Michael A. Wells requesting that the rear portion of a parcel of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., identified as Official Tax No. 2761409, be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm r/wells Enc. pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Mr. Michael A. Wells, 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 John R. Marlles, Agent, City Planning Commission Evelyn D. Dorsey, Acting Zoning Administrator Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney , SECOND AMENDED PETITION TO REZONE IN THE (~OUN(;:IL OF THE CITY OF ROANQKE¥ vIRG}NIA -' IN RE: Rezoning of the rear portion of a tract of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., designated as Official Tax Number 2761409 from RS-3, Single-Family Residential, to C-2, General Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions specified herein. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The Petitioner, Michael A. Wells, owns land in the City of Roanoke containing less than one acre, located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W. and designated as Official Tax Number 2761409. Said tract is currently zoned RS-3, Single Family Residential District. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Single Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of an automobile cleaning facility. The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will provide a needed commercial service. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: 1. The hours of business operation will be limited to 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The use of the subject property to be rezoned shall be an automobile cleaning facility in the existing garage. = Signage will be restricted to a single wall sign, not to exeeed 20 square feet, to be located on the front of the existing garage facing Westside Boulevard. Attached as Exhibit 2 are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent to and immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 31st day of October, 1994. Respectfully submitted, By: Michael A. Wells Petitioner and Owner 3904 Virginia Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1594 Telephone: (703) 981-2444 November 15, 1994 File #51 Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Price: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a third amended petition from Michael A. Wells requesting that the rear 25 feet of a tract of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., identified as Official Tax No. 2761409, be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm r/wells Enc. The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Mr. Michael A. Wells, 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 John R. Marlles, Agent, City Planning Commission Evelyn D. Dorsey, Acting Zoning Administrator Ronaid H. Miller, Building Commissioner Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney THIRD AMENDED PETITION TO REZONE IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINI~'r' IN RE: Rezoning of the rear twenty five {25) feet of a tract of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., designated as Official Tax Number 2761409 from RS-3, Single-Family Residential, to C-2, General Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions specified herein. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The Petitioner, Michael A. Wells, owns land in the City of Roanoke containing less than one acre, located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W. and designated as Official Tax Number 2761409. Said tract is currently zoned RS-3, Single Family Residential District. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Single Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of an automobile cleaning facility. The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will provide a needed commercial service. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: The use of the subject property to be rezoned shall be an automobile cleaning facility in the existing garage. Signage will be restricted to a single wall sign, not to exeeed 20 square feet, to be located on the front of the existing garage facing Westside Boulevard. Attached as Exhibit 2 are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent to and immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 9th day of November, 1994. Respectfully submitted, By: Michael A. Wells Petitioner and Owner 3904 Virginia Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 (.;I7'f ~ TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA · Q~ , ,~ PERTAINING TO THE REZONING REQUEST ~F:! ? i~:!5 ~!'~ '. :} Request from Michael A. Wells to rezone 3904 Virginia Avenue,. ) Tax No. 2761409, from RS-3 to C-2, conditional.. )AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she Secretary of the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-341, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 24th day of October, 1994, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 2nd day of November, 1994, on the rezoning captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels listed below at their last known address: Parcel Owner, Agent or Occupant 2760719 Trustees of Fairview Methodist Church 2760720 2760809 2761501 2761510 2761417 Anna Louise Pryor Ruth Lucille Pryor Marvin L. Hickson Roanoke Real Estate Exchange Corp. Ralph L. Austin Whiting Oil Company Address 1310 Van Buren Street Roanoke, VA 24017 390i Virginia Avenue Roanoke, VA 24017 1610 Statview Drive Salem, VA 24153 2302 Colonial Avenue Roanoke, VA 24015 2723 Greenland Avenue Roanoke, VA 24012 P. O. Box 13026 Roanoke, VA 24030 Martha Pace Franklin SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 24th day of October, 1994. My Commission Expires: MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk October 24, 1994 File #51 Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Price: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of an amended petition from Michael A. Wells requesting that a parcel of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., identified as Officiai Tax No. 2761409, be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Singie Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm r/wells Enc. pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Mr. Michael A. Wells, 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 John R. Marlles, Agent, City Planning Commission Evelyn D. Dorsey, Acting Zoning Administrator Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney · FIRST AMENDED PETITION TO REZONE IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA IN RE: Rezoning of a tract of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue,' N.'I~/., designated as Official Tax Number 2761409 from RS-3, Single-Family Residential, to C-2, General Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions specified herein. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The Petitioner, Michael A. Wells, owns land in the City of Roanoke containing less than one acre, located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W. and designated as Official Tax Number 2761409. Said tract is currently zoned RS-3, Single Family Residential District. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Single Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of an automobile care facility. The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will provide a needed commercial service. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: 1. The hours of business operation will be limited to 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. The use of the property shall be limited to a single family structure and an automobile care facility in the existing garage. The zoning of the property will revert to RS-3, Residential Single Family District if the automobile care business is discontinued or the ownership of the subject property changes. Signage will be restricted to a single wall sign to be located on the front of the existing garage facing Westside Boulevard. Attached as Exhibit 2 are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent to and immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 21st day of October, 1994. Respectfully submitted, By: Michael A. Wells Petitioner and Owner 3904 Virginia Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORB;fI~ ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: '9~ ! '/t' 1/~. ? ?, '.1 ~ The Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, November 2, 1994, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., in order to consider the following: Request from Michael A. Wells that a tract of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N.W., designated as Official Tax Number 2761409 be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. A copy of said application is available for review in the Department of Planning and Community Development, Room 162, ?unicipal Building. All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary Roanoke City Planning Commission Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, October 18, 1994 and Tuesday, October 25,1994 Please bill and send affidavit of publication to: Department of Planning and Community Development Room 162, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 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 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk October 17, 1994 File #51 Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Price: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a petition from Michael A. Wells requesting that a parcel of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., identified as Official Tax No. 2761409, be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Singie Family District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Sincerely Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm r/wells Enc. pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Mr. Michael A. Wells, 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 John R. Marlles, Agent, City Planning Commission Evelyn D. Dorsey, Acting Zoning Administrator Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney '. ~' PETITION TO REZONE I'N THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA IN RE: '94 ??;[ 12 Rezoning of a tract of land located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W., designated as Official Tax Number 2761409 from RS-3, Single-Family Residential, to 0-2, General Commercial District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions specified herein. TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The Petitioner, Michael A. Wells, owns land in the City of Roanoke containing less than one acre, located at 3904 Virginia Avenue, N. W. and designated as Official Tax Number 2761409. Said tract is currently zoned RS-3, Single Family Residential District. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit 1. Pursuant to Section 36.1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Single Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of an automobile care facility. The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will provide a needed commercial service. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: 1. The hours of business operation will be limited to 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. Attached as Exhibit 2 are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent to and immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 12th day of October, 1994. Respectfully submitted, By: Michael A. Wells Petitioner and Owner 3904 Virginia Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 PO00. '1/ Lo7 9 /07 /o SITE PLAN ,~'o,4 ,~,'o~4 ~- , ~,~,~ ~ z,,//,4 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #51 D. Jeffry Parkhill, Agent Hughes Associates Architects P. O. Box 1034 Roanoke, Virginia 24005 Dear Mr. Parkhill: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 32295-121994 rezoning a parcel of land located in the 2900 block of Epperly Avenue, N. W., containing .8 acre, more or less, described as Lots 19 - 21, inclusive, Block 1, Map of Epperly Court, Official Tax Nos. 2160612- 2160614, inclusive, from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Ordinance No. 32295-121994 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, December 12, 1994, aiso adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday, December 19, 1994, and will take effect ten days following the date of its second reading. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/A~E City Clerk MFP: sm Enc. pc: Trustees of Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church of Roanoke, 2921 Epperly Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Ms. Jane E. Moseley, 4201 Greenlawn Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Mr and Mrs. Wilfred C. Nash, 4111 Greenlawn Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 D. Jeff fy Parkhill December 22, 1994 Page 2 pc: Mr. Charles E. Scruggs, 4107 Greenlawn Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Ms. Linda F. Whitenack, 4103 Greeniawn Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Mr. Graham S. Garland, 2913 Ravenwood Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Ms. Ruby F. Woods, 2917 Ravenwood Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Ms. Hazel B. Jones, 2925 Ravenwood Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Mr. and Mrs. Michael W. Wolfe, 2929 Ravenwood Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Mr. and Mrs. James D. Fralin, 4206 Williamson Road, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Ms. Melanie S. Miller and Mr. Dougias B. Bowman, 2921 Ravenwood Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Mr. and Mrs. Warren T. Delafield, 4031 Runnymeade Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Mr. John D. Fralin, 4206 Williamson Road, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 John R. Marlles, Agent, City Planning Commission IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 19th day of December, 1994. No. 32295-121994. AN ORDINANCE to amend S36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 216, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City, subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant. WHEREAS, John David Fralin has made application to the Council of the City of Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by S36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on said application at its meeting on December 12, 1994, after due and timely notice thereof as required by ~36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the recommendation made to the Council by the Planning Commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented at the public hearing, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described property should be rezoned as herein provided. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that S36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 216 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other: Lots 19, 20 and 21, Block 1, Map of Epperly Court, located in the 2900 Block of Epperly Avenue, N.W., and designated on Sheet No. 216 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map City of Roanoke as Official Tax Nos. 2160612, 2160613 and 2160614, be, and are hereby rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, subject to the following proffers: the subject property will be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan prepared by Hughes Associates Architects, Roanoke, Virginia, dated April 12, 1989, subject to any changes required by the City during site plan review; in addition to the 10 ft. wide landscaping buffer that is required along the northern and western property boundaries, a six ft. tall solid privacy fence will be installed on the property line adjacent to property located on Ravenwood and Greenlawn Avenues; and if no building permit has been issued and no construction commenced within three (3) years from the date of this ordinance, the zoning shall revert to RS-3, Single Family Residential District without ~urther action by City Council, as more fully set forth in the First Amended Petition, filed in the Office of the City Clerk on November 8, 1994, and that Sheet No. 216 of the Zone Map be changed in this respect. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke City Planning Commission December 12, 1994 The Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor and Members of Council: Subject: Request from John David Fralin for a rezoning of property located in the 2900 block of Epperly Avenue, N.W., described as Official Tax Nos. 2160612 through 2160614, inclusive, from RS-3, Residential Single Family District to RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. I. Background: Purpose of the rezoning request is to reinstate a previously approved conditional rezoning that provided for the construction of a multifamily development consisting of fourteen (14) townhouse units. The subject property was conditionally rezoned in 1989; however, due to financial circumstances, the developer was unable to commence construction of this multifamily project before the three (3) year reversion clause became effective and the zoning of the property reverted back to RS-3, Residential Single Family District. Petition to rezone was filed on October 12, 1994. The following conditions were proffered by the petitioner: That the property will be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan prepared by Hughes Associates Architects, Roanoke, Virginia, dated April 12, 1989, a copy of which is attached to the petition for rezoning as Exhibit B, subject to any changes required by the City during site plan review. Room 162 Municipal Building 215Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703)981-2344 Members of City Council Page 2 In addition to the 10 ft. wide landscaping buffer that is required along the northern and western property boundaries, a six (6) foot tall solid privacy fence will be installed on the property line adjacent to property located on Ravenwood and Greenlawn Avenues. ge That if no building permit has been issued and no construction commenced within five (5) years from the date of final zoning approval, the zoning shall revert to RS-3, Single Family Residential without further action by City Council. Planning Commission pill>lie hearing was held on Wednesday, November 2, 1994. Mr. Jeffery Parkhill, representing the petitioner, appeared before the Commission to explain the rezoning request. Mr. Parkhill informed the Commission that the request was the exact same request made in 1989 with the same proffered conditions and the same site development plan proposal. He further stated that due to financial circumstances, the time limit expired before the owner was able to commence construction of the project. No one from the audience appeared before the Commission to speak in favor or in opposition to the request. Ms. Dorsey informed the Commission that the Planning Office had received a letter from a property owner in the area in opposition to the request and she proceeded to read the letter into the record. Ms. Dorsey gave the staff report. She summarized the history and issues addressed in the previous rezoning request as set out in the report and informed the Commission that as part of the reevaluation of this request, all issues were reinvestigated and the status or corrective course of action by any City department was found to be still applicable. Ms. Dorsey reiterated the purpose of the rezoning request was due to the reversion clause becoming effective before the property owner could begin construction of the multifamily project. Mr. Bradshaw questioned Mr. Parkhill for the need of a 5 year reversion clause if, in fact, the owner was now ready to commence construction. Mr. Parkhill responded by stating that he would be glad to revise that proffer to reflect the standard 3 year period and confirmed that the owner was ready to begin construction once all necessary governmental approvals was obtained. First Amended Petition to rezone was filed on November 8, 1994. The following conditions were proffered by the petitioner: Members of City Council Page 3 That the property will be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan prepared by Hughes Associates Architects, Roanoke, Virginia, dated April 12, 1989, a copy of which is attached to the petition for rezoning as Exhibit B, subject to any changes required by the City during site plan review. In addition to the 10 ft. wide landscaping buffer that is required along the northern and western property boundaries, a six (6) foot tall solid privacy fence will be installed on the property line adjacent to property located on Ravenwood and Greenlawn Avenues. That if no building permit has been issued and no construction commenced within three (3) years from the date of final zoning approval, the zoning shall revert to RS-3, Single Family Residential without further action by City Council. Petition was reheard by the Planning Commission on December 7, 1994, due to an advertising error by the Roanoke Times and World News. Mr. Jeffry Parkhill appeared before the Commission on behalf of the petitioner and gave the same presentation as he did on November 2, 1994. No one spoke for or against the application. II. Issues: Zoning of the subject property is RS-3, Residential Single Family District. The surrounding zoning pattern in the area is as follows: to the north and west is RS- 3, Residential Single Family District; to the south is RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District and C-2, General Commercial District; to southwest is RM-1, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District; and to the east is C-2, General Commercial District. Land use of the subject property is three (3) vacant, undeveloped lots. Surrounding land uses in the area are as follows: to the north, west and south are single family residences; to the southeast is a church and related accessory uses; and to the east is a barbecue restaurant and to other highway-oriented commercial uses along Williamson Road. Access to the property is from the adjoining public streets, Epperly Avenue and Williamson Road. As part of the previous rezoning consideration, the City Traffic Engineer stated that minimal traffic impacts were anticipated from the proposed development of the site for fourteen (14) multifamily dwelling units given the signalized intersection of Williamson Road and Epperly Avenue and that off-street parking was adequately addressed on the proffered site plan. Members of City Council Page 4 De Utilities are available and of adequate capacity to serve the proposed development. As part of the rezoning consideration of this property in 1989, the City Water Department stated at that time that this development could be served without affecting the water pressure in the surrounding neighborhood; furthermore, the City Engineering Department reaffu-med its position that adequate sewer capacity existed to serve the development as well without any impact to the neighborhood. Screening and l>~lffering of the proposed development, from the adjoining single family residential as well as the adjoining commercial development to the east, would be required as a result of one of the proffered conditions and as part of the comprehensive development plan review and approval process. Thus the loss of privacy issue raised during the 1989 rezoning consideration would be adequately addressed by the installation of the ten (10) foot wide landscape area and six (6) foot high solid fence to provide sufficient separation and to protect the privacy of the adjoining single family residences. Fe Neighborhood organizations for this area are the Williamson Road Action Forum and the Williamson Road Business Association. The Planning office notified each organization in writing on October 21, 1994, and the Planning staff had not received any comments from either group regarding this matter as of the writing of the report for the Planning Commission meeting nor its preparation for City Council consideration. G. Comprehensive Plan recommends that: Enact zoning to facilitate infill housing development and to offer a variety of housing stock to the community; and Infill development is carefully evaluated and designed to conserve and enhance neighborhood character and environmental quality. III. Alternatives: A. City Council approve the rezoning request. Zoning of the subject property would become conditional, RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District and construction of the proposed townhouse development would be allowed to take place. Land use would become a fourteen (14) unit townhouse development. As part of the development of the property, installation of an off-street parking area and landscaping and buffering provisions would be provided to blend the development into the existing single family residential area. Members of City Council Page 5 Access to and from the site can safely be provided by the adjoining public streets, Epperly Avenue and Williamson Road. The City Traffic Engineer has stated that given the proposed use of the property, that minimal traffic impacts are anticipated from this proposed use of the property as multifamily townhouse development. Utilities are existing and of adequate capacity to serve the proposed development without any impacts on the existing neighborhood. Any additional engineering concerns would be addressed and resolved as part of the comprehensive development plan review process. Screening and buffering would be provided as per proffered condition and site plan and would be ensured as part of the comprehensive development plan review. Neighborhood character would be protected and vacant residentially zoned property would be developed into suitable infill housing for the community. 7. Comprehensive Plan issues as set forth would be followed. City Council deny the rezoning request. Zoning of the subject property would remain RS-3, Residential Single Family District. The proposed development of the property into fourteen (14) townhouse units would not be allowed to take place. o Land use would remain as (3) vacant, undeveloped lots available for development of three (3) single family residences immediately adjoining highway oriented commercial uses. 3. Access to the site would not be an issue. 4. Utilities would be unaffected. 5. Screening and bufferin_~ would not be required. o Neighborhood would remain as is with three (3) vacant lots available for future single family residential infill development. 7. Comprehensive Plan issues as set forth could be followed at a later date. Members of City Council Page 6 IV. Recommendation: The Planning Commission, on November 2, 1994, voted 5 to 0 (Mr. Price and Mr. Jones absent), recommending approval of the requested rezoning finding that the request would provide a good transitional land use and buffer area from the highway oriented commercial uses along Williamson Road to the single family residences located to the north, west and southwest of the subject property. Furthermore, that the rezoning and proposed development would provide an alternative housing type in an existing neighborhood sensitive to the existing neighborhood environment. The Planning Commission, on December 7, 1994, voted 5-0 (Messrs. Price and Bradshaw absent for the vote), to approve the requested rezoning with the findings set out above. Respectfully submitted, Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman Roanoke City Planning Commission JRM:EDD: mpf attachments cc: Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works City Engineer Building Commissioner Petitioner 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk November 9, 1994 File #51 Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Price: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of an amended petition from D. Jeffry Parkhill, Agent, representing John D. Fralin requesting that a parcel of land located in the 2900 block of Epperiy Avenue, N. W., containing .8 acre, more or less, described as Official Tax Nos. 2160612 - 2160614, inclusive, be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Singie Family District, to RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. MFP: sm r/fralin Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Enc. pc: I The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council D. Jeffry Parkhill, Agent, Hughes Associates Architects, P. O. Box 1034, Roanoke, Vtrgin!~ 24005 Mr. John D. Fralin, 7539 Northbrook Drive, N. W., Roanoke, fjoirginia 24019 hn R. Mariles, Agent, City Planning Commission Evelyn D. Dorsey, Acting Zoning Administrator Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney PETITION TO REZONE IN RE: First Amended Petition IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Rezoning of a tract of land lying in the 2900 block of Epperly Avenue, · N.W. described as Block 1; Lots 19, 20 and 21 Epperly Court, Tax No. 2160612, 2160613, 2160614, one lot behind Williamson Road, PETITION TO REZONE from RS-3 Residential Single Family to RM-2 Multi Family Medium density District: TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The Petitioner, John David Fralin, owns land'in the City of Roanoke containing .8 acres, more or less, located on Eppedy Avenue - Official Tax No's. 2160612, 2160613 and 2160614. re: subject property was previously rezoned by ordinance August 14, 1989, but expired three years after without building permit issuance, therefore subject property has reverted back to previous RS-3 Residential Single family. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached in Exhibit A. Pursuant to Chapter 36.1-690, Code of the CitY of Roanoke (1979), as amended, The Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Single Family Residential District to RM-2. Multi Family, Medium Density District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of ConstrtlcUon of fourteen (14) Multi Family Dwellings. The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will facilitate multifamily development compatible with existing housing stock in the area. Furthermore, the rezoning of this property would be an extension of an adjacent RM-2 Zone. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that it the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: 1) That,the prcperty will be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan prepared by Hughes Associate Architects, Roanoke, Virginia, dated April' 12, 1989, a copy of which is attached to the Petition for Rezoning as Exhibit B, subject to any changes required by the City dudng site plan review. 2) In addition to the 10 ft. wide landscaping buffer that is required along the northern and western property boundaries, a six foot tall solid privacy fence will be installed on the property line adjacent to property located on Ravenswood and Greenlawn Avenues. :3) That if no building permit has been issued and no construction commenced within three years from the date of final zoning approval, the zoning shall revert to RS-3 single family residential without further action by City Council. Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent to or immediately across the street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as requested in ,.ccordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 12 day of October', 1994. Owner John David FraJin 7539 Northbrook Drive Roanoke, Virginia 2401g By: Respectfully submitted, Agent fox Owner P. O. Box 1034 Roanoke, VA 24005 (703) 342-4002 PROPOSED REZONING RS-3 to CONDITIONAL v£ Od. ....s.....;- SJ.:::) 3 J.I H :::)1:! V S3.LVI DO,~' ~3HDNH I! EXHIBIT C Epperly Court Corem: 8605 Page I of 2 Tax Map No. Owner(s) Name & Address 2161001 2161025 2161013 2160603 2160604 2160605 2160306 2160607 21m 2160609 Trustees of Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church of Roanoke 2921 Epperly Avenue, N.W. Roanoke Virginia 24012 Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church J 2921 Epperly Avenue, N.W. Roanoke Virginia 24012 Trustees of Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church 2921 Epperly Avenue, N.W. Roanoke Virginia 24012 Jane E. Moseley 4201 Greenlawn Avenue, N.W. Roanoke Virginia 24012 Wilfred C. & Irma E. Nash 4111 Greenlawn Avenue, N.W. Roanoke Virginia 24012 Chales F_ Scruggs 4107 Greenlaw~ Avenue, N.W. Roanoke Virginia 24012 Ends Faye Whitenack 4103 Greenlawn Avenue, N.W. Roanoke V'=ginia 24012 Graham S. Garland 2913 Ravem~xxl Avenue, N.W. Roanoke Wgmm 24012 Ruby F. Woods 2917 Ravemeood Roanoke. ?~gima · ~' Yvonne Rhudy ~~\ ~~ 2921RavenwoodAvenue, N.W. Roanoke, ~rginia 24012 Avenue, N.W. v/ 24012 EXHIBIT C Epperly Court Comm: 8605 Page 2 of 2 Tax Map No. 2160610 Owner(s) Name & Address Hazel B. Jones 2925 Ravenwood Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 2160611 2160621 Michael W. & Daphalene L. Wolfe 2929 Ravenwood Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 James David & Loretta M. Fralin 4206 Williamson Road ~. 0 ' Roanoke, Virginia 24017 r Subject Property:. Tax Map No. Owner(s) Name & Address 2160612 2160613 2160614 John David Fralin 4206 Williamson Road Roanoke, Virginia 24017 4103 Greenlawn Avenue, Roanoke, VA. 24012 November 1, 1994 Roanoke City' Planning Commission Room 162 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear Roanoke Planning Commission: I 'm sorry I can't be the~-e in peYson to address you about the proposed rezoning of the property in the 2900 block of Epperly Ave¥~ue, NW (Official Tax Nos. 2160612 and 21606.14). The last time this request for rezoni%g came up, our neighborhood presented the Planning Commission with a petition opposing the t-ezoning. Several of us took off from work to attend the hearing and speak out against the rezoning, but the Commission approved it anyway. The feelings of the neighborhood haven't changed, we just have lower expectations that our voices will be heard. I haven't seen the plans for this proposal, but I doubt that they have changed much from the original which calls for the maximum number of units with the minimum number of parking spaces required. This is done with no regard to what the overflow from the parking lot will do to the neighborhood how it might hamper traffic traveling on Epperly Avenue. With no sidewalks on EppeY1y, it will be more dangerous for the children who walk on Epperly on the ~ay to Preston Park. The Fralin's purchased this property as an investment with the goal of making money. We in the neighborhood purchased our property also as an investment, but our investment is in our future. The purpose for our purchase was to provide a home for ourselves and our families. The construction of the town houses will have a negative impact on the neighborhood. Over the past 16 years, the people in the homes on my block of Greenlawn have remained very stable. Changes have resulted mostly from people leaving because of age or health reasons. The proposed town houses will make the neighborhood more transient and people will be moving in and out of the neighborhood constantly. Ne do not want this type of turnover in our neighborhood! It will take away greatly from our feeling of security in the neighborhood. I hope you will reconsider the request and deny the rezoni'n9. The wishes of the neighbors who live in the area should take precedence over outsiders who want to build a facility that is onl>~ meant as a money making venture and with few thoughts as to what it does to the neighborhood. If you feel you must app~-ove the rezoning, then do so ~ith the added restriction that the town houses must be sold and the o~ners must live ~he~-e instead of ~-enting them out. I think ~e have all seen at one Lime or another Lhe deLremental effect that rental p~-ope~ty has on a neighbo~'hood. Ove~ Line years, htne residents on 6xeenlamn have paid their taxes and taken care of their p~'opertw, ~e don't desex-ye this slap in the face or the reduction in the value of our homes that ~ill follow. Since~-el¥, Linda F. Whitenack Proposed Rezoning .,2. t l~ 0 ! ~3 PROPOSED REZONING RS-3 to , CONDITIONA: 0 ?.t ~,t. oj 3 PREST CHRISTI Cha"~9 es , TRINKLE CONDITi CE INO. 2970 ; ,...; 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk November 23, 1994 File #51 D. Jeffry Parkhill, Agent Hughes Associates Architects P. O. Box 1034 Roanoke, Virginia 24005 Dear Mr. Parkhill: 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 for Monday, December 12, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of John D. Fralin that a parcel of land located in the 2900 block of Epperly Avenue, N. W., containing. 8 acre, more or less, described as Lots 19 - 21, inclusive, Block 1, Map of Epperly Court, Official Tax Nos. 2160612 - 2160614, inclusive, be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Singie Family District, to RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. For your information, I am enclosing copy of a notice of the public hearing and an Ordinance with regard to the request for rezoning. Please review the documents and if you have questions, you may contact Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, at 981-2431. It will be necessary for you or your representative to be present at the December 12 public hearing. Failure to appear could result in a deferral of the request for rezoning ttntil a later date. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm Dec Eno. D. Jeffry Parkhill November 23, 1994 Page 2 pc: Trustees of Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church of Roanoke, 2921 Epperly Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Ms. Jane E. Moseley, 4201 Greeniawn Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Mr and Mrs. Wilfred C. Nash, 4111 Greeniawn Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Mr. Charles E. Scruggs, 4107 Greenlawn Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Ms. Linda F. Whitenack, 4103 Greeniawn Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Mr. Graham S. Garland, 2913 Ravenwood Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Ms. Ruby F. Woods, 2917 Ravenwood Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Ms. Yvonne Rhudy, 2921 Ravenwood Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Ms. Hazel B. Jones, 292§ Ravenwood Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Mr. and Mrs. Michael W. Wolfe, 2929 Ravenwood Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Mr. and Mrs. James D. Fralin, 4206 Williamson Road, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Mr. John D. Fralin, 4206 Williamson Road, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 TIMES & WORLD-NEWS ?,3 NUMi~!EE - 112530o27 PUd, LISHER'S FEE - ~10~,,00 HUGHES A,S S!]C ~5~ ELM q'V~-: ~RCH ITFC TS ST~,,TF GF VIRGINIa, CITY OF ROANOKE 6FFIDAVIT UF PU!~L IC qT I Oh I, (THE U~'~;--)E~<SIGNED) AN .AUTHORIZED R,EPF~ES~NTATIVE OF TdE TIML~S-WL/RLD COR- PC!P, Pl'IOF], WHICH CORPORATION IS PUBLISHER OF IHF E(}~.NC)K~ TIrq~S C Wt]~,LD-NE~S~ A DAILY NFWSPAPE;< PU~,L]SHED IN ROANOKE, IN THE STATE F~F VI~<L;IQIA~ DO CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED ~OTICE ~aS PUFqLISHED IN SAID N~SPCP~:RS UN THE- FOLLOWI~.~G O~TES WITNESS, THIS 6TH '3AY/)OF ~ECEMBER 1994 ~'~UTHOR I Z ED SIGNATURE .O11~ OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Pursoant to the provisions of A~ISIS VII of Chapter 36.1, Code of the City of Roanoke (19~/.~),,~s amended, the Coun- cll ~.Ute City of Roanoke will hold..Public Hearing on Mon- daY~ ~D~=ember /2, 1994, at 7:00 p.m.,. In the Council Chamber In the Municipal BulldJn~.' 215 Church Avenue, S.W., On the question of rezon- lng frbm R$-3, Residential $in~e-Famlly District, to RM-2, Residential Multi.family, Lot~ 19, 20 and 21, Block 1, Map. of F. pberly Court, located in tt~ 2900 Block of E~perly Avenu~ N.W., and bearing Offl- clel Tex Nos. 2160612, 2160612 end 22:160614, such rezonJng to be subject to oar- rain I~red conditions. A cofly of this proposal is Mil- able for public in~,oaction in the Office of the City Clen% Room 456, Municipal ,Bulldlr~ All p~r~le~ In Interest may ap~oar nn ~ above date and be -~ ~o,~ ~. ees oi ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chapter 36.1, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, December 12, 1994, at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., on the question of rezoning from RS-3, Residential Single-Family District, to RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, the following property: Lots 19, 20 and 21, Block 1, Map of Epperly Court, located in the 2900 Block of Epperly Avenue, N.W., and bearing Official Tax Nos. 2160612, 2160613 and 2160614, such rezoning to be subject to certain proffered conditions. A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building. All parties in interest may appear on the above date and be heard on the question. GIVEN under my hand this 23rd day of November, 1994. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFOR~ ~ ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM 1T MAY CONCERN: .% [,i~! '[ ~q 'I;~ .~, The Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, December 7, 1994, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., in order to consider the following: Request from John David Fralin for a rezoning of property located in the 2900 block of Epperly Avenue, N.W., described as Official Tax Nos. 2160612 through 2160614, inclusive, from RS-3, Residential Single Family District to RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. A copy of said application is available for review in the Department of Planning and Community Development, Room 162, Municipal Building. All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary Roanoke City Planning Commission Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, November 22, 1994 and Tuesday, November 29, 1994 Please bill: D. Jeffry Parkhill Hughes Associates Architects P. O. Box 1034 Roanoke, VA 24005 (703) 3424002 Please send affidavit of publication to: Department of Planning and Community Development Room 162, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk November 9, 1994 File #51 Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Price: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of an amended petition from D. Jeffry Parkhill, Agent, representing John D. Fralin requesting that a parcel of land located in the 2900 block of Epperly Avenue, N. W., containing .8 acre, more or less, described as Official Tax Nos. 2160612 - 2160614, inclusive, be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Singie Family District, to RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm r/f talin Eno. pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council D. Jeffry Parkhill, Agent, Hughes Associates Architects, P. O. Box 1034, Roanoke, Virginia 24005 Mr. John D. Fralin, 7539 Northbrook Drive, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24019 John R. Marlles, Agent, City Planning Commission Evelyn D. Dorsey, Acting Zoning Administrator Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney PETITION TO REZONE IN RE: First Amended Petition IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,,?IRGINIA Rezoning of a tract of land lying in the 2900 block of Epperly Avenue, · N.W. described as Block 1; Lots 19, 20 and 21 Epperly Court, Tax No. 2160612, 2160613, 2160614, one lot behind Williamson Road, PETITION TO REZONE from RS-3 Residential Single Family to RM-2 Multi Family Medium density District: TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The Petitioner, John David Fralin, owns land in the City of Roanoke containing .8 acres, more or less, located on Epperly Avenue - Official Tax No's. 2160612, 2160613 and 2160614. re: subject property was previously rezoned by ordinance August 14, 1989, but expired three years after without building permit issuance, therefore subject property has reverted back to previous RS-3 Residential Single family. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached in Exhibit A. Pursuant to Chapter 36.1-690, Code of the CitY of Roanoke (1979), as amended, The Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Single Family Residential District to RM-2. Multi Family, Medium Density District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of Construction of fourteen (14) Multi Family Dwellings. The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will facilitate multifamily development compatible with existing housing stock in the area. Furthermore, the rezoning of this property would be an extension of an adjacent RM-2 Zone. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that it the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: 1) That the property will be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan prepared by Hugt~es Associate Architects, Roanoke, Virginia, dated April' 12, 1989, a copy of which is attached to the Petition for Rezoning as Exhibit B, subject to any changes required by the City during site plan review. · 2) In addition to the 10 ft. wide landscaping buffer that is required along the northern and western property boundaries, a six foot tall solid privacy fence will be installed on the property line adjacent to property located on Ravenswood and Greenlawn Avenuesl 3) That if no building permit has been issued and no construction commenced within three years from the date of final zoning approval, the zoning shall revert to RS-3 single family residential without further action by City Council. Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent to or immediately across the street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 12 day of October, 1994. Owner John David Fralin 7539 Northbrook Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24019 By: Respectfully submitted, Agent for Owner P. O. Box 1034 Roanoke, VA 24005 (703) 342-4002 PROPOSED REZONING RS-3 to CONDITIONAL ,$ ~16'~ EXHIBIT C Epperly Court Comm: 8605 Page I of 2 Tax Map No. Owner(s) Name & Address 2161001 2161025 2161013 2160603 2160604 2160605 2160606 2160607 2160608 2160609 Trustees of Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church of Roanoke 2921 Epperly Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church J 2921 Epperly Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Trustees of Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church 2921 Epperly Avenue, N.W. Roanoke Virginia 24012 Jane E. Moseley 4201 Greenlawn Avenue, N.W. ,// ~,~ Roanoke Virginia 24012 Wilfred C. & Irma E. Nash 0~ 13 ~,c~ 4111 Greenlawn Avenue N.W. ,,,/ ~0~/' Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Chales E. Scruggs ~ 4107 Greenlawn Avenue, N.W. tt5 Roanoke Virginia 24012 Unda Faye Whitenack 4103 Greeniawn Avenue, N.W. Roanoke Virginia 24012 Graham S. GaHand 2913 Ravenwood Avenue, N.W. Roanoke. V'~ginia 24012 v/ Ruby F. Woods 2917 Ravenwood Avenue, N.W. Roanoke Virginia 24012 Yvonne Rhudy 2921 Ravenwood Avenue, N.W. Roanoke Virginia 24012 EXHIBIT C Epperly Court Comm: 8605 Page 2 of 2 Tax Map No. 2160610 Owner(s) Name & Address Hazel B. Jones 2925 Ravenwood Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 2160611 2160621 Michael W. & Daphalene L. Wolfe 2929 Ravenwood Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 James David & Loretta M. Fralin 4206 Williamson Road j~. 0 ' Roanoke, Virginia 24017 r Subject Property: Tax Map No. Owner(s) Name & Address 2160612 2160613 2160614 John David Fralin 4206 Williamson Road Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Proposed Rezoning J ( / U60 9~Z' 9 I 13~R~ L ?RO?OSED REZONING RS-3 to CONDITIONA 8 PREST REZONE NO. 297C CHRISTi TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PERTAINING TO THE REZONING REQI~T dF!-5 :'~: John David Fralin to rezone property in 2900 block of Epperly Avenue,) NW, Tax Nos. 2160612-2160614, from RS-3 to RM-2, conditional. )AFFIDAVIT COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Martha Pace Franklin, first being duly sworn, states that she Secretary of the Roanoke City Planning Commission, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-341, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke, she has sent by first-class mail on the 24th day of October, 1994, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 2nd day of November, 1994, on the rezoning captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels listed below at their last known address: Parcel Owner, Agent or Occupant Address 2161001 Trustees of Trinity Evangelical Luthern 2921 Epperly Avenue, NW 2161025 Church of Roanoke Roanoke, VA 24012 2161013 2160603 Jane E. Moseley 2160604 Wilfred C. & Irma E. Nash 2160605 Charles E. Scruggs 2160606 Linda Faye Whitnack 2160607 Graham S. Garland 2160608 Ruby F. Woods 2160609 2160610 2160611 Melanie S. Miller Douglas B. Bowman Warren T. Delafield Barbara E. Delafield Michael W. and Daphalene L. Wolfe 4201 Greenlawn Avenue Roanoke, VA 24012 4111 Greenlawn Avenue Roanoke, VA 24012 6531 Garman Drive, NE Roanoke,VA 24019 4103 Greenlawn Avenue Roanoke, VA 24012 2913 Ravenwood Avenue Roanoke, VA 24012 2917 Ravenwood Avenue Roanke, VA 24012 2921 Ravenwood Avenue Roanoke, VA 24012 4031 Runnymeade Lane Roanoke, VA 24018 2929 Ravenwood Avenue Roanoke~ VA 24017 M~rtha Pa& Franklin SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this 24th day of October, 1994. No~ry Public My Commission Expires: NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORI~ I~ ROANO~i CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: '94,,~, I 14 ? ~ ']'-! The Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a public heating on Wednesday, November 2, 1994, at 1:30 p.m. or as soon as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., in order to consider the following: Request from John David Fralin for a rezoning of property located in the 2900 block of Epperly Avenue, N.W., described as Official Tax Nos. 2160612 through 2160614, inclusive, from RS-3, Residential Single Family District to RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium Density District, such rezoning to be subject to certain conditions proffered by the pefftioner. A copy of said appli .c.,.,~i, 'on is available for review in the Department of Planning and Community Development, Room 162, Municipal Building. All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter. Manha P. Franklin, Secretary Roanoke City Planning Commission Please print in newspaper on Tuesday, October 18, 1994 and Tuesday, October 25,1994 Please bill: D. Jeffry Parkhill Hughes Associates Architects P. O. Box 1034 Roanoke, VA 24005 (703) 3424002 Please send affidavit of publication to: Department of Planning and Community Development Room 162, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 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 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk October 17, 1994 File #51 Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Price: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a petition from D. Jeffry Parkhill, Agent, representing John D. Fralin requesting that a parcel of land located in the 2900 block of Epperly Avenue, N. W., containing .8 acre, more or less, described as Official Tax Nos. 2160612 - 2160614, inclusive, be rezoned from RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to RM-2, Residential Multi-family, Medium Density District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioner. Sincerely, ~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm r/f talin Eno. pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council D. Jeffry Parkhill, Agent, Hughes Associates Architects, P. O. Box 1034, Roanoke, Virginia 24005 Mr. John D. Fralin, 7539 Northbrook Drive, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24019 John R. Marlles, Agent, City Planning Commission Evelyn D. Dorsey, Acting Zoning Administrator Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney PETITION TO REZONE IN RE: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGiNia i' · Rezoning of a tract of land lying in the 2900 block of Epperly Avenue, N.W. described as Block 1; Lots 19, 20 and 21 Epperly Court, Tax No. 2160612, 2160613, 2160614, one lot behind Williamson Road, PETITION TO REZONE from RS-3 Residential Single Family to RM-2 Multi Family Medium density District: TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: The Petitioner, John David Fralin, owns land in the City of Roanoke containing .8 acres, more or less, located on Epperly Avenue - Official Tax No's. 2160612, 2160613 and 2160614. re: subject property was previously rezoned by ordinance August 14, 1989, but expired three years after without building permit issuance, therefore subject property has reverted back to previous RS-3 Residential Single family. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached in Exhibit A. Pursuant to Chapter 36:1-690, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, The Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RS-3, Single Family Residential District to RM-2, Multi Family, Medium Density District, subject to certain conditions set forth below, for the purpose of Construction of fourteen (14) Multi Family Dwellings. The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will facilitate multifamily development compatible with existing housing stock in the area. Furthermore, the rezoning of this property would be an extension of an adjacent RM-2 Zone. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that i~ the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following conditions: 1) That the property will be developed in substantial compliance with the site plan prepared by Hughes Associate Architects, Roanoke, Virginia, dated April 12, 1989, a copy of which is attached to the Petition for Rezoning as Exhibit B, subject to any changes required by the City during site plan review. 2) In addition to the 10 ft. wide landscaping buffer that is required along the northern and western property boundaries, a six foot tall solid privacy fence will be installed on the property line adjacent to property located on Ravenswood and Greenlawn Avenues. 3) That if no building permit has been issued and no construction commenced within five years from the date of final zoning approval, the zoning shall revert to RS-3 single family residential without further action by City Council. Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots 'or property immediately adjacent to or immediately across the street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 12 day of October, 1994. Owner John David Fralin 7539 Northbrook Drive Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Respecfful~u bmitted, EXHIBIT C Epperly Court Comm: 8605 Page I of 2 Tax Map No. 2161001 2161025 2161013 2160603 2160604 2160605 2160606 2160607 2160608 2160609 Owner(s) Name & Address Trustees of Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church of Roanoke 2921 Epperly Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church 2921 Epperly Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Trustees of Trinity Evangelical Lutheran Church 2921 Epperly Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Jane E. Moseley 4201 Greenlawn Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Wilfred C. & Irma E. Nash 4111 Greenlawn Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Chales E. Scruggs 4107 Greenlawn Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 linda Faye Whitenack 4103 Greenlawn Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Graham S. Garland 2913 Ravenwood Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Ruby F. Woods 2917 Ravenwood Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Yvonne Rhudy 2921 Ravenwood Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 EXHIBIT C Epperly Court Comm: 8605 Page 2 of 2 Tax Map No. 2160610 2160611 2160621 Subject Property: Tax Map No. 2160612 2160613 2160614 Owner(s) Name & Address Hazel B. Jones 2925 Ravenwood Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Michael W. & Daphalene L Wolfe 2929 Ravenwood Avenue, N.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24017 James David & Loretta M. Fralin 4206 Williamson Road Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Owner(s) Name & Address John David Fralin 4206 Williamson Road Roanoke, Virginia 24017 L£ ;0 LCStC¢ HUGHES ASSOCIATES ARCHITECTS : -I EPPERL¥ COURT ROANOKE VIRGINIA 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk January 3, 1995 Mr. Hoskins M. Sclater 2723 Crystal Spring Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Dear Mr. Sclater: I wish to acknowledge receipt of your communication under date of December 28, 1994, with regard to the Hotel Roanoke/Conference Center skywalk. Please be assured that a copy of your communication was forwarded to the Members of the Roanoke City Council for their information. With warmest regards, I am Sincerely, 7~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sm 2723 Hoskins I'~allory Sclater Retired~, LavFyer, 7 ¥ yrs. ~"Para~ise ~I" Crystal Spring Avenue, Roanoke, Virginia 24014 I.~?y F. Parker City Clerk 215 Church Ave., S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 2::8 December, A.D. 1994 Wednesday Noon. Nice Winter Day. Chrtstmas Week: Dear ~,,[ary: Hotel - okywalk Tunnel * Viaduct. Inclosed find 9 _copies of my December 26 Lette? to our City Council. Please "deliver" a copy of each 3page Letter to each of our 7 City Councillors & a copy to our City I~ianager & of c ourse:~ a ,Oopy ,.t.o yo~u.' I hope .~.hk~ Letter to them will stimula.t~, them to re-think these iss~mes, that are s.o important to many of our long time citizens, like myself. I think C.~..ty Hall & other "movers & shakers" have been d,o. in~.. too. muc~, at one tim~e, (t~ many irons in 'the fire at one time) & that is why so many .tragi.9 mista.ke.s, in my opinion, have been made over the past 5 years in re our beloved Hotel Roanoke. I suppose your "hands are tied" by your job, but here's hoping you can somehow put in a good word for my Hotel "project". i have given_ the last 5 year~ of my spare time trying to save the architecture & landscap.e, of our famous Hotel_, because I have had many ~ood times (dances) in the Hotel & I love it. And I am convinced that i'm largely correct in my ideas presented to Council to "fi~.~nt City Hall" a retired L.awyer, that I do so. as these past 5 years. It hasn't been eas:y almost singlehandedly~ but since I am a ~i~.!,od writer, i suppose it was Prede~tine~ i 'm hoping for a political "miracle" = ~ 1~ ~ $ ?r_om: Hoskins !~[al!or)- Sclater, Esquire ~ o' ~ 1994. · no~no~.e Cit~ Council ~;ionday, Day after Clmristmas Re: Hotel Roanoke As 1994 draws to a close, we should save the best view of our internationally famous Hotel. To that end, I urge your consideration of these suggestions : I.~ .S.top construction of the Skywalk immediately, regardless of cost. It's only a "plaything" for our local "movers & shakers". The $5 million had better be spent otherwise. It is right smack in front of the Hotel's ~:a~_n Entrance and vzill ruin the looks of that entrance~ & of the entire South Side of the Hotel's majestic', structure. 2. Re-open the Tunnel under the Railroad Tracks, & straighten the .ri.~.~ht a.n~le at the South end, to orovide a clear view from one en~ to the other. Don't hesitate any longer. Five years ago, our 1989-90 Cotu~.cil acted promptly, but erroneously, in tearing down most of the popular automobile Viaduct. Now, it is time for our 199h-95 Council to tear down '6he Sk~walk. After all is said and done, the Public has not asked for that expensive ",toy". 3". Re-build the Viaduct, around the Office Tower, & connect it with the Viaduct~s stu~. still standing. The Viaduct was very popula~ and it gave thousa.nds ,of ,motorists, every day, all .year round, the best vie~ of our Hotel's ~in Entrance & the long South Side parallel to the Railroad. 4- Extend Jefferson Street North, across the tracks, either at ground level or by an automobile bridge.. That would give a good view' of the Hotel, but not as go.od as. seeing it from a re-built Viaduct. 5. The best solution to this architectural & traffic problem would be a combined: re-built Viaduct merging with a Jefferson Street automobile brid~e. 6. If either suggestion: 3. -&-. -or- 5. is adopted, then just forTet the proposed Parkway .&. Promenade. on Norfolk Avenue, next to the Railroad tracks. 0nly a few Pedestrians will visit No~folk Avenue, e~ven in wa~u weather. And certainly nob. od.,7 is going to sit outside on a park ~ ~ ,~_~ ~_,otel ~,-~-', ~ ~he ~ d ¥¢i~ months. _ S_~O~ mhese p, ob ..... ~ bee discussed,, t.~:e Fall ~¢ 1989 when the un-needed Office Tower was first proposed to be built, and to be placed in front of our Hotel, as was trag4ca!!.V done Our Hotel, & its earlier versions, have been overlooking our City from their hill top for well _o. ver a Century. It has attracted G~ests from all over our Nation gc from fore.ign .~,~ations as well. Through the years, the Hotel has acquired a semi-reli.~ious dimension, partly because of the 2 S~te=~ & Yationa! Landmark Churches to the ~,~orth,._, with their 3 !°ft.,v, ..steeples pointing Heavenward across the Sky: & pa~t!y because our Hotel is the un-official s~mbol of something we all cherish, our City. In ~;latthew 5:14 The Bible saT.~s: "A city that is set on an hill cannot be hid." The Hotel & the 2 Churches are, in essence, our cit~ ~et upon a hill. ~;e must not hide our downtown city on a hill, any more so, than has unfortunately been done already, over the last ~ years, by people in power, however good their intentions may have been. As the old H.~mn go¢¢.: "Rise up, 0 men of God~. Have done with lesser thing~s-J' such as costly Sk.y~.~alk "to~ . I have written 6 Letters to the .Editor r.e our Hote_l & its surround- ings, "c al! 6 were published. Also, i ha~e m~'d-e-~-~r more talks ~o Council these last ~ years re this overall: downtown project.. I am a well-knovJn 76~o year old La.wyer & Presbyterian Historian. I therefore urge Council to take the necessary steps, immediately, rosardless~ of cost, to save the be.st. .view of our famous Hot, 1. Hoskins ~. Sclater, Esqo (pronounced S!auoh~er). One of my good friends is John ~arshall ~i!ler, a retired manufact- urer of corrugated metal pipes. He ~.; I both spoke to Council on morning, December 19. He agrees with this Letter of mine, & he is glad- t° ind'ica'te t'"~at fact bY his sighT"re bel°w~.~~ 1994.¢* :~,-4,,~ _ s t;uas weekl Z.~onday 26 December, A.D. Page -2-. To Save the Best View of our Hotel, these are things to do: Stop the S~ywalk across the tracks, Re-open the Tunnel under tM tracks, & Re--build the Viaduct. Page -3~- to City Council~ from Hoskins ~I. Sclater, Monday, 2~6 December, A.D. 1994 Christmas Week: Some of the things done arch~ltecturally are disgraceful. 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: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk December 22, 1994 File #132-209-472 W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, December 19, 1994, Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel addressed Council in support of purchasing state-of-the-art voting equipment and a timing device to be used during City Council meetings, as well as installation of carpet in the City Council Chamber. On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the matter was referred to you for appropriate response. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, C City Clerk MFP: sm pc: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor December 9, 1994 Mr. John S. Edwards Mr. Delvis O. McCadden CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 '?.:! - Telephone: (703) 981-2541 Council Members: Elizabeth T. Bowles John S. Edwards Delvis O. "Mac" McCadden John H. Parrott William White, Sr. Linda F. Wyatt Dear Committee Members: This is to advise you of a meeting of the Audit Committee of Roanoke City Counoil to be held Monday, December 19, 1994 in the City Council's conference room, immediately following the Council' meeting. A copy of the agenda for this meeting and related materials are enclosed. In order to expedite the meeting, please review these items and contact Mr. Bird in advance if you have any questions. We will have an opportunity for questions during the meeting. Sincerely, William White, Sr. Chairman, Audit Committee Enclosures Honorable Mayor and Members of Council Members of Roanoke City School Board Mr. Robert H. Bird, Municipal Auditor Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent Mr. James D. Ritchie, Assistant City Manager Mr. James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Gordon E. Peters, City Treasurer Mrs. Marsha C. Fielder, Commissioner of the Revenue ~s. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Mr. Robert N. Collis, KPMG Peat Marwick AUDZT AGENDA COHH'rTTEE OF DECEMBER ROANOKE CZTY 19, 1994 COUNCZL 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. EXTERNAL AUDITS: KPMG Peat Marwick June 30, 1994 Final Reports B. C. D. E. F. Evaluation of Municipal Audit Department Letter of Recommendation on Procedures and Controls Comparative Report Transmittal Forms City - Report to Audit Committee School Board - Report to Audit Committee Letter to Pension Committee Roanoke City School Board G. Component Unit Financial Report - June 30, 1994 Auditor of Public Accounts - June 30, 1994 H. City of Roanoke Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court e I~EP~NAL AUDITS: A. Substantive Testing: · Meter Shop · Expenditure Transactions · Personnel 4. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. 5. NEW BUSINESS: None. 6. ADJOURNMENT: