The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCouncil Actions 11-12-90(30303) REGULAR ~EEKLY SESSION ...... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL November 12, 1990 7:30 p.m. AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL p.m. Call to Order -- Roll Call. Mr. Harvey arrived at 8:25 The invocation will be delivered by The Reverend Fraser, Pastor, Christian and Missionary Alliance Church. Present. David The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America will be led by Mayor Noel C. Taylor. The Mayor, Members of City Council and City Administration welcome Scout Master Jim ~arren and Boy Scout Troop No. 50 from ~oodlawn Methodist Church. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public hearing on the request of Patrick Henry Hotel Investors, Inc., that a tract of land located at 617 South Jefferson Street, identified as Official Tax No. 1013313, be rezoned from C-3, Central Business District, to H-l, Historic District overlay. Mr. Michael Murphy, Spokesman. Adopted Ordinance No. 30303 on first reading. (6-0) Public hearing on the request of ~oodmen of the World that a portion of a tract of land located at 2306 Peters Creek Road, N. ~. , identified as Official Tax No. 6160633, be rezoned from RM-2, Residential ~4ulti-Family, Medium Density District, to C-2, General Commercial District, subject to certain conditions pro- ferred by the petitioner. Mr. B. K. C uey, Attorney. Adopted Ordinance No. 30304 on first reading. (6-0) Public hearing with regard to proposed City Charter Amendments. Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Attorney. Jr., City Adopted Resolution No. 30305-111290. (8-0) (1) C-1 C-2 Do Public hearing with regard to an amenament to the Fiscal Year 1990-1991 Community Development Block Grant budget and Statement of ©bjectives to the United States Department of Housing and Urban DeYelopment. Mr W. Robert Herbert, City Manager. ' Adopted Resolution No. 36306-111290. (6-0) CONSENT AGENDA (Approved 6-0) ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO BE R©UTINE BY T~E CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTIQN IN THE FORM LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DIS- CUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FRO~ THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. A communication from ~ayor Noel C. Taylor requesting an Executive Session to discuss personnel matters relating to vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and com- mittees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in request for Council to convene in Executive Session to discuss personnel mat- ters relating to vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and com- mittees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. A communication from Vice-Mayor Howard E. Musser requesting an Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter, being the appointment of a specific public officer, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in request for Council to convene in Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter, being the appointment of a specific public officer, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950) amended. , as REGULAR AGENDA Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters: a. Presentation by the Coalition for a Banning Discrimination in Large Private Waldo, Executive Director, Roanoke Spokesman. Council Clubs. Education ©rd nance ~r. Gary Association, Dr. Waldo's remarks were received Attorney was requested to prepare a table anti-discrimination ordinance (2) and filed. The City constitutionally accep- involving private, for profit establishments to be acted Upon by Council at regular meeting to be held on ~onday, NOYember 26, 1990, 7:00 p.m., at the Highland Park Elementary School. Petitions and Co~unications: A communication from requesting Council,s discrimination ordinance a study of instituting Roanoke City Council. its at Council ~ember David A. Bowers consideration of an anti- involving city establishments; and a ward/modified ward system for The communication was received and filed. The issue of a modified ward system was referred to the City Attorney for study and report to Council with regard to the legal aspects. The matter was also referred to the City Manager to provide demographic information and to advise Council as to whether or not the City administration has the capabi~ lity of analyzing demographics. Council authorized the advertisement of a public hearing to be held on Monday, January 14, 1991, at 7:30 p.m. or as Soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. ' A communication from Ms. Theresa C. Epperson, Vice President/Director, Loan Administration, Trustbank Savings, requesting a waiver or reduction of a later penalty assessed on real estate taxes for the first half installment for 1991. Denied. Reports of Officers: a. City Manager: Briefings: Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of HUman Resources, pre- sented a briefing with regard to a grant received by the City of Roanoke, in the amount of $450,000.00, from the Com~onwealth of Virginia for the purpose of establishing resources to prevent placement of children in institutions. Mr. Harvey entered the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Items Recommended for Action: 1. A report recommending that Downtown Roanoke, Inc., be authorized to display holiday decorations along the Streets in the downtown area from NOYember 1 1990, through January 15, 1991. , Adopted Resolution No. 30307-111290. (7-0) (3) 10. Reports of Committees: None. Unfinished Business: None. Introduction and Consideration of None. Ordinances and Resolutions: Motions and Miscellaneous Business: a. Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor Council. and Members of City (7-0) b. Vacancies on various authorities, boards, committees aPDointed by Council. Other Hearings of Citizens: Certification of Executive Session. Appointed the following persons: Bernice F. Jones Board of Trustees, City of Roanoke Pension Plan; Advisory Board of HUman Resources Will Claytor - City Planning Commission John B. Ferguson - City Planning Commission Commissions and (4) Office of the City Clerk November 15, 1990 File #137-~1-200-249 The Honorable Clifton A. ~oodrum, III Member, House of Delegates P. ©. Box 1371 Roanoke, Virginia 24007 Dear Delegate ~oodrum: I am enclosing two copies of Resolution No. 30305-111290 requesting the 1991 Session of the General AssemDly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended. Resolution No. 30305-111290 was adopted by t~e Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, ~¥ovember 12, 1990. Sincerely, ~ ~ary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk ,~FP:ra ~nc. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk November 15, 1990 File #137-51-200-249 The Honorable A. victor Thomas Member, House of Delegates 1301 Orange Avenue, N. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Delegate Thomas: I am enclosing two copies of Resolution No. 30305-111290 requesting the 1991 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, az amended. Resolution No. 30305-11129~ was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on ~onday, November 12, 1990. Sincerely, P6~-J~ Nary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk ~.FP: r a En c. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Office of the City Clerk November 15, 1990 File #137-51-200-249 T~e Honorable J. Granger ~acfarlane ~emOer, Senate of Virginia P. G. Box 201 ~oanoke, Virginia 24002 Dear Senator ,~acfarlane: I am enclosing two copies of Resolution No. 30305-111290 requestiag the 1991 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended. Resolution No. 30305-111290 was adopted Dy the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, November 12, 1990. Sincerely, /~l~.~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc. Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 Office of the City Clerk November 15, 1990 File #i37-51-200-249 Mr. ~. Robert Herbert City Manager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Herbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30305-111290 requesting the 1991 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended. Resolution ~o. 30305-111290 was adopted by ~he Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, November 12, 1990. ~ ~'Sincerely' Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Enc o pc: Mr. L. Elwood Norris, Chairman, Board of Zoninq Appeals, 3818 Park Lane, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24015 Ms. Ruth C. Armstrong, Secretary, Board of Zoning Appeals Mr. ~. L. ~hitwell, Chairman, Architectural Review Board, 1255 Keffield Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24019 Us. Evelyn S. Gunter, Secretary, Architectural Review Board mr. Charles A. Price, Jr., Chairman, City Planning Commission, 3101 Willow Road, N. ~., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Mr. John R. Marlles, Agent/Secretary, City Planning Commission mr. Ronald H. Miller, Building Commissioner/Zoning Administrator Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 12th Day of November, 1990. No. 30305-111290. VIRGINIA A RESOLUTION requesting the 1991 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended. WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Council held on November 12, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building, after due and proper publication of the notice of public hearing pursuant to §15.1-835, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which notice contained inter alia, an informative summary of the proposed amendment to the Roanoke Charter of 1952 hereinafter referred to, a public hearing with respect to such proposed amendment was held before the City Council at which all citizens so desiring were afforded opportunity to be heard to determine if the citizens of the City desire that the City request the General Assembly to amend its existing Charter in the form and manner hereinafter referred to and as provided in the aforesaid notice; and WHEREAS, upon conclusion of such public hearing and upon consideration of the proposed amendment to such Charter, the Council is of opinion that the 1991 General Assembly should be requested to amend this City's Charter as hereinafter set forth. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The General Assembly of Virginia is hereby requested at its 1991 Session to amend Section 62 of the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as presently amended, by adding the words hereinafter shown as underscored: (8) The board of zoning appeals shall consist of five mem- bers, each to be appointed for a term of three years and remov- able for cause by the appointing authority, upon written charges and after public hearing. The preceding sentence notwithstand- ing, at the expiration of the terms of the members serving on the board of zoning appeals as of January 1~ 1991~ two member~; shall be appointed for terms of three years each~ two member,; shall be appointed for terms of two years each~ and one member for a term of one year. Thereafter~ all members shall b~ appointed for terms of three years each. Vacancies shall be filled for the unexpired term of any member whose term becomes vacant. 2. The General Assembly of Virginia is hereby requested at its 1991 Session to amend the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as pre- sently amended, by adding a section numbered 62.1 as follows: §62.1 Authority of City Council to impose civil penalties; ~'or wrongful demolition of historic buildingm. (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of any state law which authorizes civil penalties for the violatio,., of a local zoning ordinance~ the council of the city of Roanoke may adopt an ordinance which establishes a civil penalty for the demolition, razing or moving of a building or structure without approval by the board of architectural review or the council of the city of Roanoke, when such building or structure is subject to the city's historic preservation zoning ordinance. The penalty established by the ordinance shall imposed on the party deemed by the court to be sponsible for the violation and shall not exceed twice the fair market value of the building or structure, as determined by the city real estate tax assessment at the time of the demolition. (2) An action seeking the imposition of such a penalty shall be instituted by petition filed by the city in circuit court, which shall be tried in the same manner as any action at law. It shall be the burden of tho ~ty to show the liability of the violator by a pre ~onderance of the evidence. An admission of liability or finding of liability shall not be a criminal convic- tion for any purpose. The filing of any action pursuant to this section shall preclude a criminal prosection for the same offense~ except where the demolition~ razing o~' movin~ has resulted in personal injury. (3) The defendant may~ within twenty-one days after the filing of the petition~ file an answer and without admit ting liability, agree to restore the buildin~ or struc ture as it existed prior to demolition. If the restoration is completed within the time agreed upon by the parties~ or as established by the court~ the petition shall b~ dismissed from the court's docket. (4) Nothing in this section shall preclude action by the zonin~ administrator under Virginia Code §15.1-491~d) or by the City under Virginia Code §15.1-499~ either by separate action or as a part of the petition seekin~ ~ civil penalty. 3. The General Assembly of Virginia is hereby requested at its 1991 Session to amend the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as pre- sently amended, by adding to Section 62 a new subsection numbered (5.1) as follows: (5.1) The Council of the City of Roanoke may~ by ordinance adopted after holding one or more public hearinss concerninK same~ establish design overlay districts, providing for such design overlay districts and a desisn review process applicable to exterior chanses within view from publi~ rights-of-way, in order to protect developed areas of the city which are characterized by uniqueness of estab lished neishborhood character~ architectural coherence and harmony~ or vulnerability to deterioration~ and thn council of the city of Roanoke may assess a reasonable fee~ not exceeding the actual cost of the review process~ for a determination of whether proposed new construction~ alteration~ rehabilitation~ or demolition conforms to general guidelines for a particular design overlay district established by the planning commission and urban desisn committee after holding a public hearing. 4. The City Clerk is directed to forthwith, as provided by §15.1-834, Code of Virginia (1950, as amended, transmit to each of the members of the General Assembly of Virginia representing the City of Roanoke at the 1990 Session of the said General Assembly two copies of this resolution setting forth the requested amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as presently amended, to be put into the form of a bill to be introduced at the 1991 Session of the General Assembly. ATTEST: City Clerk. PU~LISHER'~ FEE - CITY OF ROANOKE C/~ MA~Y F PARKER CITY CLERKS OFFICE t<0OM ~5~ MUNICIPAL ~LDb ROANOKE VA 24011 STATC OF VIK.~I~I~ CITY GF ROANOKE AFFIDAVIT GF PUBLICATIOh I, (THE UNOERSIGNEU) AN AUTriORIZbD REPRESENTATIVE UF THE TIME$-wURLU PORAFIONt wHiCH CORPORATION iS PUdLISHER OF THE ROANOKE TIMES & NCRLU-NEN$, A DAILY NE~SP~PEK PUBLISHED IN ROANQK~ IN THE STATE OF VIR~IN1At uC CERTIFY T~AT THE ~NNEXED NOTICE ~A3 PUoLISHEU IN SAID lI/OZ/~o MORNINu wIFNESS, 4J:~'"'S'3,.~SfH.DAY OF NUVEt~.SER 1990 AUTHORIZED StGNATUKE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the City of Roanoke will, pursuant to 915.1-835, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, hold a public hearing on Monday, November 12, 1990, at 7:30 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Municipal Building, in said City, at which time citizens of the City of Roanoke shall have an opportunity to be heard to determine if such citizens desire Council to request the General Assembly of Virginia to make certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended, which amendments are informatively summarized as follows: Amend and reenact 962, Zoning, to provide for staggered three-year terms for the members of the Roanoke City Board of Zoning Appeals. Amend by adding a new 962.1, Authority of City Council to impose civil penalties for wrongful demolition of historic buildings, to authorize the imposition of civil penalties for the wrong- ful demolition, razing or moving of structures subject to the City's historic preservation zoning ordinance. Amend by adding a new subsection (5.1) to 962, ~onin~, to authorize the establishment of design overlay districts and a design review process applicable to exterior changes within view from public rights-of-way, in order to protect developed areas of the City which are characterized by uniqueness of established neighborhood character, architectural coher- ance and harmony, or vulnerability to deteri- oration, and to authorize the imposition of a reasonable fee for the establishment and con- tinuance of said districts and review process. GIVEN under my hand this 24th day of October, 1990. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Please publish in full once on Friday, November 2, 1990, in the Roanoke Times and World News, Morning Edition. Please send bill and publisher's affidavit to: Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Room 456, Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR. CITY OF ROANOKE ,' OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTOk~EY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595 October 8, 1990 WILLIAM X PARSONS MARK ALLAN WILLIAMS STEVEN J. TALEVI KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU ASSISTANT CITY AT'tORN EYS The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: 1991 Legislative Pro~ram Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: Enclosed for your review and comment is a draft of a proposed City Legislative Program for the 1991 Session of the General Assembly. The Program includes many excellent suggestions from members of City Council and the City Manager and his staff. I emphasize that the Program is in draft form at this time. Council may amend or delete any provision or add additional provisions to the Program. As usual, the Legislative Program is divided into three sections: Policy Statements, Legislative Proposals and Charter Amendments. I believe you will find the Legislative Program to be an ambitious one which I hope you will find meets the legislative needs of this City and its people. With respect to the Policy Statements, I have added new Statements on Mandates and Zoning and Land Use. For many years, the City has ob- jected to mandates through several statements set out in different portions of the Legislative Program. I have now drawn all references to mandates together in one strong Policy Statement. This seems to be particularly in order at a time when the State is reducing funding for many of its mandates. The Zoning and Land Use Statement addresses the new found interest of the General Assembly in local zoning deci- sions. I believe we need to protect the right of City Council to make zoning decisions without interference from the Commonwealth. The Policy Statements on Effective Government and Economic Development have been completely rewritten this year in order to update and other- wise improve them. As to Legislative Proposals, I call your particular attention to two Proposals relating to the Hotel Roanoke Conference Center. The first is a request for the creation of a special purpose commission to The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council October 8, 1990 Page 2 finance and operate the Conference Center. The second is a request for creation of new funding mechanisms to assist the City in con- struction of the Trade and Convention Center. Please note that two alternative funding mechanisms are suggested to the General Assembly and that neither of these alternatives would strain the general fund of the Commonwealth. With respect to the Charter Amendments, you will note that two of the proposed amendments are intended to protect our historic and unique neighborhoods. The first would create new penalties for destruction of a historic structure without the required permit of the City. The second requests authority for a design overlay district to protect unique neighborhoods from incompatible new construction. After Council has had a full opportunity for review of the Legis- lative Program, it should be officially endorsed by adoption of a resolution. Should Council be prepared to adopt this Program today, a resolution is attached for this purpose. In any case, it is hoped that the Porgram can be adopted as soon as possible so that Council's annual meeting with the City's legislators can be scheduled at an early date. Please note that Charter amendments may be requested of the Gene- ral Assembly only after a public hearing which must be advertised ten days in advance. See §15.1-835, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. I am requesting that Council authorize such advertisement to permit a public hearing to be held on October 29, 1990, or some date thereafter selected by Council. I also want to call to your attention that, when the Legislative Program is finally adopted by City Council, it will printed and attrac- tively bound. It will also include an appropriate cover letter from the Mayor along with an appendix including the language of the pro- posed Charter Amendments. I wish to thank City Council and the City Manager and his staff for their thoughtful suggestions with respect to Council's Legislative Program. I look forward to working with City Council and the City administration in preparing and presenting an outstanding Legislative Program to the 1991 Session of the General Assembly. With kindest personal regards, I am WCDJr:ff Sincerely yours, Wi lbur~bl ing, City Attorney The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council October 8, 1990 Page 3 Attachments cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mary F. Parker, City Clerk 1991 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM CITY OF ROANOKE INDEX POLICY STATEMENTS Economic Development Revenue and Finance ...................................... Special Needs of Central Cities Without Annexation Power. Zoning and Land Use ...................................... 4 2 1 4 1 1 2 5 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS Assessment of Courthouse and Jail Maintenance ............. 11 Collective Bargaining ..................................... 13 Development in Historic Districts.........................10'''''''''''''''''''''' Drugs ............................. ..11 Education - Elimination of School Age Census .............. 9 Education - Enrollment Loss ............................... 9 Education - Equity in Funding ............................. 9 Education - Full Funding of Standards of Quality .......... 8 Education - Method of Calculating Standards of Quality Costs ......................................... 9 Education - Opposition to Teacher Salary Mandates ......... 10 Education - Teacher Arbitration ........................... 10 Grievance Procedure ....................................... 12 Hotel Roanoke - Commission ................................ 7 Immunity for Staff and Volunteers in Youth Athletic Programs ................................................. 13 Notice of Claims ........................ 12 Occupational Disease Presumptions 2 ~i~[[~[[ ..... 15 Safe Drinking Water ................................. '''' 11 Salaries of Mayors, Vice Mayors and Council Members ..... 13 Sales Tax - Local Option ................................ 7 Trade and Convention Center Funding Transportation - Improved Access To[~{~;~;~l~'il7 Tech .................................. 10 CHARTER AMENDMENTS Board of Zoning Appeals - Staggered Terms ................. 15 Demolition of Historic Structures ......................... 15 Design Overlay Districts .................................. 16 POLICY STATEMENTS EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT Local governments were originally organized to provide essential services and protection that citizens could not or would not provide for themselves. Examples of such essential local services are education, provision for health and welfare, police and fire protection, delivery of safe water, sewage treatment and refuse collection. Local governments and their officials are continually striving for economy, effectiveness, responsiveness, efficiency and productivity in delivery of such services. Unfortunately, the essential services for which local governments were originally created have been overshadowed by numerous less critical programs mandated by the federal and State governments. The federal and State governments should recognize that local governments are the best vehicle for the delivery of basic public services because local governments are closest to the people and most responsive to their needs. Furthermore, basic public ser- vices cannot be provided in the most effective way if the State attempts to dictate in minute detail the structure of all local government, the administrative and legislative procedures to be followed uniformly by all local governments and the details of all programs administered at the local level. The City opposes State intrusions in the way local governments conduct their business, including the way council meetings are conducted, procedures for adopting ordinances, what can be addressed by ordinance and what by resolution, purchasing procedures and establishment of hours of work, salaries and working conditions for employees. MANDATES In light of the Commonwealth's budgetary shortfall and the reductions in State aid currently being passed down to locali- ties, the issue of State mandates becomes more critical than ever before. For many years, mandates have been a serious financial concern to local governments. The City has previously urged reduction of excessive regulatory and statutory mandates and requested full funding of all mandates. Now with mandated pro- grams being the subject of State budgetory cuts, it is imperative that mandates be suspended until full State funding is available. REVENUE AND FINANCE The City is vitally concerned over the continued erosion of local revenue sources. The General Assembly is urged not to cap, remove or further restrict any revenue sources that are currently available to localities, including taxing authority and user fees. Furthermore, the General Assembly should give localities addi- tional authority, such as the one-half cent local option sales tax, to raise adequate local revenues to ensure the continued vitality of local government. Historically, real and personal property taxes have been the foundation of local tax revenues. The State's restriction and erosion of other local sources, however, has resulted in over reliance on property taxes, placing local governments in financial jeopardy. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission's (JLARC's) own study shows that the real property tax rate in Virginia is the second highest among fifteen Southern states and fifty percent higher than nine Southern States. The City supports additional and more equitable sources of revenue, but the decision on which, if any, local revenue sources should be reduced or eliminated should be strictly a local decision. EDUCATION A top priority of the City is increased funding for education, including full funding of the State's share of the actual cost of the Standards of Quality and full funding of categorical educational mandates. The Report of the Governor's Commission on Virginia's Future states that education should be the highest priority of the Commonwealth. Yet, the Report notes that Virginia has not honored its commitment to education. Inadequacy of State funding of education is readily apparent in our own City. For Fiscal Year 1990-1991, the General Assembly set the per pupil cost of the Standards of Quality (SOQ) at $2,627. Actual per pupil cost for City students, however, is estimated to be $5,015 for Fiscal Year 1990-1991. Moreover, the City schools actually receive only $1,178 per pupil for this Fiscal Year (including one time hold harmless payment for enrollment loss) after application of the composite index and State sales tax to the SOQ fund- ing formula. SPECIAL NEEDS OF CENTRAL CITIES WITHOUT ANNEXATION POWER The larger, more urbanized, central cities of the Com- monwealth, such as this City, provide a full range of housing, health, mental health, transportation, social and humanitarian services. School systems in these cities provide excellent special education programs, and private charities located in central cities provide a broad range of charitable assistance. - 2 - These factors make the Commonwealth's central cities a magnet for those in need of services. Consider these facts: That the City has over 3800 subsidized housing units while Roanoke County and Salem have only 463 and 597, respec- tively; That the City's elderly population is at 22% and increasing; That 25.8% of the City's population is below the age of 19 meaning that 48% of the City's population are consum- ers of governmental services with little ability to pay for these services; and That, by 1989, 39.8% of children in the City Public School System came from economically deprived homes (up from 15.8% in 1980). In spite of these demographic negatives, the City has made tremendous strides in economic development. Downtown has been revitalized; industrial parks have been established; and new businesses and industries have been attracted. It is un- likely, however, that these recent successes can be sustained over the long term. In this regard, the major problem fac- ing the City is an inadequate inventory of developable land. Much of our mountainous terrain is either undevelopable or developable only at tremendous costs. Other land in the heart of the Roanoke Valley is subject to flooding and un- developable. Roanoke's peculiar problems are compounded by the need of central cities to provide police, fire, transportation, and water and sewer services at a level not required in adjoining suburban or rural localities. These services bene- fit the entire region, but are paid for primarily by City taxpayers. Historically, the fiscal stress of central cities has been relieved by annexation. Recently, however, the power of annexation has, without logic, been denied to the central cities which need it most. If the central cities of the Commonwealth are to remain strong, viable units of govern- ment, which is in the best interest of the Commonwealth, decisive action needs to be taken. Among those actions which should be considered are: Creation of financial incentives for local government mergers which result in stronger, more viable units of local government; and - 3 - Special funding by the Commonwealth of those services provided by central cities which benefit the entire region. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic development is a way of improving the economy and tax base of the Commonwealth and its localities. Much of the Eastern part of the Commonwealth (the Golden Crescent) has experienced tremendous growth during the 1980's. The City urges the Commonwealth to develop programs for those areas west of the Blue Ridge mountains and central cities across the Commonwealth. Each of these areas will need special financial assistance from the State if we are to have balanced growth across the Commonwealth. According to the Re~ort of the Governor's Commission on Vir$inia's Future, Virginia needs an economic development strategy· The Commonwealth is implored to form a partner- ship with its localities to develop a statewide strategy which should recognize the unique economic development problems of Virginia's land poor central cities. Part of that strategy should include additional educational funding for central cities· With shrinking labor pools in central cities across the State, new and existing businesses cannot afford to have young adults in these cities become unemploy- able. Special efforts must be made now through additional educational funding to save these at risk children· Tourism and convention activities that enhance the economic well being of the Commonwealth and its political subdivisions should be recognized as legitimate components of economic development. We urge the General Assembly to look closely at the way State tourism dollars are spent and to insure their fair distribution. Western Virginia has, in the past not received a proportionate share of the dollars spent by the State tourism office, and there has been little emphasis on promoting the Virginia mountains. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY Every session of the General Assembly brings new assaults on the doctrines of governmental immunity for political sub- divisions and official immunity for local government employees. These doctrines should be retained, and in fact strengthened, for, among others, the following reasons: Local governments would be forced by loss of immunity to eliminate or cut back high risk - 4 - functions or services, such as operation of nursing homes, parks and playgrounds and athletic programs, and such action is not in the public interest. e Frivolous suits would be encouraged. Local governments would be viewed as a "deep pocket" making them an easy target for plaintiffs who could bring suit without even attempting to identify the employee allegedly at fault. Cost of local government would increase rapid- ly at a time when localities can ill afford a new major drain on financial resources. Cost of defense of litigation may be a more serious problem than the obvious cost of paying judg- ments. When the City and an employee are sued, conflicts may require a separate attorney for each party. A recent authoritative study shows that, of every $4 paid out in litigation by local government, $3 goes to legal costs; only $1 actually goes to compensate plaintiffs. Threat of harassing lawsuits may make local government officials less likely to act deci- sively where courageous or difficult actions are in order. Good government is difficult to achieve when officials operate under con- stant fear of lawsuits. The $25,000 cap on liability under the Virginia Tort Claims Act is illusory. Constant pressure will keep the cap spiraling upward. The City is opposed to any extension of the Virginia Tort Claims Act to localities and supports extension of immunity to certain groups of municipal employees and volunteers who are particularly vulnerable to suits which jeopardize the very existence of programs desired by the community. An example of a group of employees and volunteers needing immunity is coaches and officials serving in youth athletic programs sponsored by the City (see page 12). ZONING AND LAND USE One of the most important functions of local governments is local planning and land use control. This is appropriate because there is no entity better suited to make key land use decisions on behalf of any locality than the local governing body. In making land use decisions in this City, Council is guided by a - 5 - comprehensive plan developed through a citizen-based planning process. City Council views with increasing alarm recent efforts of the General Assembly to control local land uses. The Council opposes any legislation that would restrict present land use powers of local governments to establish, modify and enforce zoning classifications. Local governments should remain free to adopt and enforce zoning changes that address local land use needs. - 6 - LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS SALES TAX - LOCAL OPTION The City strongly urges the General Assembly to enact legislation authorizing all localities to levy an additional one-half cent local option sales tax, the revenues from such additional tax to be used for general government purposes. This tax authority would be in addition to the one cent local option sales tax now available to cities and counties. If authorized and levied by the City, the Director of Finance estimates an additional $6.24 million would be generated for the City's general fund. HOTEL ROANOKE - COMMISSION The City and Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation have entered into an agreement by which they have each agreed to contribute toward the capital costs of a publicly-owned con- ference center to be constructed adjacent to a renovated Hotel Roanoke. Together, the City and the Foundation are seeking a developer and hotel operator to renovate and operate the Hotel. To facilitate financing and operation of the conference center, the City and the Foundation are requesting the General Assembly to create by special act a commission, similar to the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission, which would have the following powers: (1) to issue bonds; (2) to purchase, own, sell and lease real and personal property; (3) to award con- cession rights; and (4) to establish policy for operation of a conference center. The original members of the commission would be the City and the Foundation with provision for membership of other political subdivisions agreeing to assume a proportionate share of debt service and operating expenses. TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTER FUNDING The City has completed a feasibility study which estab- lishes the economic viability of a trade and convention center in downtown. In addition, the study shows that the facility would generate $2,179,000 in new tax revenue; of this amount, $1,022,000 would be new State tax revenue. The City and Virginia Tech Real Estate Foundation have agreed to build and operate a conference center adjacent to the Hotel Roanoke. This project, if successful, would give Roanoke the convention and hotel facilities to justify a trade and convention center. - 7 - Convention facilities around the State are no longer com- petitive with facilities in other Southeastern and mid-Atlantic states. Many states around the country have participated in part or in whole in the funding of convention facilities. If facilities around Virginia are to be competitive, the Common- wealth will need to help. For urban areas, with limited undeveloped land, economic development opportunities of this nature are crucial. The General Assembly is urged to establish a two part program to address this need. First, consideration should be given to a rebate program similar to programs in Alabama, Arkansas and Missouri where the state returns the state portion of the sales tax generated by out-of-state conferences and conventions. This program is attractive because it rewards existing facilities as well as new ones and is an incentive for localities to pursue out of state business. Second, the State is urged to consider new or additional taxing power. Under this alternative, the State would give a locality new or increased taxing power for a specific purpose (convention center) for a specific period of time. New taxing power might be tied to a new facility. EDUCATION - FULL FUNDING OF STANDARDS OF QUALITY The General Assembly should recognize the long standing support of public education by local governments. For many years, local governments have funded educational costs beyond their required share in efforts to provide quality education. Increased funding for education, including full funding of the State's share of the actual costs of the Standards of Quality and full funding of categorical educational mandates, is a top priority of City Council and the School Board. Increased State funding should be achieved without reduction to other funding components of the State's public education budget or to other State funding items affecting local governments. The State should also factor public school capital improvement costs into the Standards of Quality and should begin to share in funding such costs. Finally, no changes to educational funding formulas, which would reduce State funding of any school division, should be recommended without specific notice of such proposed changes being given to each school division, each local government and the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties. Public hearings should be held with respect to such proposed changes at locations throughout the Commonwealth. Notice with respect to any changes to be presented to any Session of the General Assembly should be given at least ninety days prior to the commencement of the Session. - 8 EDUCATION - METHOD OF CALCULATING STANDARDS OF QUALITY COSTS The City urges the General Assembly to study the methodology used by JLARC in calculating the costs of the SOQ to determine whether the formula accurately reflects the actual costs of meeting the SOQ. The new methodology appears to be inadequate in several respects. First, it artificially lowers the State average salary instead of using actual salary figures. Second, it uses an artificially iow limit on the number of professionals per thousand students for which State aid is given. Third, the methodology does not address the cost differences in providing education to students with special needs, such as the inner city school population served by our School Division. EDUCATION - EQUITY IN FUNDING The Governor has appointed a study commission to examine equity in the funding of public education by the State, The commission is urged to recognize the unique funding needs of urban school divisions. Special education and disadvantaged students comprise over 50% of the population in urban school divisions. The large percentage of children with special needs coupled with the fiscal stress prevalant in core cities requires additional State funding for urban school districts. EDUCATION - ELIMINATION OF SCHOOL AGE CENSUS Every three years, all school divisions conduct a census of school age children residing in the locality. The census becomes the basis for the distribution of State educational sales tax to the locality. New methodology using pupil average daily mem- bership (ADS) would reduce the sales tax distribution to urban localities with declining enrollment. It is estimated that Roanoke City would lose over $1.2 million in State educational aid if such a change were to occur. This legislation should be opposed unless it incorporates a mechanism to protect urban school divisions from losing State aid. EDUCATION ENROLLMENT LOSS The last Session of the General Assembly continued the enrollment loss provision for school divisions with declining enrollment. State educational aid was continued for each student lost through enrollment decline at 80% of the prior year enroll- ment. This legislation should be continued for the next Biennium in order to protect school divisions with declining enrollment from a substantial loss of State aid. - 9 - EDUCATION - OPPOSITION TO TEACHER SALARY MANDATES The City strongly opposes State mandates for teacher salary increases. These mandates take away local officials' ability to make appropriate budget decisions and have imposed undue financial hardships on local governments. Further, the teacher salary mandates have created tensions in local governments when salary mandates are funded at the expense of salary increases for other local government employees. EDUCATION - TEACHER ARBITRATION For several Sessions, the General Assembly has considered amending the State Constitution to require that a third party arbitrator be the final authority in the teacher grievance pro- cess. School boards would be stripped of their current consti- tutional authority to make many key personnel decisions relating to teachers. A system which prohibits school boards from disciplining teachers is not in the best interest of the public. The General Assembly is urged to defeat any resolution requiring a referendum on the proposed constitutional amendment. DRUGS The City and School Board are vitally concerned about the drug abuse epidemic and the problems it is causing to society. To combat the drug problem, City Council funded eight new law enforcement positions in the City's 1989-1990 Budget. To assist in fighting the drug problem, local law enforce- ment agencies should be permitted to retain the confiscated assets of drug dealers to be used to defray the costs of en- forcing drug laws. Therefore, the City supports passage of the proposed constitutional amendment to implement this, and urges the General Assembly to make Virginia's asset seizure program at least as effective as the federal program. The City also endorses expanded funding for drug education and treatment to reduce the demand for illegal drugs. Special programs for education and treatment are needed in jails and pri- sons. TRANSPORTATION - IMPROVED ACCESS TO BLACKSBURG/VIRGINIA TECH Direct access between the Roanoke Valley and Blacksburg/ Virginia Tech is important to economic development efforts in - 10- Southwest Virginia. The State Transportation Commission has already recognized that a direct link from Blacksburg to 1-81 is a different project from solving traffic congestion on U.S. Route 460 in Montgomery County, and its importance was high- lighted when it was placed in the State's 6-year plan. The City supports State funding for this important regional project. SAFE DRINKING WATER The City recognizes the State's role in enforcing the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act as long as the costs of enforcement are funded through the general fund. The City is opposed to any tax or assessment on production of drinking water. ASSESSMENT FOR COURTHOUSE AND JAIL MAINTENANCE The 1990 Session of the General Assembly authorized the governing bodies of cities and counties to impose a new assess- ment as a part of the fees taxed as costs in each criminal or traffic case in a district or circuit court in an amount not in excess of $2.00. See §14.1-133.2, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The assessment is to be used for the construction, renovation or maintenance of courthouse or jail facilities and to defray increases in heating, cooling and electricity costs. This legislation expires by its own terms on July 1, 1991. City Council requests that this helpful legislation be con- tinued indefinitely. Operation of a courthouse and jail are State mandates, and this assessment defrays a small portion of the unfunded cost of these mandates. DEVELOPMENT IN HISTORIC DISTRICTS The Architectural Review Board appointed by City Council must issue a certificate of appropriateness before any building in a historic district can be erected or demolished or, in cer- tain cases, altered. In this regard, applicants for permits often make certain promises, for example that a building will be demolished within a certain time frame, that a demolished building will be replaced by a new building, that a building will be renovated in accordance with certain plans, etc. The Board, however, has no effective method of enforcing these promises. Therefore, it is recommended that an architectural review board should be authorized to impose conditions on the issuance of a certificate of appropriateness which will render the cer- tificate null and void if not met. Furthermore, the Building Commissioner should be authorized to revoke or withhold a cer- tificate of occupancy if conditions are not met. - 11 GRIEVANCE PROCEDURE The Director of the State Office of Employee Relations Counselors has attempted to impose a uniform employee grievance procedure on all local governments. The proposed procedure is very cumbersome and time consuming, turning what should be an opportunity for quick, informal due process into a full blown judicial proceeding complete with discovery. The City strongly objects and urges the Governor and the General Assembly to allow flexibility in local grievance procedures as long as they comply with minimum provisions of State law. The City also requests that local governments be authorized to exempt from the grievance procedure certain management employees at the level of department head and above. These posi- tions are comparable to management positions exempted from the State grievance procedure. IMMUNITY FOR STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS IN YOUTH ATHLETIC PROGRAMS The City's non-profit, youth athletic programs are supported by several City employees and many volunteers. These volunteers serve as coaches, assistant coaches, league officials, etc. It is well known that these athletic programs involve high risk activities which expose staff and volunteers to considerable liability. If these athletic programs, which are so beneficial to our youth, are going to continue, the General Assembly will need to extend immunity to the local government employees and volunteers who oversee them. NOTICE OF CLAIMS Section 8.01-222, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, requires that notice of personal injury and property damage claims against cities and towns be given in writing within six months after the occurrence. Compliance with §8.01-222 is simple; a claimant merely needs to state the nature of the claim and the time and place at which the injury occurred. Bills have been introduced at the past several Sessions of the General Assembly to repeal this valuable notice requirement. Although compliance with §8.01-222 is simple, the notice requirement is vital to the Commonwealth's cities and towns. First, the notice provides the opportunity to correct any defect on public property which may have caused injury before another injury occurs. Second, the notice requirement affords the city or town a fair opportunity to investigate the facts and cir- cumstances relating to a claim. The city has hundreds of miles of streets and sidewalks and usually becomes aware of a slip and - 12 fall or trip and fall only when notice is filed. Fresh notice is essential to the conduct of any meaningful investigation. If §8.01-222 is repealed, cities and towns will frequently first learn of a claim two years after the fact when suit is filed. This will deny any reasonable opportunity to conduct an investi- gation of the facts and circumstances relating to the injury. In this regard, a locality is unlike a private property owner who is usually aware immediately of an injury on his property. The City believes that the notice requirement of §8.01-222 represents sound public policy and urges the defeat of any bill weakening or repealing §8.01-222. EXTENSION OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE PRESUMPTIONS Police officers, deputy sheriffs and firefighters have the advantage of nearly irrebuttable presumptions that heart disease and hypertension are occupational diseases under the Workers' Compensation Act. Firefighters have an additional presumption with respect to lung disease. The City cur- rently has a Workers' Compensation Act liability of $2.6 million for heart, hypertension and lung awards made to public safety officers as a result of the statutory pre- sumption. Without stating any opinion as to the wisdom of the current presumptions, the City urges the General Assembly not to extend the occupational disease presumption to new diseases, such as cancer. The high incidence of cancer among Americans is known to all of us, and, as terrible as this disease is, it should not be the subject of a work related presumption. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Any legislation authorizing collective bargaining for public employees in general or for any public employee group should be opposed. All public employees now have effective grievance pro- cedures. Both the City and the School Board have developed effective means of communication which permit public employees to voice their concerns. Collective bargaining would be a detriment to the progress which has been made. SALARIES OF MAYORS, VICE MAYORS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS Salaries of mayors and council members, which are established by §14.1-47.2 of the State Code for cities of various population - 13 - brackets ($15,000 for mayors and $13,000 for council members in cities of our size), have not been increased since 1985. Given inflationary forces and increasing time demands made on members of local governing bodies, an increase of $2,000 in the maximum salaries allowed for the mayors and council members in all popu- lation brackets should be enacted. Furthermore, the General Assembly should allow that vice mayors be paid $1,000 more than the salary allowed for council members. The time demands made on the vice mayor in a city of our size are considerable, and additional compensation for this office is clearly in order. If the General Assembly increases the maximums as requested, salary increases for members of local governing bodies will not be automatic. Each local governing body will need to make an individual decision whether salary increases are in order in the particular locality. - 14- CHARTER AMENDMENTS BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS - STAGGERING OF TERMS Section 62(8) of the City Charter authorizes City Council to appoint a Board of Zoning Appeals consisting of five (5) members, each to be appointed for a term of three (3) years. No provision is made for staggered terms allowing for the possibility of all new Board members which would be very prejudicial to the work of this important body. Therefore, it is recommended that the Charter be amended to provide that, at the expiration of the current terms, two members be appointed for three year terms, two members for two year terms and one member for a one year term. Thereafter, all members would be appointed for three year terms. DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES State Code §15.1-503.2 authorizes counties and cities to designate historic landmarks, buildings and structures and historic areas; to create an architectural review board to review and approve reconstruction or alteration of historic structures; and to prohibit the razing or demolition of his- toric structures without following certain procedures. The State statute further provides that a historic structure may not be razed until it has been offered on the market at a price reasonably related to its fair market value for a cer- tain number of days without any bona fide contract for such structure being executed. For example, a structure valued at $40,000 to $50,000 must be offered on the market for five months before it can be razed. This City has implemented the historic district zoning authorities authorized by the State Code in the Market District and in Old Southwest. There is a problem, however, with the minimal penalties authorized by the State Code for razing a historic structure without following the required procedures. Section 15.1-503.2 is part of the State zoning enabling legislation, and for violations of local zoning ordinances, §15.1-491(e) authorizes a penalty of not less than $10 nor more than $1,000. No person should be permitted to destroy a priceless part of the community's heritage and pay a mere fine of $1,000 as a cost of doing business. It is recommended, therefore, that the City Charter be amended to state that razing or demolition of a historic structure in violation of the City's historic district zoning ordinance shall sub- ject the responsible party to a civil penalty in an amount not to exceed twice the assessed value of the structure. - 15- DESIGN OVERLAY DISTRICTS The City has several neighborhoods or districts which, although not historic, are unique and need conservation and protection from new development which is not in harmony with existing development. These neighborhoods or districts are the Blue Ridge Parkway corridor, the Roanoke River corridor and the new Franklin Road/Elm Avenue redevelopment area. The intent is to encourage new development that is compatible with existing development or is consistent with an adopted plan. To meet this need, the City requests Charter authority to establish design overlay districts to promote architectural coherence and harmony and protect developed areas of the City which exhibit unique neighborhood character. Design overlay districts and guidelines for construction in such districts would be established after public hearings held by City Council. 16 - WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR. CITY ATTORNEY CITY-OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY .¥ LROANO KLm, ~/IRGiNIA 2~011-1595 October 15, 1990 WILLIAM X PARSONS MARK ALLAN WILLIAMS STEVEN J. TALEVI KATHLEEN MARIE KRONAU The Honorable Mayor and of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Members Re: 1991 Legislative Program Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: At the Council meeting of October 8, 1990, City Council scheduled a public hearing to consider proposed Charter amend- ments to be held on October 29, 1990. Unfortunately, no one realized that October 29 is a fifth Monday on which there is no Council meeting. Therefore, I am requesting City Council to re- schedule the required public hearing on Charter amendments for 7:30 p.m. on November 12, 1990. This will allow the public hear- ing on Charter amendments to occur at the second meeting of the month at which public hearings are traditionally held. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney WCDJr:fcf cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mary F. Parker, City Clerk Office of the City C~erk ~ovember 15, 1990 File #236-178-2#0 Mr. ~. Robert Herbert City ~lanager Roanoke, Virginia Dear Hr. ~erbert: I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 30306-111290 amending the 1990-91 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Statement of Objectives; and authorizing execution and filing ~ith the Uaited States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of cer- tain documents relating thereto, in order to provide for i~clu- sion of a project relating to construction of a parking garage next to Fire Station No. i in the 200 bloc~ of Church Avenue~ S. E., and use of $1,525,0~0.00 in CDBG program income plus interest for construction of the facility. Resolution No. 30306-111290 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on ~onday, ~ovember 12, ~990. ~FP : ra Enc . pc: Sincerely, ~ Mary F. Par~er, C~C/AAE City Clerk Mr, Redevelopment and Housing Authority, 2624 Salem ~urnpike, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017 Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer Brian J. Wishneff, Chief of Economic Development John R. Marlles, Caief of Community Planning James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources Mr George C. Snead, Jr., Direc'tor of Administration Public Safety Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Administrator ~s. Marie T. Pontius, Grants Herbert D. McBride, Executive Director, Roanoke and Building Commissioner/Zoning Monitoring Administrator Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 12th Day of November, 1990. No. 30306-111290. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION amending the 1990-91 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Statement of Objectives; and authorizing the execution and filing with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of certain documents relating thereto. BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: 1. The City's 1990-91CDBG Statement of Objectives is hereby amended in order provide for inclusion of a project relating to con- struction of a parking garage next to Fire Station No. 1 in the 200 block of Church Avenue, S. E., and use of $1,525,000 in CDBG program income plus interest for construction of the facility, in accordance with the recommendation contained in the report of the City Manager to Council dated November 12, 1990. 2. The City Manager or Assistant City Manager is hereby autho- rized to execute and file with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) documents reflecting the amendment authorized hereby, and to furnish HUD with any additional information or assurances required in relation thereto. ATTEST: City Clerk. Roanoke, Virginia November 12, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Subject: Amendment 1 of FY 1990-91 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program and Budget Dear Members of Council: I. Background: City Council approved CDBG budget and Statement of Objectives for FY 1990-1991 on May 14, 1990 by Resolution No. 30041-51490. Be Council appropriated funds for this budget on June 25, 1990 by Ordinance No. 30125-62590. Ce Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) sold downtown property to the Norfolk Southern Corporation on October 4, 1990, for $1,375,000 creating program income to the CDBG grant. In addition, RRHA had escrowed $150,000 in land proceeds from previous sales, making a total of $1,525,000. The parcels sold had originally been purchased under the HUD Urban Renewal program. HUD officials in Richmond have determined that the proceeds from the sale of this land are program income, and therefore must be handled in accordance with applicable federal regulations. Land sold to Norfolk Southern had a surface parking easement to Crestar Bank which Crestar has agreed to release in exchange for a similar easement in a parking structure to be constructed on property adjacent to Fire Station No. 1. Amended Urban Renewal closeout agreement, dated September 1, 1981 between the City and HUD requires that proceeds from the sale of urban renewal land be used to provide parking in downtown Roanoke. II. Current Situation: RRHA proposes to use proceeds from the sale of the land along with private financing to construct a parking garage next to Firestation No. 1 in the 200 block of Church Avenue SE. Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 2 Proposed qara~e will consist of approximately five levels of parking containing approximately 409 parking spaces. A minimum of 75 new jobs are expected to be created in the immediate downtown area -- 51% of which will be available to low and moderate income persons, as a result of this provision of public parking downtown. Public comment on this proposed use of CDBG program income has been received by Council this evening at a duly advertised public hearing. III. Issues: A. Impact on Community Development of City B. Legal issues C. Fundin9 D. Project eligibility for CDBG funds E. Administration of project IV. Alternatives: Authorize City Manager to submit an amendment to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) of FY 1990-1991 CDBG Statement of Objectives, to add the project of a new Church Avenue parking garage using $1,525,000 in CDBG program income plus interest. Impact on Community Development of City would be positive with additional needed parking provided downtown to allow addition and expansion of businesses, providing for new jobs. Legal issues concerning the required provision by RRHA of a parking easement to Crestar Bank would be addressed. Also, provisions of urban renewal closeout agreement with HUD would be addressed. Funding will be provided by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority through the proceeds from the sale of Urban Renewal land, and through the RRHA borrowing private funds for construction. Project eligibility for CDBG funds as construction of a public facility has been determined jointly by the City's office of grants compliance and the Richmond Area office of HUD. Honorable Mayor and City Council Page 3 Administration of project will be handled by the RRHA to be covered by separate agreement. WRH:MTP CC: Do not authorize City Manager to submit an amendment to HUD of FY 1990-1991 CDBG Statement of Objectives. Impact on Community Development of City would be delayed at best. Legal issues would be a concern as to RRHA's provision of a parking easement to Crestar Bank. Additionally, this program income can only be used to provide downtown parking, per agreement with HUD, therefore other CDBG projects are not appropriate. Funding for the garage would be problematic if CDBG program income funds were not used. Project eliqibility for CDBG funds would not be an issue. Eligible future use of the funds could be an issue if not used to provide downtown parking. 5. Administration of project would not be an issue. Recommendation: It is recommended that City Council adopt Alternative "A" w~ich will authorize City Manager to submit an amendment to HUD of FY 1990-1991 CDBG Statement of Objectives to add the project of a new Church Avenue parking garage using $1,525,000 in CDBG program income plus interest. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager Assistant City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Director of Public Works Director of Human Resources Chief of Economic Development Chief of Community Planning City Engineer Building Commissioner Grants Monitoring Administrator Executive Director, RRHA Roanoke Times ~.~ World-News 201 West Campbell Avenue, P.O. Box 2491, Roanoke. Virginia 24010 AFFIDAVIT OF PERFORMANCE DATE OF INSERTION: NEWSPAPER SIZE OF AD: Affidavit Completed: Date:. '~/~ -- .~ By~ (~ignature) ~L/'~-~c~ Notary Information: Affirmed before me, thi-~ , day of ~-~ A.D. 19. ~7~,L~ . 2.~ Commission Expire~ [ £' [ (Signature) / ~' ' (Date) Notary Seal NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL The Roanoke City Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, November 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, in order to consider an amendment to the Fiscal Year 1990-1991 Community Development Block Grant budget and Statement of Objectives to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). On November 13, 1990, the City of Roanoke will submit to HUD an amendment to the City's statement of community development objectives for fiscal year July 1, 1990 through June 30, 1991. This amendment will not impact any current CDBG projects. It is proposed that city council allocate $1,525,000 of formerly undesignated program income to the construction of a new parking garage in the 200 block of Church Avenue SE, adjacent to Firestation #1. The proposed Church Avenue Parking Garage will be at least five levels of parking with at least 409 parking spaces. The construction of the parking garage, which allows other development to occur, will generate a minimum of 75 new jobs in the immediate downtown area. Of the jobs created, 51 percent are expected to be available to low and moderate income persons. More details of the proposed activities are available in the City Clerk's Office, Room 456, or the Office of Grants Compliance, Room 362, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011, phone 981-2141. Given under my hand this 29th day of October, 1990. Mary F. Parker City Clerk Please publish in Thursday, November 1, 1990 edition of the Roanoke Tribune. Publish in display ad format, not legal ad. Bill: Office of Grants Compliance Room 362, Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Attention: Marie Pontius 981-2141 Roanoke, Virginia October 22, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: SUBJECT: Request for Public Hearing - Amendment %1 to the 1990-1991 Community Development Block Grant Program I. Background: City of Roanoke received its annual entitlement from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in the amount of $1,563,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds. City Council approved the CDBG Fiscal Year 1990-91 budget and Statement of Objectives on May 14, 1990 by Resolution No. 30041-51490. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) sold downtown property to the Norfolk Southern Corporation on October 4, 1990, for $1,375,000 creating program income to the CDBG grant. The parcel sold to NS Corporation had originally been purchased under the HUD Urban Renewal program. HUD officials in Richmond have determined that the proceeds from the sale of this land are program income, and therefore must be handled in accordance with applicable federal regulations. II. Current Situation: RRHA proposes to use proceeds from the sale of the land, along with other land sale proceeds, to construct a parking garage next to Firestation No. 1 on Church Avenue SE. Citizen participation requirements call for an evening public hearing by City Council to amend CDBG program and budget, and to add Church Avenue Garage project. Presentation of the amended FY 1990-91 CDBG program and budget will be proposed to City Council on November 12, 1990. It is recommended that City Council authorize a public hearin~ to be held on November 12, 1990, to hear public comments on the proposed amendments to the 1990-91 Community Development Block Grant program. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH/mtp cc: Assistant City Manager City Attorney Director of Finance Chief of Economic Development Grants Monitoring Administrator Executive Director, RRHA Office of the Mayor November 12, 1990 The Honorable Vice,Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowies and Gentlemen: I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss personnel matters relating to vacancies on various authorities, boards~ commissions and corr~nittees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Sincerely, Noel C. Tayl~ Mayor NCT:se Room 452 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2a44 Office of the Council NoYember 12, 1990 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: I wish to request an Executive Session to discuss a personnel matter being the appointment of a specific public officer, pur- suant to Section 2.1-344 (A) (1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. HEM: ra ~//~ ~Sincerely, __ Vice -Mayor Office of the City Clerk November 15, 1990 File #11 Mr. ~ilourn C. Dibling, City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Jr. Dear Mr. Dibling: ~t the regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held on ~onday, November 12, 1990, you were requested to prepare a constitutionally acceptable anti-discrimination ordinance involvia9 private, for profit establishments to be acted upoa by Council a~ its regular meeting to be held on Mor~day, ~ovemDer 26, 1990, at 7:00 p.m., at the Highland Park Elementary School. Mary F. Parker, C~/IC/AAE City Clerk MFP:ra Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 Roanoke Education Assodati~n_ j Inc. Vh'ginia Educal/on Assoc/at/o~ October 9. 1990 Ms. Mary Parker. City Clerk Room u,56. Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue Roanoke. VA 24011 Dear Ms. Parker: On behalf of a broad-based coalition of civic groups, I am requesting that our group be placed on the Roanoke City Council agenda for its meeting of November 12, 1990 at 7:30 P.M. in the Municipal Building. You might want to list our group on the agenda as the Coalition for a Council Ordinance Banning Discrimination in Large Private Clubs. Should there be any problem with our making a presentation before Council on November 12, please let me know prior to that date by calling my office at 362-1245, Thank you for your assistance in this matter. Sincerely, Gary Waldo Executive Director GW:jIg Office of the City Clerk Novemoer i5, 199u File #132-40 Mr. ~. Robert Herbert Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, City Manager City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia RoanoKe, Virginia Gentlemen: I am attaching copy of a communication from Council ~lemuer David A. Bowers with regard to the establishment of a ward or modified ward system beginning with the next Council election in 1992, which communication was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at its regular meeting held on Monday, November 12, 1990. On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adoptea, the matter was referred to the City Manager to provide demographic information and to advise Council as to whether or not the City administra- tion has the capability of analyzing demographics. The matter was also referred to the City Attorney for study and report with regara to the legal aspects. Sincerely, Mary F. Parker, CMC/~AE City Clerk MFP:ra Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981.2541 Office of the Council November 7, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles & Gentlemen: If we can't bring the entire Roanoke Valley into the 20th Century (i.e., consolidation), at least the City Council should take the lead in bringing our own City up-to- date on issues affecting contemporary society. Now is the time to act positively on an anti-discrimination ordinance involving city establishments, and on a study of instituting a ward/modified ward system for Roanoke City Council. My grandfather told my mother, and my mother told me, about the times earlier in this century when "No Irish Allowed" signs were posted in certain parts of the country. More recently, we all have been aware of advances on behalf of women, African-Americans and other minorities in their efforts to socially, culturally and financially integrate into our contemporary society. Thank God, gone forever are the days of persons having to sit at the back of a bus be- cause of the color of their skin, and gone forever is the bar to having a woman sit on the Supreme Court of our Common- wealth and our nation. The Irish, once discriminated against, are now accepted. Soon, I hope, the day will come when women and African-Americans and other minorities shall not be dis- criminated against because of their sex or race or national origin. The time is now for Roanoke City, a leader in our Commonwealth, to state conclusively that it shall be illegal to discriminate in the operation of any establishment if that discrimination is based on sex, race, and/or national origin. By this letter, I am respectfully requesting that the City Attorney's office be directed to prepare a con- stitutionally acceptable ordinance for these purposes for consideration at the next meeting of Roanoke City Council. It's time for all persons in society to be accepted equally. Now, as to the second matter, I understand that recent court action has invalidated the at-large system of electing Council members in the City of Norfolk, Virginia. That system is apparently similar to our at-large system here in the City of Roanoke. Therefore, I would respect- fully submit that the "hand-writing is on the wall" and that Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council November 7, 1990 PAGE TWO Roanoke it is only a matter of time until Roanoke will be scrutinized by the judiciary for the same reason. Accordingly, in a spirit of "preventive law," acting pro-actively and, of course, wanting to do the right thing, I would respectfully suggest, by this letter, that City Council begin the legal and demographic studies necessary to propose, approve and implement a ward or modified ward system beginning with the next Council election in the Spring of 1992. Perhaps this matter could be referred to our newly- formed Legislative Committee since, I believe, it might require charter changes and, thus, approval by the General Assembly of Virginia. It's important to note for our citizens that four of the current seven members of Council live in the South or Southwest parts of the City. Only one member lives in the Williamson Road area, only one lives in Northwest, and I am the only member residing in Southeast (i.e., Walnut Hill). Notwithstanding that, in my opinion, you are all excellent leaders for our City, I cannot ignore the fact that some areas of our City have been under-represented in number (i.e., Williamson Road, Northwest) and many, many neighborhoods have had no representation at all in the last twenty years (i.e., Gainsboro, Monterey, East Gate, Old South- east, Old Southwest, Hurt Park, Villa Heights, etc.). This can no longer be acceptable to Roanoke citizens. Contemporary justice demands that the political, social, business and neighborhood leaders of our City come forth now to educate and lead our citizens regarding these two issues. What we are really seeking to address is legislation that will make every establishment in our City acceptable to all of our citizens, and, secondly, legis- lation that will provide an even greater opportunity for fair, equal and even better representation at the highest level of our City government. I will ask the Clerk to place this correspondence under Petitions and Communications on the Council Agenda for our November 12, 1990, meeting. At that meeting, I will move the Council to authorize the City Attorney to bring to us for our prompt consideration an anti-discrimination ordinance. Secondly, I will move the Council to approve, the concept of a ward/modified ward system for City Council and ask that the matter be referred to the Legislative Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council November 7, 1990 PAGE THREE Committee for further, immediate study and recommendation. I ask that you all concur in both requests. Best personal regards to you all. Councilman DAB/jfk Honorable Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council November 8, 1990 PAGE FOUR ADDENDUM TO NOVEMBER 7, 1990 LETTER FROM DAVID A. BO~ERS There should be two exceptions to any proposed anti- discrimination ordinance. The first exception would be for institutions organized aha operated exclusively for religious purposes, and the second exception should be for lodges or other fraternal or benevolent associations organized for the benefit of members and not for profit. I am advised that to regulate these types of organizations in their membership policies would appear to conflict to First Amendment rights pertaining to religion and association. DAB Office of the City Clerk ~ovember 27, 1990 File #79 Ns. Theresa C. Epperson Senior Vice President Trust~ank Savings P. ©. Box 929 ~cSean, Virginia 22101 Dear ~s. Epperson: Your communication requesting a waiver or reduction of a late penalty assessed on real estate taxes for Trustbank Savings for the first half installment for 1991, was before the Council of the City of ~oanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, ~ovember 12, 1990. ©n motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, it ~as with regret that the members of City Council aenied your request. ~FP : ra Sincerely, ~g)~_~ Mary F. Parker, CMC/AAE City Clerk Room 4,56 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541 ' / TRUSTBANK SA VINGS October 25, 1990 Mary Parker City of Roanoke City Clerk's Office 215 Church Avenue, S.W, Roanoke, Virginia 21011 Re: 1st Half 1991 Real Estate Taxes Dear Ms. Parker: After speaking with both Mr. Gordon Peters, Treasurer for the City of Roanoke, and Mr. David Anderson, Assistant Treasurer of the same, I was advised to write you directly with regard to our payment of real estate taxes for the first half 1991 installment. On October ~.., 1990, we were notified that our tax payment o~ $147,738.10, hadb~e~ received late. Mr. Anderson indicated that our envelope was postmar~d with a date of October 10, 1990. We immediately investigated this matter and found that our Escrow Representative had disbursed the tax funds from the escrow accounts on September 21, 1990, but did not mail the remittance until after the due date. I assure you that we are quite aware that the delay in providing you with the tax remittance was solely an error on our' part. However., I am asking that some consideration be granted inasmuch as Trustbank has never been late in the past in paying the real estate taxes we are accountable for. In addition, the due date of the 5th ~ell on a Friday with the weekend following and a holiday on Monday the 8tn, therefore, the tax payment was only two business days late. TRUSTBANK SAVINGS, F,S.B. 7799 Leesburg Pike · Tysons Corner, VA 22043 · Mailing Address: P,O. Box 929 · McLean, VA 22101 Telephone (703) 848-3000 · Toll Free 1-800-222-5622 Ms. Parker City of Roanoke City Clerk's Office October 25, 1990 Page 2 On behalf of Trustbank Savings, I would appreciate your consideration if at all possible in waiving or reducing this penalty. have (703) attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. If you should any questions, please feel free to call me. I may be reached at ~4~-3419 or toil free at 1(800) 654-1660~ Sincerely, Vice President/Director Loan Administration ECP:gdm cc: Margie Shimoniak Senior Vice President Randolph N. Click Executive Vice President Chief Operating Officer Office of the City Clerk November 15, 1990 File #169-87-277 Mr. Franklin D. Kimbrough, E~ecutive Director Downtown Roanoke, Inc. 310 First Street, S. ~:. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 III Oear Mr. Kimbrough: I am enclosing four copies of Resolution No. 30307-111290 authorizing a revocable permit to Downtown Roanoke, Inc., for the installation and maintenance of holiday decorations over and above City rights of way and upon certain City light standards and other City facilities in the downtown area of the City, from November 1, 1990, through January 15, 1991, upon certain terms and conditions. Resolution No. 3~307-111290 was adoptea by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meetin~ ~leid o~ Monday, November 12, 1990, and shall be in full force and effect at such time as a copy, duly signed, sealed, attested and acknowledged by Downtown Roanoke, Inc., has been filed in the Office of the City Clerk. Please sign ann return three copies of 30307-111290 to the City Clerk's Gffice, Room 456, Building, Roanoke, Virginia 24011. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, C~C/AAE City Clerk Resolution No. ~unicipal ~FP:ra Enc. pc: ~lr. Robert W. Glenn, Jr., Appalachian Power Company, P. ©. Box 2021, Roanoke, Virginia 24011 ~4r. ~illiam F. Clark, Director of Public ~4'orks Mr. ~4~illiam ~. Mullins, Jr., Manager, Signals and Alarms Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and Public Safety Room zl56 Municipal Bui~din~ 2'1~ Church Avenue, S,W. Roanoke, Vir~linia 240~ (703) 9~-25z1'1 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 12th Day of November, 1990. No. 30307-111£90. A RESOLUTION authorizing a revocable permit to Downtown Roanoke~ Inc., for the installation and maintenance of its holiday decorations over and above City rights of way and upon certain City light stan- dards and other City facilities in the downtown area of the City, from November 1, 1990, through January 15, 1991, upon certain terms and conditions. WHEREAS, Downtown Roanoke, Inc. (hereinafter "Permittee") has requested that City Council authorize Permittee to install and maintain its holiday decorations over and above City rights of way and upon certain City light standards and other City facilities on streets in the Downtown Business District; WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke will act as the agent of Permittee in installing such holiday decorations; and WHEREAS, Council is desirous of granting the request of Permittee pursuant to certain terms and conditions. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. Permission is hereby granted to Permittee to install and maintain its holiday decorations over and above City rights of way and upon certain City light standards and other City facilities in the Downtown Business District, the location of such decorations being more particularly described in the City Manager's report, dated November 12, 1990~ pursuant to the following terms and conditions: (a) (b) (c) Such permit shall be revocable and shall be effective from November 1, 1990, through January 15, 1991; Permittee shall indemnify, keep and hold the City free and harmless from liability on account of injury or damage to any person or property, arising out of installation, maintenance or removal of such holiday decorations; including City property, grow- ing out of or directly or indirectly resulting from the permission herein granted; Permittee shall provide the Director of Public Works with a certificate of insurance naming the City of Roanoke as an additional insured, providing liability insurance with respect to installation, maintenance and removal of such holiday decorations, in the amount of at least $1,000,000 for bodily injury and property damage combined; (d) (e) Permittee shall pay to the City the cost of electrical power consumed by its decorations attached to City light standards and other City facilities; Electrical equipment provided by Permittee shall be UL approved for wet locations and installed pursuant to the National Electrical Code and the National Electrical Safety Code; (f) No decoration shall be constructed, attached, installed, erected, or maintained so as to obscure the view of any directional or informational sign by any operator of a motor vehicle or pedestrian; and (g) No decoration shall be installed or attached to any tree or shrub on City property. 2. This permit shall not extend to or be construed as granting Permittee any right or authority with respect to property and facili- ties of public utility corporations. 3. This permit shall be in full force and effect at such time as a copy of this Resolution, duly signed, sealed, attested and acknowl- edged by permittee has been filed in the Office of the City Clerk. ATTEST: City Clerk. ACCEPTED and EXECUTED by the undersigned this , 1990. day of DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, INC. ATTEST: By Title - 3 - Roanoke, Virginia November 12, 1990 Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor and Member of Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Members of Council: Subject: Downtown Holiday Decorations I. Background Downtown Roanoke, Inc., owns the holiday decorations erected annually by City forces on City streets during the holiday "Roanoke - The Starlight City" again will be the theme carried out by the holiday decorations. II. Current Situation City employees will again be expected to help instm]] the holiday decorations this year, particularly since they are mostly on City poles. III. Issues A. Holiday spirit for a festival City B. Timing C. Direct Cost for materials/electricity IV. Alternatives City Council grant a revocable permit to Downtown Roanoke~ Inc., to place holiday decorations on City owned street light and traffic signal poles and to overhang City rights-of-way from Appalachian Power Company street light poles in the Central Business District, with appropriate insurance and indemnification for the City. Holiday spirit for a festival City will be enhanced by the decorations. Timing is very critical to allow the installation by Thanksgiving. Direct cost will be very minimal since Downtown Roanoke, Inc., has agreed to purchase or reimburse the City for needed materials and electrical energy. Members of City Council Page 2 City Council deny Downtown Roanoke, Inc., a revocable permit to install holiday decorations. Holiday spirit for a festival City will be greatly reduced. Timing - Downtown Roanoke, Inc., probably could not find anyone at this late date to properly install and connect to City wiring. 3. Direct cost - would be reduced to nothing. Recommendation City Council accept Alternative "A" and authorize a grant of a revocable permit to Downtown Roanoke, Inc., with appropriate insurance and indemnification, authorizing Downtown Roanoke, Inc., to display holiday decorations along the streets in the downtown area from November 1, 1990 through January 15, 1991. Respectfully submitted, W. Robert Herbert City Manager WRH: WMMj r: j rm CC: Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works Mr. George C. Snead, Director of Administration & Public Safety Mr. William M. Mullins, Jr., Manager, Signals and Alarms Mr. Franklin D. Kimbrough, III, Director, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., 310 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, VA 24011 Mr. R. W. Glenn, Jr., Appalachian Power Company, P.O. Box 2021, Roanoke, VA 24011 A4)4iltl). PRODUCER Richar ds on-Johns t on-Wynn, Inc. 1220 Crestar Bank Bu±ldin§ INSURED Dow'~to~n RoaP_oke, ThC. 310 First Street, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011 ISSUE DATE (MMIDDIYY) 10/30/90 1~11S CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION (~ CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THI! DOES NOT AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE COMPANIES AFFORDING COVERAGE ~c~"~'A Harleysville Mutual Insurance Company THIS iS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE US~.cD BELOW HAVE SEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICATED, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMEi~r[. ~ OR CONDI~ON OM ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, I~IE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS, EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS ~ MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. CO LTR TYPE OFINSURANCE [~OIJC~MU~E~ER GENERAL LIABILITY A X COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIAEIUTY MPA lA 13 10 01/04/90 01/04/91 GENERAL AGGREGATE $1,000,000. PRODUCT~COMP/OP AGG. Sl, 000,000. PERSONAL & ADV. INJURY $1,000,000. EACH OCCURRENCE Sl , 000 , 000 , FIRE DAMAGE (Any one fire) $ 50 · 000 · MED' E~=ENSE I~nY one pe~se~) $ 5 ~000. AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY COMBINED SINGLE ANY AUTO ~,; ~11~ ~ ~ LIMIT $ ALL OWNED AUTOS ~1~ ~ BODILY INJURY SCHEDULED AUTOS ~ppg0~D (Per ~n) A WORKER'SCOUPENS~TI~ WC lA 13 10 01/04/90 01/04/91 ~CHACCIDENT ~"= 100,000. EMPLOYERS' LIAmLI~ 500 ~ 000 · Dm~SE--~C. EMP~O~E ~ [00,000. ~Sdel~ty ~A lA 13 10 01/0~/90 01/0~/91 $100,000. City of Roanoke Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS/1OC&~ ~ Additional Insured: City of Roanoke, its officers, officials, agents and employees Re: Holiday Decorations on city streets November 5, 1990 thru January 11, 1991 SMO{JLD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, THE ISSUING COMPANY WILL ENDEAVOR TO MAII~0 DAYS WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER NAMED TO THE LEFT, BUT FAILURE TO MAIL SUCH NOTICE SHALL IMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR U~BILn~ O~ ANY KIND UPON THE COMPANY, ITS AGENTS OR REPRESENTATIVES. A~ 2~ (7/90)