HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 04-12-93MCCADDEN
31404
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION
ROANOKE CFFY COUNCIL
April 12, 1993
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
Call to Order Roll Call. All Present.
The Invocation was delivered by The Reverend James P. Be, aW,
Pastor, Bethel A.M.E. Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
was led by Boy Scout Troop No. 2, Raleigh Court Presbyterian Church.
Selection of persons to be accorded the public interview for the
position of School Board Trustee, said interviews to be held on Thursday,
April 29, 1993, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber. Applicants are:
Paul E. Corn, Charles W. Day, H. Joel Kelly, Finn D. Pincus and Patricia W.
Witten.
AH five applicants were selected to receive the interview.
Bo
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearing on the request of Berglund Chevrolet, Inc., that a 50
foot portion of Maddock Avenue, N. W., lying between Official Tax
Nos. 3080817 and 3080906, be permanently vacated, discontinued and
closed. Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Attorney.
Adopted Ordinance No. 31404 on first reading. (7-0)
Public heating on the request of the Williamson Road Area Business
Association for establishment of a Special Service District in the
Williamson Road area. Charles E. Overstreet, President, Williamson
Road Area Business Association, Spokesperson.
The matter was referred to the City Manager and the City Attorney for
review and negotiation of an agreement between the City of Roanoke
and the V~Fdliam~n Road Area Business Association, said report to be
submitted to Council within a period of one month.
CONSENT AGENDA
C-1
(APPROVED 7-0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE
CONSIDERED TO BE ROIJTINE BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF
CITY COIJNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION IN THE
FORM, OR FORMS, LISTED BEI.OW. THERE WILL BE NO
SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS
DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
Minutes of the joint meeting of Council and the Roanoke City School
Board held on Monday, January 4, 1993; and the regular meetings of
Council held on Monday, January 4, 1993, Monday, January 11, 1993, and
Monday, January 25, 1993.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading thereof and
approve as recorded.
2
C-2
A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers requesting an
Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards,
commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-
344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
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.
C-3
A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers requesting an
Executive Session for the purpose of discussion and consideration of a special
award to be made by City Council to a deserving citizen, pursuant to Section
2.1-344 (A)(10), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Concur in request for Council to convene in
Executive Session for the purpose of
discussion and consideration of a special
award to be made by City Council to a
deserving citizen, pursuant to Section 2.1-
344 (A)(10), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended.
C-4
Qualification of Keith A. Johnson as a member of the Roanoke
Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee for a term of three years,
ending November 8, 1995.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
A report of the City Manager requesting that Council schedule a public
hearing to consider proposed amendments to the Gainsboro Redevelopment
Plan on Monday, April 26, 1993, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard.
REGULAR AGENDA
HEARING OF CITIZF. NS UI~N PUBLIC MATFERS:
None.
4. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: None.
5. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
a. CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS:
1. A report with regard to fire lane parking violations.
The City Attorney was requested to prepare the proper measure
imposing a $50.00 fine for fire lane parking violations.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
A report recommending an amendment to the City Code to
provide for "short listing" of three or more offerors to be
interviewed by a selection committee in the process of
procurement of professional services.
Adopted Ordinance No. 31405-041293. (7-0)
A report recommending execution of an amendment to the
City's agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation
for administration of the Wells Avenue Project by the City of
Roanoke.
Adopted Ordinance No. 31406-041293. (7-0)
o
A report recommending acceptance of the lowest responsible
bids received by the City for furnishing trucks and related
equipment.
Adopted Resolution No. 31407-041293. (6-0, Mayor Bowers
abstained from voling.)
A report recommending acceptance of the bid submitted by
Southern Ambulance Builders, in the amount of $38,750.00, to
furnish one new ambulance in connection with providing
emergency medical services for the citizens of the City of
Roanoke.
Adopted Resolution No. 31408-041293. (7--0)
A report recommending appropriation of reallocated funds from
the Governor's Employment and Training Department, totalling
$105,000.00, for Title II-B, Title III and Title III-40%, to the
Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31409-041293. (7-0)
A report recommending acceptance of additional funds, in the
amount of $26,416.00, from the U. S. Department of Justice,
Forfeited Property Sharing Program; and appropriation of funds
in connection therewith.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 31410-041293. (7-0)
A report recommending approval of Change Order No. 2 to the
City's engineering services contract with Mattern & Craig, Inc.,
and their consultant, Alvord, Burdick and Howson, in the
amount of $48,100.00, for design of a Zebra Mussel Control
Facility in connection with Carvins Cove Filter Plant
Improvements, Phase I.
Adopted Resolution No. 31411-041293. (7--0)
5
o
A report recommending execution of a Memorandum of
Agreement between the Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation,
the Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the National
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and the City of
Roanoke, in order to address certain historic preservation issues
of the Hotel Roanoke renovation.
Adopted Resolution No. 31412-041293. (7-0)
10.
A report with regard to the Hotel Roanoke and Conference
Center Project.
b. CITY ATTORNEY:
A report with regard to the request of Mr. and Mrs. James L.
Cross that a 672 foot section of Barns Avenue, N. W., extending
in an easterly direction from an existing barricade at Peters
Creek Road, N. W., be permanently vacated, discontinued and
closed.
Adopted Ordinance No. 31413 on first reading. (5-2, Council
Members McCadden and Musser voted no.)
A report transmitting a final copy of Senate Bill 582, which was
enacted by the 1993 Session of the General Assembly and
signed by the Governor on March 28, 1993, approving the City
of Roanoke's Charter amendments.
Received and filed.
6. REPORTS OF COMMrrTEES: None.
7. UNFINISItF D BUSINESS: None.
ge
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: None.
OF
9. MOTIONS AND MISCEIJ.ANEOUS 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. OTI-1F.R HEARINGS OF CITIZF. NS:
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, President, Historic Gainsboro, Inc., expressed concern
that Gainsboro residents did not know about a proposed survey of housing
needs in the area until an article was published in the Roanoke Times and
World-News on Sunday, April 11, 1993.
CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. (7-0)
Appointed David D. Guerrero to the Roanoke Arts Commission.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telel~hone: (703) 981-2~41
April 15, 1993
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
File #51-79-165-169
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attornsy
Roanoke, Virginia
Gentlemen:
On Monday, April 12, 1993, a public hearing was held by the Council of the City of
Roanoke on a request of the Wflliamson Road Area Business Association for
establishment of a Special Service District in the WilHamson Road area.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the matter was referred to you
for review and negotiation of an agreement between the City of Roanoke and the
Williamson Road Area Business Association, said report to be submitted to Council
within a period of one month.
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
po:
Mr. Charles E. Overstreet, President, Williamson Road Area Business
Association, P. O. Box 5892, Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Ms. Sherry L. Basham, President, Williamson Road Action Forum, Inc.,
P. O. Box 5064, Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Mr. Joseph B. Wright, President, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., 310 First Street,
S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Mr. Franklin D. Kimbrough, III, Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke,
Inc., 310 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Mr. Brian J. Wishneff, Chief, Economic Development
Mr. E. Douglas Chittum, Economic Development Specialist
OFFICERS AND DIRECTORS
JOSEPH B. WRIGHT
Carillon Heallh System
Presidenl
DOUGLAS C WATERS
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, Downtown Roanoke Incorporated is charged with
enhancing the economic climate in the downtown area, securing
changes to the downtown environment, recruiting new businesses
and investment and promoting a positive image for the downtown
area, its businesses, and its activities; and
WHEREAS, The City of Roanoke established the downtown
service district in 1986 as a stable funding source to assist
Downtown Roanoke Incorporated in its overall downtown
management and economic development efforts; and
WHEREAS, the establishment of a stable funding source for the
ongoing downtown management, promotion, and marketing effort
has resulted in the creation of a substantial number of new jobs,
the creation of a more positive image, the preservation of property
values, and the introduction of scores of new businesses to the
downtown area since.early 1987; and
WHEREAS, the Williamson Road Business Area Association now
desires to establish a similar type of special assessment district for
commercial properties bordering Williamson Road between Orange
Avenue and Hershberger Road;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that Downtown Roanoke
Incorporated supports and encourages the efforts of the property
owners and business owners along Williamson Road who
collectively desire to provide additional services and additional
promotion for their commercial area through the establishment of
a special assessment district.
Oatc~
h B. ~/right
President
DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, INCORPORATED
310 FIRST STREET, S.W · ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011
(703) 342-2028 · FAX (703) 344-1452
April 6, 1993
To: Member's of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
The Williamson Road Action Forum goes on record supporting the proposed Special
Service District, along the Williamson Road corridor, being requested by the
Williamson Road Area Business Association at the Roanoke City Council Meeting
on April 12, 1993.
Sherry Basham
President
1st Vice President
r.:lT Y r
April 12, 1993 '93 ^PR-8 ¢,8:36
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Re: Public Hearing on Williamson
Road Special Service District
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
In the event Council elects not to reject the proposed
Williamson Road Special Service District after public hearing, we
hereby request that the proposal be referred to the City Manager
and the City Attorney for negotiation of a contract between the
City and the Williamson Road Area Business Association and
consideration of legal issues including the expenditure of tax
revenues and the proposed exemption of single family and multi-unit
apartment structures.
Thank you for your consideration of this request.
Very truly yours,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
WRH/WCD:kmk
cc:
Charles E. Overstreet, President, Williamson Road Area
Business Association
E. Douglas Chittum, Economic Development Specialist
A PROPO~L ~ PETrOl/
I~_~PE~TULLY KOl~41'l-n~a~ ~
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
BY
WT~.?.?~I~SON ROAD AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION
MARCH 18, 1993
PROPOSAL
ON BEHALF OF ITS GENERAL MEMBERSHIP, The Board of Directors of the
WILLIAMSON ROAD AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, INC. (hereinafter referred to as
WRABA) hereby respectfully petitions the members of ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL~
1. To authorize the establishment of a special service dietrict, subject
to Section 15.! - 18.3 of the Code of Virginia to be known as the WILLIAMSON ROAD
SERVICE DISTRICT for the purpose of providing to the Wt!lt~-mon Road area
"additional or more complete services of government than are desired in the city
as a whole." Boundaries of said district shall be as shown on the accompanying
map and shall represent the area subject to a spechal tax assessment and entitled
to receive benefits thereof.
2. To assess an additional tax of .1% (10 cents per $100.00) of assessed
valuation over and above the current rate of $1.25 per $100.00 on all taxable real
property within the boundaries of the newly created service district, exempting,
however, those single family properties within the shown district presently in use
as residences, and those multi-unit apartment structures wherein the property
owner is a resident, for as long as they remain as such.
3. To designate WRABA as its agent in receiving funds and carrying out
certain functions, subject to an approved workplan, necessary to provide such
services.
BOUNDARIES
The area for consideration begins at the intersection of Orange Avenue and
Wtl!i~r~son Road and extends north on Wtl]~amson Road to the Roanoke City limits at
Nehns Lane. Within these boundaries 106 property owners have signed endorsements
supporting the estsbliehment of the Service District.
BENEFITS
The Wllllamson Road Service District will benefit participating property
owners and the City of Roanoke in several waym
1. By promoting business on Wllllamson Road with a focus on a cleaner,
more tidy and attractive physical environment, property values will be enhanced,
and business traffic will be increased.
2. A stronger business organization (WRABA) will enable businesses to
address common concerns and to achieve results, resulting in a more successful
business environment.
3. Promoting Wllllamson Road as a more cohesive commerciel corridor will
help to reshape the ~mage of Wflllamson Road, leading to increased commercial
activity, lot inflll development, and a higher commercial and real property tax
base for the City of Roanoke.
WRABA
The WILLIAMSON ROAD AREA BUSINESS ASSOCIATION, INC. is a non-profit
business association orgal%ized as a 501(c)6 ~ exempt corporation as defined by
the Internal Revenue Service. Those eligible for membership are,
1. Persons who own and/or operate area businesses.
2. Representatives of area churches or schools.
3. Those persons who manifest an interest in the association and its
objectives.
4. A liaison member from the Wlilismson Road Action Forum.
Address,
WRABA
P.O. BOX 5892
Roanoke, VA
24012
President, Charles Overstreet
FIRST YEAR SERVICE DISTRICT PROJECTS
Funds generated by the establishment of the Service District will be used:
1. To purchase and, in cooperation with the City of Roanoke, seasonally
install HOLIDAY DECORATIONS for the Christmas business season. Decorations
inventory will increase year by year as outlined in the work plan.
2. To purchase and install attractive sidewalk trash receptacles with
common advertising panels "Wtllta-tson Road, The Valiey's Main Streeti# These
receptacles will be serviced by the City of Roanoke refuse coliection department.
3. To engage an Executive Director for WRABA.
4. To complete the Breckenridge Middle School landscaping project.
5. To embark on a promotional advertising campaign, with a focus on yearly
events with a common benefit to businesses in the Service District.
6. To institute a weed eradication and control program uttlizing
chemically bonded and licensed professionals to control and eradicate weeds
between property lines, under signs, at sidewalk edges, and etc.
Respec~/u.l%y subn~d,
Charles Overs~ee~ President
M~ch 18. 1993
Page 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WILLIAMSON ROAD SERVIC~',I~ISTRICT --'; ,/~
Prepared by
Office of City Engineer
April 12, 1993
East side of Williamson Road: from north right of way of
Orange Avenue, north to the north corporate limits line near the
intersection of Hildebrand Road.
Beginning in the center of Williamson Road at the intersection
of the north right of way of Orange Avenue; thence easterly along
the north right of way of Orange Avenue to the easterly property
line of Tax No. 3020203; thence with the east property line of Tax
No. 3020203, 256.70 feet; thence, with the north line of Tax No.
3020203, 137.93 feet; thence with the west property line of Tax No.
3020203, 40.41 feet to the southeast corner of Lot 12, Block "T",
Williamson Groves Map; thence with the south line of Lots 11 and 12
to the common corner of Lots 11 and 7; thence with the rear of Lots
7, 8, 9, and 10, Block "T", Williamson Groves Map to the center of
Pocahontas Avenue; thence easterly with Pocahontas Avenue to the
easterly line of Lot 6, Block "U", Williamson Groves Map; thence
with the easterly line of Lot 6, 74.56 feet; thence with the rear
of Lots 5 and 6 in a westerly direction 80.00 feet to a point;
thence with the easterly property line of Tax No. 3070807, 221.56
feet to the center of Compton Street; thence with the center of
Compton Street in a westerly direction approximately 100.5 feet;
thence leaving Compton Street and in a northerly direction with the
east property line of Tax No. 3070701 and 3070702 to a point on the
south line of Lot 9, Block 1, Map of Oakland; thence with the south
line of Lot 9, in a westerly direction 25.0 feet to the corner of
Lot 9 and Lot 2-A; thence in a northerly direction along the
easterly line of Lots 2-A, 3, 4, 5, and 6, Block 1, Map of Oakland
to the center of Wayne Street; thence leaving the center of Wayne
Street in a northerly direction and with the rear line of Lots 1
thru 9, Block 2, Map of Oakland to Thurston Avenue; thence crossing
Thurston Avenue and continuing with the rear lines of Lots 1 thru
6, Block 3, Map of Oakland, to the common corner of Lot 6 and 15;
thence with the line between Lot 15 and 16, in an easterly
direction to the center of Wayne Street; thence northerly with the
center of Wayne Street approximately 175.0 to its intersection with
Noble Avenue; thence westerly with Noble Avenue approximately 225.0
feet; thence leaving Noble Avenue in a northerly direction and with
the rear lot lines of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, Block 4,
Oakland Corporation Map, to the center of Forest Hill Avenue;
thence easterly with the center of Forest Hill Avenue approximately
75.0 feet; thence leaving Forest Hill Avenue in a northerly
direction and with the rear of Tax No. 3091003 and Lots 1, 2, and
3, of the Oyler Map, to the center of Laconia Avenue; thence
leaving Laconia Avenue northerly with the rear of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4,
6, 7, 8, and 9, Block 1, Map of Avendale, to the common rear corner
of Lots 9 and 10; thence with the common line of Lot 9 and 10
northerly to the center of Avendale Avenue; thence with the center
of Avendale Avenue westerly approximately 225.0 feet; thence
leaving Avendale Avenue in a northerly direction with the rear line
of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, and 30, Block 2, Map of Avendale, to the common
rear corner of Lot 29 and 30; thence with the common line of Lots
29 and 30, northerly to the center of Courtney Avenue; thence
leaving Courtney Avenue in a northerly direction with the center of
an alley and the rear of Lots 1 thru 11, Map of Courtney Square, to
the center of Liberty Road; thence with the center of Liberty Road
easterly to the intersection of Edison Street; thence northerly
with the center of Edison Street approximately 275.0 feet to the
southerly line of Lot 6-D, Block 1, Liberty Land Company Map,
extended; thence with the southerly line of said Lot 6-D to its
rear terminus at the southeast corner of Lot 6-F; thence with the
rear property line of Lots 6-F and 6-E to the northwest corner of
Lot 6-A; thence with the northerly line of Lot 6-A, easterly to the
center of Edison Street; thence northerly with Edison Street 300.0
feet; thence leaving Edison Street, and in a westerly direction
with the southerly line of Tax No. 3100935; thence northerly with
the rear of Tax No. 3100235, 3100028 and 3100927, to a point on the
southerly boundary line of Tax No. 3100920; thence with the
southerly boundary line of Tax No. 3100920 easterly to the center
of Edison Street; thence northerly with Edison Street approximately
130.0 feet to the southerly boundary line of Lot 2-B, of the Newman
Map extended; thence leaving Edison Street and with the southerly
line of Lot 2-B, Newman Map; to the common corner of Lot 2-A and
2-B; thence with said common line northerly 112.0 feet; thence with
the north line of Lot 2-B in an easterly direction to the center of
Edison Street; thence with the center of Edison Street north 88.0
feet; thence leaving Edison Street and the rear lot line of Lot 1-C
and l-D, Newman Map, to the common rear corner of Lots 1-B and l-C;
thence with the common line of Lots l-A, l-B, and 1-C northerly to
the center of Fugate Road; thence easterly with Fugate Road
approximately 70.0 feet to the westerly line of Tax No. 3101008
extended; thence leaving Fugate Road and with the westerly line of
Tax No. 3101008; thence along the rear line of Tax No. 3101008
easterly 100.0 feet to a point on the westerly line of Lot 3, Block
3, Liberty Land Company; thence with the westerly line of Lot 3
northerly 65.53 feet; thence leaving the westerly line of Lot 3,
and with the south line of Tax No. 3101028, 246.92 feet; thence,
with the westerly line of Tax No. 3101028 northerly for 62.34 feet;
thence with the north line of Tax No. 3101028 easterly 58.02 feet;
thence with the east line of Tax No. 3101001 north 125.72 feet to
a point on the south line of Lot 2, Block 1, Upson Addition; thence
with the south line of Lot 2, east to the common corner to Lot 2
and Lot 3; thence north with said co~on line 180.0 feet to the
southwest corner of Lot 6, Collier, Sigmon and Minton Map; thence
with the rear lines of Lots 3, 4, 5, and 6, to the common corner of
Lots 1 and 3; thence with the common line of Lots 1, 2, and 3 north
to the center of Wildhurst Avenue; thence with the center of
2
Wildhurst Avenue to a point at the southwest corner of Tax No.
3160149; thence along the westerly side and northerly lot line of
Tax No. 3160149 to a point on the west line of Lot 3, Block 4, Map
of Upson Addition; thence northerly with the west line of Lot 3,
180.0 feet to a point on the south line of Oakland Elementary
School; thence with the southern line of Oakland Elementary School
in an easterly direction to the east line of Oakland School, Tax
No. 3160105; thence north with the east line of Tax No. 3160105,
208.73 feet; thence west with the north line of Tax No. 3160105,
154.47 feet; thence leaving the north line of Tax No. 3160105 and
with the east line of Tax No. 3160150, 3160103, 3160102, and
3160101 to the center of Huntington Boulevard; thence leaving
Huntington Boulevard and in a northerly direction with the rear lot
line of Lots 6, 5, 4, and 3, Block 1, Map of Huntington Court, to
a point, said point being the southwest corner of Tax No. 3170109,
Lots 2, 3, and 8; thence with the southerly line of a portion of
Tax No. 3170109, 115.0 feet to a point; thence with the easterly
line of Tax No. 3170109 to the center of Oakland Boulevard; thence
westerly with Oakland Boulevard approximately 150.0 feet; thence
leaving Oakland Boulevard and with the easterly line of Lots 1 thru
7, Block 1, Map of William Fleming Court to the common corner of
Lots 7, 8, and 14; thence easterly with the southerly line of Lots
14 thru 22 to a common corner between Lots 22 and 23; thence with
the common line between Lots 22 and 23 northerly to the center of
Pioneer Road; thence westerly with Pioneer Road approximately 140.0
feet; thence leaving Pioneer Road and with the common line of Lots
31 and 32, Block 2, Map of William Fleming Court; thence with the
north line of Lots 32, 33, and 34 to the common corner of Lots 6
and 7; thence with the easterly line of Lots 7 thru 12, to the
center of Crockett Avenue; thence leaving Crockett Avenue and
northerly with the easterly line of Lots 1 thru 12, Block 3, Map of
William Fleming Court to the center of Angell Avenue; thence
easterly with Angell Avenue approximately 225.0 feet; thence
leaving Angell Avenue and with.the easterly line of Lot 23-A and
22-B, Block 4, Map of William Fleming Court, to the center of
Wentworth Avenue; thence leaving Wentworth Avenue northerly with
the easterly line of Lot 23-A and 22-B, Block 5, Map of William
Fleming Court to the center of Fleming Avenue; thence, westerly
with Fleming Avenue approximately 425.0 feet to the east right of
way line of Williamson Road; thence with the east right of way line
of Wllliamson Road, north to the intersection of Trinkle Avenue;
thence, easterly with Trinkle Avenue approximately 430.0 feet;
thence leaving Trinkle Avenue and with the easterly line of Lots 24
and 25, Block 8, Map of William Fleming Court; thence crossing the
end of Christian Avenue and with the easterly line of Lots 24 and
25, Block 9, Map of William Fleming Court to the center of Preston
Avenue; thence leaving Preston Avenue northerly with the easterly
line of Lots 24 and 25, Block 10, Map of William Fleming Court to
the center of Barkley Avenue; thence west with the center of
Barkley Avenue approximately 200.0 feet; thence leaving Barkley
Avenue in a northerly direction with the common line of Lots 35 and
36, Block 11, Map of William Fleming Court; thence with the south
line of Lots 20 thru 27 easterly 200.0 feet to the southeast corner
3
of Lot 27; thence with the east line of Lot 27 northerly to the
center of Frontier Road; thence leaving Frontier Road and the
common line of Lot 5 and 6, Block 1, Map of Yardley Square, north
to the center of Yardley Drive; thence with the center of Yardley
Drive west approximately 50.0 feet; thence leaving Yardley Drive
and with the common line of Lots 4 and 5, Block 2, Map of Yardley
Square, north to the rear corner of Lots 4 and 5; thence easterly
with the rear line of Lots 3 and 4 to the common corner of Lots 2
and 3, Block 2, Map of Yardley Square, and Lots 4 and 5, Map of
Mountain Scenery; thence with the common line of Lot 4 and 5, Map
of Mountain Scenery, north to the center of Maplelawn Avenue;
thence leaving Maplelawn Avenue, northerly with the easterly line
of Lot 34, Map of Mountain Scenery, and with the westerly line of
Lot 1, Map of Moomaw Lands to the center of Oaklawn Avenue; thence
westerly with Oaklawn Avenue approximately 150.0 feet, thence
leaving Oaklawn Avenue northerly with the easterly line of Lots 1
and 2, Block 1, Pace Map, to the common corner of Lots 2, 3, and 5;
thence easterly with the southern line of Lot 5, 50.0 feet, to the
southwest common corner of Tax No. 2170205; thence with a line
northerly through Lot 5 and the easterly line of Tax No. 2170205 to
the center of Birchlawn Avenue; thence easterly with Birchlawn
Avenue to the intersection of Lanford Street; thence northerly with
the center of Lanford Street to a point on its terminus on the
property line between Tax No. 2170143 and 2170139; thence with the
westerly line of Tax No. 2170139 and 2170142, northerly to the
center of Hershberger Road; thence westerly with Hershberger Road
approximately 215.00 feet; thence leaving Hershberger Road
northerly with the lot line between Lots 18 and 19, Block 2, Map of
Airlee Court, to a point on the southerly line of Lot 6, Block 2,
Map of Airlee Court; thence, with the southerly line of Lot 6,
westerly 47.0 feet to the southwest corner of Lot 6; thence, with
the westerly line of Lot 6, northerly to the center of Curtis
Avenue; thence, easterly with Curtis Avenue approximately 130.0
feet; thence leaving Curtis Avenue, northerly with the easterly
line of Lots 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8, Block 5, Map of Airlee Court,
to the center of Woodbury Street; thence with the center of
Woodbury Street to the intersection of Whitney Avenue; thence
easterly with the center of Whitney Avenue approximately 260.0
feet; thence leaving Whitney Avenue, northerly with the line
between Lots 15 and 16, Block 8, Map of Airlee Court; thence, with
the south line of Lots 5 thru 9, Block 8, Map of Airlee Court, to
a point on the west line of Tax No. 2200220; thence with the west
line of Tax No. 2200220 to the southwest corner of said tax number,
said corner also being the northwest corner of Lot 41, Block 4, Map
of Church Court; thence with the rear line of Lots 34 thru 41,
Block 4, Map of Church Court, easterly to the center of a 20 foot
alley; thence northeasterly with the centerline of said 20 foot
alley, crossing Hildebrand Road and continuing with said 20 foot
alley to the west line of Tax No. 2200202; thence with the west
line of Tax No. 2200202 to a point on the 1949 corporation line of
the City of Roanoke and the northeast corner of Tax No. 2200228;
thence with the 1949 corporation line westerly to the center of
Williamson Road; thence with the center of Williamson Road in a
southern direction approximately 9,500 feet to the
beginning and shall include the following tax parcels:
(City of Roanoke)
(City of Roanoke)
(City of Roanoke)
3020202
3020203
3020204
3020205
3020206
3020207
3020209
3070904
3070906
3070908
3070801
3070802
3070807
3070808
3070701
3070702
3070703
3070704
3070705
3070706
3070707
3110101
3110103
3110104
3110105
3110106
3110107
3110108
3110110
3110123
3110201
3110203
3110206
3110207
3110208
3110209
3110217
3110219
(Church)
(Church)
(Residential, Excluded)
3081001
3081003
1031004
3081005
3081007
3091001
3091003
3090901
3090902
3090903
3090920
3090921
3090601
3090602
3090603
3090617
3090301
3100901
3100902
3100903
3100937
3100906
3100911
3100938X
3100917X
3100918
3100932
3100919
3100920
3100936
3100921
3100922
3100923
3100924
3101001
3101002
3101003
3101004
3101005
3101006
3101007
3160201
3160206
3160101
3160102
3160103
3160104
3160105
3160150
3160127
3160128
3170101
3170102
3170103
3170104
place of
(Residential, Excluded)
(Residential, Excluded)
(Residential, Excluded)
(Church)
(Church)
(City of Roanoke)
(City of Roanoke)
(City of Roanoke)
(City of Roanoke)
5
3170105
3170106
3170108
3170109
2090101
2090102
2090105
2090109
2090201
2090202
2090203
2090204
2090205
2090206
2090215
2090301
2090302
2090303
2090304
2090305
2090401
2090403
2090404
2090405
2090406
2090407
2090408
2090409
2090410
2090411
2090412
2090413
2090426
2090501
2090502
2090503
2090505
2090506
2090507
2090508
2090509
2090510
2090511
2090513
2090514
2090515
2100101
2100104
2100105
2100106
2100107
(Residential, Excluded)
(Residential, Excluded)
2100108
2100109
2100110
2100111
2100112
2100201
2100203
2100204
2100205
2100206
2100209
2100210
2100211
2100212
2100213
2100214
2100215
2100216
2100217
2100301
2100304
2100309
2100401
2100403
2100407
2100408
2100409
2100413
2100414
2170501
2170503
2170504
2170505
2170401
2170402
2170422
2170424
2170301
2170319
2170201
2170203
2170101
2170128
2170137
2170138
2170143
2190901
2190903
2190923
2190701
2190702
(F.O.P. Lodge)
(F.O.P. Lodge)
(Charity)
6
2190703
2190704
2190707
2190708
2190601
2190602
2190603
2190604
2190605
2190609
2190611
2190616
2200220
2200210
2200241
2200219
2200227
2200242
2200211
2200236
2200212
2200214
2200228
(Residential, Excluded)
(City of Roanoke)
West side of Williamson Road from north right of way Orange
Avenue, north to the north corporate limits line near the inter-
section of Hildebrand Road.
Beginning at the center of Williamson Road at the intersection
of the north right of way of Orange Avenue; thence, westerly along
the north right of way of Orange Avenue approximately 625.0 feet to
the southwest corner of Tax No. 3020102 (Econo Lodge); thence
leaving the north right of way of Orange Avenue and with the
westerly property line of Tax No. 3020102 (Econo Lodge) to the
center of Carver Avenue; thence, easterly with Carver Avenue to the
intersection of Courtland Road; thence, with the centerline of
Courtland Road, north to the intersection of Sycamore Avenue;
thence with the centerline of Sycamore Avenue easterly 125.0 feet;
thence leaving Sycamore Avenue south along the line between Lots 28
and 29, Block "A", Map of Williamson Groves; thence along the rear
lot lines of Lots 29, 30, 31, 32, 33 and 34, easterly 150.0 feet to
the common corner between Lots 34 and 35; thence, with the common
line between Lots 34 and 35, northerly to the center of Sycamore
Avenue; thence leaving Sycamore Avenue, northerly with the common
lines of Lots 22, 23, 34 and 35, Block "B", Map of Williamson
Groves, to the centerline of Thurston Avenue; thence leaving
Thurston Avenue, northerly with the rear lot lines of Lots 1 thru
6, Block "C", Map of Williamson Groves, to a common corner of Lots
6, 7, and 58; thence with the rear lot lines of Lots 53 thru 58 to
a common corner between Lots 52 and 53; thence with the line
between Lots 52 and 53, northerly to the center of Maddock Avenue;
thence with the centerline of Maddock Avenue easterly 50.0 feet;
thence leaving Maddock Avenue, northerly with the lot line between
Lots 28 and 29, Block "D", Map of Williamson Groves; thence,
easterly with the rear lot line of Lots 29 thru 32 to a common
corner between Lots 32, 5, and 6; thence, northerly with the rear
lot line of Lots 6 thru 10, to the centerline of Noble Avenue;
thence westerly with the centerline of Noble Avenue 25.0 feet;
thence, leaving Noble Avenue and northerly with the lot lines
between Lots 33 and 34, Block "E", Map of Williamson Groves; thence
easterly with the rear lot line of Lot 34 to a common corner
between 34, 6, and 7; thence northerly with the rear lot lines of
Lots 7 thru 12, to the center of Clover Avenue; thence, leaving
Clover Avenue northerly with the rear lot lines of Lots 1 thru 14,
Block "F", Map of Williamson Groves to the center of Forest Hill
Avenue; thence leaving Forest Hill Avenue, northerly with the lot
lines between Lots 3 and 4, Block "P", Map of Williamson Groves;
thence with the rear lot lines of Lots 4 and 5, westerly to the
centerline of Hillcrest Avenue; thence northerly with the
centerline of Hillcrest Avenue, approximately 250.0 feet; thence
leaving Hillcrest Avenue and with the southerly line of Tax No.
3090239, 121.67 feet; thence with the easterly line of Tax No.
3090239, 106.53 feet to a point on the southerly line of Tax No.
3090242; thence with the southerly line of Tax No. 3090242, 27.04
feet to a point; thence with the westerly line of Tax No. 3090237,
244.87 feet to a point; thence with the northerly line of Tax No.
2090237 and 3090240, 314.91 feet to a point, said point being the
southwesterly corner of Lot 5, Map of C. R. Scott; thence with the
rear lot lines of Lots 1 thru 5, Map of C. R. Scott, to the center
of Liberty Road; thence westerly with the centerline of Liberty
Road to the intersection of Meadows Street; thence north with the
centerline of Meadows Street approximately 140.0 feet; thence
leaving Meadows Street and with the common line of Lots 9 and 10,
Block 1, Map of Meadow Land.; to a point on the rear line of Lot 1;
thence with the rear lines of Lots 1 and 2, northerly to the center
of Spring Hollow Avenue; thence, easterly with the centerline of
Spring Hollow Avenue easterly approximately 50.0 feet; thence
leaving Spring Hollow Avenue northerly along the westerly line of
Tax No. 2071308, 2071310, 2071311, and 2071324 to the southwest
corner of Lot 7, Block 2, Map of Bowman Lawn; thence, easterly with
the rear of Lots 6 and 7 to the southwest corner of Lot 6; thence
with the easterly line of Lot 6, northerly to the center of Bowman
Street; thence, with Bowman Street easterly 60.0 feet; thence
leaving Bowman Street in a northerly direction and the east line of
Lot 15, Block 3, Map of Bowman Lawn; thence, with the rear lot line
of Lot 15, westerly 60.0 feet to the common corner between Lot 14
and 7; thence northerly with the westerly line of Lot 6 to the
centerline of Chatham Street; thence easterly with the centerline
of Chatham Street approximately 120.0 feet; thence leaving Chatham
Street and northerly with the rear lot lines of Lots 1 thru 2,
Block 4, Map of Bowman Lawn to the northeast corner of Lot 3;
thence with the rear line of Lot 3, westerly to the common corner
of Lot 3 and 4; thence with the west line of Tax No. 2070414
8
northerly to the centerline of Lyndhurst Street; thence with the
centerline of Lyndhurst Street easterly approximately 85.0 feet;
thence leaving Lyndhurst Street and northerly with the rear line of
Lots 9 thru 16, Block 1, Powers Addition, to a point on Lot 5,
Block 1, Plasters Map; thence with Lot 5, west 5.32 feet to rear
southwest corner of Lot 5; thence with the rear line of Lots 1 thru
5, Block 1, C. F. Powers Map to a point on the southerly line of
Tax No. 2070143; thence westerly with the line of same 88.54 feet;
thence with the westerly line of same 120.0 feet to the centerline
of Haffen Street; thence with the centerline of Haffen Street
easterly approximately 130.0 feet; thence leaving Haffen Street
northerly with the rear line of Lots 1 thru 4, Block 1, Newcon%b
Map, to the centerline of Tenth Street; thence leaving Tenth
Street, northerly with the westerly line of Lot 13 and Lot 4, Block
1, Connistone Map to the center of Burton Avenue; thence with the
centerline of Burton Avenue easterly approximately 58.0 feet;
thence leaving Burton Avenue northerly with the rear line of Lots
1 thru 5, Block 4, Connistone Map, crossing Huntington Boulevard
and with the rear line of Lots 1 thru 5, Block 5, Connistone Map to
the centerline of Cumberland Street; thence easterly with the
centerline of Cumberland Street approximately 50.0 feet; thence
leaving Cumberland Street northerly with the rear lot lines of Lots
1 thru 5, Block 10, Connistone Map to the centerline of Oakland
Boulevard; thence with the centerline of Oakland Boulevard westerly
approximately 85.0 feet; thence leaving Oakland Boulevard,
northerly along the rear lot lines of Lots 1 thru 30, Map of Round
Hill Terrace to the centerline of Clarendon Avenue; thence with the
centerline of Clarendon Avenue, easterly, approximately 140.0 feet;
thence leaving Clarendon Avenue, northerly, with the rear lot lines
of Lots 3 thru 9, Block 1, Map of Shadylawn Court, to the common
corner of Lot 2 and 3; thence with the common line of same easterly
60.0 feet; thence northerly with the line thru Lots 1 and 2 to the
center of Broad Street; thence leaving Broad Street northerly with
the west line of Lot 2, Block 1, Map of Hedgelawn; thence with the
rear lines of Lot 3 thru 13, Block 1, Map of Hedgelawn to the
centerline of Epperley Avenue; thence with the centerline of
Epperley Avenue easterly approximately 100.0 feet; thence leaving
Epperley Avenue, northerly with the rear lines of Lots 1 thru 7,
Block 1, Map of Epperley Court, to the center of Ravenwood Avenue;
thence leaving Ravenwood Avenue, northerly and with the rear lines
of Lots 1 and 2, Map of Layman Square, and the rear lines of Lots
1 thru 7, Block 2, Map of Floraland to the center of Floraland
Drive; thence leaving Floraland Drive, northerly, with the rear
lines of Lots 1 thru 7, Block 1, Map of Floraland, Lots 1 thru 7,
Block 1, Map of James Addition, Lots 1 thru 17, Map of Sunset
Manor, the rear line of Tax No. 2280111 and 2180156, 2280110,
2280106, 2280159, 2280105 and 2280101, to the centerline of
Hershberger Road; thence with the centerline of Hershberger Road,
easterly to the west right of way line of Williamson Road; thence
with the west right of way of Williamson Road to the intersection
of Curtis Avenue; thence with the centerline of Curtis Avenue
westerly to the intersection of Cross Road; thence with the
centerline of Cross Road to its intersection with Airport Road
9
(relocated); thence with Airport Road (relocated) to its
intersection with Hearthstone Road; thence leaving Airport Road and
with the centerline of Hearthstone Road, to its intersection with
Maitland Avenue; thence with the centerline of Maitland Avenue
easterly to its intersection with Woodbury Street; thence with the
centerline of Woodbury Street northerly approximately 275.0 feet;
thence leaving Woodbury Street and easterly with the north line of
Lot 16, Block 10, Map of Airlee Court to a point on the rear line
of Lot 4; thence with the rear line of Lots 4, 5, and 6 to the
centerline of Hawthorne Road; thence northerly with Hawthorne Road
approximately 120.0 feet; thence leaving Hawthorne Road and with
the north line of Lot 2, Block 9, Map of Airlee Court 170.0 feet to
the rear corner of Lot 2; thence with the rear line of Lot 2 thru
4, Block 9, Map of Airlee Court and the rear line of Lots 1 thru 5,
Alrlee Court Annex, to the corporate line of the City of Roanoke;
thence with the corporate line east to the center of Williamson
Road; thence, with the centerline of Williamson Road, southerly,
approximately 9,500 feet to the place of beginning, and shall
include the following tax parcel numbers:
3020102
3020118
3020117
3020201
3070901
3070903
3070512
3070513
3070514
3070515
3070517
3070519
3070520
3070521
3070524
3070526
3070527
3070528
3070529
3070317
3070239
3020240
3070248
3070254
3070401
3070402
3070403
3070405
3070407
3070412
3070418
3080923
3080927
3080822
3080823
3080824
3080825
3080826
3080827
3080721
3080722
3080725
3080646
3080647
3080648
3080649
3080650
3090216
3090217
3090218
3090234
3090237
3090243
3090231
3090240
3090229
3090228
3090227
3090226
3090225
2071322
2071301
(Planned Parenthood)
10
2071302
2071304
2071305
2071003
2071005
2071306
2071308
2071310
2071311
2071324
2070701
2070702
2070705
2070402
2070414
2070120
2070121
2070122
2070123
2070134
2070135
2070136
2070137
2070138
2070139
2070140
2070141
2070142
2070143
2070101
2070103
2070104
2081001
2081002
2081003
2081012
2080801
2080802
2080803
2080804
2080805
2080806
2080601
2080603
2080604
2080401
2080403
2080404
2080405
2080101
2080102
2080104
(Residential, Excluded)
2080107
2080109
2080110
2080111
2080112
2080113
2080114
2080115
2080116
2080117
2080119
2080120
2080121
2080148
2080149
2080150
2161313
2161315
2161316
2161317
2161318
2161319
2161320
2161013
2161016
2161017
2161019
2161020
2161021
2161022
2161023
2161024
2160615
2160617
2160618
2160621
2160303
2280301
2280302
2280303
2280304
2280305
2280306
2280307
2280101
2280105
2280106
2280110
2280111
2280114
2280115
(Residential, Excluded)
(Residential, Excluded)
(Church)
(Church)
(Residential, Excluded)
(Residential, Excluded)
(Residential, Excluded)
(Residential, Excluded)
11
2280117
2280118
2280119
2280134
2280136
2280137
2280138
2280139
2280141
2280144
2280145
2280146
2280147
2280156
2280158
2280159
2190501
2190503
2190513
2190518
2190519
2190520
2190521
2190301
2190303
2190327
2190401
2200101
2200102
2200103
2200104
2200105
2200106
(Church)
(Church)
(Church)
(City of Roanoke)
12
AP NUMSER - 31713534
PUBLISHER'S FEE - $241.50
CITY OF ROANOKE
C/O MARY F PARKER
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
ROOM ~56 MUNICIPAL BL~G
ROANOKE VA 24011
'93 API!12 P1:38
STATE OF VIRGINIA
CITY DF ROANOKE
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, (THt] UNDERSIGNED) AN AUTHORIZED
REPRESENTATIVE OF TftE TIMES-WORLD COR-
PORATION, WHICH CORPORATION IS PUBLISHER
OF THE ROANOKE TIMES g wORLD-NEWS, A
DAILY NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED IN ROANOKE, IN
THE STATE OF VIKGINIA, 00 CERTIFY THAT
THE ANNEXED NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN SAID
NEWSPAPERS ~N THE FOLLOWING DATES
03/18/93 MORNING
03/25/93 MORNING
04/01/93 MORNING
WITNESS, [H.H.,~S'~./..,7TH .DAY OF APRIL~ 1993
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Pursuant to S15.1-18, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
notice is given of a proposal to establish a Williamson Road
Service District in the City of Roanoke, pursuant to S15.1-18.3,
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. As proposed, the Williamson
Road Service District would require the levy and collection of an
additional real property tax on real property in the Williamson
Road area of the City in the amount of ten cents ($.10) per one
hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation. Proceeds from
such annual tax would be segregated and expended in said Williamson
Road Service District for additional governmental services. The
boundaries of the proposed Williamson Road Service District and a
description of the individual properties proposed to be included in
such District are as set forth on a map dated April 1, 1992,
entitled "Williamson Road Service District, Roanoke, Virginia" on
file and available for public inspection in the Office of the City
Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W.,
Roanoke, Virginia.
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held before the Council of the City
of Roanoke on Monday, April 12, 1993, at 7:30 p.m., in the City
Council Chambers, 4th Floor, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue,
S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, at which time citizens of the locality
shall be given an opportunity to appear before and be heard by City
Council on the subject of establishment of a Williamson Road
Service District and the proposed tax increase with respect to real
property located within such District.
GIVEN under my hand this l?th day of M~rh
, 1992.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Publish in full once a week for three weeks on Thursday, March 18,
1993, Thursday, March 25, 1993, and Thursday, April 1, 1993, in the
Roanoke Times-World News. Please mail bill and affidavit of
publication to Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, 456 Municipal Building,
Roanoke, Virginia 24011.
CITY OF ROANOKE
INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
March 19, 1993
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk ~ ~
Proposal and Petition from Williamson Road Area Business Association
I am transmitting copy of a proposal and petition filed with the City Clerk's Office
by the Williamson Road Area Business Association in connection with establishment
of a Willtsmson Road Service District and proposed tax increase with respect to real
property located within such district.
MFP: se
pc: Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. KAl(IN
Deputy City Clerk
March 3, 1993
File #79-165-169
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on Monday, March 1,
1993, Council authorized a public hearing to be held on Monday, April 12, 1993, at
7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of the
Williamson Road Area Business Association that a Special Service District be
established in the Williamson Road area.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
pc:
Mr. Charles E. Overetreet, President, Will~amson Road Area Business
Association, p. O. Box 5892, Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Mr. Wllburn C. Dlbling, Jr., City Attorney
Williamson Road Area Business As oc!a on
P.O. Box 5892 ·
Roanoke, Virginia 24012 (703) 362-3293
February 19, 1993
Mrs. Mary Parker
City Clerk
Municipal Building
215 Church Ave.
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mrs. Parker:
The Williamson Road Area Business Association requests
inclusion on the March 1, 1993 Roanoke City Council agenda for the
purpose of requesting a public hearing to enact an ordinance
allowing a Special Service District to be established on
Williamson Road as allowed by the Code of Virginia at Section 15.1
- 18.3.
will be speaking on behalf of our organization.
Thank you.
President
/Williamson Road Area Business Association, Inc.
WRABA ~. ~= ~ · ~,o~, Wrying, ~,,0~ · (~o3) 3~.32g~
REQUEST FOR RESIDENCE EXEMPTION
Williams0n Road Special Service District
The Williamson Road Area Business Association requests
that in the language of the ordinance creating a Special Service
District for Williamson Road, Roanoke City Council establish a
"Residence Exemption" from the Special Service District
assessment to tax parcels included in the boundary of the
Special Service District that meet the following criteria:
1. Single family homes, used as a residence, whether
owner occupied or rented.
2. Multi-unit apartment structures wherein the owner is
a resident.
Should these properties, at any later time, be converted
from use as a residence to use as a business location; if the
occupant applies for a business license and/or displays a sign
advertising a business located within the structure, we request
the "residence exemption" then be lifted and the owner subject
to the Special Service District assessment.
Properties colored in "pink" on the Special Service
District display map are those included in the "residence
exemption" request.
Charles Ove'rstr6et, President
WRABA Specia/Service Dist ct Fact Sheet
Total Parcels: 416
Total SSD Taxable (non-residential, non-charity/church, non-govt) Parcels:
388
SSD Taxable Parcels endorsed as of 2/16/93:
172 (44.3%)
Property tax value in SSD:
$52,656,950.00 (~4cDaniels appx)
Tax value of endorsed properties:
$20,318,400.00 (38.6%)
$SD special tax assessment yield to WRABA per annum:
$52,657.00
Total Owners in Taxable SSD:
230
Total Owners in Taxable SSD WITH Roanoke Address:
168 (Tax Value.. $34,172,200.00 - 64.8%)
Total Owner Endorsements of those WITH Roanoke Address:
84 (50%)
Total Owner in Taxable SSD Endorsements as of 2/25/93:
106 (46%)
Total Endorsements needed for +50% threshold:
9
Tax Value of Parcels with owners NOT having Roanoke Address:
$18,484,750.00 (35% of SSD Total)
/ /Williamson Road Area Business Association, Inc.
WRABA .o. ~ r,~· ~ w,.,.~. ~ · (~o~)
Special Service District
Benefits
Long range planning for the Special Service District
revolves around a three year focus:
Year two:
Year three:
Clean and Promote
Beautify and Promote
Improve and Promote
The Williamson Road Special Service District will benefit
participating property owners and The City of Roanoke in several
ways:
By promoting business on Williamson Road with a focus
on a cleaner, more tidy physical environment,
property values will be enhanced, and business
traffic will be increased.
A stronger organization (WRABA) will enable
businesses to address common concerns and to achieve
results, resulting in a more successful business
environment.
Promoting Williamson Road as a more cohesive
commercial corridor will help to reshape the image of
Williamson Road, leading to increased commercial
activity, lot infill development, and a higher
commercial and real estate tax base for our City.
MARY' F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
April 13, 1993
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
Mr. Charles E. Overstreet, President
WilHamson Road Area Business Association
P. O. Box 5892
Roanoke, Virginia:, 24012
Dear Mr. ~
I am enclosing copy of an invoice from the Roanoke Times & World-News for
advertising the notice of public hearing on Thursday, March 18, 1993, Thursday,
March 25, 1993, and Thursday, April 1, 1993, in connection with the request of the
Williamson Road Area Business Association for establishment of a Special Service
District.
Please ~emit your check, made payable to the City of Roanoke, in the amount of
$241.80, to the City Clerk's Office, Room 456, Municipal Building, 215 Church
Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536, by Friday, April 23, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
MINUTES CONSIDERED AT THIS COUNCIL MEETING
MAY BE REVIEWED ON LINE IN THE "OFFICIAL MINUTES" FOLDER,
OR AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
David A. Bowers
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452
R~anoke, Virginia 24011-1594
Telephone: (703) 981-2444
April 12, 1993
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,
Mayor
DAB: se
Da~ld A. Bowers
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452
Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1594
Telephone: (703) 981-2444
April 12, 1993
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 for the purpose of discussion and
consideration of a special award to be made by City Council to a deserving citizen,
pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(10), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
Mayor
DAB: se
MARY F. PABKE~
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2~,011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
April 15, 1993
SANDRA H. EAK1N
Deputy City Clerk
File //15-110-488
Mr. Charles W. Hancock, Chairperson
Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership
Steering Committee
1016 Estates Road, S. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Hancock:
This is to advise you that Keith A. Johnson has qualified as a member of the Roanoke
Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee, for a term of three years ending
November 8, 1995.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP:sm
pc: Ms. Stephanie F. Cicero, Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Coordinator
0-2
Oath or Affirmation kef ~Offic~ '
8~a~e of Virgirda, Cirri of Roanoke, to
Ksith A. Johnson
I,
'93
~?R-1 72:31
, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will support he Constitution of the United S~tes, and the Constitution ofthe S~te of Vkginh, andtlmt
I will hithhHy and impa~ially discharge and perbrm ~1 the dut~s incumbent upon me ms
a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee, for a term
of three years ending November 8, 1995.
according to the best of my ability.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this
help me God,
/~/- dar of
Roanoke, Virginia
April 12, 1993
The Honorable David A. Bowers,
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Mayor
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Request to Schedule Public Hearing - Gainsboro
Redevelopment Plan
On Wednesday, April 7, 1993, the Roanoke City Planning
Commission voted to recommend to City Council that the amendments
proposed by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to the
Gainsboro Redevelopment Plan, CD-i, be approved as presented.
In order for this matter to proceed as expeditiously as
possible, I request that City Council schedule a public hearing at
2:00 p.m. on Monday, April 26, 1993, to consider the proposed
amendments to the Gainsboro Redevelopment Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:JDR:mpf
cc: City Attorney
Acting Director of Finance
Assistant City Manager
City Clerk
Director of Public Works
Chief of Community Planning
Executive Director, RRHA
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roa~. oke, Vir~nia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
April 1.5, 1993
File #20=70-5=24
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
Your report with regard to fire lane parking violations was before the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 12, 1993.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the Council requested that the
City Attorney prepare the proper measure imposing a $50.00 fine for fire lane
parking violations.
Sincerely, ~o-~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
pc;
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibllng, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Mr. Rawleigh W. Quarles, Fire Chief
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
.... ,.. ~n Roanoke, Virginia
~i.!?z.~ ~!~ .... April 12, 1993
[~IT';"
'93 APR-7 P3:52
Honorable David A. Bowers
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council:
Subject: Briefing - Fire Lane Penalty
BACKGROUND:
A. June 26~ 1981 - City Council passed Ordinance No. 25646
creating a penalty for fire lane parking violators
making it a traffic infraction.
B. Enforcement actions are concentrated in the following
areas where fire lane parking violations have the
Ce
potential to create public safety hazards:
1. On public streets
2. Shopping malls
3. Private streets
4. Hospitals
5. Nursing homes and homes for the aged
6. schools
7. Public buildings
Private parking lots with provisions to park fifty
or more vehicles
Fire lane parking violations continue to be a public
safety concern, averaging approximately 1,000 ticketed
violations per year. The actual number of violations
is not known due to limited enforcement by Fire
Department staff. The current fine is not serving as a
deterrent.
Continued violations of this City ordinance create
serious public safety concerns, i.e. acces~ to
sprinkler connections, standpipe connections,
obstruction at entrance preventing fire attack and
creating evacuation problems.
Honorable David A. Bowers
and Members of City Council
Page 2
April 12, 1992
The following Virginia cities are currently charging
listed fines for fire lane violations:
· Roanoke County $25.00
· Salem $25.00
· Charlottesville $30.00
· Hampton City (in process
of increasing this fee) $25.00
· Fairfax County $25.00
· Fairfax City $25.00
· Chesterfield County $15.00
· Virginia Beach $50.00
· Prince William County $50.00
II. CURRENT SITUATION:
Roanoke City Fire Marshals currently enforce these
violations as time allows.
Members of Roanoke City Police Department can also
enforce fire lane ordinances.
Enforcement of these violations generates approximately
$10t000.00 a year in fees, based on the current penalty
for fire lane violations of $10.00. The penalty for
illegally parking in areas other than fire lanes is
$5.00.
Handicap parking violation penalty is currently set at
$50.00. The amount of handicap parking fine has served
as a deterrent to potential handicap parking violators.
Because of the importance of unobstructed fire lanes,
the fire lane penalty should also serve as a deterrent
for individuals using fire lanes as available parking
space.
III. ISSUES:
A. Public Safety
B. Revenue Enhancement
IV. ALTERNATIVES:
City Council amend Section 20-89 (b) (2) of the City
Code to provide an increase in the penalty for fire
lane violators from $10.00 to $ effective July 1,
1993, to minimize the number of fire lane violations
Honorable David A. Bowers
and Members of City Council
Page 3
April 12, 1992
and ensure that public safety vehicles can respond
effectively in an emergency.
1. Public Safety will be enhanced by an increase in
the fire lane penalty fee.
B. City
lane
Revenue enhancement will occur for the short term
but may actually reduce as the penalty serves as a
deterrent to the number of violations over the
long term.
Council reject an increase in penalty for fire
violators.
Public Safety will not be enhanced.
Revenue enhancement will not be an issue.
CONCLUSION:
The current $10.00 fine is not a significant deterrent to
random parking in fire lanes. The cost of additional
personnel for enhanced enforcement is prohibitive.
Therefore, increasing the fine from $10.00 to between $35.00
and $50.00 will improve the public safety concern involving
this violation and reduce the potential number of violations
without the need for additional staff. Final consideration
and approval of this matter will be recommended prior to
budget study with City Council. Public education involving
public service announcements will begin once Council has
formally acted on this matter. Enhanced signage indicating
the new fine at the fire lane locations in the public right-
of-way will occur.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
CC:
George C. Snead, Director of Public Safety
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Barry L. Key, Manager, Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 26th day of June, 1981.
No. 25646.
AN ORDINANCE amending §F-105.5.1, Penalty for violations,
of the Fire Prevention Code of the City of Roanoke, as set out
in §12-18, Amendments, of Article II, Fire Prevention Code, of
Chapter 12, Fire Prevention and Protection, adding a new §20-74,
Parking, stopping or standing in a fire lane, amending subsec-
tions (b) (1) and (e) and adding a new subsection (b) (4) to §20-89,
Penalties for unlawfu! parkin.g, of Article IV, Stopping, Standing
and Parking, of Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Code of
the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, making it a traffic in-
fraction for a person to park, stop or stand a vehicle in a desig-
nated fire lane; providing a penalty for the same; increasing the
penalty for violations of the parking regulations on the property
of the Virginia Western Community College; a~d providing for an
effective date and for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. Section F-105.5.1, Penalty. for violations, of the Fire
Prevention Code of the City of Roanoke, as set out in §12-18,
Amendments, of Article II, Fire Prevention Code., of Chapter 12,
Fire Prevention and Protection, of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, be amended to read and provide as follows:
$12-18. Amendments.
"F-105.5.1. Penalt~ for violations: Any person
firm or corporation violating any of the provisions
of this Code, except for ~F-311.3, or failing to com-
ply with any order issued pursuant to any section
thereof, shall be guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor,
or, in the case of a violation of §F-311.3, a vio-
lator shall be guilty of a traffic infraction and
subject to the penalties set out in ~20-89, Code of
the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
2. That Article IV, Stopping, standing and parking, of Chapter
20, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),
as amended, be amended by the addition of a new section, ~20-74,
Parking, stopping or standing in a fire lane, and by the amendment
of subsections (b)(1) and (e) and the addition of a new subsection
(b) (4~ to ~20-89, Penalties for unlawful parking, such to read
and provide as follows:
§20-74. Parking,..s~opping or standing in a fire lane.
No person shall park, stop or stand a vehicle in
or otherwise obstruct a fire lane designated and marked
by the fire marshal in accordance with §~F-311.1, et
seq., of the Fire Prevention Code of the City of Roanoke.
§20-89. Penalties for unlawful parking.
(b) (1) A penalty of five dollars ($5.00) may be
paid for a violation of ~20-69, if paid within ten
(10) days of the issuance by an officer of a notice
of a violation thereof, or prior to the receipt of
notice from the City sent pursuant to ~46.1-179.01,
Code of Virginia (1950}, as amended, whichever is
later. If not paid within ten (10) days, a notice
pursuant to ~46.1-179.01 shall be sent by the City's
office of billings and collections to the violator.
Any violator to whom such notice is sent may pay a
penalty of ten dollars ($10.00) within five (5)
days of receipt of such notice.
(b) (4) A penalty of ten dollars ($10.00) may
be paid for a violation of §20-74, if paid within
ten (10) days of the issuance by an officer of a
notice of a violation thereof, or prior to the re-
ceipt of a notice from the city sent pursuant to
S46.1-179.01, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
whichever is later. If not paid within ten (10) days,
a notice pursuant to S46.1-179.01 shall be sent by the
city's office of billings and collections to the vio-
lator. Any violator to whom such notice is sent may
pay a penalty of fifteen dollars ($15.00) within five
(5) days of receipt of such notice.
(e) Every person tried and convicted of a vio-
lation of S20-69 shall be fined not less than five
dollars ($5.00) and not more than twenty dollars
($20.00), inclusive of the penalty set forth above
for a violation of this section. Unless ordered
otherwise by the judge in whose court the violation
is tried, or in which the same is cognizable, all
fines and penalties arising under this section shall
be paid into the city treasury.
3. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this
ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and after July 1,
1981.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Vir/inia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAK1N
Deputy City Clerk
April 1,5, 1993
File #24=183-405=497
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31405-041293 amending and reordaining
subsection (b) (3) of Section 23.1-4.1, Requirement of competitive negotiation, of the
Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, providing that the City of Roanoke
shall conduct individual discussions with at least three qualified offerors when using
competitive negotiation in selecting contractors. Ordinance No. 31405-041293 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
April 12, 1993.
Sincerely
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
pc:
The Honorable G. O. Clemens, Chief Judge, Circuit Court, P. O. Box 1016,
Salem, Virginia 24153
The Honorable Kenneth E. Trabue, Judge, Circuit Court, 305 East Main
Street, Salem, Virginia 24153
The Honorable Roy B. Willett, Judge, Circuit Court
The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge, Circuit Court
The Honorable Diane M. Strickiand, Judge, Circuit Court
The Honorable Joseph M. Clarke, II, Chief Judge, Juvenile and Domestic
Relations District Court
The Honorable Philip Trompeter, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
The Honorable Fred L. Hoback, Jr., Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
April 15, 1993
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Edward S. Kidd, Jr., Chief Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Julian H. Raney, Jr., Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Richard C. Pattisa{, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney
The Honorable Arthur B°. Crush, III, Clerk, Circuit Court
The Honorable Gordon E. Peters, City Treasurer
Ms. Patsy Bussey, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
Mr. Ronald Albright, Clerk, General District Court
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibiing, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. Philip C. Schirmer, Civil Engineer
Mr. Bobby D. Casey, Office of the Magistrate
Ms. Clayne M. Calhoun, Law Librarian
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Ms. Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community
Relations
Mr. Raymond F. Leven, Public Defender, Suite 4B, Southwest Virginia
Building, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Mr. Robert L. Laslie, Vice President - Supplements, Municipal Code
Corporation, P. O. Box 2235, Tallahassee, Florida 32304
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 12th day of April, 1993.
No. 31405-041293.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain subsection (b)(3) of
Section 23.1-4.1, Requirement of competitive neqotiation of the
Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended to provide that the
City shall conduct individual discussions with at least three (3)
qualified offerors when using competitive negotiation in selecting
contractors; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. Subsection (b)(3) of Section 23.1-4.1, Requirement of
competitive neqotiation is hereby amended and reordained to read
and provide'as follows:
Section 23.1-4.1. Requirement of competitive negotiation.
(b)(3)
The city manager, other appropriate council-
appointed officer or other designee of council
shall engage in individual discussions with at
least three, if there be that many, offerors deemed
fully qualified, responsible and suitable on the
basis of initial responses and with emphasis on
professional competence to provide the required
services. Repetitive informal interviews shall be
permissible. Such offerors shall be encouraged to
elaborate on their qualifications and performance
data or staff expertise pertinent to the proposed
project, as well as alternative concepts. These
discussions may encompass nonbinding estimates of
total project costs including, where appropriate,
design, construction and life cycle costs. Methods
to be utilized in arriving at price for services
may also be discussed. Proprietary information
from competing offerors shall not be disclosed to
the public or to competitors.
municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and
ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST=
In order to provide for the usual daily operation of
this
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
April 5, 1993
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
Roanoke, Virginia
Subject: Procurement of Professional Services
Background:
A. Professional services as defined under the City Code
include work performed by an independent contractor
within the scope of the practice of accounting or
auditing, appraising, architecture, court reporting,
dentistry, finance, fine arts, insurance consulting
services, land surveying, landscape architecture, law,
management consulting services, medicine, optometry,
planning, professional engineering, or similar
services.
Professional Services are procured under the provisions
of Chapter 23.1 of the Roanoke City Code which is
modeled after the Virqinia Public Procurement Act.
C. Guidelines for Procurement of Professional Services
under the Virginia Public Procurement Act are jointly
published by the Consulting Engineers Council of
Virginia, the Virginia Association of Counties, the
Virginia Municipal League, the Virginia Society of the
American Institute of Architects and the Virginia
Society of Professional Engineers.
II.
Current Situation:
The City Code requires that professional services be
acquired by competitive negotiation. In general terms
this process requires that a written request for
proposal be published, the city staff then engage in
individual discussions with ALL offerers deemed
qualified to provide the requested services. Offerers
are then ranked by qualifications and negotiations are
initiated with the top rated offerer. In the event
that an acceptable agreement cannot be reached with the
top rated offerer then negotiations are conducted with
the firm rated second and so on until an acceptable
agreement is reached.
Mayor and Members of City Council
RE: Procurement of Professional Services
Page 2
B. Guidelines for Procurement of Professional Services
generally follow the process currently used by the City
but recommend that the public body develop a short list
of offerers to be interviewed (usually 3 to 4 depending
upon scope of the specific project). The Virginia
Public Procurement Act does not require that all
offerers be interviewed.
Survey of Virginia Independent Cities revealed that
most municipalities followed professional procurement
procedures as stipulated under the Virginia Public
Procurement Act. Although there was some variance in
procurement procedures used by each municipality, the
majority practiced interviewing a short list of firms
deemed qualified for the particular project. The
number of qualified offerers interviewed is generally
three to four. The cities contacted, which generally
fall within a fifty mile radius of Roanoke, are as
follows: City of Martinsville, City of Danville, City
of Salem, City of Radford, Town of Pulaski, Town of
Blacksburg, and the City of Lynchburg.
III. Issues in order of importance:
Cost of Procurement is significant due to staff time
expended in reviewing qualification proposals and
interviewing offerers. Additional costs are incurred
by the offerers in preparing for and attending the
interview. These costs are significant because of
overhead costs that are ultimately recovered in higher
fees for services.
Pro~ect Schedules are impacted by the duration of the
interview and selection process.
Duration of Procurement Process. Most professional
services interviews are approximately one (1) hour in
duration. Usually, a selection committee of three (3)
or more persons represents the City in these
interviews. The current process generally requires
approximately five (5) hours of staff time for each
offerer interviewed. During calendar years 1991 and
1992, the Department of Engineering spent more than 355
manhours interviewing 72 offerers for 22 projects.
Mayor and Members of City Council
RE: Procurement of Professional Services
Page 3
In 1991, the Engineering Department received responses
from 8 or more qualified consultants on 5 separate
capital improvement projects. Selection of a
consultant for these projects required approximately a
week of staff time on each occurrence.
D. City Staff Exposure to New Offerers & Technoloqy:
Professional services interviews occasionally provide
staff exposure to new methods and technology. New
consultants often use the professional services
interview as an opportunity to introduce the firm and
its organization to the City staff.
IV. Alternatives:
Amend the current City Code to permit "short listing"
of three or more offerers of professional services to
be interviewed by a selection committee. These
offerors selected for interview would be offerors
deemed fully qualified, responsible and suitable on the
basis of their initial responses and with emphasis on
professional competence, to provide the required
services.
Cost of Procurement is reduced because less staff
time is expended interviewing offerers. The cost
of professional services is reduced because less
overhead costs are incurred by competing firms.
The practice of "short listing" qualified firms is
endorsed by the engineering community as evidenced
by the Joint publication of "Guidelines for the
Procurement of Professional Services" by
professional organizations. This is further
supported by letters from the local chapters of the
Virginia Society of Professional Engineers and the
American Institute of Architects. (Attachment B)
Pro~ect Schedules are expedited by reduction of the
overall time necessary to select professional
services firms.
Duration of Procurement Process is reduced because,
on average, the number of offerers interviewed is
reduced.
Mayor and Members of City Council
RE: Procurement of Professional Services
Page 4
City Staff Exposure to New Offerers and Technology
is unaffected. Most often, professional service
firms conduct ongoing marketing by direct mail and
personal contact. City staff would continue to
accept these informal discussions of products and
services.
Do not amend the City Code to permit short listing and
continue the current procedure of professional services
procurement.
1. Cost of Procurement remains at its current level.
Project Schedules are delayed due to lengthy
interview process.
3. Duration of Procurement Process remains at its
current level.
City Staff Exposure to New Offerers and Technoloqy
is unaffected. Most often, professional service
firms conduct ongoing marketing by direct mail and
personal contact. City staff would continue to
accept these informal discussions of products and
services.
V. Recommendation is that the City:
Amend the current City Code to permit short listing of
offerers of professional services to be interviewed to
three or more, where at least three (3) responses are
received, based upon the Judgment of the selection
committee.
WRH/PCS/fm
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Mayor and Members of City Council
RE: Procurement of Professional Services
Page 5
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities & Operations
City Engineer
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
"Guidelines for the Procurement of
Professional Services under the Virginia
Procurement Act"
Letters of Endorsement from local
professional organizations.
(1) Virginia Society of Professional
Engineers
(2) American Institute of Architects
Blue Ridge
Guidelines
for the
Procurement of Professional Services
under the
Virginia Public Procurement Act
Published by:
Consulting Engineers Council of Virginia
Virginia Association of Counties
VMLVirginia Municipal League
Virginia Society of The American Institute of Architects
Virginia Society of Professional Engineers
~'~t .~'~ Professional services ~re defined in the Act
as hein~ work performed by an independent
Profess onalservices contractor within the scope of the practice of:
a. Aocountin~ e. Landscape Architecture i. Medicine
b. Architecture f. Land Surveying j. Professional
c. Law g. Pharmacy Engineering
d. Optometry h. Actuarial Services
Tho fo~us of this brochure is on tho procurement of tho profmionul
asr~iees otArelLitaeture or Enfineering. Tho term "within the scope
Of' is a difficult term. Many esr~cce may consist partially of professional
services and partially of services which can be performed by persons who
are not licensed. In addition, many professional firms employ persons who
are not licensed, but provide supporting services. The design of mcet public
fecilitias requires tho uso of professional services by law or refLmlation. Any
such work requiring the practice of archit~ture or engineering
should be eonMdered professional asrvlcas.
If there ia any question, the best approach is to mk advice prior to issuing
tho Requ~t for Prolx~als (RFP) from one of the contacte listed in this
brochure,
Qualification
Based Selection
Why Does It
Work for Public
Owners~
The qualifications based eelec~on process as
outlined in tho Virginia Public Procurement
Act recognizes that design profonionals play
a critical role in the public building process
and thaz procurement of
architectural/engineering design service~ is a
very epec~aliced type of procuremant. The
quality of the design esrvicas provided by tho
design firm is the most important factor in
determining the overall construction coats and life-cycle coete of a project.
Since design services represent only a small percentage of the total project
budget, a small increase in design fas can allow investigation of more
alternatives and development Of clearer, more detailed plans. Better plane
reduce tho element Of risk for tho CAmtraetor and lead to lower construction
bids, fewer change orders, and better quality construction. Investigation c~
moro alternatives helps assure that the project will truly meet the ncede (~
In recommondin~ qualification besed eslsutton for public owners, the
American Bar Amociation's Model l~'~curement Code for State and Local
Government asyE
"The principal rasec~ supporting this esloction procedure for services are
the lack of a definitive scope of work for such esrv~cas at the time the
selection is made and the importance of selecting the best qualified firm. In
general, tho desisn firm is engaged to repmesnt the (state's) interest and is,
therefore, in a different relationship with the (state) from that nora,ally
existing in a buyer esllor situation. For these reasons, the qualifications,
competence, and availability of the most qualified design professional are
considered initially, and price negotiated later."
In sddition, studies have shown that tho use of qualification based selection
fir public pro!jecte is more efficient and less c~tly than the use of a system
thor uses price as tho criterion to c~mpere firms.
USE OF NONBINDING
ESTIMATES
The RFP may not request estimates of cost. The
General A~asmbly has allowed public bodies to ask
i for nonbinding estimates at the individual
discussion stage, prior to the firms being ranked
for negotiation, but after identifying two or more
qualified firms. However, it is not intended that
the effect be ranking firms on price rather than
concept, experience and quahty.
While the Attorney General has issued an opinion
that nonbinding estimates may be used as a factor
in ranking offerors for the negotiation sta~e, it is
important to remember that they are nonbinding
estinmtae. Thus, they should not be treated as
bide. The major reason for not doing so is that at
i the discussion sta~ the scope of the work is not
well defined. Since the cost of the services is
obviously driven by the scope of the work, the
offerors are unable to give a reasonable estimate of
the coot until the scope is clarified. This does not
occur until the negotiation stage, and sometimes
not until preliminary investigations or design has
been performed.
It is also important to note that while public
bedies may ask for nonbinding estimates of cost at
the individual discussion stage, there ia no
requirement that they do su. Some believe that
the use Ofa nonhinding estimate may become the
dominant basis of comparison between firms, and
this may threaten tho needed good faith
relationship between owner and professional even
before selection and contract negotiation.
Smaller a~encies and localities without
professionals on staff, and those that do not follow
a rigorous pre-planning pro, ass, may not have the
:ability to determine whether a proposed fee is
adequate or excessive, and should keep in mind
that allowing a professional the time/and fee to do
a thorough job can save far more time and money
in the long run.
THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
..~ECTION OF THE VIRGINIA PUBLIC
PROCUREMENT ACT IS MANDATORY
FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
While the Act doze allow counties, cities, towns and school
boards to adopt alternative procedures, as long as they are
based on competitive principles, the Act also makes certain
sections mandatory for local government.
Section 11-35 (E) of the Act applies to counties, cities, school
boards and towns over 3,500 for the procurement of
profes~onal services where the cost of those services is
expected to exceed 820,000.
11-37 CODE OF VIi~GINIA 11-37
History of
Professional
Services
Procurement
For two years Before the General
Assembly approved the Virginia
Public Procurement Act in 1981, a
task force reviewed federal
procurement law, the procurement
laws of Virginia and several other
states, and the American Bar
Association Model Procurement Act, in order to draft a
comprehensive public procurement statute for Virginia. Following
pubhc hearings on the work of the task force, a final report .w. as
issued on November 1, 1980. The final report states that No
issue generated more comment during the course of the study
than the procurement of professional engineering and
architectural services." While the task force recommended that
proouremen.t, ofprofsesional services be done through "competitive
negotiation,' with price Being required to Be submitted with
propozals, the engineers and architeots urged that price not Be
considered until a firm is chosen based on qualifications.
The design professionals also argued that it is not reasonable for
the RFP to require an estimate of fee because the scope of the
work is not suffidently defined at the RFP stage. Scope is
normally resolved a~,er extensive discussions to reach a mutual
understanding.
As often happens in the legislative process, a compromise was
reached and the procurement act, as passed, allowed a
nonbinding estimate to be considered only after choosing
ualified firme.
The Act require, the use of the
The Virginia qualification-based procedure for
Public procurement of professional
Procurement Act esr~cse. This is a process
separate and distinct from
competitive sealed bidding. Note
the ~ollowing requiremente:
-Tha RFP shall not request estimates for man hours or cost of
services.
The public Ixxty must select two or more offerors for
individual interviews.
During these individual interviews, offerors shall elaborate on
thdr qualifications. The pubic body may discuss nonbinding
estimatee of total project costs, including, but not limited to,
life-cycle c~ting, and where appropriate, nonbinding estimates
of price for services.
The public body shall begin negotiations with the offeror
ranked first. They may decide only one is to Be considered.
It is rec~esd that the process of negotiation may bring to
light additional needs or requirements not specifically
mentioned in tho proposal, or that some services anticipated
may not be required. Therefore, the Act requires a "fair and
reasonable" price, not a contract based upon the nonbinding
estimate.
If it is determined that an agreement cannot be reached with
the offeror ranked first, then negotiations must be formally
terminated (by letter) and negotiations smr~d with the offeror
ranked second. Om~ negotiation~ are t~rm/namd, the
public body O~nnot gO baek to the flret r~,~lrad offeror.
TMe puts preesure on both the public body and offeror to reach
an agreement if at all poseible, since ~hey both know that if
they cannot r~mch an agreement, the)
other negotiatione fail.
Recommended Procedure for Procuring
Professional
Services
Under the Act:
ISelection
Process
[Qualifications based selection is a fair and rational procedure that facilitates the selection of a design
profsssionai for government pro. jecte based on qualifications and co.mpetenc, e in relation to t.he sc.ope .
and needs of the particular project~ The procese, ev.o. lvce from multiple vanablce that must oe tmlorse
to fit each specific project. It enhances commumcations between the owner and firms unaer
consideration resulting in the selection of not only a qualified firm, but one that is compatible with
the owner and the requirements of the project. In most instances, the process will include all or part
of the following steps.
Wor~ ~md
tie RFP
2. ~d/ah th~
Il. Co.eSe a
4. 1~
N~
Following are the basic elements that normally will be included in the RFP for a public project:
· Owner's name and contact person.
· Project name or identification and location.
· Evaluation criteria for selection and selection process.
· Project outline, including intended size, function, capacity and other general anticipated
requirements. Include such pertinent information as completed studies, surveys or description of
other projects planned for the sits that could affect the scope.
· Anticipated time frame, including completion of design work, beginning of construction, and
planned project completion date.
· Additional or unique requicements/considorations such as referenda, anticipated funding
requiremonte and bud~tin~.
· Submittal requirements: To simplify the task of comparing tho relative qualifications and
experience of various firms, many owners have adopted the use of a standard form for the firms to
use in providing this information. Tho etandard forms SF 254 and SF 255 as used by the Federal
Government are recommended. Copias of these forms are available from the contacts listed in this
brochure. These forms provide an overall profile of tho firm including size, experience, volume of
businoze and area of speciaiiastion. They also generally describe the firm's experience with
projecte of similar type and scope, and the special expertise of personnel who would be assigned to
the project.
'"D~ RerlU~t for Propocol shall not, however, reqaset that offerers furnish estimates of rnan.~urs or
Establish a schedule for tho selection process, identifying target datas for steps 3 through 10 below.
Minimum rosponss time to tho RFP is 10 days, as required by the Act. The RFP's requiring
considerable specific information rather than general qualifications require more time.
A list of compatible firms for direct eolidtation may be developed based on staff knowledgo of locai
firms and through directarias of firms available from the CECAl, VSPE and the VSAIA.
General solicitation through public notice is required by the Act by posting the Notice at least 10 daln
prior to receipt of proposals "in o public area normally used for posting of public notices and by
publication in a n~wepaper or new,papers of gensral circulation in th~ area in which the contract is to
be performed a~ so to provide rco~onabic notice to th~ maximum number of offerors that can be
re~onably anticipated to submit p~l* in response to the particular request."
For major or highly specialized proj~cte, adv,,~ssment in Vi~inia Business Opportunities may be
utilized to reach qo,li6ed firms statawida.
l~.vaitmtiori criteria gonoral]y includ~ relevant experience and specific expertise; performance
references on previous projecto; qualifications of coneuitant~ and staff; availability of key personnel;
and, current and projected workloads tlmt would affect the firm's ability w perform the required wot]
on schedule. If lx~ible, a staff pr~emonsl or co~sultent should be included in the evaluation
proco~.
"The public body shall engage in individual discassione with two or more offerors dser~ed fully
qualif~d, responeibic and suitable on the basis of initial responses and with emphasis on professional
competence, to provide the required services.'
Note: The public body is not required to interview all the firms who respond.
The number of firms to be interviewed (usually 3-4) depends in part on the size, scope and complexity
of the project, the number of qualified submittals and also on the time available to complete the
selection process.
Great care should be taken to insure the ability of pro-soreening to select the best firms to be
interviewed for spedflc projecte. The final selection can only be as good es the original aoreening.
Since each firm should be given sufficient time - usually 45 minutes - to present its qualifications and
since inter~ewz may repreeent a considerable investment in travel and/or the commitment of time for
the firm's personnel, only tho~e that appear qualified to rake in the project should be interviewed.
Pro-sorasning to limit the number of interviews to four or fewer is clearly to the advantage of the
public body as well as the design firms.
Theze flrn~ invited to interview should be given as much advance information as possible about the
project, the size and makeup of the interviewing panel, allocation of time for presentation and for a
queetion/answor period, which is very useful to both the owner and the design professional.
It is recommended that a site/facility visitation be scheduled for the design firms to be interviewed.
~ should mk. place at least two week~ prior ~o the interviews to allow the firms to observe the
situation and ask quastious before they finalize their presentation for the inter.ow.
Cm~traet with
Interviews are conducted al',,er the evaluation process has identified those firms with appropriate
experience and qualifications for the project. The interviews provide an opportunity to compare the
different appreachse to the design process and interpretations of the specific program to ser~e your
needs. Interviews also allow for the comparison of the personal styles of each firm's mangers and key
personnel, an important consideration, since the firm selected wili be closely associated with the
client'o staff' over a period of monthl or ymul. For that reason, clients should request that key
personnel who would actually he assi~l~ed to the project appear at the interview. For large projects it
may he desirable to visit the firm,s office and/or recent projects.
"On the basic of evaluation factors publiched in the Request for Propcoal and all information developed
in the selection preceas to thi~ point, th~ public body shall select in the order of preferenee two or more
of[~rore wh~e professional qualifications and proposed services are deemed rnast meritorious.
~Vegotiatians ~ then be conducted, beginning with the offeror ranked first. Ifa contract satisfactory
and adoanta~eoo~ to the public body can be negotiated at a price considered fair and reasonable, the
award s~ be ~'J- to that offeror. Otherwice, negotiations with the offeror ranked first shall be
formalJy terminated and negotiation~ conducted with the offeror r~nhed second, and so on until such a
contm~ can be usgotiated at a fair and reasonable price. Should the public body determine in writing
ami in it~ ~ic di~re~n that only one offeror ie fully qualified, or that one offeror is clearly more highly
qualified ami suitable than the others under con~ideraticn, a contract may be negotiated and awarded
to that offeror. ·
It io important to understand that design professionals base their compensation on their anticipat~i
direct and indirect costs for providing the services, plus a normal profit margin. Thus, if the fee
requzeted by the top-ranked firm i~ higher then the amount the client can or will pay, it is reasonable
and proper to review the scope of eervtc~ to determine whether all the services requested ars in fact
The wonl~ "negotiated" and "fair and reasonable" imply a prco~s of give and take in which both the
public body and offeror are fully satisfied with the arrangement.
For more information re~ardin2 this publication please contact one of the
following:
Consultin~ Eneineer~ Council of Vireinia
611 Research Road
Richmond, Virginia 23236
(804) 794-6822
Virginia Association of Counties
1001 East Broad Street, Suite LL20
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 788-6652
Vireinia Municiual League
13 East Franklin Street
Richmond, Virginia 23291
(804) 649-8471
Vireinia Society of the Americnn Institute of Architects
15 South Fifth Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 644-3041
Vireinia Soctet~ of Professions! Eneineers
Heritage Building
1001 E. Main Street, Suite 625
Richmond, Virginia 23219-3536
(804) 780-2491
Xn addition to the above ox~anisntions~ a ~ thanks is extended to tho Vi~nle Aseoeia%ion of
Governmental Purchadng (VAGP) for its participation in the Task Force which developed thi8 publication.
Virg_inia Society of
Profe ional Engineers
Heritage Building
1001 E. Main StTeet
Suite 625
Richmond, VA 23219-3536
Phone (804) 760-2491
FAX (804) 648-7109
A state society of the National Society of Professional Engineers
February8,1993
City of Roanoke
Office of the City Engineer
Municipal Building, Room 350
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 2401 !-! 587
Attention:
Philip C. Schirmer, P.E., L.S.
Civil Engineer
Dear Phil:
Thank you for the opportunity to recommend the guidelines for the 'Procurement of Professional Services'.
This document is the result of many hours of deliberation and much compromise between the publishing
associations. The result is a very strong document that realizes the need for professional services and the
appropriate procurement of those specialized services. It also outlines a very efficient and orderly manner
that is fair and reasonable under a qualifications based procedure for procurement of professional services.
Thank you again for the opportunity for allowing the Wginia Society of Professional Engineers, Roanoke
Chapter to be involved by allowing our comments. It is indeed a pleasure to see municipalities working
in conjunction with professional organizations in the appropriate solicitation for profeesic#ml services.
~6.incerely yours, .
Pe~t Preelde~t/State Trea~ur~"
PHO:p~
ATTACHMENT Bi
AIA Blue Ridge
A ChaCer ol The American Institute of Architects
February, 18, 1993
Mr. Philip C. Schirmer
Office of the City Engineer
Room 350, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
93
Dear Phil,
Thank you for your letter of February 1, 1993. The AIA
Blue Ridge Board of Directors voted February 4th, 1993
to endorse the procedures recommended in the "GUIDELINES
for the Procurement of Professional Services under the
Virginia Public Procurement Act" published by the
Virginia Society of the American Institute of
Architects, Consulting Engineers Council of Virginia,
Virginia Association of Counties, Virginia Municipal
League and the Virginia Society of Professional
Engineers.
We strongly support
the City of Roanoke
portions therein.
the adoption of these guidelines by
in their entirety and not edited
If we can be of any further assistance, please don't
hesitate to ask.
Very truly yours,
Kevin L. Bertholf,
Secretary, AIA Blue Ridge
Pest Office Box 2556
Roanoke, Virginia 24010
Telephone 703 343-7535 ATTACHMENT B2
February 16, 1993
City of Roanoke
Office of the City Engineer
Municipal Building, Room 350
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1587
Attention:
Philip C. Schirmer, P.E., L.S.
CMl Engineer
Dear Mr. Schirmer:
The Construction Specification Institute is pleased to offer its recommendation to the Guidelines for
Procuremer~ for Professional Sen4ce& This organization is comp(~ed of professionals and industry
members which represent a la~ge section of the architectural and e~gineering communily.
It is indeed a pleasure to see Roanoke tackle this difficult question and follow these professional guidelines
under the Vkginia Public Procuremer~ Act, the recommendations layou~ el' the orderly and fair procedure
in the pro(.e~___e of contracting with professional sewices.
Thank you for the opportunity for CSI to preseffi to you our comrner~, and we hope they have been
helpful
Sincerely yours,
PresiderS-Elect
Roanoke Chapter
NW:pc
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 4~6
Ro .anoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2341
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
April ~5, 1993
File #20-77-200-247-258-405-514
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31406-041293 authorizing an amendment to the
August 20, 1987 agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation relating
to the Wells Avenue Project U000-128-117, PE-101, RW-201, C-501; requesting the
Virginia Department of Transportation to acquire all necessary rights-of-way for the
project; and authorizing you to execute all necessary utility agreements in
conjunction with such project. Ordinance No. 31406-041293 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 12, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
pc:
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairperson, City Planning Commission
Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
Mr. William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic
Mr. Robert K. Bengtson, Acting Manager, Signals and Alarms
Ms. Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community
Relations
Mr. Brian J. Wishneff, Chief, Economic Development
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 12th day of April, 1993.
No. 31406-041293.
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the amendment of the August 20, 1987
agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation relating
to the Wells Avenue , Project U000-128-117, PE-101, RW-201, C-501;
requesting the Virginia Department of Transportation to acquire all
necessary rights-of-way for the Project; authorizing the City
Manager to execute all necessary utility agreements in conjunction
with such project; and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 28745, dated July 7, 1987, this
Council authorized the execution of an agreement with the Virginia
Department of Transportation ("VDOT") relating to the Wells Avenue
Project U000-128-117, PE-101, RW-201, C-501; and
WHEREAS, the City and VDOT entered into an agreement on August
20, 1987 relating to this project; and
WHEREAS, the City and VDOT now desire to amend the agreement
to provide for VDOT to administer the right-of-way and construction
phases of this project.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the
City Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City to
execute and attest, respectively, an amendment to the August 20,
1987 agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation
("VDOT") providing for VDOT to administer the right-of-way and
construction phases of the project.
2. The City of Roanoke requests the Virginia Department of
Transportation to acquire all rights-of-way necessary for this
project conveying said rights-of-way to the City at the appropriate
time.
3. The City Manager and the Assistant City Manager and the
City Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City to
execute and attest, respectively, all necessary utility agreements
required in conjunction with acquiring such rights of way.
4. In order to provide for the usual daily operations of the
municipal government,
ordinance shall be in
an emergency is deemed to exist, and this
full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY C'"
Roanoke, Virginia
April 5, 1993
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT:
Amendment to the Agreement with the Virginia
Department of Transportation for Administration of
the Wells Avenue Project by the City of Roanoke
Background:
ae
On April 13t 1987 City Council requested the Virginia
Department of Transportation (VDOT) to program projects
for roadway widening and realignment to include:
1. Wells Avenue, N.W. from Williamson Road to First
Street, N.W.
2. First Street/Gainsboro Road from Madison Avenue,
N.W. to Salem Avenue, S.W. and Intersection of
Orange Avenue and Gainsboro Road.
Be
Redevelopment proposed for the Henry Street Area and
improved access to downtown Roanoke required that a more
expeditious method be found to proceed with improvements
on First Street/Gainsboro Road and Wells Avenue.
On July 27t 1987 City Council authorized agreements
("Agreement for Administering Project by Municipality")
with the VDOT by which the City assumed responsibility
for administering all aspects of the First
Street/Gainsboro Road and Wells Avenue projects.
Preliminary engineering phase would be generally handled
on the normal 95%-VDOT and 5%-City cost-sharing basis
(cost-sharing percentages in effect at that time). First
Street alignment eventually shifted to Second Street.
On December 16t 1992 City Council approved the location
of the realignment of Wells Avenue, N.W. from Williamson
Road to Second Street, N.W.
Members of City Council
Page 2
II.
III.
IV.
Current Situation:
Wells Avenue project schedule needs to be accelerated in
an effort to have the new roadway substantially complete
by the time the Hotel Roanoke/Conference Center project
is ready to open in late-1994 or early-1995. This
includes conducting the preliminary engineering and
right-of-way acquisition processes simultaneously.
VDOT can conduct right-of-way acquisition faster than the
City of Roanoke due to a simpler in-house environmental
site assessment (ESA) process. The City imposes upon
itself a Phase I ESA process performed by consultants for
every parcel it purchases, which often leads to
additional time-consuming evaluation in a Phase II ESA
process.
"Agreement for Administering Prelect by Municipality"
between the City and VDOT for Wells Avenue needs to be
amended to allow VDOT to handle the right-of-way and
construction phases of the Wells Avenue Project in order
to meet the stringent time schedule. The preliminary
engineering phase would continue to be administered by
the City with its consultant, Mattern & Craig, Inc.,
Consulting Engineers.
Issues:
A. Timing
B. VDOT
C. Cost
Alternatives:
Authorize amendment to the "Agreement for Administering
Project by Municipality" for the Wells Avenue project
whereby VDOT would become responsible for right-of-way
and construction phases.
1. Timing for the project is improved.
2. VDOT is agreeable to this arrangement.
Members of City Council
Page 3
Cost for right-of-way and construction should not
change. City saves the expense of any environmental
site assessments not covered by VDOT.
Do not authorize amendment to the "Agreement for
Administering Project by Municipality" for the Wells
Avenue project whereby VDOT would become responsible for
right-of-way and construction phases.
1. Timing of the project would be slowed due to City's
need to conduct environmental site assessments.
2. VDOT would continue to monitor City's progress.
Cost incurred by City for right-of-way and
construction phases would be reimbursed by VDOT at
prevailing percentage. .However, City would bear
full cost of any environmental sate assessments that
VDOT determines not to be a normal project expense.
V. Recommendation:
Am
Authorize amendment to the "Agreement for Administering
Project by Municipality" for the Wells Avenue project
whereby VDOT would become responsible for right-of-way
and construction phases.
Request that the VDOT acquire all rights-of-way necessary
for the project conveying said rights-of-way to Roanoke
at the appropriate time.
Authorize the City Manager to execute, on behalf of the
City, all necessary utility agreements required An
conjunction with acquiring such rights-of-way.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:RKB:jrm
copy: City Attorney
Acting Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Office of Management & Budget
City Engineer
AGREEMENT FOR ADMINISTERING PROJECT BY MUNICIPALITY
.... Wells Avenue
THIS AGREEMENT, made and executed in duplicate as of this c~gD~'~-- day
of ~O~ , 1987, between the COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, hereinafter called the "Department" and the CITY OF ROANOKE, a
municipal corporation of the Commonwealth of Virginia, hereinafter called the
"City".
W I T N E S SE T H:
WHEREAS, the Department has adopted a six year improvement program for
Fiscal Years 1987-88 through 1992-93 for urban highways, which includes an
allocation of funds for an improvement project in the City, known as Wells
Avenue, Project U000-~28-117, PE-101, RW-201, C-501 and referred to
hereina.fter as the "Project"; and
WHEREAS, the estimated cost is $200,000.00 for preliminary engineering,
$800,000.00 for right-of-way acquisition and $2,000,000.00 for construction,
for a total of $3,000,000.00;
WHEREAS, the Department and the City desire to construct the project as
expeditiously as possible and the City proposes to have the project completed
within the time frame indicated in the Department's Six Year Improvement
Program;
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises and mutual
covenants and agreements contained herein, the parties hereto agree as
follows:
The Glty shall consult with, and act as the agent of, the
Department in performing the preliminary engineering, right-of-
way acquisition, and construction phases of the Project,
specifically including the following:
a. Performing the preliminary engineering, design and plan
development necessary to award contract for the
construction, and the administration, supervision and
inspection of the construction of the Project through
final acceptance, in accordance with Department procedures
and policies, including settlement of any claims and
disputes arising from the Project.
Procure a contractor to construct the Project, in
conformance with applicable provisions of the Virginia
Public Procurement Act. The City agrees not to award a
construction contract to any bidder unless its bid is
within ten percent (10%) of the City's cost estimate,
which is approved by the Department. The City agrees not
to award such contract until the Department has accepted
and approved the bid and the contractor, and until a
standard Municipal-State agreement is executed. The City
will agree to bear at least five percent (5%) of the cost
of the Project. Department policy will govern the rate of
participation for utilities and storm sewers.
-2-
c. Post a "notice of willingness to hold a public hearing" on
the Project, conduct such a hearing, if necessary, and
coordinate the Project with property owners in the Project
area.
d. Prepare an environmental impact assessment of the Project,
including its impact on any historic structures, areas or
landmarks, if any.
e. Obtain any necessary permits for the Project.
f. Acquire title to all right-of-way needed for the Project
in the name of the City by purchase pr by eminent domain,
if necessary, in conformance with State law.
g. Provide relocation assistance to those whose propert~ is
acquired for the Project in
Relocation Assis~ance and
Policies Act of 1972.
conformance with the Uniform
Real Property Acquisition
h. Relocate utilities as necessary.
i. Prepare plans for the Project to usual Department
specifications, including such items as general notes,
references to specifications and standards, typical
sections, drainage plans, erosion and sediment control
methods, profiles, cross sections, summaries, and the
like.
Submit each phase of work to the Department for review and
approval as the project develops; allow Department
personnel to inspect all phases of the project at all
-3-
times; submit any change 6rders to the construction
Contract to the Department's Resident Engineer ' for
approval.
Receive Departmeht approval of any claims prior to
settlement.
1. Maintain all appraisals, negotiation reports, relocation
assistance files, closing statements, eminent domain
records and the like for a period of three (S) years after
completion of the Project.
m. Maintain accurate records of the Project and documentation
of all expenses for which reimbursement will be requested,
and make such records available for inspection and/or
audit by the Department at any time.
n. Submit to the Department's Resident Engineer on a monthly
basis an estimate of expenses expected to be incurred
during the following months for preliminary engineering,
right of way or construction. All preliminary engineering
charges shall cease on the date contract is awarded. The
final billing shall be made on the basis of actual costs,
reconciling any differences with previous total estimated
amounts. Such estimates or billings shall be accompanied
by the Department's Form AS-5.
o. Submit to the Department on a monthly basis certification
of all expenses incurred and paid for on the Project
during the preceding month.
--4--
2o
a. Review each
expeditious
assistance.
p. Maintain the Project upon its completion and acceptance,
in accordance with the Municipal-State Agreement.
q. In the event the project is terminated during any phase of
work, the City will bear 100% of all costs expended to
date of termination;
The Department will coordinate with, cooperate with, and assist
the City in implementing the Project, and specifically agrees to:
phase of the Project and respond in an
manner to requests from the City for
b. Provide funds to the City on a monthly basis for expenses
the City expects to incur on the Project or for the final
billing, within thirty (30) days of receiving from the
City an invoice of the expenses.
c. Audit all Project costs and records as may be required or
appropriate.
d. Provide funding for the Project pursuant to the Municipal-
State Agreement.
Nothing herein shall be construed as creating any personal
liability on the part of any officer, employee, or agent of the
parties, nor shall it be construed as giving any rights or
benefits to anyone other than the parties hereto.
Neither party will use Federal funds to carry out its portions of
the Project.
-5-
5. This Agreement shall be binding upon the parties hereto, and
their~respective successors and assigns.
6. Upon the execution of this Agreement by both parties, the City is
hereby authorized to commence with the Project.
IN WITNESSETH WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to
be executed by their duly authorized officers.
ATTEST: CITY OF ROANOKE
CLERK CITY MANAGER
WITNESS:
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA,
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Approved as to form:
._~ C ITY~Y
BY Todd E. LePage 7-22-87
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL
.~i~t~nt C','ty Attorney
-6-
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Ro~moke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
April 15, 1993
File #32-67-183-217-472-514
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31407-041293 accepting the following bids for
certain maintenance equipment; and rejecting all other bids received by the City:
Quantity & Description
Successful Bidder
Total Purchase Price
I - New Truck Cab/Chassis
New 20-Ton Rated Dump
Body to be mounted on
above cab / ehasais
Magic City Motor Corporation
Truck Body Corporation
$ 49,355.00
6,118.57
1 - New Cab/Chassis for
Street Flusher
Fulton Trucks
66,826.00
1 - New Street Flusher Richmond Machinery and 27,940.00
to be mounted on Equipment Co., Inc.
above cab / chassis
3 - New Utility Bodies Truck Body Corporation 6,975.00
to be mounted on
existing cab / chassis
(@ $2,325.15)
~dr. W. Robert Herbert
'April 15, 1993
Page 2
Resolution No. 31407-041293 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, April 12, 1993.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eric.
pc:
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. William L. Stuart, Manager, Streets and Traffic
Mr. Lynnis B. Vernon, Acting Manager, Parks and Grounds
Mr. James A. McClung, Manager, Fleet and Solid Waste Management
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
MARY F. PARKER
City Cl¢~k~ ~/,~E
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
April'15, 1993
File #32-67-183-217-472-514
Cavalier Equipment Corporation
Fulton Trucks
MSC Equipment, Inc.
Magic Center Motor Corporation
McCormack International Trucks
Mitchell Distributing Company
Richmond Machinery and Equipment Co., Inc.
Roanoke Welding Company
Sanco/A Division of the Heil Company
Truck Body Corporation
Virginia Truck Center, Inc.
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31407-041293 accepting the following bids for
certain maintenance equipment; and rejecting all other bids received by the City:
Quantity & Description
1 = New Truck Cab/Chassis
Successful Bidder Total Purchase Price
Magic City Motor Corporation $ 49,355.00
1 - New 20-Ton Rated Dump
Body to fie mounted on
above cab/chassis
Truck Body Corporation
6,118.57
1 = New Cab/Chassis for
Street Flusher
Fulton Trucks
66,826.00
1 - New Street Flusher
to be mounted on
above cab/chassis
Richmond Machinery and
Equipment Co., Inc.
27,940.00
3 - New Utility Bodies
to be mounted on
existing cab/chassis
(~ $2,a25.15)
Truck Body Corporation
6,975.00
Cavalier Equipment Corporation
. Fulton Trucks
MSC Equipment, Inc.
Magic Center Motor Corporation
McCormack International Trucks
Mitchell Distributing Company
Richmond Machinery and Equipment Co., Inc.
Roanoke Welding Company
Sanco/A Division of the Hell Company
Truck Body Corporation
Virginia Truck Center, Inc.
April 15, 1993
Page 2
Resolution No. 31407-041293 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, April 12, 1993.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for submitting your bids on the abovedescribed vehicular equipment.
Sincerely
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 12th day of April, 1993.
No. 31407-041293.
A RESOLUTION accepting bids for certain maintenance equipment
and rejecting certain other bids for such equipment.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
I. 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, and the City Manager's report dated April 5, 1993, are
hereby ACCEPTED, at the purchase prices set out with each item:
Successful Total Pur-
Quantity & Description Bidder chase Price
1 - New Truck Cab/Chassis
Magic City Motor $ 49,355.00
Corporation
1 - New 20-Ton Rated Dump Truck Body $ 6,118.57
Body to be mounted on Corporation
above cab/chassis
1 - New Cab/Chassis for
Street Flusher
Fulton Trucks
$ 66,826.00
1 - New Street Flusher Richmond $ 27,940.00
to be mounted on Machinery &
above cab/chassis Equipment
Company, Inc.
3 - New Utility Bodies Truck Body $ 6,975.00
to be mounted on Corporation
existing cab/chassis
(@ $2,325.15)
2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby
authorized to issue the requisite purchase orders for the above-
mentioned items, said purchase orders to be made and filled in
accordance with the City's specifications, the respective bids made
therefor and this measure, as more particularly set out in a report
to this Council dated April 5, 1993.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid
items are hereby REJECTED;
notify each such bidder
appreciation for each bid.
and the City Clerk is directed to so
and to express to each the City's
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virgi~%a iI?,,~ 31 f%1~'! '~!-?
April 5, 1993--~ ' '
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT:
Bids to Purchase Trucks and
Related Equipment, Bid Number
93-1-89
I. Background
Equipment Replacement needs have been identified in
the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement
Program.
Identified Trucks and
necessary to continue
and responsibilities
effective manner.
Related EquiDment are
to perform assigned duties
in the most efficient and
January~ 1992 specifications were developed and
along with Request for Quotations sent to twenty-
one vendors that are currently listed on the City's
bid list. A public advertisement was also
published in the Roanoke Times and Roanoke Tribune.
Bids were received, after due and proper
advertisement, until 2:00 p.m. on February 11,
1993, at which time all bids appropriately received
were publicly opened and read in the Office of the
Manager of General Services.
II. Current Situation
Eleven (11) responses were received. One (1)
response offered a base bid and an alternate bid.
Bid tabulation is attached.
Ail bids received were evaluated in a
manner by representatives of the
departments:
consistent
following
Public Works
Fleet Management
General Services
Trucks and Related Equipment
Bid Number 93-1-89
Page 2
Bid evaluations are as follows:
Item #1 - One (1) New Truck Cab/Chassis for 20 Ton
Dump for Grounds Maintenance Department. The
lowest bid, submitted by McCormack International
Trucks took exception to the engine size. This
exception is substantial and cannot be waived as an
informality.
The second lowest bid, submitted by Magic City
Motor Corporation meets all required specifications
for a total cost, including freight charge, of
$49~355.00.
Item #2 - One (1) New 20 Ton Rated Dump Body to be
mounted on Item #1. The lowest bid, submitted by
Truck Body Corporation, meets all required
specifications for a total cost of $6~118.57.
Item #3 - One (1) New Cab/Chassis for Street
Flusher for Grounds Maintenance Department. The
lowest bid, the base bid submitted by McCormack
International Trucks took exception to the engine
size. This exception is substantial and cannot be
waived as an informality.
The second lowest bid, the alternate bid submitted
by McCormack International Trucks took exception to
tilt cab. This exception is substantial and cannot
be waived as an informality.
The third lowest bid submitted by Virginia Truck
Center, Inc. took exception to engine size and rear
axle rating. These exceptions are substantial and
cannot be waived as informalities.
The fourth lowest bid submitted
meets all required specifications
of $66,826.00.
by Fulton Trucks
for a total cost
Item #4 - One (1) New Street Flusher Body to be
mounted on Item #3. The lowest bid submitted by
Richmond Machinery & Equipment Company, Inc. meets
all required specifications for a total cost of
$27,940.00.
Trucks and Related Equipment
Bid Number 93-1-89
Page 3
III.
IV.
Item #5 - Three (3) New Utility Bodies to be
mounted on existing Cab/Chassis, Two (2) units for
Building Maintenance Department and One (1) for
Street Maintenance Department. The lowest bid,
submitted by Truck Body Corporation, meets all
required specifications for a total cost of
$6,975.45.
Current Situation
A. Need
B. Compliance with Specifications
C. Fund availability
Alternatives
Council accept the lowest responsible bids meeting
specifications for Trucks and Related Equipment as
follows:
Item #1 One (1) New Truck Cab/Chassis as
submitted by Magic City Motor Corporation for
the total cost of $49,355.00.
Item #2 - One (1) New 20 Ton Rated Dump Body
to be mounted on Item #1, as submitted by
Truck Body Corporation for the total cost of
$6,118.57.
Item #3 - One (1) New Cab/Chassis for Street
Flusher as submitted by Fulton Trucks for a
total cost of $66,826.00.
Item #4 - One (1) New Street Flusher to be
mounted on Item #3, as submitted by Richmond
Machinery & Equipment Company, Inc. for the
total cost of $27,940.00.
Item #5 - Three (3) New Utility Bodies to be
mounted on existing Cab/Chassis as submitted
by Truck Body Corporation for a total cost of
$6~975.00.
Need Requested equipment, which will
replace old existing equipment, is needed
to continue to perform required duties in
various departments.
Trucks and Related Equipment
Bid Number 93-1-89
Page 4
We
Compliance with Specifications - Those
bids recommended by this alternative
meets or exceeds required specifications.
Fund availability - Funds are available
in Fleet Management account 006-052-2641-
9010 to provide for the purchase of the
above equipment.
B. Reject all Bids·
Need - Some required duties in various
departments would not be accomplished in the
most efficient manner.
Compliance with Specifications would not be an
issue in this alternative.
Fund availability - Designated Funds would not
be expended.
Recommendation
Council concur with Alternative "A" - accept the
lowest responsible bids meeting specifications as
follows:
One (1) New Truck Cab/Chassis for 20 Ton Dump
from Magic City Motor Corporation for the
total cost of $49,355.00.
One (1) New 20 Ton Rated Dump Body to be
mounted on Item #1, from Truck Body
Corporation for the total cost of $6,118.57.
3. One (1) New Cab/Chassis for Street Flusher
from Fulton Trucks for a total cost of
$66,826.00.
One (1) New Street Flusher Body to be mounted
on Item #3, from Richmond Machinery &
Equipment Company, Inc. for the total cost of
$27,940.00.
Trucks and Related Equipment
Bid Number 93-1-89
Page 5
cc:
Three (3) New Utility Bodies to be mounted on
existing Cab/Chassis, from Truck Body
Corporation for the total cost of $6~975.00.
B. Reject all other Bids.
Respectfully Submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Director of Finance
City Attorney
Office of Management and Budget
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
April .15, 1993
File #188-354-472
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31408-041293 accepting the bid of Southern
Ambulance Builders, in the amount of $38,750.00, to furnish and deliver one new
ambulance, and rejecting all other bids received by the City. Resolution No. 31408-
041293 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, April 12, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Enc o
pc'
Dr. Carol Gilbert, Operational Medical Director, Emergency Medical Services,
P. O. Box 13367, Roanoke, Virginia 24053
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Ms. Wanda B. Reed, Manager, Emergency Services
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
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, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Vir~/nia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2~41
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
April 1,5, 1993
File #188-354-472
Mr. Jerry R. Stafford
District Sales Manager
Southern Ambulance Builders
833 New Franklin Road
Lagrange, Georgia 30241
Dear Mr. Stafford:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31408-041293 accepting the bid of Southern
Ambulance Builders, in the amount of $38,750.00, to furnish and deliver one new
ambulance, and rejecting ali other bids received by the City. Resolution No. 31408-
041293 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, April 12, 1993.
f..~ ~ ~Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eric.
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
April 15, 1993
File #188-354-472
Mr. Richard Ashley
Vice-President
Chief's Fire and Rescue
P. O. Box 305
Warrensville, North Carolina 238693
Mr. Forrest Cheek
Director of Factory Sales
National Ambulance Builders, Inc.
230 North Ortman Drive
Orlando, Florida 32805
Dear Mr. Ashley and Mr. Cheek:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31408-041293 accepting the bid of Southern
Ambulance Builders, in the amount of $38,750.00, to furnish and deliver one new
ambulance, and rejecting all other bids receivedby the City. Resolution No. 31408-
041293 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, April 12, 1993.
On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed vehicle.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eric.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 12th day of April, 1993.
No. 31408-041293.
A RESOLUTION accepting a bid made to the City for furnishing
and delivering one new ambulance; and rejecting all other bids made
to the City.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The low bid of Southern Ambulance Builders, made to the
City, offering to furnish and deliver to the City, f.o.b. Roanoke,
Virginia, one new ambulance, meeting all of the City's
specifications and requirements therefor, for the total bid price
of $38,750.00, which bid is on file in the Office of the City
Clerk, is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby
authorized and directed to issue the requisite purchase order
therefor, incorporating into said order the City's specifications,
the terms of said bidder's proposal, and the ~erms and provisions
of this measure, as more particularly set out in a report to this
Council dated April 12, 1993.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid
equipment are hereby REJECTED;
notify each such bidder and
appreciation for each bid.
and the City Clerk is directed to
to express to each the City's
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
April
12,
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Bids to purchase Ambulance,
Bid No. 93-2-129
I. Backqround
Emerqency Medical Services Advisory Committee
recommended replacement of one ambulance annually.
Increased demand for emergency medical services
results in higher mileage and maintenance cost.
Equipment reliability is essential to maintain
service delivery standards.
Bid specifications were developed and along with
request for quotations were sent to eleven (11)
vendors that manufacture this product. A public
advertisement was also published in the Roanoke
Times and Roanoke Tribune.
Bids were received in the Office of the Manager of
General Services, after due and proper
advertisement. All bids appropriately received
were publicly opened and read at 2:00 p.m. on March
18, 1993. Bid tabulation is attached.
II. Current Situation
Ail bids were evaluated in a consistent manner by
representatives of the following departments:
Public Safety
Emergency Services
General Services
Bid evaluations have determined that the lowest
bid, submitted by Southern Ambulance Builders,
meets all required specifications for the total
cost of $38,750.00.
III. Issues
A. Need
Ambulance
Bid No. 93-2-129
Page 2
IV.
B. Compliance with Specifications
C. Fund Availability
Alternatives
Council accept the lowest responsible bid meeting
specifications for one (1) new ambulance as
submitted by Southern Ambulance Builders for the
total cost of $38r750.00.
Need - This unit is needed to continue to
provide Emergency Medical Services to the
citizens of the City of Roanoke.
Compliance with Specifications The unit
recommended in this alternative meets all
required specifications.
Fund Availability - Designated funds are
available in Fleet Management Account 006-052-
2641-9010 to provide for this purchase.
B. Reject Ail Bids.
Need The services that are to be provided
would not be provided in the most effective
and efficient manner.
Compliance with Specifications would not be a
factor in this alternative.
Fund Availability - Designated funds would not
be expended under this alternative.
Recommendation
Council concur with alternative "A" award the
lowest responsible bid for one (1) new ambulance to
Southern Ambulance Builders for a total cost of
$38,750.00.
Ambulance
Bid No. 93-2-129
Page 3
cc:
B. Reject all other Bids.
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Management and Budget
Respectfully Submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telei~hone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
April .15, 1993
File #60=246-236
Mr. James D. Grisso
Acting Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31409-041293 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 Consortium Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation
of $105,000.00, in connection with reallocated funds for Title II-B, Title III and Title
III-40% to the Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium by the Governor's
Employment and Training Department. Ordinance No. 31409-041293 was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 12,
1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Enc.
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Ms. Corinne B. Gott, Acting Director, Human Development
Ms. Vickie L. Price, Administrator, Fifth District Employment and
Training Consortium
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
1992-93
emergency.
WHEREAS,
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE~ VIRGINIA
The 12th day of April, 1993.
No. 31409-041293.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
Consortium Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
city of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
Government of the
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1992-93 Consortium Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
Apmrooriations
Fifth District Employment & Training Consortium -
FY 93 (1-8)
Revenue
Fifth District Employment & Training Consortium -
FY 93 (9-11)
$2,116,864
$2,116,864
1) Wages
2) Wages
3) Fringes
4) Travel
5) Communications
6) Supplies
7) Funding Authority
8) Funding Authority
9) Title II-B
10) Title III
11) Title III 40%
(034-054-9365-8350
(034-054-9365-8050
(034-054-9365-8051
(034-054-9365-8052
(034-054-9365-8053
(034-054-9365-8055
(034-054-9381-9990
(034-054-9382-9990
(034-034-1234-9379
(034-034-1234-9381
(034-034-1234-9382
$ 7,500
33,564
6,174
1,000
1,750
12
30,000
25,000
50,000
30,000
25,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
City Clerk.
.~ April 1~ 1993
C, ITY ~'" .....
Honorable Mayor and City Council'93 AP~-8 A~J '~58
Roanoke, Virginia
Members of Council: SUBJECT:
Funding for the Fifth
District Employment
and Training
Consortium
I. BACKGROUND
ao
The Governor's Employment and Training Department (GETD)
has reallocated Title II-B funds to the Fifth District
Employment and Training Consortium (FDETC). These monies
will provide training and support for the Summer Youth
Employment Program.
The GETD has reallocated Title III funds to the FDETC.
These funds will provide retraining, as well as
supportive services, for dislocated workers in the Fifth
Planning District. The FDETC estimates that
approximately 20 clients will be served.
Co
The Virginia Employment Commission (VEC) has allocated
additional Title III 40% funding to the FDETC. These
funds will provide retraining and supportive services for
approximately 35 workers laid off from Gardner Denver and
the Covington Leggett department store.
City of Roanoke is the grant recipient for FDETC funding.
City Council must appropriate the funding for all grants
the FDETC receives.
II. CURRENT SITUATION
ao
GETD sent the FDETC Notice of Award (NOA) # 93-03-07 in
the amount of $50.000.00 in Title II-B reallocated funds
from Program Year 1991.
Bo
FDETC received the NOA #E-04 from the GETD in the amount
$30,000.00 in Title III reallocated funds from Program
Year 1992.
C. FDETC received notification of an increase in Title III
40% funds in the amount of $25,000.00 from the VEC.
III. ISSUES
A. Program Operations
B. Funding
C. Timing
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Vo
Appropriate the FDETC's funding for the Title II-B, III,
and III-40% reallocated funding totalling $105.000.00 and
increase the revenue estimate by $105,000.00 in accounts
to be established by the Acting Director of Finance.
Program Operations Existing programs will
continue, planned programs will be implemented, and
new programs will be initiated by FDETC's Policy
Board and Private Industry Council.
2. Funding Funds are available from the Grantor
agency at no additional cost to the City.
Timing Immediate action will allow programs to
continue and be completed within planned time
frames.
Do not appropriate the FDETC's funding for the Title II-
B, III, and III-40% reallocated funding totalling
$105,000.00.
1. Program Operations - Planned programs to serve
participants would be delayed.
2. Funding - Not a factor.
Timing - Delay will cause late start-up of programs
and underexpenditure of available funds.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve Alternative A:
Appropriate the FDETC's funding for the Title II-B, III. and
III-40% reallocated funding totalling $105,000.00 and
increase the revenue estimate by $105,000.00 in accounts to
be established by the Acting Director of Finance.
Respectively submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
CBG:lr
cc:
Acting Director of Finance
City Attorney
Acting Director of Human Development
MARY F. PAIO~ER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telel~hone: (703) 981-2~41
SANDRA H. EAYdN
Deputy City Clerk
April 1_5, 1993
File #60-5-133
Mr. James D. Grisso
Acting Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Grisso:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31410-041293 amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 1992-93 Grant Fund Appropriations, providing for appropriation of
$26,416.00, representing funds received from the U. S. Department of Justice,
Forfeited Property Sharing Program. Ordinance No. 31410-041293 was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 15,
1993.
Sincerely, /?_~A.~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Eno.
pc:
The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Public Safety
Mr. M. David Hooper, Police Chief
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Government of the
exist.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROi%NOKEt VIRGINIA
The 12th day of April, 1993.
No. 31410-041293.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1992-93 Grant Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1992-93 Grant Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained
to read as follows, in part:
Public Safety
Federal Investigation Subsidy
Revenue
Public Safety
Federal Investigation Subsidy
(2) ..................
$ 1,378,865
704,367
$ 1,378,865
704,367
1) Investigations
and Rewards
2) Federal
Investigation
Subsidy
(035-050-3300-2150) $26,416
(035-035-1234-7060) 26,416
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
City Clerk.
CITY, r,~: Roanoke, Virginia
April 18, 1993
'93 / PP, -8
Honorable David A. Bowers, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Sharing Federally Forfeited Property
I. Backqround:
Conqress amended 21 USC. Sec. 881 el-4, October,
1986, which authorized the transfer of certain
federally forfeited property to state and local
law enforcement agencies that participated in the
investigation and seizure of the property.
Application for an equitable share of property
seized by local law enforcement must be made to
the U. S. Department of Justice and certified by
the City Attorney as to the appropriate agency and
representative to receive the property and that
the transfer is not prohibited by state and local
law.
Property <including funds shared with state and
local agencies) may be used only for the purpose
stated in the application, i.e., narcotics
investigations related to law enforcement.
The aqency requesting the transfer of property
agrees to pay fees and expenses necessary to
effect the transfer.
January 4, 1988, Council, at its regular meeting,
authorized the Director of Finance to establish
grant fund accounts from which funds may be
dispersed in accordance with provisions of this
program.
II. Current Situation:
Police Department
periodically from the
sharing program.
receives additional funds
federal government's asset
City Council action is needed to
funds to be dispersed in
provisions of the program.
accept additional
accordance with
Mayor and Members of Council
Subject: Sharing Federally ForfeitedProperty
Page 2
III.
Revenues collected through March 22, 1993, for
this grant are $704,366.61 and deposited in Grant
Account Number 035-035-1234-7060. Current revenue
estimated is $677,951.00. Funding received in
excess of the estimated revenue which totals
$26,416.00 needs to be appropriated at this time.
Expenditures from this grant through March 22,
1993 are $443~669.10.
IV.
A. Need
B. Funds Availability
Alternatives:
City Council accepted additional ($26,416.00)
funds from U. S. Department of Justice, Forfeited
Property Sharing Program and authorize the
Director of Finance to establish appropriate
accounts so that funds can be expended in
accordance with program requirements.
Need exists to provide additional funds and
equipment to enhance undercover narcotics
control investigations.
Fund availability will be controlled by
effectiveness of investigations through
assets seized and forfeited in Joint
investigations with federal agencies.
B#
City Council reject assets from Federal Forfeiture
Sharing Program and not authorize Director of
Finance to establish appropriate accounts for such
assets.
Need for supplemental funds enabling
increased effectiveness of undercover drug
enforcement will not be met.
Funds will not be applied for or received
from the Federal Forfeiture Sharing Program.
Recommendation is that
to accept assets from
Sharing Program and:
Council approve Alternative "A"
the Federal Forfeited Property
Subject:
Mayor and Members of Council
Sharing Federally Forfeited Property
Page 3
Appropriate $26,416.00 to the following grant
fund account:
Investigations and Rewards (035-050-3300-2150)...
Increase the revenue estimate for this grant by
$26,416.00 (Account 035-035-1234-?060)-
WRH:MDH:kt
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Administration/Public Safety
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
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
April ~5, 1993
File #405=468
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 31411-041293 approving issuance of Change
Order No. 2 to the City's contract with Mattern & Craig, Inc., for Design and
Contract Administration of the Zebra Mussel Control Facility, in the amount of
$48,100.00, as more fully set forth in your report under date of April 12, 1993, in
connection with Carvins Cove Filter Plant Improvements - Phase I. Ordinance No.
31411-041293 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting
held on Monday, April 12, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
pc:
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations
Mr. M. Craig Sluss, Manager, Water Department
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffino, City Engineer
Mr. L. Bane Coburn, Project Manager
Mr: W. Robert Hel~bert
April 15, 1993
Page 2
pc:
Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Ms. Dolores C. Daniels, Assistan~ to the City Manager for Community
Relations
MARY F.
City C~erk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
21 $ Church Avenue, S.W., Room 4~6
Roanoke, Vir~ia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
April ~5, 1993
File #405-468
Mr. Stewart W. Hubbell
Vice President
Mattern and Craig, Inc.
701 First Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mr. Hubbell:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 31411-041293 approving issuance of Change
Order No. 2 to the City's contract with Mattern & Craig, Inc., for Design and
Contract Administration of the Zebra Mussel Control Facility, in the amount of
$48,100.00, as more fully set forth in a report of the City Manager under date of
April 12, 1993, in connection with Carvins Cove Filter Plant Improvements - Phase
I. Ordinance No. 31411-041293 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 12, 1993.
Sincerely, ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Enc.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 12th day of April, 1993.
No. 31411-041293.
A RESOLUTION approving the City Manager's issuance of Change
Order No. 2 to the City's engineering contract with Mattern &
Craig, Inc., for the Design and Contract Administration of the
Zebra Mussel Control Facility.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is authorized and
empowered to issue, for and on behalf of the City, upon form
approved by the City Attorney, Change Order No. 2 to the City's
contract with Mattern & Craig, Inc. for the Design and Contract
Administration of the Zebra Mussel Control Facility, in the total
amount of $48,100.00, as more fully set forth in the City Manger's
report to this Council dated April 12, 1993.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
'93 /~PR-7 .~]t:37
Roanoke, Virginia
April 12, 1993
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT:
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR
CARVINS COVE FILTER PLANT
IMPROVEMENTS: PHASE I
I. Backqround of this project is as follows:
City Council, at the August 26, 1991 meeting, approved an
engineering services contract with Mattern & Craig, Inc.,
and Alvord, Burdick & Howson as their consultants, in the
total amount of $1,969~400.00 and 180 consecutive
calendar days.
February 22, 1993, City Council approved Change Order No.
1 to the contract for design work required to comply with
the 1993 Soil Erosion Control Regulations plus other work
to comply with the County of Roanoke requirements before
a building permit would be issued. The additional design
fee for this work was approved by Council on February 22,
1993, in the amount of $14,764.89 bringing the total fee
to date to $1,984,164.89.
II. Current situation is as follows:
City Council has been informed several times in the past
of the real threat of an invasion of the zebra mussel.
It is important that the Zebra Mussel Control Facility be
designed and priced as soon as possible. This will
permit the installation of the chemical feed lines to
parallel the new raw water line from the filter plant to
the intake structure at the face of the dam. This will
be the first facility of this type to be installed in the
State of Virginia.
B. Construction now as part of the overall improvement
should result in the least possible construction cost.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council
RE: CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
CARVINS COVE FILTER PLANT
IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I
Page 2
III. Issues in order of importance are:
A. Engineering concerns
B. Funding
C. Timing
IV. Alternatives are as follows:
Approve the issuance of Change Order No. 2 to the
engineering services contract with Mattern & Craig, Inc.,
and their consultant to design a Zebra Mussel Control
Facility for the sum of $48,100.00 and thirty (30)
consecutive calendar days.
Engineerinq concerns would be met. The consultants
will meet with the Virginia Department of Health,
the Water Control Board and the Department of Game
and Inland Fisheries to focus on what control method
the Virginia Department of Health and other agencies
will permit; then to design a logical means of
accomplishing the control for Carvins Cove intake
facility. (In this regard, Alvord, Burdick & Howson
have designed facilities for municipalities that use
the Great Lakes for their water supply.)
Funding in the amount of $48~100.00 is available in
the present account with Mattern & Craig, Inc.,
under the Engineering Feasibility Report account,
originally set aside for Mattern & Craig, Inc., to
assist in the bond issue.
Timing is so the chemical feed lines can be
installed at the time the raw water main is
installed. In addition, the chemical feed at the
point of raw water intake at the dam can be
installed at the same time the new intake screens
are installed.
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council
RE: CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
CARVINS COVE FILTER PLANT
IMPROVEMENTS - PHASE I
Page 3
Reject the issuance of Change Order No. 2 and do not
authorize the additional services to design, bid and
supervise the installation of the Zebra Mussel Control
Facility at this time.
Enqineering concerns would not be met in a timely
fashion. The Zebra Mussel Control Facility would
not be designed and bid at this time.
2. Fundinq would not be encumbered at this time.
Timinq for the installation of the Control Facility
would not be accomplished at the most economical
phase of the work. It is estimated that the Zebra
Mussel Control Facility will add from $250,000.00 to
$300,000.00 to the contract at the time the initial
construction is being performed. It will increase
the installation cost considerably if the work is
done after the Phase I contract is completed.
Recommendation is that City Council take the following
action:
A. Concur with the implementation of Alternative A.
Authorize the City Manager to issue Change Order No. 2 to
the engineering contract with Mattern & Craig, Inc., (and
their consultant Alvord, Burdick & Howson) in the amount
of $48,100.00 and thirty (30) consecutive calendar days
for the Design and Contract Administration of the Zebra
Mussel Control Facility.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/LBC/fm
Honorable Mayor and
Members of City Council
RE: CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
CARVINS COVE FILTER PLANT
IMPROVEMENTS PHASE I
Page 4
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities & Operations
Manager, Management & Budget
Manager, Water Department
City Engineer
Citizens' Request for Services
Construction Cost Technician
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
21~ Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
April 15, 1993
File #216-236-247-249-258-335
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 31412-041293 authorizing you to execute a
Memorandum of Agreement with Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation, the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources and the National Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation relating to the loan of federal funds for the Hotel Roanoke
rehabilitation, as more particularly set forth in your report under date of April 12,
1993. Resolution No. 31412-041293 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 12, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Enc.
pc:
The Honorable James G. Harvey, II, Chairperson, Hotel Roanoke Conference
Center Commission
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. James D. Grisso, Acting Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director, Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. Brian J. Wishneff, Chief, Economic Development
Ms. Dolores C. Daniels, Assistant to the City Manager for Community
Relations
Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Office of Management and Budget
Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
21~ Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roitnoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2~41
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
April 15, 1993
File #216-236-247-249-258
Mr. Robert D. Bush
Executive Director
National Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, N. W.
Suite 809
Washington, D. C. 20004
Dear Mr. Bush:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31412-041293 authorizing you to execute a
Memorandum of Agreement with Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation, the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources and the National Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation relating to the loan of federal funds for the Hotel Roanoke
rehabilitation, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under
date of April 12, 1993. Resolution No. 31412-041293 was adopted by the Council of
the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 12, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Ene.
MARY F. pA~lC~
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2:541
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
April 15, 1993
File #216-236-247-249-258
Mr. H. Bryan Mitchell
Deputy State Historic
Preservation Officer
Virginia Department of
Historic Resources
221 Governors Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
Dear Mr. Mitchell:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31412-041293 authorizing you to execute a
Memorandum of Agreement with Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation, the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources and the National Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation relating to the loan of federal funds for the Hotel Roanoke
rehabilitation, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under
date of April 12, 1993. Resolution No. 31412-041293 was adopted by the Council of
the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 12, 1993.
Sincerely, /~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Enc,
MARY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (703) 981-2541
April 15, 1993
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
File #216-236-247-249-2§8
Dr. Raymond D. Smoot, Jr.
Vice President for Business
Affairs and Treasurer
312 Burruss Hall
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0142
Ms. Margie W. Thomas
Secretary of Virginia Tech
Board of Visitors
210 Burruss Hall
Virginia Tech
Blacksburg, Virginia 24061-0142
Dear Ms. Thomas and Dr. Smoot:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 31412-041293 authorizing you to execute a
Memorandum of Agreement with Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation, the Virginia
Department of Historic Resources and the National Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation relating to the loan of federal funds for the Hotel Roanoke
rehabilitation, as more particularly set forth in a report of the City Manager under
date of April 12, 1993. Resolution No. 31412-041293 was adopted by the Council of
the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 12, 1993.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Ene.
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 12th day of April~ 1993.
No. 31412-041293.
A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute a
Memorandum of Agreement with Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation,
the Virginia Department of Historic Resources and the National
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation relating to the loan of
federal funds for the Hotel Roanoke rehabilitation.
WHEREAS, by Resolution 30671-82691, this Council authorized
the application for the loan of federal funds pursuant to Part 570,
Chapter V, Title 24, Code of Federal Regulation and the investment
of such funds in the Hotel Roanoke project;
WHEREAS, Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 requires that any project assisted by federal funds be
reviewed by the State Historic Preservation Office ("SHPO") for
impacts on historic properties in order to avoid unnecessary harm
to historic properties from federal actions; and
WHEREAS, as a part of the SHPO's review of the impact of the
renovation on the Hotel Roanoke, a Memorandum of Agreement is
required to address the historic preservation issues of the hotel
renovation.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the
City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute
and attest respectively, the Memorandum of Agreement with Virginia
Tech Real Estate Foundation, the Virginia Department of Historic
Resources and the National Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation, such agreement to be in substantially the form set
forth in the report to this Council from the City Manager dated
April 12, 1993 and approved as to form by the City Attorney.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
April 12, 1993
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Council Members:
Subject: Hotel Roanoke/Conference Center Project
I. BACKGROUND:
City Council authorized an application to HUD for a
Section 108 loan of $6,000,000 toward the renovation of
the Hotel Roanoke, by Resolution 30671-82691 on August
26, 1991.
Section 108 Loan guarantee was approved by HUD on
September 30, 1991.
These federal funds, like CDBG funds, trigger many
federal regulations in the course of renovation of the
hotel. One set of regulations addresses preservation of
historic properties.
D. Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966 requires that any project assisted with federal
funds be reviewed by the State Historic Preservation
Office for impacts on historic properties. The purpose
of Section 106 is to avoid unnecessary harm to historic
properties from federal actions.
II. CURRENT SITUATION:
III.
ae
As a part of the State's review of the impact of the
renovation on the Hotel Roanoket a Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) is required to address the historic
preservation issues of the hotel renovation.
Such a MOA has been negotiated and agreement reached
among the Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation, the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the National
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the City.
By federal regulations, this MOA must be executed prior
to any work beginning on the Hotel.
ISSUES:
A. Timing
Members of Council
page 2
B. Legal
C. Cost to the City
D. Compliance with federal regulations
IV. ALTerNATIVES:
ae
Authorize the City Manager to execute the attached MOA
among the Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation, the
Virginia Department of Historic Resources, the National
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the City
of Roanoke.
Timing is critical since asbestos abatement work
and interior demolition cannot be started until MOA
is signed.
Legal issues have been addressed by the City
Attorney's review of MOA.
Cost to the City would be the cost of normal
oversight of a federally-funded historic project;
provided by CDBG funds.
4e
Compliance with federal regulations would be
addressed for the historic preservation issue.
Be
Do not authorize the City Manager to execute the
attached MOA.
Timing would be an issue, if Council still intends
to use federal funds on project. Lack of a signed
MOA would delay start of construction.
e
Legal issues of the MOA would not be an issue if it
were not signed.
e
Cost to the City would potentially be $6,000,000 if
the federal Section 108 loan funds could not be
used.
Compliance with federal regulations would be
problematic if federal funds were still used on the
project.
REC(X~ENDATION:
Recommend that City Council concur in Alternative A and
authorize the City Manager to execute the attached MOA among
the Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation, the Virginia
Members of Council
page 3
Department of Historic Resources, the National Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation and the City of Roanoke.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
attachment
WRH/MTP
cc:
Assistant City Manager
City Attorney
Acting Director of Finance
Chief of Economic Development
Grants Monitoring Administrator
MF:HOTEL.RPT
This Memorandum of Agreement, made and entered into this __
day of , 1993, by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE
("City"), a municipal corporation, the VIRGINIA TECH REAL ESTATE
FOUNDATION, INC. ("Foundation"), the VIRGINIA STATE HISTORIC
PRESERVATION OFFICE ("SHPO") and the ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC
PRESERVATION ("Council").
W I TNE S SETH:
WHEREAS, the City and the Foundation propose undertaking the
rehabilitation of the Hotel Roanoke ("Hotel"), a property located
in the City of Roanoke; and
WHEREAS, it is agreed that the Hotel satisfies the criteria
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places; and
WHEREAS, the City proposes to support this undertaking through
its Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, with funds to
be borrowed from the Department of Housing and Urban Development
under Section 108, Title I of the Housing and Community Development
Act of 1974 ("program funds"); and
WHEREAS, the definitions set forth in Appendix 1 are
applicable throughout this Memorandum of Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the City has determined that the undertaking will
constitute an adverse effect on the Hotel, in that it will require
demolition of the ballroom; and
WHEREAS, alternative design solutions that would not require
demolition of the ballroom have been proposed, evaluated, and found
not to be prudent and feasible alternatives; and
WHEREAS, the City and Foundation have consulted with the SHPO
and the Council pursuant to 36 CFR 800.13 of the regulations
implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
(16 U.S.C. 470f);
NOW, THEREFORE, the City, the SHPO, the Foundation and the
Council agree that the undertaking shall proceed in accordance with
the following terms and conditions to satisfy the City's Section
106 responsibilities:
STIPULATIONS
The City will not support the proposed rehabilitation with
program funds if the Foundation fails to carry out any of its
requirements under stipulations 1, 2, 4 and 5 below:
1. Demolition of the ballroom at the hotel will not take place
until the ballroom and its ancillary spaces, including the
Peacock Gallery and the secondary meeting rooms, are recorded
so that there will be a permanent record of its history and
appearance. All documentation, including photographs and
measured drawings, must be accepted by the Historic American
Buildings Survey (HABS) and by the SHPO, and the Council shall
be notified of this acceptance.
The rehabilitation of the Hotel, shall comply with the
Secretary of the Interior's recommended approaches to
rehabilitation set forth in the Secretary of the Interior's
Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating
Historic Buildings. Plans and specifications for the
rehabilitation will be submitted to the SHPO for review and
comment, at the 30% design development state, and at the 60%
state, and as final plans and specifications prior to
commencement of the project. The SHPO shall make its comments
within 15 days of submission.
The City agrees that new construction adjacent to the Hotel,
shall comply with the Secretary of the Interior's recommended
approaches to new construction set forth in the Secretary of
the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
e
Rehabilitating Historic Bulldinqs. Plans and specifications
for the new construction will be submitted to the SHPO for
review and comment prior to commencement of the project. SHPO
shall make its comments, if any, within fifteen (15) days of
submission.
At any time during implementation of the measures stipulated
in this Agreement, should an objection to any such measure or
its manner of implementation be raised by a member of the
public, the City and the Foundation shall take the objection
into account and consult as reasonably necessary with the
objecting party and with the SHPO, to attempt to resolve the
objection·
Any party to this Agreement may request that it be amended,
whereupon the parties will consult in accordance with 36 CFR
800.13 to consider such an amendment.
Should the SHPO object within fifteen (15) days to any plans
provided for review or actions proposed pursuant to this
Agreement, the City and the Foundation shall consult with the
SHPO to resolve the objection. If the City and the Foundation
determine that the objection cannot be resolved, the City
shall request the further comments of the Council pursuant to
36 CFR 800.6 (b). Any Council comment provided in response to
such request will be taken into account by the City in
accordance with 36 CFR 800.6 (c)(2) with reference only to the
3
subject of dispute; the City's responsibility to carryout all
actions under this Agreement that are not the subjects of the
dispute will remain unchanged.
Execution and implementation of this Agreement evidences that
the City has afforded the Council a reasonable opportunity to
comment on the program and that the City has taken into account the
effects of the program on historic properties.
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
By:
Date:
Robert D. Bush
Executive Director
CITY OF ROANOKE
By:
Date:
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
VIRGINIA STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION
By:
H. Bryan Mitchell
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Date:
VIRGINIA TECH REAL ESTATE FOUNDATION
By:
Its
Date:
4
Approved as to form
Assistant (~ity Attorney
APPENDIX 1
DEFINITIONS
HISTORIC PROPERTY - means any prehistoric or historic district,
site, building, structure, or object included in, or eligible for
inclusion in, the National Register of Historic Places. The term
"eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places" includes both properties formally determined as such by the
Keeper of the National Register and all other properties that meet
the National Register listing criteria.
NATIONAL REGISTER - means the National Register of Historic Places
maintained by the Secretary of the Interior.
NATIONAL REGISTER CRITERIA - means the criteria established by the
Secretary of the Interior for use in evaluating the eligibility of
properties for the National Register (36 CFR Part 60):
Criterion A: Properties that are associated with events that have
made significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history.
Criterion B: Properties that are associated with the lives of
persons significant in our past.
Criterion C: Properties that embody the distinctive
characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction or
that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose
components may lack individual distinction.
Criterion D: Properties that have yielded, or may be likely to
yield, information important in prehistory or history.
FEASIBLE means capable of being dealt with successfully with
reasonable consideration given to condition, integrity, proposed
costs, scope of necessary work, and location and setting.
~XRY F. PARKER
City Clerk, CMC/AAE
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 2~011
Telephone: (703) 981-2~41
SANDRA H. EAKIN
Deputy City Clerk
April .15, 1993
File #24-50-§1-200-249
Mr. Robert L. Laslie
Vice President - Supplements
Municipal Code Corporation
P. O. Box 223§
Tallahassee, Florida 32304
Dear Mr. Laslie:
I am enclosing copy of Chapter 216 of the Acts of Assembly of 1952, amending the
City Charter, for inclusion in the next supplement to the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended.
With kindest regards, I am
Sincerely, ~0~-~
Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
MFP: sm
Enc.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY ATrORNEY IT
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
TELEPHONE: 703-981-2431
TELECOPIER: 703.981.2940
WILBURNC. DIBLING, JI% April 12, 1993
CITY ATTORNEY
'93
APR -8 A8:36
WILLIAM X PARSONS
STEVEN J. TALEVI
KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAO
GLADYS L. YATES
ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEYS
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Senate Bill 582 - City of Roanoke
Charter Amendments
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
I am pleased to report that the Governor signed the City's
Charter bill on March 28, 1993, and the bill has been effective
since this date. As you know, the bill was amended on a number of
occasions during the Session, and I am attaching a copy of the bill
as it was finally enacted.
You will recall that the Charter amendments (1) authorize the
City Council to establish design overlay districts to encourage
compatible development in areas of the City identified on an
adopted comprehensive plan as having historic value or unique
architectural value and located within an area designated on an
adopted plan for conservation, rehabilitation or redevelopment; and
(2) authorize City Council to permit the Architectural Review Board
to delegate certain responsibilities to an agent. The amendments
to the City Code will have to go through the process required for
zoning amendments. Planning staff will schedule the required
hearings after they have finalized the details of their
recommendations, and this Office will prepare the required
advertisements and ordinances.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
Wilburn C. Jr.
City Attorney
WCD:f
Enclosure
cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
John R. Marlles, Chief, Community Planning
199 SESSION
VIRGINIA ACTS OF ASSEMBLY - CHAPTER
An Act to amend and reenact b~ ~2, as amended, o/ Chapter 216 o! the Acts of Assembly
of 1952 which provided a charter for the City of Roanoke, relating to zoning.
iS 582]
Be it enacted by the General Assembly of Virginia:
1. That § 62, as amended, of Chapter 216 of the Acts of Assembly of 1952 is amended and
reenacted as follows: § 62. Zoning.
(1) For the promotion of health, safety, morals, comfort, prosperity, or general welfare
of the general public, the council of the City of Roanoke may, by ordinance, divide the
area of thc city into one ~r more ~istricts of such shape and area as may be deemed best
suited to carry out the purposes of this act, and in such district or districts may establish,
set back building lines, regulate and restrict the location, erection, construction,
reconstruction, alteration, repair or use of buildings and other structures, their height, area
and bulk, and percentage of lot to be occupied by buildings or other structures, the size of
yards, courts and other open spaces, and the trade, industry, residence and other specific
uses of the premises in such district or districts. Any ordlnaoce enacted under the authority
of this act may exempt from the operation thereof any building or structure used or to be
used by a public service corporation (not otherwise exempted) ns to which proof shall be
presented to the board of zoning appeals that the exemption of such building or structure
is ,reasonably necessary for the convenience or welfare of the public.
(2) All such regulations shall be uniform for each class or kind of buildings throughout
each district, but the regulations in one district may differ from those in other districts.
(3) Such regulations shall be made in accordance with a comprehensive plan, and
designed to lessen congestion in the streets, to secure safety from fire, panic and other
dangers, to promote health and the general welfare; to provide adequate light and air; to
prevent the overcrowding of land; to avoid undue concentration of population; to facilitate
the adequate provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, and other public
requirements. Such regulations shall be made with reasonable consideration among other
things, to the character of the district and its peculiar suitability for particular uses, and
with a view to conserving the value of buildings and encouraging the most appropriate use
of land throughout the city.
(4) The council of the City of Roanoke shall provide for the manner in which such
regulations and restrictions and the boundaries of such districts shall be determined,
established and enforced, and from time to time amended, supplemented or changed.
However, no such regulation, restriction or boundary shall become effective until after a
public hearing in relation thereto, at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an
opportunity to be hoard. At least fifteen days notice of the time and place of such hearing
shall be published in a paper of general circulation in said city, or in a city official
bulletin ns provided in § 43 of this charter.
(5) Such regulation, restrictions, and boundaries may from time to time be amended,
supplemented, changed, modified, or repealed. In case, however, of a protest against such
change signed by the owners of twenty percent or more either of the area of the lois
included in each proposed change, or of those immediately adjacent in the rear thereof, or
of those directly opposite thereto, such amendment shall not become effective except by
the favorable vote of five-sevenths of all the members of the council. The provisions of the
previous section relative to public hearings nad official notice shall apply equally to all
changes or amendments.
(5.1) In order to facilitate the creation of a convenient, attractive and harmonious
community, the council of the City of Roanoke may, after recommendation from the
planning commission and public notice and hearing pursuant to § 15.1-431, establish design
overlay districts to encourage compatible development in areas of the city identified on an
adopted comprehensive plan as having historic value or unique architectural value and
located within an area designated on an adopted plan for conservation, rehabilitation or
redevelopment , In such areas, city council ma~,' shall adopt specific standards ns to new
construction or rehabilitation within view from public streets and provide for a design
review process. City council may establish a fee applicable to such design review process
which shall not exceed the actual cost of such review process or $200.00, whichever is less.
2
(6) The council of the City of Roanoke shall appoint a commission to be known as the
planning commission to recommend the boundaries of the various original districts and
appropriate regulations to be enforced therein. Such commission shall make a preliminary
report or reports and hold public hearings thereon before submitting its final report, and
the council of the City of Roanoke shall take such action on said preliminary report or
reports, and also on the final report of the commission, as it shall deem necessary.
(7) The council of the City of Roanoke may appoint a board of zoning appeals, and in
the regulations and restrictions adopted pursuant to the authority of this act may provide
that the said board of zoning appeats may, in appropriate cases and subject to appropriate
conditions and safeguards, vary the application of the terms of the ordinance in harmony
with its general purpose and intent and in accordance with general or specific rules
therein contained.
(8) The board of zoning appeals shall consist of five members, each to be appointed for
a *.erm of three years and removable for cause by the appointing authority, upon written
charges and after public hearing. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term of any
member whose term becomes vacant.
(9) The board shall adopt rules in accordance with the provisions of any ordinance
adopted pursuant to this act. Meetings of the board shall be held at the call of the
chairman and such other times as the board may determine. Such chairman, or in his
absence, the acting chairman, may administer oaths and compel the attendance of
witnesses. All meetings of the board shall be open to the public. The board shall keep
minutes of its proceedings showing the vote of each member upon each question, or if
absent or failing to vote, indicating such fact, and shall keep records of its examinations
and other official actions, all of which shall be immediately filed in the office of the
board, and shall be a public record.
(10) Appeals to the board of zoning appeals may be taken by any person aggrieved or
by any officer, department, board or bureau of the city affected by any decision of the
administrative officer. Such appeal shall be taken within a reasonable time as-provided by
the rules of the board by filing with the officer from whom the appeal is taken and with
the board of zoning appeals a notice of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. The officer
from whotn the appeal is taken shall forthwith transmit to the board all papers constituting
the record upon which the action appealed from was taken.
(11) An appeal stays all proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, unless
the officer from whom the appeal is taken certifies to the board of zoning appeals after
the notice of appeal shall have been filed with him that by reason of facts stated in the
certificate a stay would, in his opinion, cause imminent peril to life or property. In such
case proceedings shall not be stayed otherwise than by a restraining order which may be
granted by the board of zoning appeals or by a court of record on application, and notice
to the officer from whom the appeal is taken and on due cause shown.
(12) The board of zoning appeals shall fix a reasonable time for the hearing of the
appeal, give public notice thereof, as well as due notice to the parties in interest, and
decide the same within a reasonable time. Upon the hearing any party may appear in
person or by agent or by attorney.
(13) The board of zoning appeals shall have the following powers:
(a) To hear and decide appeals where it is alleged there is error in any order,
requirement, decision, or determination made by administrative officials in the enforcement
of this act or of any ordinance adopted pursuant thereto.
(b) To hear and decide special exceptions to the terms of the ordinance upon which
such board is required to pass under such ordinance.
(c) To authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance from the terms of the
ordinance as will not be contrary to the public interest where owing to special conditions a
literal enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance will result in unnecessary hardship,
and so that the spirit of the ordinance shall be observed and substantial justice done.
(14) In exercising the above-mentioned powers such board may, in conformity with the
provisions of this act, reverse or affirm, wholly or partly, or may modify the order,
requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order,
requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all
the powers of the officer from whom the appeal is taken.
(15) The concurring vote of three members of the board shall be necessary to reverse
any order, requirement, decision or determination of any such administrative official, or to
decide in favor of the applicant on any matter upon which it is required to pass under any
such ordinance or to effect any variation in such ordinance.
(16) Any person or persons, jointly or severally, aggrieved by any decision of the board
of zoning appeals, or any officer, department, board or bureau of the municipality, may
present to a court of record of the City of Roanoke a petition, duly verified, setting forth
that such decision is illegal, in whole or in part, specifying the grounds of the illegality.
Such petition shall be presented to the court within thirty days after the filing of the
decision in the office of the board.
(17) Upon the presentation of such petition, the court may allow a writ of certiorari
directed to the board of zoning appeals to review such decision of the board of zoning
appeals and shall prescribe therein the time within which a return thereto must be made
and served upon the relator's attorney, which shall not be less than ten days and may be
extended by the court. The allowance of the writ shall not stay proceedings upon the
decision appealed from, but the court may, on application, on notice to the board and on
due cause shown, grant a restraining order.
(18) The board of zoning appeals shall not be required to return the original papers
acted upon by it, but it shall be sufficient to return certified or sworn copies thereof or of
such portions thereof as may be called for by such writ. The return shall concisely set
forth such other facts as may be pertinent and material to show the grounds of the
decision appealed from and shall be verified.
(19) If, upon the hearing, it shall appear to the court that testimony is necessary for
the proper disposition of the matter, it may take evidence or appoint a commissioner to
take such evidence as it may direct and report the same to the court with his findings of
fact and conclusions of law, which shall constitute a part of the proceeding upon which the
determination of the court shall be made. The court may reverse or affirm, wholly or
partly, or may modify the decision brought up for review.
(20) Costs shall not be allowed against the board, unless it shall appear to the court
that it acted with gross negligence or in bad faith or with malice in making the decision
appealed from.
(21) All issues in any proceeding under this section shall have preference over all other
civil actions and proceedings, except where otherwise provided by general law.
(22) In case any building or structure is erected, constructed, reconstructed, altered,
repaired, or converted; or any building, structure or land is used in violation of this act or
of any ordinance or other regulation made under authority conferred hereby, the proper
authorities of the city, in addition to other remedies, may institute any appropriate action
or proceeding to prevent such unlawful erection, construction, reconstruction, alteration,
repair, conversion, to restrain, correct or abate such violation, to prevent the occupancy of
said building, structure or land, or to prevent any illegal act, conduct, business or use in or
about such premises.
(23) Said regulations shall be enforced by the division of building inspection which is
empowered to cause any building, structure, place or premises to be inspected and
examined and to order in writing the remedying of any condition found to exist therein or
thereat in violation of any provision of the regulations made under authority of this or the
preceding paragraph. The owner or general agent of the building or premises where a
violation of any provision of said regulations has been committed or shall exist, or the
lessee or tenant of an entire building or entire premises where such violation has been
committed or shall exist, or the owner, general agent, lessee or tenant of any part of the
building or premises in which such violation has been committed or shall exist, or the
general agent, architect, builder, contractor or any other person who commits, takes part or
assists in any such violation or who maintains any building or premises in which any such
violations shall exist shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less
than $10.00 nor more than $1000.00. In any case of the existence of a violation of any
provision of said regulations the owner, lessee, tenant or agent shall be subject to a civil
penalty of fifty dollars. Any such person who having been served with an order to remove
any such violation, shall fail to comply with said order within ten days after such service
or shall continue to violate any provisions of the said regulations in the respect named in
such order shall also be subject to a civil penalty of two hundred fifty dollars.
(24) The council of the City of Roanoke shall appoint an Architectural Review Board.
Such Board may be authorized to delegate to an agent its authority to issue any
certificate of appropriateness. The agent, pursuant to such delegation, shall act only upon
an application completed pursuant to the applicable city ordinance, and shall apply the
same guidelines and review standards applicable to the Board. Any person aggrieved by
any decision of the agent made pursuant to this delegation may appeal to the Board
within a reasonable time as provided by city ordinance by filing with the Board a notice
of appeal specifying the grounds thereof. A decision of the Board may be appealed to the
city council and thereafter to the circuit court pursuant to ~ 15.1-503.2 of the Code of
4
Virginia.
2. That an emergency exisis and this act is in force from its passage.
President of the Senate
Speaker of the House of Delegates
Approved:
Governor