Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 06-08-92HARVEY (31037) REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL June 8, 1992 7:30 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL Call to Order Roll Call. All ~esent~ The Invocation was delivered by Mayor Noel C. Taylor. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Taylor. The Mayor was presented with the Gold Medallion Award for extraordinary patriotic achievement by the Military Order of the World Wars. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearing on the request of Mr. and Mrs. Kermit B. Glass that a tract of land containing 0.38 acre, more or less, located at 1004 Whitney Avenue, N. W., at the intersection of Williamson Road, Whitney Avenue and Woodbury Street, identified as Official Tax Nos. 2190707 and 2190708, be rezoned from RM-1, Residential Multi- Family, Low Density District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the petitioners. Mr. Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Attorney. Adopted Ordinance No. 31037 on its first reading. (7-0) Public hearing to consider the amendment of Section 36.1-642, Review procedure; and creation of a new Section 36.1-724, Penalty for wrongful demolition of historic buildings, of Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. Mr. John R. Marlles, Agent, City Planning Commission, Spokesperson. Adopted Ordinance No. 31038 on its first reading. (7-0) w CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATFERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE RO~ BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTF. D 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 SEPARATF. I.y. C-1 (APPROVED 7-0) A communication from Mayor Noel C. Taylor 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. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 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. 2 C-2 Qualification of Mr. Hugh A. Meagher as a member of the Fair Housing Board for a term ending March 31, 1995. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. A commuicalion from the Mayor requesting an Excculive Session to discuss a matter of probable litigation being a claim by the City for certain delinquent accounts, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. REGULAR AGENDA 3. HEARING OF CITlZENS UI~N PUBLIC MATrERS: None. 4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: None. 5. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: .BRIEFINGS: A report with regard to paid leave and extended illness leave benefits for City employees. NO ACTION WAS TAKEN. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: A report with regard to the Virginia Summer Food Service Program application to the U. S. Department of Agriculture. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31039-060892 and Ordinance No. 31040-060892. (7-0) 3 A report recommending formal ratification of a contract with Payne Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of $95,800.00, for removal of the orchestra shell in the Roanoke Civic Center Auditorium. Adopted Ordinance No. 31041--060892. (7-0) A report recommending acceptance of the lowest responsible bids submitted for providing mowing tractors and loaders for use by the Grounds Maintenance and Street Maintenance Departments; and transfer of funds therefor. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31042--060892 and Resolution No. 31043--060892. (7-0) b. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: A report with regard to the closeout of Community Development Block Grant year (B-89-MC-51-0020). Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31044--060892. (7-0) 6. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: ao bo A report with regard to an interjurisdictional agreement to provide for development, administration and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming. Vice-Mayor Howard E. Musser, Chairman, Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee. Adopted Resolution No. 31045-060892. (7-0) A report of the committee appointed to tabulate bids received for Phase I, Culvert Replacement and Channelization, and Phase II, Clearing and Snagging, of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, recommending 4 award of contracts to Allegheny Construction Co., Inc., in the amount of $1,076,956.00, for Phase I, and H. T. Bowling, Inc., in the amount of $240,900.00, for Phase II; and transfer of funds therefor. Council Member William White, Sr., Chairperson. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31046-060892 and Ordinance No. 31047-060892. (7-0) Co A report of the City Planning Commission with regard to continued inclusion of the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District, in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, and how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson. Concurred in the recommendation of the City Planning Commi.qsion. 7. UNFINISHF. D BUSINESS: None. 8. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: None. OF 9. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council. bo Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council. 10. OTHF. R IIF. ARINGS OF CITIZF. NS: CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. (7-0) Appointed Willis M. Anderson as a member of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, Board of Commissioners. 5 Noel C. 'Ihylor Mayor Howard E. Musser Vice-Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 June 8, 1992 Council Members: David A. Bowers Elizabeth T. Bowles Beverly '1~ Fitzpatrick, Jr James G. Harvey, II William White, Sr. The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: 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. Sincerely, NCT: se MARY F. PARKER 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. EA~IN Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File //15-178 Ms. Dolores C. Daniels Assistant to the City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Daniels: This is to advise you that Hugh A. Meagher has qualified as a member of the Fair Housing Board for a term ending March 31, 1995. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Oath or Affirmation of Office 8t/ate of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to .~vii: I, Hu~h A. Meagher , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me ss member of the Fair Housing Board, for a term ending March 31, 1995. according to the best of my ability. Subscribed and sworn to before me, this Noel C. Taylor Mayor Howard E. Musser Vice-Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 June 8, 1992 Council Members: David A. Bowers Elizabeth T Bowles Beverly ~ Fitzpatrick, Jr. James G. Harvey, II William White, Sr. The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: This is to request an Executive Session to discuss a matter of probable litigation being a claim by the City for certain delinquent accounts, pursuant to Section 2.1- 344 (A) (7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Sincerely, MNaO~lorC. Taylor NCT:sw Roanoke, virginia June 8, 1992 Honorable Mayor and city Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: subJECT: Briefing on Proposed Paid Leave and Extended Illness Leave Plan A. The City's sick leave policy was established in 1953 and since that time no material changes have been made. The current sick leave policy does not recognize many of the diverse needs for City employees to be away from work such as caring for an aged parent or to be at home with sick children. II. cu~ SI~q3ATION The new proposed leave plan, titled Paid Leave and Extended Illness Leave, incorporates a number of unique provisions which include: Combining vacation, short term sick leave (3 days or less), and time off for doctors appointments into one paid leave account; Providing employees with a separate account for extended illness leave which may also be used for family member illnesses; Providing incentives, not punishment for employees who use a minimum of extended illness leave by allowing it to be credited toward retirement; and 4. Providing existing employees with a choice between current sick leave and vacation benefits or the new leave policy. Current employees may elect the new plan by June 1st of any year during their career up to three years prior to retire- ment. During the initial offering period, an election date in late June will be established by the City Manager. Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 2 The new leave policy includes two types of leave, Leave and Extended Illness Leave 1. Paid Leave shall accrue as follows: Paid CITY EMPLOYEES CITY FIRE SUPPRESSION EMPLOYEES Total Years Hours Days Hours Days of Service Per Month Per Year Per Month Per Year 0 to 1 10 15 14 7 1 to 5 12 18 16 8 5 to 10 14 21 20 10 10 to 15 16 24 24 12 15 to 20 17 25.5 26 13 20 to 25 18 27 28 14 25 to 30 19 28.5 30 15 30 or more 20 30 32 16 Extended Illness Leave shall accrue at the rate of 6 hours per month which equates to 9 days per year. Fire suppression employees accrue extended illness leave at 9 hours per month which equates to 4.5 days per year. New employees hired on or after July 1, 1992 will be covered by the new leave policy. Focus qroups which included employees from throughout City departments reviewed the proposed policy and made valuable suggestions as the policy was being designed. A draft of the proposed Policy has been sent to ali full-time city employees. (See Attachment 1 for current draft.) Included with the draft policy package are questions regarding the Paid Leave and Extended Leave Policy, an example of how the policy works and an explanation of how to calculate initial paid leave and extended illness leave balances. Informational meetinqs were held with employees to provide them with an understanding of the policy as well as to answer individual questions. The City's actuarial consultant has evaluated this policy and indicated that the new policy will require minimal city contributions to the retirement system in order to implement this change. Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 3 CONCLU__~ION The Paid Leave and Extended Illness Leave Plan recognizes employees, diverse needs to be away from work and also holds employees accountable for time used. Moreover, current employees have a choice between current sick leave and vacation policies or the new leave plan. This plan will be reviewed by the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission. The plan will be submitted to City Council for action on June 15, 1992. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH:cb ATTACHMENT I Office of ~.he Cii:y Manager To All City Employees: May 14, 1992 Attached to this letter is a new proposed leave policy which will be presented to the Roanoke City Council in June for possible implementation on July 1, 1992. Also included in this package are typical questions and answers, as well as examples to help you understand this new proposed policy. I believe it is important to present this information to you prior to its formal consideration so you will have the time to review the policy and ask any questions. Clearly, for many people, the most important facet of this policy is the fact that it is voluntary for all current employees. You will have the choice of either remaining under the current policy or moving to the new plan. In addition, if you decide to remain under the current leave policy, you will have the option of moving to the new policy at a later date. So why a new leave policy? Because we believe it's important to allow employees a choice and recognize their judgement and ability to make personal decisions concerning how leave time is used. The details are explained in the attached information. Over the past year, the new proposed policy has been studied, drafted and re-drafted. As part of that process, focus groups including employees from throughout City departments reviewed the proposed policy and made valuable suggestions as the policy was being designed. I'd like to thank those inaividuals for contributing their time on ~his important project. If adopted by City Council, the policy will become effective July 1, 1992 and be mandatory for all employees hired on or after that date. Please review the attached information carefully. Employee meetings have been scheduled to help answer any questions you may have. The meetings will be on Friday, May 22 at 8 a.m., Thursday, May 28 at 2 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., and Tuesday, June 2 at 8 a.m. and 10 a.m. All meetings will be held in the City Council Chambers. Additional meetings may be scheduled at other locations if needed. It will be your decision whether or not you want the new policy. I hope you'll take the time to ~eview it carefully and choose the plan you find most beneficial. Thanks for your continued work in making the City of Roanoke the best place to live and work in the South. Sincerely, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/dh Attachments Room 364 Mun,cipal Bu(Idlng 215 Church Avenue S W Roanoke V~g,nto 24011 (703) 981 2333 MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I Telephone: (703) 981-2541 Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #246-72-467-226 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31040-060892 authorizing execution of a grant application made on behalf of the City of Roanoke for the United States Department of Agriculture 1992 Summer Food Service Program, and acceptance of the subsequent grant award; authorizing acceptance of the bid of Total Action Against Poverty in the Roanoke Valley, Inc., and award of the requisite contract to prepare and deliver the Summer Food Service Program daily meals to designated sites in the City. Ordinance No. 31040-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. Finn D. Pincus, Chairperson, Roanoke City School Board, 1116 Winchester Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools, P. O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 Mr. Richard L. Kelley, Executive for Business Affairs and Clerk of the Board, P. O. Box 13105, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development Ms. Carolyn H. Barrett, Administrator, Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium, 310 Campbell Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget MARY F. PAI~ER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 2A011 Tek'phone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EA]HN Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #246-72-467-226 Mr. Theodore J. Edlich, III Executive Director Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, Inc. P. O. Box 2868 Roanoke, Virginia 24001 Dear Mr. Edlich: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31040-060892 accepting the bid of Total Action Against Poverty in Roanoke Valley, Inc., to prepare and deliver the Summer Food Service Program daily meals to designated sites in the City of Roanoke, for an average cost per meal of $1.805 to $1.835 (lunch) and $1.0275 to $1.0575 (breakfast). Resolution No. 31040-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The Sth day of June, 1992. No. 31040-060892. AN ORDINANCE authorizing the execution of a grant application made on behalf of the City of Roanoke for the United States Department of Agriculture 1992 Summer Food Service Program, and the acceptance of the subsequent grant award; authorizing the acceptance of the bid of Total Action Against Poverty in the Roanoke Valley, Inc., and award of the requisite contract to prepare and deliver the Summer Food Service Program daily meals to designated sites in the City of Roanoke; and providing for an emergency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager, W. Robert Herbert, or the Assistant City Manager, is hereby authorized to execute for an on behalf of the City of Roanoke the grant application for the United States Department of Agriculture 1992 Summer Food Service Program, and accept the grant award in the amount of $109,497.50 from the United States Department of Agriculture; and the City's Director of Human Development is authorized to execute any grant conditions or assurances related thereto and to negotiate and execute appropriate interagency cooperation agreements in order to implement the program funded by the grant, as requested in a report of the City Manager dated June 8, 1992. 2. The bid of Total Action Against Poverty in the Roanoke Valley, Inc., made to the City offering to prepare and deliver the Summer Food Service Program daily meals to designated sites in the City of Roanoke, for an average cost per meal of $1.805 to $1.835 (lunch) and $1.0275 to $1.0575 (breakfast), is hereby ACCEPTED. 3. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized, on behalf of the City, to execute and attest, respectively, the requisite contract with the successful bidder, based on its proposal made therefor and the City's specifications made therefor, the contract to be in such form as approved by the City Attorney. 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. MARY F. PARKI~R 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 June 12, 1992 File #60-72-236-246-467-226 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31039-060892 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Consortium Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of $109,498.00 to be established in the Consortium Fund, in connection with acceptance of a grant award from the U. S. Department of Agriculture for the 1992 Summer Food Service Program. Ordinance No. 31039-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager. Mr. Finn D. Pincus, Chairperson, Roanoke City School Board, 1116 Winchester Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools, P. O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 Mr. Richard L. Kelley, Executive for Business Affairs and Clerk of the Board, P. O. Box 13105, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Development Ms. Carolyn H. Barrett, Administrator, Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium, 310 Campbell Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKEv VIRGINIA The Sth day of June, 1992. No. 31039-060892. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 Consortium 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 1991-92 Consortium Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: & ro riations Fifth District Employment & Training Consortium - FY92 Virginia Summer Food Service Program 1992 (1-10) .................................... RSVSnUS Fifth District Employment & Training Consortium - FY92 Virginia Summer Food Service Program 1992 (11) ...................................... 1) Food Costs 2) Wages 3) Fringes 4) Travel 5) Supplies 6) Wages 7) Fringes 8) Travel 9) Communications 10) Supplies 11) 1992 Summer Food Service Federal Revenue (034-054-9285-8403) $ 91,476 (034-054-9285-8050) 7,533 (034-054-9285-8051) 730 (034-054-9285-8052) 400 (034-054-9285-8055) 1,500 (034-054-9285-8350) 5,860 (034-054-9285-8351) 703 (034-054-9285-8352) 700 (034-054-9285-8353) 296 (034-054-9285-8355) 300 (034-034-1234-9285) 109,498 $ 1,695,866 109,498 $ 1,695,866 109,498 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: this City Clerk. June 8, 1992 Roanoke, Virgirda HonorabloMayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Members of Council: SUBJECT: Virginia Summer Food Service Program Grant Application to the U. S. Depa~-tment of Agriculture I. BACKGROUND The U. S. Department of Agric~dture (USDA) has applications from mum~p~]~s to par~ate in the 1992 Summer Food Service Program. s~i~ted Virginia B. The purpose of the program is to provide nutrilionally bml~nced, healthy meal~ to children, ages 1 through 18, of low-income famlq~ms (loss than 185% of poverty) during the summer months of 1992. Cost reimbursements are made to program sponsors (CJL-y of Roanoke), by the U. S. Depa~'tment of Agriculture, at a rate of approximately $2.17 per meal consumed (lunch) by a par~paling ~]~giblo youth. (--~0 per breakfast) D. $7,015.00 has been ~]]ncated by City Council in the 1992-93 budget to the Director of Human Development to support the s~m~f~ng and administration of this program. go The Virginia Summer Food Serv~e Prosram is simP]mr in concept to the National School Lunch Program and the par~pants' ~hj]~ty is comparablo to that used to determine eligibility for free, or reduced price, meals during the school year. Roanoke operated tb_Ls program last year serving approximately 900 ~]~h]m youth daily at ~ceen feeding locations in the City. Over 39,000 meal~ were consumed during the entire summer. G. Roanoke City Schoois sponsored a sim~qmr program in 1985 and has, again, elected not to sponsor such a program this year, due to the broad responsibleness of sponsorship and their present capab~q~s. The need mfO~ this program and potential operational plan= were orig- inally egplored and developed by a task force of the City Manager's Human Development Steering Committee. Agenc~s represented in~l,~ ~ted the Depa~'tment of Sociml Services, the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium, with the assistance of CJ~y Parks and Recreation, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and Totml Action Against Poverty. City Council Report June 8 , 1992 Page 2 Problems present, regarding lack of enough food, were projected for fifty-five (55) famlq~ms in the northwest neighborhoods of the City. Problems present, regarding nut~on/attention for children, were projected for 1,333 fatalisms throughout Roanoke, with 166 fam~l~s in northwest and--i-5-4-fam~]~$ in southeast areas of the-C-~ty (concen- trated neighbor~ds). (Projections are based upon United Way Needs Assessment Survey.) The U. S. Department of Ag_riculture is supportive of efforts by the City of Roanoke to expand this program and has expressed its inter- est in providing whatever supportive assistance necessary to accom- plish the program's objectives. II. PRESENT SITUATION A grant application for the Virginia Summer Food Serv~e Program has been prepared by the Fifth District Employment and Trahning Consor- Hum, on behalf of the City of Roanoke, for consideration by the U.S. Depaz~cment of Agriculture for funding this summer, for the per~od June 15 through September 4, 1992. 1,300 d~dly meals, are proposed for youths par~pating at these 15 sites: Jamestown Housing Project, Indian V~ql~ge Housing Project, Hurt Park Housing Project, Lincoln Terrace Housing Project, Lands- downe Housin~ Project, Bluestone Housing Project, YMCA ~ Center, Salvation Army Day Camp, Hurt Park Head Start Center', ~ Terrace Head Start Center, Rutherfoord Cb~d Development Center, Roanoke Academy of Math/ Sc~mnce, Summer School Madison ]~ School, Alternative Education - Addison, and Housing Authority Camp - Copper Hill, Vir~_nia. It is estimated that over 55,000 meals w~l be served through this project. The proposed fifteen feeding locations rm~q~ct both the success of lest year's program and the broad need existLng for such a program for needy youth in the City. The Department of Human Development is proposed to administer the project through interagency agreements with the Fifth District Employ- ment and Training Consortium (FDETC) and Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA); an informal written agreement with the Department of Sorrel Services, and a contract with a meal vendor to prepare and deliver the meals, daily, to the project sites. DSS -- Monitozing and daily project support. FDETC --Monitoring, admirdstrat~on, and daily project support. RRHA -- Provi~on of site fa~l~s at six Housing Project sites. C~y Council Report June 8 , 1992 Page 3 Fo Vendor -- Will prepare and deliver over 55,000 meal~ to fifteen aires; vendor to be selected by compe~ve bid process. There are approximately 1,300 meal~ proposed to be provided on each of the sixty (60) meal servi~e days, between June 15 and September 4, 1992 (Monday through Friday). Ail costs reimbursab]m by the U.S. Depa~nnent of Agr~u~ure are ~--~on the number of meals consumed by ~l~hle youth par~- pants. A grant application has been submitted to the U.S. Department of Agz-ic~dm~re. Grant award is expected by June 12, 1992. A vendor must be selmcted to prepare and deliver the meals to the ~ project sites. An "Invita~on for Bid" process has been developed and implmmented, following the City's procurement guide lines. One bid was received and, upon review by appropr~te City s~, it has been determined that Total Act~n Agahnst Poverty has proposed a responsive program for meal preparation and delivery. An average rate range of $1.805 to $1.835 per lunch meal served and 1.0275 to $1.0575 per breakfast meal served, has been proposed by Total Action Against Poverty which is responsive to our target budget. The USDA ceiling rate for food vendors is $2.01 per lunch and $1.12 per breakfast. The City w~l make use of the b~lmnce ava~able per meal, to accommodate the mini- mum s~ng needs to supervise the feeding sites and administer the program. To,mi Action Against Poverty also agrees to request reimburse- ment for only those meals for which the City is aligiblm for USDA reimbursement. ThJ~ will enabl~ the project to pay for meal/delivery costs entirely from USDA grant funds. Cost pro~ections from U.S.D.A. funding total $109,497.50 1. Operational Costs: $101,638.50 Including approximately $88,198.00 for reimbursement to vendor. Administrative Costs: $7,859.00 (Program management and monitoring) City Council Report June 8 , 1992 Page 4 ISSUES A. Cost to the City B. Need for Food Services in the Commun~y C. Effective and E~nt Delivery of Services IV. ALTERNATIVES A. Endorse the application subm/tted, and 1. Accept the subsequent grant award from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the amount of $109,497.50; Authorize the Department of Human Development, to negot~te and execute appropriate interagency agreements to fs~l~t~te the success of the project; Accept the responsive bid from Total Action Against Poverty ~ prepare and deliver meal~ at a rate responsive to our budget, and 4. AuthorLze the negotiation of a vendor contract between the CJL~y and Total Action Against Poverty, and Appropriate $109~497.50 of U.S.D.A. funding with a corresponding revenue estimate, to an account to be established in the Consortium Fund by the Director of Finance, for the Virgin~ Summer Food Service Program. Cost to the .City - $7,015.00 has been appropriated by City Council ~n the 1992-93 budget to the Director of Human Development to support the add~nnal strafing and admini- stratS~n of this program. No add~nnal cost to the City, as remsining expenses are reimbursablm through the U.S. Department of Agric~]]ture, budgeted through FDETC funds, or are project funds designated by the City. Need for Food Services in the Community Need is wide-spread and project w~l accommodate targeted efforts, to provide nut~onally balanced, daily meals to 1,300 needy youths. Effective and E~nt Delivery of Services .- Interagency agreements with DSS, FDETC, and RRHA will promote both the e~ective and ~nt delivery of services, to Roanoke CJ~y residents, whom the project is designed to assist. City Council Report June 8, 1992 Page 5 Po JDR:nd xc: Director of Finance City Attorney Do not endorse the grant applica~on; and 1. Do not accept grant award from the U. S. Department of Agriculture; 2. Do not accept the bid from Total Action Against Poverty. a. Cost to the C~-y - No direct cost impact to the C~y. b. Need for Food Services in Community - Need will continue, without program of intervention for 1,300 youths. c. Effective and Efficient Delivery of Services - Potential inter- agency services would not be umq{zed to address needs, without U. S. Depa~'tment of Agric~]~re resources. RECOMMENDATION Approve Alternative A: A. Endorse the application submitted, and 1. Accept the subsequent grant award from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the amount of $109,497.50; 2. Authorize the Depa~Lment of Human Development, to negotiate and execute appropriate interagency agreements to fac~qitate the success of the project; 3. Accept the responsive bid from Total Action Against Poverty to prepare and deliver meals at an average rate range of $1.805 to $1.835 per lunch meal served and $1.0275 to $1.0575 per break- fast meal served; 4. Authorize the nego~tion of a vendor contract between the CJ~y and Total Ac~on Against Poverty, and 5. Appropriate $109,497.50 with a corresponding revenue estimate, to an account to be establLshed in the Consortium Fund by the Director of Finance, for the Virgirdm Summer Food Service Program. Respectfully subm~ted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 21 ~ Church Avenue, S.W., Room 4~6 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #192 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31041-060892 ratifying an emergency award of a contract to Payne Construction Company for demolition and removal of the orchestra shell pit in the Civic Center Auditorium, in the amount of $95,800.00, on or about June 1, 1992; and authorizing and directing the Director of Finance to make requisite payment to the contractor pursuant to the contract. Ordinance No. 31041- 060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Mr. Bob E. Chapman, Manager, Civic Center Facilities Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, $.W. Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. F. AI~N Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #192 Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr. Vice President Payne Construction Co., Inc. 145 W. Main Street Bedford, Virginia 24523 Dear Mr. Price: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31041-060892 ratifying an emergency award of a contract to Payne Construction Company for demolition and removal of the orchestra shell pit in the Civic Center Auditorium, in the amount of $95,800.00, on or about June 1, 1992; and authorizing and directing the Director of Finance to make requisite payment to the contractor pursuant to the contract. Ordinance No. 31041- 060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 8th day of 3une, 1992. No. 31041-060892. AN ORDINANCE ratifying an emergency award of a contract for demolition and removal of the orchestra shell at the Roanoke Civic Center, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, Section 41 of the City Charter authorizes the City Manager in an emergency to cause public work to be done by direct employment of the necessary labor without the necessity for advertising and receiving bids, and said section further requires the City Manager to report the facts and circumstances relating to such award to the Council at its next regular meeting; WHEREAS, by reports of May 26, 1992 and June 8, 1992, the City Manager has advised of an emergency award of a contract for demolition and removal of the orchestra shell at the Roanoke Civic Center. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The emergency award of a contract to Payne Construction Company for the demolition and removal of the orchestra shell at the Civic Center in the amount of $95,800.00 on or about June 1, 1992, is hereby RATIFIED; and the Director of Finance is hereby authorized and directed to make requisite payment to said contractor pursuant to the contract. 2. municipal ordinance In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia June 8, 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Formal Ratification of Contract with Payne Construction Company, Inc. for Removal of the Civic Center Orchestra Shell Section 41 of the City Charter requires a formal report of facts to City Council after a contract is awarded on an emergency basis. This is to advise Council that in accordance with the May 26, 1992 bid cox~ittee report asking Council to concur in declaring an emergency, the $90,000 appropriation ordinance of May 26, 1992 and the $5,800 appropriation of June i, 1992, a contact has been awarded to Payne Construction Company, Inc., a general contractor, to remove the orchestra shell. The amount of the contract is $95,800. Council is requested to ratify the award of the above contract pursuant to Section 41 of the City Charter. Respect~4~ly, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH:KBK:afm CC: City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Utilities & Operations Civic Center Manager City Engineer MARY F. PARKER 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. EAK1N Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #472-183-514 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31043-060892 accepting bids submitted by Boone Tractor and Implement Company, in the amount of $68,472.00, for one new institutional/recreational mower, two new tractor loaders, and one new tractor/mower; and MSC Equipment Company, in the amount of $93,734.85, for one new self-propelled force feed loader; and rejecting ali bids for two new industrial tractors mower combination. Ordinance No. 31043-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, ~c~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw ENc. pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Nelson M. Jackson, Manager, Buildings and Grounds Mr. William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic Mr. James A. McClung, Manager, Fleet and Solid Waste Management Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #472-183-514 Mr. Ronaid L. Lester Boone Tractor and Implement Company 1111 East Main Street Bedford, Virginia 24523 Dear Mr. Lester: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31043-060892 accepting bids submitted by Boone Tractor and Implement Company, in the amount of $68,472.00, for one new institutional/recreational mower, two new tractor loaders, and one new tractor/mower; and MS C Equipment Company, in the amount of $93,734.85, for one new self-propelled force feed loader; and rejecting all bids for two new industrial tractors mower combination. Ordinance No. 31043-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. MARY F. PARKER City Clcrk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Vir~nia 2~,011 Telephone: (?03) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #472-183-514 Mr. F. H. Melvin, Jr., President MSC Equipment, Inc. 1823 N. Hamilton Street Richmond, Virginia 23230 Dear Mr. Melvin: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31043-060892 accepting bids submitted by Boone Tractor and Implement Company, in the amount of $68,472.00, for one new institutional/recreational mower, two new tractor loaders, and one new tractor/mower; and MSC Equipment Company, in the amount of $93,734.85, for one new self-propelled force feed loader; and rejecting all bids for two new industrial tractors mower combination. Ordinance No. 31043-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, ~O...~.~- Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. MARY F. PARKER CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, $.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk June 11, 1992 File #472-183-514 Mr. Wayne C. Gould, President Roanoke Gravely Sales 3042 Orange Avenue, N. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Mr. Gould: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31043-060892 accepting bids submitted by Boone Tractor and Implement Company, in the amount of $68,472.00, for one new institutional/recreational mower, two new tractor loaders, and one new tractor/mower; and MSC Equipment Company, in the amount of $93,734.85, for one new self-propelled force feed loader; and rejecting all bids for two new industrial tractors mower combination. Ordinance No. 31043-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bids on the abovedescribed equipment. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. NL~R¥ F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 8ANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #472-183-514 Mr. D. L. Mountcastle, Jr., President Mountcastle Tractor Sales, Inc. 301 - llth Street, S. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24013 Dear Mr. Mountcastle: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31043-060892 accepting bids submitted by Boone Tractor and Implement Company, in the amount of $68,472.00, for one new institutional/recreational mower, two new tractor loaders, and one new tractor/mower; and MSC Equipment Company, in the amount of $93,734.85, for one new self-propelled force feed loader; and rejecting all bids for two new industrial tractors mower combination. Ordinance No. 31043-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bids on the abovedescribed equipment. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 June 12, 1992 SANDRA H. EAKIN D~puty City Clerk File #472-183-514 Mr. Dan McGrory Assistant Sales Manager Virginia Turf and Irrigation 2109 Loumour Avenue Richmond, Virginia 23230 Dear Mr. McGrory: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31043-060892 accepting bids submitted by Boone Tractor and Implement Company, in the amount of $68,479..00, for one new institutional/recreational mower, two new tractor loaders, and one new tractor/mower; and MSC Equipment Company, in the amount of $93,734.85, for one new self-propelled force feed loader; and rejecting all bids for two new industrial tractors mower combination. Ordinance No. 31043-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bids on the abovedescribed equipment. Sincerely, ~O~A~ r-..x v' Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eric. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 8th day of June, 1992. No. 31043-060892. A RESOLUTION accepting bids for Mowing Tractors and Loaders and rejecting other bids. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The bids in writing of the following named bidders to furnish to the City the items hereinafter set out and generally described, such items being more particularly described in the City's specifications and any alternates and in each bidder's proposal, are hereby ACCEPTED, at the purchase prices set out with each item: Item Quantity and Successful Bidder Purchase ,,Number Description Price 1 1 - New Boone Tractor and $13,522.00 Institutional/Recre. Implement Company ational Mower Type Tractor 4 5 2 - New Tractor Loaders (Right of Way Maintenance Type) 1 - New Self Propelled Force Feed Loader 1 - New Tractor Mower (Right of Way Type) Boone Tractor and Implement Company MSC Equipment, Inc. Boone Tractor and Implement Company $18,000.00 each $93,734.85 $18,950.00 2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby authorized and directed to issue the requisite purchase orders for the above-mentioned items, said purchase orders to be made and filed in accordance with the City's specifications, the respective bids made therefor and in accordance with this ordinance. 3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid items and for Item Number 2 of such bid are hereby REJECTED; and the City Clerk is directed express to each the City's to so notify each such bidder appreciation for each bid. ATTEST: and to City Clerk. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #60-472-183-514 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31042-060892 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $162,207.00, in connection with acceptance of bids for mowing tractors and loaders to be used by the Grounds Maintenance and Street Maintenance Departments. Ordinance No. 31042-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, City Clerk MFP: sw Ene o pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Nelson M. Jackson, Manager, Buildings and Grounds Mr. William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic Mr. James A. McClung, Manager, Fleet and Solid Waste Management Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 8th day of June, 1992. No. 31042-060892. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 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 1991-92 General Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: APPropriations Public Works Park Maintenance (1)... Non-Departmental Transfers to Other Funds (3) ....................... $20,376,943 3,351,513 2,738,476 11,780,857 10,753,357 1) Other Equipment 2) Maintenance of Fixed Assets 3) Transfers to Debt Service Fund (001-052-4340-9015) $ 68,472 (001-052-4110-9015) 93,735 (001-004-9310-9512) (162,207) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia June.~, ~t99~ Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: SUBJECT: Bids to Purchase Mowing Tractor and Loader, Bid No. 92-4-138 I. Backqround April, 1992 specifications were developed for Tractors and Loaders for Grounds Maintenance and Street Maintenance Departments. Request for Quotations were specifically sent to twenty-one (21) vendors currently listed on the City's Bid List. A public advertisement was also published in the Roanoke Times and World News. Bids were received after due and proper advertisement, until 2:00 p.m., May 8, 1992 at which time all bids appropriately received were publicly opened and read in the Office of the Manager of General Services. II. Current Situation A. Six (6) bid responses were received. Bid tabulation is attached. All bids received were evaluated in a consistent manner by representatives of following Departments: the Fleet Management General Services Parks Street Maintenance Mowing Tractor and Loader Bid No. 92-4-138 Page 2 Bid evaluations are as follows: Item No. 1 - 1 New Institutional/Recreational Mower type Tractor. The lowest bid submitted by Roanoke Gravely Sales took exception to the motor size and fuel type, Transmission and 3 point hitch requirement. These exceptions are substantial and cannot be waived as informalities. The second lowest bid submitted by Boone Tractor and Implement Company meets all required specifications for a cost of $13,522.00. Item No. 2 - 2 New Industrial Tractor/Right of Way Mower Combination. During the evaluation it was determined that the specifications were incomplete, therefore it is requested that this item be rejected, specifications revised and to be rebid. Item No. 3 - 2 New Tractor Loaders. Only one bid was received. That bid, submitted by Boone Tractor and Implement Company, meets all required specifications for the cost of $18,000.00 per unit. Item No. 4 - 1 New Self Propelled Force Feed Loader. 0nly one bid was received. That bid, submitted by MSC Equipment, Inc., meets all required specifications for the cost of $93,734.85. Item No. 5 - 1 New Tractor/Mower. The lowest responsible bid submitted by Boone Tractor and Implement Company meets all required specifications for the cost of $18,950.00. Mowing Tractor and Loader Bid No. 92-4-138 Page 3 III. Issues A. Need B. Compliance with Specifications C. Fund Availability IV. Alternatives Council accept the lowest responsible bids meeting specifications for the following: 1. One (1) New Institutional/Recreational Mower, Two (2) New Tractor Laoders and One (1) New Tractor/Mower as submitted by Boone Tractor and Implement Company for the total cost of $68,472.00. One (1] New Self Propelled Force Feed Loader as submitted by MSC Equipment Company for the total cost of $93,734.85. Reject bid on Item No. 2 - Two [2) new Industrial Tractors Mower Combination. Revise specifications and rebid. a) Need - Requested Tractors and Mowers are needed by Grounds Maintenance and the Force Feed Loader is needed by Street Maintenance to replace old existing equipment and to allow for the efficient performance of required duties. b) Compliance with specifications - Ail bids recommended by this alternative meets all required specifications. c) Fund Availability - Funds are available in debt service account due to bond refinancing cost savings. Mowing Tractor and Loader Bid No. 92-4-138 Page 4 B. Reject all Bids Need - Some required duties assigned to Parks and Street Maintenance would not be accomplished in the most efficient Compliance with Specifications would not be a factor in this alternative· Fund availability - Funds to provide for these purchases would not be expended. Recommendation Council concur with Alternative "A" accept the lowest responsible bids as follows: One (1) New Institutional/Recreational Mower, Two (2) New Tractor Loader and One (1) New Tractor/Mower from Boone Tractor and Implement Company for the total cost of $68,472.00. One (1) New Self Propelled Force Feed Loader from MSC Equipment Company for the total cost of $93,734.85. 3. Reject All Other Bids. Transfer $162,206.85 from Debt Service Account 001-004-9310-9512 to the following accounts: $68,472.00 to Parks Account 001-050-4340-9015 $93,734.85 to Street Maintenance Account 001-052-4110-9015 Respectful ly Submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager cc: City Attorney Director of Finance 6 o o 0 o o MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2~41 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #60-236 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31044-060892 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Grant Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of unspent funds, in the amount of $253,671.00, to Community Development Block Grant year B-90-MC-51-0020, and close out of Community Development Block Grant year B-89-MC-51-0020. Ordinance No. 31044-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eric. pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 8th day of June, 1992. No. 31044-060892. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 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 1991-92 Grant Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Community Development Block Grant 1989-1990 Community Development Block Grant 1990-1991 (1-18).. (19-36). $2,398,828 2,457,702 Revenue Community Development Block Grant 1989-1990 Community Development Block Grant 1990-1991 1) TAP Customized Job Training 2) Stabilize Old First Baptist 3) Loudon Avenue New Houses 4) Vacant Lot Homesteading 5) Demolition 6) Postage - Housing 7) Emergency Home Repair 8) Fairfax Avenue Clearance (RRHA) 9) L/M Housing Downpayment Assistance (035-089-8938-5218) (035-089-8937-5215) (035-089-8920-5217) (035-089-8920-5104) (035-089-8920-5108) (035-089-8920-5116) (035-089-8920-5168) (035-089-8920-5172) (035-089-8920-5216) (37) .... $2,398,828 (38) .... 2,457,702 $( 6,324) ( 41,500) ( 6,529} ( 20,213) ( 4,398) ( 410) ( 14,600) ( 8,558) ( 50,000) 10) Program Development 11) Mini Grants 12) Urban Renewal Dis- position (RRHA) 13) First Street (Henry Street) (RRHA) 14) Henry Street - City 15) Deanwood Addition (RRaA) 16) Neighborhood Plans 17) Preservation Technical Assistance 18) Downtown Facade Grants 19) TAP Customized Job Training 20) Stabilize Old First Baptist 21) Loudon Avenue New Houses 22) Vacant Lot Homesteading 23) Demolition 24) Postage - Housing 25) Emergency Home Repair 26) Fairfax Avenue Clearance (RRHA) 27) L/M Housing Downpayment Assistance 28) Program Development 29) Mini Grants 30) Urban Renewal Dis- position (RRHA) 31) First Street (Henry Street) (RRHA) 32) Henry Street - City 33) Deanwood Addition (RRHA) 34) Neighborhood Plans 35) Preservation Technical Assistance 36) Downtown Facade Grants 37) CDBG Entitlement B89MC510020 38) CDBG Carryover - 1990 (035-089-8925-5121) (035-089-8925-5122) (035-089-8930-5138) (035-089-8930-5144) (035-089-8930-5156) (035-089-8930-5157) (035-089-8937-5163) (035-089-8937-5170) (035-089-8937-5201) (035-090-9038-5218) (035-090-9037-5215) (035-090-9020-5217) (035-090-9020-5104) (035-090-9020-5108) (035-090-9020-5116) (035-090-9020-5168) (035-090-9020-5172) (035-090-9020-5216) (035-090-9025-5121) (035-090-9025-5122) (035-090-9030-5138) (035-090-9030-5144) (035-090-9030-5156) (035-090-9030-5157) (035-090-9037-5163) (035-090-9037-5170) (035-090-9037-5201) (035-035-1234-9001) (035-035-1234-9123) $( 497) ( 8,046) ( 480) ( 3,836) ( 462) ( 11,697} ( 27,464) ( 12,609) (36,048) 6,324 41,500 6,529 20,213 4,398 410 14,600 8,558 50,000 497 8,046 480 3,836 462 11,697 27,464 12,609 36,048 (253,671) 253,671 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk June 8, 1992 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Joel M. Schlanger Closeout of Community Development Block Grant Year (B-89-MC-51-0020) The Community Development Block Grant program is accounted for on the City's financial records by program year. Three years are currently appropriated. HUD allows localities to determine the number of CDBG program years to retain on their records. Reprogramming these funds allows the City to maintain a minimum number of program years on its records. The earliest Community Development Block Grant year (B-89-MC-51-0020) may be closed by reprogramming the unspent funds in this program year to the next subsequent program year, (B-90-MC-51-0020). These unspent funds totaling $253,671 will be used for the same activities for which they are currently appropriated. Recommendations: · Transfer unspent funds of 9253,671 to Community Development Block Grant year B-90-MC-51-O020 as shown on the accompanying budget ordinance. · Close Community Development Block Grant year B-89-MC-51-O020. JMS/kp U' Director of Finance) Attachment MARY F. PARKF~ City CIerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 2401 I Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #448 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31045-060892 authorizing execution of an interjurisdictional agreement with the County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton formally establishing the Roanoke Vailey Regional Cable Television Committee, and authorizing such Committee to provide for the development, administration and operation of cable television educational and institutionai facilities and programming to be funded by each jurisdiction ailocating up to one per cent of the cable operator's gross revenues, as more particularly set forth in a report from the Chairman of the Regional Cable Television Committee under date of June 8, 1992. Ordinance No. 31045-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. pc: Mr. Robert E. Glenn, Attorney, Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., P. O. Box 2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001 Mr. Bernard W. Langheim, Vice President]Generai Manager, Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., P. O. Box 13726, Roanoke, Virginia 24034 The Honorable Howard E. Musser, Chairperson, Regional Cable Television Committee Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Ms. M. Michelle Bono, Chairperson, Cable Television Equipment and Facilities Subcommittee Mr. David C. Baker, P. O. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 Mr. Alfred Beckley, 1202 Sylvan Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014 MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 2~I 1 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 June 12, 1992 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk File #448 Ms. Mary H. Allen Clerk to the Board Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Ms. Allen: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31045-060892 authorizing execution of an interjurisdietional agreement with the County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton formally establishing the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee, and authorizing such Committee to provide for the development, administration and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming to be funded by each jurisdiction allocating up to one per cent of the cable operator's gross revenues, as more particularly set forth in a report from the Chairman of the Regional Cable Television Committee under date of June 8, 1992. Ordinance No. 31045-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, ~O~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw gnc. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 June 12, 1992 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk File #448 Ms. Carolyn S. Ross Clerk of Council Town of Vinton P. O. Box 338 Vinton, Virginia 24179 Dear Ms. Ross: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31045-060892 authorizing execution of an interjurisdictionai agreement with the County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton formally establishing the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee, and authorizing such Committee to provide for the development, administration and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming to be funded by each jurisdiction ailoeating up to one per cent of the cable operator's gross revenues, as more particularly set forth in a report from the Chairman of the Regional Cable Television Committee under date of June 8, 1992. Ordinance No. 31045-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw gnc. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 8th day of June, 1992. No. 31045-060892. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of an interJurisdictional agreement to provide for the development, administration, and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and progranuning upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, in form approved by the City Attorney, an interJurisdictional agreement with the County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton formally establishing the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee and authorizing such Committee to provide for the development, administration, and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming to be funded by each Jurisdiction allocating up to one percent of the cable operator's gross revenues, such agreement to contain other appropriate and necessary terms and conditions in substantially the form set forth in the report to this Council from the Chairman of the Regional Cable Television Committee dated June 8, 1992. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia June 8, 1992 Honorable Mayor and City Council, Roanoke, VA Dear Members of Council: Subject: Proposed Regional Cable Television Committee Agreement I. Background Section 11 of the Cable Television Franchise Ordinance adopted by Roanoke City, Roanoke County, and the Town of Vinton in April of 1991, provides for the establishment of an advisory committee composed of representatives of the three jurisdictions. Ail substantive actions involving the expenditure of capital grant funds received from Cox Cable Roanoke in accordance with the franchise agreement and any operation of an educational/institutional television facility must now be approved by formal action of each governing body. At the initiative of the Regional Cable Television Committee, legal counsel for the jurisdictions were directed to draft an agreement to provide stability and continuity for these television functions. II. Current Situation An agreement has been drafted (attachment A) which provides a legal framework for the Regional Cable Television Committee to operate an educational/ institutional television facility and programming including the expenditure of capital grant funds. Each locality would equitably fund this Committee's operations based upon a percentage of the gross receipts of Cox Cable Roanoke in each jurisdiction up to a maximum of one percent. This agreement will not constitute a binding legal obligation on any jurisdiction to appropriate any funds for the Committee's operations. The Roanoke City Council, as part of the fiscal year 1992/1993 budget, approved the additional one percent in franchise fee payments from Cox Cable Roanoke, for the expenses associated with operating an educational/ institutional cable television facility. The agreement has already been approved by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the Vinton Town Council. Recommendation That City Council authorize execution by the City Manager of the proposed agreement in form approved by the City Attorney, authorizing the Regional Cable Television Committee to develop, administer and operate interjurisdictional educational/institutional television facilities and programs. Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee: cc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mrs. Mary M. Parker, City Clerk Mr. Alfred Beckley, Roanoke Regional Cable Television Committee Member Mr. David Baker, Roanoke City Schools Mrs. M. Michelle Bono, Public Information Officer IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of an interjurisdictional agreement to provide for the development, administration, and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City Manager and the City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, in form approved by the City Attorney, an interJurisdictional agreement with the County of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton formally establishing the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee and authorizing such Committee to provide for the development, administration, and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming to be funded by each jurisdiction allocating up to one percent of the cable operator's gross revenues, such agreement to contain other appropriate and necessary terms and conditions in substantially the form set forth in the report to this Council from the Chairman of the Regional Cable Television Committee dated June 8, 1992. ATTEST: City Clerk. ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL CABLE TELEVISION COF, MITTEE AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of the day of , 1992, by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, ("City"); the COUNTY OF ROANOKE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, ("County"); and the TOWN OF VINTON, a municipal corporation of the commonwealth of Virginia, ("Town"). RECITALS WHEREAS, the City, County and Town have by Ordinance Nos. 30478-42291, 42391-5, and , respectively, provided for one or more non-exclusive franchises to construct, operate, and maintain one or more cable television systems within their jurisdictions ("Ordinances"); and, WHEREAS, Section 11 of each of the above described Ordinances provides for the establishment and operation of a Cable Television Committee made up of representatives of the City, County, and Town; and, WHEREAS, the Cable Television Committee as now established is primarily an advisory body unable to take substantive action without the approval of each jurisdiction's governing body; and, WHEREAS, the City, County, and Town by this agreement desire to authorize the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee to provide for the development, administration, and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming. WITNESSETH THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-21 of the Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended, do covenant and agree to establish the "Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee" ("Committee") upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. TERM This agreement shall take effect upon its proper execution pursuant to and by ordinance or resolution of the governing bodies of the City, County and Town. Thereafter, the term of this agreement shall be concurrent with the Cable Television Franchise Agreements granted pursuant to the Ordinances by the City, County and Town to Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., ("Franchise Agreements") unless terminated earlier in the manner provided herein. II. ESTABLISHMENT AND TERMS OF MEMBERS City, County, and Town covenant and agree to hereby establish the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee for the purpose of developing, administering, and operating cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming as a joint and cooperative undertaking for the use and benefit of all the parties hereto. The Committee shall be organized and comprised of 11 members selected and appointed in the manner provided in Section 11 of the Ordinances, a copy of which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A. III. PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION In addition to existing purposes, powers, and duties of the Roanoke Regional Cable Television Committee under the Ordinances, the Committee shall also be authorized to provide for the development, administration, and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming for the City, County, and Town as provided for in the Ordinances and Franchise Agreements. The administration of all such activities shall be undertaken by the Committee. The committee shall be authorized to receive on behalf of the City, County, and Town and expend all Capital Grant funds provided under the Franchise Agreements by Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., for the purpose of acquiring equipment for educational and institutional purposes. The Committee shall be authorized to enter into and administer appropriate contracts and agreements for the purchase of goods and services, including personal service contracts. All personal property shall be held in the name of the Committee. The Committee shall be authorized to lease but not to acquire real property. IV. FINANCING AND BUDGETS In addition to being authorized to expend Capital Grant funds as provided in paragraph III above, the parties hereto intend that the operations of the Committee shall be financed by allocation or appropriation to the Committee by the City, County, and Town of an equivalent amount up to a maximum of one percent (1%) of the gross revenues of Cox Cable Roanoke from each jurisdiction based upon such receipts for the last calendar year. City, County, and Town recognize and agree that such allocation or appropriation to the Committee is subject to and dependent upon annual appropriations being made from time to time by each of their governing bodies for such purpose. Nothing herein shall constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit of the city, County or Town or be deemed to require that appropriations or allocations be made. On or before March 15 of each year, the Committee shall have prepared and submit for approval to City, county and Town an annual operating and capital budget for the upcoming fiscal year. The Committee shall not expend any funds or incur any financial obligation except pursuant to a budget approved by City, County, and Town. V. TEI~INATION This agreement shall not be terminated except after appropriate action by ordinance or resolution of any of the three governing bodies of City, County, or Town, authorizing such termination. Upon such termination, all property and equipment belonging to the Committee shall be appraised and valued as of the date of termination, and such value shall be apportioned among the three jurisdictions in the same proportion as total funds were contributed to the Committee by each of the jurisdictions. No payment shall be made by the Committee to any jurisdiction terminating this agreement, but the value assigned to such jurisdiction shall he held as a credit against any future use of such property or equipment by that jurisdiction. VI. LIABILITY AND INSURANCE The Committee shall be responsible for any liability that may arise out of its operation. The Committee shall obtain and maintain during the term of this agreement comprehensive general liability insurance in the amount of $500,000.00 per occurrence covering the Committee, as well as the City, County, and Town, their officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: City of Roanoke Attest By: By: Title: Title: County of Roanoke Attest By: By: Title: Title: Town of Vinton By: Attest By: Title: Title: TOWN OF VINTON P. O. BOX 338 VINTON, VIRGINIA 2417g PHONE (7031 983-0607 FAX (703) 983-0621 June 4, 1992 BRAD CORCORAN TOWN MANAGER Mr. Howard E. Musser, Chairman Roanoke Valley Regional Cable TV Committee City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, VA 24011 Dear ~r:'~*°'~d/ At the regular meeting of the Vinton Town Council held on Tuesday, lune 2, 1992, the Council voted unanimously to approve the proposed agreement whereby the Regional Cable Television Committee would develop and operate cable television educational programming. If you will forward the original agreement to me after it has been signed by ~ City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke, the Town of Vinton will execute the docum~t and return it to you. If you have any questions or need additional information, do not hesitate to contact me. Brad Corcoran Town ldsn~,er BC/cr Mrs. Mary F. Parker, Clerk, City of Roanoke Mrs. Mazy H. Allen, Clerk, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors ROANOKE VALLEY REGIONAL CABLE TELEVISION AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is dated as of the day of , 1992, by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, ("City"); the COUNTY OF ROANOKE, a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia, ("County"); and the TOWN OF VINTON, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, ("Town"). WHEREAS, the City, County and Town have by Ordinance Nos. 30478-42291, 42391- 5, and 545, respectively, provided for one or more non-exclusive franchises to construct, operate, and maintain one or more cable television systems within their jurisdictions ("Ordinances"); and, WHEREAS, Section 11 of each of the above described Ordinances provides for the establishment and operation of a Cable Television Committee made up of representatives of the City, County, and Town; and, WHEREAS, the Cable Television Committee as now established is primarily an advisory body unable to take substantive action without the approval of each jurisdicfion's governing body; and, WHEREAS, the City, County, and Town by this agreement desire to authorize the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Commit~e to provide for the development, administration, and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and pwgramming. THAT FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto, pursuant to the provisions of Section 15.1-21 of the 1950 Code of~qrginia, as amended, do covenant and agree to establish the 'Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee" ("Commit~e") upon the ~ ~d co~litiom set forth This agreement shall take effect upon its prol~ execution pursuant to and by ordinance of the governing bodies of the City, County and Town. Tlmreafter, the term of this agreement shall be eoncunent with the Cable Televisioo Franchise Agreements granted pursuant to the Ordinances by the City, County and Town to Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc., ('Franchise Agreements") unless terminated earlier in the manner provided herein. 11. ESTABLISIIMENT AND TERMS OF MEMBERS City, County, and Town covenant and agree to hereby establish the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee for the purpose of developing, administering, and operating cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming as a joint and cooperative undertaking for the use and benefit of all the parties hereto. The Committee shall be organized and comprised of I 1 members of selected and appointed in the manner provided in Section 11 of the Ordinances, a copy of which is atlached hereto and incorporated by reference herein as Exhibit A. IIl. PURPOSE AND ADMINISTRATION In addition to existing purposes, powers, and duties of the Roanoke Regional Cable Television Committee under the Ordinances, the Committee shall also be authorized to provide for the development, administration, and operation of cable television educational and institutional facilities and programming for the City, County and Town as provided for in the Ordinances and Franchise Agreements. The administration of all such activities shall be undertaken by the Committee. The committee shall be authorized to receive on behalf of the City, County and Town and expend all Capital Grant funds provided under the Franchise Agreements by Cox Cable Roanoke, Iuc., for the puq~ose of acquiring equipment for educational and institutional purposes. The Committee shall be authorized to enter into and administer appropriate contracts and agreements for the purchase of goods and services, including personal service contracts. All personal property shall be held in the name of the Committee. The Committee shall be authorized to lease but not to ac, quire real property. IV. FINANCING AND BUDGETS In additional to being authorized to cxpemt Capital Grant funds as provided in paragraph lit above, the parties hea'oto intend that the operations of the Committee shall be financed by allocation or appropriation to the Committee by the City, County, and Town of an equivalent amount u~p~to a m~i/Bl~L~On~. _~_ t {!~) of the gross revenues of Cox Cable Roanoke from e~ch jurisdiction based upon such receipts for the last calendar year. City, County and Town recognize and agree that such allocation or appropriation to the Committee is subject and dependent upon annual appropriations being made from time to time by each of their governing bodies for such purposes. Nothing herein shall constitute a pledge of the full faith and credit of the City, County or Town or be deemed to require that appropriations or allocations be made. .~lLor befgre Ma~-h t ~ nf ~ae_h year: the Commi~ shall have llt~ared and mbmit for approval to City, County and Town an annual operating and ealfitai budget for ~e, upcoming fiaeai year. The Committee shall not expend any fundl or incur any fumncial obligation except pursuant to a budget approved by City, County and Town. This agreement shall not be terminated except after appropriate action by ordinance or resolution of any of the three governing bodies of City, County or Town, authorizing such termination. Upon such termination, all proper~y and equipment belonging to the Committee shall be apprised and valued as of the date of termination, and such value shall be apportioned among the three jurisdictions in same proportion as total funds were contributed to the Committee by each of the jurisdictions. No payment shall be made by the Committee to any jurisdiction terminating this agreement, but the value assigned to such jurisdiction shall be held as a credit against any future use of such property or equipment by that jurisdiction. VI. LIABILITY AND INSURANCE The Committee shall be responsible for any liability that may arise out of its operation. The Committee shall obtain and maintain during the term of this agreement comprehensive general liability insurance in the amount of $500,000.00 per occurrence covering the Committee, as well as City, County and Town, and their officers, agents and employees as additional insureds. WITNESS the following signatures and seals: City of Roanoke Attest BY: By: Title: Title: County of Roanoke Attest By: BY: Town of Vinton Attest BY: By: Title: Title: MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 21~ Church Avenue, S.W., Room 4~6 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2~41 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #27-237 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31047-060892 accepting the bid of Allegheny Construction Company, Inc., in the total amount of $1,076,956.00, for construction of Phase I of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of June 8, 1992; and accepting the bid of H. T. Bowling, Inc., in the total amount of $240,900.00, for construction of Phase II of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of June 8, 1992. Ordinance No. 31047-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Mr. Jan P. Bruce, Technioal Supervisor Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Mr. Steven L. Walker, Manager, Sewage Treatment Plant Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Ms. Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 June 12, 1992 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk File #27-237 Mr. John Douthat Vice President Allegheny Construction Company 2920 Nicholas Avenue, N. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Mr. Douthat: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31047-060892 accepting the bid of Allegheny Construction Company, Inc., in the total amount of $1,076,956.00, for construction of Phase I of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of June 8, 1992; and accepting the bid of H. T. Bowling, Inc., in the total amount of $240,900.00, for construction of Phase II of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of June 8, 1992. Ordinance No. 31047-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (?03) 981-2541 June 12, 1992 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk File #27-237 Mr. Kenneth Bowling Vice President H. T. Bowling, Inc. 6620 Hickman Cemetery Road Radford, Virginia 24141 Dear Mr. Bowling: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31047-060892 accepting the bid of Allegheny Construction Company, Inc., in the total amount of $1,076,956.00, for construction of Phase I of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of June 8, 1992; and accepting the bid of H. T. Bowling, Inc., in the total amount of $240,900.00, for construction of Phase II of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of June 8, 1992. Ordinance No. 31047-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2~41 June 12, 1992 SANDRAH. EAKIN DeputyCityClerk File #27-237 Mr. E. C. Pace, III, President E. C. Pace Company, Inc. P. O. Box 12685 Roanoke, Virginia 24027 Dear Mr. Pace: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31047-060892 accepting the bid of Allegheny Construction Company, Inc., in the total amount of $1,076,956.00, for construction of Phase I of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of June 8, 1992; and accepting the bid of H. T. Bowling, Inc., in the total amount of $240,900.00, for construction of Phase II of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of June 8, 1992. Ordinance No. 31047-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedeseribed project. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W,, Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 2AO11 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 June 12, 1992 SANDRA H. EAI~N Deputy City Clerk File #27-237 Mr. Larry G. Conner, Sr., President Aaron J. Conner General Contractor, Inc. P. O. Box 6068 Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Mr. Conner: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31047-060892 accepting the bid of Allegheny Construction Company, Inc., in the total amount of $1,076,956.00, for construction of Phase I of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of June 8, 1992; and accepting the bid of H. T. Bowling, Inc., in the total amount of $240,900.00, for construction of Phase II of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of June 8, 1992. Ordinance No. 31047-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed project. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 8th day of 3une, 1992. No. 31047-060892. VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of Allegheny Construction Company, Inc., for construction of Phase I of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, upon certain terms and conditions, and awarding a contract therefor; accepting the bid of H. T. Bowling, Inc., for construction of Phase II of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, 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 providing for an emergency. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The bid of Allegheny Construction Company, Inc., in the total amount of $1,076,956.00, for Phase I of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, as more particularly set forth in the June 8, 1992 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 bid of H. T. Bowling, Inc., in the total amount of $240,900.00, for Phase II of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project, as more particularly set forth in the June 8, 1992 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. 3. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute and attest, respectively, the requisite contracts with the successful bidders, based on their respective proposals made therefor and the City's specifications made therefor, said contracts 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. 4. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid work 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. municipal government, ordinance shall be in In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the an emergency is deemed to exist, and this full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. MARY F. PARKER 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 June 12, 1992 File #60-237-27 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31046-060892 amending and ~eordaining certain sections of the 1991-92 Sewage and Capital Funds Appropriations, providing for the transfer of certain funds in connection with bids received for Phase I, Culvert Replacement and Channelization, and Phase II, Clearing and Snagging, of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project. Ordinance No. 31046-060892 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. Since rely ' Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Eno. pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Mr. Jan P. Bruce, Technical Supervisor Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Mr. Steven L. Walker, Manager, Sewage Treatment Plant Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget Ms. Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 8th day of June, 1992. No. 31046-060892. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1991-92 Sewage and Capital Funds 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 Roanoke that certain sections of the 1991-92 Sewage Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, reordained to read as follows, in part: the City of and Capital amended and Capital Outlay Peters Creek Flood Reduction - Phase I (1) ........ Retained Earninq- Retained Earnings - Unappropriated (2) ............. $ 1,176,907 56,300 $ 15,142,770 Other Infrastructure Peters Creek Flood Reduction - Phase I Peters Creek Flood Reduction Phase II Capital Improvement Reserve Public Improvement Bonds - Series 1992A 1) Approp. from General Revenue 2) Retained Earnings Unappropriated 3) Approp. from Bond F~nds (003-056-8457-9003) (003-3336) (008-052-9704-9001) (3) ......... (4) ........ (5) ........ 56,300 56,300) 1,074,500 $ 21,147,036 1,074,500 253,000 5,448,472 4,986,515 4) Approp. from Bond Funds 5) Storm Drains (008-052-9706-9001) (008-052-9700-9176) 253,000 (1,327,500) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia June 8, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Bid Committee Report Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project Phase I & II I concur with the recommendations of the attached Bid Committee Report. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/JAP/mm Attachment: Bid Committee Report cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Public Facilities Citizens' Request for Service City Engineer Manager, Water Pollution Control Plant Construction Cost Technician Roanoke, Virginia June 8, 1992 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: RE: Bid Committee Report Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project Phases I & II II. I. Background: 1989 Flood Reduction Project Study by the Corps of Engineers determined that a flood reduction project on Peters Creek was not feasible following Federal Regulations. Be Evaluations by City Staff determined that a flood reduction project was feasible if floodproofing was utilized on individual structures. Floodproofing individual structures is not allowed on Federal cost shared projects. Ce City Council approved a consultant contract with Mattern & Craig, Inc. in September 1991 to develop construction documents for all five (5) phases of this project. The five (5) elements include channel widening, clearing and snagging, bridge replacements, detention basins, and floodproofing. Current Situation: A. Construction Contract Documents for Phase I and II were advertised on April 26, 1992. On May 11, 1992, the City received five (5) bids on Phase I (Culvert Replacement and Channelization) and three (3) bids on Phase II (Clearing and Snagging). The low bidder on Phase I was Allegheny Construction Company, Inc. with a bid of $1~076~956.00. The low bidder on Phase II was H. T. Bowling, Inc. with a bid of $240~900.00. These bids compared to engineer's estimates of $1,350,000.00 and $185,000.00 (corrected since bid) respectively. Page 2 III. Issues: A. Compliance of bidders with requirements of contract documents. B. Amount of the low bid. IV. C. Fundinq for the project. D. Time of completion. Alternatives: City Council authorize the City Manager to execute unit price contracts with Allegheny Construction Company, Inc. for $1,076,956.00 for Phase I and with H. T. Bowling, Inc. for $240,900.00 for Phase II. Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of the contract documents was met. 2. Amount of low bids is acceptable as follows: Phase I low bid is $273,044.00 (20%) below the engineer's estimate and is acceptable. Phase II low bid is $55,900.00 (30%) over the engineer's estimate and is acceptable for the following reasons: 1) Due to the fact that this work is all labor and equipment usage it is extremely difficult to estimate by both contractor and engineers and the engineer did not fully recognize the amount of labor involved. 2) The other bids being grouped around $425,000.00 indicate that a rebid will result in significantly higher prices. Page 3 3) The two projects taken together are still 14% under the combined estimates indicating that the overall project is currently under the original estimates by 5%. Fundinq is in account number 008-052-9700-9176, Public Improvement bonds Series 1992A - Storm Drains and Sanitary Sewer Retained Earnings to fund portions of relocated sanitary sewers that would normally require replacement. Time of completion was specified in the bid documents as two hundred forty (240) consecutive calendar days for Phase I and two hundred forty (240) consecutive calendar days for Phase II. Reject all bids and do not award either contract at this time. Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of the contract documents would not be an issue. Amount of the low bids would most likely increase if rebid at a later date. 3. Fundinq would not be encumbered at this time. Time of completion for each phase would be extended. City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a unit price contract with Allegheny Construction Company, Inc. for $1,076,956.00 for Phase I and reject all bids received for Phase II at this time. Compliance of bidders with the requirements of the contract documents for Phase I was met and will not be an issue for Phase II. Amount of low bid is acceptable for Phase I and will probably increase if Phase II is re-bid. Page 4 Fundinq for Phase I is in account number 008-052-9700-9176, Public Improvement Bonds Series 1992A Storm Drains and Sanitary Sewer Retained Earnings; and Phase II will not be encumbered at this time. Time of completion for Phase I will be two hundred forty (240) consecutive calendar days and will be extended for Phase II. City Council authorize the City Manager to execute a unit price contract with H. T. Bowling, Inc. for $240,900.00 for Phase II and reject all bids received for Phase I at this time. Compliance of bidders with the requirements of contract documents for Phase I will not be an issue and was met for Phase II. Amount of low bid will not be an issue for Phase I and is acceptable for Phase II. Fundinq for Phase I will not be encumbered at this time; and is in account number 008-052-9700-9176, Public Improvement Bonds Series 1992A - Storm Drains for Phase II. Time of completion will be extended for Phase I and will be two hundred forty (240) consecutive calendar days for Phase II. Recommendation is that City Council take the following action: A. Concur with the implementation of Alternative "A". Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contractual agreement, in form approved by the City Attorney, with Allegheny Construction Company, Inc. for construction of Phase I and H. T. Bowling, Inc. for construction of Phase II of the Peters Creek Flood Reduction Project in accordance with the contract documents as prepared by Mattern & Craig, Inc., Engineers-Surveyors, in the amounts of $1~076,956.00 for Phase I and $240~900.00 for Phase II and two hundred forty (240) consecutive calendar days respectively. Page 5 Fundinq for these projects is as follows: Phase I Account # 008-052-9700-9176 Sanitary Sewer Retained Earnings TOTAL Contract Amount Contingency TOTAL $1,074,500.00 56,300.00 $1,130,800.00 $1,076,956.00 53~844.00 $1,130,800.00 Phase II Account # 008-052-9700-9176 $253,000.00 WW/CMH/mm Contract Amount Contingency $240,900.00 12~100.00 TOTAL $253,000.00 Authorize Director of Finance to transfer funds as indicated and create two capital accounts to be entitled Peters Creek Flood Reduction Phase I and Peters Creek Flood Reduction Phase II. Also establish an account in the Sewer Fund entitled Peters Creek Flood Reduction Phase I. Reject the other bids received. Respectfully submitted, · William White, ~r., Chairman William F. Clark Page 6 Attachments: Tabulation of Bids - Phase I Tabulation of Bids - Phase II cc: City Attorney Director of Finance Citizens' Request for Service City Engineer Manager, Water Pollution Control Plant Construction Cost Technician TABULATION OF BIDS PETERS CREEK FLOOD REDUCTION PROJECT - PHASE I ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Bids opened before City Council on May 11, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. BIDDER BID PRICE BID BOND Alleghany Construction Company, Inc. $1,076,956.00 YES H. T. Bowling, Inc. 1,154,478.50 YES E. C. Pace & Co. 1,181,732.00 YES Aaron J. Conner 1,246,821.00 YES Branch Highways 1,282,859.00 YES Time of Construction is specified as 240 consecutive calendar days. Estimate Cost: $1,350,000.00 William White, Sr./ Chairman William F. Clark 'Kit B. KiS'er Mattern & Craig, Inc. 701 First Street, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia Office of City Engineer Roanoke, Virginia June TABULATION OF BIDS PETERS CI~EEK FLOOD REDUCTION PROJECT - PHASE II ROANOKE, VIRGINIA Bids opened before City Council on May 11, 1992, at 7:30 p.m. BIDDER BID DEDUCT IF NET TOTAL PRICE BIDDER BID PHASE I & AWARDED PHASE II PHASE I & II H. T. Bowling, Inc. $240,900.00 ($20,000.00) $220,900.00 $1,375,378.50 Alleghany Construction Company, Inc. $405,960.00 0 $405,960.00 $1,482,916.00 Branch Highway $458,150.00 0 $458,150.00 $1,741,099.00 Time of Construction Specified Estimate Cost $185,000 Note: Low bid on Phase I Low bid on Phase II = $1,076,956.00 = 240,900.00 $1,317,856.00 < $1,375,378.00 It is clearly in the City's best interest to award contracts to the low bidder in each phase. William White, Sr., Chairman William F. Clark Mattern & Craig, Inc. Office of City Engineer 701 First Street, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia Roanoke, Virginia June MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, $.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-254,1 SANDRA H. EAK]N Deputy City Clerk June 12, 1992 File #51 To: All persons listed on attachment to the City Planning Commission's report under date of June 8, 1992. Ladies and Gentlemen: A report of the City Planning Commission with regard to continued inclusion of the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District, in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, and how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, June 8, 1992. The City Planning Commission recommended continuation of the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District. The Planning Commission did not feel that there was sufficient justification or reason to discontinue the District. Commission members noted, however, that a number of issues were identified and recommendations made which require further study, and the Ordinances and Names Subcommittee will consider information presented and report to the Planning Commission on the most pressing issues, followed by a more detailed report on other items. On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, Council concurred in the recommendation of the City Planning Commission. Sincerely, _ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager The Honorable Jerome S. Howard, Jr., Commissioner of Revenue Mr. Willard N. Claytor, Director of Real Estate Valuation Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperso~ June 12, 1992 Page 2 pc: Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson, City Planning Commission Mr. John R. Marlles, Agent, City Planning Commission Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator Mr. L. Elwood Norris, Chairperson, Board of Zoning Appeals Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations Ms. Evelyn S. Gunter, City Planner Ms. Doris Layne, Office of Real Estate Valuation Kent Chris'mu, P~sident Old Southwest, [nc. 632 Walnut Avenue, SW Roanoke,e' 'A 24016 Mr. Doug Baker D. Baker & Company, Inc. ~424 Brambleten Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 Mr. Craig Balzer Balzer and Associatos, Inc. 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 Mr. John D. Fulton, Jr. Balzer & Associates, Inc. 1208 Corporate Circle Roanoke, VA 24018 Mrs. Melody VlZilllntrte Executive Director Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association 1626 Apperson Drive Salem, VA 24153 Mr. Bob Fetzer Mr. Earl Shuwate Building Speclnli~ 120 D~y Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Ms. Laura Benjamin Roanoke Valley Association of Realtors 4504 Starkey Road, S. W Roanoke, VA 24018 Ms. Elizabeth A. Scbell Assoc. Genial Counsel Carillon Health System P. O. Box 13727 Roanoke, VA 24036-3727 Downtown Roanoke, Inc. 310 First Street, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24011 Ms. Ann Sprague Woods Rogers & Hazelgeove 10 South Jefferson Street Roanoke, VA Dr. Nancy Connelly Executive Director Roanoke Valley Histerical Society & Museum P. O. Box 1904 Roanoke, VA 24008 Roanoke Valley Historlel Society & Museum P. O. Box 1904 Roanoke, VA 24008 Ms. Sallie B. Garst Gal'st & Associates 1401 Second Street Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. John Cone 522 Mountain Avenue, S. W Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Robert Szathmm'y 145 Campbell Avenue, S. E. Roanoke, VA 24011 Mrs. Martha Boxley Acting Director Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation c/o 301 Willow Oak Drive, S. W. Raanoke, VA 24014 Vir~'ni~ Building Services of Ramoke, Inc. P. O. Box 1402 Roanoke, VA 24007 Mr. Richard .~ Deating 328 Mountain Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Stanley Breakell Breakell, Inc. 2314 Patterson Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Sam Lionbergor Lionberger Construction 5903 Starkey Road Roanoke, VA 24018 Mr. Larry Doyle Doyle Assoc/atos 4721 Starkly P, aod Reanoke, VA 24018 Mr. Grady p. Gregory, Jr. Gregory & Ass~iates, Architects 1360 Maple Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Don Harwood 529 Day Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Jeff parbhil] Hugh~ Associates P. O. Box 1034 Roanoke, VA 24005 Mr. David F. Kunca 401 Walnut Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Bill Mason Mrs. Deborah Caldwen-Bono 302 Associate6 302 Washington Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Basil Cox Cox & Associates 820 Fr~nldln Road, S. W. Reanoke, VA 24016 Mr. John Garland Spectrum F--~-eers 325 Mountain Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Jim Lindsey 430 King George Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Roland H. Macher 120 West Church Avenue Roanoke, VA 24011 Martin & Associates P. O. Box 20038 Reanoke,~' 'A 24018 Mr. Dan Homer Mr. Richard Rife Homer & Assodates 110 Campbell Avenue, Su/te 200 Roanoke, VA 24011 Mr. Dennis M. Cronk Walvogel Poe & Cronk 30 West Fra.l~i~ Road, Su/t~ 800 Roanoke, VA 24011 Mr. Robert R. Copty Copty Real Estate and Development Roanoke, VA 24011 Mr. Read Lunsford 7 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24011 Mr. Wayne Campbell Campbell Construction & Development Co. 5304 Indian G-~ave 1~ Reanoke, VA Mr. Lenden A. Eakin P. O. Box 1791 Roanoke, VA 24008-1791 Martha Ogden, President Hurt Park Neighborhood Alli,,ce 17 -14th Street, SW Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Bob Crawford, President Mountain View Neighborhood Orgainzation 818 13th Street, SW Roanoke, VA 24016 Dr. John Kern Roanoke Regional Preservation Office 1030 Penmar Avenue, S. E. Roanoke, VA 24013 Associated General Contractors of V'h-~'ni~ 426-C West Campbell Avenue Roanoke, VA 24011 Mr. John Sabean 523 Mountain Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Ms. Petie Brigham 509 Allison Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Mrs. Evelyn Bethel Historic Cralnsbero Pr~ervation District, Inc. 35 Patton Avenue, N. W. Roanoke, VA 24017 Rev. Carl ~siay Gainsboro Neighborhood Corporation 304-A Fairfax Avenue, N. W. Roanoke, VA 24017 Development Mrs. Joel Richert 415 Allison Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Bill Moids~ 4929 Hv. uting Hills Drive, SW Roauoke, VA 24014 Ms. Lucyle Ruch 505 Washington Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Bud Derey 328 Mountain Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. Charles H. Ostorhoudt Osterhoudt, Ferguson, Natt, Aheron 1919 Electric Road, SW Roanoke, VA 24018 MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 June 4, 1992 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk File #51 Ladies and Gentlemen: The Council of the City of Roanoke will consider a report of the City Planning Commission on Monday, June 8, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., on a request of a group of citizens, represented by Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt, Attorney, regarding continued inclusion of the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District, in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, and, if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs will be restricted. The City Planning Commission is recommending continuation of the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District. The Planning Commission did not feel that there was sufficient justification or reason to discontinue the District. Commission Members noted however, that a number of issues had been identified and recommendations made which require further study. The Ordinances and Names Subcommittee of the City Planning Commission will consider the information which was presented and report on the most pressing issues, followed by a more detailed report on other items. The report of the City Planning Commission, in its entirety, is available for public inspection in the City Clerk's Office, Room 456, Municipal Building. If you would like to address Council with regard to the matter, please register with the Staff Assistant who will be located outside of the City Council Chamber on Monday evening, June 8. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Roanoke City Planning Commission June 8, 1992 The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Mayor Dear Members of Council: Subject: Request from a group of citizens represented by Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt, attorney, regarding the continued inclusion of the H-2~ Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City zoning ordinance, and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. I. Background: A local zoning district (H-1t Historic District) was created in 1979 to identify important architectural, cultural, and historic areas and properties in the city and to encourage their preservation, protection, and maintenance and the development of appropriate settings for these areas. H-1 districts in the City include the City Market, Warehouse Row and other properties in the downtown business area. In 1987t the zoning ordinance was amended to include an additional historic district~ the H-2~ Neighborhood Preservation District. This establishment of this district was recommended in Roanoke Vision, and was requested by citizens to conserve and protect older, inner city neighborhoods of historic, cultural, and architectural value. More specifically, the intent of the district is set forth in Section 36.1-342 of the City Code. In order to carry out the intent of the H-2 district, City Council enacted guidelines set forth in Section 36.1-347 of the Code. De The H-2 District was subsequently designated over a ma~or portion of the Southwest Historic District~ a National Room 355 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue S.W Raanc~ke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2344 Members of Council Page 2 June 8, 1992 Reqister Historic District nominated by neiqhborhood residents~ which included Old Southwest~ Mountain View~ and Hurt Park neighborhoods. Architectural Review Board responsibilities in the districts are as follows: H-1 District - The ARB reviews the erection, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, demolition or movinq of any building, structure, landmark, including signs. Reviewed activities include all modifications requiring a building permit and changes in paint color, but only those modifications to the exterior of any building or structure. The standards for review are set forth Section 36.1-329 of the City Code and include the Secretary of the Interior Standards for the rehabilitation of historic buildinqs, a general set of guidelines nationally adopted for properties on or eligible for the National Register. H-2 District - The ARB reviews the erection of new buildinqs or structures~ the demolition or movinq of existinq structures and buildings, and the structural enlarqement or reduction of structures Fe or buildinqs. Reviewed activities do not include painting, the installation of siding, awnings, roof and window repair and replacement, and activities involving routine maintenance for structural preservation. The standards for review are set forth in the code in Section 36.1-347~ stated above. In general, the standards are less stringent than those of the H-1 district and encourage compatibility in design and enhancement of the district. Since 1979~ the ARB has reviewed over 350 applications for a Certificate of Appropriateness. Of those, 14 requests have been denied (four percent) and only four of those denials have been appealed to City Council. Ail of the appeals occurred in 1990 and 1991, have been controversial, and two involved the demolition of buildings. Over one-half of the applications reviewed by the Board have been for properties within the H-2 district. G. Comprehensive Plan sets forth the following goals and values: Members of Council Page 3 June 8, 1992 Neighborhood enhancement, preservation, improvement, and development should be encouraged through public, private, and voluntary action. Neighborhood character and environmental quality should be protected. New public and private development should be carefully evaluated and designed to conserve and enhance neighborhood quality. Preservation of archaeological districts, landmark features, structures should be supported structures should be preserved. sites, historic and historic and significant Priority should be given to maintenance and rehabilitation of sound, usable structures rather than demolition. Traditional and historical features should be preserved to the extent practical. Building, housing maintenance and zoning codes should be strengthened and effectively enforced to ensure improved housing quality and community appearance. II. Current Situation: Planninq Commission Ordinances & Names Subcommitto~ has been working with staff, the Architectural Review Board, and various citizens to clarify the issue of "ordinary maintenance" in the H-2 district. This issue was specifically requested by City Council last year as a result of an appeal regarding the replacement of a slate roof. A public hearing on the matter was held last year by the Architectural Review Board and a recommended amendment was formally referred to the Planning Commission at the April 1, 1992, regular meeting. Consideration of the proposed amendment has been deferred in order to accommodate Mr. Osterhoudt's request. Planninq Commission public hearinq was held on May 6, 1992 (minutes attached). Mr. John Marlles gave the staff report (attached). Seven (7) residents addressed the Commission in opposition to the H-2 district or with specific concerns regarding the operation of the district. Seventeen (17) residents addressed the Commission in support of the H-2 district and/or had suggestions for improving the operation of the district. Specific suggestions for improving the operation of the Members of Council Page 4 June 8, 1992 district which were presented by residents included: (1) improve communication between the Architectural Review Board, property owners, prospective property owners, and realtors; (2) prepare design guidelines to assist property owners and developers; (3) publicize the district; (4) streamline the review process by providing for administrative approval of routine matters; (5) clarify language in the zoning ordinance; (6) prepare a brochure which could be sent out to property owners; and (7) require deeds to indicate that a property is in the H-2 district. Mr. Price referred the matter to the Commission's Ordinance and Names Subcommittee and requested that the Subcommittee take the information presented tonight and make a full report on how the H-2 district can be improved and upgraded. Mr. Bradshaw, Chairman of the Ordinance and Names Subcommittee, stated he would like the subcommittee to bring the matter back to the Commission in two levels: Those which were the most pressing (streamlining the process and improving communication) and those which needed further study (code amendments). Mr. Bradshaw requested that anyone in the audience having recommendations should write them down and forward them to the Commission and that the subcommittee would take them under advisement. V. Recommendation: By a vote of 4-0 (Mr. Ferguson abstaining and Mr. Sowers absent), the Planning Commission voted to recommend the continuation of the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District. The Commission did not feel that there was sufficient justification or reason to discontinue the district. Commission members noted, however, that a number of issues had been identified and recommendations made which require further study. Mr. Bradshaw, Chairman of the Ordinance and Names Subcommittee, noted that the subcommittee would consider the information presented and would report back on the most pressing issues first followed by a more detailed report on the other items. Members of Council Page 5 June 8, 1992 Respectfully submitted, Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman Roanoke City Planning Commission JRM:ESG:mpf attachment cc: Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works City Engineer Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator Roanoke City Planning Commissio~ May 6, 1992 Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of the Commission: Subject: Request from a group of citizens represented by Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt, attorney, regarding the continued inclusion of the H-2! Neiqhborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City zoning ordinance, and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. I. Dackqround: At A local zoninq district (H-i, Historic District) wa.. created In 1979 to identify important architectural, cultural, and historic areas and properties in the city and to encourage their preservation, protection, and maintenance and the development of appropriate settings for these areas. An Architectural Review Board was created for the purpose of administering the district and protecting designated properties and areas against destruction or encroachment of incompatible buildings and structures. H-1 districts in the City include the City Market, Warehouse Row (Norfolk Avenue), and other properties in the downtown business area. Zn 1987~ the zoning ordinance was amended to include ax, ~ddltional historic district, the H-2~ Neighborhood Preservation District. This establishment of this district was recommended in Roanoke Vision, and was requested by citizens to conserve and protect older, inner city neighborhoods of historic, cultural, and architectural value. More specifically, the intent of the district was set forth as follows in Section 36.1-342 of the City Code. Roor'n 355 Municipal Building 215 Churah Avenue, S.W Roanoke Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2344 Men,hers of the Commission Page 2 May 6, 1992 1. "Encourage preservation, protection, and enhancement of streetscapes, structures and areas of architectural, historic or cultural importance.,. 2. "Encourage new construction, or alterations which are compatible with the existing scale and character of surrounding properties.,, 3. "Encourage the rehabilitation and continued use of existing buildings rather than their demolition.,, In order to carry out the intent of the H-2 district, City Council enacted the following guidelines set forth in Section 36.1-347 of the Code: 1. Where new buildings, structures, or structural enlargements or reductions are proposed, the design should be compatible with or enhance those special visual and spatial qualities that the H-2 district is established to protect, including height and scale or buildings, orientation, spacing, site coverage, and exterior features such as porches, roof pitch and direction and landscaping. 2. Every reasonable effort should be made to minimize alteration of the structure or site and its environment. 3. Contemporary design for new construction and enlargements to existing properties should be compatible with the distinguishing characteristics of the surrounding properties and the district. 4. Where design guidelines have been established and officially adopted for a district or portion of a district, any new erection or structural enlargement or reduction in floor area shall be in conformance with those guidelines. The H-2 ~tS~rict was .su~e uentl designated ore ~of the Southwest Hlst~ over R ~~..,~ur~c u~s~r~ct, a National residents, which included~ ~w~u moun=aln View and Hurt Park nei hborhoods. The boundaries of the local district did not cover the entire National Register District. Rather, it included all of Old Southwest, and certain streets in Mountain View and Hurt Park. Architectural RevieW~onsibilities in the dlstrict-~---------~ ar---~a~ follows: Members of the Commission Page 3 May 6, 1992 1. H-1 District The ARB reviews the erection, reconstruction, alteration, restoration, ~molition ~-~ - movinq of any building, structure, landmark, including signs. Reviewed activities include all modifications requiring a building permit and changes in paint color, but only those modifications to the exterior of any building or structure. The standards ~ for review are set forth Section 36.1-329 of the Ci~-Code an -~----~ S~+ ..... ~____~_co~e and include the of ...... ~~, a general set gu~tionally adopted for properties on or eligible for the National Register. 2. H-2 District - The ARB reviews the erection of new buildin~---~ structures~ the demolition or movinq of ~ structures and buildi st----ructural e-~~-~. ~ and the -- ~._~LE .......... ,~,,u or .~e~uction of structures Or Dull~ln__n_q~ Reviewed activities do not ~ painting, the installation of siding, awnings, roof and window repair and replacement, and activities involving ordinary maintenance for structural maintenance· The standards for review are se~ forth in the code in Section 36.1-347~ stated above. In general, the standards are less stringent than those encourage compatibility of the district. of the H-1 district and in design and enhancement Since 1979 the ARB has reviewed over 350 a_~,~lications for a Certificate of ~iateness. Of those, 1~ requ~t~ have been denied (~and only four of those denials have been appealed to City Council. All of the appeals Occurred in 1990 and 1991, have been controversial, and two involved the demolition of buildings. Over one-half of the applications reviewed by the Board have been for properties within the H-2 district. .~omprehensive Plan sets forth the following goals and values: Neighborhood enhancement, preservation, improvement, and development should be encouraged through public, private, and voluntary action. Neighborhood character and environmental quality should be protected. New public and private development should be carefully evaluated and Members of the Commission Page 4 May 6, 1992 designed to conserve and enhance neighborhood quality. Preservation of archaeological districts, landmark features, structures should be supported structures should be preserved. sites, historic and historic and significant Priority should be given to maintenance and rehabilitation of sound, usable structures rather than demolition. Traditional and historical features should be preserved to the extent practical. Building, housing maintenance and zoning codes should be strengthened and effectively enforced to ensure improved housing quality and community appearance. II. Current Situation: Planninq Commission Ordinances & N~mes Subcomm4tto~ has been working with staff, the Architectural Review Board, and various citizens to clarify the issue of "ordinary maintenance" in the H-2 district. This issue was specifically requested by City Council last year as a result of an appeal regarding the replacement of a slate roof. A public hearing on the matter was held last year by the Architectural Review Board and a recommended amendment was referred to the Planning Commission at the April 1, 1992, regular meeting. Because the matter before you today is relevant to this proposed amendment to the ordinance, the public hearing has been deferred until after Mr. Osterhoudt's request may be heard. III. Possible Issues: Specific concerns regarding the H-2 district were not identified in the submitted petition. Possible issues may include: The H-2 district is not beinq administered accordinq to the intent and not as provided for in the city code. The ARB is abiding by the adopted ordinance· The intent is specified in Section 36.1-342. The circuit court has supported recent decisions by the ARB and City Council regarding the regulation of certain window and porch construction. Members of the Commission Page 5 May 6, 1992 B. The H-2 district is beinq administered as an H-] district. Guidelines for the review of applications are set forth in the code for each district. The H-1 district has a higher level of design review, encourages restoration, and uses Secretary of the Interior Standards as guidelines. The H-2 district encourages compatibility in design and enhancement of the district. It should be noted, however, that if federal funding is involved, Secretary of the Interior Standards (see attached) apply to a rehabilitation project in a National Register Historic District (i.e. Southwest Historic District) regardless of local zonlng. These more stringent standards are mandated by federal law. The ARB has no authority with respect to the federal administration or enforcement of these standards. If you are in an historic districtt you must replace slate or tin roof with the same and you cannot use vinyl sidlnq. This is incorrect with respect to the current H-2 district. Siding and roof replacement are not presently regulated. These items have recently been discussed as needing review by the Architectural Review Board. Proposed amendments to the ordinance are being pursued. As discussed above, when federal funding or subsidies are involved in a National Register Historic District (i.e. the use of Community Development Block Grant programs), additional federal regulations apply which require adherence to Secretary of the Interior Standards. These standards generally prohibit the use of vinyl siding and require roof replacement of the same material and design. This requirement is no way related to the local historic zoning district. De Historic districts adversely affect affordable and low income housinq. Affordable housing for low income persons and historic districts can be complementary to one another. For years, many rehabilitation and historic preservation programs have worked cooperatively to provide housing for low to moderate income persons. With respect to the H-2 district and the Southwest Historic District, the combined federal and local Members of the Commission Page 6 May 6, 1992 regulations have resulted in sensitive rehabilitation of inner city houses. This guidance has assisted revitalization efforts through appropriate IV. rehabilitation, thereby enhancing the communities for residents. In the past, the ARB has been sensitive to economic issues, especially in the H-2 district. Federal tax incentives for the rehabilitation of historic properties are available to investors of income-producing properties. Local tax incentives are also available for properties in the H-1 and H-2 districts. Historic Districts devalue property and discouraqn investment. Property values in the City Market and in Old Southwest, both local historic districts, have continued to rise over the years. Visual investment in the neighborhood and downtown is evident. Last year, over $46 million in major rehabilitation and new construction projects occurred in the historic districts. While a majority of this investment was in downtown, Old Southwest also incurred several million dollars worth of new construction and rehabilitation. Economic studies have proven that historic districts are beneficial to investment and property values. A recent article published by the National Trust for Historic Preservation found that property values in two case study cities (Fredericksburg, Virginia and Galveston, Texas) rose substantially and, in one city, was almost double the rise of other areas. Similar findings have been documented for historic districts in Richmond, Virginia. Recommendation: The H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District was implemented as recommended by Roanoke Vision, the Comprehensive Plan. It serves as a valuable tool in the revitalization and protection of city neighborhoods needing conservation and development controls. At present, amendments are needed with respect to the clarification of "ordinary maintenance". It is recommended that the Planning Commission receive public comments and refer the matter to the Commission's Ordinance and Names Subcommittee for a report and recommendation at the June 3 meeting of the Commission. Members of the Commission Page 7 May 6, 1992 Further, it is recommended that architectural design guidelines be prepared to supplement the general guidelines set forth in the ordinance. The proposed design guidelines would assist the public and developers in understanding the requirements of the N-2, Neighborhood Preservation District and would assist the Architectural Review Board in the administration of the district. Respectfully submitted, John R. Marlles, Agent Roanoke City Planning Commission JRM:ESG:mpf attachment cc: Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works City Engineer Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator ~-ne ~ollowing Stand__~_ '~ ~I~ (1) n ecOn~c and =ec~l~l A property shall be Used for its historic Purpose or be Placed in a new use that requires minimal change to the defining building and its Site and environment, characteristics of the (2) The historic character of a property shall be retained and PreServed. The removal of historic materials or alteration of features and spaces that characterize a property shall be avoided. (3) Each Property shall be recognized as a Physical record of its time, place, and use. Changes that create a false sense of historical development, such as adding conjectural or architectural elements from other buildings, shall not be undertaken. (4) Most Properties change over time; those changes that have acqn/ired historic Significance in their own right shall be retained and preserved (5) Distinctive features, finishes, and construction techniques or of craftsmanship that characterize a historic examples preserved. property shall be (7) New additions, exterior alterations, or related new conatruc (9) not destroy historic materials and characterize the propert ~ion Shall work shall be differentiated fr the massina, e~-- __ . . om the old and .~.., =_ Y The new historic 1~$. a~al~, aha architectur.~-~_i~-~ ~ coe~atihle with (10) N~ a~=~o~ and adjacent o ~ - --- -~ eRvlrO~n2 would ~ aeterioration of~.~t~z ~zea. ~y cause or acce~ .... [~.e~le, certain .~i T~''~ u~_~XCerior ~Sonrv cl---~--'i-'~'. &-uz~e ~ing ~ro~r ~=an=ar~s. S~ilarly, exterior additions =~2 duplicaZe =he fo~, and de=ailing of ~he structure to = charac=er of =he s=ru - ..... · .... ~e ex=eh= 2ha2 2hey c~---~ ..... the new feature shall match the old in deal and other visual qualities an o~ missing feature .~.~ =_ d,. where Possibl _.,__g~,,.cOlor, texture. Pictorial evidene,s .... .~ ue su~stantiated ~,,e~_~=er~ala. Replacemen~ ..... · ~Umentary, Physical, ~ Ch~ical or Physical =rea~nZs, such as san~las~ng, =ha~ Cause d~age ~o historic mazerials shall no= ~ used. ~e surface cleaning of structures, if aPPropriate, shall be ~der=aken using =he gen=les~ me~ possible. Significan2 archeol~ical resources, affecz~ ~ a proJec~ Shall be proZecZed and preserve. If such measures shall ~ ~dertaken. resources ~st ~ disturb, mitigatior (6) Deteriorated historic features shall be repaired rather than replaced. Where the severity of deterioration requires replacement of a diStinctiv~ feature, Noel C. 'Paylor Mayor Howard E. Musser Vice-Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 June 3, 1992 Council Members: David A. Bowers Elizabeth T. Bowles Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. James G. Harvey, II William White, Sr. Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt, Attorney ©~terhoudt, Ferguson, Natt, Aheron 1919 Electric Road, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Osterhoudt: The Co' 'ncil of the City of Roanoke will consider a report of the City Planning Commis ~n on Monday, June 8, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter tnay be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., on a request of a group of citizens regarding continued inclusion of the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District, in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, and, if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs will be restricted. For your information, I am enclosing copy of the report of the City Planning Commission. Questions with regard to the report should be directed to Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief of Community Planning, at 981-2344. Sincerely Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP: sw Enc. pc' Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Mr. WiIlard N. Claytor, Director of Real Estate Valuation Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson, City Planning Commission Mr. L. Elwood Norris, Chairperson, Board of Zoning Appeals Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator Mr. John R. Marlies, Agent, City Planning Commission Ms. Doris Layne, Office of Real Estate Valuation NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Roanoke City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, June 8, 1992, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., in order to consider a request of a group of citizens, represented by Mr. Charles H. Osterhoudt, Attorney, regarding continued inclusion of the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City Zoning Ordinance, and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted. Copy of a report of the City Planning Commission with regard to the matter is available for review in the City Clerk's Office, Room 456, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W. All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter. Given under my hand this second day of June, 1992. Mary F. Parker City Clerk Please publish in full in the Roanoke Times & World-News, once on Friday, June 5, 1992. Send publisher's affidavit and bill to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 456, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: The Roanoke City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on Wednesday, May 6, 1992, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter 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: (1) Request from a group of citizens, represented by Charles H. Osterhoudt, attorney, regarding the continued inclusion of the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District in the Roanoke City zoning ordinance, and if such district is to be continued, how its application to maintenance and repairs is to be restricted; (2) Proposed amendment to Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, specifically Section 36.1-640. Appointment, membership; (3) Proposed amendment to Zoning, of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, specifically Section 36.1-642. Review procedure; (4) Proposed addition to the Code of Ordinances of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, specifically creation of Section 36.1-724. Penalty for wrongful demolition of historic buildings. A copy of the proposed amendments is available for review in the Office of Community Planning, Room 355, Municipal Building. Ail parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter. John R. Marlles, Agent Roanoke City Planning Commission Please run in newspaper on Tuesday, April 21, 1992 Please run in newspaper on Tuesday, April 28, 1992 Please bill and send an affidavit of publication to: Office of Community Planning Room 355, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, VA 24011