Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 02-20-90 (29939) REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ...... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL February 20, 1990 2:00 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL Call to Order -- Roll Call. All Present. The invocation will be delivered by Mayor Noel C. Taylor The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America will be led by Mayor Noel C. Taylor. BID OPENINGS A. Bids for improvements to play areas at Jackson, Norwich and Wasena Parks. Nine bids were referred to a committee composed of Messrs. Garland, Chairman, Snead and Clark for tabula- tion, report and recommendation to Council. B. Bids for Brandon Avenue, S. W., widening from Main Street to Windsor Avenue, S. W. Five bids were referred to a committee composed of Messrs· Garland, Chairman, Snead and Clark for tabula- tion, report and recommendation to Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ao Public hearing with regard to the proposed Consolidation Agreement between the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke. Messrs. Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice-Mayor and Howard E. Musser, Council Member. Adopted Ordinance No. 29939-22090. (7-0) CONSENT AGENDA ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE (1) MOTION IN THE FORM LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DIS- CUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. NONE REGULAR AGENDA Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters: None. Petitions and Communications: None. Reports of Officers: a. City Manager: Briefings: None. Items Recommended for Action: A report recommending acceptance of the Norfolk Southern Corporation Law Department gift of a collec- tion of state codes to the Roanoke City Law Library. Adopted Ordinance No. 29940-22090. (7-0) A report recommending authorization to install flag poles, flags and appropriate ground lighting for Andrews Memorial Park and Williamson Road Gateway Park; and transfer of funds therefor. Adopted Ordinance No. 29941-22090 and Ordinance No. 29942-22090. (7-0) A report recommending adoption of a measure in support of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund, and requesting area legislators to support continued funding by the General Assembly. Adopted Resolution No. 29943-22090. (7-0) A report recommending implementation of a program of residential solid waste recycling; and appropriation of funds therefor· Adopted Ordinance No. 29944-22090. (7-0) A report recommending authorization to execute Change Order No. I to the contracts with Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc., for construction of Williamson Road Storm Drain Projects, Phase 2, Contracts I-E, I-F, and I-G; and transfer of funds therefor. (2) 10. Adopted Ordinance No. 29945-22090 and Ordinance No. 29940-22090. (7-0) Reports of Committees: None. Unfinished Business: None. Introduction and Consideration of Ordinances and Resolutions: Ordinance No. 29930, on second reading, rezoning a tract of land containing 0.873 acre, located at 2801 Brandon Avenue, S. W., identified as Official Tax No. 1610204, from RM-2, Residential Multi-Family, Medium Density District, to C-1, Office District, subject to a certain condition proffered by the petitioner. Adopted Ordinance No. 29930-22090. (7-0) Ordinance No. 29931, on second reading, rezoning two par- cels of land lying between Elm Avenue, Jefferson Street, Williamson Road, and Highland Avenue, S. E., identified as Official Tax Nos. 4020801 and 4020701, from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to C-1, Office District. Adopted Ordinance No. 29931-22090. Mr. Garland abstained from voting.) (5-0, Mrs. Bowles and Ordinance No. 29932, on second reading, amending the following sections of Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended: Section 36.1-164, Section 36.1-206, Section 36.1-227, Section 36.1-25, Section 36.1-723, Section 36.1-402, Section 36.1-531, Section 36.1-249, and Section 36.1-585. Adopted Ordinance No. 29932-22090. (7-0) Ordinance No. 29933, on second reading, granting to the American Red Cross, Roanoke Valley Chapter, a revocable permit to mount certain flags on street lighting poles in the Central Business District of the City, upon certain terms and conditions. Adopted Ordinance No. 29933-22090. (7-0) 9. Motions and Miscellaneous Business: Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City Council. Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council· Other Hearings of Citizens: MARY F. PARKER City C)erk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215ChurchAvenue, S W,Room455 Roanoke, V~r§~ma 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 February 21, 1990 SAN[~RA Fi. EAKIN Deputy Crty Clerk File #91 Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Jr. Dear Mr. Dibling: I am attaching six copies of Ordinance No. 29939-22090 authorizing execution of a Consolidation Agreement between the City of Roanoke (hereinafter "City") and the County of Roanoke (hereinafter "County"); authorizing the filing, on or before February 28, 1990, with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County, of such Agreement along with a petition executed by the Mayor praying that the Circuit Courts order that a referendum be held; authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the City, the County and Town of Vinton relating to the expansion of the boundaries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authorities of the Town and Roanoke ~etropoli£an Government vis- a-vis each other; authorizing the City Attorney to file such petitions, pleadings, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper to permit a referendum on con- solidation; directing the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the Clerk of the Town of Vinton Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County. Ordinance No. 29939-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, .~4ary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456 Roanoke, V~rg~ma 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 February 21, 1990 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk File #91 Ms. ~ary H. Allen Clerk of the Board Roanoke County Board of Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Dear Ms. Allen: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29939-22090 authorizing exe- cution of a Consolidation Agreement between the City of Roanoke (hereinafter "City") and the County of Roanoke (hereinafter "County"); authorizing the filing, on or before February 28, 1990, with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County, of such Agreement along with a petition executed by the Mayor praying that the Circuit Courts order that a referendum be held; authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the City, the County and Town of Vinton relating to the expansion of the boun- daries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authori- ties of the Town and Roanoke Metropolitan Government vis-a-vis each other; authorizing the City Attorney to file such petitions, pleadings, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper to permit a referendum on consolidation; directing the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the Clerk of the Town of Vinton Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County. Ordinance No. 29939-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Eric. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue. S W, Room 456 Roanoke, V~rg~ma 24011 Telephone: (703) 981~2541 February 21, 1990 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy Oty Clerk File #91 Ms. Carolyn S. Ross Clerk of Council Town of Vinton P. 0. Box 338 Vinton, Virginia 24179 Dear .Ms. Ross: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29939-22090 authorizing exe- cution of a Consolidation Agreement between the City of Roanoke (hereinafter "City") and the County of Roanoke (hereinafter "County"); authorizing the filing, on or before February 28, 1990, with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County, of such Agreement along with a petition executed by the Mayor praying that the Circuit Courts order that a referendum be held; authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the City, the County and Town of Vinton relating to the expansion of the boun- daries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authori- ties of the Town and Roanoke Metropolitan Government vis-a-vis each other; authorizing the City Attorney to file such petitions, pleadings, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper to permit a referendum on consolidation; directing the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the Clerk of the Town of Vinton Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County. Ordinance No. 29939-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra E~C, MARY F. PARKER C~ty Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 February 21, 1990 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk File #91 Mr. Forest G. Jones Clerk of Council City of Salem P. 0. Box 869 Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear ~4r. Jones: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29939-22090 authorizing exe- cution of a Consolidation Agreement between the City of Roanoke (hereinafter "City") and the County of Roanoke (hereinafter "County"); authorizing the filing, on or before February 28, 1990, with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County, of such Agreement along with a petition executed by the qayor praying that the Circuit Courts order that a referendum be held; authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the City, the County and Town of Vinton relating to the expansion of the boun- daries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authori- ties of the Town and Roanoke Metropolitan Government vis-a-vis each other; authorizing the City Attorney to file such petitions, pleadings, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper to permit a referendum on consolidation; directing the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the Clerk of the Town of Vinton Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County. Ordinance No. 29939-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~~ ~4ary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215ChurchAvenue, S W,Room456 Roanoke, V~rg~ma 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 February 21, 1990 SANORA H. EAKIN Deputy C~ty Clerk File #91 The Honorable Roy B. Willett Chief Judge, Circuit Court Roanoke, Virginia Dear Judge Willett: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29939-22090 authorizing exe- cution of a Consolidation Agreement between the City of Roanoke (hereinafter "City") and the County of Roanoke (hereinafter "County"); authorizing the filing, on or before February 28, 1990, with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County, of such Agreement along with a petition executed by the Mayor praying that the Circuit Courts order that a referendum be held; authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the City, the County and Town of Vinton relating to the expansion of the boun- daries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authori- ties of the Town and Roanoke Metropolitan Government vis-a-vis each other; authorizing the City Attorney to file such petitions, pleadings, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper to permit a referendum on consolidation; directing the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Hoard of Supervisors of the County, the Clerk of the Town of Vinton Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County. Ordinance No. 29939-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~/~~ Mary F. Parker, C~C City Clerk MFP:ra Enc, MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 4S6 Roanoke, V~rg~ma 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 February 21, 1990 SANDRAH. EAKIN DeputyC=tyClerk File #91 The Honorable Clifford Judge, Circuit Court Roanoke, Virginia We ckstein Dear Judge ~eckstein: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29939-22090 authorizing exe- cution of a Consolidation Agreement between the City of Roanoke (hereinafter "City") and the County of Roanoke (hereinafter "County"); authorizing the filing, on or before February 28, 1990, with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County, of such Agreement along with a petition executed by the ~ayor praying that the Circuit Courts order that a referendum be held; authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the City, the County and Town of Vinton relating to the expansion of the boun- daries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authori- ties of the Town and Roanoke Metropolitan Government vis-a-vis each other; authorizing the City Attorney to file such petitions, pleadings, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper to permit a referendum on consolidation; directing the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the Clerk of the Town of Vinton Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County. Ordinance No. 29939-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981~2541 February 21, 1990 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk File #91 The Honorable Kenneth E. Judge, Circuit Court 305 East Main Street Salem, Virginia 24153 Trabue Dear Judge Trabue: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29939-22090 authorizing exe- cution of a Consolidation Agreement between the City of Roanoke (hereinafter "City") and the County of Roanoke (hereinafter "County"); authorizing the filing, on or before February 28, 1990, with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County, of such Agreement along with a petition executed by the Mayor praying that the Circuit Courts order that a referendum be held; authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the City, the County and Town of Vinton relating to the expansion of the boun- daries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authori- ties of the Town and Roanoke Metropolitan Government vis-a-vis each other; authorizing the City Attorney to file such petitions, pleadings, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper to permit a referendum on consolidation; directing the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the Clerk of the Town of Vinton Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County. Ordinance No. 29939-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~_~._ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S W, Room 456 Roanoke, Virgmia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 February 21, 1990 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy C~ty Clerk File #91 The Honorable G. O. Clemens Judge, Circuit Court P. 0. Box 1016 Salem, Virginia 24153 Dear Judge Clemens: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29939-22090 authorizing exe- cution of a Consolidation Agreement between the City of Roanoke (hereinafter "City") and the County of Roanoke (hereinafter "County"); authorizing the filing, on or before February 28, 1990, with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County, of such Agreement along with a petition executed by the ~ayor praying that the Circuit Courts order that a referendum be held; authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the City, the County and Town of Vinton relating to the expansion of the boun- daries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authori- ties of the Town and Roanoke Metropolitan Government vis-a-vis each other; authorizing the City Attorney to file such petitions, pleadings, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper to permit a referendum on consolidation; directing the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the Clerk of the Town of Vinton Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County. Ordinance No. 29939-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. MARY F, PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S W., Room 456 Roanoke, Virgmia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2541 February 21, 1990 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy C~ty crerk File #91 The Honorable Diane McQ. Judge, Circuit Court Roanoke, Virginia Strickland Dear Judge Strickland: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29939-22090 authorizing exe- cution of a Consolidation Agreement between the City of Roanoke (hereinafter "City") and the County of Roanoke (hereinafter "County"); authorizing the filing, on or before February 28, 1990, with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County, of such Agreement along with a petition executed by the Mayor praying that the Circuit Courts order that a referendum be held; authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the City, the County and Town of Vinton relating to the expansion of the boun- daries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authori- ties of the Town and Roanoke Metropolitan Government vis-a-vis each other; authorizing the City Attorney to file such petitions, pleadings, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper to permit a referendum on consolidation; directing the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the Clerk of the Town of Vinton Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County. Ordinance No. 29939-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk MFP:ra MARY F. PARKER C~t¥ Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W, Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703)981-2541 February 21, 1990 SANDRA H, EAKIN Deputy City Clerk File #91 The Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Vice-Mayor, City of Roanoke 10 27th Street, S. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Jr. The Honorable Howard E. Musser Council Member, City of Roanoke 2767 Wilshire Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Gentlemen: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29939-22090 authorizing exe- cution of a Consolidation Agreement between the City of Roanoke (hereinafter "City") and the County of Roanoke (hereinafter "County"); authorizing the filing, on or before February 28, 1990, with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County, of such Agreement along with a petition executed by the Mayor praying that the Circuit Courts order that a referendum be held; authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the City, the County and Town of Vinton relating to the expansion of the boun- daries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authori- ties of the Town and Roanoke Metropolitan Government vis-a-vis each other; authorizing the City Attorney to file such petitions, pleadings, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper to permit a referendum on consolidation; directing the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the Clerk of the Town of Vinton Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County. Ordinance No. 29939-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 199o. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc o pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. Barry L. Key, Manager, Officer of Management and Budget IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 20th day of February, 1990. No. 29939-22090. VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE authorizing the execution of a Consolidation Agreement between the City of Roanoke (hereinafter "City") and the County of Roanoke (hereinafter "County"); authorizing the filing, on or before February 28, 1990, with tnz Circuit Court~ for the City and the County, of such Agreement along with a peti- tion executed by the Mayor praying that the Circuit Courts order that a referendum be held; authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the City, the County and Town of Vinton relat- ing to the expansion of the boundaries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authorities of the Town and Roanoke Metropolitan Government vis-a-vis each other; authorizing the City Attorney to file such petitions, pleadings, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and admini- strative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper to permit a referendum on consolidation; directing the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the Clerk of the Town of Vinton Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County; and providing for an emergency. WHEREAS, on February 27, 1989, a petition was filed with this Council, pursuant to §15.1-1132, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, by which fifteen percent or more of the registered voters of the City requested the City Council to effect a con- solidation agreement with the County; WHEREAS, on February 28, 1989, a petition was filed with the Board of Supervisors of the County, pursuant to §15.1-1132, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, by which fifteen percent or more of the registered voters of the County requested the Board of Supervisors to effect a consolidation agreement ~ith the City; WHEREAS, both petitions were filed with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County on February 28, 1989; WHEREAS, the Consolidation Negotiating Teams for the City and the County have held more than twenty-five negotiating sessions and have reached accord as to a Consolidation Agreement; WHEREAS, the Consolidation Agreement has been published in the Roanoke Times & World News on January 29, February 5, Febru- ary 12 and February 19, 1990, pursuant to ~l§.l-llS?, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and §9(b) of the Consolidation Agreement, and the same publication has given public notice of a public hearing to be held before the Council at 2:00 p.m. on February 20, 1990, at which all citizens shall be accorded the opportunity to comment with respect to the Consolidation Agreement and the adoption of a measure authorizing execution of such Agreement on behalf of the City; WHEREAS, such public hearing has been held as advertised, and all citizens desiring to comment with respect to such Con- solidation Agreement and the adoption of this ordinance have been accorded such opportunity; and WHEREAS, the City Consolidation Negotiating Team of Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice-Mayor, Howard E. Musser, Member of City Council, and Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney, have recom- mended to City Council that such Consolidation Agreement be approved by City Council, executed on behalf of this City and filed with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County on or before February 28, THEREFORE, BE Roanoke as follows: 1. The Mayor 1990; IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of and the members of the City's Consolidation Negotiating Team, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice-Mayor, Howard E. Musser, Member of City Council, and Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney, are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute and attest, respectively, a Consolidation Agree- ment between the City and the County, dated February 28, 1990, a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. 2. The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute a petition on behalf of the City Council praying that the Circuit Courts for the City and the County order that a referen- dum be held with respect to the Consolidation Agreement pursuant (hereinafter to $9 of such Agreement. 3. The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute and attest, respectively, an Agreement between the City, the County and the Town of Vinton "Town"), such Agreement being attached to the Consolidation Agreement as Exhibit D and incorporated by reference therein and providing for expansion of the boundaries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authorities of the Town and the consolidated government (Roanoke Metropolitan Government) vis-a-vis each other; 4. The Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized, for and on behalf of the City, to execute and attest, respectively, such ancillary petitions, pleadings, applications, certificates and other legal paper~ as shall be necessary to permit the question of consolidation to be placed on the ballot at referen- dum to be held on November S, 1990. 5. All agreements, contracts, and other legal documents authorized by this ordinance shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 6. The City Attorney shall be authorized to file, for and on behalf of the City, any petitions, pleadings, applications, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper by him to permit the question of consolidation to be considered at referendum on November 6, 1990. 7. The City of this ordinance County, the Clerk City of Salem Council and the City and the County. Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the of the Vinton Town Council, the Clerk of the the Judges of the Circuit Courts for 8. 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 Cl~erk. THIS CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT is made and entered into this day of February, 1990, by and between the COUNTY OF ROANOKE, a county of the Commonwealth of Virginia, by its duly elected Board of Super- visors, and the CITY OF ROANOKE, a municipal corporation of the Com- monwealth of Virginia, by its duly elected City Council. W I TN E S S E TH: The County of Roanoke and City of Roanoke agree as follows: 1. Names of the County and City Proposing to Consolidate. The names of the County and City proposing to consolidate into one regional unit of general local government pursuant to Article VII, $1, Constitution of Virginia, are the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and the City of Roanoke, Virginia. 2. Name of Consolidated Government. The name of the regional unit of general local government into which the County of Roanoke, Virginia, and the City of Roanoke, Virginia, propose to consolidate shall be Roanoke Metropolitan Government, a regional government pursuant to Article VII, $1, Constitution of Virginia. 3. Definitions. As used in this Consolidation Agreement the following terms shall have the definitions set forth herein: (a) (b) "City" shall mean the City of Roanoke, Virginia, a municipal corporation of the Commonwealth, prior to any consolidation. "County" shall mean the County of Roanoke, a county of the Commonwealth of Virginia, any consolidation. Virginia, prior to (d) (e) (f) "RMG" shall mean the Roanoke Metropolitan Government, a regional government pursuant to Article VII, $1, Constitution of Virginia, which shall result from the consolidation of the City and the County. "Existing liabilities" shall mean ali valid and lawful charges and liabilities, except for indebtedness, bonded and otherwise, existing as of the effective date of con- solidation or which thereafter may come due as the result of a claim or cause of action which arose or accrued prior to the effec- tive date of consolidation together with all costs of defense. To the extent that any pro rata share is a valid and lawful charge as of the effective date of consoli- dation, it shall be an "existing liability." "Indebtedness" shall mean indebtedness, bonded and otherwise, which has been for- mally approved and incurred pursuant to the Public Finance Act of the Commonwealth of Virginia as set forth in Chapter 5 of Title 15.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, or pursuant to the County or City Charter or any indebtedness, bonded and otherwise, incurred through the State Literary Fund or in antici- pation of a loan from the State Literary Fund. The term "indebtedness" shall also include lease purchase commitments. The term shall not include bonds issued for water or sewer improvements and chargeable to water and sewer customers pursuant to Section 25 of this Agreement. "Service district" shall mean a defined geographical area of RMG initially established by this Agreement, but subject to amendment by the governing body of RMG to meet changing demand or need for governmental services. In each service district, there shall be established a real property tax rate bearing a reasonable relationship to the appiicable level of govern- mental services provided in such district. Initially, there shall be two service districts within RMG which shall be known as the Urban Service District and the Suburban Service District. The territory of the former City prior to consoli- dation shall constitute the Urban Service District, and the territory of the former County prior to consolidation, including the Town of Vinton, shall constitute the Suburban Service District. (g) "Special tax district" shall mean a defined geogra- phical area of RMG established by this Agreement for the purpose of repaying existing indebtedness charge- able to such area prior to consolidation by levy of a special tax on real property in such area which is in addition to the base real property tax rate applicable throughout the entire RMG. There shall be two (2) special tax districts; one shall be the terri- tory of the former City prior to the consolidation, and the second shall be the territory of the former County, including the Town of Vinton, prior to con- solidation. 4. Purpose and Intent; Goals and Fundamental Principles. (a) The purpose of this Agreement is to establish the duties, responsibilities and conditions for a consolidation of the governments of the County and the City. It is intended to be responsive to the citizen petitions filed February 28, 1989, with the Circuit Courts pursuant to ~15.1-1132, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. (b) It is agreed by the parties hereto that the goal of this Consolidation Agreement is to create the best governmental structure to meet the economic and social needs of the people of the County and the City and to position the Roanoke Valley to successfully compete in an international economy in the 21st Century· This Consolidation Agreement is predicated upon certain fundamental principles which are independent of change. These principles are as follows: A consolidated quality school system, orga- nized on the basis of neighborhood school attendance zones, shall be maintained to prepare its students to assume responsibility for productive citizenship in our democratic society and to enable them to successfully pursue their academic and vocational interests. Government shall be politically accountable with citizens having the right to participate in those - 3 - governmental decisions that affect their vital interests. Citizens should pay no more than their fair and equitable share of the cost of providing govern- ment and governmental services. Government shall make the most effective use of limited resources (financial, political, human and environmental) and provide cost effective quality services at appropriate service levels funded by affordable tax rates. Government shall promote diversified development and growth combining the advantages of the County and the City. 5. Initial Corporate Boundaries. The initial corporate boundaries of RMG shall encompass the entire area, at the time this consolidation shall become effective, of both the County and the City. The area of the Town of Vinton within the County shall continue as the Town of Vinton within RMG. The initial corporate boundaries of RMG shall be more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 6. Governmental Organization. RMG shall be a regional unit of general local government pursuant to Article VII, $1, Constitution of Virginia, and an incorporated political subdivision of the Commonwealth. RMG shall exist and be operated pursuant to a Charter granted by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, and it shall perform such governmental functions and have such powers, rights and responsibilities as are granted to it by this Agreement, its Charter, any applicable special legislation enacted by the General Assembly and general law of the - 4 - Commonwealth. The governmental structure of RMG shall include as elected constitutional officers a clerk of circuit court, Common- wealth's attorney, sheriff, treasurer and commissioner of revenue. 7. Charter. (a) The proposed Charter for RMG is attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference. It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that such Charter shall become effective at 12:01 A.M. on July 1, 1993, subject to the provisions of Section 8, infra. (b) The governing bodies of the County and the City, acting Jointly, shall submit the attached Charter bill to the 1990 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia for enactment as the Charter of RMG. The governing bodies agree to Jointly advocate and work for the enactment of the attached Charter bill, including its effective date, by the 1990 Session of the General Assembly. The governing bodies, acting jointly, shall have the authority to agree upon any necessary or required provisions or revisions that may be required by the General Assembly. 8. Effective Date of Consolidation. Subject to (a) the enactment of any required legislation, in- cluding any special legislation and the proposed Charter attached hereto as Exhibit "B", by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia; (b) favorable conclusion of proceedings pursuant to f~15.1-1130.2 through 15.1-1130.10, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, if required; (c) favorable conclusion of proceedings before - 5 - the State Commission on Local Government, if required; (d) an order for referendum to determine the desires and wishes of the qualified voters of the County and the City relative to consolidation; (e) approval by referendum of a majority of the qualified voters voting on the question in each consolidating government; and (f) no objec- tion by the Attorney General of the United States as to voting rights or procedures; consolidation shall become effective upon the date prescribed in the Court order or orders effecting the Consoli- dation Agreement. The County and the City agree to support before the Circuit Courts 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 1993, as the time and date upon which consolidation shall be effective. 9. Referendum. (a) The governing bodies of the County and City, after execu- tion of this Agreement, shall file with the Circuit Court for Roanoke County and the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke, the original of this Agreement, together with a petition on behalf of such governing bodies executed by the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke and the Mayor of the City of Roanoke and attested by the respective Clerks of the two governing bodies, asking that a referendum on the question of consolidation be ordered to be held within the County only for the eligible voters residing within the boundaries of the County and within the City only for the eligible voters residing within the boundaries of the City pursuant to Article 4, Chapter 26, Title 15.1,(S15.1-1130.1 et ~eq.), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, on a date fixed by the Court. Subject to the conditions enumerated in Section 8 of this - 6 - Agreement, the County and the City agree to support before the Courts the date of November 6, 1990, as the date of the required referendum. (b) Prior to such filing, the governing bodies shall cause a copy of this Consolidation Agreement to be printed at least once a week for four (4) consecutive weeks in the Roanoke Times & World News, a newspaper published in and having general circulation in the County and the City. The cost of such publication shall be shared by the County and the City on a per capita basis. (c) Upon approval by referendum in the County and the City as set forth above, and certification by judges of the Circuit Courts of the results of the referendum to the Secretary of the Commonwealth, consolidation shall become effective at 12:01 a.m. on the date prescribed in the Court order or orders for such consolidation to become effective, unless objection to such changes affecting electoral procedures be expressed by the Attor- ney General of the United States and not be removed as provided by law. (d) Upon approval by referendum in the County and City as set forth herein, the current term of office of the members of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the members of the City Council of the City and all appointees of each governing body shall terminate upon the effective time and date of con- solidation. Terms of constitutional officers of the County and the City shall be addressed by Section 11 of this Agreement. (e) This Agreement shall be null and void in its entirety if not approved by referendum in the County and the City as set forth above. - 7 - 10. Composition of Governing Body of RMG. (a) RMG shall contain nine (9) election districts. These nine (9) election districts are shown on the map identified as Exhibit "C", which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The geographical boundaries of these election districts shall be defined as marked on the map, and each district shall be identified by the number set forth on the map. (b) The governing body of RMG, which shall be known as the Board of Commissioners, shall consist of eleven (11) members: one member from each election district; one (1) member elected at large as the Mayor of RMG; and one (1) member elected at large as the Vice- Mayor of RMG. Each member elected from an election district shall be a qualified voter of that district, shall reside therein and shall be elected by the qualified voters thereof. No person may be a candidate for an at-large office at the same time he or she is a candidate for membership on the governing body from any elec- tion district. (c) The Mayor shall preside over the meetings of the governing body, shall represent RMG at official functions and ceremonial events; except as hereinabove stated, the Mayor shall have the same rights, privileges and duties as other members of the governing body. The other member elected at large shall be the Vice-Mayor who shall preside in the absence of the Mayor; ex- cept as hereinabove stated, the Vice-Mayor shall have the same rights, privileges and duties as other members of the governing body. - 8 - (d) The governing body of RMG shall be selected at a special election as ordered by the circuit court (pursuant to §15.1-1141 and S24.1-88 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended), which the parties intend shall be on November 5, 1991, and shall take office for certain limited purposes specified in subsection (f), of this section upon their qualification, but not earlier than January 1, 1992, and for all purposes as of the effective date of consolidation for the terms herein specified. (e) The terms of the Vice-Mayor of the governing body and four (4) members from even-numbered election districts (the num- bered election districts being set forth on the map identified as Exhibit "C" and attached hereto and incorporated by reference) shall commence July 1, 1993, and expire June 30, 1995. The terms of the Mayor and the five (5) members from odd-numbered election districts shall commence July 1, 1993, and expire June 30, 1997. Thereafter, the members of the governing body shall be elected biennially in May of odd-numbered years for four (4) year terms commencing on the first day of July. (f) The members of the governing body shall serve for an initial term commencing upon their qualification, but not earlier than January 1, 1992, for certain limited purposes until the effec- tive date of consolidation, July 1, 1993. These limited purposes are as follows: (1) Appointment of the chief administrative official of RMG and such other officers of RMG as are to be appointed by such governing body pursuant to its Charter; - 9 - (2) Appointment of the limited purpose school board pursuant to $12 of this Agreement; (3) Preparation and approval of a budget for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 1993, and ending June 30, 1994; (4) Adoption of ordinances to be effective upon the date of consolidation; (5) Negotiation, preparation and approval of contracts, leases, franchises or other documents required by this Agree- ment or otherwise deemed advisable; (6) Review of the consolidation plan recom- mended by the Consolidation Transition Team pursuant to Section 32 of this Agreement; and (7) Completion of the orderly transition into a new regional unit of local government. (g) Reasonable expenses of the limited purpose governing body in connection with hiring a chief administrative official of RMG, and compensating such officer and providing office space and cleri- ca1 assistance for a period not to exceed one (1) year, shall be shared equally by the County and the City. The limited purpose governing body shall be authorized to expend such additional funds as may be appropriated to it by the governing bodies of the County and the City for the orderly transition into one regional govern- merit. (h) Any vacancy in the limited purpose governing body estab- lished pursuant to subsection (f) of this section shall be filled within thirty (30) days by a majority vote of the remaining members of the governing body. Any person appointed by the governing body to fill a vacancy shall serve a term expiring June 30, 1993. Prior to July 1, 1993, or as soon thereafter as possible, a special elec- - 10 - tion shall be held to fill the complete term, commencing July 1, of the member vacating his or her seat on the governing body. (i) The compensation for members of the governing body of RMG shall be established pursuant to the Charter for the new regional unit of local government. 1993, 11. Constitutional Officers. (a) On the effective date of consolidation (July 1, 1993), the constitutional officers of the City and the County shall con- tinue in office pursuant to subsection (b) of this section at not less than their salaries in effect at the effective date of such consolidation. (b) Selection of such constitutional officers for RMG shall be made by agreement between those persons holding the respective constitutional offices in the County and City on the effective date of consolidation, and the other person shall become the assistant or chief deputy. The agreement certifying the selec- tion of each constitutional officer shall be filed with the circuit court and approved by the court, at least six (6) months prior to the effective date of consolidation. In the event that no agreement is reached or no certification is filed within the specified time limit, the circuit court shall designate one officer as principal and the other as assistant or chief deputy. The princi- pal shall designate the titles of the assistant or chief deputy and other personnel of the office. In the event of a vacancy in the office of assistant or chief deputy created during such term, the position shall be abolished. Each officer, whether principal, chief - 11 - deputy or assistant, shall continue in office until December 31, 1995 (December 31, 1999, in the case of the Clerks of Circuit Court), whether or not the term to which that officer was elected may have expired prior to that date; provided, however, any chief deputy or assistant may be retained by the appropriate constitutional officer after December 31, 1995 (December 31, 1999, in the case of the Clerks of Circuit Court). (c) Constitutional officers for RMG shall be elected on November 7, 1995, to take office January 1, 1996, except for the Clerk of the Circuit Court, who shall be elected November 2, 1999, to take office January 1, 2000. (d) The constitutional offices of Sheriff, Treasurer, Commis- sioner of Revenue and Commonwealth's Attorney for the City shall be eliminated upon the conclusion of their terms of office on December 31, 1993; provided, however, the incumbent constitutional officers of the City may continue to serve as constitutional officer, assis- tant or chief deputy until December 31, 1995, pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. The constitutional office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City shall be eliminated upon the conclusion of its term of office on December 31, 1995; provided, however, the incumbent Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City may continue to serve as clerk, assistant or chief deputy until December 31, 1999, pursuant to subsection (b) of this section. 12. Education. (a) Upon the effective date of consolidation, the territory of RMG shall constitute one consolidated school division, and - 12 there shall be a consolidated school board and a division super- intendent of schools. Except as otherwise provided in this Agree- ment and in the Charter of RMG, the school board and the division superintendent of schools shall exercise all the powers conferred and perform all the duties imposed upon them by general law and the State Board of Education to assure quality education for RMG. (b) On the effective date of consolidation, the existing County school board and City school board shall cease to exist. The consolidated school board of R~G shall consist of nine (9) members who shall be duly qualified voters, appointed by the governing body of N~G. One (1) member of the ~G school board shall be selected from each of the nine election districts of N~G. Five (5) members of the school board shall initially serve four (4) year terms from July 1, 1993. Four (4) members of the school board shall initially serve two year terms from July 1, 1993. The four (4) members to serve two-year terms from July 1, 1993, shall represent the same election districts as the initial two-year term members of RMG. Thereafter, members of the school board shall be appointed biennially for four-year terms in July of odd-numbered years. Any vacancy on the school board shall be filled by the governing body of RMG for the unexpired portion of the applicable term. (c) The members of the school board of RMG shall be appointed and shall serve for an initial term commencing upon their qualifica- tion, but not earlier than July 1, 1992, for certain limited pur- poses until the effective date of consolidation, July 1, 1993. These limited purposes are as follows: - 13 - (1) Appointment of a division superintendent; (2) Preparation and approval of a budget for the school division for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1993, and ending June 30, 1994; (3) Adoption of policies to be effective upon the effective date of consolidation; (4) Negotiation, preparation and approval of contracts, leases or other documents deemed advisable; and (5) Completion of the orderly transition of the County school division and the City school division into one consoli- dated school division. (d) Reasonable expenses of the limited purpose school board in connection with hiring a superintendent, and compensation for such officer and providing office space and clerical assistance for a period not to exceed one (1) year, shall be shared equally by the County School Board and the City School Board. (e) The consolidated school board and the division superinten- dent shall merge the County school division and the City school division into a single school division utilizing initially all existing facilities and personnel, professional and nonprofessional, in the most efficient and effective manner in order to establish and develop a school system with comprehensive and high quality programs for all students in RMG. There shall be no diminishment of existing standards of quality or programs offered by the consoli- dated school division as a result of consolidation. consolidated school division shall be organized on dance zones based on school neighborhoods. Schools in a current atten- - 14 - (f) The governing body of RMG shall seek legislative authority from the General Assembly for a referendum at which the qualified voters of RMG shall be offered the opportunity to decide whether the school board of RMG shall be elected by the voters, appointed by the governing body of RMG or appointed by a school board selection com- mission. The decision of the voters shall be implemented as quickly as lawfully possible. 13. Town of Vinton. (a) The Town of Vinton (hereinafter the "Town") is not a party to this Agreement and shall continue as a town, pursuant to §15.1-1133(5), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Existing boundaries of the Town shall not be reduced. The Town shall con- tinue to exercise all of the rights, powers and duties provided to towns under the general laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia and as authorized by its Charter and any special legislation enacted by the General Assembly. The Town shall retain all rights of taxation currently generally available to towns in Virginia, and RMG shall be authorized to levy and collect such taxes within the Town as shall be authorized by law. (b) RMG shall exercise such powers in the Town as were exercised by the County prior to consolidation. RMG shall con- tinue to provide such services in the Town as were provided by the County prior to consolidation and such services as are pro- vided generally by counties to towns in Virginia. (c) The residents of the Town of Vinton shall be entitled to all voting rights as citizens of RMG, including the right to vote - 15 - for constitutional officers and members of the governing body of RMG. The Town shall be located within the boundaries of one of the election districts established pursuant to Section 10 of this Agreement. Subject to the various State and federal requirements concerning the boundaries and composition of such districts, the Town shall remain intact within a single election district, and any changes to the boundaries of this district shall insure that the Town shall lie wholly within one district. (d) RMG shall be successor to any agreements between the Town of Vinton and the County or between ~he Town and the City. RMG shall assume and honor all obligations of such agreements. All assets or facilities jointly owned by the Town and the County shall continue to be jointly owned by the Town and RMG as suc- cessor to the County. The Town shall be permitted to participate in any regional capital facility projects. (e) The parties ~o this Agreement shall, in cooperation with the Town, seek any legislation from the General Assembly required to implement the provisions of this Agreement relating to the Town. (f) Although the Town is not a party to this Agreement, the County and the City have negotiated a separate agreement with the Town which is set forth as an attachment and labeled as Exhibit "D". In the event of any conflict or inconsistency between this Agreement and the separate agreement labeled Exhibit "D", the separate agree- ment shall prevail. 14. City of Salem; Glenvar. It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that the citi- zens of a certain area of the County contiguous to ~he City of Salem - 16 - shall, if consolidation is approved at the referendum on this issue, have a second referendum prior to the effective date of consolida- tion to determine whether the qualified voters of this area voting on the issue desire such area to be divided from the territory of RMG and combined with the City of Salem, and to this end authorizing legislation has been introduced at the 1990 Session of the General Assembly. The territory in which a second referendum would be held is set forth on the map attached hereto labeled Exhibit "E" and incorporated by reference herein. If such second referendum is authorized by the General Assembly, the terms and conditions under which the territory set out in Exhibit "E" would be combined with the City of Salem shall be agreed upon by separate agreement between the City of Salem, the County and the City. 15. Designation of Administrative Offices. The administrative offices of RgG shall be maintained at the former County S. W., and at S. W., and at designate. Administrative Center at 3738 Brambleton Avenue, the former Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, such other places as the governing body of R~G may 16. the real City and as Property values. The fair value in current money of the United States of and personal property belonging to the County and the the accounts receivable by each as of June 30, 1989, are follows: - 17 - Property Real Estate Personal Property Accounts Receivable Total County of Roanoke $ 22,233,045 16,764,736 6,039,416 $ 45,037,197 City of Roanoke $ 154,853,412 46,793,360 12,513,996 $ 214,160,768 (b) The above property values are exclusive of real and personal property holdings of the County School Board and the City of Roanoke School Board as of June 30, 1989, which are valued as follows: Property Real Estate Personal Property Accounts Receivable Total County of Roanoke School Board $ 48,275,949 12,919,194 2,242,748 $ 63,437,891 City of Roanoke School Board $ 45,988,521 8,454,767 556,477 $ 54,999,765 (c) The property values set forth in subsection (a) do not in- clude real and personal property holdings of any authorities, commis- sions, corporations, stock or non-stock, created by, incorporated by or sponsored by the City or County or in which the City and County have any interest, direct or indirect. Information on the property holdings of authorities, commissions and corporations appears on the records of these entities. (d) The source of property valuation data contained in this Con- solidation Agreement can be found in the audited statements of the consolidating governments as of June 30, 1989. Such valuations are agreed upon to be correct by the parties to this Consolidation Agree- ment solely for the purposes of this Agreement. - 18 - 17. Indebtedness. (a) The indebtedness, bonded and otherwise, of the County and the City as of June 30, 1989, including indebtedness issued for water and sewer improvements and chargeable to water and sewer cus- tomers pursuant to S25, is as follows: Indebtedness General Obligation Bonds State Literary Fund Revenue Bonds Note Payable Section 108 Loans Lease Purchase Commitments Total County of Roanoke City of Roanoke $ 37,399,432 $58,495,000 8,205,353 1,444,000 923,333 - 0 - 80,000 - 0 - - 0 - 2,816,550 3,767,704 - 0 $ 50,375,822 $ 62,755,550 (b) Commitments to lease purchases not covered by encumbered funds are set forth on Exhibit "F" attached hereto and incorporated by reference. (c) The source of the indebtedness data contained in this Con- solidation Agreement is set forth in the audited statements of the consolidating governments as of June 30, 1989. Such indebted- ness data is agreed upon to be correct by the parties to this Conso- lidation Agreement solely for the purposes of this Agreement. 18. Service Districts. (a) Prior to the effective date of consolidation, there existed within the City a higher level of certain governmental - 19 - services than existed with respect to the corollary services pro- vided in the County. Therefore, in order to maintain and provide two levels of governmental services within RMG and to insure that the cost of providing such additional or more complete services of government is borne directly by the recipients of such services, there are hereby created two (2) service districts for RMG: the Urban Service District and the Suburban Service District. The territory of the former City prior to consolidation shall consti- tute the Urban Service District, and the territory of the former County prior to consolidation, including the Town of Vinton, shall constitute the Suburban Service District. (b) The governing body of RMG shall levy a special ser- vices tax on real property within the Urban Service District, and the proceeds from such tax shall be accounted for separately and expended by RMG solely in the Urban Service District. The rate of the special services tax to be imposed within the Urban Service District shall be added to the base real estate tax rate and levied on residents in such District. (c) The special services tax provided for by this section shall be in addition to any other lawfully imposed taxation. The special services tax shall not be levied for schools or other general governmental services, but only for those governmental services which are not offered on a uniform basis throughout the consolidated territory of RMG. (d) The boundaries of the Service Districts created by this Consolidation Agreement may be altered by the governing body of RMG - 20 - after public hearing and appropriate notice thereof in order to meet the need for additional or more complete services of government than are desired in the consolidated territory of RMG as a whole. (e) Any costs to RMG in connection with the service districts and the levying and collecting of taxes therefrom and the use of revenues shall be a general expenditure of RGM, and no charges shall be made to any service district for such costs. (f) The provisions of this section shall not prejudice the authority of the governing body of RMG to impose assessments for local improvements pursuant to the provisions of general law. 19. Designation of Additional or More Complete Governmental Services to be Provided within Urban Service District. There may be provided within the Urban Service District of RMG all the governmental services provided in the Suburban Service District and the following governmental servcies which m~y be pro- vided on an additional or more complete basis than provided in the Suburban Service District of RMG. These services may include, but shall not be limited to, additional or more complete services in the area of: (1) Additional law enforcement services; (2) Additional fire fighting equipment and services; (3) Additional garbage removal services; (4) Additional public transportation and transporta- tion services; (5) Additional street lighting; (6) Public parking; (7) Public market; and - 21 - (8) Such other governmental services as are permitted by general law to be provided on an additional or more complete basis in service districts. 20. Rate of Special Services Tax in Service Districts. (a) Upon consolidation, the rate of such special services tax to be added to the base real estate tax and levied only within the Urban Service District shall be that rate which will produce an amount sufficient to pay for the additional or more complete ser- vices of government provided to such district. Based on current figures, the initial rate of special services tax per $100.00 of valuation for each service district of RMG shall be as follows: Urban Service District $ 0.05 and Suburban Service District $ - 0 -. (b) The five (5) cent difference between the Urban Service District tax and the Suburban Service District tax shall be main- tained by the governing body of RMG for not less than five (5) years from the effective date of consolidation. 21. Special Tax Districts. (a) Upon the effective date of consolidation, there will exist within the County and the City certain existing liabilities and in- debtedness, bonded and otherwise, chargeable to the citizens of each such jurisdiction. In order to repay such existing liabili- ties and indebtedness, bonded and otherwise, on an equitable basis, and to ensure that the cost of such repayment is borne directly by the recipients of such benefits and to protect the creditors of such debt, there shall be created special tax districts in each - 22 - Jurisdiction for the purpose of levying a special tax on the real property in each special tax district for a period not exceeding thirty (30) years from the effective date of consolidation. (b) The territories formerly constituting the County, including the Town of Vinton, and the City shall remain as special tax districts from which special tax districts there shall be levied and collected special taxes for the payment of all existing liabi- lities and all indebtedness, bonded and otherwise, except for reve- nue bonds, of the County and the School Board of the County and the City and School Board of the City as of the effective date of con- solidation. (c) There shall be levied by the governing body of RMG within each such special tax district a special tax on the real property in each such district for a period not exceeding thirty (30) years to repay such existing liabilities and indebtedness, bonded and otherwise, except revenue bonds, chargeable to the citizens of each such special tax district. (d) The receipts of any such levy of a special tax shall be collected by RMG and shall be accounted for separately and expended by RMG solely for the repayment of such existing liabilities and indebtedness, bonded and otherwise, except revenue bonds, attri- butable to each such special tax district. (e) RMG shall establish and maintain an accounting system which will identify, separately account for and record all finan- cial information and transactions on existing liabilities and indebtedness, bonded and otherwise, except revenue bonds, of the County and City, being funded by special tax districts. (f) Any interest earned on revenues from the special tax levied in any special tax district shall be allocated to the benefit of the separate accounts upon which the interest is earned. These revenues shall be expended only for repayment of the existing liabilities or indebtedness, bonded and otherwise, except for revenue bonds, of the County and City. The parties recognize that in levying the taxes for the special tax districts, an attempt will be made to raise only the revenue necessary for purpose of the special tax district, and there is no intent to have any undesignated balance in the separate accounts established for each special tax district. If, however, there is any unde- signated balance in the special accounts for paying the existing liabilities and indebtedness, bonded or otherwise, except revenue bonds, of the County or City, then such undesignated balance may at the direction of the governing body of RMG be used for some governmental purpose primarily benefiting the area of the special tax district. (g) Any costs to RMG in connection with the special tax districts and the levying and collection of taxes therefrom and use of the revenues shall be a general expenditure of RMG, and no charges shall be made to the special tax district for such costs. (h) Upon consolidation, RMG shall be the successor to the County and City as to any revenue bonds of the County and City, respec- tively. - 24 - (i) Upon consolidation, RMG shall not be the successor to the County and the City as to any general obligation bonds authorized by referendum prior to the effective date of consolidation, but not issued as of such date. Any bonds issued by RMG pursuant to its own powers and authorities with respect to the creation of debt shall not constitute "indebtedness" chargeable to either of the special tax districts required by this section. 22. Existing Liabilities of County and City. Existing liabilities of the County or City which, but for such consolidation would have been valid and lawful charges or liabili- ties against the County or City, shall be deemed and taken to be like charges against or liabilities of the special tax districts for the areas formerly comprising the County and City and shall accordingly be paid and satisfied by the special tax districts to the same extent, and no further, as the County and City would have been bound if no consolidation had taken place. All such existing charges and liabilities which become due within thirty (30) years from the effective date of consolidation shall be paid by the special tax districts. 23. Rate of Special Tax in Special Tax Districts. Upon consolidation, the rate of such special tax to be added to the base real estate tax and levied only within the special tax districts of the County and City as they existed prior to con- solidation shall be those rates which will produce an amount suffi- cient to pay the existing liabilities and the indebtedness, bonded - 25 - and otherwise, except revenue bonds, of the County and City as such existing liabilities and indebtedness, bonded and otherwise, except revenue bonds, become payable. Based on current figures, the initial rates of tax per $100.00 of valuation for the County and City special tax districts upon consolidation shall be approximately twenty-seven (27) cents for the County Special Tax District and thirty-five (35) cents for the City Special Tax District. 24. Initial Tax Rates. (a) Upon the effective date of consolidation, the initial base rate of taxation for all real property and mobile homes is estimated to be $.83 per $100.00 of valuation. (b) Upon the effective date of consolidation, the initial general rate of taxation on all personal property is estimated to be $3.45 per $100.00 of valuation. 25. Water and Sewer Rates and Fees. (a) The governing body of RMG shall equalize water and sewer rates and fees so that there will be no disparity between rates and fees charged to customers in the former County and customers in the former City; provided, however, an amount necessary to pay principal and interest on any debt (general obligation or reve- nue bonds and notes) issued by the County or the City for water or sewer improvements prior to the date of the consolidation referendum shall be pro rata added to the base rates and fees charged to consumers of water and sewer service in the ter- ritories of the former County and the former City, respectively, - 26 - until such time as principal and interest on the respective debt shall be paid in its entirety. Principal and interest on debt issued by the County or the City for water or sewer improvements, which will be paid by consumers of water and sewer service in the territories of the former County or the former City, respective- ly, shall not be included within the definition of "indebtedness" or chargeable to any special tax district created to address "indebtedness." A description of such debt existing as of June 30, 1989, is set forth as Exhibit "G". (b) Between the date of the consolidation referendum and the effective date of consolidation, there may be a need to issue additional bonds for water or sewer improvements. In the case of revenue bonds, such bonds shall be a liability of RMG and its citizens if approved by the governing bodies of the County and the City; if approved by the governing body of the issuing government only, then such bonds shall be a liability of con- sumers of water and sewer service of the issuing government only, and included in the base rate charged to its water or sewer con- sumers only until retired pursuant to subsection (a) above. In the case of general obligation bonds issued to support water or sewer improvements, such bonds shall be a liability of RMG and its citizens if approved by a majority of qualified voters voting on the question in the County and a majority of qualified voters voting on the question in the City, each referendum presenting the same question. General obligation bonds may be issued to support water or sewer improvements after approval by referendum - 27 - in either the County or City only, but such bonds shall be a lia- bility of water and sewer consumers of the issuing government only, and included in the base rate charged to its water and sewer consumers only until retired pursuant to subsection (a) above. 26. General Obligation Bonds Issued between Date of Referendum and Effective Date of Consolidation. Between the date of the consolidation referendum and the effective date of consolidation, the need may arise to issue general obligation bonds for general government purposes. Such bonds shall be a liability of RMG and its citizens and not chargeable to either special tax district if approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting on the question in the County and a majority of the qualified voters voting on the question in the City, each referendum presenting the same question. If such general obligation bonds are not issued pursuant to Joint referendum as described above, such bonds shall be included in the definition of "indebtedness" and shall be a charge against the appropriate special tax district pursuant to Section 21 of this Agreement. 27. Service Levels. It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that shall improve the quality of life of the citizens of the County and the City. Therefore, the services of government shall not be diminished in quantity or quality by virtue of consolidation. - 28 - 28. Pro Forma Budget for RMG. Attached to this Consolidation Agreement as Exhibit 'tH" and incorporated by reference herein is a pro forma budget for RMG. This pro forma budget reflects the estimated revenues and expen- ditures of RMG based upon the initial allocation and level of ser- vices contemplated in the consolidation based on budgeted service costs for Fiscal Year 1989-90 of the County and the City, respec- tively, where applicable after taking into account savings or additional costs resulting from consolidation. 29. Disposition of Assets. All property, real and personal (tangible and intangible), the County and the City, including debts owed to each, shall become the property of, and shall be vested in, RMG upon the effective date of consolidation. of 30. Records and Documents. Upon the effective date of consolidation, all records and docu- ments of the County and the City shall pass to and be held by RMG which shall be responsible for the preservation, maintenance and custody of ~hese records and documents. 31. Services of Virginia Department of Transportation. (a) The provisions of S15.1-1131.1, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, shall apply to that portion of RMG constituting the former territory of the County, mutatis mutandis, as if RMG were a consolidated city. The provisions of paragraph A of S15.1-1131.1 shall apply to the former territory of the County within RMG for - 29 - a minimum of ten (10) years; however, the parties hereto agree that they shall Jointly seek General Assembly enactment of legislation extending such ten (10) year time period to fifteen (15) years, as well as any other legislation required to allow RMG to avail itself of the benefits of ~15.1-1131.1. (b) Construction of streets and roads and maintenance thereof within that portion of RMG constituting the former territory of the City shall be financed, administered and implemented by RMG in the same manner as was applicable in the City prior to the effective date of consolidation. 32. Consolidation Transition Team. (a) Upon ratification of this Consolidation Agreement by the the voters of the County and the City, there shall immediately be created a team which shall be known as the "Consolidation Transi- tion Team", consisting of the Roanoke County Administrator and the City Manager of the City of Roanoke. The County Administrator and the City Manager may designate such officers and employees of the County and City as they deem appropriate to perform staff work for such Team. It shall be the general responsibility of the Con- solidation Transition Team to prepare a plan which will permit the orderly transition of the two governments into one consolidated regional unit of local government. Such plan, which shall be ad- visory only, shall contain, but not be limited, to the following: (1) Job descriptions and pay ranges and general qualifications for each position in RMG; (2) The allocation of office space and equipment among the agencies and de- partments of RMG; - 30 - (3) The designation, in consultation with the County Attorney and the City Attor- ney, of legal counsel to seek an opinion and approval from the Attorney General of the United States or any appropriate court relating to the proposed consolidation and its con- formity with federal election laws; and (5) A description of the duties and respon- sibilities of each agency and department of the RMG along with a chain of command for the operation of RMG. (b) The Consolidation Transition Team shall forthwith, upon qualification of the governing body of RMG for the limited purposes set forth in Section lO(f) of this Agreement, present its consoli- dation plan to such governing body. The governing body shall review such plan and resolve any disagreements which may exist with respect to such plan. The governing body shall make such amendments or modifications to the plan as it shall deem appropriate and shall thereafter adopt the plan to be effective upon the date of consoli- dation. In reviewing the plan and making amendments or modifications, the governing body may seek recommendations from its chief administra- rive offical and such other officials as it may have appointed. 33. Personnel. (a) It is recognized by the parties to this Agreement that the efficient operation of RMG will necessarily require the experience and skills of the dedicated and loyal officers and employees of the County and the City, employees of constitutional offices of the County and the City and employees of the County School Division and the City School Division. Therefore, it is the intent of the 31 - parties to this Agreement that no current officer or employee of the County or City, employee of any constitutional office of the County or City or employee of the County School Division or City School Division shall lose his or her job or have his or her salary or wages or benefits diminished by virtue of consolidation. All such officers and employes shall be retained by RMG and compensated at no lower rate of pay than they received at the effective date of consolidation. To the extent posslble, such officers and employees shall be placed in positions as comparable as practic- able to those occupied at the time of consolidation. Reductions in force in RMG shall be accomplished through normal attrition resulting from retirement, resignation, death or other termination. (b) Except with respect to positions to be filled direct- ly by the governing body of RMG, positions to be filled by governing body-appointed officers of RMG and positions to be filled by consti- tutional officers, all positions required to perform the governmen- tal functions of RMG shall be filled from the pool of current County and City employees performing such functions. Each such position shall be open for application from all officers and employees of the County and City. The chief administrative official of RMG shall cause to be posted in the administrative buildings of the County and the City a listing of all positions to be filled by the chief administrative official along with job descriptions and pay ranges for each position. Such posting shall specify the dates during which applications shall be received and the places where applica- tions shall be accepted. Applications for all positions shall be - 32 - evaluated using the following criteria as guidelines: (1) pre- vious work experience in similar position; (2) technical or academic preparation of applicants for a given position; (3) performance evaluation contained in each applicant's personnel file in the existing government; (4) results of interviews; and (5) results of quantitative tests which may be required to measure technical ability, aptitude, human relation skills and leadership ability of applicants. 34. Retirement. (a) It is the intent of the parties to this Agreement that current employees of the County and City shall not have retirement or pension benefits reduced or otherwise prejudiced by virtue of consolidation. (b) The City of Roanoke Pension Plan shall be continued and maintained by R~G. The Plan shall be renamed "Roanoke ~etropolitan Government Pension Plan" upon the effective date of consolidation. Assets, indebtedness and obligations of the City under the City of Roanoke Pension Plan shall be transferred and vested in R~G upon the effective date of consolidation. R~G shall amend such Plan to provide for five year vesting. On and after the effective date of consolidation, all new officers and employees of R~G shall be members of the R~G Pension Plan (formerly City of Roanoke Pension Plan). (c) Officers and employees of the County and constitutional officers of the County and City, who are members of the Virginia Supplemental Retirement System ("VSRS") on the effective date of - 33 - consolidation, shall be permitted an election to continue as members of VSRS or to transfer to the RMG Pension Plan. Any officer or employee of the County or any constitutional officer of the County or the City electing to transfer to the RMG Pension Plan shall retain any accrued membership credit and benefits in VSRS and shall begin to accrue membership credit and benefits prospectively in the RMG Pension Plan. Obligations and indebtedness of the County under VSR$ shall become obligations and indebtedness of RMG. (d) Officers and employees of the City on the effective date of consolidation, who are members of the City of Roanoke Pension Plan, shall automatically become members of the RMG Pension Plan without loss of credit for prior service. (e) RMG shall be the successor to the County with respect to the assets and liabilities of the retirement system being maintained by the County for emergency service volunteers on the effective date of consolidation. 35. Pending Litigation and Causes of Action Against County and City. With respect to any pending legal actions or proceedings by or against the County or City upon the effective date of consolidation, RMG shall be substituted in place of the County or City, and the proceeding may be perfected to judgment or other resolution. If, after the effective date of consolidation, any legal action or pro- ceeding arises out of a cause of action which but for consolida- tion would have been brought against the County or City, RMG shall 34 - be substituted in place of the County or City, and the proceeding may be perfected to judgment or other resolution. 36. Adoption of New Ordinances; Enforcement Powers. (a) Prior to the effective date of consolidation, the governing body of RMG shall compile, conform and adopt a codifi- cation of all ordinances of a general and permanent nature to be effective in the territory of RMG upon the effective date of con- solidation. (b) Upon and after the effective date of consolidation, all appointed police officers, deputy sheriffs and other law enforce- ment officers and officials possessing police powers under the law or ordinance pursuant to which they were appointed and all appointed fire, building and health officers and officials shall continue to have and possess all police powers and authority and be charged with the same duties and responsibilities as such officers or officials possessed immediately prior to the effective date of consolidation. The territorial Jurisdiction of all such officers and officials shall be that territory for which they were appointed. 37. Prosecutions and Indictments; Civil Actions. (a) From and after the effective date of consolidation, all prosecutions and indictments for crimes committed or ordinances violated and all suits or causes of action arising within the territory of RMG may be instituted in RMG with the same force and effect as if consolidation had always been effective. - 35 (b) All criminal prosecutions pending on the effective date of co'~solidation, whether by indictment, warrant or other complaint, and all suits, actions, motions, warrants and other proceedings of a civil nature at law or in chancery, with all the records of the courts of the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke, shall stand ipso facto removed to the court or courts of concurrent or like Jurisdiction of RMG. The Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke and other courts having courthouses and records in and jurisidiction over the City of Roanoke and the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke and other courts having records in and Jurisdiction over the County of Roanoke shall, at some convenient time, as closely preceding the period of removal as practicable by formal orders entered of record, direct the removal of all such causes and proceedings, civil and criminal, at law and in chancery, to the court or courts of concurrent or like juris- dictions of RMG, and, when there are two or more such courts, shall apportion such matters fairly and equally between them. The clerk or clerks of the court or courts to which the same have been removed shall thereupon proceed as in other cases of removal or changes in venue, and such matter shall be docketed and pro- ceeded in with the same force and effect as they might have been in the court or courts from which removed. At the same time, the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke and the clerks of other courts having courthouses and records in and jurisdiction over the City of Roanoke and the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the County of Roanoke and the clerks of other courts - 36 - having courthouses and records in and jurisdiction over the County of Roanoke shall deliver to the clerks of RMG wherein the like records are required by law to be kept all deed books, order or minute books, execution dockets, Judgment dockets and other records of such offices of whatsoever kind and nature; and the clerks of courts to which the same are removed shall forthwith take charge of and preserve the same for reference and use in the same manner and with the same effect as though they were original records of such courts. 38. Incorporation of New Cities or Towns; Annexation Immunity; No Power of Annexation. (a) Upon the effective date of the consolidation no unin- corporated area within the limits of RMG shall be incorporated as a separate town or city within the limits of RMG whether by judicial proceedings or otherwise. (b) The County having been granted total immunity from city-initiated annexation pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 21.2 of Title 15.1 (S15.1-977.19:1, et seq.), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, said grant of immunity shall be retained by RMG. (c) RMG shall no power of annexation pursuant to Chapter 25 of Title 15.1 ($15.1-1032, et seq.), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. 39. Change of Circumstances. It is understood that some of the financial calculations and governmental service level assumptions set forth herein are sub- ject to change by either of the participating parties or as a result - 37 - of changes in economic conditions, changes in funding from State and Federal governments, changes in assessments and changes in State or Federal legislation. Any changes occurring after the adoption of this Consolidation Agreement, but prior to its effec- tive date, which impact upon the financial calculations and governmental service levels as set out herein, shall not affect the validity or terms of this Agreement, but any such changes may be reviewed and acted upon by the governing body of RMG after consolidation. The parties hereto do agree, however, that any adjustment or changes in the financial calculations and service level determinations as set out herein made subsequent to the adoption of this Consolidation Agreement shall be consistent with the formulas and principles established and stipulated in this Agreement and applicable sections of the Code of Virginia. 40. Severability. In the event that any section, paragraph or provision of this Consolidation Agreement shall be declared illegal or invalid or unconstitutional by final Judgment of any court of competent Jurisdiction, such Judgment of invalidity shall not invalidate any other section, paragraph or provision hereof, and all parts of this Consolidation Agreement not expressly held invalid shall remain in full force and effect, and it is agreed and understood that this Consolidation Agreement would have been entered into by the parties without such invalid provision. - 38 - 41. Entire Agreement. This document, with the agreements attached hereto, the entire binding agreement between the parties. constitutes 42. Survival of terms. The terms and provisions of this Consolidation Agreement shall survive consolidation, unless amended by written agreement approved by a duly adopted ordinances of the governing bodies of the County and City. 43. Gender. Any word used in this Agreement imparting the masculine gender shall extend and be applied to females as well as to males. - 39 - EXHIBIT D ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE, THE CITY OF ROANOKE AND THE TOWN OF VINTON This annexation agreement between the County of Roanoke ("the County"), the City of Roanoke ("the City"), and the Town of Vinton ("the Town") is made and entered into this __ day of , 19 WHEREAS, the County and the City have entered into negotiations to develop a consolidation agreement for the creation of one regional unit of local government to be named Roanoke Metropolitan Government; and, WHEREAS, the City and the County believe that the continued existence of Vinton as a town and that adjustment of the Town's boundary as set forth herein are consistent with the creation of the Roanoke Metropolitan Government and promote the economic and social needs of Roanoke Valley; and, WHEREAS, expanding the Town's boundary as set forth below is both necessary and expedient considering the best interests of the people in the Town, the people in the area proposed for inclusion within the Town, and the people in the remaining portion of the County and City, and considering the best interests of the State in promoting strong and viable units of government; WITNES SETH: The County of Roanoke, the City of Roanoke and the Town of Vinton agree as follows: 1. The City, the County and the Town (collectively, "the Parties") agree that, subject to the provisions of Section 2 below, the boundary of the Town shall be expanded effective immediately preceding the time at which consolidation shall be effective, that is, 12:01 a.m. on July 1, 1993 to include that area (hereinafter, the "New Area") identified by the metes and bounds description marked D-1 attached to this agreement and shown on the map marked D-2 attached to this agreement as the lightly shaded area identified, "Area Proposed to be Annexed". The Parties shall support, as the effective time and date of the Town's boundary adjustment, the time and date set forth herein, shall timely take such steps as are required to cause this agreement to be binding on future governments of the Town, the County and the City in accordance with § 15.1-1167.1, of the Code of Virginia, and direct each of their respective administrative staffs to work together harmoniously to implement this agreement by sharing information and assistance to effect this agreement in a professional and timely manner. 2 2. This agreement is subject to the favorable conclusion of those proceedings required to effect the consolidation of the County and the City into the Roanoke Metropolitan Government ("the RMG"). The boundary adjustment set forth herein is subject to the favorable conclusion of proceedings pursuant to § 15.1-1167.1 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, if required, and the enactment of any required legislation by the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia. 3. The County and the City specifically empower the limited purpose governing body of the RMG, for which the County and the City intend to hold a special election on November 5, 1991, to enter into such agreements and take such action as may be necessary or expedient to effect this annexation agreement. 4. The Town shall extend to residents of the New Area within five years of the effective date of the boundary adjustment set forth herein services it currently provides to its residents. The RMG shall provide to Town residents, without additional cost or expense, the services and benefits it provides to residents in other suburban districts and shall continue to provide such services in the Town as were provided by the County prior to consolidation in addition to those services as are provided generally by counties to towns in Virginia. 5. The Town shall continue to exist and be recognized as a town upon and after the consolidation of the City and the County and shall have and may continue to exercise as provided by law any and all powers which such town may have had prior to the effective date of consolidation, be they conferred by charter, general law or any other law. Residents of the Town shall be entitled to all voting rights as citizens of the RMG, including the right to vote for constitutional officers and members of the governing body. The Town shall be located within the boundaries of one of the election districts. 6. The Town shall continue to exercise all powers, rights and privileges granted by its charter or conferred upon towns by the general and special legislation enacted by the General Assembly, including all powers of taxation. The RMG shall exercise such powers in the Town as were exercised by the County prior to the creation of the RMG. The RMG shall be authorized to levy and collect such taxes as may be authorized by law; provided, however, no duplicate tax shall be levied upon Town residents or property owned or services provided by them unless such duplicate tax provision existed prior to December 31, 1989. The Parties agree that the County and its successor shall, as to the Town's present territory, allocate to the Town its share of the local sales tax revenues based on the ratio of the general population within the current boundary of the Town to the general population of the RMG and shall, as to the New Area, allocate to the Town an additional share of such revenues in accordance with such ratio as established by general law as applies to towns with populations greater than 3,500. 7. The Parties agree that all existing agreements survive consolidation of the City and the County and the boundary adjustment of the Town as set forth herein and that the RMG shall be the successor to the County and the City in all agreements between the County and the Town or the City and the Town. All assets or facilities jointly owned by the Town and the County shall continue to be jointly owned by the Town and RMG, the later as successor to the County. The Town shall be permitted to participate on an equitable basis in any capital facility projects. All territorial references to the Town of Vinton in any agreement between the Parties shall, as of the effective date of the boundary change, mean the Town of Vinton as expanded as a result of this voluntary boundary adjustment agreement, except as specifically provided herein. 8. During the 25 year period following the effective date of the expansion of the Town as provided in paragraph number 1 of this agreement, the Town shall not seek independent city status or initiate an annexation proceeding against the RMG; nor take any position in such an annexation proceeding; nor shall the Town support or encourage any citizens of the RMG petitioning or seeking to petition for annexation to the Town; nor shall the Town directly or indirectly pay any costs of such citizen- initiated annexation petitions, including attorneys, surveying or engineering fees. 9. The Town and RMG agree that from and after the boundary adjustment to be effected by this agreement the following revenue and expense allocation shall apply to that portion of the New Area south of the Roanoke River (hereinafter, "Explore Park-South"): The RMG and the Town shall equally share the expense of providing public service from the Town water system into Explore Park-South. The RMG and the Town shall equally share the expense of providing sanitary sewer service into the site of Explore Park-South. The RMG and the Town shall equally share the revenues from the operation of the water and sewer service into the site of Explore Park- South. The RMG and the Town shall equally share general fund expenses and general fund revenues attributable to Explore Park-South. For purposes of this paragraph number 9, 4 "Revenue" means all taxes, user fees and other revenues either currently collected or subsequently collected, which are generated from, or collected with respect to, Explore Park-South, including without limitation admission taxes, prepared food taxes, transient occupancy taxes, cigarette taxes, real estate taxes, personal property taxes, machinery tool taxes, business license taxes, franchise taxes, utility taxes, zoning permit fees, building inspection and related fees, state sales taxes, profits from the state sale of alcoholic beverages, water sales, sewerage charges, and utility connection and extension fees. "Expenses" means the amount of funds required to provide urban services to the south side of the Roanoke River referred to as Explore Park-South including administration, operation, maintenance, debt and capital depreciation as identified within the currently approved budget for the Town of Vinton, and as may be verified by annual audit as performed under regulations required by the State Auditor of Public Accounts for municipal corporations. COUNTY OF ROANOKE: By Date CITY OF ROANOKE: By Date TOWN OF VINTON: By Date Exhibit H ROANOKE METROPOLITAN GOVERNMENT PRO-FORMA BUDGET February 28, 1990 Undesianated General Fund Revenues General Property Taxes: Real Estate Taxes Personal Property Taxes Public Service Taxes Penalties and Interest Payment in Lieu of Taxes Total General Property Taxes Other Loo&l Taxes: Sales Tax Utility Consumer Tax cigarette Tax Business License Tax Motor Vehicle License Tax Meals Tax Transient Occupancy Tax Recordation Tax Franchise Taxes Admissions Tax Total Other Local Taxes Other Categories of Revenue: Revenue from the Use of Money Intergovernmental Charges for Current Services Non-Revenue Receipts Total Other Revenue Total Undesignated General Fund Revenues Revenues $ 56,893,770 27,705,000 3,498,000 693,447 75,000 $ 88,865,217 $ 16,031,437 11,320,578 850,000 9,214,000 2,844,683 6,198,540 1,100,000 1,160,000 1,366,214 175,000 $ 50,260,452 $ 790,000 1,109,500 519,653 525,000 $ 2,944,153 annronriations $ 0 $ o $ 0 Deslqnate~ Revenues and appropriations General Government: Board of Commissioners Clerk to the Board Metropolitan Manager Management & Budget Metropolitan Attorney 296,005 327,543 664,606 409,180 747,987 Finance Commissioner of Revenue Treasurer Real Estate Assessor Procurement Services Risk Management Audit Human Resources/Personnel Elections Assistants to the Manager Judioial A~ministration= circuit Court Clerk of the Circuit Court General District Court Court Services Unit J & D Relations Court Sheriff-Civil Division Commonwealth's Attorney Publio Safety= Police-Law Enforcement Animal Control Fire Department Emergency Services Rescue Squads Jail Juvenile Detention Home Outreach Program Crisis Intervention Center Youth Residential Services Public Works: Development Review/ Building Inspections Engineering Street Lighting State Highway Maintenance Drainage Signals and Alarms Dispatching/Communications Solid Waste/Refuse Building Maintenance Custodial Services Grounds Maintenance General Services Health and Welfare: Public Health Mental Health Total Action Against Poverty Revenues 480,000 393,287 432,084 72,500 736,500 460,000 18,000 1,434,952 704,493 4,353,978 42,400 420,000 32,000 249,353 4,597,555 473,403 121,219 203,138 428,226 817,861 131,000 6,113,907 40,000 866,080 49,000 298,000 79,500 75,400 Appropriations 2,435,722 1,304,715 1,081,950 1,297,223 398,236 2,061,406 426,791 827,420 335,628 709,580 229 482 1,319 594 51 944 111 925 35 051 1,840 498 947 594 12,374 392 394 919 10,624 357 239 749 1,202 007 5,722 156 596 328 146 843 363 873 614 340 952,510 1,411,472 997 541 3,036 064 200 000 663 914 2,311 727 5,148 403 3,869 929 869 187 3,657 185 208 870 1,418,768 357,365 161,348 Human Service Agencies Social Services Programs Nursing Home Parks, Recre&tion & Cultural: Parks and Recreation Libraries Contributions-Cultural community Development: Planning and Zoning Grants Compliance Economic Development Municipal Parking Garage Public Transportation Community Education VPI Extension Education: RMG Public Schools Non-Departmental~ Employee Benefits Debt Service Transfer to Civic Center Transfer to Water and Sewer Fund Capital Internal Service Garage II Regional Airport Contingent Balance Miscellaneous Consolidation Transitional Costs Total Designated General Fund Revenues and Appropriations Total General Fund Revenues and Appropriations Enter~ Water and Sewer Civic Center Total Enterprise Funds Reven~es 9,626,098 900,000 Ammromriations 304,100 11,872,705 1,164,372 354,946 2,476,624 510,500 2,949,443 129,500 679,499 25,500 633,878 49,555 598,669 425,000 122,534 348,847 35,360 22,000 174,830 73,677,183 130,054,858 1,061,298 1,289,050 17,539,631 655,650 40,000 310,000 1,051,443 639,418 945,250 113,700 233,700 264,640 201,488 256,600 527,000 5,084.452 $ 254r473f153 254.473.153 $ 18,799,595 $ 18,799,595 1.636.250 1.636.250 $ 20,435,845 $ 20,435,845 Total Ail Funds ~ 274.908.998 ~ 274.908.998 Roanoke Times ~_ff World-News 201 West Campbell Avenue, P.O. Box 2491. R~..~/~ia 24010 AFFIDAVIT OF PERFORMANCE ADVERTISER' ~L/ ccc~ DATE OF INSERTION: ~ 5 Pm F~ IqPm SIZE m AD' NEWSPAPER CITY: STATE: '7 L/~f/-/tJ~ (1__ Affidavit Completed: {Signature) Notary Information: ~z~'~'~-~ 7 ~~/~ CO m mission Expire,~ ~ //'~ /~ (Signature) (Date) · ' Notary Seal PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to §15.1-1137, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and §9(b) of the Consolidation Agreement between the County of Roanoke and City of Roanoke, the Board of Supervisors of the County and the City Council of the City hereby give public notice that measures authorizing execution of the following Consolidation Agreement may be adopted by the two governing bodies and such Agreement may be filed with the Circuit Courts of the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke on or before February 28, 1990. Public hearings at which all citizens shall be accorded the opportunity to comment with respect to the Consolidation Agreement and the adoption of measures authorizing execution of the Agreement will be held as follows: Board of Supervisors of the County of Roanoke Administration Center 3738 Brambleton Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 7:00 p.m., February 20, 1990; and City Council of the City of Roanoke Council Chambers 215 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 2:00 p.m., February 20, 1990. Exhibits "D", Agreement with Town of Vinton, and "H", Pro Forma Budget, to the Agreement are printed in their entirety. Ail other exhibits to the Agreement, along with the Agreement, are on file and available for public inspection in the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and in the Office of the City Clerk. The Consoli- dation Agreement, with Exhibits "D" and "H", provides in its entirety as follows: [PRINT ENTIRE CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT] GIVEN under our hands and seals this 23rd day of January, 1990. Mary Allen, Clerk Roanoke County Board of Supervisors Mary F. Parker, City Clerk NOTE TO PUBLISHER: Publish once in the morning or afternoon edition of the Roanoke Times & World News on January 29, 1990, February 5, 1990, February 12, 1990, and February 19, 1990. Roanoke City Public Schools P. O. Box 13145 Roanoke, Virginia 24031 January 16 Roanoke County Public 526 College Avenue Salem, Virginia 24153 1990 Schools Mr. Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Vice Mayor of Roanoke City P. O. Box 13327 Roanoke, Virginia 24040 Mr. Howard E. Musser Roanoke City Councilman 2767 Wilshire Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Roanoke City Attorney 464 Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Jr. Gentlemen: Jr. Dr. Harry Nickens Roanoke County Supervisors P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Mr. Bob Johnson Roanoke County Supervisor P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 Mr. Paul M. Mahoney Roanoke County Attorney P. O. Box 29800 Roanoke, Virginia 24018-0798 During recent weeks personnel from Roanoke City and Roanoke County have met to study and evaluate the impact on educetion and the community of a consolidated school system. The guidelines used are in accordance with the mission statement submitted to you in May. Attached is a summary of these discussions and findings based on the 1989-90 budgets. These recommendations were further reviewed in January 1990. Please let us know if you have questions or need fur ' - the. information. Sincerely, a~e,s M. Turner, Jr., Chairman Roanoke City School Board ~ S~uuperintendent Roanoke City School Board rg Et'lC. Frank E. Thomas, Chairman Roanoke County School Board Roanoke County School Board MISSION STATEMENT - SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION The mission of the Roanoke City/County consolidated school system shall be to provide quality education for all its students in preparing them to assume responsibility for productive citizenship in our democratic society and enabling them to successfully pursue their academic/vocational interest. The consolidated system shall design programs, employ staff, and provide facilities that promote such student achievement in conformity with the Standards of Quality established by the Virginia Board of Education. To meet its mission, the consolidated school system will pursue the following objectives: A. Ail schools will be organized on current attendance zones based on school neig~kborhoods. B. Integration of school populations will be encouraged through open enrollment and schools of choice that attract students to intensive programs in arts, humanities, sciences, technology, and other career fields. C. Students with unique learning needs will have access to schools providing special services for handicapping conditions, vocational interests, and gifted education. D. The highest standard currently available in either - will be maintained in staffing schools and programs; i.e., low pupil-teacher ratio, specialists, full-day kindergarten, .'magnet seven-period day, preschool. Administrative and support services a manner that promotes operational the continued of system providing resource schools, employees. employment will be organized in economies and ensures all current regular 1/15/90 ROANOKE COUNTY $CHOOI_~ August 2, !989 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Consolidation Negotiators Jay Turner Frank Thomas Frank Tote Bayes Wilson Dick Keily Marry Robison Will Dibling Paul Mahoney Consolidation Schedule for Schools At an educational services meeting on July 27, 1999, above-named individuals agreed on the following Schedule consolidation of schools based on a tentative date of July 1992 for consolidation of governmental functions: July - December 1992 Appointment Of new school board for limited purpose of planning and preparing for new system. City an~ COunty school boards and administrators continue co opera:e systems through June 30, 1993. January - March i993 July 1, 1993 September 1993 BEW:rcw the fo:' l, Appointment of Superintendent for consolida:ed system. ~'~ew school board and superintendent assume responsibility for consolidated school sys=em. Students in schools of new consolidated system wi-~,~ in schools or attendance areas. FINDINGS - PROPOSED SCHOOL CONSOLIDATION A comprehensive review of a proposed consolidated school system has taken place with Roanoke City and Roanoke County. During the discussions the following conclusions were agreed upon by both divisions: 1. Continue to offer the same basic programs and electives with students also having access to special programs such as the Governor's School. 2. Continue and expand the Regional Special Education Program. Such a program contributes to extended educational opportunities for students and a substantial savings in cost for each participating school division. 3. Continue to coordinate and expand vocational programs for students, adults, and school personnel. In addition, develop more specia!ized programs for students through the magneu schocl concept. ~aci!i~ies are aging and extensive remodeling is necessary for upgraded programs offered during as well as after school hours. Capital improvement needs are currently projected in each school division's capital improvement plan to be approxima=e!y $22.3 million and $19 million respectively for =he city and county during the next several years. The funds include $9.8 million for asbestos abatement ($3.3 million, city; $6.5 million, county); and $30.3 million for remodeling, modernizing, adding onto existing school plants, and centralizing a~inistrative offices. Except for the administration building, these capital improvements are projected regard!ess of whether the systems are conso!ida=ed -l- or remain separate. Food services would require additional space so sohools could offer a standard set cf menu options. As per attached !er=er from Dr. S. John Superintendent of Public Education in Virginia, funding would increase approximately $563,000 5 years under existing state regulations. that all Davis, state each year for For a consolidated school system, it is suggested that local government officials request state legislators for legislation which would appropriate state funds based on the highest per pupil ~mounts and the lowest composite index curren=!y in place for either school division. It is further r~commended that the sta:e incentive period be extended from 5 years to a minimum of 10 years. The impact on grant and federal funding is unknown at this time but could result in less eligibility as a consolidated system. Specifically, Chapter I funds in Roanoke City are based on the number of iow income fa-nilies. It appears there would be no significant .COS: savings in transportation resulting from consolidation. Additional costs could be incurred if magnet and other similar programs should be expanded. Staffing and other related costs for upgrading and maintaining the highest standard currently in place for either system would r~sult in additional expenditures of -3- approximately $4.8 million (see attachment). Financial and business operations would require additional programming and data processing capabilities. The expanded procurement function ~nd combined health insurance program provided by a consolidated system should bring approximately $800,000 in additional cost savings. 10. Consolidation of school central office operations would result in a savings of a~ least $110,000 through the elimination of one superintendent, s position. Administration costs for the consolidated school division are estimated to be about 1.7% of the total budget or 25% below the state average. In summary, with a merged system some economies of scale may be realized over an extended period of time particularly in the area of personnel. Currently there are a number of cooperative effor:s in place between the city and county whereby duplication of programs is minimized. These efforts should be expanded and additional areas of cooperation evaluated whether or not conso!idal:ion occurs. - 01/1~/90 Roanoke City Public Schools P. O. Box 13145 Roanoke, Virginia 24031 SUPT Roanoke County Public Schools 526 College Avenue Salem, Virginia 24153 September 18, 1989 Dr. S. John Davis, Superintendent of Public Instruction Virginia Department of Education P. O. Box 60 Richmond, Virginia 23216-2060 Dear Or. Davis: As you are perhaps aware, we are in the proces~ of developing a plan for consolida:ing Roanoke City and Roanoke County. A plan is to be presented to the voters in 1990 or 1991 in a referendum. As we compile data and project the implications of a merger, we would Like to ask that you and your staff assist us in estimating the impact on state funds for public education. We are using the current year, 19S9-90, data as base data. Specifically, if Roanoke City and Roanoke County were one school system this year, we would like for you to analy~e each category of state and federal funding (basic appropriation, special education, vocational education, gifted, remedial, transportation, foster home, family life, duty free lunch, school food service, dropout prevention, free textbooks, state sales tax, special grants, and federal reimbursements) and give us your best estimate of the impact if we were one consolidated systera compared to the amounts now received by our t~o independent systems. In March 1989, Mr. Lewis Nelson, the st'ate board member from our area, sent us copies of a letter from Mr · ~.lKe Cale relative to basic appropriation funds based on the five-year incentive of the most favorable composite index estimated at $750,000 per year additional revenue for a consolidated system and the increased level of Literary Fund loans that would be available. Please advise if the $750,000 annual amount is still a valid estimate and if the state has any other funding incentives which might be Dr. S. John Dav£s Page 2 September 18, 1989 available in the event of consolidation. We will greatly appreciate any assistance you and Mike can give us in this matter. Please call if you need further information. Since we are to submit our completed report by October 18, 1989, we would appreciate a response as soon as possible. Sincerely, P. Tota, Superintendent Bay E. Wilson, Superintendent Roanoke City PuDIic Schools Roanoke County Public Schools BEW/F~T:rcw Mr. Lewis Nelson, Member, Virginia Department of Education Mr. Mike Cale, Associate Superintendent for Financial and Support Services Mr. Frank Thomas, Chairman, Roanoke County School Board Mr. Jay Turner, Chairman, Roanoke City School Board Mr. Wikl Dibling, Roanoke City Attorney Mr. Paul Mahoney, Roanoke County Attorney COMMONWEALTH of VIR [NIA OEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION P.O. 8ox eQ RICHMOND 2321 October 3, 1989 _. 6 Dr. Frank B. Tota, Superintendent Roanoke City Public Schools P. O. Box 13145 Roanoke, VA 24031 Dr. Bayes E. Wilson, superintendent Roanoke County Public Schools - 526 College Avenue Salem, VA 24153 I am writing in response to your September 18, 1989 letter regarding the development of a plan for consolidating Roanoke City and Roanoke County and the impact of such a consolidation on state funds for public education. Attached for your use is a chart reflecting the projected 1989-90 allocations for each of your divisions and an estimate of funds on a combined basis. The differences in the SOQ accounts relate to using the lower of the two existing composite indices and the recomputation of required instructional positions through the JL-A.RC funding foz~mula· We made two assumptions during this process; (1) no changes were made in the number of schools, or the number of students in particular grades in those schools, (2) Kindergarten pupils in Roanoke city schools were adjusted at 85% for ADM ~oses, due to half-day programs. There would be no changes in any of the state's categorical programs(including school food, family life, adult education, special education and vocational educational categorical, etc.) since these reir~ureenents are based on actual expenditures without regard to ~he composite index. The same principle applies to your federal entitlements, such as Chapter 1 and VI-B. These are based on numbers of pupils and should not be affected." To the extent either of you claim children in Foster Care from the other jurisdiction, you could experience some loss in this area. As mentioned in your letter, the incentives included in the Board :~. Education's Literary Fund Regulations for systems con$olida~would apply. '' ~ trust you will find this information useful as you prepare your report. Please feel free to contact me or my staff if we can be of any further assistance as you work through this process. SJD:vm Attachment rely, S. Fo.h~ Davis erintendent of Public Instruction CC: Mr. Lewis Nelson, Virginia Board of Education Mr. M. E. Cale, Associate.Superintendent, Dept. of Education Mr. Frank Thomas, Chairman, Roanoke County School Board Mr. Jay Turner, Chairman, Roanoke City School Board Mr. Will Dibling, Roanoke' City Attorney Mr. Paul Mahoney, Roanoke County Attorney Sasic Ai(d Vc:cac (~ona L 2,~I,A~ Social ~r f r/ P~iL T?~s~rtatf~ E~rOL L.~C Loss ~,~ TOTAL RGIXC3C~ CC~B i NFO CZTY TOTAL ALLOCATION 0 [ FFg~C~ s~z,~,~OZ Ze,rM,637 ~9, I~7,~5 767,3~9 I, Z~,SZ5 I, 100,90I C tar, ~) 967,~7 1,93S,91~ 2,0~5,6~9 Z04,~6 413,Z47 422,~7 9,~0 3~,392 552,56~ 601,~Z6 ~9, 31,5~ ~,~32 ~,~3Z 0 1,5~2,987 3,1~,3~ 3,Z2~,9~ 58,56~ 59,Z~ 121,~? 1~,009 8,~S,013 14;~Q,023 I~,~O,0Z3 0 ~5, ~ ~95, MZ ~, 970 1~9,~ ~, 100 Z~3,~59 10,359 9~, 396 Z~3,132 0 (2~3,132) 5t,933 10a,~s TH,OOO 2,39S szs,317,~r sz~,~o,~ SSS,S~,51Q SST, t11,~l SS~,Zr~ C~UNTY UeKijusted 13,025 Fringe generics '. 0.1339 12,65Z ~5,680 0.1339 SZ,59! 70 111 '130 I~0 35 3~ S3 258 258 ?'~! ?-~! 14131(31D sYrL'lX SUIOiARY $~,020,404 $ 333,9SI $~,344,360 0 403,Sl4 403,S84 537,49~ 0 53?,492 .413,3~S 0 422,31S 330,3S3 0 230,3S3 1~S,X76 O 115,176 0 204,154 204,154 107,490 O 107,498 O ~30~01S 130,02S ~,SJ3,I2~ O 1,293,82~ BOdUIOIB CZ"f'f $3,72'7,0,~9 $1,061,719 $4,788,7'78 THE " RE_G_IONAL ,~OANOKE ,~EGIONAI CHAMBE£ OF COMMEI~CE 310 First Streel, SW ,~0. Box 0700 Roanoke, VA 24004-0700 (703) 983-0700 RESOLUTION WHEREAS the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce is a business association involved in the economic and community development of the Roanoke, Virginia metropolitan area; and WHEREAS the issue of consolidation of area governments is one that has been suggested many times by business leaders and others over the years; and WHEREAS a team of government leaders from the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke have presented a draft agreement for consolidation of their governments; and WHEREAS this agreement has been negotiated over the course of a one-year period of time; and WHEREAS this agreement has been reviewed by a special committee and the Board of Directors of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce; and WHEREAS the membership of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce overwhelmingly supports the concept of consolidation as represented by a ninety-five percent favorable vote response to a survey taken during the fall quarter, 1989; and WHEREAS the consolidation agreement, as presented, represents the best efforts of the negotiating team and, while not perfect, represents an equitable agreement to merge the two governments; Now, therefore, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Directors of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce does hereby endorse and support the draft consolidation agreement and respectfully requests those government leaders involved to move its passage so that the citizes of the affected areas may be able to vote on the agreement during November, 1990; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be presented to the governing bodies of both municipalities and to other interested persons, including members of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce and area citizens. ~. Thom Robinson Corporate Secretary President February 19, 1990 PUBLIC HEARING WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED CONSOLIDATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE AND THE CITY OF ROANOKE February 20, 1990 2:00 P.m. MAYOR TAYLOR: The first item on the agenda is a public hearing with regard to the proposed Consolidation Agreement between the County of Roanoke and the City of Roanoke. Messrs. Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice-Mayor and Howard E. Musser, Council Member are the City's representatives in the consolidation group. I want to publicly say how proud we are of these two men for the long number of hours they put in and for the great wa rk that was accomplished, and for the great and able assistance provided by the Manager, the Finance Director and the City Attorney. It would be difficult, I doubt that there is anyone who could give you the total number of hours spent in this effort, and I hope we can say Something in a nice way, I won't take the time at this moment to do it regarding their outstanding efforts, but I would like to provide the opportunity for Mr. Fitzpatrick and Mr. MUsser to make any statements they might want to make regarding this. Also, Mr. Bill Houck is here representing the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce. He wishes to Speak on this matter. I guess the first thing to do would be to have Someone to offer the ordinance to bring it before us. MR. FITZPATRICK: So moved Mr. Mayor. MAYOR TAYLOR: Is there a second? MR. MUSSER: Second. MAYOR ~4YLOR: Seconded by Mr. Musser. title paragraph Ms. Parker. Would you please read the MS. PARKER: An Ordinance authorizing the execution of a Con- solidation Agreement between the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke; authorizing the filing, on or before February 28, 1990, with the Circuit Courts for the City and the County, of such Agreement along with a petition executed by the Mayor praying that the Circuit Courts order that a referendum be held; authorizing the execution of an Agreement between the City, the County and Town of Vinton relating to the expansion of the boundaries of the Town and the respective powers, rights and authorities of the Town and Roanoke Metropolitan Government vis-a-vis each other; authorizing the City Attorney to file such petitions, pleadings, certificates and other legal papers with Federal and State courts and administrative agencies as are deemed necessary and proper to permit a referendum on consolidation; directing the City Clerk to forward an attested copy of this ordinance to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors of the County, the Clerk of the Town of Vinton Council, the Clerk of the City of Salem Council and the Judges of the Circuit Courts for the City and the County; and pro- viding for an emergency. MAYOR TAYLOR: Thank you very much Ms. recognize our Vice-Mayor and Mr. sentations they may wish to be pleased to hear anyone in the audience who would like to speak to this matter today. This is a public hearing. ~. FITZPATRICK: Thank you Mayor, I yield to Mr. MUsser at this time. Parker. I would like to MUsser first for any comments or pre- make regarding this matter, then we will ~ViR. MUSSER: Thank you Vice-Mayor. First of all, Mayor Taylor and ~embers of Council, the hours we have Spent have been quite a few, but you can multiply that ten-fold by those spent by the City Manager, the City Attorney, the Director of Finance and their staffs in trying to Come up with this agreement that we have. It is almost impossible compared to the hours they have Spent and the help they gave us on this. We have had no real change, substance change, to the con- solidation agreement since the last time Council had the opportunity to review it. It has cleared the House of Delegates and has now been sent Over to the Senate and the Senate Subcommittee will be holding a hearing on 8:30 Thursday morning in Richmond. There has been Some changes made as far as capping some of the things that we have in there at this particular point; there is no resolution to it because it has to Come out of the Senate, go back and be reviewed, and the two resolve whatever differences that they have. I think we feel very fortunate that so far they have taken this idea of a new type of government and tackled it pretty well. I think it caught them by surprise a little bit that the things that we had requested they were not Sure exactly how to handle it, and we suspected that might be the case when they received it, and we understand their concern and their desire to approach it on a matter that they are used to, and it's a little difficult to do in this particular Case. But I think it is an agreement that is not perfect, it is an agreement that is just what it says, an ..... agreement. When you negotiate Something neither one Comes out with exactly everything they want, you try to Come out with what you think is best for the Roanoke Valley, and I think that is what we have done, and I whole-heartedly offer this for the Vote of Council and the public. ~AYOR TAYLOR: those CO~ents. Thank you very much Mr. Musser. We appreciate -3- )I/JR. FITZPATRICK: ! would like to publicly thank Howard. Howard has been a great friend as we have gone through this process. He has been in this business longer than I have, and has been a great com- fort. And again, more than anyone, both of us want to thank the staff and the Members of this Council for the confidence that you all placed in us as we represented the interest of the City of Roanoke during this process. There have been nights when the staff hardly got to go home before we met the following morning, and in addition to talking about consolidation and working all the figures and information up, they had to also be responsible for running the City. We have not had any complaints about them not running the City properly while they were doing consolidation as well, so we are extremely grateful to the members of the staff. ! think the goal here for the City team has been to put together a consolidation plan that positions the Roanoke Valley to be of the most benefit to its citizens, but more impor- tantly, when you look at the 10, 15 and 20 year ramifications of what this opportunity is about, is to be of benefit to their children, and their grandchildren, and the opportunity for them to live in the Roanoke Valley and not have to leave for jobs elsewhere. Consolidation is the most important thing in our mind that the citi- zens of the Valley will have to Vote on, during my lifetime and during all of our lifetimes in that regard. I think it is crucial that we recognize that it is not perfect, that we did the best we could do. We are grateful to all of you who made it possible, and particularly again to the Members of this Council for getting us to this day which allows us the chance to move ahead with this process and let the people let us know what they feel consolidation will do for them. -4- MAYOR TAYLOR: Thank you for your statements Mr. Fitzpatrick. The chair is pleased to recognize Mr. Bill Houck at this time, repre- senting the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce. MR. HOUCK: Thank you Mayor Taylor. My name is William Houck, Jr., I reside at 719 Cassell Lane, and my business address is 1402 Grandin Road, both of which are in the City of Roanoke. I Come before you this afternoon as a representative of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce. The Regional Chamber of Commerce represents Over 2,200 businesses in the Metropolitan area of Roanoke, ninety-four percent of which employs one hundred people or less. We are concerned with Small business; we are also concerned with the larger companies. I have with me today a Resolution that was passed by the Board of Directors of the Roanoke Regional Chamber yesterday afternoon in our February Board meeting, and I would like to read this if I may. "WHEREAS, the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce is a business association involved in the economic and community development of the Roanoke, Virginia metropolitan area; and WHEREAS, the issue of consolidation of area governments is one that has been Suggested many times by business leaders and others over the years; and WHEREAS, a team of government leaders from and the County of Roanoke have presented a consolidation of their governments; and WHEREAS, this agreement has been negotiated one-year period in time; and WHEREAS, this agreement has and the Board of Directors Commerce; and the City of Roanoke draft agreement for over the course of a been reviewed by a special committee of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of WHEREAS, the membership of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce overwhelmingly supports the concept of consolidation as represented by a ninety-five percent favorable Vote response to a survey taken during the fall quarter, 1989; and WHEREAS, the consolidation agreement, as presented, represents the best efforts of the negotiating team and, while not perfect, represents an equitable agreement to merge the two governments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board of Directors of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce does hereby endorse and support the draft consolidation agreement and respectfully requests those government leaders involved to move its passage so that the citizens of the affected areas may be able to vote on the agreement during November, 1990; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That copies of this resolution be pre- sented to the governing bodies of both municipalities and to other interested persons, including those members of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce and area citizens. S/C. Thom Robinson Corporate Secretary MAYOR TAYLOR: for the resolution. Come back to that. S/Richard M. Lynn President" Thank you very much for your presence with us and As soon as we take care of the ordinance, we will I want to recognize the presence of Mr. Thom Robinson who is the Corporate Secretary of the Chamber, who is with us today, and who is doing an outstanding job for us in his capacity. We appreciate the support of the Chamber in this matter and we are grate- ful for the presence of the gentlemen here today. I saw Mr. Lynn earlier at the Board Meeting, and he expressed his regrets to Council that he could not be present at this time. I would like to receive any comments that the Members of Council would like to make; if you would like to cogent at this time before asking for the roll call on the ordinance. Any comments? to been a tremendous effort on the part of the feel that the long-term question in my mind that the entire Roanoke Valley. MR. GARLAND: Mr. Mayor I would like to add my praise to yours the negotiating team that has negotiated this contract. There has aegotiating team, and I benefits for the Valley, and there is no this agreement is in the best iaterest of ! commend the two members of Council, Mr. Dibling, Mr. Herbert, and Mr. Schlanger for their efforts on our know it has taken a tremendous amount of their time and I to support it and hope that the citizens will do likewise. TAYLOR: Thank you Mr. Garland. Are there any other If not, Ms. Parker will you please call the roll on the Mr. Bowers. Aye. Mrs. Bowles. Aye. Mr. Fitzpatrick. behalf. am pleased MAYOR comments? ordinance. MS. PARKER: MR. BOWERS: MS. PARKER: MRS. BOWLES: MS. PARKER: also be pleased to entertain the motion a part of the record the resolution pre- the motion please say aye, those it and it is so ordered. Thank MR. FITZPATRICK: Aye. MS. PARKER: Mr. Garland. Aye. Mr. Musser. Aye. Mr. Trout. Aye. Mayor Taylor. Aye. I would MR. GARLAND: MS. PARKER: MR. MUSSER: MS. PARKER: MR. TROUT: MS. PARKER: MAYOR TAYLOR: ,MAYOR TAYLOR: that we receive and file as sented by Mr. Houck. MR. FITZPATRICK: So move. MAYOR TAYLOR: Is there a second? .MR. MUSSER: Second. MAYOR TAYLOR: Those favoring opposed please say no, the ayes have -7- you Yery much. That was carried unanimously by City Council and I think that tells of our support, and again, we say congratulations to the team of elected and administratiYe officials who worked so dili- gently to bring us thus far. T~/ENTY--THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT OF VIRGINIA February 27, 1990 Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Room 456 Roanoke, VA 24011 Re: Ordinance No. 29939-22090 authorizing execution of a Consolidation Agreement Dear Ms. Parker: Thank you for your February 21 letter. I received your letter on February 23. It is my understanding that you provided copies of your letter to the other judges of this Circuit. I have reviewed the Ordinance, and I await further action from Roanoke City and Roanoke Co~_~ / Sinc~ cc: Honorable Kenneth E. Trabue Honorable G. O. Clemens Honorable Clifford R. Honorable Diane McQ. ~ef Judge Weckstein Strickland Office of the City Clerk February 21, 1990 File #290-68-223 Ms. Jeannie B. Davis Systems Coordinator Norfolk Southern Corporation Law Department Three Commercial Place Norfolk, Virginia 23510 Dear Ms. Davis: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 29940-22090 accepting a donation of a collection of twenty State Codes made to the City of Roanoke by the Norfolk Southern Corporation. Resolution No. 29940-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. The City of Roanoke wishes to express its sincere appreciation to the Norfolk Southern Corporation for the donation of the collec- tion of State Codes for use in the Roanoke City Law Library. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Ms. Beverly Bury, City Librarian Ms. Clayne M. Calhoun, Law Librarian Room 456 MunicipalSuilding 215Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 {703)981-2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, lhe 20th day of February, 1990. No. 29940-~2090. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION accepting a donation of a State Codes made to the City of Roanoke by Corporation. collection of various the Norfolk Southern WHEREAS, a colle~ti, on of twenty (20) State Codes has been donated to the City by Norfolk Southern Corporation for use in the Roanoke City Law Library; and WHEREAS, the addition of the collection of State Codes to the Roanoke City Law Library will serve as a valuable resource for the citizens and legal community of the Roanoke valley. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the donation of twenty (20) State Codes, valued in excess of $5,000.00, for use in the Roanoke City Law Library, is hereby ACCEPTED pur- suant to §2-263, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and as more particularly set forth in the report to this Council dated February 20, 1990. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is directed to transmit an attested copy of this resolution to the Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, Virginia, expressing the City's appreciation for its generosity and commitment shown to the City by the donation of this collection of State Codes. ATTEST: City Clerk. February 20, 1990 Honorable Mayor Noel Members of Council Roanoke, Virginia C. Taylor and Members of Council: Subject: Gift of State Codes to the Roanoke City Law Library I. Background Norfolk Southern Corporation Law Department had offices in Roanoke until November, 1989. Law Department housed a collection of state codes for most of the states east of the Mississippi. Law Department's collection of twenty (20) state codes had been a valuable resource for both the public and the legal community of the Roanoke Valley. II. Current Situation ae The Norfolk Southern Corporation Law Department has offered the state code collection to the Law Library as an outright gift, valued in excess of $5,000. III. Issues A. Service to the public. B. Maintenance of the collection. C. Shelving. IV. Alternatives City Council authorize the acceptance of the state code collection. Service the the public. to meet user demands for state laws. The Library will be able information on various Maintenance of collection. It will cost less than $6,000 annually to maintain the subscrip- tions for the collection. This cost can be cover- ed by the Law Library budget. 1 Shelving. Additional shelving will need to be purchased and installed. Funds are available in the Law Library budget. Do not authorize acceptance of the state code collection. Service to the public. User demands for the state code collection will go unmet in Roanoke. Patrons will have to be referred to Washington and Lee University or the University of Virginia. 2. Maintenance of the collection. Not an issue. 3. Shelvin9. Not an issue. Recommendation City Council concur with Alternative "A" and accept the Norfolk Southern Corporation Law Department gift of the state code collection valued in excess of $5,000. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/JDR/BAB/js CC: Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Joel M. Schlanager, Director of Finance James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Beverly A. Bury, City Librarian Attachments Office of the City Clerk February 21, 1990 File #67 ~r. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear ~r. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29942-22090 accepting the bid of Austin Electrical Construction, Inc., in the total amount of $10,150.00, for installation of flag poles, flags and ground lighting at Williamson Road Gateway Park and Andrews ~4emorial Park, upon certain terms and conditions. Ordinance No. 29942-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~ary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk :~4FP : ra Enc o Ms. Helen R. Prillaman, Second Vice-President, Williamson Road Action Forum, Inc., P. O. Box 5064, Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Ms. Betty T. Bradshaw, 2628 South Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24014 Mr. Ted H. Key, Coordinator, Williamson Road Area Business Association, P. 0. Box 5892, Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety Mr. Gary N. Fenton, ~anager, Parks and Recreation/Grounds Maintenance Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief of Community Planning Mr. J. Thomas Tasselli, City Planner Room456 Municipall]uilding 215Church Avenue,$ W. Roanoke, Vi~gini,~ 24011 (70])981 254t Office of the City Clerk February 21, 1990 File #67 ~r. J. W. Christenbury, Jr. President Acorn Construction, Ltd. P. 0. Box 625 Troutville, Virginia 24175 Dear Mr. Christenbury: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29942-22090 accepting the bid of Austin Electrical Construction, Inc., in the total amount of $10,150.00, for installation of flag poles, flags and ground lighting at Williamson Road Gateway Park and Andrews Memorial Park, upon certain terms and conditions. Ordinance No. 29942-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. On behalf of the ~ayor and ~embers of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above- described project. Sincerely, ~l ~4ary F. .Parker, CIVlC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. Room456 Muni¢ipalSuilding 215Church Avenue.$ W RoanoEe, Vi~gini~ 24011 (703)981-25~,1 Office of ~che City Clerk February 21, 1990 Fi le #67 Mr. Stanley G. Breakell President Breakell, Inc. P. 0. Box 6414 Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Dear ~r. Breakell: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29942-22090 accepting the bid of Austin Electrical Construction, Inc., in the total amount of $10,150.00, for installation of flag poles, flags and ground lighting at Williamson Road Gateway Park and Andrews Memorial Park, upon certain terms and conditions. Ordinance No. 29942-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above- described project. Sincerely, "~ ~ary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. Room456 MunicipatBuilding 215Church Avenue,$ W Roanoke, Virginia 24011 {703)981-2541 Office of the City Clerk February 21, 1990 File #67 Mr. Lawrence D. Johnson, Jr. President Construction Services of Roanoke, 3812 Bunker Hill Drive, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24018 [nc. Dear ~r. Johnson: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29942-22090 accepting the bid of Austin Electrical Construction, Inc., in the total amount of $10,150.00, for installation of flag poles, flags and ground lighting at Williamson Road Gateway Park and Andrews ~emorial Park, upon certain terms and conditions. Qrdinance No. 29942-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. On behalf of the Mayor and ~embers of City Council, I would like to express appreciation for submitting your bid on the above- described project. Sincerely, ,Wary F. Parker City Clerk CMC/AAE MFP : r a Enc. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S. W Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981 2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of February, 1990. No. 29942-22090. AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of Austin Electrical Inc., for installation of flag poles, flags and ground Williamson Road Gateway Park and Andrews Memorial Park, Construction, lighting at upon certain terms and conditions, and awarding a contract therefor; authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite contract for such work; rejecting all other bids made to the City for the work; and pro- viding for an emergency. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The bid of Austin Electrical Construction, Inc., made to the City in the total amount of $10,150.00 for installation of flag poles, flags and ground lighting at Williamson Road Gateway Park and Andrews Memorial Park, such bid being in full compliance with the City's plans and specifications made therefor and as provided in the contract docu- ments offered said bidder, which bid is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, be and is hereby ACCEPTED. 2. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute and attest, respectively, bidder, based on its tions made therefor, by the City Attorney, funds heretofore or simultaneously appropriated by Council, the requisite contract with the successful proposal made therefor and the City's specifica- said contract to be in such form as is approved and the cost of said work to be paid for out of execution Office of the City Clerk February 21, 1990 File #60-67 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29941-22090 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1989-90 Capital Fund Appropriations, in connection with installation of flag poles, flags and ground lighting at Williamson Road Gateway Park and Andrews Memorial Park. Ordinance No. 29941-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, '~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP : ra Enc. pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration Public Safety Mr. Gary N. Fenton, Manager, Parks and Recreation/Grounds Maintenance Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief of Community Planning Mr. J. Thomas Tasselli, City Planner and Room456 MunJcipall~uilding 215Church Avenue. S.W Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703)981-2541 AN ORDINANCE the 1989-90 Capital emergency. WHEREAS, for Government of the exist. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 20th day of February, 1990. No. 29941-22090. to amend and reordain certain Fund Appropriations, and VIRGINIA sections of providing for an the usual daily operation of the Municipal City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of 1989-90 Capital Fund hereby, amended and THEREFORE, Roanoke that certain sections of the Appropriations, be, and the same are reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Other Infrastructure Andrews Memorial Park/Williamson Road Gateway (1-2) Capital Improvement Reserve Capital Improvement Reserve (3) .................... $14,470,714 10,150 4,320,426 2,284,338 Revenue Accounts Rec. WRAF (4) ....... Accounts Rec. Andrews Family i{i]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]] Misc. Rev. WRAF (6) ................................ Misc. Rev. Andrews Family (7) ...................... 1) Appropriations from General Revenue 2) Appropriations from Third Party 3) FY 90 Revenue Adjustment 4) Accounts Rec. WRAF 5) Accounts Rec. Andrews 6) Misc. Rev. WRAF 7) Misc. Rev. Andrews Family 008-002-9652-9003) $ 8,650 008-002-9652-9004) 1,500 008-052-9575-9188) ( 8,650) 008-1247) 1,000 008-1248) 500 008-008-1234-1094) 1,000 008-008-1234-1095) 500 1,000 500 1,000 5,000 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: this City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia February 20, 1990 The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Taylor and Members of City Council: Subject: Request to install flag poles, flags, and appropriate ground lighting; Andrews Memorial Park and Williamson Road Gateway. I. Background: Development of the subject parks was authorized by City Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 28395 (October 13, 1986) and Ordinance No. 29313 (September 26, 1988). Funding for Andrews project was shared between City and Andrews heirs. Williamson Road Gateway project was funded 100% with Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. Projects were the outgrowth of a Council-approved visual improvement study of the entire Williamson Road corridor. II. Current Situation: Enhancements (flag poles, flags, ground lighting) for both parks has been requested by the Williamson Road Action Forum (WRAF) and the Williamson Road Area Business Association (WRABA). Both groups supported the original planning and implementation for the subject parks. Donations to reduce costs of pledged by the WRAF ($1,000) family ($500). the project have been and the Andrews Project bids have been solicited with the lowest responsible bid being submitted by Austin Electrical Construction, Inc. in the amount of $10,150. D. Council approval is required to implement the project. III. Issues: A. Furtherance of corridor plan. B. Project cost. C. Funding. D. Timing. IV. Alternatives: Authorize the installation of flag poles, flags, and ground lights for the subject parks. Furtherance of the corridor plan will be achieved by enhancing the visual appearance of the key intersections at the northern and southern ends of the Williamson Road corridor. Project costs will be $10,150 as bid by Austin Electrical Construction, Inc. Funding for the project is available as follows: $ 1,000 500 8,650 $10,150 donation from WRAF donation from Andrews family Capital Improvement Reserve account 9 008-052-9575-9188 Total Project Costs Timinq is important in order to secure the low bid. B. Do not authorize the project. Furtherance of the corridor plan will not be achieved. 2. Project costs may escalate at a later date. 3. Funding may still be available. 4. Timing. Current low bid will lapse. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council adopted Alternative ~, which will authorize the following: Acceptance of the low bid of $10,150 as submitted by Austin Electrical Construction, Inc. and reject of all other bids; WRH:EBR:mpf CC: Issuance of a written notice to proceed on this project by the City Manager on his designee; Transfer of $8,650 from Capital Improvement Reserve Account ~ 008-052-9575-9188 to an account established by the Director of Finance for this project; and Establishment of an account receivable by the Director of Finance to escrow the $1,500 monetary donation for this project as promised by the Williamson Road Action Forum ($1,000) and the Andrews family ($500). Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Gary N. Fenton, Manager, Parks and Recreation J. Thomas Tasselli, City Planner Helen Prillaman, WRAF Ted Key, WRABA Betty Tom Andrews Bradshaw MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 ChurchAvenue, S W,Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981~2541 February 21, 1990 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy City Clerk File #178-236 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 29943-22090 urging con- tinued funding by the General Assembly of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund; requesting the area legislators to support con- tinued funding of a significant resource to improve housing con- ditions in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No. 29943-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, fo~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. pc: Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator Mr. R. Daniel Pollock, Housing Development Coordinator Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Ms. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Monitoring Administrator MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Ch~Jrch Avenue, S W, Room 456 Roanoke, V~rgm~a 24071 Telephone; (703)981-2541 February 21, 1990 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy C~ty Clerk File #178-236 The Honorable Dudley J. Emick, Jr. Member, Senate of Virginia Room 315, General Assembly Building 910 Capitol Street Richmond, Virginia 23219 Dear Senator Emick: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 29943-22090 urging con- tinued funding by the General Assembly of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund; requesting the area legislators to support con- tinued funding of a significant resource to improve housing con- ditions in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No. 29943-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~~ .Mary F. Pa rkor, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. MARY F, PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 21S Church Avenue, S W. Room 456 Roanoke, Virgtma 240~1 Telephone: (703) 981-254~ February 21, 1990 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy C~ty Crerk File #178-236 The Honorable A. Victor Thomas Member, House of Delegates P. 0. Box 406 Richmond, Virginia 23203 Dear Delegate Thomas: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 29943-22090 urging con- tinued funding by the General Assembly of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund; requesting the area legislators to support con- tinued funding of a significant resource to improve housing con- ditions in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No. 29943-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. MARY F. PARKER City Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S W , Room 456 Roanoke, Virgm~a 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-254t February 21, 1990 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy C~ty Clerk File #178-236 The Honorable G. Steven Agee Member, House of Delegates P. O. Box 406 Richmond, Virginia 23203 Dear Delegate Agee: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 29943-22090 urging con- tinued funding by the General Assembly of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund; requesting the area legislators to support con- tinued funding of a significant resource to improve housing con- ditions in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No. 29943-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. MARY F. PARKER C~ty Clerk CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK 215 Church Avenue, S.W, Room 456 Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Telephone: (703) 981-2S41 February 21, 1990 SANDRA H. EAKIN Deputy C,ty Clerk File #178-236 The Honorable Clifton A. Woodrum, Member, House of Delegates P. 0. Box 406 Richmond, Virginia 23203 III Dear Delegate ~oodrum: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 29943-22090 urging con- tinued funding by the General Assembly of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund; requesting the area legislators to support con- tinued funding of a significant resource to improve housing con- ditions in the City of Roanoke. Resolution No. 29943-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a reqular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~/~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of February, 1990. No. 29943-22090. A RESOLUTION urging continued funding by the General Assembly of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund; requesting the area legislators to support continued funding of a significant resource to improve housing conditions in the City of Roanoke. WHEREAS, the intent of the General Assembly in funding the Housing Partnership Fund in the 1988-89 biennium was to create a perpetual revolving fund for housing needs over a ten year period; WHEREAS, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development has developed and administered a variety of programs funded by the Housing Partnership Fund; and WHEREAS, funds allocated to the City from the Housing Partnership Fund are a critical supplement to programs funded from traditional Federal sources, such as the Community Development Block Grant; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. This Council urges the continued funding by the General Assembly of Virginia of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund and requests the area legislators to sup- port continued funding of this significant resource to improve housing conditions in the City of Roanoke. 2. The City Clerk is directed to forward attested copies of this resolution to The Honorable J. Granger Macfarlane, Member, Senate of Virginia, The Honorable J. Dudley Emick, Jr., Member, Senate of Virginia, The Honorable A. Victor Thomas, The Honorable C. Richard ~-~nwell, The Honorable G. Steven Agee, and The Honorable Clifton A. Woodrum, III, Members, House of Delegates. ATTEST: City Clerk. Honorable Mayor and Members of Council Roanoke, Virginia Roanoke, Virginia February 20, 1990 Dear Members of Council: Subject: Resolution of support of the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund I. Background: A. The Virginia General Assembly appropriated 47.5 million in the 1988-1989 biennium for a broad variety of housing programs. This action was the first significant monetary investment by the State in housing. B. The General Assembly's intent was to create a perpetual revolving fund for housing over a ten (10) year period. This fund is entitled the Virginia Housing Partnership Fund. C. The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development (DHCD) has developed and administered a variety of programs funded by the Housing Partnership Fund, including programs oriented toward: I. Rehabilitation of single- and multi-family units; 2. Production of new housing units; 3. Low-cost emergency repairs; Homeless assistance and intervention; Congregate living facilities; 6. Seed money for non-profit housing organizations. II. Current Situation: A. Projects in Roanoke City have received allocations from the Partnership Fund totaling $2,727,811 in the current biennium. These allocations are applied to projects which leverage or bring into the Roanoke economy an additional $7 million (Attachment). B. The $2.7 million allocated to projects in Roanoke included $83~,41~ directly to the City for City-administered programs, specifically: 1. Multi-family Rehabilitation Loan Program a. Neigborhood Stabilization and Enhancement Program/Mountain View -- $313,000 b. 1990 Rental Rehabilitation Program -- $212,000 February 20, 1990 Page 2 2. Single-family Rehabilitation Loan Program a. Home Purchase Assistance Program -- $160,000 b. Critical Home Repair Program -- $80,000 c. Owner-Occupied Rehabilitation Loans -- $60,000 3. Emergency Home Repair Program -- $10,t41q C. Funds allocated to the City from the Housing Partnership Fund are a critical supplement to programs funded from traditional Federal sources, particularly the Community Development Block Grant. For example, the $835,#1~ received from the Partnership Fund compares with $#60,300 in housing subsidies contained in the 1989-90 CDBG budget. D. Budget concerns of the State have put into doubt the continuation of the Housing Partnership Fund, along with its benefits to Roanoke. III. Issues: A. Effect on the General Assembly's continued financing of the Housing Partnership Fund B. Consistency with recommendations of the Housing Development Strategic Plan Task Force C. Cost to the City D, Timing IV. Alternatives: A. Communicate the City's strong support for the Housing Partnership Fund and request our area legislators to support its continued funding by the General Assembly. Effect on the General Assembly's continued financing oi the Housing Partnership Fund would be positive, as our elected representatives would be informed oi the benefits Roanoke has derived from the Fund thusfar and the importance the City officially gives the significant additional resources to improve housing conditions and opportunities for our citizens which would be provided by the continuation of the Fund. 2. Consistency with recommendations of the Housing Development Strategic Plan Task Force would be achieved, specifically to: a. Encourage and attract as much outside subidy funds into the Roanoke housing economy as possible; February 20~ 1990 Page 3 b. Leverage additional private funds into the economy, using subsidy funds made available; c. Encourage revolving use of funds for long-term and continual benefits. Cost to the City would be nothing for forwarding a resolution of support for the Partnership Fund to the City's legislators. To the extent that funding allocations are eventually received for housing improvement programs, such allocations may offset the loss of funds from other sources, e.g. CDBG. Timing is such that support should be shown immediately, before General Assembly work on the State budget is finalized, due in late February. B. Do not demonstrate support for continuation of the Housing Partnership Fund; Do not request our area legislators to support its continuation. Effect on the General Assembly's continued financing of the Housing, Partnership Fund may be negative, as our legislators would not be aware of the significance of the Fund's continuation to the City. In addition, once the General Assembly departs from a pattern of con- tinued endowments into a revolving fund for housing~ it may be more difficult to reestablish such a pattern in future years. Consistency with recommendations of the Housing Development Strategic Plan Task Force would not met~ as loss of Iunding from the Partnership Fudd would result in lost opportunities to enhance homeownership~ housing rehabilitation, improvement of housing stock for low-moderate income citizens, and leveraging of additional resources. Cost to the City would be nothing initially, but the indirect and long-term costs of housing deterioration would continue to accrue to the detriment of real estate values. #. Timing would not be a factor. V. Recommendation: Adopt alternative A, thereby communicating the City's strong support for the Housing Partnership Fund and requesting our area legislators to support its continued funding by the General Assembly, on conditions as favorable as possible. ~/. Robert Herbert~ City Manager February 20~ 1990 Page # WRH:HDP:vs (CR.30) Attachment( 1 ) cc: City Attorney Director o£ Finance Director of Public Works Director of Human Resources Building Commissioner Housing Development Coordinator Grants Monitoring Administrator SHARE Shelter Support Grant Program Total Action Against Poverty Trust SHARE Homeless Intervention Program Total Action Against Poverty Emergency Home Repair Program Roanoke City Total Action Against Poverty Single-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program Roanoke City Multi-Family Rehabilitation Loan Program Roanoke City ~ oodbridge Apartments Brittany Apartments Park 21 Apartments Congregate Housing Mental Health Services Valley Care Single-Family Production Loan Program Vocational Education Foundation TOTALS Virginia Housing Leveraged and Partnership Fund Matching Funds $ #2,221 $ 77,221 $ 7,206 $ lOg,O00 $ 10,500 $ lo, l¢ $ 5,837 $ 2,870 $ 8,320 $ 300,000 $ 525,000 $ 121,650 $ 417,000 $ 1,526,000 $ 770,000 $ 4,065,000 $ 141,000 $ 227,000 $ 9#,100 $ 255,900 $ 250,000 $ 650,000 $ 60,000 $ 24,000 $ 2,727,811 $ 6,971,¢28 Office of the City Clerk February 21, 1990 File #60-282-144 ~r. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear ~r. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29944-22090 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1989-90 General Fund Appropriations, providing for the establishment of an account receivable, in the amount of $112, 756.00, for a grant from the Regional Solid Waste Management tloard; further providing for the appropriation of $112,756.00 in grant funds and transferring $209,404.00 from certain available accounts in the Refuse Collection budget, in connection with implementation of a program of residential solid waste recycling. Ordinance No. 29944-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City ~anager Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works ~r. Donald E. Keaton, ~anager, Refuse Collection ~s. Tamasin Roop, Recycling Task Force Leader Room 456 Muni¢ipa~Building 215Church Av~nue, S W Roanoke, Virginia 240!1 {?03)981~25al AN ORDINANCE the 1989-90 General emergency. WHEREAS, for Government of the exist. IN THE cOUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA The 20th day of February, 1990, No. 29944-22090. to amend and reordain certain sections Fund Appropriations, and providing for of the usual daily operation of the Municipal City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1989-90 General Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Non-Departmental Contingency-General Fund (1) ...................... Public Works Refuse Collections (2-8) .......................... Community Development Greater Roanoke Transit (9) ....................... Public Safety Jail (10) ......................................... $ 15,329,979 321,880 19,394,535 4,223,351 1,237,271 283,447 25,793,800 3,726,614 Fund Balance Capital Maintenance & Equipment Replacement Program City Unappropriated (11) ......................... $ 884,940 Revenue Acct. Rec. Regional Solid Waste Management Board (12) ..................................... $ Revenue - Miscellaneous (13) ..................... 112,756 112,756 1) Equipment Repl. Contingency 2) Reg. Salaries 3) City Retirement 4) FICA (001-002-9410-2202) $( 35,000) (001-052-4210-1002) 12,500 (001-052-4210-1105) 1,576 (001-052-4210-1120) 956 5) Life Insurance 6) Fees for Professional Services 7) Vehicular Equipment 8) Other Equipment 9) GRTC Operating Subsidy 10) Recovered Cost 11) CMERP - City 12) Acct. Rec. - Reg. Solid Waste Board 13 Revenue - Misc. (001-052-4210-1130) $ 128 (001-052-4210-2010) 38,000 (001-052-4210-9010 (001-052-4210-9015 80,000 189,000 (001-056-8150-3700 ( 50,000) (001-024-3310-8005 74,404 (001-3323) ( 50,000) (001-1248) (001-020-1234-0859 112,756 112,756 BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: this City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia February 20, 1990 Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mayor Taylor and Council Members: SUBJECT: Solid Waste Recycling Program I. Background: Recycling Task Force Report and Recommendations was presented to City Council in the form of a briefing at your meeting on December 18~ 1989. II. Current Situation: Administrative public hearing was held on Thursday, January 11, 1990, in Council Chambers, for the purpose of soliciting citizen comments and suggestions concerning the proposed recycling proposals. Approximately 50 persons attended and all offered positive support for the City's plan to institute a program of residential solid waste recycling. Letters and telephone calls have also been received from a number of City residents expressing support for a residential solid waste recycling program. III. Issues: A. City Council Strategic Issues. B. LeRal obligations. C. Cost. D. Financing. E. Community support. IV. Alternatives: City of Roanoke implement a program for residential collection of certain recyclable materials in accordance with the Recycling Task Force Report and Recommendations. Mayor Taylor and Council Members Page 2 2o City Council Strategic Issues will be addressed in two respects: a. Enhancement of Environmental Quality. bo Promotion of City's Image as a Progressive Community. Legal obligation should be met by enabling the City to comply with State mandated recycling goals. If a voluntary program does not result in sufficient quantities of materials being recycled to meet State requirements, modifications to the City program may be necessary in future years. Cost is estimated as follows: Start-Up, February-June 1990 Capital: Collection vehicle 10,000 bins Recurring: Recycling Coordinator Public information program $ 80,000 189,000 $269,000 15,160 38~000 $ 53,160 Total $322,160 First full year, July 1990 - June 1991 Capital: Second collection vehicle Another 10,000 bins Recurring: Recycling Coordinator Vehicle operating cost Public information Drop-Off stations $ 80,000 189,000 $269,000 31,452 2,500 76,000 16~200 $126,152 Total $395~152 Mayor Taylor and Council Members Page 3 Financing for the start-up phase of the program is available in part from a 35 percent matching grant approved by the Regional Solid Waste Management Board and existing City funds. Based on the City's estimate of $322,160 to be expended prior to June 30, 1990, this would result in a potential total grant of $112,756. Funding for the first full year of operation will be considered in the City budgeting process for FY 90-91. Co~nunity support for a residential recycling program has been expressed in a telephone survey conducted in March 1989, in neighborhood workshops held in June 1989, at the administrative public hearing conducted on January 11, 1990, and in many telephone inquiries and letters continually received by the City. Bo City of Roanoke not implement a program for residential collection of certain recyclable materials in accordance with the Recycling Task Force recommendations. 1. City Council Strategic Issues will not be addressed. 2o Legal obliKations to comply with State-mandated recycling goals will likely not be met. Without a program to encourage and assist residents to recycle significant portions of household waste, it will be difficult to obtain the percentages of recycling required. Cost of a recycling program will not be incurred. But the increasing expense of solid waste disposal will not be avoided in relation to materials which could have been recycled. Financial penalties for failure to meet State mandates may also be incurred. ($10,000 per day) Financing for a recycling program will be moot. However, the funds for increased solid waste disposal will have to be included in future operating budgets. Community support for a residential recycling program will still exist. V. Recommendation: City Council approve Alternative "A~" thereby concurring in creating a program of residential solid waste recycling in accordance with the Recycling Task Force Report and Recommendations. Mayor Taylor and Council M~mbers Page 4 mo Bo WRH:WFC:pr CC: Authorize the Director of Finance to establish an Account-Receivable in the amount of $112,75§ (35 percent of $322,160) for grant from the Regional Solid Waste Management Board. Appropriate $112,756 in grant funds and transfer $209,404 (City's 65 percent match of Regional Solid Waste Management Board Grant) from the following available accounts into the appropriate accounts in the Refuse Collection budget: From: Grant (to be established by Director of Finance) $112,756 GRTC Operating Subsidy (001-056-8150-3700 50,000 Capital Maintenance & Equipment Replacement Program 50,000 Equipment Replacement (001-002-9410-2202) 35,000 Recovered Costs-Jail (001-024-3310-8005) 74~404 Total $322,160 To: Regular Salaries (001-052-4210-1002) $ 12,500 City Retirement (001-052-4210-1105) 1,576 FICA (001-052-4210-1120) 956 Life Insurance (001-052-4210-1130) 128 Fees For Professional Services (001-052-4210-2010) 38,000 Vehicular Equipment (001-052-4210-9010) 80,000 Other Equipment (001-052-4210-9015) 189,000 Total $322,t60 Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Donald E. Keaton, Manager, Refuse Collection Ms. Tamasin Roop, Recycling Task Force Leader Recycling Task Force Members February 1, 1990 RECEIVED g 2 90 ~ity Managers Office Roanoke, VA Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager City of Roanoke Municipal Building Room 364 215 Church Avenue, SW Roanoke, Virginia 24011 POST OFFICE BOX 12312 ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24024 703 981-9331 Dear Mr. Herbert: On January 17, 1990, the Roanoke Valley Regional Sol~ Waste Management Board apFroved a recycling grant program for the local governments for the current fiscal year. The Landfill Board increased the appro- priation available to the local governments for assis- tance in implementing recycling programs from $100,000 to $250,000. The Board stipulated that these funds would be provided on a matching basis through reimburse- ment of previously approved expenditures with the Landfill Board providing $5% and the local governments 65%. Eligible rein.bursable expenditures include labor costs, supplies, materials and equipment. The funding allocation is based on the percentage of tonnage brought to the landfill by each local government for the fiscal year ended June 50, 1989. Based upon this formula, the City of Roanoke would be eligible for a maximum allocation of 65.4% or $158~500 provided the 65% match is met. The Landfill Board approved the City of Roanoke's grant application submitted on December 1, 1989. Based upon your ._~plication, which estimates a total of $526,024 in st~ up costs, the City of Roanoke is eligible for $~.~108.40 in grant funds for the current fiscal year. Reimbursement will be made for bonified recycling expenses incurred through June 30, 1990. Page 2 Mr. N.·Robert Herbert Fobru.~l, 1990 I commend the City's Recycling Task Force on what appears to be a comprehensive and viable recycling plan. Please contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, f~r ey A~.' Cr o~e r Solid ~aste Disposal Manager RE-CYCLING SAVINGS JAMES E ROBERTSOI Plastic Coke Bottles can make: Fiber-fill for Jackets and pillows Flower-pots, paint brushes, "plastic lumber" for fences and boat docks and plastic strapping for shipping boxes. Re-c~cled paper: Makes- Game boards, record Jackets, egg cartons, grocery packages, book covers, gift boxes, Jig-saw puzzles and paper matches. A four foot stack of papers saves a l? foot pine treellll! One ton of newspapers (a forty foot stack) makes enough insulation to save 45 barrels of crude oil per year. Old $1ass is used: To make new bottles. and reflective paint glassphalt for streets and windows bricks, tile for road signs. Aluminum cans are made into: New cans (about 100 %) Alumninum lawn chairs and window frames are used are re-made into the same parts or into castings for car parts. 616 MARSHALL AVE SW ROANOKE, VA 24016 703-344-0474 Office of the City Clerk February 21, 1990 File #27 Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29946-22090 approving issuance of Change Order No. 1 to the City's contracts with Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc., for the Williamson Road Storm Drain Project, Phase II, Contracts I-E, I-F and I-G. Ordinance No. 29946-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, ~ Mary F. Parker, C~!C/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. pc: Mr. Aaron J. Conner, President, Aaron J. Conner General Contractor, Inc., P. O. Box 6068, Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Ms. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Room456 MuniciDalSuilding 21§Cht~[ch Avenue, S.W. RoanoEe, Virginia 2~,011 (703)98~ 2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 20th day of February, 1990. No. 29946-22090. VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE approving the City Manager's Order No. 1 to the City's Contractor, Inc., Phase II Contrscts emergency. issuance of Change contracts with Aaron J. Conner, General for the Williamson Road Storm Drain Project, I-E, I-F and I-G; and providing for an BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City Manager or Assistant City Manager is authorized and empowered to issue, for and on behalf of the City, upon form approved by the City Attorney, Change Order No. 1 to the City's contracts with Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc., related to the Williamson Road Storm Drain Project, I-F and I-G, as more particularly set forth Council dated February 20, 1990. 2. Such Change Orders shall provide for the following in said contract amounts: Phase II Contracts I-E, in report to this changes Contract I-E: ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT Change Order No. 1 New Contract Amount $ 1,757,504.50 - $ 28,006.51 $ 1,729,497.99 Contract I-F: ORIGINIAL CONTRACT AMOUNT Change Order No. 1 New Contract Amount Contract I-G: ORIGINAL CONTRACT AMOUNT Change Order No. 1 New Contract Amount Additional calendar days resulting from Change Order No. 1 $ +$ $ -$ $ 776,269.35 67,678.08 843,947.43 $ 1,009,604.20 54,351 69 955,252.52 None. municipal ordinance In order to provide for the usual daily operation government, shall be in of the an emergency is deemed to exist, and this full force and effect upon its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Office of the City Clerk February 21, 1990 File #60-27 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger Director of Finance Roanoke, Virginia Dear Hr. Schlanger: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29945-22090 amending and reordaining certain sections of the 1989-90 Capital Fund Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $28,007.00 and $39,672.00, respectively, from Williamson Road Storm Drain Accounts, in connection with execution of Change Order No. I to the contracts with Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc., for construction of Williamson Road Storm Drain Projects, Phase 2, Contracts I-E, I-F, and I-G. Ordinance No. 29945-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Tuesday, February 20, 1990. Sincerely, i) Idary F. Parker, C~IC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra pc: Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager ~illiam F. Clark, Director of Public Works Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue. S. W Roanoke. Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 AN ORDINANCE the 1989-90 Capital emergency. WHEREAS, for Government of the exist. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 20th day of February, 1990. No. 29945-22090. to amend and reordain Fund Appropriations, and VIRGINIA certain sections of providing for an the usual daily operation of the Municipal City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that certain sections of the 1989-90 Capital Fund Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained to read as follows, in part: Appropriations Sanitation $ 8,867,149 Williamson Road Storm Drain Ph. 2, Cont. I-E (1)... 1,714,641 Williamson Road Storm Drain Ph. 2, Cont. I-G (2)... 657,038 Williamson Road Storm Drain Ph. 2, Cont. I-F (3-4). 879,252 1) Appropriations from Bonds 2) Appropriations from General Revenue 3) Appropriations from Bonds 4) Appropriatons from General Revenue BE IT FURTHER (008-052-9634-9001) $(28,007) (008-052-9639-9003) (39,672) (008-052-9635-9001) 28,007 (008-052-9635-9003) 39,672 ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage. ATTEST: City Clerk. Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Change Orders No. 1 for Wllliamson Road Storm Drain Projects, Phase 2, Contracts I-E, I-F, and I-G Roanoke, Virginia February 20, 1990 I. Backsround: During the course of construction of the three (3) referenced segments of the Williamson Road Storm Drainage System, the opportunity presented itself to make certain revisions to storm drain profiles and alignment that would result in a net reduction of the three contracts taken as a whole. This is due primarily to the fact that the contractor, Aaron J. Conner, General Contractor, Inc., elected to tunnel for the deep 72 inch storm drain through Ravenwood Avenue on Contract (I-E) instead of using the open cut method. Due to the intesrated nature of the three segments, any changes in profile or alignment in one segment are likely to affect the other two segments. Therefore, after careful review by the Engineering Department, the consultant engineer, and the contractor, it has been determined that these revisions, taken as a whole, will have the following effect: 1. Contract I-E reduces by ($28,006.51) 2. Contract I-F increases by $67,678.08 3. Contract I-G reduces by ($54,351.68) Net Reduction: ($14,680.11) II. Current Situation: Contractor has completed the tunnel work on contract I-E with reductions in excavation, aggregate base, and paving items resulting in a change order reduction of $28~006.51. Contractor has completed profile and alignment changes on contract I-F by extending the tunnel work from I-E some 133 feet inside its construction limits, resulting in a change order increase of $67~678.08. Page 2 Co Contractor has not started any work on contract I-G as of this date, but changes in profile and alignment which decreased quantities of excavation, pipe materials, base material, and paving items will result in a chanse order reduction of $54~351.68. Adjustments to the contract amounts for contracts I-E, I-F, and I-G in the form of properly executed change orders need to be made to reflect the revisions. III. Issues in order of importance: A. Compliance with the requirements of the contract documents. B. Engineering concerns. IV. Alternatives are: A. Authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 1 for each contract in the following manner: - Contract I-E: Reduce current contract amount of $1~757~504.50 by $28~006.51 and establish a new contract amount of $1~729~497.99. - Contract I-F: Increase current contract amount of $776~269.35 by $67~678.08 and establish a new contract amount of $843~947.43. Contract I-G: Reduce current contract amount of $1~009~604.20 by $54~351.68 and establish a new contract amount of $955~252.52. 1. Compliance with the requirements of the contract docu- ments, Paragraph 16 - Unexpected Conditions and Paragraph 20 - Change Order(s), of the General Con- ditions, was met. 2. Engineering concerns in regard to proper storm drain profiles and alignment have been met. Do not authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 1 for contracts I-E, I-F, and I-G. Compliance with the requirements of the contract docu- ments would be met only by using other means of paying the contractor for the work performed. 2. Ensineerin~ concerns would not be an issue but a means of adjusting contract amounts would not be provided. Page 3 WRH/ES/mm CC: V. Recommendation is that City Council take the following action: A. Authorize the City Manaser to execute Change Orders No. 1 to: Reduce the current contract amount for Contract I-E in the amount of $1,757~504.50 by $28~006.51 and establish a new contract amount of $1}729}497.99. Increase the current contract amount of $776}269.35 for Contract I-F by $67}678.08 and establish a new contract amount of $843m947.43. Reduce the current contract amount of $1}009}604.20 for Contract I-G by $54~351.68 and establish a new contract amount of $955m252.52. Bo Authorize the Director of Finance to transfer the following funds to the Willtamson Road Storm Drain, Phase 2, Contract I-F, Account No. 008-052-9635-9065: 1. From Williamson Road Storm Drain, Phase 2, Contract I-E, Account No. 008-052-9634-9065 the amount of $28~006.51. 2. From Williamson Road Storm Drain, Phase 2, Contract I-G, Account No. 008-052-9639-9065 the amount of $39m671.57. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Utilities & Operations City Engineer Construction Cost Technician Office of the City Clerk February 21, 1990 File #51 Mr. Harwell M. Darby, Jr. Attorney P. O. Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001 Dear Mr. Darby: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29930-22090 rezoning a tract of land containing 0.873 acre, located at 2801 Brandon Avenue, S. W., identified as Official Tax No. 1610204, from RM-2, Residential Multi-Family, Medium Density District, to C-1, Office District, subject to a certain condition proferred by the peti- tioner. Ordinance No. 29930-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, February 12, 1990, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Tuesday, February 20, 1990, date of its second and will take effect ten days following the reading. Sincerely, ~ Mary F. Parker, C~C/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Eno o pC: Brandon Associates, c/o VMS Realty Partners, 8700 ~est Bryn Mawr, Chicago, Illinois 60631 Ms. Elizabeth M. Weinberg, P. O. Box 727, Hindman, Kentucky 41822 Roanoke Associates, c/o VMS Realty Partners, 8700 West Bryn Mawr, Chicago, Illinois 60631 Mr. ~ayne G. Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission, P. O. Box 2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010 Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Ctlurch Avenue. $. W Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 98t-2541 Mr. Harwell M. Darby, February 21, 1990 Page 2 Jr. po: Mr. ~. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. ~ilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Von W. Hoody, III, Director of Real Estate Valuation Mr. Hichael H. Waldvogel, Chairman, City Planning Commission Mr. L. Elwood Norris, Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals Hr. ~illiam F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Hr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer ~r. Ronald H. Hiller, Building Commissioner and Zoning Administrator Hr. John R. Harlles, Agent/Secretary, City Planning Commission Ms. Doris Layne, Office of Real Estate Valuation IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 20th day of February, 1990. No. 29930-22090. VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 161, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City, subject to cer- tain conditions proffered by the applicant. WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-Family District, to C-i, Office District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the applicant; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by ~36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on said appli- and timely of Roanoke cation at its meeting on February 12, 1990, after due notice thereof as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citi- zens were given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid applica- tion, the recommendation made to the Council by the Planning Commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters presented at the public hearing, is of the opinion that the hereinafter described property should be rezoned as herein provided. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that ~38.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 181 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other: Property described as a 0.873 acre tract of land lying on Brandon Avenue, S.W., having a property address of 2801Brandon Avenue, S. W., designated on Sheet No. 181 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax No. 1610204 be, and is hereby rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-Family District, to C-l, Office District, sub- ject to those conditions proffered by and set forth in the Second Amended Petition to Rezone 1990, and that Sheet No. respect. filed with the City Clerk on January 9, 161 of the Zone Map be changed in this ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke City Planning Commission February 12, 1990 The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Request from SMC Partners, a Virginia general partnership, represented by Harwell M. Darb¥, Jr., attorney, that a tract of land comprising 0.873 acre, located at 2801 Brandon Avenue, SW, official tax no. 1610204, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-Family District, to C-l, Office District, such rezoning to be subject to conditions proffered by the petitioner. I. Background: Purpose of the rezoning request is to provide for the renovation of an existing structure to be used as a general office. B. Petition was filed on December 13, 1989. Amended petition was filed on January 10, 1990. The proffered conditions were: That the office to be operated on the property shall make use of the existing structure on the property and all additions thereto shall maintain the character of the existing structure. That if the Petitioner does not occupy the building within 1 year from the date of final zoning approval, the zoning shall revert to Residential Multi-family without further action by City Council. Room 355 Municipal Building 215 Churah Avenue, S.'gZ Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2344 II. Plannin~ Commission public hearing was held on Wednesday, January 3, 1990. Mary Ellen Goodlatte appeared before the Commission on behalf of the petitioner. Mrs. Goodlatte stated the purpose of the rezoning was to allow for the renovation of an existing structure to be used as a general office. Mr. Waldvogel and Mr. Bradshaw noted that the subject tract was a subdivided portion of a larger tract and questioned whether the remaining property was viable for development. Mr. Marlles responded that both tracts met the requirements of the subdivision ordinance and were therefore approved. Issues: Zoning is currently RM-2. The zoning to the north, east and west of the site is RM-2. To the south of the site, across Brandon Avenue, is C-1 zoning. Land use is currently vacant residential. The property surrounding the site to the north, south and west is undeveloped multi-family. To the south across Brandon Avenue exists multi-family apartments. Apartments also exist to the east of the subject site. C. Utilities are existing on site and are adequate. Access can easily be provided onto Brandon Avenue with no impact. Neighborhood organizations which were notified were the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Association and the Greater Raleigh Court Civic League. The subject site is not included in either of the organizations' boundaries but is in close proximity to both. F. Comprehensive Plan recommends that: Development of new commercial areas should be carefully planned and designed to promote quality development and good land use. Neighborhood character and environmental quality be protected. Changes in land use in or near residential areas should be carefully evaluated and designed to conserve, preserve and enhance neighborhood quality. III. Alternatives: A.City Council approve the rezoning request. 1. Zoning becomes C-l, conditional. 2. Land use changes to professional office use. 3. Utilities are not affected. Existing utilities would be utilized. 4. Access can be provided with no impact on existing traffic. 5. Neighborhood realizes the re-use of an existing vacant structure. 6. Comprehensive Plan could be followed. B. City Council deny the rezoning request. 1. Zoning is unchanged. 2. Land use remains unchanged and undeveloped. 3. Utilities are not affected. 4. Access is not affected. 5. Neighborhood not affected. Structure remains vacant. 6. Comprehensive Plan could be followed. IV. Recommendation: By a vote of 7-0, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. Rezoning allows for the adaptive reuse of a structure that has been part of the neighborhood for a significant period of time, the main structure was constructed in 1890, and is consistent with good planning. Respe.ctfull¥ submitted, _ Michael M. Waldvogel, Chairman Roanoke City Planning Commission JRM:mpf attachments cc: Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works City Engineer Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator Attorney for Petitioner VIRGINIA: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Re: Rezoning of a tract of land comprising 0.873 acres on Brandon Avenue, S.W. having a property address of 2801Brandon Avenue, S.W. and a Tax Map No. 1610204 from RM-2 (Residential Multifamily) to C-1 (Office) SECOND AMENDED PETITION TO REZONE TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COb~CIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: Your petitioner, SMC Partners, a Virginia general partnership, has contracted to purchase land in the City of Roanoke containing 0.873 acres, more or less, located at 2801Brandon Avenue, S.W. to be leased to The Jack Smith Agency, Inc. Said tract is currently zoned RM-2. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A. A concept plan of the property is attached as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Article VII, Division 5, Section 36.1-690, et seq., Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily District to C-1 Office District for the purpose of providing for the renovation of an existing structure to be used as an general office building (advertising agency). The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will create a use compatible with the surrounding zoning. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following condition: 1. That the office to be operated on the property shall make use of the existing structure on the property and all additions thereto shall maintain the character of the existing structure. 2. That if the Petitioner does not occupy the building within 1 year from the date of final zoning approval, the zoning shall revert to Residential Multifamily without further action by City Council. Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent or immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. 2 Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of January, 1990. Respectfully submitted, SMC Partners Harwell M. Darby, Jr. Maryellen F. Goodiatte Glenn, Flippin, Feldmann & Darby 200 First Campbell Square P. O. Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001 (703) 344-3000 Counsel for Petitioner SMC Partners 3 LOCATION /IVll l l II ,% Office of the City Clerk January 25, 1990 Mr. Harwell M. Darby, Jr. Attorney P. 0. Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001 Dear Mr. Darby: I am enclosing copy of a report of the City Planning Commission recommending that the Council of the City of Roanoke grant the request of your client, S~C Partners, a Virginia General Partnership, that a tract of land containing 0.873 acre, located at 2801 Brandon Avenue, S. W., identified as Qfficial Tax No. 1610204, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-Family, ~edium Density District, to C-1, Office District, subject to a certain condition proferred by the petitioner. Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 1981, a public hearing on the abovedescribed request has been set for Monday, February 12, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. For your information, I am also enclosing copy of a notice of the public hearing. Questions with regard to the City Planning Commission report should be directed to Mr. John R. ~arlles, Chief of Community Planning, at 981-2344. MFP:ra PUBLIC25 Eno. Sincerely, ~4ary F. Parker, C~C City Clerk R~om~,56 MunJ¢~palBuitcllng 215Chu ch Avenue. S.w Roanoke, Virginia 2~,0~1 (703)981-2541 Mr. Harwell M. Darby, January 25, 1990 Page 2 pc: Brandon Associates, c/o VMS Realty Partners, 8700 ~est Bryn Mawr, Chicago, Illinois 60631 Ms. Elizabeth Mo ~einberg, P. 0. Box 727, Hindman, Kentucky 41822 Roanoke Associates, c/o VMS Realty Partners, 8700 ~est Bryn Mawr, Chicago, Illinois 60631 Mr. ~ayne G. Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission, P. 0. Box 2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010 Mr. ~. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr ~ilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr SteYen J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Mr Von W. Moody, III, Director of Real Estate Valuation Michael M. ~aldvogel, Chairman, City Planning Commission L. Elwood Norris, Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals Mr William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr, Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner and Zoning Administrator Mr. John R. Marlles, Agent/Secretary, City Planning Commission Ms. Doris Layne, Office of Real Estate Valuation AD NUMBER - 12~04673 PUBLISHER'S FEE - HARNELL M DARBY JR 200 FIRST C~MP~ELL S~ ROANOKE VA 24011 STATE OF VIRGINIA CITY OF ROANOKE AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I9 (THE UNDERSIGNED) AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TIMES-WURLD COR- PORATION~ WHICH CORPORATION IS PUBLISHER OF THE ROANOKE TIMES C NDRLD-NENS~ A OAILY NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED IN ROANOKE9 IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA~ DO CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED NOTIC: WAS PUBLISHED IN SAID NEWSPAPERS ON THE FOLLOWING DATES 01/26/90 MORNING 02/02/90 MORNING wITNESS9 ,THI~ 5TH.DAY OF FEBRUARY 1990 ' AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chapter 36.1 Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, February 12, 1989, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., in the said city, on the question of rezoning from RM-2, Residential Multi-Family Medium Density District, to C-i, Office District, the following property: A tract of land comprising 0.873 acres on Brandon Avenue, S.W., having a property address of 2807 Brandon Avenue, S. W., and bearing Official Tax No. 1610204. This rezoning is to be subject to certain conditions prof- fered by the petitioner. A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building. All parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the question. GIVEN under my hand this 24th day of January , 1990. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Please publish in full twice, once on Friday, January 26, 1990, and once on Friday, February 2, 1990, in the Roanoke Times & World News, Morning Edition. Please send publisher's affidavit to: Please bill: Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 456, Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Mr. Harwell M. Darby, Jr. Attorney P. O. Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001 Office of the City Clerk January 10, 1990 Mr. Michael M. ~aldvogel Chairman City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear ~r. Waidvogel: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of an amended petition from Mr. Harwell M. Darby, Jr., Attorney, representing SMC Partners, a Virginia Ceneral Partnership, requesting that a tract of land containing 0.873 acre, located at 2801 Brandon Avenue, S. ~., identified as Official Tax No. 1610204, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential ~ulti-Family, Hedium Density District, to C-1, Office District, subject to a certain condition proferred by the petitioner. Sincere ly, :), i Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk M~P:ra REZONE25 Eno · pc: Hr. Harwell M. Oarby, Jr., Attorney, P. O. 6ox 2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001 Hr. John R. Marlles, Agent/Secretary, City Planning Commission Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Zoning Administrator Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Rooma56 MunicipalSuilding 215Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703)981-2541 GLENN, FLIPPIN, I;ELDMANN & DAI/B-Y' January 9, 1990 HAND DELIVERED Ms. Sandy Eakin City Clerk's Office Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Re: Rezoning of a tract of land comprising 0.873 acres on Brandon Avenue, S.W., having a property address of 2801 Brandon Avenue, S.W. and a Tax Map No. 1610204 from RM-2 (Residential Multifamily) to C-1 (Office) Dear Sandy: Enclosed please find Second Amended Petition to Rezone which I would appreciate your filing in this matter. I understand that the next City Council meeting will be held February 12, 1990, at 7:30 o'clock p.m. and that we will be advised as to the agenda schedule. Thanks for your assistance. Cordially yours, Harwell M. Darby, Jr. HMDJR:bgm:1442000 Enclosure cc: Mr. Jack Smith VIRGINIA: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Re: Rezoning of a tract of land comprising 0.873 acres on Brandon Avenue, S.W. having a property address of 2801 Brandon Avenue, S.W. and a Tax Map No. 1610204 from RM-2 (Residential Multifamily) to C-1 (Office) SECOND AMENDED PETITION TO REZONE TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COb~CIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: Your petitioner, SMC Partners, a Virginia general partnership, has contracted to purchase land in the City of Roanoke containing 0.873 acres, more or less, located at 2801Brandon Avenue, S.W. to be leased to The Jack Smith Agency, Inc. Said tract is currently zoned RM-2. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A. A concept plan of the property is attached as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Article VII, Division 5, Section 36.1-690, et seq., Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily District to C-1 Office District for the purpose of providing for the renovation of an existing structure to be used as an general office building (advertising agency). The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will create a use compatible with the surrounding zoning. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following condition: 1. That the office to be operated on the property shall make use of the existing structure on the property and all additions thereto shall maintain the character of the existing structure. 2. That if the Petitioner does not occupy the building within 1 year from the date of final zoning approval, the zoning shall revert to Residential Multifamily without further action by City Council. Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent or immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 3rd day of January, 1990. Respectfully submitted, SMC Partners Harwell M. Darby, Jr. Maryellen F. Goodiatte Glenn, Flippin, Feldmann & Darby 200 First Campbell Square P. O. Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001 (703) 344-3000 Counsel for Petitioner of Coun~a 1 SMC Partners 3 Office of the City Clerk December 15, 1989 Mr. Michael M. Waldvogel Chairman ~ity Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Waldvogel: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a petition from Mr. Harwell ~. Darby~ Jr., Attorney, representing S~C Partners, a Virginia General Partnership, requesting that a tract of land containing 0.873 acre, located at 2801 Brandon Avenue, S. W., identified as Official Tax No. 1610204, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-Family, Medium Density District, to C-1, Office District, subject to a certain condition proferred by t~e petitioner. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra REZONE25 Eric. pc: ~r. Harwell M. Darby, Jr., Attorney, P. 0. Box 2887, Roanoke, Virginia 24001 Mr. John R. Marlles, Agent/gecretary, City Planning Commission Mr. Ronald B. Miller, Zoniag Administrator Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S, W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 VIRGINIA: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE Re: Rezoning of a tract of land comprising 0.873 acres on Brandon Avenue, S.W. having a property address of 2801Brandon Avenue, S.W. and a Tax Map No. 1610204 from RM-2 (Residential Multifamily) to C-1 (Office) PETITION TO REZONE TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: Your petitioner, SMC Partners, a Virginia general partnership, has contracted to purchase land in the City of Roanoke containing 0.873 acres, more or less, located at 2801Brandon Avenue, S.W. to be leased to The Jack Smith Agency, Inc. Said tract is currently zoned RM-2. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A. A concept plan of the property is attached as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Article VII, Division 5, Section 36.1-690, et seq., Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily District to C-1 Office District for the purpose of providing for the renovation of an existing structure to be used as an general office building (advertising agency). The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will create a use compatible with the surrounding zoning. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following condition: 1. That if the Petitioner does not occupy the building within 3 years from the date of final zoning approval, the zoning shall revert to Residential Multifamily without further action by City Council. Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent or immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 13th day of December, 1989. Respectfully submitted, SMC Partners of Counsel 2 Harwell M. Darby, Jr. Glenn, Flippin, Feldmann & Darby 200 First Campbell Square P. O. Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001 (703) 344-3000 Counsel for Petitioner SMC Partners  Partner ~/ ' 3 EXHIBIT A ! I I I I I ! I I I EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C Official Tax Number Owner's Name Address 1610205 1610211 1620102 Brandon Associates Elizabeth M. Weinberg Roanoke Associates VMS Realty Ptrs. 8700 W Bryn Mawr Chicago, ILL 60631 Attention: Mrs. Barbara Cashmer Box 727 Hindman, KY 41822 VMS Realty Ptrs. 8700 W Bryn Mawr Chicago, ILL 60631 Attention: Mrs. Barbara Cashmer VIRGINIA: IN THE COUNCIL OF°~HE~CfTY OF ROANOKE Re: Rezoning of a tract of land comprising 0.873 acres on Brandon Avenue, S.W. having a property address of 2801 Brandon Avenue, S.W. and a Tax Map No. 1610204 from RM-2 (Residential Multifamily) to C-1 (Office) PETITION TO REZONE TO THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: Your petitioner, SMC Partners, a Virginia general partnership, has contracted to purchase land in the City of Roanoke containing 0.873 acres, more or less, located at 2801Brandon Avenue, S.W. to be leased to The Jack Smith Agency, Inc. Said tract is currently zoned RM-2. A map of the property to be rezoned is attached as Exhibit A. A concept plan of the property is attached as Exhibit B. Pursuant to Article VII, Division 5, Section 36.1-690, et seq., Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Petitioner requests that the said property be rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multifamily District to C-1 Office District for the purpose of providing for the renovation of an existing structure to be used as an general office building (advertising agency). The Petitioner believes the rezoning of the said tract of land will further the intent and purposes of the City's Zoning Ordinance and its comprehensive plan, in that it will create a use compatible with the surrounding zoning. The Petitioner hereby proffers and agrees that if the said tract is rezoned as requested, that the rezoning will be subject to, and that the Petitioner will abide by, the following condition: 1. That if the Petitioner does not occupy the building within 3 years from the date of final zoning approval, the zoning shall revert to Residential Multifamily without further action by City Council. Attached as Exhibit C are the names, addresses and tax numbers of the owner or owners of all lots or property immediately adjacent or immediately across a street or road from the property to be rezoned. WHEREFORE, the Petitioner requests that the above-described tract be rezoned as requested in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted this 13th day of December, 1989. Respectfully submitted, SMC Partners of Course 1 2 Harwell M. Darby, Jr. Glenn, Flippin, Feldmann & Darby 200 First Campbell Square P. Oo Box 2887 Roanoke, Virginia 24001 (703) 344-3000 Counsel for Petitioner SMC Partners BY ~~p~r~neCr~~ 3 EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT C Official T~ax ND~ber Owner's Name Address 1610205 1610211 1620102 Brandon Associates Elizabeth M. Weinberg Roanoke Associates VMS Realty Ptrs. 8700 W Bryn Mawr Chicago, ILL 60631 Attention: Mrs. Barbara Cashmer Box 727 Hindman, KY 41822 VMS Realty Ptrs. 8700 W Bryn Mawr Chicago, ILL 60631 Attention: Mrs. Barbara Cashmer TO THE CITY CLERK OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA PERTAINING TO THE REZONING REQUEST OF: C~ ~ Request from SMC Partners, a Virginia general partner- ) ship represented by Harwell M. Darby, Jr., attorney, ) that a tract of land comprising 0.873 acre, located at ) 2801 Brandon Avenue, S.W., official tax no. 1610204, be )AFFIDAVIT rezoned from RM-2, Residential Multi-Family District, to) C-l, Office District, such rezoning to be subject to ) conditions proffered by the petitioner. ) COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ) ) TO-WIT: CITY OF ROANOKE ) The affiant, Karen Elizabeth Field, first being duly sworn, states that she is in the Office of Community Planning, and as such is competent to make this affidavit of her own personal knowledge. Affidavit states that, pursuant to the provisions of ~15.1-341) Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, on behalf of the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke she has sent by first-class mail on the 22nd day of December, 1989, notices of a public hearing to be held on the 3rd day of January, 1990, on the rezoning captioned above to the owner or agent of the parcels listed below at their last known address: PARCEL OWNERt AGENT OR OCCUPANT ADDRESS 1610205 Brandon Associates VMS Realty Partners 8700 W. Bryn Mawr Chicago, Ill 60631 1610211 Elizabeth M. Weinberg Box 727 Hindman, KY 41822 1620102 Roanoke Associates VMS Realty Partners 8700 W. Bryn Mawr Chicago, Ill 60631 Karen Elizabeth Field SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me, a Notary Public, in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, this My Commission Expires: 22nd day of December, 1989. Notary Public Office of the City Clerk February 21, 1990 File #51 Hr. Daniel F. Layman, Jr. Attorney P. O. Box 720 Roanoke, Virginia 24004 Dear ~r. Layman: I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29931-22090 rezoning two parcels of land lying between Elm Avenue, S. E., South Jefferson Street, Williamson Road, S. E., and Highland Avenue, S. E., iden- tified as Official Tax No. 4020801 from LM, Light ~anufacturing District, to C-1, Office District. Ordinance No. 29931-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, February 12, 1990, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Tuesday, February 20, 1990, and will take effect ten days following the date of its second reading. Sincerely, ~ ? ~4ary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. Mr. Wayne G. Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission, P. O. Box 2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010 Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Von W. Moody, III, Director of Real Estate Valuation Hr. Michael ~. Waldvogel, Chairman, City Planning Commission Mr. L. Elwood Norris, Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Room456 MunicipalSuilding 215Church Avenue, 5 W Roanol~e. Virginia 24011 {?03)cjB1 2541 Mr. Daniel F. Layman, February 21, 1990 Page 2 Jr. pc: Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner and Zoning Administrator Mr. John R. Marlles, Agent/Secretary, City Planning Commission Ms. Doris Layne, Office of Real Estate Valuation IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, lhe 20th day of February, 1990. No. 29931-22090. AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 402, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City. WHEREAS, application has been made to the Council of the City of Roanoke to have the hereinafter described property rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to C-i, Office District; and WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all concerned as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended and after conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council; and WHEREAS, a public hearing was held on said application by the City Council at its meeting on February 12, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., after due and timely notice thereof as required by §36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed rezoning; and WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid applica- tion, the recommendation made to the Council by the Planning Commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and at the public hearing, is of the opinion that described property should be rezoned as herein the matters presented the hereinafter provided. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that ~36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 402 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended in the following particular and no other: Property described as a portion of a tract of land lying between Elm Avenue, S. E., S. Jefferson Street, Williamson Road, S. E., and Highland Avenue, S. E., designated on Sheet No. 402 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, as Official Tax Number No. 4020801 be, and is hereby rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to C-l, Office District, and that Sheet No. 402 of the Zone Map be changed in this respect. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke Cily Planmng Commission February 12, 1990 The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Request from Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley, represented by Daniel F. Layman, attorney, that a small eastern portion of proposed new parcel B extending into a portion of tax no. 4020801 be rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District to C-l, Office District. I. Background: Purpose of the rezoning is to permit the continued construction of a medical office building on a small portion of parcel no. 4020801, presently zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District. Be Medical offices are not permitted in the LM district. It was not apparent until the subdivision review process that a small portion of the site was not properly zoned. Ce Petition was filed on December 15, 1989. Petition is unconditional. Planning Commission public hearing was held on January 3, 1990. Dan Layman, attorney, appeared before the Commission and summarized the rezoning request. Mr. Layman noted that the petitioner was not aware that a small portion of the office structure was protruding into the LM zone until the property was subdivided. Mr. Marlles gave the staff report which recommended approval of the requested rezoning. There were no citizens in attendance who opposed the rezoning request. Room 355 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, SW Roonoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 98t-2344 II. Issues: Zoning is presently LM, Light Manufacturing District. The adjoining properties to the north, south and west are all zoned C-l, Office District. The area to the east along U.S. Route 220 is zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District. Land use is currently in transition. Site was formerly a surface parking lot. A 48,000 square foot office building is currently being constructed on the site. Land use to the north is institutional, Community Hospital. Land use to the east and west is parking. Land uses to the south across Highland Avenue include a private medical office and surface parking facilities. Utilities are available and can accommodate the proposed medical office building. Traffic can be accommodated. Access is available from Highland or Mountain Avenue. Neighborhood is a mixture of primarily office, parking facilities and medical-related uses. F. Comprehensive Plan recommends that: Neighborhood character and environmental quality be protected. New commercial development be encouraged that is well designed and compatible with existing land uses. III. Alternatives: A. City Council approve the rezoning request. Zoning of a small portion of parcel no. 4020801 changes from LM, Light Manufacturing to C-l, Office District, consistent with the proposed use of the property and the rest of the site. Land use of property is medical office (under construction). The impact on the surrounding neighborhood is expected to be minimal. 3. Utilities are available and adequate. 4. Traffic and access can be accommodated. 5. Neighborhood impact would be minimal. 6. Comprehensive Plan would be followed. B. City Council deny the rezoning request. Zoning would remain LM, Light Manufacturing District. Portion of medical office building on official tax no. 4020801 would be in violation of the LM zoning requirements. Land use would remain a medical office structure. Portion of office structure located on official tax no. 4020801 would remain non-conforming. 3. Utilities would be unaffected. 4. Traffic would be unaffected. 5. Neighborhood would be unaffected. 6. Comprehensive Plan would not be followed. IV. Recommendation: By a vote of 5-0 (Messrs. Waldvogel and Sowers absent for vote), the Commission recommended approval of the rezoning request. C-1 zoning of the property is consistent with the proposed medical office use currently under construction and is compatible with the existing land use and zoning pattern in the area. Respectfully submitted, Michael M. Waldvogel, Ch~;irman Roanoke City Planning Commission JTT:mpf attachments cc: Assistant City Attorney Director of Public Works City Engineer Building Commissioner Attorney for the Petitioner VIRGINIA: IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE IN RE: Rezcning of a Portion of the Lot ) Bearing Official Tax NO. 4C20801 ) from LM, Light Manufacturing ) District, to C-l, Office District ) PETITION FOR REZONING TO: The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Council of the City of Roanoke (1) The petitioner, COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY, is the owner of two (2) parcels of land lying between Elm Avenue, S.E., S. Jefferson Street, Williamson Road, S.E., and Highland Avenue, S.E. and bearing Official Tax Ncs. 4020801 and 4020701. A copy of a portion of Appraisal Map Sheet 402 showing these two parcels is attached to this petition as Exhibit A. (2) As reflected on Exhibit A, the eastern portion of parcel 4020801 is zoned LM, Light Msnufacturing District, while the remainder is zoned C-l, Office District. (3) The petitioner has filed with the City a request to further subdivide parcels 4020801 and 4020701 into New Parcels A, B and C to permit construction on New Parcel B of a medical office building. New Parcel B will contain portions of both parcel 4020701 and parcel 4020801, as shown on the reduced copy of a portion of the proposed plat of subdivision attached to this petition as Exhibit B. (4) A small eastern portion cf proposed New Parcel B extends into the portion of tax parcel 4020801 which is zoned LM. That area is marked in blue on Exhibit B. The LM zoning classification does not permit office buildings, and the City planning staff has therefore required, as a condition to permitting the proposed subdivision, that this small area be rezoned to C-1. That is the purpose of this petition. (5) Accordingly, pursuant to Article VII of Chapter 36.1 of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), petitioner Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley requests that the small portion of tax parcel 4020801 shown marked in blue on Exhibit B to this petition be rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to C-l, Office District. (6) The parcel to be rezoned is entirely surrounded by property owned by the petitioner, so no list of adjoining property owners is attached to this petition. (7) This request constitutes an extension of an existing C-1 district and therefore does not violate the restriction in ~36.1-690(g) of the City Code. WHEREFORE, Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley requests that the above-described parcel be rezoned as herein set forth -2- in accordance with the provisions of the Zoning Ordinance cf the City of Roanoke. Respectfully submitted, CO~iMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY B~ .... '-~ ..... ~ ~*-~-~--, ~ ....... - Of Counsel ~ Daniel F. Layman, Jr., Esq. Woods, Rogers & Hazlegrove P. O. Box 720 Roanoke, VA 24004 Counsel for Community Hospital of Roanoke Valley -3- EXHIBIT A 476 1245, PO. 46B 0.D. t285, Pg. 576 S B3'~46'46- E '153.6B' LINES' PARCEL "E 0.619 AC. BOUNDED BY CORNER', ,16,17,18,20,21,22,23,2 25 TO 15 ~"'~-'~N 51'15'14' E ,.B. I~'-' 88.05' 1530, 839 ALLE¥ CF CD 3.8. 1436, 90. 1947 N W 556.20' ''~. 251 '~ PARCEL "C" ~.B. 155': 2.656 AC. 9,9. 423 ' BOUNDED BY CORNERS .... 67891011 1215142524 (~ 23.2Z21',20J9 TO 6 i ~ D.i~. t3~,7, PG. 82 -- --acc: .... '"~' 402-0no, ,0,11.2a ~':-,"4L~%~. s,,,e.9, PROPERTy OF d & S PROPERTIEs TAX NO. 402-0813 D.B. 1590, pg. 25'i 2-STORy BRICK BUILDING 155. oo. ~ HIGHLAND AVENUE, N , ~,. c~ ................. B',' OMblUNITY .... OF R~,,~KE ~ ....... ,,~. 18744 RECORDED "' ,,, D.B. 1267, PG. 696 PROPERTy OF COMMUNITY HOSPITAL OF ROANOKE VALLEY TAX NO, 4021501 D.B. 1436, PG. 1945 1' = 50' SEE D.E --RACEME ENCRO4 , SUBDIVISION FO~ HOSPITAL OF ¢ SHOW1NG THE REDIV1SION OF A 4.256 AC. PAl AND A 2.661 AC. PARCEL (TAX NO. CREA'RNG NEW PARCEL "A" (5.640 AC.), NEW P NEW PARCEL "C' (2.658 AC.) SITUATE O HIGHLAND AVENUE, S.E. AND WlLLIA' ROANOKE, VIROI: T. P. PARKER & _ ;S!NEERS - SURVEYORS - TAX NO. 402-0701 &: 402-0801 DRAWN: DAP, CAOD SHEET 2 OF 2 LOCATION / Ill I I t I I 1 I I I Ill Office of the City Clerk January 25, 1990 Mr. Daniel F. Layman, Jr. Attorney P. 0. Box 720 Roanoke, Virginia 24004 Dear Mr. Layman: I am enclosing copy of a report of the City Planning Commission recommending that the Council of the City of Roanoke grant the request of your client, Community Hospital of the Roanoke Valley, that two parcels of land lying between Elm Avenue, Jefferson Street, Williamson Road, and Highland Avenue, S. E.~ identified as Official Tax Nos. 4020801 and 4020701, be rezoned from Light Manufacturing District, to C-1, Office District. Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, April 6, 1981, a public hearing on the abovedescribed request has been set for Monday, February 12, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W. For your information, I am also enclosing copy of a notice of the public hearing. Questions with regard to the City Planniag Commission report should be directed to Mr. John R. ~arlles, Chief of Community Planning, at 981-2344. .~FP:ra PUBLIC28 Eno. Sincerely, [~C~_ Mary F. Parker, C~4C City Clerk Room456 MunicipalBuilcling 215Church Avenue, S W ~oanoke, vi~ginia 2~,011 (703)981-2541 ~r. Daniel F. Layman, Jr. January 25, 1990 Page 2 Mr. ~ayne C. Strickland, Executive Director, Fifth Planning District Commission, P. 0. Box 2569, Roanoke, Virginia 24010 Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Mr. Von ~. Moody, III, Director of Real Estate Valuation Mr. Michael M. Waldvogel, Chairman, City Planning Commission Mr. L. Elwood Norris, Chairman, Board of Zoning Appeals Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public ~orks Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations Mr. Charles Mo Huffine, City Engineer Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner and Zoning Administrator Mr. John R. Marlles, Agent/Secretary, City Planning Commission Ms. Doris Layne, Office of Real Estate Valuation Ar) NUMBER - 12~0T151 PUBLISHtR'S FEE - DANIEL F LAYMAN P O bOX 720 ROANOKE VA 2~00~ STATE OF VIRGINIA CIIY OF ROANOKE AFFIDAVIT OF PU6LICATION I, (THE UNDERSIGNED) AN AuTMORiZEO REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TINES-~ORLD CDR- PORATION~ wHICH CORPORA[ION IS PUBLISHER OF THE ROANOKE TIMES & NCRLO-NEWS, A DAILY NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED iN ROANOKE9 IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA~ DC CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED NOTICE WAS POBLISHED IN SAID NEWSPAPERS ON THE FOLLOWING DATES 01/26/90 MORNING 02/02/90 MORNING WITNESS9 THIS 5TM DAY OF FEBRUARY 1990 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Pursuant to the provisions of Article VII of Chapter 36.1, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, February 12, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., on the question of rezoning from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to C-l, Office District, the following property: A portion of a tract of land bearing Official Tax No. 4020801, which tract lies between Elm Avenue, S.E., S. Jefferson Street, Williamson Road, S.E., and Highland Avenue, S.E. A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in Room 456, Municipal Building. All on the above date and be heard on the Office of the City Clerk, parties in interest may appear the question. GIVEN under my hand this 24th day of January , 19 9Q Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Please publish in full twice, once on Friday, January 26, 1990, and once on Friday, February 2, 1990, in the Roanoke Times & World News, Morning Edition. Please send publisher's affidavit to: Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 456, Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Please bill: Mr. Daniel F. Layman Attorney P. O. Box 720 Roanoke, Virginia 24004 Office of the City Clerk December 15, 1989 Mr. Michael M. Wal~vogel Chairman City Planning Commission Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Waldvogel: Pursuant to Section 36.1-690(e) of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, I am enclosing copy of a petition from Mr. Daniel F. Layman, Attorney, representing Community Hospital of the Roanoke Valley, requesting that two parcels of land lying between Elm Avenue, Jefferson Street, Williamson Road, and Highland Avenue, S. Eo, identified as Official Tax Nos. 4020801 and 4020701, be rezoned from LM, Light Manufacturing District, to C-1, Office District. Sincerely, ~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra REZONE28 ~nco pc: Mr. Daniel F. Layman, Attorney, P. 0. Box 720, Virginia 24004 Mr. John R. Marlles, Agent/Secretary, City Planning Commission Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Zoning Administrator Mr. Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney Roanoke, Room 456 MunicipaIBuilding 215Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk February 21, 1990 File #51-24A Hr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Hr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29932-22090 amending §36.1-25, Definitions; subsection (8) of §36.1-164, Permitted uses; subsection (8) of §36.1-206, Permitted uses; subsection (9) o-'~-~36.1-227, Permitted uses; §36.1-227, Permitted uses, by the addition of new subsection (39); subsections (20) and (24) of §36.1-249, Permitted uses; §36.1-250, Special exception uses, by the addition of new subsection (5); subsection (b)(1) of §36.1-402, Additional yard requirements; fence and wall regula- tions; subsection (c)(4) of §36.1-402, Additional yard requirements; fence and wall regulations; §36.1-531, General requirements, by the addition of new subsection (j); subsection (b) of §36.1-585, Landscaping; and §36.1-723, Penalty for viola- tions; of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, such amendments and additions relating to art studios, dwelling units in C-3, Central Business District, permitted uses in LM, Light Manufacturing District, storage of rental motor vehicles in L~, Light ,~anufacturing District, height of fences in residential districts, extent of accessory uses, buffering requirements, and penalty for violations of Zoning Code, respectively. Ordinance No. 29932-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, February 12, 1990, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Tuesday, February 20, 1990, and will take effect ten days following the date of its second reading. Sincerely, ~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. Room456 Municipa~Suilding 215Church Avenue. S W Roanoke, Vir~ini& 24011 (703)98~ 254~ Mr. W. Robert Herbert February 21, 1990 Page 2 pc: The Honorable Roy B. Willett, Chief Judge, Circuit Court The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein~ Judge, Circuit Court The Honorable Diane McQ. Strickland, Judge, Circuit Court The Honorable Kenneth E. Trabue, Judge, Circuit Court 305 East Main Street, Salem, Virginia 24153 The Honorable G. 0. Clemens, Judge, Circuit Court, p. 0. Box 1016, Salem, Virginia 24153 The Honorable Philip Trompeter, Chief Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court The Honorable Fred L. Hoback, Jr., Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court The Honorable Joseph M. Clarke, II, Judge~ Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court The Honorable Edward S. Kidd, Jr., Chief Judge, General District Court The Honorable Julian H. Raney~ Jr., Judge, General District Court The Honorable Richard C. Pattisal, Judge, General District Court The Honorable Patsy Testerman, Clerk, Circuit Court Ms. Patsy Bussey~ Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court Mr. Ronald Albright, Clerk, General District Court Mr Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney Mr Raymond F. Leven, Public Defender, Suite 4B, Southwest Virginia Building, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Mr. Bobby D. Casey, Office of the ~agistrate, p. 0. Box 13867, Roanoke, Virginia 24037 Ms. Clayne ~. Calhoun, Law Librarian Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator Ms. Ruth C. Armstrong, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals Mr. John R. Marlles, Chief of Community Planning Ms. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission Mr. George Co Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety Mr. M. David Hooper, Chief of Police Mr. Robert L. Laslie, Vice President - Supplements, Municipal Code Corporation, P. 0. Box 2235~ Tallahassee, Florida 32304 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 20th day of February, 1990. No. 29932-22090. VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE amending §36.1-25, Definitions; subsection (8) of ~36.1-164, Permitted uses; subsection (8) of ~36.1-206, Permitted uses; subsection (9) of ~36.1-227, Permitted uses; §36.1-227, Per- mitted uses, by the addition of new subsection (39); subsections (20) and (24) of ~36.1-249, Permitted uses; ~36.1-250, Special exception uses, by the addition of new subsection (5); subsection (b)(1) of §36.1-402, Additional yard requirements; fence and wall regulations; subsection (c)(4) of ~36.1-402, Additional yard requirements; fence and wall regulations; ~36.1-531, General requirements, by the addi- tion of new subsection (j); subsection (b) of ~36.1-585, Landscaping; and ~36.1-723, Penalty for violations; of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, such amendments and additions relating to art studios, dwelling units in C-3, Central Business District, per- mitted uses in LM, Light Manufacturing District, storage of rental motor vehicles in LM, Light Manufacturing District, height of fences in residential districts, extent of accessory uses, buffering require- ments, and penalty for violations of Zoning Code, respectively. BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that ~36.1-25, Definitions; subsection (8) of ~36.1-164, Permitted uses; subsection (8) of $36.1-206, Permitted uses; subsection (9) of §36.1-227, Permitted uses; ~36.1-227, Permitted uses, by the addi- tion of new subsection (39); subsections (20) and (24) of §36.1-249, Permitted uses; 936.1-250, Special exception uses, by the addition of new subsection (5); subsection (b)(1) of ~36.1-402, Additional yard requirements fence and wall regulations, subsection (c)(4) of ~36.1-402, Additional yard requirements; fence and wall regulations; 936.1-531, General requirements, by the addition of new subsection (j); subsection (b) of ~36.1-585, Landscaping; and ~36.1-723, Penalty for violations; of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, be and are hereby amended and reordained follows: ~36.1-25. Definitions. For the purpose Of words used herein shall to read ~nd provide as this chapter certain terms and be defined as follows: Art studio: The working place of a painter, sculptor or photographer or a place for the study of art, includ- ing singing and acting. 936.1-164. Permitted uses. The following listed uses shall be permitted as principal uses in the CN district. Unless otherwise stated, the maximum gross ground floor area (the "footprint") of any new structure shall be five thousand (5,000) square feet: (8) Libraries, museums, art galleries and art studios and other similar uses, including associated educational and instructional activities. 936.1-206. Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted as uses in the C-2 district: principal - 2 - (8) Libraries, museums, art galleries and art studios and other similar uses, including associated educational and instructional uses. ~36.1-227. Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted as principal uses in the C-3 district: (9) Libraries, museums, art galleries a~d art studios, and other similar uses, including associated educational and instructional activities. (39) Dwelling units not less than five hundred (500) feet located above the ground floor in an existing struc- ture which is not being used, or was not originally de- signed, as a dwelling. $36.1-249. Permitted uses. The following uses shall be permitted as principal uses in the LM district: (20) Manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in the manufacture, assembly, mixing, processing or other processes related to the creation of new products and including as an accessory use, the retail sale of goods manufactured on the premises, where all such manufac- turing, assembly, mixing, processing or other processes related to the creation of new products, and retail sales of goods manufactured on the premises, are wholly enclosed in a building. (24) General service establishments primarily engaged in the repair or maintenance of goods or items including automobiles, trucks, construction equipment and the provi- sion of business services provided all repair and mainte- nance activities are wholly enclosed in a building and pro- vided that the gross floor area of all new buildings for such uses is not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. - 3 - $36.1-250. Special exception uses. The following uses may be permitted in the LM district by special exception granted by the board of zoning appeals subject to the requirements of this section: (5) Storage of motor vehicles for car rental com- panies located on the airport, but not storage of motor vehicles for the purpose of sale of vehicles. $36.1-402. Additional yard requirements; fence and wall regulations. (b) The requirements for required front yards are as follows: (1) No fence, wall, hedge or other vegetation shall be permitted which materially impedes vision for public safety across such yard between the heights of thirty (30) inches and eight (8) feet. No fence or wall in any residential district or on any lot containing a dwelling shall be over four (4) feet in height. (c) The requirements for required side and rear yards are as follows: (4) No fence or wall in any side or rear yard shall be permitted which exceeds the height of eight (8) feet. $36.1-531. General requirements. (j) Under no circumstances shall an accessory use exceed forty percent (40%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. - 4 - $36.1-585. Landscaping. The following requirements shall apply to all developments which are required to submit a comprehen- sive development plan: (b) A landscaped buffer screen, a minimum of ten (10) feet wide, which provides a dense, year-round visual and noise obstruction not less than six (6) feet in height shall be required as follows: (1) In any required yard of a lot containing a multifamily apartment, town housc, mobile home park or mobile home park subaivision where said yard abuts a lot containing a single-family detached dwelling or two-family dwelling or which abuts a lot zoned RS-i, RS-2 or RS-3; (2) In any required yard of a lot containing a commercial, industrial or other nonresi- dential use where said yard abuts a lot containing a residential use or a lot which is zoned residential; and (3) Along the side of outdoor storage areas, except automobile and other retail display areas, where said side is visible from a public street. Unless otherwise approved by the agent, such screen- ing shall consist of plant material. The plant material shall include either everegreen trees or shrubs and deciduous trees, or any combination thereof. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum of two and one-half (2~) inch caliper at planting and shall be spaced no more than fifty (50) feet apart. With the approval of the agent, a solid wood fence, of a type acceptable to the agent, may be substituted for part of the required plant material. §36.1-723. Penalty for violations. The owner or general agent of the building or premises where a violation of any provisions of this chapter has been committed or shall exist, or the lessee or tenant of an entire building or entire premises where such violation has been committed or - 5 - shall exist, or the owner, general agent, lessee or tenant of any part of the building or premises in which such violation has been committed or shall exist, or the general agent, architect, builder, contractor or any other person who commits, takes part or assists in any such violation or who maintains any building or premises in which any such violation shall exist, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punish- able by a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000.00). In any case of the existence of a violation of any por- tion of this chapter, the owner, lessee, tenant or agent shall be subjected to a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00). Any such person who, having been served with an order to remove any such violation, shall fail to comply with said order within ten (10) days after such service or shall continue to violate any provisions of this chapter in the respect named in such order shall also be subject to a civil penalty of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). ATTEST: City Clerk. - 6 - Roanoke Ci~ Planning Commission February 12, 1990 The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Proposed amendment of the following sections of Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1979, as amended, Sec. 36.1-164.; Sec. 36.1-206.; Sec. 36.1-227.; Sec. 36.1-25.; Sec. 36.1-723.; Sec. 36.1-402.; Sec. 36.1-531.; Sec. 36.1-249.; and Sec. 36.1-585. I. Background: ae First comprehensive update to the City's zoning ordinance in over 20 years was adopted by City Council on April 20, 1987. Current list of proposed amendments (attached) were compiled by the Planning Commission and staff over the past 24 months based on input received from administrative staff, the Board of Zoning Appeals, developers and citizens. Ce Purpose of each of the proposed amendments is summarized in the attachment to this report. II. Current Situation: Ordinance and Names Subcommittee held numerous meetings with the City's Community Planning staff to discuss and evaluate possible revisions to the existing requirements. Final draft of the proposed revisions were forwarded to the full Planning Commission on December 28, 1989, for consideration. Plannin~ Commission public hearin~ was held on Wednesday, January 3, 1990. Steve Talevi, Assistant City Attorney, suggested some change in Room 355 Municipal Building 215 Churah Avenue, SW Roanake, Virginia 2401 t (703) 981-2344 PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENTS 1/25/90 Comment: Art studios are currently not permitted in the CN, C-2 and C-3 zones. Art studios are compatible and similar to other uses currently permitted in these commercial zoning categories. There is currently no definition for "art studio" in the zoning ordinance. Proposed Amendment(s): Section 36.1-164. Permitted uses. (page 2919) (8) Libraries, museums, art galleries and art studios, and other similar uses, including associated educational and instructional activities. Section 36.1-206. Permitted uses. (page 2927) (8) Libraries, museums, art galleries and art studios, and other similar uses, including associated educational and instructional activities. Section 36.1-227. Permitted uses. (page 2933) (9) Libraries, museums, art galleries and art studios, and other similar uses, including associated educational and instructional activities. Section 36.1-25. Definitions (page 2893) Art Studio: The working place of a painter, sculptor or photographer or a place for the study of an art, includin9 singing and actinq. Comment: One- and two-unit apartments are not currently permitted in the upper stories of commercial structures located in the C-3, Central Business District zone. The proposed amendment would encourage downtown housing by permitting the upper stories of commercial structures in the central business district to be renovated for residential purposes. Proposed Amendment(s): Section 36.1-227. Permitted uses. (page 2934) (39) Dwellin9 units not less than 500 square feet located above the 9round floor in an existin9 structure which is not bein~ used, or was not originally designed, as a dwelling. 1 Comment: The City's Charter was amended by the 1987 session of the General Assembly to authorize an increase in the fine that can be imposed for violations of the zoning ordinance. The proposed amendment is necessary in order to bring the zoning ordinance in line with the new limit. Proposed Amendment: Section 36.1-723. Penalty for violations. (page 3053) The owner or general agent of the building or premises where a violation of any provisions of this chapter has been committed or shall exist, or the lessee or tenant of an entire building or entire premises where such violation has been committed or shall exist, or the owner, general agent, lessee or tenant of any part of the building or premises in which such violation has been committed or shall exist, or the general agent, architect, builder, contractor or any other person who commits, takes part or assists in any such violation or who maintains any building or premises in which any such violation shall exist, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of not less than ten dollars ($10.00) nor more than one ~/f$~; thousand dollars ($1,000.00). In any case of the existence of a violation of any portion of this chapter, the owner, lessee, tenant or agent shall be subjected to a civil penalty of fifty dollars ($50.00). Any such person who, having been served with an order to remove any such violation, shall fail to comply with said order within ten (10) day after such service or shall continue to violate any provisions of this chapter in the respect named in such orders shall also be subject to a civil penalty of two hundred fifty dollars ($250.00). Comment: There are currently no restrictions on the maximum height of fences permitted in the front, side and rear yards of residential lots. Fences which are excessively high can negatively impact on the residential character of a neighborhood. Proposed Amendment(s): (page 2977) Section 36.1-402. Additional yard requirements; fence and wall regulations (1) No fence, wall, hedge or other vegetation shall be permitted which materially impedes vision for public safety across such yard between the heights of thirty (30) inches and eight (8) feet. No fence or wall in any residential district or on any lot containin9 a dwellin~ shall be over four (4) feet in height. 2 Proposed Amendment(s): (page 2978) (c) The requirements for required side and rear yards are as follows: (4) No fence or wall shall be permitted which exceeds the height of eight (8) feet. Comment: There are no guidelines in existing ordinance to limit the maximum size of accessory uses. The proposed amendment will help clarify the intent of the ordinance which states that accessory uses should be clearly incidental and subordinate to the principal use on the same lot. Proposed Amendment: Section 36.1-531. General requirements. (page 3007) (j) Under no circumstances shall an accessory use exceed 40 percent (40%) of the gross floor area of the principal use. Comment: The existing ordinance permits asphalt, concrete plants and other "nuisance type" manufacturing operations in the LM, Light Manufacturing zoning district. The proposed amendment would require such operations to be located within an enclosed building which is consistent with the intent of the LM zone to prevent friction between uses within the district and also to protect neighboring non-industrial districts. Proposed Amendment: Section 36.1-249. Permitted uses. (page 2938) (20) Manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in the manufacture, assembly, mixing, processing or other processes related to the creation of new products and including as an accessory use, the retail sale of goods manufactured on the premises, where all such manufacturing, assembly, mixing, processing or other processes related to the creation of new products, and retail sales of goods manufactured on the premises, are wholly enclosed in a building. o Comment: The existing ordinances requires general service establishments wishing to locate in an LM, Light Manufacturing zone to be wholly enclosed in a building with a gross floor area of not less than twenty 3 thousand (20,000) square feet. The proposed amendment would permit such operations to locate in existing structures in the LM zone while discouraging the conversion of undeveloped LM zoned land for commercial purposes. Proposed Amendment(s): Section 26.1-249. Permitted uses. (page 2938) (24) General service establishments primarily engaged in the repair or maintenance of goods or items including automobiles, trucks, construction equipment and the provision of business services provided all repair and maintenance activities are wholly enclosed in a building and provided that the gross floor area of all new buildings for such uses is not less than five thousand (5,000) square feet. Comment: The existing section of the ordinance describing landscaping/buffering requirements is in need of clarification. There is currently no authorization for the Commission's agent to permit a fence in place of, or in addition to, required planting materials. Proposed Amendment(s): Section 36.1-585. Landscaping. (page 3019) (b) A landscaped buffer screen, a minimum of ten (10) feet wide, which provides a dense, year-round visual and noise obstruction not less than six (6) feet in height ~~l~--~l~l~l~lm~l~lf~f~lf~; f2/l/Z;/~/~I~/~/~I~ shall be required as follows: Unless otherwise approved by the agent, such screening shall consist of plant material. The plant material shall include either evergreen trees or shrubs and deciduous trees, or any combination thereof. Deciduous trees shall have a minimum of two and one-half (2 1/2) inch caliper at planting and shall be spaced no more than fifty (50) feet apart. With the aDDroval of the agent, a solid wood fence, of a type acceptable to the agent, may be substituted for ~art of the required plant material. e Comment: Off-site parking lots accessory to on-airport car rental agencies are currently not provided for in the LM, Light Manufacturing zone. The proposed amendment will permit car rental agencies which operate out of the airport terminal to store additional vehicles in the area surrounding the airport which is zoned LM, subject to the granting of a special exception by the City's Board of Zoning Appeals. Proposed Amendment(s): Section 36.1-250. Special exception uses. (page 2939) (5) Storage of motor vehicles for car rental companies located on the airport, but not storage of motor vehicles for the purpose of the sale of vehicles. 5 ROANOKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 17, 1990 MINUTES DRAF3 The regular meeting of the Roanoke City Planning Commission was held on January 17, 1990, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Municipal Building. The meeting was called to order at 1:30 p.m., by Chairman Michael Waldvogel. Attendance was as follows: Present: John P. Bradshaw, Jr. (late) Paul C. Buford, Jr. Richard L. Jones Charles A. Price, Jr. William A. Sowers Michael M. Waldvogel Absent: Susan S. Goode The following items were considered: 1. Approval of Minutes - January 3, 1989. There being no corrections, Mr. Waldvogel declared the minutes approved as written. Roanoke City Planning Commission Eleventh Street, Fairfax, Orange, Gilmer Avenues, NW From CN to C-2 Madison~ Loudon~ and Mr. Waldvogel advised that the matter had been heard at the last Commission meeting, with action deferred until today. He noted that the Ordinance and Names Subcommittee had also met to discuss the matter. Mr. Marlles stated that at the last meeting action had been deferred in order to give staff and the Commission an opportunity to define and discuss the issues. He noted that a three to four hour meeting had been held last week at which constructive discussion of the issues had taken place. He reviewed what he felt was the consensus of those present: At the point there is no reason to delay a rezoning of the llth Street area back to C-2 for that portion of the study area north of Fairfax Avenue. Mr. Marlles presented a map which depicted both conforming and nonconforming uses in the area. He recommended the remaining area Roanoke City Planning Commission Page 2 January 17, 1990 remain CN zoned and additional study be made before a change was recommended. llth Street area will be impacted by the proposed improvements to 10th Street and the zoning pattern on llth Street, as well as the rest of the 10th Street corridor, will have to be re-evaluated as the briefing plans are firmed up. A workshop should be scheduled in the next several months to discuss the 10th Street and other highway-related projects. Mr. Marlles said that staff's recommendation was to modify the request so that the area north of Fairfax Avenue would be rezoned to C-2 and the portion south of Fairfax remain CN. Mr. Price said that he agreed with Mr. Marlles' statements. He said that a lot of "what ifs" were included and most were predicated on what happens on 10th Street. He said that in dealing with the llth Street area, it was basically concurred and agreed upon that the Commission would look at it in its totality. Mr. Buford asked if staff had received any neighborhood input. Mr. Marlles responded that there had been no comments or objections from the neighborhood since the last meeting. advised that Mrs. Thornhill was not opposed to the zoning but was concerned about neighborhood notice and had indicated she had received no opposition since the last meeting. He There being no further discussion, Mr. Buford moved to approve staff's recommendation. The motion was seconded by Mr. Price and approved 5-0. At this point, Mr. Price commented that in the subcommittee's findings, it was very evident that the Commission and staff need to periodically review impacts of proposed thoroughfares. He said these reviews would definitely provide an opportunity to re-evaluate the existing zoning and look at the traffic patterns. He made a motion that the Commission further study the 10th Street and 2nd Street beltway, primarily from a planning viewpoint, in two stages - in detail and overall. He said that this should be brought before the Commission as soon as possible. He said if it was necessary to have highway department personnel present, it may take some time to arrange a meeting. He suggested that a meeting could be scheduled toward the end of February. Roanoke City Planning Commission Page 3 January 17, 1990 Mr. Waldvogel mentioned that the annual meeting would be on February 21 and felt that would be a good time to discuss the matter. He also mentioned the possible historic significance of the former "Lindsay" house on 10th Street and asked that this structure be considered when the entire 10th Street area was studied. Mr. Price's motion was seconded by Mr. Jones and approved 6-0. Mr. Clarence Turpin arrived for the meeting and Mr. Waldvogel briefed him on what action the Commission had taken relative to the rezoning of the llth Street area. Roanoke city Planning Commission Amendments to Zoning Ordinance Mr. Waldvogel stated that Mr. Bradshaw chaired the Ordinance and Names. Mr. Bradshaw said that he would quickly run through each amendment. He asked the chairman to determine if there was anyone present who wished to speak on the issues. Mr. Waldvogel asked if there was anyone in the audience who wished to speak on the proposed amendments. There was no one present to speak. Mr. Bradshaw said that he and Messrs. Jones and Sowers had discussed the amendments and that the amendments had been reviewed, at least once, by the legal department. He went through the amendments one by one, noting the following: There has been a request to add "art studios" to the list of permitted uses in the C-l, C-2 and C-3 districts. It is also necessary to define what an art studio is. There is a need in downtown to allow the use of 2nd and 3rd floors in older commercial and industrial structures for residences. He said there is a tendency for people to move back to downtown, particularly in the market area, and the amendment would allow an apartment of more than 500 square feet above the first floor in the C-3 district. He said that the first floor of a non-residential structure is still restricted to retail space. Amendment would put more teeth in the historic zone by increasing the penalty for zoning violations. Amendment deals with fences in side and front yards. He noted that some residential property owners had constructed fences that were excessively high. Roanoke City Planning Commission Page 4 January 17, 1990 Amendment deals with accessory use. He noted that the Zoning Administrator was having a difficult time determining what an accessory use was. Amendment would make is so that under no circumstances should the accessory use exceed 40%. Amendment was necessitated when it was realized that the LM zone could accommodate a "redi-mix" plant. Amendment would require that such operations be within a building. Current requirement excludes many uses that could go into an LM zone. The section defining required buffer zone needs to be reworded. The amendment gives the administrator the option of allowing a solid fence or a vegetative buffer or a combination. Mr. Bradshaw explained that there was a situation at the airport where rental car operations have off-site facilities supporting used car operations. He said the feeling was that it was not appropriate that a string of rental car sales lots and wash facilities be located along Aviation Drive going into the airport. He said the amendment would allow rental car facilities to use property for off-site parking in support of the airport, but not for maintenance, sales, rentals, etc. Mr. Bradshaw asked if there were questions. Mr. Price asked what would happen to the current car rental operations. Mr. Bradshaw said the amendment would have no impact on them at all. Mr. Bradshaw said he felt the Commission should look at the greater airport area to determine the proper zoning of some of the off-site parcels. Mr. Waldvogel asked if it was Mr. Bradshaw's recommendation that the Commission act on all the amendments as a group. Mr. Bradshaw said he was recommending that all amendments be acted on as a group, and if there were concerns about any amendment, he asked that it be referred back to the study group. He said to keep himself completely clean, he recommended that action be taken on items 1-8 and that action be deferred on item 9. Mr. Talevi said that when the chairman felt it advisable, he would cover the matters involving the chairman and Mr. Bradshaw. Mr. Talevi said that amendment no. 3 was the matter involving Mr. Waldvogel and amendment no. 9 was the matter involving Mr. Bradshaw· Roanoke City Planning Commission Page 5 January 17, 1990 Mr. Waldvogel said he had a concern that in item no. 3, the language in the ordinance referred to the "owner or general agent of the building" and there was some question as to whether the general agent is or might be construed to be a real estate agent, managing or leasing agent or property. He said that inasmuch as he was a principal in a company which functions as a leasing and managing agent of commercial and residential properties, he was concerned that he might have some conflict on acting on the matter and he asked Mr. Talevi to clarify the matter. Mr. Sowers asked if a building owner would have a conflict. Mr. Bradshaw said that only the dollar value of the ordinance was being changed, not any other wording. He said that everyone on the Commission was a building owner in the City. Mr. Waldvogel said that he would like Mr. Talevi to quote the section from the ordinance that allowed him to vote on the matter as long as he disclosed his concern prior to the vote. Mr. Talevi said that as far as Mr. Sowers' question, it was covered by Sec. 2.1-639.11(a)(3), which provides "that each officer and employee of any local government or advisory agency who has a personal interest in a transaction may participate in the transaction if it affects the public generally, even though his personal interest as a member of the public may also be affected by that transaction." He said he believed that covered the ordinary ownership of a building. He said that in the chairman's situation, he had felt that since Mr. Waldvogel was an agent that set him apart from other people in the general public who might be affected by the amendment of Section 7-23. Mr. Talevi said that the chairman's personal interest came under (2) of 2.1-639 and that section says that both he and Mr. Bradshaw may participate in the transaction, which is the vote the Commission will take, if they are a member of a business, profession, occupation or group, the members of which are affected by the transaction and both of you comply with the declaration requirements of 2.1-639.13(d) or .14(e). He said that in other words they could take part in the vote if they stated the declarations required in the two code sections. Mr. Talevi said that both Mr. Bradshaw and Mr. Waldvogel had to state, under 639.13(f), the transaction involved, and in this case it would be voting on the two code sections. He asked Mr. Waldvogel if he was voting on amendment no. 3, and Mr. Bradshaw if he was voting on amendment no. 9. Mr. Talevi asked the chairman to state his personal interest affected by the vote. Roanoke City Planning Commission Page 6 January 17, 1990 Mr. Waldvogel said he was a principal in a real estate leasing management firm. Mr. Talevi asked Mr. Bradshaw to state his personal interest. Mr. Bradshaw said that his wife had a minority interest in property on the other side of the airport. Mr. Talevi asked Messrs. Waldvogel and Bradshaw if they had decided to make these declarations under the code and if they could state they were able to participate in the transaction fairly, objectively and in the public interest despite the interest that was stated on the record. Both Messrs. Waldvogel and Bradshaw said they were. Mr. Waldvogel said that there was a recommendation from the ordinance and Names Subcommittee that the amendments be recommended. Mr. Bradshaw so moved. The motion was seconded by Mr. Sowers and approved 6-0. 4. Other Discussion. Mr. Waldvogel said he would like to establish February 21, 1990, as the date for the annual meeting of the Planning Commission, at which time election of officers would be held. There was no objection. Mr. Marlles distributed copies of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to members of the Commission and advised that he would schedule briefings for Commission members next week. He said that Council would hold a public hearing on the matter on February 5. Relative to the CIP, Mr. Bradshaw mentioned that some municipalities within the Commonwealth charged the creation of the CIP to the Planning Commission. He said that the Commission's being asked to comment on it was truly a function of the Commission. Mr. Marlles commented on the contract with Virginia Tech to evaluate zoning administration and enforcement. He said that within the next few weeks, the Commission would probably be interviewed by the consultants. He told the Commission he would send them a copy of the study proposal. Mr. Waldvogel asked Mr. Marlles to brief the Commission on the hiring of the new City Planner. Mr. Marlles responded that he had decided to readvertise the position. He said he was rearranging staff responsibilities and the new position would have primary responsibility for reviewing rezoning requests, meeting with applicants and reporting to the Commission. Roanoke City Planning Commission Page 7 January 17, 1990 Mr. Price commented on the level of involvement of the Commission and stated he felt they had not reached their goal of involvement. He said he hoped that people from the City administration would be present at the Commission's annual meeting so that they could resolve some of the problems that were occurring, such as planning after the fact. Mr. Sowers asked what had happened as far as meeting with City Manager. Mr. Waldvogel said that he had met with the City Manager. He said that Messrs. Price's and Sowers' comments were well taken and he hoped to incorporate some of the items that came out of the work session and articulate them in the annual report that was presented to City Council. Mr. Sowers asked if there would be a face-to-face meeting with the administration. Mr. Waldvogel informed the Commission that in the past he had made an oral presentation to City Council and he assumed he would do the same this year. He said that Mr. Herbert has indicated his willingness to have a follow up meeting. Mr. Bradshaw said that it was very frustrating to be asked by the administration to tell them how much the Commission wanted to be involved. He said that if the City Manager did not know how much the Commission wanted to be involved there was a need for more education. He suggested that Mr. Herbert attend the annual meeting and hear what had to be said in person. There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m. AD NUMBER 12~1602B PUBLISHER'S FEE $15~.d0 CITY OF ROANOKE C/D MARY F PARKER CiTY CLERKS OFFICE ROOM ,5~ MUNICIPAL BLDG ROANOKE VA 2,011 STATE OF VIRGINIA CiTY OF ROANOKE AFFIOAVIT OF PUELICATION I. (THE UNDERSIGNED) AN AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE TIMES-WORLD COR- PORATION, mHICH CORPORATION IS PUdLISHER OF THE ROANOKE TIMES & NORL~-NE~S~ A DALLY NEWSPAPER PUBLISHED IN ROANOKE, IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA~ D~ CERTIFY THAT 1HE ANNEXED NOTICE MAS PUBLISHED IN SAID NEHSPAPERS ON THE FOLLOHING DATES 01/26/90 MORNING 02/02/90 MORNING HITNESS, .THi~.$~ 5TH.DAY OF FEBRUARY 1990 AUIHORIZED SIGNATURE The ~ NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Pursuant to the provisions of 915.1-431, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing on Monday, February 12, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, Fourth Floor, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., in order to consider amendments and revisions of Chapter 36.1, Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended. The proposed amendments would revise the following sections of Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended: Section 36.1-164; Section 36.1-206; Section 36.1-227; Sec- tion 36.1-25; Section 36.1-723; Section 36.1-402; Section 36.1-531; Section 36.1-249; Section posed amendments relating Central Business District, 36.1-585, and Section 36.1-250, the pro- to art studios, dwelling units in C-3, penalties for violations of Zoning Code, height of fences in residential districts, extent of accessory uses, permitted uses in LM, Light Manufacturing District, buffering require- ments and storage of rental motor vehicles in LM, Light Manufacturing District, respectively. A copy of said proposed amendments is available for review in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Build- ing. Questions about the content of the proposed regulations should be directed to the Office of Community Planning, 981-2344. Ail parties in interest and citizens may appear on the above date and be heard on the matter. GIVEN under my hand this 24th day of January, 1990. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Please publish in full twice, once on Friday, January 26, 1990, and once on Friday, February 2, 1990, in the Roanoke Times & World News, Morning Edition. Please send publisher's affidavit and bill to: Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 456, Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Office of the City Clerk February 21, 1990 File #169-142-166 ~r. Edward C. Dunbar, Chairman Roanoke Valley Chapter American Red Cross 353 Church Avenue, S. W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 Dear ~r. Dunbar: I am enclosing four copies of Ordinance No. 29933-22090 granting the American Red Cross, Roanoke Valley Chapter, a revocable per- mit to mount certain flags on street lighting poles in the Central ~usiness District of the City, upon certain terms and conditions. Ordinance No. 29933-22090 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday, February 12, 1990, also adopted by the Council on second reading on Tuesday, February 20, 1990, and will take effect ten days following the date of its second reading and at such time as a copy, duly signed, sealed, attested and acknowledged by an appropriate offi- cial of the Roanoke Valley Chapter of the American Red Cross, has been filed in the Office of the City Clerk. Please sign and return three copies of Ordinance No. 29933-22090 to the City Clerk's Office, Room 456, Municipal Building, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 prior to installation or mounting of the Sincerely, 3' ~ary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. pc: Mr. Mr. ~. Robert Herbert, City ,Manager William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. ~illiam ~. ~ullins, Jr., Manager, Signals and Alarms Hr. Ronald H. ~iller, Building Commissioner Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration Public Safety Room~,56 MunicipaIBuilding 215Church Avenue. S W Roar~oEe, Virginia 240~1 (703)981 2541 and IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY ~'~{{O'ANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 20th day of February, 1990. No. 29933-22090. AN ORDINANCE granting to the American Red Cross, Roanoke Valley Chapter, a revocable permit to mount certain flags on street lighting poles in the Central Business District of the City, upon certain terms and conditions. WHEREAS, th~ American Red Cross, Roanoke Valley Chapter, (Permittee) has requested that Council authorize the Permittee to mount certain flags on certain street lighting poles in the Central Business District of the City, Permittee's request being more particularly set forth in the letter of Edward C. Dunbar, Chapter Chairman, dated January 12, 1990; and WHEREAS, Council is desirous of granting the request of the Permittee pursuant to certain terms and conditions. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Permission is hereby granted the Permittee to mount cer- tain flags on street lighting poles in the Central Business District of the City, the permittee's request being more par- ticularly described in the letter dated January 12, 1990, from Edward C. Dunbar, Chapter Chairman, Roanoke Valley Chapter, American Red Cross, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The permit granted by this ordinance shall be revocable at the pleasure of the City of Roanoke. 3. Any and all costs in connection with the granting of this permit shall be borne by the Permittee. 4. The Permittee shall, and by execution of this ordinance, does agree to indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and ail claims, legal actions, and judgments advanced against the City and for expenses the City may incur in this regard, arising out of the Permittee's intentional acts or negligent acts or omissions with respect to the rights or privileges granted hereby. 5. Permittee shall give notice to the City's Director of Public Works prior to entry on to City property or City facili- ties for installation or mounting of the flags. 6. The permit granted by this Ordinance shall expire, by its own terms, without notice, at midnight on March 15, 1990. 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect at such time after its effective date as a copy, duly signed, sealed, attested and acknowledged by an appropriate official on behalf of the Roanoke Valley Chapter of the American Red Cross, has been filed in the Office of the City Clerk. ATTEST: ACCEPTED AND EXECUTED by /~q~¢k , 1990. ATTEST: the City Clerk. undersigned this /5_~ day of ROANOKE VALLEY CHAPTER, AMERICAN RED CROSS Tx t-~e: f]~ ~-~ n~L~_~ C6m~g~ Tit 1%: Execuftive q)irmctnr IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 20th day of February, 1990. No. 29933-22090. VIRGINIA, AN ORDINANCE granting to the American Red Cross, Roanoke Valley Chapter, a revocable permit to mount certain flags on street lighting poles in the Central Business District of the City, upon certain terms and conditions. WHEREAS, (Permittee) has requested that Council mount certain flags on certain street Central Business District of the City, the American Red Cross, Roanoke Valley Chapter, authorize the Permittee to lighting poles in the Permittee's request being more particularly set forth in the letter of Edward C. Dunbar, Chapter Chairman, dated January 12, 1990; and WHEREAS, Council is desirous of granting the request of the Permittee pursuant to certain terms and conditions. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Permission is hereby granted the Permittee to mount cer- tain flags on street lighting poles in the Central Business District of the City, the permittee's request being more par- ticularly described in the letter dated January 12, 1990, from Edward C. Dunbar, Chapter Chairman, Roanoke Valley Chapter, American Red Cross, a copy of which is on file in the office of the City Clerk. 2. The permit granted by this ordinance shall be revocable at the pleasure of the City of Roanoke. 3. Any and all costs in connection with the granting of this permit shall be borne by the Permittee. 4. The Permittee shall, and by execution of this ordinance, does agree to indemnify and save harmless the City, its officers, agents and employees from any and all claims, legal actions, and Judgments advanced against the City and for expenses the City may incur in this regard, arising out of the Permittee's intentional acts or negligent acts or omissions with privileges granted 5. Permittee Public Works prior hereby. respect to the rights or shall give notice to the City's Director of to entry on to City property or City facili- ties for installation or mounting of the flags. 6. The permit granted by this Ordinance shall expire, by its own terms, without notice, at midnight on March 15, 1990. 7. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect at time after its effective date as a copy, duly signed, attested and acknowledged by an appropriate official the Roanoke Valley Chapter of the American Red Cross, filed in the Office of the City Clerk. ATTEST: such sealed, on behalf of has been ACCEPTED AND ATTEST: EXECUTED by , 1990. City Clerk. the undersigned this day of ROANOKE VALLEY CHAPTER, AMERICAN RED CROSS By Title: Title: Roanoke, Virginia February 12, 1990 Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: SUBJECT: American Red Cross - Permit Agreement I. Back~round: During March 1989, City Council granted permission to the Roanoke Valley Chapter, American Red Cross, to hang flags from street lighting poles in the central business district. This was in recognition of Red Cross Month, to honor the thousands of volunteers who help their con~nunity through service in this organization. II. Current Situation: By letter dated January 12, 1990, Mr. Edward C. Dunbar, Chairman of the Roanoke Valley Chapter of the American Red Cross, has again requested permission to fly the 3 foot by 5 foot American Red Cross flags from street light poles in the central business district. III. Issues: A. Authority for Approval. B. Permit Requirements. IV. Alternatives: Ao City Council grant the Roanoke Valley Chapter, American Red Cross, permission to hang flags from street lighting poles in the central business district. 1. Authority for approval or denial is solely City Council's. 2o Permit requirements are basically the same as in the past. To provide further protection to the City, the Roanoke Valley Chapter, American Red Cross, has agreed to obtain public liability insurance, as recommended by the City Attorney. The City will be named as an additional insured on the policy. Bo City Council deny the request of the Roanoke Valley Chapter, American Red Cross. 1. Authority for approval or denial is solely City Council's. 2. Permit requirements would not be an issue. Mayor and Members of Council Page 2 V. Reco~nendation: It is recommended that City Council approve the appropriate measure, as prepared by the City Attorney, granting permission to the American Red Cross to display flags in the central business district from March 1, 1990, thru March 15, 1990. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WFC:pr Attachment pc: Mr. Edward C. Dunbar, Chairman, Roanoke Valley Chapter, American Red Cross, 352 Church Avenue, SW, Roanoke, VA 24016 Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. George C. Snead, Director of Administration & Public Safety Mr. William M. Mullins, Jr., Manager, Signals & Alarms Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner American Red Cross RECEIVED Roanoke Valley Chapter Blood Services, Appalachian Region 352 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24016 (703) 985-3535 6ity Manager's 055:,ce Roanoke, VA January 12, 1990 Dear Bob, We are now preparing for our annual March Month activities at the Roanoke Valley Chapter. As you know. March is declared American Red Cross Month by the President of the United States, and we try to raise local awareness of our volunteer services by holding special events. With Council's permission, we'd like to fly the Red Cross flags in downtown's business district for a two-week period in March, 1989. We do this in honor of the thousands of hours of public service performed each year by our local volunteers. The flags measure three-by-five feet, and are hung on wooden staffs which we mount in llghtposts along the downtown streets. We would appreciate the City Council's consent for us to display these flags from Thursday, March 1st, through Thursday, March 15th. The streets we have used in the past include Campbell Avenue, Church Street, Jefferson Street and the Market Square. All costs and labor in this project will be the responsibility of the Roanoke Valley Chapter, including an insurance provision to cover any potential damages and liabilities. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. I look forward to your response. Sincerely, Edward C. Dunbar Chairman, Roanoke Valley Chapter cc: Mayor Noel Taylor Mr. W. Robert Herbert City Manager City of Roanoke 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011  -- A Partner In Fund Raising