Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 03-13-95WYATT 32394 REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL March 13, 1995 3:00p. m. ,4 GEND,4 FOR THE COUNCIL Call to Order -- Roll Call. Ali Present The Invocation was delivered by The Reverend Donald E. Eshelmon, Pastor, Patterson Memorial Grace Brethren Church. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor David A. Bowers. Welcome. Mayor Bowers. ANNOUNCEMENTS: The regular meeting of the Greater Roanoke Transit Company Board of Directors has been cancelled. The City Council will consider the matter of a modified ward system at the 7:00 p.m. session. The Members of the Roanoke City Council would like to recognize and congratulate the Honorable W. Alvin Hudson, Sheriff, in connection with receipt of 100% "unconditional certification" of the Roanoke City Jarl by the Board of Corrections ofthe Commonwealth of Virginia. Mayor Bowers. File #80-121-123 Proclamation declaring March 1995 as Arc Roanoke, Inc. Month. Mayor Bowers. File #3-80-167-353 Presentation of a video with regard to the City of Florian6pohs, Santa Catarina, Brazil; and a resolution expressing the intent of the City of Roanoke to enter into a new Sister City relationship with the City of Florian6polis. Mayor Bowers. Adopted Resolution No. 32394-031395. (7-0) File 0327 CONSENT AGENDA C-1 (APPROVED 7-0) ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. Minutes of the regular meetings of Council held on Monday, November 14, 1994, and Monday, November 28, 1994. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading thereof and approve as recorded. 2 C-2 C-3 C-4 C-5 A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers requesting an Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various author/ties, boards, comm/ssions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of V/rginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: File #15-110-132 Concur in request for Council to convene in Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers with regard to initiating uniform valley-wide schoolteachers' salaries in Roanoke City and Roanoke County. RECOMMENDED ACTION: WITHDRAWN. File #60-467 Refer to joint City Council/School Board budget meeting in May, 1995. A communication from Mayor David A. Bowers with regard to significant cuts proposed in the Federal budget which could negatively and directly impact programs in the City of Roanoke. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. File #16-60-72-79-137-178-236-246-304.340 Qualification of Carolyn Word as a member of the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term ending May 31, 1996. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file. File #15-110-304 REGULAR AGENDA e HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: a. OTHER HEARING OF CITIZENS: None. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: A communication fi.om Mayor David A. Bowers recommending an extension of the deadl/ne for receipt of School Board applications until Friday, March 24, 1995. An ordinance extending the deadline was defeated by a 5-2 vote of Council, Council Members Wyatt, Bowles, Edwards, McCadden and White voted no. File #467 A reception for School Board applicants will be held on Monday, March 27, 1995, at 5:15 p.m., in the Lobby of the Municipal Building. 5. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: a. CITY MANAGER: None. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: A report recommending concurrence in the continued study of certain alternative service dehvery methods for the Roanoke City Nursing Home. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32395-031395. (7-0) File #44-60-72-270 4 A report recommending execution of Amendment No. 2 to the Community Development Block Grant contract for services with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority; and transfer of funds in connection therewith. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32396-031395 and Resolution No. 32397-031395. (7-0) File #60-178-200-236 A report recommending issuance of Change Order No. 4, in the amount of $169,074.65, to the City's contract with Laramore Construction Co., Inc., in connection with Carvins Cove Filter Plant Improvements - Phase II, Contract A-2; and transfer of funds in connection therewith. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32398-031395 and Ordinance No. 32399-031395. (7-0) File #20-60-77-468-514 A report recommending issuance of Change Order No. 2, in the credit mount of $261,255.79, to the City's contract with Aaron J. Conner General Contractor, Inc., in connection with Carvins Cove Filter Plant Improvements - Phase II, Contract B-2. Adopted Ordinance No. 32400-031395. (7-0) File #468-514 A report recommending transfer of $45,850.00 to cover expenditures for snow emergency operations in January and February, 1995. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32401-031395. (7-0) File #60-183-410 A report recommending appropriation of funds fi.om the Capital Ma/ntenance and Equipment Replacement Program to provide for purchase of identified items and projects for various City departments. Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395. (7-0) File #60-67-70-262-270-323-382 6. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: None. 7. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: None. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: None. OF 9. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council. Council Member McCadden presented communications from third grade students in Ms. Mercedes James' class at Fairview Elementary School. The City Attorney was requested to respond to a question raised by students as to why persons are permitted to smoke in restaurants. The City Clerk was requested to acknowledge receipt of the communications. File #467 The City Clerk was instructed to place an item on the City Council agenda of Monday, March 27, 1995, at 3:00 p.m., with regard to consideration of expansion of the Mill Mountain Development Committee. File #15-67-110 6 b. Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council 10. OTHER HEARINGS OF CITIZENS: None. CERTIFICATION OF EXECUTIVE SESSION. (7-0) Reappointed Brenda A. Powell and Daniel E. Karnes as members of the Fair Housing Board. File #15-110-178 Appointed the following persons: Willard N. Claytor File #15-110-237 Flood Plain Committee Bittle W. Porterfield, III File #15-110-253 Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Janie P. Wheeler File #15-110-230 Roanoke Arts Commission Roy E. Bucher, Jr. File #15-110-192 Roanoke Civic Center Commission William H. Cleaveland File #15-110-242 Waived City residency requirement Court Community Corrections Program Policy Board 7 REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ROANOKE CITY CO UNCIL March 13, 1995 7:00 p. rrr .4 GEND.4 FOR THE COUNCIL Call to Order -- Roll Call. All Present. The Invocation was delivered by Mayor David A. Bowers. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Bowers. Welcome. Mayor Bowers. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. CONTINUATION OF MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council: Consideration of a matter with regard to election of City Council Members under a modified election district system. Council Member Wyatt. A motion that Council endorse a referendum in connection with the November 7, 1995, general election as to the issue of election of City Council Members under a modified election district system; that the City Attorney and the City Manager be requested to present alternatives for a modified election district system including, but not limited to: (1) a seven-member Council with four and five election districts, and (2) a nine-member Council with four, five and six election districts; that the City Manager be requested to provide planning, demographic and statistical support required to divide the City into four, five and six election districts without dilution of minority voting strength, honoring the principle of one person, one vote, and observing other required legal principles; that the City Attorney be requested to advise as to applicable legal principles and legal ramifications of each alternative; and that the City Manager and the City Attorney make such progress reports to Council as they deem appropriate and render their final report as to alternatives by June 12, 1995, in order that Council may obtain citizen comment and select the Council's preferred alternative by July 31, 1995, was ~ by a 5-2 vote of the Council, Council Members Bowies, McCadden, Parrott, White and Mayor Bowers voted no. File #40-132 OTHER HEARINGS OF CITIZENS: None. City (~l~ri~m City of Roanoke, Virginia M~ch 17, 1995 W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I ~un attaching copy of the following measures that pertcfin to your department: Resolution No. 32394-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32395-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32396-031395 Resolution No. 32397-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32398-031395 Ordinance No. 32399-031395 Ordinance No. 32400-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32401-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ~'~ Mary F.~Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MPP:sm City CIEBPk~B City Of Ro.noIuJ, VIPglnlm March 17, 1995 James D. Grisso Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Gr-isso: I am attaching copy of the fol]owlng measures that pertain to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32395-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32396-031395 Resolution No. 32397-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32398-031395 Ordinance No. 32399-031395 Ordinance No. 32400-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32401-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Mondoy, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/~ City Clerk MFP:sm City Olerk~m Offlo~ City of Rollnoke, 1/Irglnl~m March 17, i995 Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Dibling: I ~u~ attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your department: Resolution No. 32394-031395 Resolution No. 32397-031395 Ordinance No. 32399-031395 Ordinance No. 32400-031395 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Olty ClerK.~ Offloe City of Rosnoke, Vlrglnl~l March 17, 1995 Diane S. Akers Budget Administrator Office of Management and Budget Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Akers: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertoln to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32395-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32396-031395 Resolution No. 32397-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32398-031395 Ordinance No. 32399-031395 Ordinance No. 32400-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32401-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MF'P:sm ~lty ~l~rk~ Offlo~ City of Roanoke, V~r~lnl~ March 17, 1995 George C. Snead, Jr., Director Public Scffety Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Snead: I am attacking copy of the following measure that pertc~ns to your directorate: Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Mondc~/, M~ch 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Eric. City Olerk~e Offloe Olty of Floenoke, V~rglnle March 17, 1995 Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director Humcm Development Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Radcliffe: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your directorate: Budget Ordinance No. 32395-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, p~,~ MW F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. C~lty C~lerk'~ Offloe OItv (~ Roeenoke. Vll-glnlm March 17, 1995 Robert F. Hyatt, Manager City Nursing Home Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Hyatt: I ~u~ attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32395-031395 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you hc~ve questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk City Clarke Offlo~ City of Roanoka, Virginia March 17, 1995 Billy W. Southall Acting Fire Chief Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Southall: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertcfins to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Eric. Olty Clerl~a, Offloe City of FlomnoKe, Virginia March 17, 1995 M. Emily Keyser Acting City J2brarian Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Keyser: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Ml:'P:sm Enc. OIty OlerlCm Offloe Olty of Roanoke, Vlrglnlel March 17, 1995 William F. Clark, Director Public Works Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Clark: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your directorate: Budget Ordinance No. 32396-031395 Resolution No. 32397-031395 Budget Ordingnce No. 32398-031395 Ordinance No. 32399-031395 Ordinance No. 32400-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32401-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Mondcrff, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm City Clerl~e Offloe city of R~llnoke, Vlrglnlll March 17, 1995 William L Smart, Manager Streets and Tr~fic Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Stuart: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertcfins to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32401-031395 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mca'y F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Olty Olerk~e Offloe Olty of Roenoke. Vlrglnl~ March 17, 1995 Charles M. Huffine City Engineer Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Huffine: Iarn attaching copy of the following measures that pertc~in to your department: Budget Ordlncmce No. 32398-031395 Ordinance No. 32399,031395 Ordinance No. 32400-031395 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ~,'~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm City ClerlL~ Offlo~ City of Roanoke, Vlrglnl~ March 17, 1995 Ellen $. Evans Construction Cost Clerk Roanoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Evans: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to the Engineering Department: Budget Ordinance No. 32398-031395 Ordinance No. 32399-031395 Ordinance No. 32400-031395 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. ?arker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Olty OlePl('l Offloe O~ d I:loelnoke, Vl~llnle March I7, 1995 Kit B. Kiser, Director Utilities crud Operations Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Kiser: ! ~u** attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your directorate: Budget Ordinance No. 32398-031395 Ordinance No. 32399-031395 Ordinance No. 32400-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm (~lty (~lttrlC80ffloe City of Roanoke, Vlrglnlal March 17, 1995 Chccles A. Harlow Acting Grants Monitoring Administrator Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Harlow: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertcfin to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32396-031395 Resolution No. 32397-031395 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk City C~l~rl~ Offl~ C~lty of Roanoke, Vlrglnl~ March 17, 1995 John R. Marlles, Chief Planning and Community Development Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Marnes: I ~un attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32396-031395 Resolution No. 32397-031395 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Enc. pc: Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Mart,ha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Olty C Imf'k'm CIt~ of ROlMlokE,, VII,glnlm March i7, 1995 John W. Coates, Manager Parks, Recreation and Grounds Maintenance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Coates: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. C~lty Oler~m OIty of Rolmok®, Vlrglnlm March 17, 1995 Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager Utility Line Services Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Perdue: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertains to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Mondcrff, March 13, 1995. If you h~ve questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm City C~l~,r'k'~ Offlo~ ~lt~ of I~omnol~m. Vl~lnlm March 17, 1995 Robert J. Agnor, Manager Cormnunications Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Agnor: I ~un attaching copy of the following measure that pertc~s to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Mondc~/, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm OIt~ ~ Rol~lolr*~,, VIrglnlm March 17, 1995 Patsy A. Bussey, Clerk Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Rognoke, Virginia Dear Ms. Bussey: I ~n attaching copy of the following measure that pertcfins to your department: Budget Ordinance No. 32402-031395 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ~.~.~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. C#Y of Floanoke~ VIr~llnla March 17, 1995 M. Craig Sluss, Manager Water Department Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Sluss: I am attaching copy of the following measure that pertc~fns to your department: Ordinance No. 32400-031395 The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Mondc~y, March 13, 1995. ' se do not hesitate to call me. If you have questions, plea Sincerely, ~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm OIt~ 0 I~k'm Olty of Romnokm, Vlfglnll~ March 17, 1995 D. Darwin Roupe, Manager General Se~wices Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Roupe: I am attaching copy of the following measures that pertain to your department: Budget Ordincmce No. 32398-031395 Ordinance No. 32399-031395 Ordinance No. 32400-031395 Budget Ordinance No. 32401-031395 The abovereferenced measures were adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. If you have questions, please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, ~° ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Roanoke. Virginia 24003 C703) 981-2721 REt. -., February 10, 1995 MAYO': Honorable Mayor and City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of City Council: I am pleased to report to you that the Roanoke City Jail has been "unconditionally certified', by the Board of Corrections. "Unconditionally certified" means the jail was found to be in 100% compliance with all State standards for the operation of local jails as established by the Board of Corrections. By law, the auditors from the Department of Corrections must inspect the jail and its operations every 3 years to ensure compliance with the 107 State ~tandards. This year, the auditors spent three days, February 1-3, 1995, inspecting our jail from top to bottom and could not find any problems in the management or operation of the jail. (Note: This certification should not be confused with our national accreditations by the American Correctional Association and the National Commission on Correctional Health Care, American Medical Association.) Since this State certification process began back in 1981, the Roanoke City Jail is probably the only jail in Virginia which has always received a 100% rating on every audit performed from then until now. With regards, I am Sincerely, W. Alvin Hudson Sheri f f WAH/gm pc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Office of the Mayor OF ROANOKE cITY Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this thirteenth day of March nineteen hundred and ninety-five. WHEREAS, WH~, Arc Roanoke, Inc., is a charitable, no~profit corporation; and Arc is committed to limiting the consequences of mental retardation and related disabilities through public education, direct assistance and advocacy on behalf of citizens afflicted with those conditions; WHERE', Arc has been dedicated to providing employment opportunities and employment training for citizens with mental retardation and related disabilities since 1951 in order to assist in maximizing independence vocationally, socially and financially; and Arc employs approximately 205 persons with mental retardation and related disabilities, providing products, services and employees for corporations in the Roanoke Valley; and WllEREA~, Arc transports approximately 50 persons daily to its services and other locations in the Roanoke Valley which are not served by Valley Metro and RADAR; and WHF_.RF.A$, Arc is the oldest member of the National Arc Association in Virginia and is a Partner Agency with the United Way. NOW, THF_.REFORE, I, David A. Bowers, Mayor of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, do hereby proclaim, throughout the City of Roanoke, March, 1995, as ARC ROANOKE, INC., MONTH. ATTEST: MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk March 17, 1995 File #327 Dr. Robert F. Roth, President Roanoke Sister Cities 501 Balsam Drive, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Dr. Roth: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32394-031395 expressing the intent of the City of Roanoke to enter into a new Sister City relationship with the City of Florian6polis, Santa Catarina, Brazil; authorizing negotiations with the proper City ofr~cials of the City of Florian6polis and other parties to establish a Sister City relationship and a cultural exchange program between our two Cities; and authorizing the Mayor of the City of Roanoke to execute any required agreements on behalf of the City. Resolution No. 32394-031395 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. pc: David K. Lisk, Director, Roanoke City Coordinator, Roanoke Sister Cities, 909 Carrington Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy C y Clerk March 17, 1995 File #327 The Honorable S6rgio Jos6 Grando, Mayor City of Florian6polis Prefeitura Municipal de Florian6polis Rva Almirante Alvin, No. 491 - Centro 88015-380 - Florian6polis, Santa Catarina, Brazil Dear Mayor Grando: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32394-031395 expressing the intent of the City of Roanoke to enter into a new Sister City relationship with the City of Florian6polis, Santa Catarina, Brazil; authorizing negotiations with the proper City officials of the City of Florian6polis and other parties to establish a Sister City relationship and a cultural exchange program between our two Cities; and authorizing the Mayor of the City of Roanoke to execute any required agreements on behalf of the City. Resolution No. 32394-031395 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. Sincerely, ~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 13th day of March, 1995. No. 32394-031395. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION expressing the intent of the City of Roanoke to enter into a new Sister City relationship with the City of Florian6polis, Santa Catarina, Brazil; authorizing negotiations with the proper City officials of the City of Florian6polis and other parties to establish a Sister City relationship and a cultural exchange program between the two Cities; and authorizing the Mayor to execute any required agreements on behalf of the City. WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke has participated Cities program for more than thirty years and established Sister City relationships with Wonju, Kenya, and Pskov, Russia; in the Sister has previously Korea, Kisumu, WHEREAS, the City's participation in this program has resulted in a warm friendship between this City and its Sister Cities and promoted international understanding; WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke was honored by the presence in the City from February 10, 1995, through February 14, 1995, of a delegation from Florian6polis, Santa Catarina, Brazil, consisting of The Reverend Renan Massambani, Mr. Jo~o Rosa, Mrs. Regina Rosa, Mrs. Maria Pereira and The Reverend and Mrs. Richard Schisler; WHEREAS, the delegation brought greetings and gifts from The Honorable S~rgio Jos~ Grando, Mayor of the City of Florian6polis; WHEREAS, it has been suggested that the City of Roanoke and the City of Florian6polis should enter into a Sister City relationship; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and Council of the City of Roanoke desire to endorse a new Sister City relationship between the City of Roanoke and the City of Florian6polis, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Roanoke, as follows: 1. The City of Roanoke through Santa Catarina, Brazil; Council of the City of its City Council hereby expresses with the implement 2. its intent to enter into a new Sister City relationship City of Florlan6polls, Santa Catarlna, Brazil, and a cultural exchange program between the two Cities. In implementing a Sister City relationship with the City of Florian6polis, Santa Catarina, Brazil, the Mayor and other officials of the City of Roanoke shall negotiate with the proper officials of the said City of Florian6polis and the Mayor shall be authorized to execute, for and on behalf of the City of Roanoke, any required agreements or other documents which shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 3. The Mayor, City Council and the people of the City of Roanoke send their warmest greetings to Mayor Grando, the governing body of Florian6polis and the people of Florian6polis. ATTEST: City Clerk. 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 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1594 Telephone: (703) 981-2444 March 13, 1995 The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1- 344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Sincere. ly, ~.~ David A. Bowers Mayor DAB: se DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1594 Telephone: (703) 981-2444 March 8, 1995 The Honorable Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: I read with interest in the Wednesday, March 8, 1995, edition of the Roanoke Times & World-News efforts by the Roanoke City School Board to raise teachers' salaries in the City schools to be more comparable with salaries of teachers in our neighboring Roanoke County School System. That is great! However, the article also indicated that the County School Board may soon raise salaries in that jurisdiction so that County schoolteachers may again be paid higher than City teachers. In the spirit of valley cooperation and for the good of taxpayers in both jurisdictions, it seems that we have an unique opportunity this year, or at least within a multi-year cycle, to initiate uniform valley-wide schoolteachers' salaries in the City and in the County. We should not have a City system that competes with the County system in this regard. As I have indicated, the real competition is Greensboro, Hampton Roads, and Fairfax, not our good neighbors in Roanoke County. The efficient way to run our government, in my opinion, is to initiate uniform valley-wide schoolteachers' salaries. On another matter, I would like to know whether or not the County School Board and the City School Board have met (as the Planning Commissions have just done), as requested earlier by the Roanoke City Council. I would request that this letter be placed on the Consent Agenda for our next meeting of City Council, and thereafter be referred to the joint City Council/School Board budget meeting in May. Sincerely, David A. Bowers Mayor DAB: jas DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1594 Telephone: (703) 981-2444 March 9, 1995 The Honorable Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Please find enclosed the "Action Alert" dated February 24, 1995, from The United States Conference of Mayors. We should all be very concerned about the significant cuts proposed in the Federal budget which could negatively and directly impact programs in the City of Roanoke. In particular, may I call to your attention proposed cuts in CDBG "Section 8" rental subsidy vouchers, the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, the summer youth job training program, funding for dislocated worker retraining (which might affect the Fifth District Employment Consortium), environmental funding, Amtrak funding, and homeless assistance. I join with most Americans in believing that our Federal budget should be balanced, but we should also be quite aware that tax cuts or further cuts in services by the Congress may affect municipalities, like Roanoke, throughout the nation. I would respectfully request that this matter be placed on the Consent Agenda for the next meeting of Council, and thereafter be received and filed. Best personal regards. Sincerely, David A. Bowers Mayor DAB :jas Enclosures SENT BY; XEROX Tele¢opien 7017; 2-24-95 ; 7:agPM ; 2022938063~ VZA SUREFAX;# 2 THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF MAYORS 162 B EYtl STI~gT, N O P-.THWv'E $ T WAS1KIN OTON, D,C. 20Q06 T~LI~PHONE [202) 293.7330 I~AX {202) 293.2352 ACTION ALERT TO: From: Subject: February 24, 1995 The Meyoi~l~l~ill~ ~ r J, Themes I~ochren, Executive Directo House Resc,~sion$ Package The House is moving forward on a package of Fiscal Year 1995 rescissions which would drastically reduce funding previously appropriated by Congress. The proposed funding cuts have been approved by the subcommittees of the House Appropriations Committee and are to be packaged by the full committee next week. House Appropriations Committee Chair Robert Livingston (LA) has said he expects tho package to total approximately ~17 billion. Of this total, $? billion would be used to offset the costs of an upcoming emergency supplemental spending bill which will pay for relief efforts associated with the 1994 Los Angeles earthquake -- even though emergency assistance Is not required to be offset by budget reductions -- and for othsr domestic items. The remaining amount may be used either to reduce the deficit or to pay for proposed tax cuts, if 1;hose cuts are enacted, there would be no summer youth slots this year or next yeer, The Community Development Block Grant program would receive a cut of appro;;:,,,mately 8%, The Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program would be eliminated in FY96, The program which helps provide housing for AiDS patients would be ,;liminated, The urban parks program would be eliminated, es would funding e?proprlated to help offset a previously unfunded federal mandate, the Safe Drinking Water Act, For key programs of Interest to cities, the attached chert shows the previously approved funding levels for the current fiscal year and the proposed cuts in these programs. Among the cuts included In the package: o ¢?.3 billion from the Department of Housing and Urban Development --- a nearly 22 percent reduction in the HUD budget. This includes a $349 million cut in CDBG -- approximately 8% of the $4.6 billion appropriated, a $2,7 billion cut in "Section 8" rental subsidy vouchers, a ~465 million cut in housing preservation subsidies, ~90 million from the lead paint removal program, 81,2 billion from public housing modernization, and the termination of the $186 million Housing SENT BY: XEROX Te!ecopiec 7017; 2-24-95 ; ?;39PM ; 2022939063~ VIA SUREFAX;~ 3 OFportuni'.:.~ for People with AIDS program. Interestingly, the HOME program was not cut. o The ~:,Imination of the summer youth job training program for both 1995 and 1996. Thi: cut would amount to ~867 million in FY95 and ~871 million In FY96, o A $3~0 million cut in funding for the year-round youth training program. This includ::'~ $200 million in cuts already proposed in a separate rescission bill Which will 't3 used to pay for military expenses. o A ~9.3 million cut in funding for dislocated worker retraining. o The ;limlnation of all funding -- $481.9 million -- for the Drug Free and Safe Schoois and Communities program. o Thai ~limlnation of several crime prevention grants authorized ~nd under the ~994 crime bill including $26.§ million from HHS efforts and $11.1 from the Dep~.;;ment of Education, s $27.8 million cut in Drug Courts, e~d the eliminatloc of the Ounce of Prevention program -- $1.5 million -- and the Do~ostic Violenc~ ~tline -- $1.0 million. o A ~ ,3 billion cut in environmental funding for grants to st~; to est::,b;ish a ~afe drin',~;;g water loan program. o Th~ elimination of the Low Income Home Energy Assistance ?;';;J~,;, FY96, a c~t of $1.319 billion, o $700 million in cuts affecting the Department of Transportation, includes ~351 million from the Federal Highway Administration's emer?.~;¥ relief accounL ~77 million from grants to new transit systems, $55 ml:::an from grants ~or Iocc! ~us programs, and $7.8 million from Amtrak's Northeas'~ Corridor improve~-~ont Program. o A ~26 million cut in the Women, Infants and Children pro§r~m. o Th~ elimination of ail funding -- t~7.5 million -- for the Urban Par~ ccc Recreaticr~ Recovery Program, o A "210 million cut from the total $577 mtllion approprlat~ ;~;' th,~ national servlcc ,~,-ogram, o A ~1 3 million cut in Ryan White CARE Act funding and a t~23 mihiu~ out in CDC fu~:;s for HIV prevention, o A delay until September 30, 1995 for $297 million In homo',~ss funding. -2- SENT BY: XEROX Tele¢opJer 9017; 2-24-95 ; ?:40PM ; 20229390834 VIA SUREFAX;¢ 4 Coal*fence staff and I met with the Washington Representetives of the mayors today in an emergency meeting, and we are working together to keep you informed 3,-d to develop a strategy as we represent your Interests on Capitol Hill, As '"3 send you this memo, we understand that the next step on the r6scissior? package will be full House Appropriations Committee action, which is expected next week. Below is a list of the committee members. As ',"~u express your concerns to members of the Appropriations Committee, ~,nd all members of the House, please copy us with any correspondence (fx: 202/?'3-23F~2). ttou~e Approprlationa Committee Phone: 202-225-2771 m Room: H-218 Capitol Republicans (32) ~lob Livin~ton, lst. LA, (~alr loseph M. McDade, 10th-PA John T: C.W. Bill' YounS, 10th-FL Ralph ResuJa, 16th-OH Jerry Lewis, 40th-CA John Edward Porter, lOth-IL Harold Rog~r~, Sth-KY Joe Skeen, 2nd-NM Frank R. Wolf, 10th-VA Tom DeLay, 22nd-TX Jim Kolbe, Sth-AZ Barbara F. Vucanovich, 2nd-N~ Jim Ui~hEoot, 3rd.lA £on Packard, 4Sth-CA Sonny Callahan, 1st-AL James T. Welsh, 2$th-NY Charles H. Taylor, 11th-NC David Hobson, ?th-OH Ernest jim Is~ok, 5th-Ol( Henry Bonllla, 23tel-TX Joseph KnoUenberg, 1 IthoMI Dan Miller. 13th.FL Jay Dickey, 4th. AR Jack Kingston, 1 st-GA Frank RIBp, 1 st. CA Rodney Frelin~huysen, 11th-NJ Roser Wicker, 1st-MS Michael Forbes, 1 st-NY Georse Nethercutt, Sth-WA Jim Bunn, Mark Neumann, I st-Wi Democrat~ (24) David R. Obey~ 7th-W1, Sidney R. Yams, 9th-IL Louis Stokes, 1 Ith-OH Tom Bevill, 4th~AL John P. Mutlha, 12th-PA Chades Wilson, 2nd-TX Norman D. Dicks, 6th-WA Martin Olay Sabo, sth-MN Julian C. Dixon, 32nd-CA Vic Fazio, 3rd-CA W.G. (Bill) Hefner, 8th-NC Steny H. Hoyer, 5th-MD Richard J. Durbln, 20th4L Ronald D. Coleman, 16th-TX Alan a. Mollohan, 1 st. WV Jim Chapman, 1st-TX Marcy Kaptur, 9th-OH David £. '~kas~s, 2nd-CO Nancy Pelosi, 8th. CA Peter J. Visclo~ky, I st-IN Thomas M. Fosiietta, 1st-PA Esteban ~dward Torres, 34th.CA N[ta M. Lowey, 18th.NY Ray Thornton, 2nd-AR -3- 02/2~/95 19:06:07 -> ?B3 981 294fl Hagnr Bouera SENT BY; XEROX Telecopieff 7017; 2-24-95 ; 7:40PM ; FY 1¢9~ App~a~o~ 20229390~e FY 1995 Proposed Cut Pa§e S VIA SUREFAX;# 5 Ryaa White/X~)S C~ Act pro,mn A~DS prCV.~ u/cducauo Community Development Block Grant Le, ad-bltsexl ~,~!?,~ program Housing Oppomml~s fm P~opl~ with AIDS. Public Ho~i.S Public Housinf: Opemfin~ Subsialos Scvc~ly Di.~tr~sed Public Housing * i~ludcs c',~t in FY94 tim&ag lnzremeutaI Recital Asalstaac~ Transit- Sec,5ou 3 Discn:tiomxy * except f~: ~17 millioain mmarmat~d FY95 bus fealding, all cuts ~ prc-l~94 funds ~'gb Training Adult job 5 at:th job tr..lag (year tmmd) S:,mm~r yes,th program oe'j.mmer youth * ~96 I~. Dlspi~cd ,,,, ?'~:¢r pm~ Sch~l-to-w~rk YOU~ F~r O~*s~ job t~g craters ~nman Low Ixmome }lomc Energy A~lstalml Program * advanced fending for FY96 ~ducation School-to-wc::k program ~. g Control Drug Fmc and Safe Schools and Communities Crime Bill prevention programs: - I-IHS (2om~anity Schools - Dqaarmq:t~t of Education CommtmRy Schools - Drug Courm $633 $4.600 $100 $186 $3,700 $2,900 $500 $2,786 $1,725 $I,054.8 $598.7 $867 $871 $13 $23 $90 $186 $!,157 $%4 $598 * $2,694 $134' $33.0 $3~0.0 $867 $~71 * $1,296 $99.3 $125.0 $12,5 .' $24.8 $?~.8 $120 $12 $1,319 $115,6 $481.9 $26.5 $11.1 $29.0 $1.319 * $4gi,9 $26.5 $11.1 $27.8 SENT BY; XEROX ¥~le¢opier 7017; 2-24-95 ; ?:~IPM i 2022959063~ Page VIA SUREFAX;# - 'Otm¢¢ of :-- ~ntlon - Domestic ' ':-'~nce HoQJ~e Sa~'~ Drink. i: ",%ter Loans Urban Parks ,~' Rec~afion Recovery Program V¢:crans Homeless Sob T~a~nJng _Arts and H ~ N~_fional t~vd-,~nent for the Hunmai6¢s Natio~l and Conmlu~ky Service Women, I~ants al~ Chil~¢n FY 1995 FY 1995 Appropriations Proposed Cat $1,5 $1.5 $1.0 $1,303 $1,303 $?,5 $7.~ $~.0 $5.~ $1,110 $297 $110 $168.0 $5.~ $177,0 $5/: $577 $310 $3,470 $2~ -2- MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H, EAKIN Deputy City Clerk March 17, 1995 File #15-110-304 Thomas H. Miller, Chatrperson Youth Services Citizen Board 3429 Windsor Road, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 Dear Mr. Miller: This is to advise you that Carolyn Word has qualified as a member of the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term ending May 31, 1996. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm pc: Marion Vaughn-Howard, Youth Planner Sandra H. Eakin, Deputy City Clerk Oath or Affirmation of Office Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit: I, Carolyn Word, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Youth Services Citizen Board for a term ending May 31, 1996, according to the best of my ability. So help me God. Subscribed and sworn to before me this ~ day of ~) 1995. ART~, B. CRUSH, III, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1594 Telephone: (703) 981-2444 March 8, 1995 The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: On June 30, 1995, there will be two vacancies on the Roanoke City School Board, for terms commencing July 1, 1995, and ending June 30, 1998. Pursuant to Chapter 9, Education, Section 9-17, Candidate's Application, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the deadline for receipt of applications is Friday, March 10, 1995. To date, I am advised by the City Clerk that only two applications have been filed. While I am confident that both individuals are qualified applicants, I am concerned that the matter has not received sufficient publicity in order to generate the desired response. After conferring with the City Attorney, I am advised that the Members of Council may legally extend the deadline for receipt of applications, and I have requested that the City Attorney prepare the proper measure. Therefore, I recommend that the deadline will be extended for a period of two weeks and that applications will be received by the City Clerk until 5:00 p. m., on Friday, March 24, 1995. Your favorable consideration of the appropriate measure will be appreciated. Best personal regards. Sincerely, David A. Bowers Mayor DAB:mg 1995 CANDIDATES FOR THE POSITION OF SCHOOL BOARD TRUSTEE Reverend C. Nelson Harris Martin D. Jeffrey Melinda J. Payne SCHOOL BOARD SELECTION PROCESS Council will hold an informal meeting (reception) which will be open to the public with all candidates for school trustee in the Lobby of the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W. You are cordially invited to attend the reception. Date to be announced. On Monday, March 27 at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, Council as a Committee of the Whole, will review and consider all candidates for the position of school trustee. At such meeting, Council shall review all applications filed for the position and Council may elect to interview candidates for such positions. Unless otherwise advised, it will not be necessary for you to be present. On Monday, April 10 at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, Council will, by public vote, select from the field of candidates, those candidates to be accorded the formal interview and all other candidates will be eliminated from the school trustee selection process. The number of candidates to be granted the interview shall not exceed three times the number of positions available on the Roanoke City School Board, should there be so many candidates. It will not be necessary for you to be present. On Monday, April 24 at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, Council will hold a public hearing to receive the views of citizens. It will not be necessary for you to be present. On Thursday, April 27 at 6:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, Council will hold a meeting for the purpose of conducting a public interview of candidates for the position of school trustee. On Monday, May 8 at 3:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, Council will hold an election to fill the two vacancies for terms commencing July 1, 1995, and ending June 30, 1998. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE amending §9-17, Candidate's application, of Article II, Procedure for election of school trustees, of Chapter 9, Education, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to provide for a one-time extension of the deadline for the filing of applications for the office of school board trustee; and providing for an emergency and an effective date and termination date of this ordinance. WHEREAS, City Council seeks to encourage a large field of well-qualified candidates for the office of school board trustee; THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. This ordinance amends and supersedes §9-17, Candidate's application, of Article II, Procedure for election of school trustees, of Chapter 9, Education, Code of the City of Roanoke, with respect only to the date by which candidates for school board trustee shall file their application with the City Clerk. 2. With respect to applications for the office of school board trustee required by ~9-17, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to be filed by March 10, 1995, notwithstanding ~9-17, the deadline for the filing of such applications shall be extended to March 24, 1995. 3. This ordinance, being of one-time application and of a temporary nature, shall not be codified. municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, ordinance shall be in full force and effect retroactive 10, 1995 . 5. This ordinance shall expire, without any action of City Council, by its own terms on June 30, 1995. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the and this to March ATTEST: City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKEt VIRGINIA The 13th day of March, 1995. No. 32395-031395. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1994-95 Nursing Home and General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the city of Roanoke, an emergency exist. is declared to THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1994-95 Nursing Home and General Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Nursina Home Fund Appropriations Operating Expenses Contractual Services Retained EarninGs Retained Earnings - Unrestricted General Fund ApDrooriations Nondepartmental Transfers to Other Funds Fund Balance (1) .......................... (2) ................ $ (3) ........................ Reserved Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program - City 1) Fees for Professional Services (009-054-5340-2010) 2) Retained Earnings- Unrestricted (009-3336) (4) ............ $ 70,000 (25,000) $ 1,732,106 93,085 16,281,252 49,213,823 48,188,685 1,282,143 March 13, 1995 95-07 Honorable Mayor and Member of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: Subject: Roanoke City Nursing Home I. Background on the subject in chronological order is: The Roanoke City Nursing Home has been in operation at its current location at Coyner Springs since August 1958. The current building was constructed in 1939 to house a tuberculosis sanitarium, and is 56 years old. Annual maintenance costs for the facility have averaged $79,000 annually, and the facility is in good condition now. Because of the facility's age, however, future facility maintenance and improvements needs are numerous. The facility does not meet current State standards for new nursing homes. The facility is operated financially as an Enterprise Fund, with the General Fund providing local tax dollars to subsidize the difference in operating revenues (Medicaid reimbursements and patient payments) and operating expenditures. Medicaid reimbursements have been a substantial source of funding for the nursing home's operations because a high percentage of patients are Medicaid eligible. State action in 1982 to limit the amount of Medicaid reimbursement to private and local government-operated nursing homes resulted in a $192,000 reduction in Medicaid revenues collected. Medicaid revenues for the nursing home have never recovered to pre-1982 levels. The amount of local tax dollars required to support the home's operations in Fiscal Year 1994,95 is $440,750. II. Current situation is: Construction of a new nursing home facility will be necessary at some point in the near future if the City continues to operate the home as a City department. The estimated cost of a new facility is three million dollars ($3,000,000), the equivalent of a ten cent increase in the real estate tax. The amount of local tax dollars required to support the home's operations will continue to grow because of the limits placed on Medicaid reimbursements, since a large percentage (92%) of the home's residents are Medicaid eligible. An internal staff team was formed in 1994 to study the two major concerns of facility condition and a growing local tax subsidy, and identify options for addressing them. The staff team included representatives from the following departments: 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Director of Human Development Nursing Home City Attorney Director of Finance Management and Budget Personnel Management Alternative service delivery_ options identified by the team include: Continue to operate the nursing home as a City department and build a new nursing home facility at an estimated cost of three million dollars ($3,000,000); Hire a professional nursing home management firm to operate the nursing home with the City still being responsible for building a new facility; Operate the nursing home under a non-profit corporation or commission with the corporation or commission being responsible for building a new facility; and Allow a private developer/operator to build a new facility and provide the service. The primary issue determined by the team is whether the City needs to remain in the nursing home business, particularly with the rising local tax dollar subsidy, the need to construct a new facility and, typically, the availability of nursing home space at other nursing homes in the Roanoke Valley for anyone needing care. The team's primary recommendation was to consider proposals from private developers or operators interested in constructing and operating a new nursing home if they could meet the following criteria: 1. Offer all existing patients the option to transfer to the new facility; and Offer all existing employees the option to transfer to the new facility and protect their jobs and compensation to the extent possible. Based on analysis of these proposals, the best method of delivering nursing home service can then be determined. The team also recommended, based on research of how other localities have successfully managed the transition fi.om public to private service delivery, that the City Attorney be authorized to retain special counsel to help navigate through the very complex State laws and regulations, including Medicaid regulations, that must be complied with in such a transition. The estimated cost of such assistance is $70,000. III. Issues in order of importance are: A. Timing B. Funding IV. Alternatives in order of feasibility are: City Council concur in the continued study of the alternative service delivery methods identified by the team for the nursing home, and appropriate $70,000 for legal assistance so that the option of allowing a private developer/operator to construct and operate a new facility can be fully explored. Timing - approval oft[ds request would allow the study project to move ahead expeditiously so that a final recommendation can be made before the end of the fiscal year. Funding is available in Nursing Home retained earnings ($25,000) and the portion remaining of the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program ($45,000). City Council not concur in the continued study of the alternative service delivery methods identified by the team for the nursing home, and not appropriate $70,000 for legal assistance so that the option of allowing a private developer/operator to construct and operate a new facility can be fully explored. Timing - the study project would not move ahead expeditiously so that a final recommendation can be made before the end of the fiscal year. Funding would continue to be available in Nursing Home retained earnings ($25,000) and the portion remaining of the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program ($45,000). Recommendation is as follows: City Council concur in the continued study of the alternative service delivery methods identified by the team for the nursing home, and appropriate $70,000 for legal assistance so that the option of allowing a private developer/operator to construct and operate a new facility can be fully explored. Appropriate $25,000 fi'om Nursing Home Fund retained earnings and $45,000 from the Fiscal Year 1993-94 Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program balance remaining to account 009-054-5340-2010 in the Nursing Home Fund. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager COl Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney James D. Gfisso, Director of Finance Glenn D. Radcliffe, Director of Human Development R. F. Hyatt, Nursing Home Administrator Barry L. Key, Manager, Management and Budget SHOULD CARE OF ELDERLY RESIDENTS BE PROFITMAKING? AS a family member of a resident residing at Roanoke City Nursing Home, a volunteer at this facility, and a part of the "Roanoke City Nursing Home Family" which is a benefit found in very few facili- ties of this type, I would like to address the decisions which the Roanoke City Council, City Manager, and City Team are presently facing. We are speaking of the home of 58 elderly residents. When did our elderly residents become profit making statistics? It may be a fact that Roanoke City Taxpayers are subsidizing the Nursing Home Operation but if there is a problem with this, are we also going to stop subsidizing welfare recipients, homeless shelters, and other needs in the area? Why should our elderly residents be the target? These residents are taken care of by a unique quality of employees who genuinely care and are not just performing needed duties. They go above and beyond their call of duty for these residents who receive exceptional care not found in many larger facilities of this type. A new fancy facility might look better, a larger facility might produce more revenue, but what happens to the personal and caring treatment these residents are presently receiving? The tears that were shed when the residents were informed of this change tells us that they do not want the fancy facility and the large institutional atmosphere. They do not want their home uprooted and their family torn apart. This family atmosphere would not exist in a 100 or 150 bed facility. If each decision making citizen would drive up on this hill when these residents are out on the patio having a cook-out or picnic, enjoying the gorgeous view of the mountains, and breathing the clean and fresh air, I think they would think twice before taking these privileges away from them. What a beautiful sight this is! The view of buildings, cars, people, and congestion, can in no way compare either in scenery or in health risks. I hope each decision making member will take a good hard look at this situation from a humane point of view and consider all recipients of subsidies from taxpayer dollars, and think about the fact that the city is not in the nursing home business because care and welfare of elderly residents should not be a business but a nonprofit obligation to its elderly citizens. After all, these residents were at one time taxpayers! GALA B. ELLIS RT. 1, BOX 17A MONTVALE, VIRGINIA 24122 703-9472322 Work(703-9472311) cc: Roanoke City Nursing Home MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy Cit;* Clerk March 17, 1995 File # 178-200-236 Neva J. Smith Executive Director City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority 2624 Salem Turnpike, N. W. Rocmoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Ms. Smith: I ~, enclosing copy of Resolution No. 32397-031395 authorizing the appropriate City officials to enter into Amendment No. 2 to the Community Development Block Grant Subrecipient Agreement between the City and the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority dated September 23, 1994, upon cerk~n terms and conditions. Resolution No. 32397-031395 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 13th day of March, 1995. No. 32397-031395. A RESOLUTION authorizing the appropriate City officials to enter into Amendment No. 2 to the Community Development Block Grant Subrecipient Agreement between the City and the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, upon certain terms and conditions. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and attest, respectively, on behalf of the City, in form approved by the City Attorney, Amendment No. 2 to the Community Development Block Grant Subrecipient Agreement dated September 23, 1994, between the City and the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, as more particularly set forth in the report to this Council dated March 13, 1995. ATTEST: City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 13th day of March, 1995. No. 32396-031395. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1994-95 Grant Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT Roanoke that certain Appropriations, be, to read as follows, ORDAINED by the Council of the City of sections of the 1994-95 Grant Fund and the same are hereby, amended and reordained in part: Appropriations Community Development Block Grant FY94 Housing FY94 (1) ................................. Unprogrammed CDBG (2-5) .......................... Community Development Block Grant FY95 Housing FY95 (6) ................................. Unprogrammed CDBG (7) ............................ $ 2,877,561 705,761 16,531 3,067,491 507,671 463 1) Gainsboro Enhancement II 2) Unprogrammed CDBG-Williamson Road Garage 3) Unprogrammed CDBG-Other 4) Unprogrammed CDBG-Home Purchase Program 5) Unprogrammed CDBG-RRHA 6) Gainsboro Enhancement II 7) Unprogrammed CDBG-Other (035-093-9320-5009) (035-093-9340-5182) (035-093-9340-5189) (035-093-9340-5192) (035-093-9340-5197) (035-094-9420-5009) (035-094-9440-5189) $ 108,011 (20,436) (32,099) (10,082) (45,394) 66,776 (66,776) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: this City Clerk. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Roanoke, Virglnia March 13, 1.995 .' 95-08 SUBJECT: I. Background: Amendment No. 2 to the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Contract for Services with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) A. Projects associated with the Gainsboro Conservation/Redevelopment Plan are among the variety of CDBG funded programs administered by the (RRHA). City Council approved a Contract for Services with the RRHA for the administration of these activities in the current fiscal year on August 8, 1994, by Resolution No. 32137- 080894 and City Council has approved Amendment 1 to this contract on November 28, 1994, by Resolution No. 32262-112894. The Gainsboro Enhancement Project II is a program addressed in the current contract - to assist the city with a project to relocate, rehabilitate and resell two (2) structures previously located behind the Hotel Roanoke at 42 and 56 Wells Avenue, N.E. to 12 and 18 Gilmer Avenue, N.E. Relocation is complete. The funding amount in the current contract for this project is $178.295. This includes $162.152 for project costs and $16,143 for staff support costs. II. Recommendation for this pro_iect was originally made by the Roanoke City Planning Commission as part of the Commission's review of the Wells Avenue Redevelopment Project. The two structures also have historical value and are important to the Gainsboro Community. Current Situation: Bids were opened for the rehabilitation of the two structures located at 12 and 18 Gilmer Avenue, N.E. by the RRHA on February 2, 1995. Two (2) bids were received. The RRHA recommends awarding the bid to the lowest bidder, Building Specialist, Inc. for a lump sum of $219.300. Their bid was $17.200 lower than the other bid received. B. An additional $16.000 will be required for landscaping and weatherization of the structures. These services were not included in the bid. C. There is a current balance of $60.513 remaining in the RRIIA's Gainsboro Enhancement II project account. An additional $174,787 is needed to complete the project. III. Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 2 D. City Council authorized the appropriation of program income from the RRHA and other Miscellaneous accounts to Unprogrammed CDBG accounts on February 27, 1995 by Ordinance No. 323930-022795. E. An amendment is necessary_ to the CDBG Contract for Services with the RRHA to increase the project budget for the Gainsboro Enhancement II project accounts from $178.295 to $353.082 for the completion of this project which includes the rehabilitation, weatherization and landscaping of the properties located at 12 and 18 Gilmer Avenue, N.E. Issues IV. A. Cost to the City B. Funding C. Timing D. Compliance with a_nplicable regulations Alternatives A. Authorize the City Manaeer to: i. Execute Amendment No. 2 to the CDBG Contract with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. ii. Transfer the following amounts totaling $108.011 from the CDBG accounts listed below to Gainsboro Enhancement II Account No. 035-093-9320-5009: 035-093-9340-5182 $20,436 035-093-9340-5192 10,082 035-093-9340-5197 45,394 035-093-9340-5189 32.099 $108,011 iii. Transfer $66.776 from the CDBG Account No. 035-094-9440-5189 to Gainsboro II Account No. 035-094-9420-5009. 1. Cost to the city_ will be $174.787 in additional CDBG funds. It is expected that approximately $100.000 in program income will be generated upon the sale of these two structures and returned to the city after the rehabilitation is completed. 2. Funding totaling $174,787 is currently available in the above Unprogrammed accounts and may be appropriated to the Gainsboro Enhancement II accounts. Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 3 Timing is important. The Gainsboro Enhancement II Project is scheduled for completion as soon as possible, following the upcoming opening of the Hotel Roanoke/Conference Center. The project is located in an area targeted for improvement by the Gainsboro Coalition. The bid, which has already been extended once, will expire March 17, 1995. Compliance with applicable regulations is assured through contract review and project monitoring by the city's Office of Grants Compliance. Completion of this project will enable the RRHA to be able to sell these homes to low or moderate income persons which will enable this project to meet the CDBG Broad National Objective required by HUD. B. Do not authorize the Ci_ty Manager to execute Amendment No 2 to the CDBG contract with the RRHA and to transfer the needed funds. 1. Cost to the city will be in lost tax revenues. Two potential homeowners would not be able to purchase these rehabilitated homes and move into the area. 2. Funding would not be expended. The properties would not generate program income to be returned to the city. 3. Timing could be adversely affected. The bid, which has already been extended once, will expire March 17, 1995. Compliance with applicable regulations may not be met. as these homes are to be sold to low or moderate income persons before the project will meet the CDBG Broad National Objective required by HUD. Recommendation It is recommended that City Council concur in Alternative A and authorize the City Manager tO: A. Execute Amendment No. 2 to the CDBG contract with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and B. Transfer the following amounts totaling $108,011 from the CDBG accounts listed below to Gainsboro Enhancement II Account No. 035-093-9320-5009: 035-093-9340-5182, $20,436 035-093-9340-5192, 10,082 035-093-9340-5197, 45,394 035-093-9340-5189 32.099 $108,011 Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 4 C. Transfer $66,776 from the CDBG Account No. 035-094-9440-5189 to Gainsboro II Account No. 035-094-9420-5009. WRH/lss Attachment Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager CC: James D. Ritchie, Assistant City Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney James D. Grisso, Director of Finance William F. Clark, Director of Public Works John R. Marlles, Chief, Planning and Community Development Charles A. Harlow, Grants Monitor Ms. Neva Smith, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority Amendment No. 2 to 1994-1995 CDBG Contract for Services THIS AMENDMENT, entered into this day of March, 1995 by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE (Grantee) and the CITY OF ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY (Subgrantee). WHEREAS, the Grantee and the Subgrantee have, by a Contract for Services under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, dated September 23, 1994, contracted for the provision of certain services by the Subgrantee in relation to the implementation of the City's CDBG program; and WHEREAS, by Resolution No. adopted by City Council on has, and by Resolution No. ., adopted on ~ the Commissioners of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority have authorized the execution of this amendment to the contract dated September 23, 1994, such amendment to provide for an increase in the funds available for Gainsboro Enhancement II. NOW, THEREFORE, the Grantee and the Subgrantee do mutually agree to amend: Part I, Section B, subsection 4, to read as follows: Gainsboro Enhancement II - The Subgrantee shall rehabilitate and resell two (2) structures previously located at 42 and 56 Wells Avenue, N.E. CDBG funds available for this purpose total $336,939. Program delivery costs for this activity shall not exceed $16,143. Total program cost is $353,082. The Agreement shall remain unchanged in all other terms and provisions. 1N WITNESS WHEREOF, the Grantee and Subgrantee have executed this amendment as of the date first written above. ATTEST: CITY OF ROANOKE Mary F. Parker, City Clerk By W. Robert Herbert City Manager ATTEST: CITY OF ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSiNG AUTHORITY By Neva J. Smith Executive Director Appropriation and Funds Required for this Contract Certified: See attached exhibit CDBG Amendme~ P~e2 Date: Approved as to Form: Approved as to Execution: Approved as to CDBG Eligibility: Fiscal Year 1995 RRHA Contract Amendment No. 2 Quick Response to Emergencies TOTAL QUICK RESPONSE/EMERG Quick Response to Elderly TOTAL QUICK RESPONSE/ELDERLY Operation Paintbrush TOTAL OPERATION PAINTBRUSH Gainsboro Enhancement II TOTAL GAINSBORO ENHANCEMENT Gainsboro Professional Park TOTAL GAINSBORO PROF PARK Home Support TOTAL HOME SUPPORT Henry Street Improvements TOTAL HENRY STREET Deanwood Industrial Park TOTAL DEANWOOD Shaffers Crossing Phase I TOTAL SRAFFERS CROSSING Hotel Roanoke Redevlop TOTAL HOTEL ROANOKE RRHA General Administration TOTAL RRHA GEN ADMINISTRA Private Loan Program TOTAL PRIVATE LOAN PROGRAM CDBG PROGRAM TOTALS Account Numbers 035-094-9410-5076 035-094-9420-5203 ....... CDBG FUNDS ...... Total Project Admin/Support CDBG Funds -- 35,000 90,000 90,000 35,000 035-094-9410-5002 -- 035-094-9420-5003 90,000 90,000 035-094-9410-5048 -- 035-094-9437-5102 37,115 37,115 035-092-9220-5009 18,964 035-093-9320-5009 181,199 035-094-9410-5008 -- 035-094-9420-5009 136,776 336,939 035-092-9220-5011 39,420 035-092-9230-5011 15,000 035-093-9330-5011 19,404 035-094-9410-5007 -- 035-094-9420-5011 41,111 114,935 035-094-9410-5000 035-093-9337-5151 20,949 035-094-9410-5046 -- 035-094-9437-5151 79,051 100,000 035-094-9410-5001 -- 035-094-9430-5020 11,804 11,804 035-092-9230-5145 8,774 035-094-9410-5047 -- 8,774 035-094-9410-5049 035-094-9410-5035 125,000 35,000 35,000 125,000 14,888 14,888 52,003 16,143 16,143 353,082 13,999 13,999 128,934 035-092-9220-5105 155,669 155,669 155,669 8,000 8,000 108,000 12,000 12,000 23,804 8,001 8,001 16,775 -- 6,000 0 6,000 6,000 -- 75,000 0 75,000 75,000 8,274 8,274 8,274 797,841 379,700 1,177,541 LS\95RRHACD.AM2 MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536 Telephone: (703) 981-254l SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk March 17, 1995 File #20-77-468-514 John H. Lararnore, President Lar~unore Construction Co., Inc. P. O. Box 1656 Danville, Virginia 24543 Dear Mr. Larcanore: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 32399-031395 approving the City Manager's issuance of Change Order No. 4 to the Cites contract v~th Laramare Construction Company, Inc., in connection with Carvins Cove Filter Plant Improvements - Phase II, Contract A-2, in the amount of $169,074.65, for a total contract amount, including Change Order No. 4, of $1,711,250.65. Ordinance No. 32399-031395 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a rec3~ar meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Enc. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The I3th day of March, 1995. No. 32399-031395. AN ORDINANCE approving the City Manager's issuance of Change Order No. 4 to the City's contract with Laramore Construction Company, Inc., in connection with Carvins Cove Filter Plant Improvements - Phase II, Contract A-2; and providing for an emergency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is authorized and empowered to issue, for and on behalf of the City, upon form approved by the City Attorney, Change Order No. 4 to the City's contract with Laramore Construction Company, Inc., in connection with Carvins Cove Filter Plant Improvements - Phase II, Contract A-2. 2. Such Change Order shall provide for the following changes in the work to be performed: ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 CHANGE ORDER NO. 3 CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 Delete 3000 LF 36" watermain ~$122.00 per LF Add 3000 LF 36" watermain ~162.22 per LF Add 4-36" 45° bends ~$5,100.00 each Additional rock excavation 500 CY~ $56.00 per CY TOTAL AMOUNT OF CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 $1,469,735.00 2,771.00 69,195.00 475.00 $ (366,000.00) 486,474.65 20,400.00 28,000.00 $ 169,074.65 CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING CHANGE ORDER NO.4 $~ ADDITIONAL TIME REQUIRED FOR CHANGE ORDER NONE 3. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 13th day of March, 1995. No. 32398-031395. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of 1994-95 Water Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. the WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1994-95 Water Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Capital Outlay Carvins Cove Phase II Contract B-2 (1) ............ Carvins Cove Phase II Contract A-2 (2) ............ (1) Appropriated from Bond Funds (002-056-8370-9001) $ (96,000) (2) Appropriated from Bond Funds (002-056-8373-9001) 96,000 $ 32,415,648 2,575,054 1,712,709 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. March 13, 1995 Council Report No. 95-118 Honorable Mayor, and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: Subject: CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 CARVINS COVE PHASE II CONTRACT A-2, LARAMORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. Backqround on the subject in chronological order is as follows: A. On March 7, 1994, City Council accepted a bid submitted by Laramor¢, Construction Company, Inc. for the Carvins Cove Phase II water main project, Contract A-2. B. Work was started on the project as of May 23, 1994. II. Current situation is as follows: The proiect extends a water main from Williamson Road at Plantation Road southward to Florist Road near Verndale Drive. The plans prepared by Dewberry & Davis propose an alignment for a portion of the new pipeline to follow on the western side of Williamson Road (Route 11) between Greenway Drive and Manor Drive. The proposed corridor is located in a public right of way crowded with existing underground utilities and difficult terrain. These conditions eliminate use of the proposed corridor without costly utility relocations. Since these utilities are located in the state-owned right of way, the cost of relocation would be the responsibility of the City. The estimated cost to relocate these utilities is approximately $225,000. All other alternatives routes would require the acquisition of additional easements across private property. B. City staff and the consultant have met several times with the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) to gain approval for laying the proposed pipeline under the existing southbound lane of Route 11. This new alignment has been approved by VDOT. The new alignment requires restoration of pavement and maintenance of traffic during construction not anticipated in the original bid. Change Order No. 4, in the amount of $169,074.65 provides for all work items associated with the changed alignment as detailed below. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 CARVlNS COVE PHASE II CONTRACT A-2, LARAMORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. March 13, 1996 Page 2 Delete 3000 LF 36" watermain @ $122.00 per LF Add 3000 LF 36" watermain @ $162.22 per LF Add 4 - 36" 45° bends @ $5,100.00 each Additional rock excavation 500 CY @ $56.00 per CY 9(366,000.00) 486,674.65 20,400.00 28,000.00 Total 9 169,074.65 Current funds were encumbered in the original contract amount of $1,469,735.00 for this contract. Original Contract Amount Change Order No. 1 Change Order No. 2 Change Order No. 3 Proposed Change Order No. 4 $1,469,735.00 2,771.00 69,195.00 475.00 169,074.65 New Contract Amount 91,711,250.65 III. Issues in order of importance are as follows: A. Funding B. Cost C. Schedule IV. Alternatives in order of feasibility are as follows: A. Approve Change Order No. 4 to the contract with Laramore Construction Company, Inc., in the amount of 9169,074.65. Funding in the amount of 996,000.00 is available in account number 002-056-8370-9001, Carvins Cove Phase II Contract B-2, and may be transferred to account number 002-056-8373-9001, Carvins Cove Phase II Contract A-2. Funds remaining in the Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 CARVINS COVE PHASE II CONTRACT A-2, LARAMORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. March 13, 1995 Page 3 project contingency can be used to fund the remainder of the proposed change order. 2. Cost is fair and reflects current market conditions. 3. Schedule for completion will be accomplished. Do not approve Chanqe Order No. 4 to the contract with Laramore Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $169,074.65. Funding remains available in the project contingency fund. Cost is not an issue. Schedule will be delayed. Recommendation is as follows: City Council concur in alternative "A" and take the following actions: Authorize the execution of Change Order No. 4 in the amount of $169,074.65 to the contract with Laramore Construction Company, Inc. Transfer $96,000.00 from account number 002-056-8370-9001, Carvins Cove Phase II Contract B-2 to account number 002-056-8373-9OO1, Carvins Cove Phase II Contract A-2. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/PCS/kh Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CHANGE ORDER NO. 4 CARVlNS COVE PHASE II CONTRACT A-2, LARAMORE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC. March 13, 1995 Page 4 CC: City Attorney City Clerk Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Utilities and Operations Assistant to City Manager for Community Relations City Engineer Construction Cost Technician Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets Budget Administrator MARY F. PARKER, CMC/AAE City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 -1536 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy Cit3, Clerk March 17, 1995 File #468-514 Aaron J. Conner, President Aaron J. Conner General Contractor, Inc. P. O. Box 6068 Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Mr. Conner: I tun enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 32400-031395 approving the City Manager's issuance of Change Order No. 2 to the Ci~s contract with Aaron J. Conner General Contractor, Inc., in connection with Carvins Cove Filter Plant Improvements - Phase II, Contract B-2, in a credit mount of $261,255.79, for a total contract amount, including Change Order No. 2, of $2,095,093.61. Ordinance No. 32400-031395 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, March 13, 1995. Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:sm Eric. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 13th day of I~arch, 1995. No. 32400-031395. AN ORDINANCE approving the City Manager's issuance of Change Order No. 2 to the City's contract with Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc, in connection with Carvins Cove Filter Plant Improvements - Phase II, Contract B-2; and providing for an emergency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager is authorized and empowered to issue, for and on behalf of the City, upon form approved by the City Attorney, Change Order No. 2 to the City's contract with Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc., in connection with Carvins Cove Filter Plant Improvements - Phase II, Contract B-2. Such Change Order shall provide for the following changes in the work to be performed: ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT CHANGE ORDER NO. 1: $ 2,473,685.40 $ (117,336.00) CHANGE ORDER NO. 2: Various adjustments for changes to plans to meet field conditions and operational needs as more specifically set forth in Attachment A to the City Manager's report. $ (261,255.79) CONTRACT AMOUNT INCLUDING CHANGE ORDER NO.2 $ 2,095,093.61 ADDITIONAL TIME REQUIRED FOR CHANGE ORDER NONE 3. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Honorable Mayor, and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of City Council: Subject: CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 CARVlNS COVE PHASE II CONTRACT B-2 (CREDIT) Roanoke, Virginia March 13, 1995 Report No. 95-119 Backqround on the subject in chronological order is as follows: A. Acceptance of a bid submitted by Aaron J. Conner General Contractor, Inc. for Carvins Cove Phase II, Contract B-2, was made by City Council on June 28, 1993. B. Work was started on the project as of October 7, 1993. II. Current situation is as follows: The project extends a water main from the vicinity of Hollins Road at the Norfolk Southern Railroad southward generally following Hollins Road to Orange Avenue. Several changes to the plans have been needed to meet field conditions and operational needs. A listing of additions and credits is included as attachment A. The net effect of all changes is a credit in the amount of $261,255.79. Work on the project is complete except for minor punch list items. Current funds are encumbered in the amount of $2,473,685.40 for this contract. 1. Original contract amount $2,473,685.40 2. Change Order No. 1 ($117,336.00) 3. Proposed Change Order No. 2 ($261,255.79) 4. New Contract amount $2,095,093.61 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 CARVINS COVE PHASE II CONTRACT B-2 March 13, 1995 Page 2 III. Issues in order of importance are as follows: A. Funds B. Cost IV. Alternatives in order of feasibility are as follows: A. Approve Chanqe Order No. 2 to the contract with Aaron J. Conner General Contractor, Inc, in the credit amount of $261,255.79. 1. Funds will be made available for other projects. 2. Cost is reasonable and reflects current market conditions and contract prices. B. Do not approve Change Order No. 2 to the contract with Aaron J. Conner General Contractor, Inc., in the amount of $261,255.79 1. Funds remain encumbered in the project contract. 2. Cost is not an issue. V. Recommendation: City Council approve Alternative "A" thereby authorizing the execution of Change Order No. 2 in the credit amount of $261,255.79 to the contract with Aaron J. Conner General Contractor, Inc. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/PCS/fm Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 CARVINS COVE PHASE II CONTRACT B-2 March 13, 1995 Page 3 CC: City Attorney City Clerk Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Utilities & Operations Manager, Water Department Assistant to the City Manager for Community Relations City Engineer Construction Cost Technician Accountant, Contracts and Fixed Assets Budget Administrator Manager, General Services Attachment A ATTACHMENT A CONTRACT B- 2 ITEM 16" Tapping Valve Loudon Ave. 16x8, 8x8 tap 12x12 tap in Courtland Rock @ Carver & williamson Leftover Structures 2" water line 12" water line 16" water line 24" water line 2" ball valve w/ manhole 6" gate valve 8" gate valve 12" gate valve 16" butterfly valve w/vault 12" combination air vacuum valve 24" combination air vacuum valve 12" blow off valve 16" blow off valve 24" blow off valve Steel Encasement Tunnelling 6" ductile sanitary 8" ductile sanitary 10" ductile iron sewer 12" ductile sewer 16" ductile sanitary 30" ductile iron sewer Standard Manholes Rock UNIT COST 1 $ 8,087.00 1 3,236.71 1 2,759.08 1 4,108.25 1 4,243.69 1 (33.20) 215 (72.05) 456.5 94.35 1,398.37 (96.80) 1 (432.15) 1 (592.00) 1 692.00 2 1,035.00 2 (4,850.00) 2 (1,674.00) 7 (2,690.00) 4 (2,100.00) 3 (2,400.00) 16 (4,500.00) 90 (710.00) 61 956.00 224 54.50 334.5 56.50 120 (58.50) 115 70.00 8O (130.00) 20 (5O0.00) 1 1,440.00 9,O55 (0.O2) TOTAL TOTAL 8,087.00 3,236.71 2,759.08 4,108.25 4,243.69 (7,138.00) (32,890.00) 2,028.53 (135,362.22) (432.15) (592.00) 692.00 2,070.00 (9,700.00) (3,348.00) (18,830.00) (8,400.00) (7,200.00) (72,000.00) (63,900.00) 58,136.00 12,208.00 18,899.25 (7,020.00) 8,050.00 (10,400.00) (lO,000.00) 1,440.00 (iS1.10) IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF RO~-NOKE, VIRGINIA The 13th day of March, 1995. No. 32401-031395. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1994-95 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, Government of the exist. Roanoke Appropriations, be, to read as follows, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to THEREFORE, BE that certain IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of sections of the 1994-95 General Fund and the same are hereby, amended and reordained in part: General Fund Appropriations Public Works $ 21,228,404 Snow Removal (1-3) ................................. 211,966 Nondepartmental 49,106,948 Contingency - General Fund (4) ...................... (473,512) 1) Overtime Wages 2) FICA 3) Chemicals 4) Contingency (001-052-4140-1003) $ 15,000 (001-052-4140-1120) 1,025 (001-052-4140-2045) 45,850 (001-002-9410-2199) (61,875) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. March 13, 1995 Council Report No. 95-120 The Honorable David A. Bowers, and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Mayor Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members: Subject: Snow Emergency Operations - January and February, 1995 I. Background: Major snow and ice storms occurred in the Roanoke Valley on January 6, 7, 28, 29 and February 1, 4, 15, 1995. These storms deposited nearly 12 inches of snow and ice accumulation at the Roanoke Regional Airport. Bo 1994-95 Budget includes $110,120 for snow and ice removal from the City streets and rights-of-ways, for overtime salaries, supplies, and chemicals; other operating accounts are used for regular salary and equipment costs. II. Current Situation: City employees have returned to their regular duties at this time. Bo Approximately 1,878 hours of reqular time and 2,925 hours of overtime has been expended plowing and spreading salt and abrasives on streets, keeping equipment in service, etc. This salary cost to date has been approximately $57,084. City equipment has operated more than 3,353 hours. Cost of fuel, parts, and supplies to date is in excess of $4,925. 2,255 tons of rock salt and abrasives have been spread on streets & bridges. The values of these products has been more than $101,938. Eo Total cost to the City for snow and ice removal efforts so far this season has been approximately $163,947. III. Issues: A. Supplies and Materials. B. Funding. Mayor Bowers and Council Members Page 2 IV. Alternatives: City Council authorize the transfer of $45,850 from the General Fund Contingency Account No. 001-002-9410-2199 to the Snow Removal Budget. Supplies and Materials can be restored to a comfortable level in anticipation of more wintery weather this season, or preparation for next year. Fundinq is available in the General Fund Contingency Account. Bo City Council not authorize the transfer of $45,850 from the General Fund Contingency Account No. 001-002-9410- 2199 to the Snow Removal Budget. Supplies and Materials could not be restocked, and we would soon be completely out of salt and abrasives to spread on icy streets and bridges. 2. Funding would remain available in the existing accounts. Vo Recommendation: City Council approve Alternative A, authorizing the transfer of $45,850 from the General Fund Contingency Account No. 001- 002-9410-2199 to the following Snow Removal account. Chemicals No. 001-052-4140-2045 45,850 Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH:WLS:rla pc: Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. James D. Grisso, Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIR(~INIA The 13th day of March, 1995. No. 32402-031395. AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the 1994-95 General, Capital Projects and Utility Line Services Funds, and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to exist. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1994-95 General, Capital Projects and Utility Line Services Funds, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: General Fund A o 'ations Public Safety $ 32,470 Fire Operations (1) ................................ 9,803 Parks, Recreation and Cultural 5,046 Libraries (2) Public Works ...................................... 1,993 21,316 Parks Maintenance (3). 3,638 Communications (4) .... ~[~[~[~[~[[~[[[ 2,069 Nondepartmental 49,170. Transfers to Other Funds (5) ....................... 48,145 Fund Balance 526 612 322 525 529 440 826 833 695 Reserved Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program - City (6) ..................... 1,006,838 Canital Progects Fund A ro r'ations Judicial Administration J & DR Court Renovation (7) ........................ Utility Line Service- A o iat'ons Capital Outlay (8) ................................... 33,210 33,210 385,730 Retained Earninas Retained Earnings Unrestricted (9) ................................... $ 1,641,762 1) (001-050-3213-2035) $ 40,295 2) (001-054-7310-9015) 38,000 3) (001-052-4340-3005) 75,000 4) (001-050-4130-9015) 75,000 5) Expendable Equipment Other Equipment Project Supplies Other Equipment Transfer to Capital Projects Fund (001-004-9310-9508) 2,010 6) Reserved CMERP - City (001-3323) (230,305) 7) Appropriated from General Revenue (008-052-9687-9003) 2,010 8) Other Equipment (016-056-2626-9015) 25,277 9) Retained Earnings- Unrestricted (016-3336) (25,277) BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Vlrglnla March 13, 1995 Report No. 95-314 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: SUBJECT: Fund Appropriations I. Background on the subject in chronological order is: The General Fund Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program has identified needs and projects for various City Departments. The items identified are needed for the continued efficient and effective performance of assigned responsibilities and support for various City projects. A listing of the items identified in this request for Fund Appropriations is shown on Attachment "A" of this report. Ail items listed on Attachment "A" will be procured in accordance with the procurement section of the Code of the City of Roanoke. II. Current Situation is: It is necessary for City Council to appropriate Funds from the General Fund Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program to provide for the purchase of those items listed on Attachment "A". III. Issues in order of importance are: A. Need B. Funding C. Timing IV. Alternatives in order of Feasibility are: Fund Appropriations Page 2 City Council aDDropriate $255,582.00 to various City Department accounts to provide for the appropriation of items listed on Attachment "A" of this report. Need for requested items has been justified to allow for effective and efficient continued performance of assigned duties and projects by those departments listed. Fundinq totalling $255~582 is available in the General Fund Capital Maintenance and Equipment Programs and Utility Line Services Prior Year Retained Earnings account. Timinq will allow the requested items to be procured in the most efficient fashion. B. City Council not appropriate $255~582 to various accounts. Need for the acquisitions of necessary items and services would not be addressed in this alternative. Fundinq for needed requested items would not be expended at this time. Timinq in the acquisition of needed equipment and services would not be accomplished in the most expedient manner. Recommendation is that City Council concur with Alternative "A" and appropriate $255,582 as follows: $230~305 from General Fund Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program as follows: 1. $40~295 to Fire Department account 001-050- 3213-2035 2. $38~000 to Library account 001-054-7310-9015 3. $75~000 to Parks and Grounds Maintenance account 001-052-4340-3005 $2~010 to Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court Capital account 008-052-9687-9065 Fund Appropriations Page 3 cc: 5. $75~000 to Communications Department account 001-050-4130-9015 $25,277 from Utility Line Services Prior Year Retained Earnings account to Utility Line Services account 016-056-2625-9015 Respectfully Submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager City Clerk City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Utilities & Operations Director of Public Works Director of Public Safety Director of Human Resources Management & Budget Attachment "A" Fire 170 Self Contained Breathing Apparatus Mask $40,295 Library Microfilm Readers/Printers 38,000 Parks and Grounds Maintenance City Wide Reforestation Program - Phase I Repair Ballfields 25,000 50,000 Utility Line Services Skid Steer Loader for Warehouse Storage in Pipe Lot 25,277 Juvenile and Domestic Relation~Court Court Renovations 2,010 Communications Telephone replacement equipment for City Jail, Personnel Department, Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and Building Inspections 75t000 Total DAVID A. BOWERS Mayor CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE MAYOR 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 - 1594 Telephone: (703) 981-2444 March 17, 1995 File #467 Third Grade Students c/o Ms. Mercedes James Falrview ]ementary School 648 Westwood Boulevard, N. W. Rocmoke, Virginia 24017 Dear Boys and Girls: I ~u~, pleased to acknowledge receipt of your communications which were delivered to me by Council Member Delvis O. "Mac" McCadden on Monday, March 13, 1995. You made some very interesting statements and I especially enjoyed your drawings. Council Member McCadden advised that you hcrve inquired as to why people are permitted to smoke in publ/c restaurants, and by copy of this letter, ! will request that our City Attorney respond to your inquiry. I am enclosing a brochure for each of you that contc~s photographs of the Members of the Roanoke City Council and some other information that might be of interest about the City of Roanoke, along with a pin that I hope you will enjoy wearing. Best regards. Sincerely, Dcrvid A. Bowers Mayor DAB:sm Third Grade Students March 17, 1995 Page 2 pc: The Honorable Delvis O. McCadden, Council Member, 25 W. Church Avenue, Apartment One, Roanoke, Virgin/a 24011 E. Wcr:rne Harris, Superintendent of Roanoke City Public Schools Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney ', J .>- :. ":},: CITY OF ROANOKE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: December 14, 1993 Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mary F. Parker, City Clerk ..... Expansion of membership of the Mill Mountain Development Committee I am attaching a list of the membership of the Mill Mountain Development Committee. Currently, seven persons serve on the Committee pursuant to a communication from former Mayor Roy L. Webber under date of June 16, 1969. Mayor Webber's appointment of the Committee was concurred in by Council on June 16, 1969. Mayor Bowers has inquired if Council may expand the membership of the Mill Mountain Development Committee by one additional member. Your advice and assistance will be appreciated. MFP: sm Ene o MILL MOUNTAIN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE 39 Name M. Carl Andrews Elizabeth T. Bowles ** Frances S. Boon Carl H. Kopttzke Robert N. Fishburn Betty C. Winfree L. Thompson Hanes David A. Bowers, Mayor I.A. Term Endinq 6/16/69 1 year 6/30/94 7/13/92 6/30/94 11/23/87 1 year 6/30/94 1/21/86 1 year 6/30/94 6/16/69 1 year 6/30/94 2/1/82 1 year 6/30/94 7/13/87 1 year 6/30/94 Ex-Officio Member Chairman: PURPOSE: NOTE: INFORMATION M. Carl Andrews The purpose of the Mill Mountain Development Committee is to advise Council on the desirable method of developing Mill Mountain for the best advantage to the citizens of the City of Roanoke as to aesthetics and recreation. Council concurred in the appointments made by Mayor Webber on June 16, 1969. *I.A. denotes initial appointment **N.R. denotes non-resident (~of~16,1993) 425 ACTION: ACTION: COUNCIL: With respect to the Executive Session just concluded, Mr. Edwards moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Executive Session was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Musser and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Harvey, McCadden, Musser, White, Bowles, Edwards and Mayor Bowers ................ 7. NAYS: None ....................................... 0. OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-PARKS AND RECREATION: Mrs. Bowles moved that the membership of the Mill Mountain Development Committee be expanded by one additional member. The motion was seconded by Mr. McCadden and unanimously adopted. Mrs. Bowles placed in nomination the name of Ralph K. Smith as a member of the Mill Mountain Development Committee. There being no further nominations, Mr. Smith was elected as a member of the Mill Mountain Development Committee, for a term ending June 30, 1994, by the following vote: ACTION: FOR MR. SMITH: Council Members Harvey, McCadden, Musser, White, Bowles, Edwards and Mayor Bowers ........ 7. There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 10:25 p.m. APPROVED City Clerk Mayor WILBURN C. DIBMNG, JR. CITY A~rORNEY CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595 TELECOPIER: 703-224-3071 March 13, 1995 WILLIAM X PARSONS STEVEN J. TALEVI KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU GLADYS L. YATES ASSISTANT CIT~F ATTORNEYS The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: Modified election district system Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members: I understand that Council Member Wyatt will make the enclosed motion relating to the modified election district system at the Council meeting of March 13, 1995. For your information, I am enclosing my report of August 8, 1994, on this subject and the report of the Citizens Task Force to Study Alternative Election Procedures for Roanoke City Council, dated July 13, 1992. Should any member of City Council have questions on this important public issue, please do not hesitate to contact me. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney WCD:f Enclosure cc: Wo Robert Herbert, City Manager Mary F. Parker, City Clerk I move that City Council endorse a referendum in connection with the November 7, 1995, general election as to the issue of election of City Council members under a modified election district system. The City Manager and the City Attorney are requested to present alternatives for a modified election district system including, but not limited to: (1) a seven-member Council with four and five election districts; and (2) a nine-member Council with four, five and six election districts. The City Manager is requested to provide planning, demographic and statistical support required to divide the City into four, five and six election districts without dilution of minority voting strength, honoring the principle of one person, one vote, and observing other required legal principles. The City Attorney is requested to advise as to the applicable legal principles and the legal ramifications of each alternative. The City Manager and City Attorney may make such progress reports to Council as they deem appropriate and shall render their final report as to alternatives by June 12, 1995, in order that City Council may obtain citizen comment and select the Council's preferred alternative by July 31, 1995. WILSURN C. OlBtlNG, JR. CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUIL0~NG 215 CHURCH AVENUE. SW ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595 August 8, 1994 5.b, 1. The Honorable Mayor and Men~bers of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: City Council election procedures - proposal to adopt a modified election district system Dear Mayor Bowers and Members of Council: At the regular meeting of City Council held on July 11, 1994, several citizens addressed Council advocating the election of Council members under a modified election district system wherein five members of Council would be elected from districts (sometimes referred to as "wards") and the Mayor and Vice-Mayor would be elected at large. Council thereafter referred this matter to the City Attorney for review and report with respect to "all aspects" of the proposal. I am pleased to submit this opinion which attempts to address Council's broad request. QUESTIONS PRESENTED AND ANSWERS Is the City legally required to modify its current election procedures for City Council? ANSWER: No. 2. What legal principles must be adhered to in devising an election district system? ANSWER: The legal principles are summarized in Attachment A. May a referendum be held to determine the will of the elcctorate with respect to an election district plan selected by Council? The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 2 ANSWER: Yes, pursuant to Charter amendment procedures. Is a referendum required to change election procedures for City Council? ANSWER: No. What are the major procedural steps establishment of an election district system? in ANSWER: The major procedural steps are summarized in Attachment B. What alternatives are available to City Council in devising a new election district system? ANSWER: Some of the alternatives are summarized in Attachment C. Once an election district system is established, may Council thereafter revert back to a total at- large election system should the new system prove undesirable? ANSWER: No. DISCUSSION OF LAW Background Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, prohibits the "denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color." 42 U.S.C. ~1973(a). The Act is violated where the "totality of the circumstances" reveals that "the political processes leading to nomination or election...are not equally open to participation by members of a [protected class]...in that its memJ~ers have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice." 42 U.S.C. ~1973(b). In 1982, Congress amended Section 2 to make clear that a violation can be proven by showing discriminatory effect alone; no showing of intent to discriminate is required. Section 2 challenges to election practices usually allege that the practices "dilute" the voting strength of a minority group. The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 3 Generally, dilution of minority voting strength occurs where white and black voters regularly prefer different candidates and the existing election system permits the white voters, simply by virtue of their greater numbers, to regularly defeat the candidates supported by black residents. In the words of the Act, "[t]he extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the state or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered [in determining whether there has been vote dilution]". 42 U.S.C. S1973(b). Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act applies to Virginia and all of its localities as well as certain other jurisdictions throughout the country. This section requires that every change in voting laws and practices (no matter how small) must be "precleared" by the Department of Justice. Under Section 5, any change in City Council election procedures must be submitted to the Department and precleared before it can be put into effect to conduct an election. The legal standard to show compliance with Section 5 is proof that the change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." Section 2 and Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act are intertwined. Under the regulations governing the Section 5 preclearance process, the Department of Justice will deny preclearance if the proposed change constitutes a "clear violation of amended Section 2." The purpose of preclearance is "...to insure that no voting-procedure changes would be made that would lead to retrogression in the position of racial minorities with respect to their effective exercise of the electoral franchise." Beer v. United States, 425 U.S. 130, 138 (1976). Preclearance under Section 5, however, does not bar any later court challenge under Section 2. 28 C.F.R. S51.55 (July 1, 1989). Whether There is Any Legal Requirement That the City Modify its Current City Council Election Procedures City Council has requested that the City Attorney review and report with respect to "all aspects" of the proposal to change from Council's current election system to a modified election district system. Compliance with Council's direction requires consideration of whether there is any legal requirement that our current election system be changed. In Thornburg v. Glnqles, 478 U.S. 30 (1986), the Supreme Court of the United States stated that at-large electoral systems are not The Honorable Mayor of City Council August 8, 1994 and Members Page 4 per se illegal.' Furthermore, the language of amended Section 2 states that an electoral system's dilutive effect must be judged on the "totality of circumstances," and the extent to which minorities have been elected to office is one circumstance which may be considered in the "totality of circumstances". While recognizing that a Section 2 violation ultimately depends upon the "totality of circumstances", the Court set forth three threshold requirements that must be proven by a plaintiff to succeed in a dilution case. These requirements are as follows: That the minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact enough to constitute a majority in a single member district; 2. That the minority group votes cohesively; and That white voters vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidates. As to the first precondition, the minority group must be able to show at least a voting age majority in one election district that meets normal redistricting criteria and when compared with the other districts has no more than ten percent (10%) total population deviation. 1990 Census data establishes that the first precondition would be met within the City of Roanoke. Based on election returns considered as part of the Roanoke Metropolitan Government Section 5 Preclearance Submission (May 30, 1990), it appears that black citizens within the City may vote cohesively and, hence, the second precondition might be met. Whether the third precondition of Gingles could be met by plaintiffs attacking the City's voting procedures would be a key issue in any challenge. This condition requires that white voters vote (1) as a bloc (2) to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidates. The concept of "minority preferred candidates" was clarified by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in Collins v. City of Norfolk, 883 F.2d 1232 (4th Cir. 1989), cert. denied, 111 S.Ct. 340 (1990), which involved a challenge to an at-large election system for the Norfolk City Council. In Collins, the Court ruled that the election of a candidate who was supported by more than 50% of minority voters did not necessarily count as a minority electoral success if there were other candidates preferred by significantly higher percentages of the minority community who were not elected. 883 F.2d at 1238. Although the Norfolk case's definition of "minority preferred candidate" may complicate the defense of at-large systems, review of Roanoke election statistics would suggest that the third The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 5 precondition of Ginqles could not be met in our case. This City has a long history of black representation on City Council beginning with Dr. Noel C. Taylor's election to City Council in 1970. Moreover, there is considerable evidence to refute any allegation of racially polarized voting in the City. In 1976, Dr. Taylor was first elected Mayor when he received 37% of the white vote in a field of five candidates, outpolling three other white candidates. In 1980, no white candidate ran against Mayor Taylor notwithstanding the fact that the City was at this time approximately 78% white. Although he ran unopposed, 78% of the white voters still pulled the lever by his name. By contrast, the percentage of black voters supporting Dr. Taylor was only 9 points higher at 87%. In 1984, Mayor Taylor ran for reelection against one white candidate, a contest which should provide a reasonable indicator of electoral prospects of a black candidate in a head to head contest with an incumbent white City Council member. In that election, it is estimated that Mayor Taylor received 79.6% of the black vote and 68.6% of the white vote. This election provides strong evidence of the ability of a black candidate in this City to garner a large majority of white votes. In 1988, Mayor Taylor again ran unopposed receiving votes from 87.3% of the black voters turning out and 80.2% of the white vote. Minority electoral success in the City has not been limited to Dr. Taylor. In 1980, Dr. Wendell Butler was elected Vice-Mayor after winning the most votes in a field of six candidates in which he was the only black candidate. In 1990, william White, Sr., was elected to City Council, carrying 27 of 32 precincts. In 1992, Delvis O. "Mac" McCadden was elected to City Council, running third in a crowded field of six candidates. In 1994, Mr. White was reelected to City Council, running second in a field of five candidates in which he was the only minority candidate. These results demonstrate several things. First, a black candidate in Roanoke can win elections in head to head contests against white candidates even though black adults comprise only 21.8% of the voting age population according to the 1990 Census. Second, substantial pluralities and even majorities of white voters will vote for black candidates in contested elections. Previously discussed election results establish that there is strong evidence to defeat any allegation of racially polarized voting in this City. Thus, it would be extremely difficult for any challenger to the City's current electoral system to prove that white voters vote sufficiently as a bloc to usually defeat the minority's preferred candidates. Furthermore, the third precondition of Gingles cannot be met if there has been consistent achievement of "proportional or nearly The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 6 proportional" representation. 478 U.S. at 77. In Ginqles, the Supreme Court reversed the finding of vote dilution by the trial court as to one multi-member district where black voters, in each of six previous elections, had elected one of three members (33% of the representation) in a district in which they constituted 36.2% of the total population and 28.6% of the registered voters. In a case just decided by the Supreme Court on June 30, 1994, Johnson v. DeGrandy, __ U. S. __, 62 U.S.L.W. 4755, the Supreme Court revisited the proportionality issue. In this case, Hispanic and black voters in the Dade County area of Florida challenged Florida's reapportionment plan for the State's single-member Senate and House districts contending that the plan diluted the voting strength of Hispanics and blacks. Evidence established that Hispanics in the Dade County area could constitute a majority in eleven House and four Senate districts, but the Florida plan gave Hispanics only nine House and three Senate districts. As to black residents, evidence established that one more majority black Senate district could have been drawn. Although the Supreme Court recognized that the Florida plan had not maximized the number of minority districts, the plan had achieved substantial proportionality; therefore, the Court held that there were no grounds for holding that the Florida plan diluted the voting strength of minority voters. While proportionality is not dispositive as to dilution, the Court said, it is a relevant fact in the "totality of circumstances" Considering the "totality of circumstances" as to the City of Roanoke, a strong case can be made that the City's at-large voting system has no dilutive voting effect on black voting rights. According to the 1990 Census, the City's black voting age population is 21.8%. Yet, since 1990, black citizens have held 28.6% (2 out of 7) of the seats on City Council. From 1980 to 1984, black citizens also achieved representation of 28.6% although the 1980 Census indicated black voter age population of only 19.05%. Although black residents held only one of seven seats on City Council from 1984 to 1990, representation of 14.3% does not fall substantially short of black voter age population at the time. In any case, recent history establishes that a politically cohesive black community can elect its candidates to City Council in numbers proportional to black voting strength in the City at-large. A second decision of the Supreme Court of the United States announced on June 30, 1994, also supports the proposition that the City's current at-large system does not violate the Voting Rights Act. Holder v. Hall, __ U.S. , 62 U.S.L.W. 4728 (June 30, 1994), upheld a unique at-large voting system utilized in a small number of rural counties in Georgia. In these counties, a single commissioner is elected to perform all executive and legislative The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 7 functions. In 1985, the state legislature authorized the county to adopt by referendum a multi-member commission consisting of five members elected from single-member districts and a chairman elected at-large, but voters defeated the proposal. Thereafter, black citizens who comprised 20% of the eligible voting population of the county challenged the system alleging that it diluted black voting strength under the Voting Rights Act. Black voters sought to have the county broken up into five districts in which they would be assured of at least one majority-minority district. In analyzing whether the Gingles preconditions were met and whether the "totality of the circumstances" supported a finding of liability, the Court noted that it must find a reasonable alternative practice as a benchmark against which to measure the existing voting practice. The Court explained that, in order to decide whether an electoral system has made it harder for minority voters to elect the candidates they prefer, the Court must first have an idea of how hard it should be for minority voters to elect their preferred candidates under an acceptable system. Because the Court found no principled reason why one size governing body should be selected over another as a benchmark, the Court found no dilution, and, therefore, no violation of the Voting Rights Act. Significantly, Justice O'Conner explained in her concurring opinion that, in order for an electoral system to dilute a minority group's voting power, there must be an alternative system that would provide greater electoral opportunity to minority voters. 62 U.S.L.W. at 4732. In the case of the City of Roanoke, it is questionable whether there is any alternative electoral system that would provide fairer proportional representation for minority voters than the current system. In fact, under the five election districts/two at-large plan proposed at the Council meeting of July 11, 1994, minority voting strength could be diluted. According to the Report of the Citizens Task Force to Study Alternative Election Procedures (June 25, 1992), in a five election district system, two districts composed of a simple majority of approximately 50% to 53% black population could be drawn within the City. It is questionable whether such election districts would assure minorities that they could elect their desired candidates. Moreover, such election districts fall short of the "super majority" districts of 60% or more black population that would be sought by the Department of Justice in the preclearance process. In conclusion, available statistical data does not support the existence of racially polarized voting in this City. White voters do not vote as a bloc so as to usually defeat the mlnority's preferred candidates; therefore, the third precondition of the Ginqles test cannot be established. Moreover, the black community has achieved proportional representation on Roanoke City Council. The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 8 In order for the current system to dilute minority voting power, there must be an alternative system that would provide greater electoral opportunity to minority voters. Such system has not been proposed to City Council. Legal Principles to be Adhered To In Devising an Election District System If City Council desires to establish an election district system, then it has some latitude in the configuration of this system. Subject to several factors discussed below, the size of City Council could be increased or decreased, and all Council members could be elected from districts or a mixed system, including election districts and at-large seats, could be adopted. In any case, certain legal principles must be adhered to in devising a new election system. As previously noted, any change in City Council election procedures must be submitted to the Department of Justice for preclearance under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act. In the preclearance process, the City will be required to show that the change "does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color." While technically all that the Department of Justice requires in order to preclear an amended voting plan is that there be no "retrogression" in the opportunity for minorities to elect candidates of their choice, i.e., that minorities be no worse off than under the previous plan, Council will want to draft a plan that provides for proportional representation of black citizens. Anything less may not be precleared by the Department of Justice. Proportional representation generally requires that a minority group's representation on the governing body approximate the minority group's strength in the total community. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals has implied that approximate proportional representation should be measured against the minority group's "percentage of the total voting age constituency." McGhee v. Granville County, 860 F.2d 110, 116 (4th Cir. 1988). While there may be at-large seats as part of an election district plan, minority representation on the governing body will be measured against all seats rather than just the election district seats. For example, assuming a nine member Council with seven district and two at-large seats and minority population of 20% in a hypothetical community, then you would want to create two black majority districts out of the seven districts. Even though black citizens would have 28.6% of the election district seats (two of seven) under this scenario, they would only have 22.2% of the total seats The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 9 (two of nine). To provide for two of nine safe seats for black citizens on a nine member Council (22.2%) would provide proportional representation in our hypothetical community with a minority population of 20%. To draw less than two black majority election districts under this scenario would invite objection from the Department of Justice unless it could be shown that a black candidate would clearly win an at-large seat. In drawing election districts controlled by black citizens, the City should attempt to provide a "super majority" of black voters. This can be achieved by drawing districts that consist of approximately 60 to 65% black population to address a generally demographically younger black population, lower voter registration and lower voter turnout. Our City may have some flexibility here since a review of past election results in the City indicates a higher percentage of black registrants voting than white registrants. In devising a new election system for City Council, there are two principles that are preeminent and must always be observed. The first, already discussed, is that there shall be no dilution of minority voting strength. The second is that districts shall be drawn "...to give, as nearly as is practical, representation in proportion to the population of a district." Article VII, §5, Constitution of Virginia. This principle, of course, has reference to "one person, one vote." District plans with a total deviation of less than 10 percent between the most populated and least populated district are prima facie valid, and the case law suggests that localities should draw districting plans with the goal of substantial equality among districts and less than total deviation of 10 percent. See White v. Regester, 412 U.S. 755 (1973). The Constitution of Virginia also requires that districts should be composed of contiguous and compact territory. Article VII, S5. Contiguity requires that a district be one geographic unit and not composed of separated parts. Compactness is far more difficult to measure; case law, however, indicates that a lack of compactness is generally evidence of inappropriate gerrymandering. Election districts must also follow clearly defined and clearly observable features. Section 24.2-305, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. ("State Code"). Examples of clearly defined and clearly observable features are roads, highways, rivers, streams and other permanent features. In drawing district lines, population figures from the most recent decennial United States Census should be utilized. In our case, this requires the use of 1990 Census data. Census blocks should not be split in drawing district lines. Following Census The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 10 block boundaries makes it possible to use the Census counts to determine the population of the district and avoids the necessity to estimate the population in each part of any split block. Finally, in drawing district lines, every attempt should be made to accommodate "communities of interest" where such efforts will not violate any of the legal principles discussed above. House Resolution 57, adopted by the 1991 Session of the General Assembly, for purposes of redistricting the House of Delegates provides a helpful definition of "communities of interest" which is as follows: "...a recognizable area with similarities of interest, including but not limited to racial, ethnic, geographic, economic, social, cultural or historic interests, as well as commonality of communications and transportation links." In reviewing voting rights submissions, the Department of Justice typically considers whether the jurisdiction followed objective guidelines and fair procedures in adopting any change. In this regard, I would recommend that in drawing district boundaries, objective guidelines be adopted which can be demonstrated to have been adhered to in formulating the various districts. Finally, the Department of Justice is always interested in minority participation in the decision-making process as well as whether minority concerns were considered in making any change. Referendum Since Virginia is a state that observes the Dillon Rule, local government referenda (including advisory referenda) are not permitted unless expressly authorized by the General Assembly. Under S24.2-101, State Code, a referendum is a form of special election, and special elections are governed by S~24.2-682 and 24.2-684 of the State Code. According to its terms, ~24.2-684 supersedes any other provision of law, including any municipal charter. Section 24.2-684 provides, in pertinent part, as follows with respect to referenda: "No referendum shall be placed on the ballot, unless specifically authorized by statute or by charter." The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 11 Since the Charte~ of the City of Roanoke has no provisions relating to referenda except as to bonds, a referendum on new City Council election procedures is not permitted unless specifically authorized by State statute. Since no State statute specifically authorizes a referendum for the purpose of determining the electorate's opinion on an issue, an advisory referendum may not be held. A referendum for the purpose of approving a proposed Charter amendment establishing an election district system could be held. Establishment of an election district system would require amendment of the City Charter. Chapter 17, Governmental Charters, of Title 15.1, State Code, establishes two alternative procedures for amendment of municipal charters. See SS15.1-833 through 15.1- 835. The first procedure, requiring the conduct of a public hearing as to proposed Charter amendments after the text or an informative summary of any proposed amendment has been published in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten days in advance of the required public hearing, is the one that has commonly been used by the City and with which City Council is familiar. See S15.1- 835. The second procedure, which has not recently been utilized in this City, would permit the holding of a referendum with respect to a proposed Charter amendment. Specifically, S15.1-834 of the State Code permits a municipality to hold an election to determine if the qualified voters desire that the City Council request a certain amendment to the City Charter from the General Assembly. No referendum may be held under S15.1-834 except pursuant to Court order. See ~24.2- 684. The court order shall state the question to appear on the ballot and shall set the date for the referendum. See ~24.2-684. A referendum shall be ordered at least sixty days prior to the date on which it will be held. See ~24.2-682. At least ten days prior to holding of a referendum with respect to a proposed Charter amendment, the text or an informative summary of such amendment shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation. See §15.1-834. If the majority of qualified voters participating in such election support requesting the General Assembly to amend the Charter, then the City Council will request members of the General Assembly representing the City to introduce a bill at the next Session of the General Assembly. See ~15.1-834. Voter approval becomes null and void if a bill incorporating such Charter amendments is not introduced at the next succeeding Session of the General Assembly or, if at such Session, the General Assembly fails to enact or passes by indefinitely any voter approved amendments. See S15.1-834. In conclusion, it is one of the two alternative procedures available for amending the City Charter that authorizes a The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page t2 referendum as to City Council election procedures. Council may, of course, elect to utilize the commonly relied upon Charter amendment procedure that does not involve a referendum. No provision of State or Federal law mandates a referendum prior to the establishment of an election district system. If Council elects to hold a referendum with respect to a Charter amendment relating to City Council election procedures, the procedure followed will be similar to that utilized in the case of a bond referendum. City Council will recall that, with respect to bonds, City Council adopts an ordinance authorizing the bond issue and providing for its details, and then the qualified voters are asked whether they approve Council's ordinance. In the case of a referendum with respect to election districts, City Council would adopt an ordinance or resolution asking the General Assembly to make specifically enumerated amendments to the City Charter with respect to election procedures, and then the qualified voters would be asked whether they approve or disapprove the ordinance or resolution adopted by City Council. General questions may not be put to the electorate nor may the electorate be asked to select from multiple choices. Procedural Steps in Establishment Of Election District System Establishment of an election district plan would require thorough analysis of the 1990 Census data by planners, demographers and statisticians. The paramount issue in this analysis will be how to provide for proportional representation of black citizens on the new City Council, i.e. the percentage of safe black seats on the entire Council should approximate the percentage of black voters in the City at large. The proportional representation goal will drive the determination of number of election districts, as well as the total number of Council members. Once the number of election districts and size of Council have been determined, the next step in the development of a plan is the drawing of election district boundaries. The process of drawing election district boundaries is the quintessential political act. Planners, demographers and statisticians, however, will be very helpful in recommending districts that observe the one person, one vote principle; that provide for minority "super majorities" where required; that consider communities of interest; and that are compact and contiguous and follow clearly observable boundaries. The entire process leading up to approval of an election district plan by City Council should provide for full opportunity, through public notices, workshops and public hearings, for majority The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 13 and minority citizen participation and comment. Whether there has been full opportunity for black citizens to participate and comment will be the subject of Department of Justice scrutiny. The citizen participation process, which has been finely tuned in this City government and utilized in explaining a plan of governmental consolidation and in developing a comprehensive plan, should be useful in obtaining full participation of the entire community in making this fundamental decision. Of course, there are costs associated with this type of sophisticated citizen participation process, and Council will want to comsult with the City Manager in this regard. With the benefit of the recommendations of technical experts and citizen comments, City Council would then adopt a plan, including number of members of City Council, number of members elected from districts and the boundaries of the districts. The plan will take the form of a proposed Charter amendment which would be drafted by the City Attorney. If a referendum is to be held with respect to the proposed Charter amendment, the City Attorney will then obtain an order from the Circuit Court requiring the referendum and forward the order to the State Board of Elections. Such order must be entered at least sixty days in advance of the general election at which the referendum will be held. Section 24.2-682, State Code. As soon as the Circuit Court orders a referendum, the City Attorney will seek preclearance from the Department of Justice as to the timing and procedures surrounding conduct of the referendum. This initial preclearance deals primarily with the timing of the referendum; the Department of Justice will want to insure that the referendum is not being held at a time when minorities would not vote. Assuming approval by the electorate, the proposed Charter amendments would then be submitted to the General Assembly for approval. Section 4 of the City Charter would have to be amended, specifying the number of seats on City Council, the number of election district seets, the effective date of any change and the terms of Council members. Since the terms of City Council members are currently staggered, implementation of any new system would probably require that the terms of some members of Council be cut short. The final step would be Department of Justice preclearance of the plan as enacted by the General Assembly. Immediately upon the Governor's signing of the Charter amendments, a full Section 5 Voting Rights Submission, similar to that which was prepared in obtaining Justice Department preclearance of Roanoke Metropolitan Government election districts, would be submitted to the The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, ~994 Page 14 Department. Th~ Department has sixty days to act after it receives all information although it is not uncommon for this process to consume ninety to one hundred days when the Department requests additional information. A new Council election plan cannot be submitted to the Department of Justice until it has been approved by both City Council and the General Assembly. Section 51.22 of the Department's Section 5 regulations provides that the Attorney General will not consider the merits of any change affecting voting prior to its final enactment. Please note that the Department of Justice's review is not limited to the plan submitted by City Council; it is not unusual for the Department to insist on an alternative plan that the Department believes to provide for better minority representation. For the convenience of City Council and the public, Attachment B summarizes the procedural steps in the establishment of an election district system. Please note that the process could be expedited by elimination of the discretionary referendum with respect to the proposed Charter amendments. Please also note that it is not legally required that the boundaries of the election districts be drawn prior to any referendum; such boundaries need be drawn only prior to submission of the plan to the Department of Justice. If, however, the electorate is to vote with the benefit of all important relevant information about the plan, it is suggested that the election district boundaries should be drawn prior to any referendum. Of course, City Council is aware that the timing of many of the required steps is beyond the control of the City, i.e. when the General Assembly meets, how long the Department of Justice will require to preclear the submission of the plan and when elections fall. Election District Alternatives Subject to the legal principles discussed above, City Council has some latitude in the configuration of an election district system. As previously noted, the size of Council can be increased or decreased, and all Council members can be elected from districts or some can be elected from districts and some at-large. Attachment C shows twenty-four possible election district alternatives. No attempt has been made to eliminate politically unacceptable alternatives in preparing Attachment C. It is, of course, not all inclusive; there are many other alternatives. For example, multi-member districts although not generally favored by the Department of Justice have been approved in some special cases. Attachment C also relies upon considerable estimation. The primary purpose of the matrix is to illustrate the complexities of devising The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 15 a new election system as well as the myriad of alternatives available. As previously discussed, the Voting Rights Act prohibits Council from adopting any plan that dilutes the voting strength of the black community. This means that any plan should provide for proportional representation for black citizens. For example, if a city is one third black, then one-third of all seats on Council should be safe seats for black representatives (not one third of election district seats). The rule of thumb ordinarily applied by the courts is that a safe minority seat requires an election district that is 60 to 65% minority. Please note that out of the twenty-four election district alternatives, only 17 provide proportional representation for the black community using 1990 Census data. Six alternatives clearly fall short of providing proportional representation for the minority community. One alternative provides considerable over representation for the minority community. As to the remaining 17 alternatives, two relate to a five-member City Council, and nine relate to an eleven-member City Council. It is, of course, unlikely that there will be any significant sentiment to reduce the size of City Council. Moreover, to increase the size of City Council to as many as eleven members would seem unnecessary inasmuch as there is little likelihood of significant growth in the City's population in the immediate future. Thus, the alternatives entailing a seven member or nine member Council may be the most popular. Alternatives that provide for two majority black districts on a seven member or nine member Council provide approximate proportional representation for the black community (28.6% and 22.2%, respectively). Please do not overlook, however, the Department of Justice's insistence upon minority districts that consist of a super majority (60% to 65%) of minority population. While five election districts, as advocated by citizens to City Council, may produce two simple majority black districts, demographic data developed by the Citizens Task Force to Study Alternative Election Procedures for Roanoke City Council (June 25, 1992) suggests that the two minority districts would produce black voting strength of only 50% to 53%. The Task Force's report suggests that a six election district system would produce two districts which contain about 60% percent voting age minority residents and might be more acceptable to the Department of Justice. The Task Force further noted that, while a seven election district Council would provide for two election districts containing 60% to 75% voting age minority residents, a seven The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 16 election distric~ scenario does considerable damage to "communities of interests." In any case, it should be clear that configuration of new electoral procedures for City Council is enormously complex. Considerable opportunity must be allowed for minority participation, as well as majority participation, in the decision making process leading to City Council's selection of a plan. While demographers, statisticians and planners can be of considerable assistance to City Council, in the last analysis the difficult choices which will have to be made are political in nature. Reversion to At-Larqe System Several citizens, in addressing City Council, have suggested that City Council should "try out" an election district system; if the system proves undesirable, then the City can return to an at- large election system. Is the adoption of an election district system a grand experiment in democracy which can be reversed should the new election district system prove undesirable? The answer is almost certainly in the negative. To obtain preclearance from the Department of Justice, any new plan would certainly need to assure minorities of proportional representation on the new City Council. Since an at-large system does not guarantee minority representation, it is almost certain that the Department of Justice would view any attempt to return to an at- large system as impermissible retrogression. I trust that this report will provide a helpful starting point to City Council as it explores the complexities of alternative election procedures. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions in this matter. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, Wllburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council August 8, 1994 Page 17 WCD:f Attachments CC: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Shelva $. Painter, Registrar The Reverend Charles T. Green GUIDELINES TO BE OBSERVED IN DEVISING AN ELECTION DISTRICT SYSTEM No plan shall dilute minority voting strength or otherwise violate the Voting Rights Act. o The principle of "one person, one vote" shall be honored. District lines shall be drawn with the goal of substantial numerical equality among the districts, and there shall be no more than a total deviation of 10% between the population of the largest and the smallest districts. Districts shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory. Districts shall follow clearly defined and clearly observable features. Census blocks should not be split in drawing district lines. Population figures from the 1990 Census shall be utilized in drawing district lines. Every effort should be made to accommodate "communities of interest" in the drawing of district lines where such effort will not violate legal principles set out above. The first two principles are preeminent and shall always be observed. ATTACHMENT A PROCEDURAL STEPS IN ESTABLISHMENT OF ELECTION DISTRICT SYSTEM Sept. 1994 Feb. 1995 Mar. 1995 May, 1995 Nov. 1995 - January - March 1996 - Mar. 1996 - May, 1996 - May, 1998 Plan developed with full citizen participation process~ 'Plan adopted by City Council Department of Justice preclearance of timing of referendum 2 Referendum as to Plan adopted by City Council (optional)3 General Assembly meets and approves required Charter amendments4 Submission of Plan to Department of Justice5 Department of Justice preclears Plan First Council election under new system6 "Plan" has reference to number of Council members, number at large, if any, number from election districts, and development of any new procedures required for election of Mayor and Vice-Mayor and drawing of lines for new election districts. This preclearance is not as to the substance of the Plan, but only as to the timing of the referendum. Circuit Court must order referendum at least 60 days in advance of general election. Long Session (60 days) of General Assembly commences on second Wednesday in January. Plan can be submitted to Department of Justice only after the Governor has signed Charter amendments. Terms of Council members elected in 1996 would be reduced by two years. ATTACHMENT B ELECTION DISTRICT ALTERNATIVES Council Members * 5 5 5 7 7 7 7 7 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 11 11 11 ii 11 11 1! 11 11 No. of Election Districts 4 ! ~ 5 2 3 1 4 ~ 5 2 ~6 2 ~____ 7 2 3 1 4 5 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 or 3 9 2 or 3 3 1 4 1 § 2 6 2 7 2 8 2 or 3 9 2 or 3 10 2 or 3 11 2 or 3 Includes Mayor ar~ Vice--M~lror Estimated No. of Majority-Minority Districts** Percentage of Minority Representatives on Council 2O% 20% 40% ~4.3% 14.3% 28.6% 28.6% 28.6% 11.1% 11.1% ~22.2% 22.2% 22.2% 22.2% 22.2% 9.1% 9.1% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% 18.2% or 33.3% or 33.3% or 27.3% or 27.3% or 27.3% 18.2% or 27.3% Black majority single ~r districts. Estimates based on 1990 Census data (total black population was 24.27%; voting age black Population was 21.8%) and demographic studies co~plete~lnconne~tion withRoanokeMatroPolitan~overn~ent (1990) districting ~ ~ the Citize~ Task Po~ to Stu~ Altornati~ El~ion Pr~eo for Roanoke City ~ll (1~92}. ATTACHMENT C CITIZENS TASK FORCE TO STUDY ALTERNATIVE ELECTION PROCEDURES FOR ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL FINAL REPORT JULY 13, 1992 Dr. Wendell FI. Butler, Chairm~tn Jan D. Garrett, Vice-Chairman David A. Camper Robert E. Firebaugh Steven D. Goodwin Charlie W. Ilancock Reverend Nelson Harris Sl~phen J. Jon~,~ Thomas H. Rothe A. Byron Smith Thomas W. 'Fhrockmorton, Sr. Michael F. I. Jrbanski Connie Wade Onzlee Ware Wayne (~. Strickl'.,nd, Staff SUMMARy OP RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE CITIZ~-~ TASK FORCE TO STUU~ ALTERNATIVE ELECTIO~ PRO~F~RES FOR THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL The following are recommendations presented by the Citizens Task Force to Roanoke City Council for their consideration. RECOMMENDATION The current at-large election system should he maintained. RECOMMENDATION #2 It iS recommended that a Council member serve only three consecutive, 4-year terms, except if the Council member decides to run and is elected as Mayor, then as Mayor he/she can serve three consecutive 4-year terms in this position. After serving three consecutiv~ terms as Mayor, a candidate can run again for Council- and can serve another three consecutive, 4-year terms on Council. RECOMMENDATION #3 It is recommended that another Task Force be appointed in the year 2000, or sooner if the need arises, to study the election system issue to see if the at-large system is still serving the needs of the citizens of Roanoke. TABLE OF CONTENTS Pa~e INTRODUCTION PROCESS OF THE STUDY ....................................... 2 PHASE I -- THE FACT-FINDING PROCESS ........................ 3 PHASE II -- DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ELECTION SCENARIOS ................................................ 21 PHASE III -- CITIZEN WORKSHOPS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE -- ELECTION PROCEDURES ...................................... 26 PHASE IV -- TASK FOHCE RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL .................................................. 29 INTRODUCTION In a resolution adopted on November 18, 1991, the Roanoke City Council approved and endorsed a joint report prepared by the City Manager and the City Attorney which called for the establishment of a Citizens Task Force to Study Alternative Election Procedures for the City Council. As approved by the City Council, the study would include: a) a review of the experience with alternative election procedures in other communities; and b) a recommendation on election procedures for consideration by the Council. Examples of alternative election procedures to be reviewed include, but were not limited to: a) at-large systems; b) a modified ward system, majority of members elected at large; c) a modified ward system, minority of members elected at large; d) nominations by ward, elections at large; and e) all members elected by ward. Each City Council member was to appoint two members to serve on the Task Force. The November 18 resolution also authorized the City Manager to retain the services of the Fifth Planning District Commission (5th PDC) to assist the Task Force in its study efforts. The City Manager was requested by Council to provide administrative support tO the staff of the 5th PDC in their work on behalf of the City. On December 9, the City Council appointed fourteen (14) individuals to serve on the Task Force, and at the December 16 Council meeting, Dr. Wendell H. Butler was designated to serve as the Chairperson of the Task Force. The staff of the 5th PDC contacted Dr. Butler on December 17 and it was decided that the organizational meeting of the Task Force would be held on December 18. At the December 18 meeting a process for the study and schedule of activities was presented to the Task Force for consideration. The study process is outlined in the section below. The first regula£ meeting of the Task Force was scheduled for January 8, 1992. PROCESS OF THE STUDY The study process was composed of four phases. Phase I was the Fact-Finding Phase. It involved bringing in knowledgeable people to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of alternative election procedures, and to review key issues to consider if a change is made from the current at-large system. Phase II was the alternative election procedures phase and it involved assessing various types of election systems as they might apply to Roanoke. As a part of this phase, the Task Force used the knowledge gained in Phase I to develop alternative election scenarios for the Task Force to consider. Phase III involved holding citizen workshops in four quadrants of the City. The purpose of the workshops was to obtain citizen comment on what residents liked and disliked about the current at- large election system and what alternative system they would prefer if the at-large system was eliminated. In the final phase in the process, Phase IV, the Task Force, based on the knowledge gained in the Fact-Finding effort and the citizen workshops, decided on the- election procedure to recommend to the City Council. PHASE I -- THE FACT-FINDING PROC~ The Fact-Finding effort called for the Task Force to listen to practitioners, academicians, representatives of minority and other interested groups, and persons having experience with changes in election systems in other Virginia cities. These individuals have been involved with (either directly or have written extensively on) at-large, modified ward and ward electoral systems. The Task Force established a SubCommittee, chaired by Michael Urbanski, to review pertinent information from speakers and to develop a report on the highlights of the fact-finding discussions. The following practitioners and academicians were invited to speak: Dr. Timothy O'Rourke, Professor at the University of Virginia's Center for Public Service -- Dr. O'Rourke served as an expert witness in the Norfolk redistricting case, staff to the Charlottesville Election Study Commission, and a member of the Mayor's Committee on Reapportionment for Virginia Beach. The Reverend Doyle Thomas -- Reverend Thomas is a member o~ the Danville City Council. He was on Council when Danville investigated the need for a change in its at-large election system. He served as a member of the Committee responsible for assessing the need for a change in the City's election system. Mr. James Pates -- Mr. Pates is the City Attorney for Fredericksburg. He was the City Attorney at the time Fredericksburg went through the process Of changing its election system from an at-large to a modified ward system. Dr. Joseph Freeman -- Dr. Freeman is a member of the Lynchburg City Council. He represents one of the wards in Lynchburg's modified ward system. He became a member of the Council following hynchburg's change from an at-large system to a modified ward system. Mr. Paul Fraim -- Mr. Fraim :s a member of the Norfolk City Council. Mr. Fraim, although dgreeing to speak, was not able to address the Task Force due %o a conflict which arose at the last minute. Dr. Thomas Morris -- Dr. Morris ~s a Professor of Political Science .at the University of Richmond and has studied the Richmond City Council extensively. He has also co-authored a book on local government in Virginia. Mr. Kent Willis -- Mr. Willis ~s the Executive Director of the Virginia Chaucer of Che American Civil ~ibercies Union. The Task Force also invited citizen activists from various quadrants of the City, as well as representatives of interested Community groups, to discuss their perspectives on Roano~e's election system. It was noted during the panel discussions that these individuals did not necessarily represent the views of their neighborhood organizations or groups. The following individuals spoke to the Task Force: Ms. Carol Marchel -- Vice-Chair, League of Women Voters MS. Evangeline Jeffrey -- President, Roanoke Chapter, NAACP MS. Majorie Jumper -- Northwest Environmental Association MS. Barbara Duerk -- Neighbors in South Roanoke Mr. Roy Stroop -- Wildwood Civic League (northeast Roanoke) Mr. Henry Craighead -- Northwest Roanoke The Task Force also invited business groups from various areas of the City to provide their perspective on Roanoke's election system. Unfortunately, the business representatives were unable to address the group because of scheduling conflicts and other problems. A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ELECTORAL PROCESS IN ROANOKE AND MINORITY REPRESENTATION IN THE PROCES~ Between 1884 and 1918, Roanoke had a ward election system. Because of problems associated with the system, and because of the changing trends in government nationwide during the early part of the 1900's, Roanoke switched to an at-large election system after 1918. Furthermore, the citizens of Roanoke voted to adopt a council/manager form of government in the City in 1918. Until 1976, the council members terms in office varied in that three council members would be elected for a 4-year term while four members would be elected for a 3-year term. Elections in the city remained staggered after 1976, but each council member elected would now serve a 4-year term. In 1964, Roanoke changed its City Charter to allow the Mayor to be elected by popular vote. Until that time, the mayor and vice-mayor were elected by the council. Currently, the mayor is elected at-large, and the individual who receives the most votes in the most recent council election becomes the vice-mayor. The candidates for mayor and council are elected on a partisan basis. The follo~n~ are some Of electoral highlights of Roanoke City gleaned from reviewing articles from the Roanoke Times & World News concerning elections between 1966 and 1990. The highlights begin with 1966 since this follows the promulgation of the federal Voting Rights Act of 1965. 1966 -- 16,379 voters turned out for this election. 18% of the total population of Roanoke was minority. Two black candidates (running as Independents) ran for election. Minority candidates asked that minorities follow "single shotting" (where minority voters would vote for only minority candidates) to ensure that a minority would win a seat on Council. The two minority candidates finished 9th and 10th in a field of 10 candidates. 1968 -- 13,737 voters turned out for this election. One minority candidate (running as an Independent) ran for a Council seat but was not elected. Ten candidates ran for election that year. 1970 -- 12,000 voters turned out for this election. 19% of the total population of Roanoke was minority at this time. White voters outnumbered black voters 7 to 1. The first blac~ member of Council was elected (a Republican candidate). The minority candidate was the best vote getter of the 10 candidates running in the election. It was noted that the minority candidate projected both a city-wide as well as a minority perspective. 1972 -- 13,670 voters turned out for this election (about 36% o-"~egistered voters). One minority candidate (running as a Democrat) ran for Council but was not elected. One minority.. remained on Council at this time. 1974 -- 7,181 voters turned out for this election (only 18% of the 38,863 registered voters). The incumbent Republican minority candidate won re-election and became the City's first black Vice-mayor. %975 -- The Justice Department evaluated and approved continuation of the City's at-large election system as a part of the City's annexation process which went into effect on January 1, 1976. The Justice Department said that the at- large system did not dilute minority voting strength. 1976 -- 21,230 voterl turned out for this election (52% of the 41,000 registered voters). As a result of the 1976 annezation, all 7 seat? on City Council became open; also the number of precincts ~n the City increased from 30 to 33 following annezation. Fourteen (14) candidates ran for the si= available Council seats; while five (5) candidates ran for position of ~4ayor. The voters elected the first popularly elec~d-black 14ayor in a predominantly white city. A second minority candid&ts ran on a write-in vote campaign but was not elected. The Roanoke Forward group (which was a non-partisan, business supported group of candidates) spent approximately $35,000 to field seven candidates for election. 1976 -- Newspaper reported on the cost of recent elections. The cost for the City to sponsor an election was $.46 per ballot. This cost included salaries of election officials, extra help and overtime pay for deputy registrars, setting up voting machines, custodians for voting places, advertising, and other additional expenses. 1977 -- The League of Women Voters (in 1976), at the request o--~City Council, prepared a study on the need to change Roanoke's election system. Council set a public hearing on a possible change in electoral system for April, 1977. The City Council did not act on the League's recommendation that the City should adopt a modified ward election system. 1978 -- 13,409 voters turned out for this election (32% of the 41,301 registered voters). One additional minority candidate (an Independent) ran in this election but he was defeated. The Mayor remained the only minority on Council. Nine candidates ran in this election; the minority candidate (other then the Mayor) came in 8th out of a field of 9. 1980 -- 14,675 voters turn out for this election (37% of the registered voters). In 1980, minorities represented 18% of the City's total population (from the 1980 Census). The Mayor, who was a minority, won re-election. A second minority candidate (running as a Democrat) won a seat on Council an~ became Vice-Mayor. Roanoke now had two minorities serving on Council --the Mayor and the Vice-Mayor (minorities hold 28% of City Council seats). The newspaper notes that in black precincts many voters used "single-shotting" to ensure the second minority candidate would be elected. 1982 -- No statistics were found on voter turnout. No minorities ran in this election. Roanoke maintained two minority members on Council. 1984 -- 16,811 voters turned out for this election (42% of the registered voters). The Mayor (who was a minority) was re- elected. The second minority incumbent on Council decided not to seek re-election. Another minority candidate (running as a Republican) ram for Council but was not elected. Eight candidates ran for Council seats that year. The paper reports that the four Republican candidates spent $30,000 combined on the 1984 eleotion, while the three Democrats and one independent spent $44,000 on their campaigns. 1986 -- 7,199 voters turned out for this election (17.5% of t-~--41,070 registered voters). There was no mention of a minority candidate running for Council in this election. 1988 -- 11,800 voters turned out for this election (28% of the 40,535 registered voters). The Mayor (who was a minority) maintained his seat on Council. There was no mention of another minority candidate running in this election. 1990 -- 12,268 voters turned out for this election (31% of the registered voters). In 1990, minorities represented 24% of the total population of the City. A second minority candidate (running as a Democrat) won election to the Council. Roanoke once again had two minority Council members (28% of all Council seats). The newspaper mentioned that the minority candidate was elected without significant "single-shotting" by minority voters. In fact, the minority candidate ran strongly in several all-white precincts. The minority candidate ran 3rd in a field of six candidates. !992 -- Two minority candidates (one running as a Democrat and one running as a Republican) are nominated by their respective political parties to run for Council seats in the 1992 council election. The next section of this report will present a general overview of alternative election systems. The comments are based on remarks of invited speakers. A BRIEF DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATIVE ~r. ECTiON SYSTEMS Some of the current statistics on the structure of local governments in the United States reflect the changing nature of the electoral process since the early 1900's: (1) 75% of larger cities in the U.S. elect councils on a non-partisan basis and the dominant structure of local government is a council/manager form; (2) 82% of council/manager cities elect on a non-partisan ballot, as opposed to 61% for mayor/council cities; and (3) 68% of council/manager cities elect members at-large. The "textbook" form of local government in America involves non-partisan elections, with a small council elected at-large. A Brief Description of an At-~'arge Election System: In an at-large election system all candidates are elected by registered voters throughout the entire city. This is the system currently in place in Roanoke City. Twenty-nine of the 41 cities (or 71%) in Virginia elect their council members at-large. A Brief Description of a Ward System: In this system, the city is divided into voting districts (or wards). Candidates campaign only in their respective wards and registered voters within each ward select their council representatives. The mayor may be selected from within the council, or in some ward systems, the mayor is elected at-large. Eight of the 41 cities (or 19%) in Virginia elect their council members through a ward system. 7 A Brief Description of a Modified Ward System: This system Combines features found in both the at-large and ward systems. Some council members are elected by wards and some are elected at- large. In mo£t cases, the number of COuncil members elected by wards exceeds those elected at-large. Four of the 41 cities (or 10%) in Virginia elect their council members through a modified ward system. The list on the following page presents the distribution of cities in the Commonwealth of Virginia and how their councils are elected (total population for each city and percentage black population 18 years and over is also provided). 8 Type of 1990 Election System Population % Black Pop. 18 Yrs.& Over Alexandria At-large 111,183 20% Bedford At-large 45,656 19% Bristol At-large 18,426 5% Buena Vista Ward 6,406 4% Charlottesville At-large 40,341 18% Chesapeake At-large 151,976 26% Clifton Forge At-large 4,679 14% Colonial Heights At-large 16,064 .8% Covington Ward 6,991 13% Danville At-large 53,056 32% Emporia Modified Ward 5,306 41% Fairfax City At-large 19,622 5% Falls Church At-large 9,578 3% Franklin Ward 7,864 51% Fredericksburg Modified Ward 19,027 19% Galax At-large 6,670 5% Hampton At-large 100,375 38% Harrisonburg At-large 30,707 6% --- Hopewell Modified Ward 23,101 22% Lexington At-large 6,959 11% Lynchburg Modified Ward 66,049 23% Manassas At-large 27,957 10% Manassas Park At-large 6,734 6% Newport News At-large 170,045 31% Norfolk Ward 261,229 36% Norton At-large 4,247 6% Petersburg Ward 38,386 68% Poquoeon At-large 11,005 .8% Portsmouth At-large 103,907 44% Radford At-large 15,940 5% Richmond Ward 203,056 50% Roanoke At-large 96,397 22% Salem At-large 23,756 4% South Boston At-large 6,997 34% Staunton At-large 24,461 12% Suffolk Ward 52,141 42% Virginia Baach At-large 393,069 13% Waynesbor(x._ At-large - - 18,549 8~ Williamsburg At-large 11,530 13% Winchester Ward 21,947 9% Virginia Municipal League, 1990 (for information); and the U.S. Bureau of (for demographic information). Source= electoral system the Census, 1990 9 Advantages of Disadvantages of Alternative Election Systems The key to evaluating the advantages or disadvantages of any election system is to look at it in the context of the community as a whole. Current socio-economic conditions, growth or decline in population, relations among racial groups (i.e., past trends or current evidence of racial discrimination), all play a role in assessing the election system which best serves the needs of citizens. The advantages and disadvantages outlined below were developed from material provided to the Citizens Task Force and from the observations of invited speakers. Although this material is presented in the context of the advantages and disadvantages of an at-large system, it does illustrate the potential benefits and weaknesses of both the at-large and ward election systems. At-large Election System -- Advantages The city council is more sensitive to the interests of all voters because candidates must canvas for votes city-wide, as opposed to a ward system in which candidates may appeal to the narrow interests of their particular ward. Citizens will get to vote for all candidates and this may enhance voter turnout. Presumably, citizens in an at-large system have a greater say over the activities of the council rather then a limited say over the activities of only one council member (in a ward system). At-large elections tend to moderate the divisions that might arise in a community with an all-ward system. These divisions, which might be racial, class-related, or political in nature, may impede the ability of council to conduct business. It was suggested by one speaker that where minority candidates get elected at-large, their influence is more substantial than if they are elected from minority wards in a ward system (however, the Lynchburg experience suggests otherwise). At-large elected councils are more consensus oriented. Counq~l_.members. represent the same constituency and will presumably promote a city-wide ~erspective. At-large councils are more effective in what might be called the "foreign policy" of ~ne city. The effectiveness of promoting industry and negotiating with neighboring communities is often enhanced when a common viewpoint is shared. 10 ~t-Lar~e Election System -- Disadvanta~e.n In at-large elections, candidates often come from the same neighborhoods, same class, same profession, same race so that while they are elected at-large, they may not be broadly representative of the coflununity. At-large elections may enhance the influence of the media and money because it is difficult to run a door-to-door campaign running at-large, and access to the media is more important in an at-large race. Citizens may not feel that they have a council member responsive to their needs, and that local government may be more "distant". At-large candidates tend to spend more money for their campaigns as opposed to candidates who are running in a ward election system. If at-large councils tend to have a coflunon consensus, this consensus may be somewhat artificial. That is, councils elected at-large may not alwaysrepresent the diversity within,- the community. This "spirit of consensus" may come at the expense of diverse interest groups. At-large elections (and the consensus generated within the council) tend to close off a lot of debate that would occur if elections allowed various segments of the com~nunity to be represented. At-large elections tend to cause a feeling within the minority community that their vote or participation is ineffectual. Modified Ward system -- Advantages and Disadvantages A modified ward system allows some council members to be elected by ward and some to be elected at-large. In general, it is best for the number of council members elected by wards to exceed those elected at-large. The modified ward system attempts to address some of the problems encountered in at-large or all-ward systems. The mesd~X& elected by wards provide .diverse geographi~ representation on the council and are directly accountable to conetituentm who reside in a specific ward; those elected at-large tend to take a moro city-wide perspective on issues since their constituency is the entire city. A disadvantage of this system is that divisions on council may arise between ward members and those elected at-large because ward members may feel more accountable to citizens in one section Of the city while at-large members may feel more accountable to all citizens. 11 Other Alternative Election Procedures There are other alternatives for election procedures which could be considered if a community decides that electoral change is desired. The procedures discussed below are held by some practitioners to be cumbersome. These procedures may also be difficult for voters to understand when they go to the polls to vote. Voter education about these alternatives would be highly recom~nended if any such system is instituted. Cumulative Voting System: This alternative is best explained by an example. If a community has three council seats up for election, each voter may cast three ballots, which is equal to the total number of representatives to be elected. A voter may then cast all three votes for one candidate, two for one candidate and one for another, or one for each of the three candidates. In regard to minority election opportunities, this allows the minority voter to cast all votes for those specific candidates who they want to see elected. Presumably, other voters will spread their votes around to other candidates. Limited Voting System: This system works in the following way. For example, there are seven members of city council to be electedT-- and each voter is only allowed to vote for five of the seven candidates. In regard to minority election opportunities this would mean, if all the whites voted for white candidates, and all the blacks voted for black candidates, the opportunity would exist to ensure that a minority candidate is elected. A limited voting system has been adopted by some municipalities in order to settle some Voting Rights lawsuits (e.g., in Texas and Alabama), particularly in those situations in which minority voters may not be concentrated enough to have a majority in a single ward. Nomination of Council Candidates by District and Elections At ~m The discussion of this alternative system comes from Boyd's article, "Local Electoral Systems: Is There a Best Way?" (National Civic Review, Vol. 65, No. 3, March, 1976). In this system, candidates reside within and are nominated to run for office from specific residency districts, but they are elected at- large. This system attempts to give geographic representation to the council. Voters know who the district council member is and who to hold responsible for atteflt~on to neighborhood problems. Furthermo~,_ since the council representatives are elected at- large, they cannot afford to be provLncial in their attitudes. One disadvantage is that the majority segment of the population will have a dominant voice in electing representatives. Many minorities feel that this system is worse taan others because it tends to confuse members of the minority community, dividing them and placing them in an untenable pos~tioa. 12 KEY ISSUES ARISING FROM DISCUSSIONS WITH SPEAKERS ~NVITED TO ADDRESS THE TASK FORCE Several issues dominated discussions between Task Force members and invited speakers. The purpose of this section of the report is to review these recurring issues and to summarize responses from speakers about these issues. The issues outlined below are not presented in any specific order of importance. Issue: Why Would a Community Decide to Pursue a Change in its Electoral System The reasons why a community would pursue electoral change are varied. The Task Force's guest speakers were asked why their community, or other community's they have worked with, decided to investigate an alternative electoral procedure. Charlottesville -- a group of citizens thought that a modified ward plan (4 candidates elected by wards and 3 at-large) would encourage better representation of neighborhoods. Virginia Beach -- a group of citizens felt that the system, whereby nominations were made by residency districts an~- elections were held at-large, was not providing adequate representation, especially since the residency districts were established many years ago and the population of these districts changed significantly over the last two decades. Norfolk -- The City's at-large system was changed to a ward system as a result of a law suit filed by a citizen through the Justice Department. Danville -- Danville decided to consider a change from its at- large election system as a result of a successful annexation suit. A citizens' Committee, composed of minority interests, was established by City Council to assess the need for election change. Under the Voting Rights Act of 1965, the Justice Department requires consideration of dilution of minority votin9 strength if new areas are annexed. The Committee reco~aendad that the system not be changed. The Justice Depa~tmmnt allowed Danville to keep its at-large Fred~l~kaburg -- A small group of ali-white businessmen, with support of one or two city Council members, pursued a referendum to have the City's at-large system changed. Initially, the idea was to reduce the size of the council from 11 members to 7 members (to help increase the efficiency of the Council) and to keep the at-large system in place. However, after this businessman's group discovered that the Justice Department probably would not approve a reduction in Council size without changing the at-large system, this group 13 proposed a modified ward system be added to the referendum. There was no consensus about this change within the minority community in Fredericksburg; in fact, the NAACP filed suit against the proposed change to a modified ward system. The Justice Department approved the system. The City currently has a modified ward system where 4 members are elected by wards and 3 at-large. * Lynchburg -- Lynchburg changed from an at-large election system to a modified ward system in the mid-1970's as a result of a successful annexation suit. The City's modified ward system has 4 members elected by wards and 3 at-large. * Richmond -- Richmond changed from an at-large election system to a ward system in the 1970's as a result of a successful annexation suit. All members of Council are elected by wards. Issue: The Cost of Campaigning The cost of election campaigning continues to rise from one election to another. As these costs increase, many feel that good candidates may be eliminated from the process because they do not have the backing of "big money" organizations. Does the type electoral system affect the cost of campaigning? * The cost of campaigning is related to the size of the city as much as the type of electoral system adopted by the city. If a candidate is running at-large in a small city of 40,000 people, it will cost as much as running in a ward system in a larger city in which each ward contains 40,000-50,000 people. The Task Force's guest speaker from Danville, a minority member of the City Council, noted that no candidate has spent over $1,500 on an at-large campaign. In.fact, he spent only $250 on his last campaign. He felt that it was not a financial question which kept people from running for City Council. He felt that people were not necessarily interested in serving because: 1) they did not have time because of commitments to their work and their families, and 2) they felt that they probably were not "electable". In the cass of the speaker from Lynchburg City Council, he sta~:e(~bespent, about $1,300 on his last ward election. With ward seats, you do not have to have vast contact with political organizations. It is neighborhood contact and direct mail which makes the difference. This approach helps cut down on the costs. The speaker from Lynchburg felt that a candidate running for a hotly contested, at-large council seat might have to spend between $35,000 and $75,000 to get elected. 14 * The ward system in Richmond has held down the cost of campaigning for candidates running for city council Seats. Issue: The Economic Impact of an At-Large System Versus a Ward System Some political observers contend that the type of election system adopted by a municipality may effect its economic development activities. If it is assumed that in a ward system council members will focus more attention on district interests and not on city- wide issues, then who will be responsible for ensuring that the city's long-range economic development goals receive adequate consideration during council deliberations? In cities that are considering a change in electoral system, there are some consistent issues which seem to be a point of concern. People who are critical of the at-large system say that downtown development (under an at-large system) proceeds because council may be dominated by a group sensitive to business. The critics argue that a different method of election would lead to a different orientation. Perhaps, more attention would be paid to commercial areas out of downtown~ or more attention would be paid to other programs/services which are deemed as important or more important than downtown development. If ~ou read ~he new?paper, the Richmond City Council (where a wars system Ls in pAace) is a very contentious Council and is frequently divided about some fairly significant questions relating to economic development. In Fredericksburg, the impact of election change has had a positive impact on economic development mainly because the reduction of council members makes it appear that the Council is being run more efficiently and more harmoniously. Large city councils, particularly with the news media, tend to highlight all the disagreements and norths agreements. In Richmond, the ward system has created a division in economic and political power that has hurt the climate for econo~lo development. The white business establishment has econo~l~ power, but the black majority on Council has the political power. This situation has produced tension. There ham been so much suspicion and mistrust, that it has not been good for economic development. 15 Issue: Accountability to the Electorate in an At-Large System Versus a Ward System The question Of accountability to the electorate arose a number of times during the Fact-Finding work of the Task Force. The following observations were presented by various individuals who spoke to the Task Force. A change in the local election system will change the political process and how candidates will relate to voters and constituents. In regard to Danville (with its at-large system), the current Council is diverse and tries to consider the interests of the City as a whole. It makes no difference where you live or how much money you make, if you have a complaint, you can bring it to the City Council and the Council will see that something is done. City Council has not had any serious complaints. In the case of Lynchburg, an issue of specific interest, such as a rezoning, may generate much interest within a ward. Individuals feel that they have a greater impact on issues such as zoning compared to broader issues such as financial- matters which is discussed in terms of the City as a whole. It was suggested that in Lynchburg, constituents felt better represented by the modified ward system as opposed to an at- large system. Issue: Voter Turnout in an At-Large System Versus a Ward System Some political observers suggest that ward systems maylead to complacency among the voting public. In some cases, fewer candidates run for these ward seats when compared to communities that have at-large systems. Where you have at-large seats, this system may encourage greater voter turnout. This is particularly true where you have competition for those at-large seats. In many instances where a ward system is in place, often these seats go uncontested, with an incumbent that coasts into office. There is s~Levidenoe to indicate that whenever you have a chief elected official, like a mayor or governor up for election, this encourages greater voter turnout. You have to accept this negative about any type of ward system -- if you have a ward election in a "quiet year", who knows how many voters will turnout. This situation focuses on one of the problem areas of a full ward or modified ward system. It is possible for many voters to "go to sleep", and then an election ends up being determined by a couple of 16 neighborhoods. It depends on the level of competition in the ward. Incumbency is a key factor in voter turnout. In Lynchburg, there has been some introduction of new blood into the system, but turnover of council seats has been relatively localized with several new members coming only from one particular ward. Issue: Citizen Participation in the Process of Electoral Change Some of the speakers invited to address the Task Force indicated that the majority of citizens in a community may not be interested in the process of electoral change. Citizens may be more concerned about specific issues such as education. One speaker noted that most people are not interested in the local election system. In the case of Charlottesville's process of considering electoral change, only 10 citizens showed up at the Council's public meeting on changing the City's election system. This point was reinforced in the case of Virginia Beach. Virginia Beach, when it was considering a change in its electoral process, had a public hearing and only 15 people snowed up to speak and some of those people were politicians. One speaker noted that there are really only two groups that push for electoral change= 1) minority voters (including the NAACP); and 2) working-class whites who may not feel they are represented on council. When Danville was considering a change to its election system, few people showed up at either of the Council's two public hearings to argue for or against keeping the at-large system (as was being recommended by the Committee appointed by the City Council). (The following observations were made by the speaker from Fredericksburg and reflect the problems encountered with the Justice Department as the City pursued the change from its at- large electoral system'to a modified ward system.) A change in the election system requiring pre-clearance by the Justice Depa~tmon~ is an exercise in pure politics. The general publ~-~eally does not care if you have an at-large, ward system, or modl~ied ward system. But, the people who play the "political geme" will pay close attention and will try to influence the election plan in a way that suits their own purposes. Citizen education is an important part of ensuring participation in the election process. When a city is considering electoral change, it is important to hold citizen information hearings to obtain citizen comment. This process 17 may also be helpful in generating some consensus about how the community feels about electoral change. Issue: Competition between Districts in a Ward System Critics of at-large systems often contend that this type of system encourages attention to city-wide interests at the expense of neighborhood issues. Furthermore, proponents of ward systems argue that citizens are not allowed to participate as fully in at-large systems as compared to a ward system where candidates are more directly responsible to neighborhood constituents. Proponents of at-large systems criticize ward systems because they say that ward systems encourage divisiveness among neighborhoods and among ethnic groups. One key question relating to divisiveness on city council in a ward system is whether a ward system would create divisions that do not exist -- not whether it would mirror divisions, but rather would it create artificial divisions. In the case of Fredericksburg's modified ward system, the process has raised the issue of race in people's thinking lot more than it would have under an at-large system. Richmond has nine wards in its ward system. The five predominantly minority wards elect black candidates and the four predominantly white wards elect white candidates. The ward system has discouraged new political leadership because incumbents routinely are re-elected. Only a handful of incumbents have been defeated since the ward system was enacted in 1977. In the City of Hopewell (which has a modified ward system -- 5 elected by wards and 2 at-large), the one black elected official works closely with the white members of council to ensure the City is progressing. The minority community uses its elected official as a conduit to pursue federal grants for their neighborhoods. In Fredericksburg, a great debate unfolded about whether a change to a modified ward system would bring about greater compe__ti~ion by individual wards for special projects. That competition among wards has not been found much at all. Some areas that may have been under-represented now feel that they are better served. In Lynchburg, the ward-elected members of council ensure that the neighborhood perspective is heard, and the at-large council members ensure that the city-wide perspective is evident in Council decision-making. 18 Often the distinction between ward council members and large members in Lynchburg is blurred in the public's mind. Council members sometimes receive calls from people who do not reside in their ward. The general public does not keep close track. The political people keep track of this distinction closely. In thinking about Lynchburg, those constituents who live in wards would have to say that if you ask people, they would probably say that they have not thought much about the idea of how much better they are served by a modified ward system versus an at-large system. Issue: Criteria for Establishing Voting Districts in a Ward Election System To ensure adequate minority representation in a ward system, some feel that all that is needed in a minority ward is a 51% majority. However, others argue that this percentage must be significantly higher to ensure that a minority candid·ts has a greater opportunity to be elected. In Danville, the Committee created to ex·mine the need for an alternative electoral system agreed that if a ward system was pursued that they needed to be ablate establish at least two wards which would contain at least a 60%-65% minority population. The Danville Committee was not ·bls to find a sufficient concentration of minority population to meet this criteria. Without a high percentage of minority population, the Committee felt that there was a good chance that a white person could be elected to represent the proposed minority ward. The speaker from the ACLU felt that a minority ward, in order to ensure a good opportunity for a minority to be elected, should cent·in ·bout a 60% minority population over the age of 18. Issue: The Imihuc~: of Electoral Change on )tinority Representation on Council One key qu~s~ion that arose from the Task Force's discussion was -- "Does · change in the electoral system result in greater representation by tho minority population within the community?*' * In some' areas where you have people who have suffered discrimination of all sorts for · long time, or perceived a certain level of discrimination, you have a difficult time getting these people interested in the political system. 19 In Fredericksburg, black representation was Strengthen S~gniflcantly, mainly because of the reduction in ed .... , aha now there are 2 -: . . uc or 11 Council L=presentation aDmear~ ~..~ = ~,,~norltles out Of 7 a communi,.. ~_~= ~- ,,.uuu Stronger now ~__= . -' ~lack sh~-~ -z u~ac, over the v.=.. _.~ ' =~euerlcksb~r ~-~u stead~ nfo. .... T--~ wlcn an at-~- g was Fredericksburg ~ow'~~, on msnority sUCcess ~=rff system, nOt want, b-~ ~ *,~ a system that t~ ~- _~- uHe polls. ~ ~ney appear Stronger for~t~&acK community did CONCLUDING COMMENTS ABOUT ALTERNATIVE ELECTION SYSTEMS The Speakers who partici ate ~ffor~s provided a div--~:~-d %n tge Task Force'~ impacts associated w~~y or Opinions on i.' - (issues such -- ~u~ changing a communi~_, o~ues related to · . ,m Current soci . ~ s electoral decline &n nOnUSer: .... o-economlc co.~:~, process ~ ~ -~u~un, re~at~ons a~on- -~-: .,*u~clons, growth or role in assessing the need -~ ~au,ax groups, etc. play a va{~ous advantana ....... for electoral c moaified warn ~= a.u ~lsaovantages assn,4~;~ There are an, r~_.:_~ - ~-u ward sVSte~- -~-=~eu with at-large, ~ ~ceness to a co----'~ ~ -'' Each basis. It should be. -,.unlcy, must be evaluated~n'~ and its individual understood that a specific electoral system not a panacea for curing all the problems of a city, but may represent a mechanism for addreSSing some particular issues. A number of factors must be incorporated into the 'calculus, when a change in the electoral procedures of a community are being examined. T~e SubCommittee responsible for working with the fact f Pnase. o£ the study Process Prepared a report which atte~ inding highlight the key ideas ~resen all members o ._ -_ ted. This r _ . pted to mailed f .the T. mk FOrce, and s eport.wa~.rev~ewed with to all City Council members, ubsequently, one report was 20 PHASE II -- DEVELOPMENT OF ALTERNATIVE ELECTION SCENARIO,", The purpose of this phase was to investigate in more detail various alternative election scenarios based on the information obtained in the Fact-Finding Phase. The Task Force in its deliberations had decided that a full-ward system would not benefit the citizens of Roanoke. Furthermore, practitioners and academicians who spoke to the Task Force had noted that pursuing a modified ward system where the number of at-large members exceeded the number of ward members might present problems with the Justice Department and could potentially cause strife between ward members and at-large members. Additionally, the concept of nominations from wards and elections at-large did not seem to be a viable alternative due to the possible confusion it might cause among the electorate. After deliberation on the above alternatives, the Task Force decided that there were really only two alternatives which might best serve the needs of Roanoke. The two alternatives given careful consideration were: (1) an at-large system; and (2) a modified ward system. It was understood that the maintenance of the current at-large system would not require significant data analysis or detailed mapping work since, if this alternative was chosen, citizens were-- familiar with the process and election procedures were already in place. However, if a modified ward system were chosen, the Task Force would have to look carefully at the following. (1) How the Mayor would be chosen? (2) How the Vice-Mayor would be chosen? (3) How many wards would be needed to adequately accommodate the requirements of the Voting Rights Act Of 19657 (4) Would there need to be a change in the size of the Council based on the number of wards considered? A SubCommittee of the Task Force, chaired by Onzlee Ware, was established to investigate and respond to the above questions. The SubCom/~ittee, as a ~art of its investigation of modified ward scenarios, was charged by the Task Force to examine specifically the following scenarios= For a 7-member council 4 ward/3 at-large 5 ward/2 at-large 6 ward/1 a~-large For a 9-m~,~ber council 5 ward/4 at-large 6 ward/3 at-large 7 ward/2 at-large The process of examining the various modified ward scenarios outlined above entailed analyzing a substantial amount of 1990 Census data and developing statistics about alternative ward 21 boundaries. As a part of this process, the Planning District Commission staff prepared, under the guidance of the SubCommittee, eleven (11) different ward map alternatives to be reviewed by the SubCo~u~ittee. Additionally, the Planning District Commission staff prepared a map showing the location of concentrations of minority residents by Census Blocks for the entire City. The purpose of this map was to provide additional information about the geographic distribution of minorities when reviewing different ward map alternatives. The SubCommittee and the Task Force adopted the following guidelines in drawing district boundaries: 1) Districts should be drawn to give, as nearly as is practical, representation in proportion to the population of a district (Article VII, Section 5, Constitution of Virginia). This principle references the "one person-one vote" concept. District plans will be drawn with the goal of substantial equality among the districts and less than total deviation of ten percent. 2) No proposed districting plan shall dilute minority voting strength or otherwise violate the Voting Rights Act. 3) Districts shall be composed of contiguous and compact territory (Article VII, Section 5, Constitution of Virginia). 4) In drawing district lines, population figures from the mose recent decennial United States Census (in this case, the 1990 Census) shall be used. 5) Election districts shall follow clearly defined and clearly observed features (Sections 24.1-40.7 and 24.1-40.8, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended). 6) Census blocks shall not be split in drawing district lines. 7) In drawing district lines, every attempt will be made to accommodate "come,unities of interest", where the drawing of such lines will not violate the other guidelines outlined above. The Task Force, in developing district boundaries, utilized the guidelines adopted. They recognized that from the seven guidelines established, guidelines #1 and t2 were preeminent and must always be observed. Each of the eleven alternative modified ward boundary maps provided statistical summaries. These summaries presented (by individual voting district) the total population, total percent black - populatio~, ~ercentage of population 18 and older who are black, and the percentage deviation from the ideal voting district population. The ideal voting district population and total deviation from the ideal population was also presented. In reviewing the alternative modified ward boundary maps, the Subcommittee discussed the question of achieving a 60% black voting age population in eaoh voting district. During the Fact-Finding Phase, several speakers had noted that the Justice Department 22 wanted to see minority wards where the black voting age population approached 60%. It was felt that this percentage would ensure that the minority population had the opportunity to elect desired candidates. The Subcoflunittee kept this percentage in mind when reviewing the statistical summaries provided with each map. The SubCommittee discussed in detail the pros and cons associated with each alternative. After several weeks of discussion concerning the alternative modified ward scenarios, the following was found: Under a 7-member Council A 4 ward/3 at-large modified system did not appear feasible since this system provided only one (1) black ward where the voting age minority population reached approximately 60%. This alternative had the potential to dilute minority voting strength, since minority residents were assured of electing only one of the seven Council members (or 14% of the Council). The minority voting age population in Roanoke represents 22% of the total voting age population. Additionally, the issue of maintaining "communities of interest" was not addressed well in this alternative scenario. In the 5 ward/2 at-large modified ward alternative, only one- ward possessing 60% minority voting age population could be drawn. This alternative had the potential to dilute minority voting strength. Two wards composed of a simple majority (i.e., 50%-53%) could be drawn. But, the Task Force felt that the Justice Department might not be assured that minorities could elect their desired candidates under this scenario since the percentage of the voting age minority residents was not as high as it should be (i.e., approximating 60%). The 6 ward/1 at-large alternative was attractive because it provided for two wards which contained about 60% voting age minority residents and might be acceptable to the Justice Department. This scenario would help to assure that at least two seats on Council (or 28% of Council membership) would come from wards possessing a relatively high percentage of voting age minority residents. However, there was one major problem with this scenario. The Tasa Force felt that with only one Counoil membez elected at-large, that this alternative was too similar to a full-ward system. They felt that there needed to be ma~e-at-l&rgm representable,. _ _ Under a g-me.bet Council The 5 ward/4 at-large alternative was attractive to some Task Force members because it provided a good split in the number of Council members elected Dy ward versus those elected at- large. However, there was a problem with this alternative because only one ward possessing 60% minority voting age 23 population could be drawn. As with the 5 ward/2 at-large system discussed previously, there was the potential in this scenario to dilute minority voting strength. A 6 ward/3 at-large system was very attractive to the Task Force for two reasons. First, this alternative did not appear to dilute minority voting strength since there was some assurance that at least two seats on Council (or 22% of the Council membership) would come from wards possessing a relatively high percentage of minority voting age residents. Second, the issue of "communities of interest" were fairly well represented with six wards. In the 7 ward/2 at-large scenario, provided for good representation on Council from minority wards. Under this alternative, two wards containing 60%-75% voting age minority residents could be established. One problem with this alternative was that as more wards were added, some "communities of interest" began to be split. The SubCommittee, after reviewing the pros and cons of each alternative modified ward scenario, moved on to a discussion of the other issues they were charged to consider: how the Mayor should be elected, how the Vice Mayor should be elected, and what should be the size of the Council. -- It was the consensus of the SubCommittee that Roanoke citizens would be best served by having both the Mayor and Vice Mayor elected at-large. The thinking was that these individuals should take a city-wide perspective on all issues brought before Council. If the Mayor and Vice Mayor were elected at-large, then this reduced the number of alternative modified ward scenarios to be considered to the following: a 5 ward/2 at-large system, a 5 ward/4 at-large system, a 6 ward/3 at-large system, and a 7 ward/2 at- large system. Taking into account the critical need not to dilute minority voting strength, the SubCommittee was able to reduce the number of alternative modified ward systems even further. Only two of the remaining alternatives provided the possibility for adequate minority representation on Council: the 6 ward/3 at-large alternative and the 7 ward/2 at-large alternative. The SubCo~ittee felt that the 7 ward/2 at-large alternative should be eliminated because it had the potential to more directly effect "communiti-es-of interest" within the City. This left the 6 ward/3 at-large alternative as the favored scenario and also answered the question as to what should be the size of the City Council. The SubCommittee recognized its charge was to answer the questions presented by the full Task Force. The SubCommittee also recognized that the current at-large election system re~ained a viable system for consideration by the full Task Force. It was understood that any recommendations presented by the SubCommittee would only be 24 pursued with City Council if the full Task Force, following the review of the citizens' comments at the May workshops, decided to recommend an alternative to the current at-large system. With this in mind, the Subcommittee presented the following recommendations for consideration by the full Task Force: (1) The Mayor should continue to be elected at-large. (2) The Vice Mayor should be elected at-large. (3) The size of the City Council should be increased to 9 members. (4) If a modified ward system is chosen, 6 Council members should be elected by wards, and 3 Council members (including the Mayor and Vice Mayor) should be elected at-large. The following notes were also provided to the Task Force with the above recommendations. NOTES= The Council members should serve staggered terms, with the Mayor and 3 ward Council members elected one year, and the 2 at-large (one being the Vice-Mayor) and 3 remaining Council members elected in the alternate election year. The Vice Mayor will be a candidate running at- large, who obtains the most votes in the at- large election in alternate election years. Therefore, similar to the Mayor, the candidate elected as Vice Mayor will serve a 4-year term. No specific voting district boundaries for the 6 ward/3 at-large alternative are proposed since there are several map scenarios which accommodate this system. 25 PHASE III - CITIZEN WORKSHOPS CONCERNING ALTERNATIVE ELECTION PROCEDU~.~ This phase of the Task Force's work effort was intended to obtain citizens' comments abo~t the City's current at-large system and their interest in changing from an at-large system to some alternative election system. A SubCommittee, chaired by Jan Garrett, was established to handle this phase of the study process. During the first part of May, 1992 the SubCommittee to Assist with Citizen Workshops held four workshops to Obtain citizens' comments about alternative election procedures. The workshops were held in the following four quadrants of the City: Jackson Middle School (southeast) on May 7; William Fleming High School (northwest) on May 11; Patrick Henry High School (southwest) on May 12; and Monterey Elementary School (northeast) on May 14. The SubCommittee advertised the workshops by sending approximately 280 notices to neighborhood, civic and religious organizations. The notices were accompanied by a cover letter from Chairman Wendell Butler requesting that an announcement about the workshops be noted in the organization's newsletter and that members be encouraged to attend the workshops. Furthermore, notices were sent to local news media to inform them about the May workshops. --- Workshop Format and Objective~ At each workshop, Chairman Butler reviewed the various elements of the Task Force's study process, as well as the next steps to be pursued by the Task Force after completion of the workshops. Jan Garrett (Vice-Chairman of the Task Force and Chairman of the SubCo~tmittee to Assist with the Citizen Workshops) discussed the objectives and the format of the workshop. The objectives of the workshop were: (1) to share information about the process followed by the Citizen Task Force as they examined alternative election procedures; (2) to educate citizens about information obtained by the Task Force during its Fact-Finding efforts; and (3) to obtain citizen comments about specific questions involving the City's current at-large election system and alternative election systems. Wayne Striokland (Executive Director of the 5th PDC and staff to the Task Force) provided an overview of the Fact-Finding phase of the Task Force's work effort. The workshop followed a small group "brainstorming" format. A facilitato~ prompted the citizens to respond to the four specific questions, while a recorder wrote the response from each citizen. The four questions asked of citizens were: (1) What do you like about the current at-large system?; (2) What do you dislike about the current at-large system?; (3) What actions could be taken to improve the current at-large system?; and (4) If the at-large system were dropped, what election system would you like to see in its place and why? 26 Following the conclusion of the small group session, the facilitator reviewed responses to each question to ensure that each response was recorded correctly. A total of thirty-one (31) citizens attended the four workshops (some citizens attended more then one workshop). Summary of Key Issues Following is a summary of the key issues brought out in response to the four questions presented to workshop participants. These issues are outlined under each specific question posed. S,,m-ar¥ of Key Issues for the Question -- What do you like about the current at-large system? Promotes a city-wide perspective and unity within the City Council; it prevents divisions within the City (by not creating artificial boundaries). * Candidates learn the needs of all communities in the City and campaign city-wide, and candidates represent all people. * The at-large system is a simple, understandable election system for voters. * Encourages better quality of candidates and voters have a better knowledge of all candidates. Summary of Key Issues for the Question --What do you dislike about the cu£rent at-large system? Individuals may not be able to run for Council because of: (1) the cost of campaigning, and (2) the problem of campaigning door-to-door in a large city. Candidates do not visit neighborhoods when campaigning and do not maintain on-going contact with neighborhoods after they are elected. Council members are generally from the same area of the City and are not aware of the problems in other sections of the City (they ars not representative of all sections of the city). Lack of accountability of Council members to the people. Voter (an4 citizen) apathy -- lac~ of citizen participation. Citizens do not know when Council meetings are held -- Council meeting times are inconvenient for citizens. 27 S,:.~ary of Key Issues for the Question -- What taken to improve the current at-large system? * Council members should visit neighborhoods after elections. actions could be more regularly Council should establish neighborhood advisory groups to obtain diversity of opinions on issues. ~ncourage more citizens to vote and encourage greater citizen · nvolvement in neighborhoods. Council should establish more acceptable meeting times to allow working citizens to attend Council meetings; Council should also provide greater publicity for Council meetings. Limit the number of terms that Council members may serve and reduce the length of term in office. Make Council members more accountable to voters -- a system for evaluating Council should be established. Limit campaign expenditures. Sum~ry of Key Issues for the Question -- If the at-large system were dropped, what would you like to see in its place and why? * Modified ward system for better representation, more accountability and more accessibility (better "checks and balances,,). Following the conclusion of the four workshops, the SubCommittee reviewed the material discussed and prepared a summary of the comments provided by citizens. This reDort was shared with the Task Force and was also mailed to each member of the City Council. 28 PHASE IV -- TASK FORC~ RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL The last phase of the Task Force's study effort was to prepare final recommendations to City Council. To this point, Task Force members had the opportunity to hear from practitioners, academicians, and Roanoke citizens about the advantages and disadvantages of alternative election systems. During their five months of research, Task Force members were given much material to read and evaluate. They had the opportunity to become very knowledgeable about various aspects of electoral change. Using the knowledge gained from months of discussions about various election systems, they were asked to decide what election system would best serve the interests Of the citizens of Roanoke City. The decision on the recommendation was pursued in the following way. Chairman Butler stated that the Chair would entertain a motion on a final recommendation to City Council. A motion was made and seconded that the following recommendations be presented to City Council: #1 #2 #4 The Mayor should continue to be elected at-large. The Vice-Mayor should be elected at-large. The size of the City Council should be expanded to 9 members. If a modified ward system is chosen, 6 Council members should be elected by wards, and 3 Council members (including the Mayor and Vice Mayor) should be elected at-large. Each member of the Task Force had an opportunity to discuss their individual perspective on why these recommendations should or should not be approved and presented to City Council. Chairman Butler recognized that there might not be unanimous agreement on the motion. He felt that, for the record, the opinions of both the proponents of the motion and opponents to the motion should be included in the final report. When the Chairman called for the vote on the proposed modified ward system, six (6) members voted in favor of adopting the modified ward system al presented and eight (8) members voted against the ~odifiedward syst~esae presented. Since the motion to approve the modified ~faFd system failed, the recommendation to maintain the current at-large election system would be the fecundation to be taken to City Council. 29 Following is the individual response of each Task Force member to the motion. It is divided into two groups: (1) the "ayes" -- those who favored adoption of the proposed modified ward system; and (2) the "nays" -- those who were against the proposed modified ward system. The "Ayes" -- The Perspective of those who Favored Adoption of tho Proposed Modified Ward Systam Ware I favor the modified ward system basically for the following reason. I think everybody around this table, if they chose to run for elected office in the current at-large system, could put together a good campaign and probably win. My concern is for people in southeast and parts of northwest that don't have the money and professional degrees to compete effectively as a candidate and win in an at-large system. I don't like the idea of someone giving me anything. I like the idea of being able to run for office on my merits, but I have to become less selfish when I think about how the at- large system can lock some people out of running for office. In this town not everyone can run for Council and win -- they don't have the money. We talk about racial tension, and that is what you will have if you continue to lock out candidates from the northwest section of the City. Race relations aren't going to improve with an at-large system. I have thought much about the at-large system after the recent election. The new Mayor is not even in office and already there is talk about fighting him on the proposed economic summit. So I don't know how much cohesiveness is gained from the current at-large system. I have seen there are a lot of personal attitudes that go along with an at-large council. For me, I would rather keep the at-large system, but for the larger community, I feel the modified ward system would better address their needs. ! fe~l, people seem to think that when you mention a ward system you specifically talk about the needs of black citizens. I feel we need to look at the needs of the people in southeast Roanoke. Those people should feel they have a voice in the City about such issues as economic development and new Jobs. I have no doubt that black candidates can be elected at-large, but in my opinion the at-large system is locking some folks out of the process and 3O that is not what the Constitution is suppose to be about. The election system has got to give all citizens the chance to voice their opinions about neighborhood problems. They must have a voice on Council to ensure that their concerns about drugs and crime are heard. A change in the election system may also help to smooth racial tensions. For these reasons, I am in favor of adopting the motion. Firebaugh My attention to the activities of this body has been less than 100%, more like 40% because I think I came on board as one of the only outspoken committed people to the modified ward system. have not heard anything during the group's discussion to change my mind and did not expect to. Everything has been laid out fine and it has been an extremely objective process. We have had testimonies from many experts, including citizens. We have heard arguments both pro and con and I would like to thank and congratulate everyone who ham participated and hope it will continue. I will speak in support of the motion, but not from- the point of view of the testimony that we have taken and the opinions I have heard from the sparsely attended workshops. You have to understand that for people to speak about a change in the system, they have to presume that the words are going to lead to some sort of effective action. I think that at this point in the City's history many people are not speaking out because they are unwilling to fight City Hall. I have been involved from a practical and partisan standpoint in City politics and to some degree I have a personal interest as far aa supplemental income from City politics. I have watched City politics carefully since 1976 when the unified Roanoke Forward team swept into office. They deserved to sweep the election because they had the candidates and had the organization to win. Hut ever since that time we have been in a reactive mode to some degree. _ I think many people feel that since the 1976 election, decisions on Council have been pretty much cut and dry. Most Council votes are 7-0 and there doesn't seem to be much people can say about Council decisions. If you look at the election results from 1978 on, you'll see the type of candidates elected have tended to be more reactive. 31 Some candidates have been successful and some have not. But overall their success at the polls, based on their platforms, has not been translated into public policy. I think many people feel that candidates, once elected, have not met their expectations as to why they were elected. I'll cite one specific example. A very real threat to the future growth of this community and its businesses is flood control. We all went through that damaging flood of 1985 and it is in the works now that this issue is going to be addressed. But if you look at the bond referendum that took place in April 1989, there was a low voter turnout on this critical issue and one thing that was striking about that was the nature of financing. The financing of those bonds would come from a 20% increase in the utility tax. Now, who among us would say it is not a worthy cause, but then who among us would not see that people on low or fixed incomes, knowing that having utilities is a necessity, could have grounds for concern. One idea I have considered in trying to explain the low voter turnout was that a great segment of the community felt that they were not represented. '-- Council, without dissent, accepted the City Manager's recommendation about the bond financing. Not that people disagreed about the objective, all of us wanted it, but the means for financing improvements was something that concerned low income people. In those areas most affected by the 1985 flood, specifically the southeast, northeast and northwest areas, 10 out of 11 of those precincts voted against the bond referendum. The idea I am trying to get across is that despite the problems citizens in this area had with flooding, they were not in a financial position to support the bond referendum. Council members did not seem to understand that these people could not support flood reduction for industries near the river since it would mean that they would have less money to pay for necessities. My point is I don't think there was any question about the need for flood control, but the people in southeast, northeast and northwest did not feel that Council was really considering there needs when the bond referendum decision was made. As I said, this is just one example, but it is clear that citizens want more input when Council is making an important decision, such as the bond referendum for flood control. If a modified ward 32 system had been in place at that time, citizens would have had a way to give their input and maybe there would have been more discussion on how to pay for flood control. People would have felt that their interests were being looked after. So the motion for a modified ward system, I feel, is very attractive. In regard to the issue of a modified ward causing divisiveness, I disagree. To say that because people disagree on an issue, this leads to divisiveness is to simple. People should be willing to agree that it is OK to disagree on issues when there are several points of view to be considered. Otherwise, how can a group of people ever come up with an acceptable answer that looks at all points of view. Counties in Virginia are organized through magisterial districts which is like a ward system. You might say that Roanoke County has a pure ward system. I have not seen where counties suffer much more divisiveness than other communities. If you can believe the National Association of Counties and Virginia Association of Counties, it appears that counties continue to progress even though they have ward systems. -- So, I would just say that from what I have experienced in the trenches that the City would be much better off to have a system that empowers people to participate in government through better representation, rather than a system where people are discouraged from participating. I speak in support of the motion as presented and see no reason to change my original opinion about the need for a modified ward system for Roanoke. Jo~ee AS I offered the motion, I would support the motion of adopting the 6/3 modified ward system for electing City Council members in the City. Being a native of the City and being a minority, I find the cu£rent system grossly unfair in that it isolates certain areas of ~ae City, and doesn't fairly offer the opportunity to be elected to a seat on City Council. There is isolation in this City due to income and status in community. There is isolation based on race. There are a number of drawbacks to the current at-large system that result in some citizens not having an equal voice in Council decisions. Speakers have come before us and mentioned that the as-large system fosters a false 33 sense of cohesiveness among Council members. Although there are currently two minority members on the Council, I still don't feel that I am fully and adequately represented as a minority and ~ am sure there are many in my neighborhood and in the City that feel the same way. I feel that the voice of minority members on Council is moderated to satisfy the larger constituency, which would be the numerical majority of population in the City of Roanoke. Having lived away from the City for 13 years and in a place where there was a ward system, I found the members of that City Council to be much more in tune with their constituents and to the neighborhood that each individual ward member represented. I discovered that a ward system, or a modified ward system, provides an environment for greater political participation and more contests for seats on City Council. I found that a ward system also spurs a great deal more interest in City elections from citizens. t feel that the current at-large system is exclusive rather than inclusive of all citizens- within the City. I think that for the City of Roanoke to continue with the at-large system is inviting legal challenge. The recent election demonstrates that the minority community in the City of Roanoke is unable to elect a representative of their choice which goes against the spirit of the Voting Rights Act. Clearly the minority representative of choice in the recent election, Renee Anderson, was rejected by the larger majority community and therefore did not win a seat on Council. For better or worse, Ms. Anderson has demonstrated numerically and statistically that she was in fact the choice of the minority community. As to the concern expressed about the costs associated with expanding the number seats of Council, I think it is a small price for the City to pay for fair representation. I think that we need to encourage, and by any means possible, youth to become involved in the governmental system. think the modified ward system would enhance the opDortunity for younger people to participate in the political process. I personally would prefer another version of the modified ward system but I am willing to compromise and accept the 6 ward/3 at-large distribution of Council seats. 34 I would like to further state that the modified ward system has bi-partisan support. The fact that the modified ward system is favored by both the League of Women Voters and the NAACP should not be ignored. Smith The modified ward system would be a good chance to carry government to the people in a way that it hasn't been before. You know that in an at-large election everyone has a chance to vote, but when the Council person votes, he doesn't feel the need to tell all City residents what his vote is about. In the case of a modified ward system, the Council member would be more responsible to the community and would carry the message back to constituents loud and clear. In an at-large system there are more people that don't know what is going on or haven't heard what is going on simply because nobody has the time to go back and explain decisions to citizens. The at-large system provides a good way for a Council person to be elected by everybody but to have no accountability to anyone in particular. In a ward system th~ Council member is accountable to those who elected him and citizens in that ward have a chance to work with their Council member to make them accountable and make them come back to talk to them. This is the only way you are ever going to have accountability in Roanoke City government. Mr. Chairman I am in favor of the motion. Rothe Like Mr. Camper I came here thinking I really didn't want to see a change, although the Council member that chose me for this Task Force had expressed concern about wanting more community involvement with City Council or direct involvement with the people. The Councilman, more or less, indicated that a ward syetam or something of that nature would be of some interest to him. So, I feel an obligation to a certain extent to consider the Councilman's feelings. I like the ward system because it does provide for more direct involvement by the people, but ! am concerned that there might be some racial issues created by a ward system and unless I hear a convincing argument one way or another, I am really undecided at this point. I feel like I am sitting on a jury that has to make a decision and it is going to take some additional discussion. 35 Buk~er My concern is for the future generations of registered voters in the City. We don't know what the future holds, and I think it would be better if we had the option of going to a modified ward system. That is the reason I voted for the motion. The "Mays" -- The Perspective of those who were Against the Adoption of the Pro~osed Modified Ward System Harris One concern I have about the motion is that we have heard from two or three of our speakers that if the City went to a modified ward system, it would be better to have only one seat difference between those members elected by wards and those elected at-large (i.e., 4 wards/3 at-large, 5 wards/4 at- large, etc.). But, I also understand that the Subcommittee could not devise a plan that would have any less than 6 wards because of need to ensure adequate minority representation in wards. It concerns me that two-thirds of City Council would be elected by wards. Another other concern is the cost to be incurred the City to expand the size of the Council. My last concern is what would be the motivation for a person to run for the two at-large seats, outside of the Mayor's ~osition, when they could run in a ward and have the same voting ~ower on Council. It might be difficult to find two candidates who would be willing to incur the large expense to run for the at-large seats when they could run in one-sixth of the City (i.e., in one ward) and have the same voting power on Council. ' I have the same concerns aa expressed by Reverend Harris. Another concern is that our City, in my Opinion, ia a very nice city and I would hate to See something that would cause racial divisions. I feel now that the benefits of the at-large system outweighs the modified ward system in my opinion. I'm of the opinion that if there is a problem then we need to address the problem. I am not sold on the fact that a problem actually exists in terms of the idea that the current at-large system is more unequal to the black Dopulation and black candidates than it is to the white population and white candidates. I have been there, and it is no 36 Throckmor ton picnic for anybody. I think that the City of Roanoke has in previous years, and in this past election, shown fairness and equality through the electoral procedure that is in place now. I am very concerned that once a change in our electoral system is made, there will be no going back. I think it would be nice to try a modified ward system on a test basis to see how it would work and to see if it would be better. Just because a ward system did not work well in Richmond, doesn't mean it would not work here, or just because it worked in Richmond doesn't mean it would work here. It would be nice to have the opportunity to test it out and then if it did not work have the option to go back, but we will not have that option and that concerns me. I'm also very concerned about anything that will further divide the City or the neighborhoods. From the scenario maps I have seen here, I see real weird things happening in both black and white communities (i.e., with the ward boundaries). I think that a modified ward system could further deteriorate the cohesiveness Of the citizens of th~ City. I think that in different ways, we have had enough things to come between and to separate the northeast, northwest, southeast and southwest sections of the City. That is a very strong concern of mine. I am also concerned about the negative reports that came from the speakers who have a ward and/or modified ward system. This goes back to my initial comment, if its not a real problem, I would hate to see us take the chance at further dividing the community and people. I'm not blind enough to think that racial inequality does not exist in the City. I think it does in more areas then I rsalize, but ! think that there ars some other less destructive type things to try first before we try something Of this magnitude. I guess the bottom line is that in my understanding of what has been presented and what I have read, I would not be in favor of the motion as stated. I'm convinced that some of the issues that called for this subject to be discussed to begin with are valid and I realize that there are a lot of apparent problems with any system you have. I guess my main concern goes back to economics. Regardless of what is done, it is going to be at the taxpayers' expense -- that is the bottom line. 37 urbanaki I want to know if the people who are being represented are getting a good deal for their money. I don't know what all of the financial ramifications of changing the electoral system might be on the City. I don't know what the costs would be in terms of salaries if the Council is expanded, but regardless of whatever it cost to implement and operate a new election system, you can rest assured it is going to be passed along to the citizens and community. I would certainly want to make sure that citizens are getting good value for their money, or they felt like the money it was costing to implement a new system was benefitting them through good representation. If that is the issue, then maybe I could go along with it. But I don't think we can spend enough money to resolve all the individual problems. Some of the problems I heard raised could be addressed through means other than implementing a modified ward system. I have not heard anything that made me fully believe the kind of money it would take to convert to and implement a new election system would really benefit the people without costing them a tremendous amount of money. I have thought about this issue a lot. I spent an entire year of my life studying this issue. My thesis in college was entitled "The Effect of Progressive Municipal Reforms on the Urban Black Population: A Case Study of Richmond". I think we are very fortunate to live in Roanoke under Mayor Taylor. We have been blessed by his tenure in the 8 years I have been here. Roanoke has come a long way. We have been spared the problems that Richmond and Norfolk have had. ! think Mr. Ware is right on the money when he says that jobs ara an essential issus to what we are talking about. I think economic development is the major issue as far as I am concerned. I think bringing Jobs to Roanoke is -one of the most important things to consider. I don't believe, however, that voting for a modified ward system is going to cure the problems of poverty. I don't think the proposed system is going to do anything to help alleviate that problem. In fact, given what we have heard from some of the speakers about the potential for increased divisiveness from a system in which Council will be dominated by 38 persons elected in a ward setting, a change to a modified ward system may lead to divisiveness on Council and more fragmentation. It could also lead to employers and/or businessmen looking for places other than Roanoke in which to place their businesses and may cause us to lose jobs. I'd like for Roanoke to be the kind of place where my children aren't going to leave and look for better employment opportunities elsewhere. I want my children to stay in Roanoke, grow up and raise their families here. For that reason, I am in favor of maintaining the current at-large system. The recent election demonstrates that we have an electorate that, I think, feels fortunate to live here. I think the election of Mac McCadden is a great thing for Roanoke. I also think that with the at-large system in Roanoke, given the pgpulation and demographics we have, there is no indication that black citizens are under- represented on Council, just by the numbers. Now, I have another issue which concerns me a great deal a~out the particular proDosal that we hav~ before us. The proposal calls for the increase in Council size from 7 members to 9 members, which allows for 2 predominantly black wards. Just looking at it on a very superficial level, it appears that we might perhaps institutionalize a decrease in minority representation by increasing the size of Council. Right now we have 2 Of the 7 on Council who are minority members. I am concerned that the Justice Department in Washington may not look Out for the best interests of all the citizens of Roanoke. That is, the Justice Department will be looking out for their own bureaucratic interests, because in my experience that is exactly what they do. I am very concerned that the Justice Department will say no to our proposal and do what they want. Politically, I am concerned that if we moved from 2 minorities out of 7 to 2 minorities out of 9 that it may motivate some bureaucrats in Washington to oppose our system and imDose'their own system. I am concerned abou~ that. I share Reverend Harris' concerns about exactly what role that third councilman elected at-large would have. Is that person intended to be a super councilman? That person would have to have significant financial support to run throughout the entire City, yet has only the same vote as a ward 39 member. I am concerned we may not attract candidates to run for that third at-large seat. I am concerned about supporting any change in the election system where may cause a $200,000 increase in the budget for the City of Roanoke to pay for expanding the size of Council. Going back to my concern about the Justice Department doing what they want to do in regard to Roanoke's election system, I ask you to reflect back on what Mr. Pates, Attorney for Fredericksburg, said about the problems they encountered in changing their election system. I hear what Mr. Ware is saying about poverty and problems with political participation and he is exactly right. I think people are more disenfranchised by poverty than anything else. I don't think the present proposal is going to do anything to improve race relations in Roanoke. I share the view of Mr. Goodwin that if it is not broke, don't fix it. I am in favor of keeping the at-large system. Garrett A lot of my points have already been covered. I a~- not going to reiterate them except to say that the fact that we have the "correct percentage of minorities" on Council now may be statistically factual, but it is also true that we have heard from people who don't feel that have a voice and don't have access to City leaders. That is the most disturbing thing I heard during all of the workshops. However, as upset as that issue makes me, I have to wonder about the number of people who share that feeling. Even though I think that if there is one person who does not feel represented that is something to worry about, I also look at the turnout at the workshops and feel that the turnout was Somewhat "underwhelming-. Experience shows us that people who have a complaint are obviously more vocal and will come out and talk about it -- not many people showed up to talk about changing the election system. The reasons I heard at workshops from people who were not happy with the at-large system were, in my mind, not necessarily related to the method of electing the Council members. I guess what I am saying is I'm not sure that changing the system would satisfy some of the complaints I heard. But, the most important reason to me for not changing 4O the current at-large system is I truly believe that we have been blessed to live in an area that possesses somewhat relative racial harmony. I think if we make this change in the election system, from which we can never turn back, we will see race pitted against race and class pitted against class in a way we have not experienced before and in a way I don't want us to experience. I hope we can come up with some plan, and I don't know exactly what it is. However, I don't think the answer is to change the at-large system. I seconded the motion on the floor and stick by my second. I am in favor of the modified ward system. Basically why I am for the modified ward system comes from my experience as a Dean at Patrick Henry High School. I was from the southeast area and when the kids from southeast realized that they had a representative on the faculty, these kids became more involved in school activities. Since working with the civic league in the southeast area, I have talked with a lot of people and they have said the same thing Onzlee said -- people from southeast don't have representationj and the City doesn't care about us. we need representation on Council and we could get representation if candidates from southeast had the finances to run at-large. But you don't find too many people that can afford do this. For this reason, I feel that a modified ward system would be the way to go. I share Steve's feeling about the distribution of ward versus at-large seats on Council. Even though I was on the Subcommittee that recommended increasing the size of Counoil, 9 is not what I would have liked to have seen, but the majority of the SubCommittee favored this number so I went along with it. I think I would like to have seen 7 members like it is now and worked out a 4 ward/3 at-large system. The City needs more representation for the nort%hwest and southeast sections. I know that when ! spoke at Villa Heights two weeks ago for the Neighborhood Partne=ship, one of the things that bothered them was the City had forgotten them and didn't care about the drugs and crime in their area. I think that if they had a representative from the area, someone they could talk to like the students at Patrick Henry had, they would feel the~e is someone listening to them. 41 Camper I came into this process looking at leaving the system as it is now. I have probably changed my mind a dozen times about changing the system, but I am still in favor of leaving the at-large system the way it is. If I put a lot of weight on citizen comments provided at the workshops we had, where we had a total of 31 people show up, I would think that we would need to give some consideration to the modified ward system. If there would have been more people attending the workshops, it Would have carried more weight with me, but at this point I would like to leave the election system as it is. Other Recommendations Proposed by the Task Fore- Term Limitations Several Task Force members expressed concern about the issue of term limitations on Council. It was noted that this issue was brought up at several of the workshops. On a motion by a Task Force member and seconded, the Task Force was asked to consider recommending term limitations on City Council. The rationale was that this would help to address the concerns presented at the workshops by allowing ventilation on Council, new persons to com~ on board, and allow persons to run for open seats and not face an entrenched incumbent. Many Task Force members stated that term limitations would have appeal in either a modified ward system or in an at-large system. If the Task Force would recommend term limitations, this would create greater opportunities for new persons to run and have a better chance to serve on Council. This would help to enhance better representation throughout the City. The Task Force agreed that they would recommend term limitations. At this point, discussion moved to the type of term limitations to be recommended to Council. After much discussion, it was agreed by a vote of eight (8) in favor with two (2) abstentions (four members were not present during this vote) that the Task Force would recommend the following to Council: It is reccmMnded that a Council member serve only three consecutive, 4-year terms, except if the Council member decides to run and lo e~ected'-es #a~or, then al Aayor he/she can serve three consecutive 4-year terms in this position. AXter serving three consecutive terms es &uyor, a cafldid~te can run again for Council and cea serve another three consecutive, 4-year terms on Council. 42 Creation of Another Citizen Task Force in the Year 2000 to Reexamine the Issue of an Alternative Election System for Roanoke City The Task Force held a general discussion about the possibility of the City reexamining the issue of an alternative election system in the future. Although the majority of Task Force members felt that the at-large system was currently meeting the needs of Roanoke residents, there was the potential for conditions to change over the years; perhaps, requiring a change in the election system sometime in the future. A motion was made, seconded and approved that the Task Force recommend the following to City Council: It is recommended that another Task Force be apDoin2ed in the year 2000, or sooner if the need arises, to study the election system issue to see if the at-large system is still serving the needs of the citizens of Roanoke. Other Issues Discussed by the Task Force The Issue of Neighborhood Advisory Councils Another issue which was discussed at some of the citizen workshops" involved setting up neighborhood advisory councils to provide neighborhood input to City Council. By establishing neighborhood advisory councils, citizens would feel that they have an "official" conduit through which they can pass their concerns to Council. The advisory councils would also serve as a sounding board for Council members and a mechanism to disseminate information about the time/location of Council meetings as well as items to be discussed on the Council agenda. The Task Force decided not to present this issue as a recommendation to Council, but to highlight it in this report and to request that Chairman Butler note this issue in his presentation to City Council. The Issue of Task Force Members including Personal Statements as a part of the Final Re~x~rt to City Council Some Task Force members felt that they might want to develop a personal statement as to why they voted the way they did on the issue of the change in the current election system. It was noted that the s&l~ary statements provided earlier in this report may not cover all issues of concern to individual Task Force members. By developing a personal statement, each Task Force member would have a greater opportunity to fully express their opinions. Chairman Butler stated' that the personal statements of Task Force members could be included as an attachment to the final report. 43 WILBURN C. OlBMNG, JR. CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF CITYATTORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING 215 CHURCH AVENUE SW ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595 February 8, 1995 WILLIAM X PARSONS STEVEN J. TALEVI KATHLEE, N MARIE KRONAU GLADYS L. YATES The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: Modified election district system Dear Mayor Bowers and Council Members: Council Member Wyatt has requested that I make available to you the enclosed motion, relating to a referendum on the issue of election of City Council members under a modified election district system, which she intends to make at the Council meeting of February 13, 1995. For your information, I am also enclosing my report of August 8, 1994, on the same subject and the report of the Citizens Task Force to Study Alternative Election Procedures for Roanoke City Council, dated July 13, 1992. I hope that this information will prove useful to you as you consider this important public issue. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney WCD:f Enclosures / cc: W/Robert Herbert, City Manager v~4ary F. Parker, City Clerk GARY M. BOWMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.C. P.O. BOX 2223 145 W. CAMPBELL AVENUE, SUITE 401 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24009 TELEPHONE (703) 343-'/949 FACSIMILE (703) 343-~892 March 13, 1995 Ms. Mary Parker City Clerk, city of Roanoke 315 W. Church Avenue Roanoke, virginia 24016 Re= Transmlttal of Letter in Support of Modified Ward System Dear Ms. Parker: Enclosed is a letter to the members of City Council expressing my support for the modified ward system. It is my understanding that council will consider matters relating to a proposed modified ward system at its meeting tonight. Please include my letter in the record of the meeting so that council may consider it. If you have any questions about this matter, please call me. Sincerely, Gary M. Bowman GMB:gb Encl GarY M. BOWMAN ATTORNEY AT LAW, P.O. BOX 2223 145 W, CAMPBELL AVENUE, SUITE 401 ROANOKE. VIRGINIA 24009 TELEPHONE {703) 343-794g FACBIMILE (703) 343-9892 March 13, 1995 Members of city Council City of Roanoke 315 W. Church Avenue Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Re: Modified Ward System Dear Members of city Council: The purpose of this letter is to express my support for a modified ward system for Roanoke City and to urge you to support a referendum on a modified ward system. I read in Saturday's newspaper that a majority of Council does not support a modified ward system for Roanoke city, but I hope that you will reconsider your opinion. Regardless of your personal opinion about whether a modified ward system should be adopted, there is broad support for the modified ward approach which has continued throughout the 1990s and which transcends party lines. In 1991, Robert Firebaugh, a former chairman of the Democratic city committee, suggested a modified ward system to City Council. Following Firebaugh's suggestion, the Roanoke City Republican Committee appointed a study group to investigate the modified ward system. Following its study, the Republican City Committee adopted a resolution endorsing a modified ward system. The leaders of the Republican committee met with the leaders of the NAACP and the two groups jointly asked City Council to consider a modified ward system. The Republican study group published the enclosed op-ed piece in The Roanoke Times & World News, which caused media attention to be focused on the issue. Following that, city Council appointed a commission to study the modified ward approach, but the commission did not include the individuals who were the most vocal proponents of the ward system. As one could have expected, based upon the commission's composition, the commission recommended in 1992 that the city electoral system remain unchanged. Despite that setback, the citizen movement toward a modified ward system has continued. In July 1994, ten people Members of City Council March 13, 1995 Page Two from three of the city's four quadrants asked council to adopt a modified ward system and citizens spoke in favor of a modified ward system in September 1994. Members of the city council who were elected under the current at-large system appear to be both arrogant and unresponsive when they reject consideration of the modified ward approach. Members of council appear arrogant because their refusal to embrace change is a tacit statement that council would not be better if different members were elected. Members of council appear unresponsive because support for a change clearly exists. The citizens of Roanoke deserve to decide for themselves whether a modified ward system should be adopted or rejected. city Council should not be the gatekeeper to change on this issue--the citizens of Roanoke should decide this isue at the polls. Sincerely, Gary M. Bowman GMB:gb Encl COMMENTARY REPUBUCAN PRINCIPLES Small wards would empower Roanokers -~ By GARY M BOWMAN, C JAMES WILLIAMS III and WILLIAM G. FRALIN JR. ON FEB. 5, the Roanoke City Republican The essence of ward politics is political decentralization, putting city legislators in direct contact with a small group of constituents. Government can be responsive to the people's needs only if politicians are close enough to their constituents to hear their concerns.