HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 01-09-89., 29414
I Bowe~ )
REGULAR J~EKLY SESSION ...... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIE
January 9, 1989
7:30 p.m.
AGEND__A FOR TH__~ COUNC~
Call to Order -- Roil Call. A~l pa~en~.
The invocation will be delivered by The
E. Taylor, R~ir_~_d~ Present.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of
of America will be led by Mayor Noel
Reverend Fredrick~
the United States
C· Taylor.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Public hearing on the request of The Bank of Shawsville
that a 0.75 acre tract of land located at the southeast
intersection of Peters Creek Road and Lewiston Street,
N. W., designated as Official Tax No. 6421133, be
rezoned from RS-l, Residential Single Family District,
to C-I, Office District, subject to certain proffered
conditions. Mr. Edward A. Natt, Attorney. Adopted
Ordinance No. 29414 on f~t reading. {7-0}
}3. Public hearing on the request of A Shear Experience
that a 0.337 acre tract of land located on the
southerly side of Peters Creek Road, N. W., designated
as Of. ficial Tax No. 6421134, be rezoned from RS-l,
Residential Single Family District, to C-1, Office
District, subjectL to certain proffered conditions. Mr.
Edward A. Natt, Attorney. Adopted Ordinance No. 29415 on
f~t reading. ( 7- 0 )
C. PubIic hearing oM the request of Vel Iey Care
Corporation that a tract of land located on Hemlock
Road, N. W., containing 6.76 acres, more or less,
designated as Official Tax No. 6040504, be rezoned from
RS-2, Residential Single Family District, to PM-3,
Residential Multi-Family, High Density District, sub-
ject to certain proffered conditions. Mr. John Fulton,
Spokesman. Adopted Ordinance No. 29416 on f~t ~eading. (7-0)
The mat~ of speeding on Hemlock Road, N. W., wm~ refe~ed to the
City Manager for investigation and report to Counc~.
CONSENT AGENDA
{Approved 7-0 )
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED
TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
MOTION IN THE FORM LISTED BELOW· THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DIS-
CUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL
BE REI~OVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
(I)
C-I
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-$
A report of the Director of Finance transmitting the City of
Roanoke's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and the
Component Unit Financial Report for the City of Roanoke Pensio~
Plan, for the year ended June 30, 1988.
RECOmmENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
A co~unication from Mr. Thomas F. Brady tendering his
resignation as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership
Steering Committee, effective December 31, 1988.
RECOMmeNDED ACTION:
Receive and file communication and accept
resignation with regret.
Qualification of Messrs. William A. Sowers, ~fichaeI ~.
WaldvogeI and Richard L. Jones as members of the City Planning
Cor~ission for terms of four years each, ending December 31,
1992.
RECOMmeNDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Qualification of Mr.
Advisory Board of Human
30, 1991.
William L. Lee as a member of the
Resources for a term ending November
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Qualification of
Economic Development
ending June 30, 1991.
Air. William F. Hawkins as a member of the
Co~mission for a term of three years,
RECO^tMENDED ACTION: Receive and file·
REGUL~J~ AGENDA
Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters:
a. Recluest of the Coalition for a Council Ordinance Banning
Discrimination in Large Private Clubs to address Council with
regard to enactment of a measure banning discrimination in
large private clubs. Mr. Gary Waldo, Spokesman· Counc~ we~
on record as amending the 1989 Legdslative Program and requested that the
Petitions and Cammunications: None· City's represe~a~ive to the
General Assembly seek state leg~lation to pro~ib~
Reports of Officers: d~crimination, on a state wide ba~, in la~ge
pri~ate clubs based on sex, n~tional o~gin,
a. City ~anager: religion and race. Coun~ furth~ requested that
the Genial Assembly make a d~rmination as to
Briefings: None. what constitutes a private club in the Commonwealth
of Virginia.
Items Recommended for Action:
(2)
1. A report concurring in a report of the Bid Committee
recorr~lending acceptance of the bid submitted by Kovatch
Mobile Equipment for one new 1,500 GPM Pumping Engine
with operational equipment, in the total amount of
$172.107.00; and appropriation of funds therefor. Adepted
Ordinance Nos. 29417 and 29418. (7-0)
2. A report concurring in a report of the Bid Committee
..court. ending acceptance of bids for certain construc-
tion equipment, as submitted by Baker Brothers, Inc.,
in the tots1 amount of $63,575.00; Keith Welding, in
the total amount of $16,500.00; and McIlhany Equipment
Company, Inc.. in the total amount of $10.$78.00; and
appropriation of funds therefor. Adopted 0rdinanc~ No.
29~19 and 29420. (7-0)
3. A report concurring in a report of the Bid Committee
..corral. riding acceptance of bids to purchase trucks and
.elated equipment; and appropriation of funds therefor·
Adopted Ordinance Nos, 2942] and 29422. {6-0, Mr. Bowe~ abstai~ng.)
4. A report concur, lng in a report of the Bid Comities
.econo, ending acceptance of bids to purchase police and
~ire vehicles; and approp.iation of funds therefor·
dopted Ordinance Nos. 29423 and 29424. {6-0, Mr. Bcw~ abst~i~ng.)
Repo.,~S ~ Co.~.i_l~t.~e._~s: None.
U~inish~ ~!ne~.._s_._s: None_~.
Int.oduction and Consideration
of Ordinances and Resolutions:
a. Ordinance No. 29412. on second reading, providing for the
vacation of an unused public water and sewer easement at
the Century Business Center. upon certain ts.ms and con-
ditions· -Adopted Ordinance No. 29412.
b. Ordinance No. 29413,:. on second reading, authorizing the
lease of the Fishburn Park Caretaker's House, upon certain
terms and conditions. Adopted Ordinance No. 29413.
Motions and Miscellaneous Business:
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City
Council.
be
Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and
committees appointed b~ Council.
Other Hearings of Citizens:
(3)
Jaauary 9, 1989
'89 jg ;-5 P?:18
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Joel M. Schlanger
Annual Financial Reports
I am pleased to provide you a copy of the City of
Roanoke's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended
June 30, 1988, and the Component Unit Financial Report for the
City of Roanoke Pension Plan for the year ended June 30, 1988.
I recommend that these reports be received and filed.
JMS:dp
Office of the C~ Clerk
January 13, 1989
File ~488
Mr. Thomas F. Brady
2419 Lincoln Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Dear ~r. Brady:
Your communication tendering your resignation as a member of the
Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee, was before
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, January 9, 1989.
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously adopted, the com-
munication was received and filed and the resignation was
accepted with regret.
The Council requested that I express its sincere appreciation for
the many services you have rendered to the City of Roanoke as a
member of the Corr~ittee. Please find enclosed a Certificate of
Appreciation issued by the Mayor on behalf of the Members of City
Council.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
EnCo
pc:
Mr. William J. Rand, III, Chairman, Roanoke Neighborhood
Partnership Steering Committee, 3571 Mudlick Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ms. Barbara V. Dowdy, Acting Neighborhood Partnership
Coordinator
Room456 MunicipalBuilding 215 Church Avenue SW Roanoke Virg~nia24~11 (703) c~81-2541
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, SW
Roanoke, VA 24011
ueeember 30, 1988
· ~ '~0'~0
Subject: Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership
Dear Mayor and Members of City Council:
I am regretfully resigning as a committee member on the Roanoke
Neighborhood Partnership. The effective date is December 31, 1988.
I have taken a position with the engineering and architectural firm of
RS&H of North Carolina in Greensboro. Pam, Garrett, Madison and I will miss
Roanoke and the closeness of many friends we have here but feel that it is
time to "go back home".
I will always cherish the ideals and accomplishments of the Roanoke
Neighborhood Partnership. I really enjoyed participating in the life of the
partnership from the beginning and seeing it from the perspective of city
administration, citizen and business person. I know your support and active
participation will continue.
The "Key to the City of Roanoke" I received when I left the city's
employment will always be dear to me and prominantly displayed. I am very
proud of the City of Roanoke and the many efficiencies implemented and
projects built, while I was there.
J. M. Turner and Company has a very good Project Manager, Stephen Doyle,
who has taken over the Airport Terminal from me. My moving should not have a
negative impact on the completion schedule. I look forward to coming back
for the dedication.
You have a knowledgeable and dedicated administration and group of
employees. I wish you well as you tackle the many issues existing today and
that will arise in the tomorrows. Again, thank you for allowing me to be a
part of Roanoke over the last 16 years.
With best regards,
Thomas F. Brady
TFB/gs
cc: Mr. Herbert, City Manager
C~ce c~ ~e ¢i~ ~er~
January 13, 1989
File #15-200
Mr. Michael M. ~aldvogel, Chairman
City Planning Co~rnission
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Waldvogel:
This is to advise you that Messrs. ~illiam A. Sowers and Richard
L. Jones have qualified as members of the City Planning
Cor,~ission for terms of four years each, ending December 31,
1992.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
pc: Mr. John R. Marlles, Secretary/Agent City Planning Corr~ission
I~ ~,5~ /vtuntci~)al [k~ildinc3 '2'1 § G'~urCn A%~, 5~V ~(~1"%c~, Virg'n~ 2,~,0'I '~ (70~) 98'1-25~'1
0-2
Oath or Af ir a_ tie . f Office
Stat~ ot Virginia, Cirri ot Roanoke, to .~vit:
I, William A. Sowers . do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that
I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as
a member of the Roanoke City Vlannin~ Conmis~'ion for a tern, of four ,years, endinr,
December 31, 1992.
/
Subscribed and sworn to before ,ne, this ~-~'~"'-- ~-~-~.~-~= .. ~'~
~c~ ~.~ puty Clerk
0-2
Oath or Affirmation of Office
8tat~ oJ Virginia, Cit~t oJ Roanoke, to .~vlt:
I, Michael !~. '~4aldvo~el
~ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that
will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as
a ~ember of ~he ;~noke City Plannin~j. : ~ t(~ of fo:ur yea~
Dec~ber ~1. 1~92.
according to the best of my ability. So help me God. "'~ ' ~
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this __day of
0-2
Oath or Affirmation Office
State o] Virginia, Cii~ o] Roanoke, to .~vi~:
I, ,qichard L. Jones
'89
,.1~¥! -~ ifil :! ,i
., do solemnly swear (or p~ttrm) that
I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that
I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as
a r.~ember of the .%an~)ke City ?]anning Con,hiss'ion for a ter~i of :our years, ending
December ,31, !992.
according to the best of my ability. So help me God.
Subs~cribed and sworn to before me, this
day of
_ ./~¢~/ ~ ~ g ~ , Depnty Clerk
Januar~ 13, 1989
File #15-72
The Reverend Frank W. Feather, Chairman
Advisory Board of Human Resources
P. 0. Box 6275
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Reverend Feather:
This is to advise you that William L. Lee has qualified as a
member of the Advisory Board of Hw'nan Resources for a term ending
November 30, 1991.
Sincerely,
Wary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
pc: Mr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Room 456 Municil:x:ll Builciin~ 215 Church Avenue SW R~anoi~ ~rc.:j~nia 24011 (703) 98t-25~I
0-2
Oath or Affirmation of Office
8tat, e o] Vi~'l;inia, ~it~t o! Roanoke,
I, William L. Lee
· do solemnly swear (or afl~rm) that
I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that
! will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me aa
a member of the Advisory Board of Human Resources for a term ending
November 30, 1991,
according to the best of my ability. So help me God.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this. -~(~ day of -~-c~t~ v_./~k
. /~v~ ~A~-~
/
· Deputy Clerk
C~ce ottheCi~yCler~
November 18, 1988
File #15-72
The Reverend William L. Lee
4139 Appleton Avenue, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear ~fr. Lee:
This is to remind you that you have not qualified as a member of
the Advisory Board of Human Resources to which you were elected
on April 25, 1988, for a term ending November 30, 1991.
~nc~osed you will find an Oath of Office which may be adminis-
tered by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke,
located on the third floor of the Roanoke City Courts FaciIity,
315 Church Avenue, S. W.
It will be appreciated if you will qualify for this position by
Friday, November 25, 1988, and return the Oath of Office to Room
456 in the Municipa! Building.
Sincerely,
Wary F. Parker, C~C
City Clerk
MFP:se
Enc.
cc:
The Reverend Frank W. Feather, Chairman, Advisory Board
of ~uman Resources, P. 0. ~ox 6275, Roanoke, Virginia 24017
~lr. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 C~urch Avenue SW Bx~noke V~rglnia 24011 (703) 981-2541
Office of t'ne Ci~ Clerk
April 27, 1988
File #72-15
The Reverend William L. Lee
4139 Appleton Avenue, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Dear Reverend Lee:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held
on Monday, April 25, 1988, you were elected as a member of the
Advisory Board of Human Resources for a term ending NovemDer 30,
1991.
Enclosed you will find a certificate of your election and an Oath
or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the Clerk
of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, located on the third
floor of the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue,
So Wo
Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the
Municipal Building prior to servin9' in the capacity to which you
were elected.
Sincere
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc:
The Reverend Frank W. Feather, Vice Chairman, Advisory Board
of Human Resources, P. 0. Box 6275, Roanoke, Virginia 24017
~r. James D. Ritchie, Director of Human Resources
Room456 Munlci~l~uildlng 215(~ur~hA¥~'~ue, S.W. Roanoke, VIrg~nta24~11 (703)981-2541
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
C I TY OF ROANOKE )
I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the
Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof,
do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on
the 25th day of April, 1988, WILLIAM L. LEE was elected as a
member of the Advisory Board of Human Resources for a term
ending November 30, 1991.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this
2?th day of April, 1988.
City Clerk
CY~flce of the City Clen~
January 13, 1989
File #15-450
Iff. James O. Trout, Chairman
Economic Development Comynission
2102 Stephenson Avenue, $. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Hr. Trout:
This is to .advise you that Mr. William F. Hawkins
as a member of the Economic Development Corrrnission
three years, ending June 30, 1991.
Sincerely,
has qualified
for a term of
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Cleek
MFP:
pc: Mr. Brian J. Wishneff, Chief of Economic Development
Room 456 Muni¢il:~al BuilOin~ 215 C~ur'¢~ Avenu,~ SW Roanoke ~rg~nia 24~t I (703) 981-254.1
0-2
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Sta~e o] Virginia, Cit~/ o] RoanOke, to.u~t:
I, .. ~?il!iam F. Hawkins
, do solemnly swear (or ~rm) ~at
I w~l sup~rt the Constitution of the United S~tes, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that
I w~l faithfully and impa~ially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me a~
a member of ~he Economic Development Co~Szion for a te~ of three
years ending J~e 30, 1991,
according to the best of my ability. So help me God.
--C~Deputy Clerk
C~¢e o~ ~e Ci~ Cle~
November 18, 1988
FiIe #15-450
~{~. William F. Hawkins
2611 Cornwallis Avenue, S.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Hawkins:
This is to remind you that you have not qualified as a member of
the Economic Development Corr~ission to which you were reelected
on June 20, 1988, for a term of three years ending June 30, 1991.
~nctosed you will find an Oath of Office which may be adminis-
tered by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke,
located on the third fIoor of the Roanoke City Courts Facility,
315 Church Avenue, S. ~.
It wi~! be appreciated if you will q;lalify for this position by
Friday, November 25, 1988, and return the Oath of Office to Room
456 in the Municipal Building.
.Sincerely,
~4ary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
cc: Mr. James O. Trout, Chairman, Economic Development
Commission
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 C~urch Avenue SW Rc,~noke ~rg~nia 240tt (703) 981-2541
Off~ce of the City C. Jerk
June 29, 1988
File #450
i4r. William F. Hawkins
2611 Cornwallis Avenue, S.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Ee
Dear ,~ir. Hawkins:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held
on Monday, June 20, 1988, you were reelected as a member of the
Economic Development Commission for a term of three years ending
June 30, 1991.
Enclosed you will find a certificate of your reelection and an
Oath or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, located on the
third floor of the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church
Avenue, S. W.
Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the
Municipal Building prior to serving in the capacity to which you
were reelected.
Sincerely,~%. ~ ~'
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP: ra
Enc.
pc: Mr.
James O. Trout, Chairman,
Economic Development Corr~nission
Room 456 - Municipal Building 2t5 Church Avenue, S.W. Roonoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 98t-2541
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the
Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof,
do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on
the 20th day of June, 1988, WILLIAM F. HAWKINS was reelected as
a Member of the Economic Development
three years, ending June 30, 1991.
Given under my hand and the seal
29th day of June, 1988.
Commission for a term of
of the City of Roanoke this
City Clerk
Roanoke Education Association, l~n~.
Virginia Educ~t/on Assoda~itm ~ ! ) Y
December 13, 1988
P O Box 19219
Roanoke VA 24019
Ms. Mary Parker, City Clerk
Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, Room 456
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 City Council agenda for its meeting of January 9
at 7:30 p.m. in the Municipal Building. You might want to list our group
as the Coalition For a Council Ordinance Banning Discrimination in Large
Private Clubs on the agenda or under the section called Hearing Of Citizens.
I am enclosing the following as background materials for distribution to
Council members prior to January 9:
1) U. S. Supreme Court. Decision of June 20, 1988 titled "New York
State Club Assn., Inc. v. City of New York et al." upholding a
City of New York ordinance banning discrimination in large private
clubs.
2) The complete text of the New York City ordinance.
Should there be any problem with our making a presentation before City
Council on January 9, please let me know prior to January 9 by calling
my office at 362-1245.
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Sincerely,
Gary Waldo
Executive Director
Roanoke Education Association
GW:jlg
Enclosures
~ ~ v-/:~t,o~/,~ co., lm u. s. SiL SS?. '
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN., INC. v. CITY OF
NEW YORK ET AL.
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
No. 86-1836.-r Argued February 23, 1988--Decided June 20, 1988
New York City's Human Rights Law (Law) forbids discrimination based
on race, creed, sex, and other grounds by any 'place of public accommo-
dation, resort or amusement," but specifically exempts "any institution,
club or place of accommodation which is in its nature distinctly private.'
However, a 1984 amendment (Local Law 63) provides that any qnstitu-
tion, dub or place of acconuncdation," other O,an a benevolent order or a
religious corporation, "shall not be considered in its nature distinctly pri-
vate' ff it ~nus mor~ than four hundred members, provides regular meal
service and regularly receives payment.., directly or indirectly from or
on behalf of nunmembers for the furtherunce of trade or business.- Ira-
mediately after Loenl Law 63 became effective, appellant usociation
filed a state-court suit against the city and some of its officials, seeking,
inter a//a, a declaration that the Law is unconstitutional on its face under
the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The trial ceurt entered a judg-
meat upholding the Law, and the intermediate state appellate court and
the Court of Appeals of New York affirmed.
Held:
1. Appellant, a nonprofit association consisting of a consortium of 125
other private New York clubs and associations, has standing to challenge
Local Law 63's constitutionality in this Court on behalf of its members,
since those members 'would otherwise have standing to sue in their own
right,' under ltunt v. Wo. shin~on Apple Advertin'n~ Corem'n, 432
U. $. 333, 343. Appellees' contention that appellant's member assecin-
tions must have standing to sue only on behalf of themseives, and not on
behalf of their own mernb~rs, misreads Runt, Which simply r~luires that
members have standing to bring the same suit. Hers, appellant's mem-
bet associations would have standing to bring this same challenge to
Local Law 63 on behalf of their own individual members, since those in-
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CITY
.-~
Syllabus
div/dunis '~re suffering immedinte or th~atened injury" to their assoeia-
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CITY III
SylLabus
show them to be identical to the p~ivate clubs covered by the Law in the
crit/otl respect of whether bu.qiness nct/v/ty is prevalent ~nong them.
Pp. 13-15.
69 N. Y. 2d 211, 505 N. E. 2d 915, n/Tu-med.
Wm,'r, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court with respect to
Parts I, II, and III, and an opinion of the Court with respect to Part IV, in
which Rgm~qvts'r, C. J., and BagNiO, M~SP,.~A., BL~C~C~Ut~, ST£-
v~s, O'CONNOR, and KI~N~O¥, JJ., joined. O'Co~o~, J., filed a con-
curt'lng opin/on, in which KENNEDY, JJ., joined. Sc,tt~, J., filed an opin-
ion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
~-I~--OPINION
2 NEW YORK STATE CLUB A~SN. v. NEW YORK CITY
in the Law to cover such various places ss hotels, restau-
rants, retail stores, hospit~l~, laundries, theatres, park~,
public conveyances, and public hnlls, in addition to numerous
other places th,st are specifically listed. N.Y.C. Admin.
Code §8-102(9) (1986). Yet the Law also exempted from its
coverage various public educational facilities and "any insti-
tution, club or place of accommodation which proves that it is
in its nature distinctly private." Ibid. The city adopted
this Law soon after the Federal Government adopted civil
rights legislation to bar discrimination in places of public ac-
commodation, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II, 78 Stat. 243,
42 U. S. C. §.2000a(e).
In 1984, NewtYork City amended its Human Rights Law.
The basic purpose of the amendment is to prohibit dis-
crimination in certain private clubs that are determined to be
s,,ffioJently ~publlc" in nature that they do not fit properly
within the exemption for "any institution, club or place of ac-
commodation which is in its nature distinctly private." As
the City Council stated at greater length:
"It is hereby found and declared that the city of New
York h~_, a compelling interest in providing its citizens
an environment where all persons, regardless of race,
creed, color, national origin or sex, have a fair and equal
opportunity to participate in the business and profes-
sional life of the city, and may be unfettered in availing
themselves of employment opportunities. Although
city, state and federal laws have been enacted to elimi-
nato discrimination in employment, women and minority
group members have not attained equal opportunity in
business and the professions. One barrier to the ad-
vancement of women and minorities in the business and
professional life of the city is the discriminatory practices
of certain membership org~ni-~tions whers business
against "indi~duals bee%se of their actual or perceived sexual orienta-
tion,'' ~ 8-10~.1.
86-1836--OPINION
NEW YOBK STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CITY 3
deals ~e often made and personal contacts valuable for
business purposes, employment and professional ad-
vancement are formed. While such organizations may
avowedly be orgs.uized for social, cultural, civic or educa-
tion~ purposes, and while many perform valuable serv-
ices to the community, the commercial nature of some of
the activities occurring therein and the prejudicial ira-
pact of these activities on business, professiousl and em-
ployment opportunities of minorities and women cannot
be ignored." Local Law No. 63 of 1984, § 1, App. 14-15.
For these reas. ons, the City Council found that ~the public in-
terest in equal ppportunitf' outweighs ~the interest in pri-
rate associatiod asserted by club members." /b/cl. It cau-
tioned, however, that it did not purpose '°m interfere in club
activities or subject club operations to scrutiny beyond what
is necessary in good faith to enforce the human rights law,"
and the amendments were not intended as an attempt ~co dic-
tate the manner in which certain private clubs conduct their
activities or select their members, except insofar as is neces-
sary to ensure that clubs do not automatically exclude per-
sons f~om consideration for membership or enjoyment of club
accommodations and facilities and the advantages and privi-
leges of membership, on acceunt of invidious discrimination."
Ib{d.
The specific change wrought by the amendment is to ex-
tend the antidiserimination provisions of the Human Eights
Law to any 'institution, club or place of aeesmmodation
[that] has more than four hundred members, provides regn-
lar meal service and r~gninrly receives Imyment for dues,
fees, use of space, facilities, services, meals or beverages di-
rectly or indirectly from or on behalf of nonmembers for the
ftlrtherunce of trade or business.' lq. Y. C. Admin. Code
§8~.102(9) (1986). Any such club 'sh,I1 not be considered in
.. its nature distinctly private." ~ Nonethalen, the city..' . .' .
also stated that any such club 'shaLl be deemed to be in its
nature distinctly private" if it is '& corporation incorporated
86-1836--OPINION
4 NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CITY
under the benevolent orders law or described in the benevo-
lent orders law but formed under any other law of this state,
or a religious corporation incorporated under the education
law or the religious corporations law." lb/cl. The City
Council explained that it drafted the amendment in this way
so az to meet the specific problem confronting women and mi-
norities in the city's business and professional world: "Be-
cause small clubs, benevolent orders and religious corpora-
tions have not been identified in testimony before the Council
az places where business activity is prevalent, the Council
has determined not to apply the requirements of this local
law to such organizations." Local Law No. 63, § 1, App. 15.
Immediately.after the 1984 Law became effective, the New
York State Club' Association filed suit against the city and
some of its officers in state court, seeldng a declaration that
the Law is invalid on various state grounds and is unconstitu-
tional on its face under the First and Fourteenth Amend-
ments and requesting that defendants be enjoined from
enforcing it. On cross-mot/ons for summary judgment, the
trial court upheld the Law against all challenges, including
the federal constitutional challenges. The intermediate
state appellate court ~l'6rrned this judgment on appeal; one
judge dissented, however, concluding that the exemption for
benevolent orders violates the Equal Protection Clause
cause it fAih to accord equal protection to simlh~ly situated
persons. N~v Yo,'k State Club Assn., Inc. v. City o/New
York, 118 App. Div. Ecl 392, 505 N. Y. S. 2d 152 (1986).
The State Club Association appealed this decision to the
New York Court of Appeals, which affirmed in a unanimous
opinior~ New York State Club Assn., Inc. v. Cit~t of New
York, 69 N. Y. 2d 211, ~05 N. E. 2d 916 (1987). The court
rejected the First Amendment challenge to Local Law 63, re.
lying heavily on the decisions in Robes v. United States
Ya~¢~, 468 U. S. 609.(1S~4), and BoantofDi,,~o~ o. fRo-
ta'4t Int'l v. Rotar~ Club, 481 U.S. . (1637). · It ruled
that any infringement on assoc~tiomd rights is amply justi-
SUPREME COURT OF THE, UNITED STATES
No. 86-1836
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSOCIATION, INC.,
APPELLA.N~r v. CITY OF NEW YORK ET AL.
ON APPEAL FROM ~q]g COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW YORK
[June 20, 1988]
JusTtcr WHrrg delivered the opinion of the Court.
New York City has adopted a local law that forbids dis-
erimin,ation by certain private clubs. The New York Court
of Appeals rejected a facial challenge to this law based on the
First and Fourteenth Amendments. We sit in review of
that judgment.
In 1965, New York City adopted a Human Rights Law that
prohibits diserim/nation by any ~place of public aecommoda.
tion, resort or amusement.'~ This term is defined broadly
'Tl~e ~lum.,~ Rights Law (Local law No. 97 of 1966) m~kee it ~en un-
t-wad discriminatory practice for any pe~on, being the owner, lessee,
prietor, managor, anperint~ndent, ~g~nt or employee of any place or'public
~eommoclation, resort or amusement, because of the rece, creed, color,
national or/gin or sex of any person directly or indirectly, to re~, with-
hold from or deny to aneh person any of the ~'eommoclationa, advantages,
faeflitie~ or pri~ilege~ thereof, or, directly or indirectly, to publish, eircu-
into, iseue, display, pc~t or m~a any writton or printed eommunicetion,
tiee or advertisement, to the effect that any or'the ~eeommodationa, adven. ·
to~e~, f~/litiee and pririlegee of any ~uch pisce shall be tofutti, withheld
~o.m or denied to an)- pereon on ~:~mt of race, ert~l, color, national ori-
a'm or sex or that the petronage or c~atom thereat of an)- pereon belonging
to or purporting to be of any purtk'ni~r race, creed, color, n~tien~ origin,
or sex is enwelceme, objectionable or not seceptable, desired or solie~tod.'
N. Y. C. Admin. Cnde §8-1ff7 (2) (1~86). T~e c/fy ires also extended the
Law's ceverage to ~tion against 'an other~qee qualified per, on
who is physically or mentally handicepped,' ! 8-108, and to diser/mination
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. v, NEW YORK CITY
show them to be identical to the p~ivate elub~ coverlet by the Law in the
critiofl reapect of whether bu.q/ness activity is prevalent among them.
Pp. 13-15.
69N. Y. 2d 211, 505 N. E. 2d 915, a.ffn-med.
WroTE, J., delivered the opinion for a unm~irnous Court with respect to
parts I, II, and III, and an opinion of the Court with respect to part IV, in
which REHNqUI~", C. J., and BRENN,~J~, MAI~HALL, BI~CF, MUN, ST£-
V~NS, O'Com~os, and KENNEDY, JJ., joined. O'Com~os, J., filed a eon-
cutting opinion, in which KENCO:DY, JJ., joined. Sc~.t~x, J., filed an opin-
ion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
86-183~--OPINION
2 NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CITY
in the Law to cover such various places ~s hotels, restau-
rants, fetal stores, hospitals, biundries, theatres, parks,
public conveyances, and public halls, in addition to numerous
other places that are specifically listod. N.Y.C. Admin.
Code §8-102(9) (1986). Yet the Law also exempted from its
coverage various public educational f~flities and "any insti-
tution, club or place of accommodation which proves that it is
in its nature distinctly private." lb{cl. The city adopted
this Law soon after the Federal Government adopted civil
rights legislation to bar discrimination in places of public ac-
commodation, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title II, 78 Stat. 243,
42 U. S. C. §2000a(e).
In 1984, Ne'wtYork City amended its H~ Rights Law.
The basic purDose of the amendment is to prohibit dis-
crirnination in c~ private clubs that are determined to be
sufficiently ~public~ in nature that they do not fit properly
within the exemption for 'any institution, club or place of ac-
commodation which is in ils nature distinctly private." As
the City Council stated at greater length:
wit is hereby found and declm-ed tlmt the city of New
York has a compelling interest in providing its citizens
an envirenment where all persons, regardless of race,
creed, color, national origin or sex, have a fair and equal
opportunity to par~cipate in the business and profes-
sional life of the city, and may be unfettered in availing
themselves of employment opportunities. Although
city, state and federal laws have been enacted to elimi-
nate discrimination in employment, women and minority
group members have not attained equal opportunity in
business and the professions. One barrier to the ad-
vancement of women and minorities in the business and
professional life of the city is the discriminatory practices
of certain membe~hip org-a~i~tions where business
aOinst ~mdividu~ls because of their ~eUml or pe~ivc, d sexual orient~-
tiou," ~ 8-108.1.
86-18B6--OPINION
NEW YOI1K STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CITY 3
deals a~ often made and per~orml contacts valuable for
business purposes, employment and professional ad-
vancement are formed. While such organizations may
avowedly be organized for social, cultural, civic or educa-
tional purposes, and while many perform valuable serv-
ices to the community, the commercial nature of some of
the activities occurring therein and the prejudicial ira-
pact of these activities on business, professional and em-
ployment opportunities of minorities and women c~nnot
be ignored." Local Law No. 63 of 1984, § 1, App. 14-15.
For these repons, the City Council found that "the public in-
terest in equal ppportunitf outweighs "the interest in pri-
vate associatio~i asserted by club members." /b/cl. It cau-
tioned, however, that it did not purpose "to interfere in club
activities or subject club oper~tious to scrutiny beyond what
is necessary in good faith to enforce the human rights law,"
and the amendments were not intended as an attempt "to dic-
tate the manner in which certain private clubs conduct their
activities or select their members, except insofar as is neces-
sery to ensure that clubs do not automatically exclude per-
sons fi-om consideration for membership or enjoyment of club
accommodations and facilities and the advantages and privi-
leges of membership, on account of invidious discrimination."
lb/d.
The specific change wrought by the amendment is to ex-
tend the antidiscrimin~tion provisions of the Human Rights
Law to any ~iustitution, club or place of ~:eommodation
[that] has more tium four hundred members, provides regu-
htr mezl servie~ and regularly r~eives l~ymant for dues,
fees, use of slmee, facilities, services, meals or bevereges di-
reetly or indirectly from or on behalf of nonmembers for the
furtherance of trade or I~,.iness." N.Y.C. Admin. Code
§ 8-102(9) (19~6). Any such club ~phll! not be considered in
.. its 'nature distinctly private.". /b/cl. Nonetheless, the ~ity
also stated timt any such club "slmll be deemed to be in its
nature distinctly private" ff it is ~a corporation inoorporated
86-1836--OPINION
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CIT~' 5
fled by the city's compelling interes{ in eliminating dis-
crimination against women and minorities. In addition, the
Law employs the least restrictive means to achieve its ends
because it interferes with the policies and activities of private
clubs only "co the extent necessary to ensure that they do not
automatically exclude persons from membership or use of the
facilities on account of invidious discrimination." 69 N. Y.
2d, at 223, 505 N. E. 2d, at 921. The court denied relief on
the equal protection claim without discussing it.
The State C. lub Association appealed to this Court. We
noted probable jurisdiction, 484 U.S. (1987), and we
now ~rm the judgment below, upholding Local Law 63
against appella~t's f~i~l attack on its constitutionality.
II
The initial question in this case is whether appellant has
standing to challenge the constitutionality of Local Law 63 in
this Court.z We hold that it does.
*The state trial court found flint appellant has standing to challenge the
validity of the Law, and neither of the other state courts addressed
issue on appeal. Nonetheless, aa independent determination of the ques-
tion of standing is neg~ssm'y in this Court, for the spechl limitations that
Article III of the Constitution impuses on the jurisdiction of the federal '
courts ~re not binding on the otoM courts. See PenM/~ v. San ~*nse, 485
U.S. , -- (1988). The Stat~ are thus left ~ee ns · nuttor of their
own pr~edurel law to detormine whether their courts may inue advisory
opinious or to d~tormine mattors thmt would not mttiofy the more stringont
~qu/rmuent in the federal courts that an acttml 'eme" or 'eontroverff' be
pru~t~l for r~olution. U. -q. Conot., Art. III, ti. Accordingly, this
Court Im d/mnimd eme~ on spl~l frem stats court vben it ·pl~red ttmt
the complaining jmrty Im~ked standing to eontost the law's validity in the
federal eourt~ ~ v. /.;Umm*, 318 U. $. 44 (1943) (/Me
Bmr~A Comity Co~r~ v. W~t Iropi~ia ~z mi. ?az Comm'~d, ~08 U. $.
192 (1~8). And the statement that *Toly exerebinW their jurbdiction,
Court," is pe~pe all the more appli~ble to *etiom brought'in st*to court
for d~iaratory re. lief. Po~ v. Ul/mau, 867 U. S. 49/, 606 (1961) (plurality
opinion).
86-1836--OPINION
6 NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CITY
Appellant is a nonprofit corporation, which essentially con-
sists of a consortium of 125 other private clubs and associa-
tions in the State of New York, rr~qy of which are located in
New York City. In Hunt v. Wa~hi,~ylo~ Apple Adve~i~ir~y
Co'mm'n, 432 U. S. 333, 343 (1977), we held that an associa-
tion has standing to sue on behalf of its members "when (a)
its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their
own right; Co) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to
the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted
nor the relief requested requires the participation of individ-
ual members in the lawsuit." See also Automobile Workers
v. Brock, 477 U. S. 274 (1986). Appellees focus on the first
part of this t~st) they read the requirement that the asso-
dation's members "would otherwise have standing to sue in
their own right" as meaning that appellant's member associa-
tions must have standing to sue only on behalf of themselves,
and not on behalf of anyone else, such as their own individual
members.
This reading of Hunt is incorrect. Under Hunt, an asso~-
ation has standing to sue on behalf of its members when those
members would have standing to bring the same suit. It
does not matter what specific analysis is necessary to deter-
mine that the members could bring the same suit, for the pur-
pose of the first part of the Hunt test is simply to weed out
plaintiffs who try to bring cases, which could not otherwise
be brought, by manufacturing allegations of standing that
lack any real foundation. Here, however, the appellant con-
sortium has standing to sue on behalf of its member associa-
tions as long as those assoeiatious would have standing to
br/ng the same ch,dlenge to lxeal Law 63.' In this regard,
' Appellees' &ri~nent to the eontrtr~, bemd on · footnote in the Rot~
opinion, is unsv~lhg. The footnote states tht Rotm-/International, 'on
usoehtion of thounnds o/'loesl Rot. try Clubs, esn claim no eoaotitutionslly
prot~et~ richt of private ~oei~tion." B~./o/D~rect~ o/.qota~
v. P.~z~ Ctu6, 481 U.S. , , n. 4 (196~). But there the hrrer
~tion ~ brought suit in its own rigilt a~zi~t~t orm of its member
86-1836--OPINION
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CITY
it is sufficient to note that appellant's member associations
would have st~xnding to bring this same suit on behalf of their
own individual members, since those indivich,~l~ "are suf-
fering immediate or threatened injury~ to their associational
rights as a result of the Law's enactment. WatCh v. Seldi~,
422 U. S. 490, 511 (1975); see App. 10, 32, 34-35, 38.' Thus
the case is properly before us.
III
New York City's Human Rights Law authorizes the city's
Human Rights Commission or any sggzieved individual to
initiate a complaint ag~nst any "place of public accommo-
dation, resor~ or arausement~ tl~t is ~lleged to have dis-
crimixmted in v~olation of the Law. N.Y.C. Admin. Code
§$-109(1) (1986). The Commission investigates the com-
plaint and determines whether probable cause exists to find a
violation. When probable cause is found, the Commission
may settle the matter by conciliatory measures, if possible; if
the matter is not settled, the Commission schedules a hearing
in which the defending party may present evidence and an-
swer the charges against it. After the hearing is concluded,
clubs, and w~ not suing o~ beka~f of any of its members, so the l~ssage is
inapposite t~ the situation here.
· I~ light of the foregoing m~lysis, it is not necessm'y to consider also
whether appellant consort/u~n would have standing to sue directly on be-
~ of its memhar ssooeiations becmme thnse associations themselves ~re
tion, though appellee~ do ~t contest ~ithee of the other two ~ of the
Hun/test, thnse requirements elnsrly are met in this runs. Here tha asso-
'to promote the eommon b~ interests of its [member elube].' App.
~. Mo~over, a~pelhnt's fse~l eh~ to the Law ~ ~ ~ the
/~e ¢o~m's, 4~2 U. S. ~3~, ~44 (19TD. S~e also A~omeb/le Wo~ke~ v.
Brock, 47/U. ~ ~/4, ~S'/-~S8 (1~).
8
86-18~6--OPINION
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. u NEW YORK CITY
the Commission states its findings of fact and either dis-
misses the complaint or issues a cosse-and-desist order.
§ 8-109(2). Any person aggrieved by an order of the Com-
mission is entitled to seek judicial review of the order, and
the Commission may seek enforcement of its orders in judi-
~,1 proceedings. §8-110.
None of these procedures has come into play in this case,
however, for appellant brought this suit challenging the con-
stitutlonAlity of the statute on its face before any enforce-
ment proceedings were initiated against any of its member
sssoeiatlons. Atthough such fsei~! challenges are sometimes
permissible and often have been entertained, sspeoi~!ly when
speech protected.ky the Firet'Amendment is at stake, to pre-
vail on a ~ attack the plaintiff must demonstrate that the
challenged law either ~could never be applied in a valid man-
net" or that even though it may be validly applied to the
plaintiff and others, it nevertheless is so bread that it "may
inhibit the constitutionally protected speech of third parties."
City Council v. Ta.~pa?/ers for Vincent, 466 U. S. 789, 798
(1984). Properly understood, the latter kind of facial chal-
lenge is an exception to ordinary standing requirements, and
is justified only by the recognition that free expression may
be inhibited almost ss easily by the potential or threatened
use of power ss by the actual exercise of that power.
Thmmh//l v. A/abama, 310 U. S. 88, 97-98 (1940). Both ex-
ceptlons, however, axe narrow ones: the first kind of fiwi~l
challenge wfll not succeed unless the court finds that "every
appliostlon of the statute created an impermi~ible risk of
suppr~__~_'on of ideas," ~'azpa~/ers for Vincent, ~upm, at 798,
n. 15, and the second kind of facial challenge will not succeed
unless the statute is ~subetantially" overbroad, which re-
qui~s the court to find "a realistic danger that the statute
itself will significantly compromise r~ognised First Amend-
ment protections of p~rties not before the Court.". 466
U. S., at 801.
8~-I836--OPINION
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CITY 9
We are unpersuaded that appellant is entitled to make
either one of these two distinct facial challenges. Appellant
conceded at oral argument, understandably we think, that
the antidis~imination provisions of the Law certainly could
be constitutionally applied at least to some of the large clubs,
under this Court's decisions in Rota~ and Roberts. Tr.
Oral Arg. 11-12. The clubs that are covered under the Law
contain at least 400 members. They thus are comparable in
size to the local chapters of the Jaycees that we found not to
be protected private azsocl~tions in Robe~, and they are
considerably larger than many of the local clubs that were
found to be unprotected in Rotan-y, some which included as
few es 20 member. See Robe~, 468 U. S., at 621; Rotan'y,
4~1 U. S., at . Cf. V~llage of Belle To're v. Boraaz, 416
U. S. I, 7-8 (1974). The clubs covered by Local Law 63 als~-
provide ~reg11!~ meal service" and receive regular payments
"directly or indirectly from or on behalf of nonmembers for
the furtherance of trade or business." N.Y.C. Admin.
Code §8-102(9) (1986). The city found these two charac-
teristics to be significant in pinpointing organizations which
are "commerdal" in nature, "where business deals are often
made and personal contacts valuable for business purposes,
employment and professional advancement are formed."
Local Law 63, § 1, App. 15.
These clmrscteristics are at least az significant in defining
the nonprivate naturo of these azsocl~tions, because of the
kind of role tl~t s~ play in their ordinary exhtenee, es
is the ~11m' p~J"ticlp~tiOfl of strangers at meetings, which
we emphuized in Roberts and P, otarit. See Roberts,
at 621; Rotaq~, ~upra, at . It may well be that a consid-
erable mount of private or intinmte essoclation occurs in
such a aztting, es is ~ true in many rastaursnts and other
places of public accommodation, but timt fact alone does not
· fford the .entity es a whole any constitutional immunity to
· practice dis~/mination when the Government has barred it
f~om doing so. H/short v. King & Spalding, 467 U. S. 69, 78
86-1836--OPINION
10 NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CITY
(1984). Although there may be clubs that would be entitled
]to constitutional protection despite the presence of these
t characteristics, surely it cannot be said that Local Law 63 is
~invalid on its face because it infringes the private associa-
tional rights of each and every club covered by it.
The same may be said about the contention that the Law
infringes upon every club member's right of expressive asso-
ciation. The ability and the opportunity to combine with
others to advance one's views is a powerful practical means of
ensuring the perpetuation of the freedoms the First Amend-
ment has guaranteed to individ,,~'-I,~ as against the Govern-
ment. ~Effective advocacy of both public and private points
of view, partichl~rly controversial ones, is undeniably eh-
hanced by groupt association, as this Court has more than
once recognized by remarking upon the close nexus between
the freedoms of speech and assembly." NAACP v. Ala-
barna em tel. Patterson, 357 U. S. 449, 460 (1958). This is
'-not to say, however, that in every setting in which individ-
,~1~ exercise some discrimination in choosing associates,
their selective process of inclusion and exclusion is protected
by the Constitution. Hishofl, rupm, at 78; Norwood v. Har-
'r/son, 413 U. S. 455, 470 (1973); Railwalt Mail Assn. v.
Cots/, 326 U. S. 88, 93-94 (1945).
On its face, Local Law 63 does not affect ~in any significant
way" the ability of individ,mls to form associations that will
advocate public or private viewpoints. Rotan, supra, at
It does not require the clubs ~ abandon or alter" any
activities that ~re protected by the First Amendment. /bid.
If a club seeks to exclude individ,-,l, who do not share the
views that the club's members wish to promote, the Law
erects no obstacle to this end. Instead, the Law merely pre-
vents an association from using race, sex, and the other spec-
ifled chiu-acteristics as shorthand measures in place of what
the city considers to be more legitimate criteria for determin-
ing; membership. It. is conceivable, of course, that .an
association might be able to show that it is organized for'
86-1836 --OPINION
N~W YORK STATE CLUB P~N'. v. lq'EW YORK CITY 11
specific expressive purposes and that it will not be able to ad-
vocate its desired viewpoints nearly as effectively if it cannot
confine its membership to those who share the same sex, for
example, or the same religion. In the eaze before us, how-
ever, it seems sensible enough to believe that many of the
large clubs covered by the Law are not of this kind. We
could hardly hold other~;ze on the record before us, which
contains no specific evidence on the characteristics of any
club covered by the Law.
The facial attack based on the claim that Local Law 6~ is
invalid in all of its applications must therefore fail. Appel-
l~nt insists, however, that there are some clubs within the
reach of the Law'that are "distinctively private" and that the
Law is therefore overbroad and invalid on its face. But as
we lmve indicated, this kind of facial ehallenge also falls
short.
The overbre~dth doctrine is Ustrong medicine" that is used
'sparingly and only as a last resort." B,~x~,~ck v. O/~z-
~m~, 413 U. S. 601, 613 (1973). A law is constitutional' un-
less it is "substantially overbroad." Id., at 615. To succeed
in its challenge, appellant must demonstrate fi'om the text of
the Law and from actual fact that a substantial number of
instances ex~st in which the Law c~nnot be applied constitu-
tionally. Yet appellant has not identified those clubs for
whom the antidiscrimim~tion provisions will iml~ir their abil-
ity to aasocl~to together or to advocate public or private
viewpoints. No record was made in this respect, we are not
informed of the characteristics of any parti~,l.- dubs, and
hence we cannot conclude that the Law threatens to under-
mine the associational or expressive purposes of any club, let
·lone a substantial number of them. We therefore cannot
conclude that the Law is sub~tan~lly overbroad and must
assume that 'whatever overbre-dth may exist should, be
86-1836--OPINION
i2 NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CITY
which its ~ancfions, a~ertedly, may not be applied." Id., at
615-616.'
Appellant claimz, however, that the Law erects an %
buttable" presumption that the clubs covered under it are not
private in nature, and contench that its member associations
will not be permitted to ra~e the constitutionality of the Law
in individual admin/strative and judicial proceedings. Cf.
Rotan, 481 U. S., at , n. 6. Even if this were a correct
interpretation of what the Law says--and the dec/zions
below at least suggest the contrary view'--it does not affect
our analysis. Although the city's Human Rights Commis-
sion may not be empowered to .consider the const/tutionality
of the statut~ under which it operates, under accepted legal
principles it w~uid be quite unusual if the Commission "could
not construe its own statutory mandate in the light of federal
constitutional principles." Ohio Civil Rightz Comm'n v.
Dayton Ch~iztian Schools, 477 U. $. 619, 629 (1986). And
even if ~ were al~o true, nothing in the Law purports to
preclude judicial review of constitutional ol~i~ that may be
raised on appeal from the administrative enforcement pro-
coedings. N.Y.C. Admin. Cede §8-110 (1986); Dayton
Christian $chool~, ruprtt, at 629. These opportun/ties for
individual associations to contest the constitutionality of the
Law as it may be applied against them are adeqnato to assure
that any overbreadth under the Law will be curable through
c~ze-by-case an~lysia of specite facts.
' la making this c~oe-by~ooe inquiry into the eonstitutioml]ty of Lo~d
Law 6~ as applied to pertieuhr uoochtJons, it is relevant to note that the
C,o~rt h~ reeo~ the State's *compelling interest' in eomb~ in-
vinous ~.ocriminfZton. See, f. ~., ~o~,'~, 481 U. $., ~t
' h its opinion, the Court of Appe~b ougL~Aed that the thr~e criteria
identified in Loc~ Law 63 are not exclusive but ar~ to b eona/der~ in
eoDjun~ ~th other r~lev~nt eh~tics. 69 lq. Y. 2d, at ~ 506
N. E.
AY~wta~t ~/pAb Appda/Bd., 69 lq. Y. $d 401, 4t9-415, 4~ H. E..2d 1199,
1204
86-1836--OPINION .~
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. t'. NEW YORK CITY 13
IV
Appellant also contends that the exemption in Local Law
63 for benevolent and religious corporations, which deems
them to be "distinctly private" in nature, violates the Equal
Protection Clause.' Since, as just discussed, it has not been
demonstrated that the Law affects ~n any significant way"
the fundamental interests of any clubs covered by the Law,
heightened scrutiny does not apply. See Lyn~y v. Automo-
bile Workers, 485 U. S. --, -- (19~8); Rotan'g, supra, at
On this state of the record, the equal protection chal-
lenge must fali unless the city could not reasonably believe
that the exempted orgap{,~tions are ~lltYerent in relevant re-
spects from ~ppellant's members.
As written, the legislative classification on its face is not
manifestly without reasoned support. ,The City Council ex-
plained that it limited the Law's coverage to large clubs and
excluded smaller clubs, benevolent orders, and religious cor-
porations because the latter associations ~tmve not been iden-
tiffed in tes 'tin, any before the Council as places where busi-
ness activity is prevalent." Local Law No. 63, § 1, App. 15.
This explanation echoes the logic of the decision in New York
ez tel. Br~an~ v. Zimra~,,,uzn, 278 U. S. 63 (1928), wMch up-
held a New York law that exempted benevolent orders from
having to file certain documents with the State that must be
filed by most other corporations ~nd associations. See N. Y.
Civ. Rights Law § 53 (McKhmey 1976). The Court rejected
a claim that the statute violated the Equal Protection Clause,
finding on the evidence before it that the legislative distinc-
tion was justified because benevolent orders were judged not
to p~e the stone dangers as other groups that were required
to file the documents. ]~r¥(z~, su~u, at 73-77. In eddi-
~on, New York state law indicates that benevolent orders
and religious corporations ~re unique and thus that a rational
14
86-1836--OPINION
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. v. NEW YORK CITY
basis exists for their exemption here. For well over a cen-
tury, the State has extended special txeatment in the law to
these associations, and each continues to be treated in a sepa-
rate body of legislation. See N. Y. Ben. Ord. Law §§ 1-14
(McKinney 1951 and Supp. 1988); N. Y. Relig. Corp. Law
§§ 1-437 (McKinney 1952 and Supp. 1988). It is plausible
that these associations differ in their practices and purposes
from other private clubs that are now covered under the
Law. As the Appellate Division in this case pointed out, the
benevolent order~ are organized under the relevant law
"'solely for the benefit of [their] membership and their bene-
fl~ies,'' and th.us are not "public" organizations. 118 App.
Div. 2d, at 394, 505~N. Y. S. P.d., at 154, quoting N. Y. Ins.
~. Law § 4501(a) (McKinney 1985). Siwil=dy, religious orga-
I
nizations are U'created for religious purpeses'~' and are "pa-
'"~ tently not engaged in commercial activity for the benefit of
non-members." 118 App. Div. 2d, at 394-395, 505 N. Y. S.
2d, at 154, quoting N. Y. Relig. Corp. Law §2 (McKinney
1952).
Appellant contends, however, that the benevolent and reli-
gious corporations exempted in the Law are in fact no differ-
ent in nature from the other clubs and association that are
now made subject to the dty's antidlacrimhmtion restric-
tious. Because the Equal Protection Clause ~is essentially a
direction that all persons siwil~ly situated should be treated
alike," Cleburne v. Cleburne Livi~uj Center, Inc., 473 U. S.
432, 439 (19~5), appellant contends that the exemption
laths the Clause.
In support of its argument, appellant observes that appel-
lees offered no evidence to support the city's position that
benevolent and religious groups ar~ act-~lly different from
other private associations. Legislative classifications, how-
ever, ~ce presumed to be constitutional, and the burden of
showing a statute to be unconstitutional is on the challenging
psrty, not on. the party defending the statute: 'those chal-
lenging the legislative judgment must convince the court that
86-1836--OPINION
NEW YORK STATE CLUB ASSN. u. NEW YORK CITY 15
the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently
based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the
governmental decisionmaker." Vance v. B~zd/eF, 440 U. S.
93, 111 (1979). In a ease such as this, the plaintiff can carry
this burden by submitting evidence to show that the asserted
grounds for the legislative classification lack any reszonable
support in fact, but this burden is nonetheless a considerable
one. United States v. Camlene Producte Co., 304 U. S. 144,
154 (1938).
The City Council's explanation for exempting benevolent
orders and religious corporations from the Law's coverage
reflects a view that these associations are di~'erent in kind, at
least in the crucial respect of whether business activity is
prevalent amongrthem, from the associations on whose behalf
appellant has brought suit. Appellant has the burden of
showing that this view is erroneous and that the issue is not
truly debatable, a burden that appellant has failed to carry.
There is no evidence in the record to indicate that a detailed
examination of the practices, purposes, and structures of
benevolent orders and religious corporations would show
them to be identical in this and other critical respects to the
private clubs that are covered under the city's antidiscrimina-
tion previsions. Without any such showing, appellant's fa-
cial attack on the Law under the Equ~l Protection Clause
must founder.
We therefore affirm the judgment below.
So ordered.
Munlolp~! Ref~rl~e Ifil!
RECE~¥ED
'1
LOCAL LAWS 31 CH~'?~% street
~ N~_~V Vt.,~K CiTY
OF
THE CITY OF NEW YORK
FOR THE YEAR 1984
No. 63
InmvJuccd hy Iht Prcsidcnl (Ms. Bcllamv) hy tequcs ol the Mayor) and Council Members Horwitz.
Grei[zc~. Katzman. Maloncy. Me,singer. Michcl~ Pinkell. Sadowsky. Samuel. Spigner. Williams and
A LOCAL LAW
To amend the administrative code of the city of New York, in relation to the powers
of the New York City Commission on Human Rights to eliminate discrimination
in clubs that are not distinctly private.
distinctly privatt: -
3. Paragraph
develop the employer's '
or exhibition as a New
rments shall be deemed
3. Paragraph c of subdivision two of section B I-g.O of such chapter and code, as amended by local
law number sixty-two of nineleen hundred ~eventy-three, is amended lo read as follows:
to) If. upton all the evidence at fhe hearing. thc commission, or such members as may be designated.
- . p'ceof ubbcacc
because o! the race, creed, color, national orloin or sex -''p om~lodatlon, resorl or amusement,
e u, any person directly or indirectly, to refuse,
withhold from or deny to such person any of Ibe accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges
thereof, or. directly or indirectly, Io publish, circulate, issue, display, post or mail any written or printed
communication, notice or advertisement, to the effect that any of the accommodations, advantages,
I~cdities and privileges of any such place shall be refused, withheld from or denied to any person on
belonging lo or purporting to be any par~ cular race, creed, c , . .
IClted. Nolwlthslandlng the {oregolng the ptx~visions of this
paragraph shall not apply, with respect lo sex. lo places of public accommodation, resort
where lhe C remission gran s an exemphon based on iX}ha fide COnsideralions of public policy Any place
of accommodation which
or other fhcilities shall be allowed ()nc hundred eigMv days
· . from the elfective date of ibis local
law Io Complete such work, and during such one hundred eighly day period shall not be Iound to be in
may grant extension no[ lo exceed an additional ninety days of the F,,-'ra~ allowed such place of
:,{
To amend the
regulation o!
Be it enacted
Section one.
York. a,,; added by
§ 883b-3.0 P~
for a bus owned, u
lines of Ihe premi>
private driveways.
park a passenger w
the vehicle registr;
evidence showing
in thc ca.~ of lots
addresses~
§ 2. This
THE CiTY OF NEW
I hereby certi
the Council on (X
law (Local Law ~-
Was returned
January 13, 1989
File #70-472
Fire Eouipment Supply Company,
13720 Dabney Road
Woodbridge, Virginia 22191
Gruraan Emergency Products
1723 Seibel Drive, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Pierce Manufacturing, Inc.
2600 American Drive
Appleton, Wisconsin 54911
FMC Corporation
Fire Apparatus Division
P. O. Box 592067
Orlando, Florida 32809
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29418, accepting the bid of
Kovatch Mobile Eouipment for furnishing and delivering to the
City one 1,500 GPM Pumping Engine, in the total amount of
$172,107.00, which Ordinance No. 29418 was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
January 9, 1989.
On behalf of the Members of City Council, I would
appreciation for submitting your bid on the
equipment.
like to express
abovedescribed
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CgtC
City Clerk
MFP: r a
Enc.
456 /,,~nicil:~l Building 215 (~urch A~en~e SW Rc~noe, e. Virginia 2,~01 t (703) ~81-254'1
Cxqgce c~ ?ne Ory Cler~
January 13, 1989
File #70-472
Kovatch Mobile Eouipment
One Industrial Complex
Nesouehoning, Pennsylvania
18240
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29418, accepting your bid
for furnishing and delivering to the City one 1,500 GPM Pumping
Engine, in the total amount of $172,107.00, which Ordinance No.
29418 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, January 9, 1989.
Sincerely, //~/
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Eno.
pc: Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Joel. M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration
Public Safety
Mr. Billy N. Akers, Acting Fire Chief
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
and
Room 456 Municil::~l Building 215 (~urch Avenue SW Roanc~e. ~rg~nio 2401 t (703) 981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 9th day of January, 1989.
No. 29418.
AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of Kovatch Mobile Equipment, made
to the City for furnishing and delivering one (1) 1,500 GPM Pumping
Engine; re3ecting all other bids made to the City; and providing for
an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The bid of Kovatch Mobile Equipment made to the City,
offering to supply one (1) 1,500 GPM Pumping Engine, meeting all of
the City's specifications and requirements therefor, for the total bid
price of $172,107.00, which bid is on file in the Office of the City
Clerk, be and is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby authorized
and directed to issue the requisite purchase order therefor, incor-
porating into said order the City's specifications, the terms of said
bidder's proposal and the terms and provisions of this ordinance.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid
equipment are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to
notify each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation
for such bid.
4. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordi-
nance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
January 13, 1989
File #60-70-472
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29417 amending and reor-
daining certain sections- ~f the 19~8-89 General Fund
Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $172,107.00 from
the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program to Fire
Operations, in connection with award of a contract to Kovatch
Mobile Equipment for one new 1,$00 GPM Pumping Engine with opera-
tional equipment, which Ordinance No. 29417 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, January 9, 1989.
/~..ll_a.~.~j~Sincere ly,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. Billy N. Aka.s, Acting Fire Chief
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Room456 Municil:x~IBullcllng 2150~u~'chAvenueS.W. Roan~e.~rglnlo24011 (700)981-2~1
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 9thday of January, 1989.
No. 29417.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 1988-89 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1988-89 General Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained to read as follows, in part:
APpropriations
Public Safety
Fire Operations
$23,823,380
8,118,154
Fund Balance
Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement
Program - City Unappropriated (2) ................. $ 2,703,610
1) Vehicular Equipment (001-050-3213-9010) $ 172,107
2) CMERP - City (001-3332) (172,107)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing,
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
this
City Clerk.
Roanok~ ~t~i,~
January 9,
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT:
Bids for one (1) 1,500
GPM Pumping Engine,
Bid Number 88-10-38
I concur with the recommendation of the Bid Committee
relative to the above subject and recommend it to you for
appropriate action.
Respectfully Submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
SUBJECT:
Roanoke, Virginia
January 9, 1989
Bids for one (1) 1,500
GPM lha~ping Engine,
Bid Nun%her 88-10-38
I. Background
II.
November 28, 1988 City Council designated
funds in the Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Program to provide for
the purchase of one (1) new 1,500 GPM
Pumping Engine with operational equipment.
Be
Specifications were developed and sent
specifically to eighteen (18) vendors that
are currently listed on the City's bid list.
A public advertisement was also published in
the Roanoke Times and World News on October
23, 1988.
November 21, 1988 - Five bid responses were
received, publicly opened and read by the
Manager of General Services.
Bond Requirements - bid bonds, in the amount
of five percent (5%) of the bid and
performance bonds in the amount of the bid
were specifically identified in the
specifications.
Current Situations
Ail bid responses were evaluated in a
consistent manner by representatives of
following departments:
the
Fire Department
Motor Vehicle Maintenance
General Services
The lowest bid as submitted by Kovatch Mobile
Equipment meets all required specifications.
Bid tabulation is attached.
III. Issue in order of importancm
IV.
A. Need
B. .Compliance with Specifications
C. Fund Availability
Alternatives
Accept the lowest bid meeting sDecification~
for one (1) new 1,500 GPM Pumping Engine
as submitted by Kovatch Mobile Equipment with
operational equipment and bonds for the total
amount of $172,107.00.
Need - This alternative would allow for
the continued necessary fire protection
to the Citizens of the City of Roanoke.
Compliance with Specifications - The bid
submitted by Kovatch Mobile Equipment
meets all required specifications.
Fund availability - Funds are designated
in the Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Program to provide for the
purchase.
B. Reject all Bids
Need - The continued fire protection
would not be accomplished in the most
effective and efficient manner.
Compliance with Specifications would not
be a factor in this alternative.
Fund availability - designated funds
would not be expended.
Recommendation
Council concur with alternative "A" - accept
the lowest bid meeting specifications for one
(1) new 1,500 GPM Pumping Engine with
operational equipment from Kovatch Mobile
Equipment for the total amount including
bonds, of $172,107.00 and reject all other
bids.
CC:
Appropriate $172,107.00 from Capital
Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program
to Fire Department Account 001-050-3213-9010
to provide for this purchase.
Respectfully Submitted,
D. Darwin Roupe
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Q
0
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
January 13, 1989
File #472-183-268
Shelton-Witt Equipment Corp.
P. O. Drawer 828
Salem, Virginia 24153
Mountcastle Ford Tractor Sales
301 - 11th Street, S. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24013
A. E. Finley & Associates of VA
P. O. Box 1093
Salem, Virginia 24153
D & M Precision Steel
5153 Peters Creek Road, N.
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Bemis8 Equipment Corporation
P. O. Box 928
Salem, Virginia 24153
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29420, accepting the bid of
Keith Welding for three new utility trailers, in the total amount
of $16,500.00, which Ordinance No. 29420 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, January 9, 1989.
On behalf of the Members of City Council, I would
appreciation for submitting your ,bid on the
equipment.
like to express
abovedescribed
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
l{FP:ra
Enc.
Room 456 Municil:~l Building 215 Church Avenue SW Roanc~,~e, ~rg,n~ 2~1t (703) 981-2541
Office of the City C]e~
January 13, 1989
File #472-183-268
Keith Welding
24 - 27th Street
Roanoke, Virginia
24017
Ladies and Gentlemsn:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29420, accepting your bid
for three new utility trailers, in the total amount of
$16,500.00, which Ordinance No. 29420 was adoptsd by the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
January 9, 1989.
)e"~ ~ ~.Sincerely' ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP: ra
Enc.
pc: Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Kit Bo Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Services
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. William L. Stuart, Manager, Street Maintenancs
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
456 Munlcil:~l Dolldlng 215 O'~rch A~"~u~, $.W. Roono~e. Virc~nio 24011 (703) 981-25~1
January 15, 1989
File #472-183-268
Shelton-~itt Equipment Corpo
P. O. Drawer 828
Salem, Virginia 24153
JFC Equipment Corpo
2610 Milk-A-Way Drive, N.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Mountcastle Ford Tractor Sales
301 - 11th Street, S. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24013
James River Equipment,
P. O. Box 539
Salem, Virginia 24153
[nc.
Carter Machinery Company
P. O. Box 1096
Salem, Virginia 24153
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29420, accepting the bid of
Daker Brothers, Inc., for two new loader backhoes, in the total
amount of $63,5?5.00, which Ordinance No. 29420 was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, January 9, 1989.
On behalf of
appreciation
equipment.
the Members of City Council, I would
for submitting your bid on the
like to express
abovedescribed
Sincerely, !
4.
Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
Room4,.S6 /v~nlcipalBuilding 21§~u~:hAv~w~e.S.W. Roanc~e. Vkgmio24/)~11 (70,3)981-254~
January 13, 1989
File #472-183-268
Baker Brothers, I~c.
1402 Williamson Road, No
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Ladies and Gentlemen:
[ am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29420, accepting your bid
for two new loader backhoes, in the total amount of $63,$?$.00,
which Ordinance No. 29420 was adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 9, 1989.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Eric.
pc: Mr. IV. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Kit 8. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Services
Hr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. William L. Stuart, Manager, Street Maintenance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Room 456 Municipal Building 2'~5 C~urch Avu-,c'~e SW Roanoke, V~rg~nia 2401 t (703) 981-254'~
January 13, 1989
File #472-183-264
Mcllhany Equipment Company,
P. O. Dox 12728
Roanoke, Virginia 24028
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29420, accepting your bid
for one new air compressor, in the total amount of $10,878.00,
which Ordinance No. 29420 was adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 9, 1989.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc,
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Di.ector of Finance
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Services
Mr. William F. Clark, Directo. of Public Works
M.. William L. Stuart, Manager, Street Maintenance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. D. Da~'~in Roupe, Manager, General Services
456 Municipal Bullcling 215 C~urch A',~,,r'~e, S.W Roano~,e. Virg~nla 240t I (703) 98%2541
January 13, 1989
File #472-183-258
Shelton-Witt Equipment Corp.
P. O. Drawer 828
Salem, Virginia 24153
Mounteastle Ford Tractor Sales
301 - 11th Street, S. E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24013
Scott-Gallaher, Inc.
P. O. Box 7920
Roanoke, Virginia 24019
Star Equipment Corporation
5130 Hildebrand Road, N. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29420, accepting the bid of
McIlhany Equipment Company, Inc., for one new air compressor, in
the total amount of $10,878.00, which Ordinance No. 29420 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, January 9, 1989.
On behalf of
appreciation
ment.
the Members of City Council, I would like to express
for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed equip-
Sincerely, ~t/*.~._
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP: ra
Enco
Roo~n456 MunlcipolBuildlng 2150-~un~A~ue, S.W. Roano~..~rcj~n~a24011 (703)98'~-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 9th day of Jan,~ry, 1989.
NO. 29420.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE accepting bids for certain construction equip-
ment; rejecting other bids; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The bids in writing of the following named bidders to
furnish to the City the items hereinafter set out and generally
described, such items being more particularly described in the
City's specifications and any alternates and in each bidder's
proposal, are hereby ACCEPTED,
with each item:
Item Quantity and
Number Description
at the purchase prices set out
Successful Purchase
Bidder Price
1
2
3
2 ne~ Loader Backhoes
3 new utility trailers
i ne~ air c~m~ressor
Baker Brothers, Inc. $ ~3,575.00
Keith Welding $ 16,500.00
McIlhany Equtp~ent Co., Inc. $ 10,878.00
2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby
authorized and directed to issue the requisite purchase orders
for the above-mentioned items, said purchase orders to be made
and filed in accordance with the City's specifications, the
respective bids made therefor and in accordance with this ordi-
nance.
3. Any and all other bids
said items are hereby REJECTED;
made to the City for the afore-
and the City Clerk is directed to
Office of the City Clerk
January 13, 1989
File #60-472-183-268
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29419 amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1988-89 General and Internal
Service Funds Appropriations, providing for the transfer of
$59,205.00 from Internal Services Retained Earnings to Utility
Line Services: and $31,749.00 from the Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Program to Street Maintenance, Other
Equipment, in connection with acceptance of bids submitted by
Baker Brothers, Inc., Keith Welding and McIlhany Equipment
Company, Inc., for loader back-hoes, utility trailers and an air
compressor for the Departments of Utility Line Services and
Street Maintenance, which Ordinance No. 29419 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, January 9, 1989.
Sincerely,f~,,~ ~' ~/~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Public Safety
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager,
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Services
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
William L. Stuart, Manager, Street Maintenance
George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
General Services
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 C~urch Avenue, SW Roanol~ ~rg~nia 240t t (703) 98t-254't
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 9th day of JaD~y, 1989.
No. 29419.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 1988-89 General and Internal Service Funds Appropriations,
and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by
Roanoke that certain sections of the
Service Funds Appropriations, be,
amended and reordained to read as follows,
the Council of the City of
1988-89 General and Internal
and the same are hereby,
in part:
General Fund
Public Works
Street Maintenance (1) .............................
Fund Balance
Capital Maintenance Equipment and Replacement
Program - City Unappropriated (2) .................
Internal Service ~Jn~
~iations
Utility Line Services
Capital Outlay (3) .................................
Retained Earnings
Retained Earnings - Unrestricted (4) ...............
$17,978,085
2,646,936
$ 2,843,968
$ 2,554,914
287,815
$ 1,579,422
1) Other Equipment
2) CMERP - City
3) Other Equipment
4) Retained Earnings
- Unrestricted
(001-052-4110-9015)
(001-3332)
(006-056-2625-9015)
(006-3336)
$ 31,749
(31,749)
59,205
(59,205)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Vlrglnl
January 9, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of City Council:
SUBJECT:
Bids to Purchase
T~o (2) Loader Backhoes, Bid Number 88-11-38
Three (3) Utility Trailers, Bid Number 88-11-59
Air Compressor, Bid Number 88-11-52
I concur with the recommendation of the bid committee
relative to the above subject and recommend it to you for
appropriate action.
Respectfully Submitted,
City Manager
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
January 9, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of City Council:
SUBJECT:
Bids to Purchase
Two (2) Loader Backhoes, Bid Number 88-11-38
Three (3) Utility Trailers, Bid Nu~0er 88-11-59
Air Compressor, Bid Number 88-11-52
I. Background
November 10, 1988, specifications were
developed for Utility Trailers, an Air
Compressor and Loader Backhoe for Utility
Line Services and Loader Backhoe for Street
Maintenance.
Bid request were sent specifically to
twenty-two (22) vendors currently listed on
the City's bid list for construction type
equipment. A public advertisement was also
published in the Roanoke Times and World
News.
Ce
Bids were received after due and proper
advertisement, until 2:00 P.M. on November
30, 1988, at which time all bids so received
were publicly opened and read in the office
of the Manager of General Services.
II. Current Situation
A. Bid responses were received as follows:
Six (6) responses for the Loader
Backhoes.
Six (6) responses for the Utility
Trailers.
Five (5) responses for the Air
Compressor.
Bid tabulations are attached.
III.
IV.
Ail bids received were evaluated in a
consistent manner by representatives of the
following departments:
Utility Line Services
Street Maintenance
Motor Vehicle Maintenance
General Services
C. Bid Evaluation is as follows:
Two (2) new Loader Backhoes (1 for
Utility Lines and 1 for Street
Maintenance) The lowest bid submitted
by Baker Brothers, Inc. meets all
required specifications for the total
cost of $63,575.00.
Three (3) new Utility Trailers - The
lowest bid submitted by Keith Welding
meets all required specifications for
the total cost of $16,500.00.
One (1) Air Compressor - The lowest bid,
submitted by McIlhany Equipment Co.,
Inc. took the following exceptions to
the specifications, voltmeter instead of
ammeter, fenders instead of wheel wells
and direct coupled drive instead of
offset gear type. These exceptions have
been determined not to substantially
offset price or quality and have been
declared informalities as defined in
section 23.1-3 of the Code of the City
of Roanoke. The total cost of the air
compressor is quoted at $10,878.00.
Issues
A. Need
B. Compliance with Specifications
C. Fund Availability
Alternatives
Council accept the lowest bids for
construction equipment as follows:
Two (2) New Loader Backhoes as submitted
by Baker Brothers, Inc. for the total
amount of $63,575.00.
Three (3) new Utility Trailers as
submitted by Keith Welding for the total
amount of $16,500.00.
One (1) new Air Compressor as submitted
by McIlhany Equipment Co., Inc. for the
total amount of $10,878.00.
a)
Need - requested equipment is
necessary to continue to provide
various Utility Line and Street
Maintenance Services.
b)
Compliance with Specifications -
Baker Brother, Inc. met all
requirements for the Loader
Backhoe, Keith Welding met all
requirements for the Utility
Trailers. McIlhany Equipment Co.,
Inc. took three (3) exceptions to
the specifications but those
exceptions have been determined to
be informalities as defined by the
City Code.
c)
Fund availability - Funds to
provide for the requested equipment
is available as follows:
(i)
One (1) Loader Backhoe, Three
(3) Utility Trailers and One
(1) Air Compressor from
retained earnings for Utility
Line Services.
(2)
One (1) Loader Backhoe from
the Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Program.
Reject all Bids
Need - Required duties of Utility Line
Services and Street Maintenance would
not be accomplished in the most timely
fashion.
Compliance with Specification - would
not be a factor in this alternative.
Fund availability - available funds
would not be expended.
V. Recommendation
Council concur with alternative "A" - accept
the bids for the purchase of the following
construction equipment:
Two (2) new Loader Backhoes from Baker
Brothers, Inc. for the total amount of
$63,575.00.
Three (3) new Utility Trailers from
Keith Welding for the total amount of
$16,500.00.
One (1) new Air Compressor from McIlhany
Equipment Co., Inc. for the total amount
of $10,878.00.
B. Reject all other Bids
Ce
Appropriate Funds to provide for these
purchases as follows:
$59,204.50 from Internal Services
Retained Earnings to Utility Line
Services account 006-056-2625-9015.
$31,748.50 from Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Program to Street
Maintenance account 001-052-4110-9015.
Respectfully Submitted,
Committee:
Kit B. Kiser
William F. Clark
D. Darwin Roupe
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
January 13, 1989
File #472-183-268
Berglund Chevrolet, lnco
P. O. Box 12608
Roanoke, Virginia 24027
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29422 accepting your bids
for three new mid-size, one-half ton pick-up trucks, in the total
amount of $28,604.64; one new full size, one-half ton pick-up
truck, in the total amount of $11,195,04; and one new mid-size,
front wheel drive utility type vehicle, in the total amount of
$14,251.47, which Ordinance No. 29422 was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
January 9, 1989.
~'~"~'Sincerely' 2f(~.Z~ .
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
~nco
pc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Pub
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Services
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
William L. Stuart, Manager, Street Maintenance
George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
lic Safety
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Room45~ MunmipalB~llding 2150'~urchAve~ue S.WRoanoke.'vlrg~nia24011 (703) 981-2541
Office of the Ci~ C~erk
January 13, 1989
File #472-183-268
Allred Chevrolet, Inc.
P. O. Box 1012
Salem, Virginia 24153
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29422 accepting the bid of
Berglund Chevrolet, Inc., for three new mid-size, one-half ton
pick-up trucks, in the total amount of $28,804.64, which
Ordinance No. 29422 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 9, 1989.
On behalf of the Members of City Council, I would
appreciation for submitting your bid on the
vehicles.
like to express
abovedescribed
Sincerely,
iiary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
Room 456 Munl¢if:~l I~ilclin~ 215 Church Ave~nue, SW RoancY~e 'ulrg,nia 24Cll I (703) 981-2541
Office o~ the City Cler~
January 13, 1989
File #472-183-268
Shelor Chevrolet
2325 Roanoke Road
Christiansburg, Virginia
24073
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29422 accepting the bid of
Berglund Chevrolet, Inc., for three new mid-size, one-half ton
pick-up trucks, in the total amount of $28,604.64, which
Ordinance No. 29422 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 9, 1989.
On behalf of
appreciation
vehicles.
the Members of City Council, I would like to express
for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed
~N,..~ ~ 'S incere lY ' ~~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
Roorn45~ Municil:~alBuilcling 21§(]'~urchAv~,nue SW Roanc~e"~rg~nia24.011 (703)98'1-254'1
Off~¢e of ~ Cib' Cle~
January 13, 1989
File #472-183-268
Dominion Car, Inc.
1259 East Main Street
Sale~, Virginia 24153
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29422 accepting th. bid of
Berglund Chevrolet, [nc., for three new mid-size, one-half ton
pick-up trucks, in the total amount of $28,604.64, which
Ordinance No. 29422 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on ~tonday, January 9, 1989.
On behalf of the Members of City Council, I would
appreciation for submitting your bid on the
vehicles.
like to e~press
abovedescribed
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Eric.
Room 45~ Municil:x~l Builc~tng 9t5 C~urch Avenue SW Roano~e. V~rg~nia 24011 (703) 981-25al
Office cfi rne Cily Clerk
January 13, 1989
File #472-183-268
Magic City Ford Corporation
P. O. Aox 12507
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ladies and Gentlemen:
[ am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29422 accepting the bid of
~erglund Chevrolet, Inc., for three new mid-size, one-half ton
pick-up trucks, in the total amount of $28,604.64, which
Ordinance No. 29422 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 9, 1989.
On behalf of
appreciation
vehicles.
the Members of City Council,
for submitting your bid
I would like to express
on the abovedescribed
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
Room 456 Municil:x:ll Buildln(j 215 (~urch Av~nu~ SW Roanoke V~rg~nio 24011 (703) 981-254.1
Office of the Ci~, Clerk
January 13, 1989
File #472-183-258
Johnson International Trucks
P. O. Box 12087
Roanoke, Virginia 24022
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29422, accepting the bid of
Magic City Ford Corporation for one new cab/chassis, conventional
cab, medium dump truck, in the total amount of $34,262.81, which
Ordinance No. 29422 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 9, 1959.
On behalf of the Members of City Council,
appreciation for submitting your bid on
cular equipment.
I would like to express
the abovedescribed vehi-
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
456 Munic4:x~l Building 215 C~urch Av~,~u~, SW. Roanoke, Virginia 240't I (703) 981-254'~
Office o~ the City Cler~
January 13, 1989
File #472-183-258
Magic City Ford Corporation
P. O. Box 12807
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29422 accepting your bids
for one new cab/chassis, conventional cab, medium dump truck, in
the total amount of $34,262.81; and one new cab/chassis for ser-
vice truck, in the total amount of $19,656.60, which Ordinance
No. 29422 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, January 9, 1989.
"'~l~.~.Sincerely' ~l~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enco
pc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Pub
Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Kit B. Kise., Director of Utilities and Operations
Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Services
William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
William L. Stuart, Manager, Street Maintenance
George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
lic Safety
D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
456 Municil:x~l l~uilclincj 215 C~ur~n Avenue SW Roono~,~e, 'virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541
^,4
C)~flce ot' ~e Ci~' Cl~
January 13, 19~9
File #472-183-258
Roanoke Welding Company
2016 Russell Avenue, S.
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29422, accepting the bid of
Truck Body Corporation for one new ten ton rated dump body, in
the total amount of $$,759o15, which Ordinance No. 29422 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on ~tonday, January 9, 1989.
On behalf of
appreciation
ment.
the Members of City Council, I would like to e~press
for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed equip-
~r'N"~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
ttFP:ra
Enc.
Room 456 Municipal Bullcling 215 C~urch Avenue SW Roanc:~e V~rg~nio 24011 (703) 98'1-2541
O~ce ~ t~he City Cter~
Janua.y 13, 1989
File #472-183-268
Truck Body Corporation
P. O. Box 10906
Lynchburg, Virginia 24506
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29422, accepting your bids
for one new ten ton rated dump body, in the total amount of
$5,759.15; two new ten ton rated dump bodies, in the total amount
of $13,449.60; and one new heavy duty service body, in the total
amount of $3,249.00, which Ordinance No. 29422 was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, January 9, 1989.
Since.ely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
EnCo
pc:
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
~tr. Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Services
Mr. William Fo Clark. Directo. of Public Works
Mr. William L. Stuart, Manager, St.eet Maintenance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. D. Da.win Roupe, Manager, General Services
~g~n456 ~nicic~alBulldina ,215C~u~'hAv~'¥~, SW Roanoke VirD~n~a2~)11 (703)98%254'~
C)f~ce cfi ~e City Clerk
January 13, 1989
File #472-1~3-268
Johnson International Trucks
P. O. Box 12087
Roanoke, Virginia 24022
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance ~o. 29422, accepting your bid
fo. two new c.ew cab/chassis for medium dump t.ucks, in the total
amount of $81,043o46, which Ordinance No. 29422 was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a .egula. meeting held on
Monday, January 9, 1989.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parke., CMC
City Cle.k
MFP:.a
EnCo
pc: Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Mr.
Public Safety
M.. D. Darwin Roupe.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manage.
Joel M. Schlanger, Directo. of Finance
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Jesse H. Perdue, J.., Manager, Utility Line Services
William F. Clark, Directo. of Public Works
William L. Stua.t, Manager, Street Maintenance
Geo.ge C. Snead, Jr., Di.ecto. of Administration and
Manager, Gene.al Services
,V~jnlcil~l BullOi~" ' "%ucGh Av~nue~ S.W Roanoke ~rg:nio 24011 (703) 981-2541
January 13, 19~9
File #472-183-268
Roanoke Welding Company
2016 Russell Avenue, S. W.
aoanoke, Virginia 24015
Ladles and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29422, accepting the bid of
Truck Body Corporation for two new ten ton rated dump bodies, in
the total amount of $13,449.60, which Ordinance No. 29422 was
adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, January 9, 1989.
On behalf of
appreciation
equipment.
the Members of City Council, I would like to express
for submitting your bid on the abovedescribed
Sincerely, /~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Eric.
~-~m456 ~mnicil:~l~ildinc~ ~S(~urchA~'"'mue SW. Roan~ V~rglniO24011 (703)981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 9th day of January, 1989.
No. 29422.
AN ORDINANCE accepting bids for trucks and related equipment;
rejecting other bids; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The bids in writing of the following named bidders to furnish
to the City the items hereinafter set out and generally described,
such items being more particularly described in the City's specifica-
tions and any alternates and in each bidder's proposal, are hereby
ACCEPTED, at the purchase prices set out with each item:
Item Quantity and Successful Purchase
Number Description Bidder Price
1 3 Ne~ mid-size 1/2 ton Berglu,d ChCv~-olet, Inc. $ 28,604.64
pick-up truck
2 1 Ne~ full size ~ ton Berglund Chevrolet, Inc. 11,195.04
pick-up truck
3 i New mid-size, 4 Berglund Chevrolet, Inc. 14,251.47
wheel drive utility
type vehicle
4
1 New cab/chassis,
conventional cab,
medium dump. truck
7
~agic City Ford Corporation
34,262.81
5 1 New 10 ton rated Truck Body Corporation 5,76~.15
d,~,p body
6 2 Ne~ cre~ cab/chassis John-on International Trucks 81,043.46
for m~dium dump
truck
2 Ne~ 10 ton rated Truck Body Corporation 13,44~.60
dump bodies
8 1 New cab/chassis ~agic City Ford Corporation 19,656.60
for service truck
9 1 New heavy duty Truck Body Corporation 3,24~.00
service body
2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby authorized
and directed to issue the requisite purchase orders for the above-
mentioned items, said purchase orders to be made and filed in accor-
dance with the City's specifications, the respective bids made
therefor and in accordance with this ordinance.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid
items are hereby REJECTED; and the City Clerk is directed to so notify
each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation for
each bid.
4. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordi-
nance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
January 13, 1989
File #60-472-183-268
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29421 amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1988-89 General and Internal
Service Funds Appropriations, providing for the transfer of
$118,189.00 from Retained Earnings Unrestricted, to Utility
Line Services; and $94,493.00 from Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Program to Street Maintenance, in connec-
tion with acceptance of certain bids for trucks and related
equipment for the departments of Utility Line Se~ices and Street
Maintenance, which Ordinance No. 29421 was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
January 9, 1989.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enc.
pc: Mr.
Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Afr. Jesse H. Perdue, Jr., Manager, Utility Line Services
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. William L. Stuart, Manager, Street Maintenance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe,
Manager, General Services
Roo~ 456 Muntcil:~c~l Bull,cling 215 (~urch Avenue, S.W Roanoke, Virc.:j~ia 24~t I (703) 981-2~1.1
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 9thday of January, 1989.
No. 29421.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and
the 1988-89 General and Internal
reordain certain sections of
Service Funds Appropriations,
and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1988-89 General and Internal
Service Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby,
amended and reordained to read as follows, in part:
General Fund
Appropriations
Public Works
Street Maintenance (1) .............................
Fund Balance
Capital Maintenance Equipment and Replacement
Program - City Unappropriated (2) .................
Internal Service Fund
Appropriations
Utility Line Services
Capital Outlay (3) .................................
Retained Earnings
Retained Earnings - Unrestricted (4) ...............
$18,040,829
2,709,680
$ 2,781,224
$ 2,613,898
346,799
$ 1,520,438
1) Vehicle Equipment
2) CMERP - City
3) Vehicle Equipment
4) Retained Earnings
- Unrestricted
(001-052-4110-9010) $ 94,493
(001-3332) ( 94,493)
(006-056-2625-9010) 118,189
(006-3336)
(118,189)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
'89 Je i -5
:52
Roanoke, V±rg±n±a
January 9, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of City Council:
SUBJECT:
Bids to Purchase
Trucks and Related Equipment
Bid Number, 88-11-57
I concur with the recommendation of the bid committee
relative to the above subject and recommend it to you for
appropriate action.
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
January 9, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of City Council:
SUBJECT:
Bids to purchase
Trucks and Related Equipment,
Bid Number 88-11-57
I. Background
ae
November 17, 1988 specifications were
developed for Trucks and Related Equipment
for the departments of Utility Line Services
and Street Maintenance.
Request for Quotations were sent specifically
to twenty-two (22) vendors currently listed
on the City's bid list. A public
advertisement was also published in the
Roanoke Times and World News on November 20,
1988.
Ce
Bids were received, after due and proper
advertisement, until 2:00 P.M. on December 5,
1988, at which time all bids so received were
publicly opened and read, in the office of
the Manager of General Services.
II. Current Situation
ae
Ten (10) bid responses were received. Bid
tabulations are attached.
Be
Ail bids received were evaluated in a
consistent manner by representatives of the
following departments:
Utility Line Services
Street Maintenance
Motor Vehicle Maintenance
General Services
III.
IV.
C. Bid evaluation results are as follows:
Items ~1, 2 & 3 - Pickup Trucks. The
lowest bid as submitted by BerGlund
Chevrolet, Inc. meets all
specifications.
Item ~4 One (1) Cab/Chassis for dump
truck - The lowest bid submitted by
MaGic City Ford Corporation took
exceptions to the type of Starter and
Generator. Those exceptions do not
substantially affect, price, quality,
quantity or delivery and are therefore,
deemed informalities as defined by
section 23.1-3, Code of the City of
Roanoke, (1979), as amended.
Item 95, 7 & 9 - Dump and service bodies
(to be mounted on items #4, 6 & 8). The
lowest bid as submitted by Truck Body
Corporation meet all required
specifications.
Item ~6 - Two (2) Crew Cab/Chassis for
dump bodies, the lowest bid as submitted
by Johnson International Trucks meets
all required specifications.
Item ~8 - One (1) new Cab/Chassis for
service body, the lowest bid as
submitted by Magic City Ford Corporation
meets all required specifications.
Issues
A. Need
B. Compliance with Specifications
C. Fund availability
Alternatives
Council accept the lowest responsible bids
for Trucks and Related Equipment as follows:
Items 91, 2 and 3 - Three (3) new mid
size pick-ups, One (1) new full size
pick-up and One (1) new mid size, 4
wheel drive utility type vehicle, as
submitted by Berglund Chevrolet, Inc.
for the total amount of $54,051.15
e
Items #4 and 8 - One (1) dump truck
Cab/Chassis and One (1) service truck
Cab/Chassis as submitted by Magic City
Ford Corporation for the total amount of
$53f919.41
Items 95, 7 and 9 Three (3) dump truck
bodies and one (1) service truck body as
submitted by Truck Body Corporation for
the total amount of $22,467.75
Item 96 - Two (2) Crew Cab/Chassis for
dump bodies, as submitted by Johnson
International Trucks for the total
amount of $81,043.46
ae
Need - requested equipment, which
will replace old existing
equipment, is needed to continue to
perform required Utility Line
Services and Street Maintenance
duties.
b. Compliance with specifications
1)
Items ~1, 2 and 3, as
submitted by Berglund
Chevrolet, Inc. meets all
required specifications.
2)
Item #4 - as submitted by
Magic City Ford Corporation
took two (2) exceptions. Those
exceptions do not
substantially affect price,
quality, quantity or delivery
and are therefore, deemed
informalities as defined by
section 23.1-3, Code of the
City of Roanoke, (1979), as
amended.
3)
Items #5, 7 and 9 - as
submitted by Truck Body
Corporation meets all required
specifications.
4)
Item #6 as submitted by
Johnson International Trucks
meets all required
specifications.
5)
Item 98 - as submitted by
Magic City Ford Corporation
meets all required
specifications.
Fund availability - Funds are
available in Internal Services
Retained Earnings for those
vehicles requested by Utility Line
Services and Capital Maintenance
and Equipment Replacement Program
for the vehicles requested by
Street Maintenance.
B. Reject all Bids
Need - required duties of Utility
Line Services and Street
Maintenance would not be
accomplished in the most timely
fashion.
Compliance with Specifications -
would not be a factor in this
alternative.
Fund availability - available funds
would not be expended.
Recommendation
ae
Council concur with Alternative "A" accept
the bids for Trucks and Related Equipment as
follows:
Items 91, 2 and 3 - Pick-up trucks and
utility type vehicle to Berglund
Chevrolet, Inc. for the total amount of
$54,051.15
Items #4 and 8 Dump truck and service
truck Cab/Chassis to Magic City Ford
Corporation for the total amount of
$53,919.41
Items 95, 7 and 9 - Dump truck and
service truck bodies from Truck Body
Corporation for the total amount of
$22,467.75
Item #6 - Dump truck Cab/Chassis from
Johnson International Trucks for the
total amount of $81,043.46
B. Reject all other bids
Appropriate Funds to provide for requested
purchases as follows:
$118,188.71 from Internal Services
Retained Earnings, which includes
$1,200.00 for tool boxes for pick-up
trucks, to Utility Line Services account
number 006-056-2625-9010.
$94,493.06 from Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Program to Street
Department account number
001-052-4110-9010.
COMMITTEE:
Respectfully Submitted,
B. Kiser
William F. Clark
D. Darwin Roupe
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Of'rice c~ t~e City Cle~
January 13, 1989
File #$-70-472
Magic City Ford Corporation
P. O. Box 12807
Roanoke, Virginia 24027
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29434, accepting the bids of
~erglund Chevrolet, Inc., for six new 1989 four-door sedans
marked police automobiles, in the total amount of $89,343.08; one
new 1989 four-door sedan fire command vehicle, in the total
amount of $15,051.14; and two new cab/chassis one ton rated for
police paddy wagon ($14,181.17 each), in the total amount of
$28,362,34, which Ordinance No. 29424 was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
January 9, 1989.
On behalf of the Members of City Council, I would
appreciation for submitting your bids on the
vehicular equipment.
like to express
abovedescribed
Sincerely,
City Clerk
MFP: ra
Enc.
Room 456 Muntcil:;al Building 215 O~u~n A,,~nue, S.W. Roanoke, V~rg~nia 2~C)1'~ (703) 981-2541
C)~qce of ~ Cit~ Cier~
January 13, 1989
File #$-70-4?2
Derglund Chevrolet, [nc.
P. O. Box 12608
Roanoke, Virginia 24027
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29424, accepting your bids
for six new 1989 four-door sedans marked police automobiles, in
the total amount of $89,343.06; one new 1989 four-door sedan fire
command vehicle, in the total amount of $15,081.14; and two new
cab/chassis one ton rated for police paddy wagon ($14,181.17
each), in the total amount of $28,362,34, which Ordinance No.
29424 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, January 9, 1989.
Sincerely, ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Eric.
pc: Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger. Director of Finance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. M. David Rooper, Chief of Police
Mr. Billy N. Akers, Acting Fire Chief
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. James A. McClung, Manager, Motor Vehicle Maintenance
R~'~m &%5 Mun~cioal Ouilclinc~ 2t,~ C~urch Avenue SW Roanoke V~rcj~nia 24011 (703) c~81-2~.'~1
Office of ~he Ci~, Cle,~
January 13, 1989
File #70-5-472
Truck Body Corporation
P. Oo Box 937
Lynchburg, Virginia 24012
Ladies and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 29424, accepting your bid
for two new custom made paddy waggon bodies to be mounted on
existing vehicles, in the total amount of $15,420.12, which
Ordinance Noo 29424 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January 9, 19~9.
Sincerely,~/~;~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Eno.
pc: Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. M. David Rooper, Chief of Police
Mr. D. Da~oin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Mr. William F. Cla.k, Director of Public Works
Mr. James A. McClung, Manager, Motor Vehicle Maintenance
Roc~'n456 MunicipalBullding 215(~urchAv~nue SW Roano~e.V~rg~nia24011 (703) 981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The9thday of jan, l~ry, 1989.
No. 29424.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE accepting bids for certain vehicular equipment;
rejecting other bids; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The bids in writing of the following named bidders to
furnish to the City the items hereinafter set out and generally
described, such items being more particularly described in the
City's specifications and any alternates and in each bidder's
proposal, are hereby ACCEPTED, at the purchase prices set out
with each item:
Item Quantity and Successful Purchase
Number Description Bidder Price
6 new 1989 4-door sedans
marked police automobiles
($14,890.51 each)
4
Berglund Ch~rolet,
Inc.
2 1 new 1989 4-door sedan Berglund Ch~rolet,
fire o.~.,-ud vehicle Inc.
3 2 new cab/chassis I/ton
rated for police paddy
wagon ($14,181.17 each)
2 new custom made paddy
waggon bodies to be
mounted o~ existing
vehicles ($7,710.06 each)
$ 89,343.06
$ 15,081.14
Berglund Chevrolet,
Inc. $ 28,362.34
Truck Body Corpora-
tion $ 15,420.12
2. The City's Manager of General Services is hereby
authorized and directed to issue the requisite purchase orders
for the above-mentioned items, said purchase orders to be made
and filled in accordance with the City's specifications, the
therefor and in accordance with this ordi-
respective bids made
nance.
3. Any and all
other
said items are hereby REJECTED;
so notify each such bidder and
appreciation for each bid.
bids made to the City for the afore-
and the City Clerk is directed to
to express to each the City's
4. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of
municipal Eovernment, an emerEency is deemed to exist, and this
ordinance shall be in full force and effect upon its passaEe.
ATTEST:
the
City Clerk.
Office aC the C~
January 13, 1989
File #60-70-$-472
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 2~423 amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1958-$9 General Fund
Appropriations, providing for the transfer of $148,207.00 from
the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program to
Public Safety (Police Patrol and Fire Operations), in connection
with acceptance of certain bids to purchase police and fire
vehicles, which Ordinance No. 29423 was adopted by the Council of
the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, January
9, 1989.
Sincerely,
y arker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
ErlCo
pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
iff. M. David Hooper, Chief of Police
Mr. Billy N. Akers, Acting Fire Chief
Mr. D. Darwin Roupe, Manager, General Services
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. James A. McClung, Manager, Motor Vehicle Maintenance
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 9thday of Jal111~ry, 1989.
NO. 29423.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 1988-89 General Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency
exist.
the usual daily operation of the Municipal
is declared to
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1988-89 General Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Public Safety
Police Patrol (1) ..................................
Fire Operations (2) ................................
$23,799,480
5,307,460
7,965,128
Fund Balance
Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement
Program - City Unappropriated (3) ................. $ 2,727,510
1) Vehicular Equipment
2) Vehicular Equipment
3) CMERP - City
(001-050-3113-9010)
(001-050-3213-9010)
(001-3332)
$ 133,126
15,081
(148,207)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
January 9, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council:
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of City Council:
SUBJECT:
BIDS TO PURCHASE POLICE AND FIRE
VEHICLES
BID NUMBER 88-11-2 AND 88-11-60
I concur with the recommendation of the bid committee
relative to the above subject and recommend it to you for
appropriate action.
WRH/DDR/klm
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
January 9, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT:
BIDS ON POLICE AND FIRE
VEHICLES
BID NUMBER 88-11-2 and
88-11-60
I. Background
ae
November 28, 1988 City Council designated
funds in the Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Program to provide for
the purchase of Police and Fire vehicles.
Specifications were developed, and with
request for quotations, were sent to eleven
(11) vendors for the automobiles and trucks
and to seven (7) vendors for the truck
bodies. These request were also published in
the Roanoke Times and World News.
Ce
Bid responses were received after due and
proper advertisement. Ail bids so received
were publicly opened and read in the Office
of the Manager of General Services.
Vehicles requested on this bid are as
follows:
Six (6) new marked Police Patrol Vehicles
One (1) new Fire Department District Vehicles
Two (2) new Police Paddy Wagon Vehicles
II. Current Situation
A. Bid responses received are as follows:
Two (2) responses were received for both
the automobiles and truck cab/chassis.
One (1) response was was received for
the Truck "Paddy Wagon" Body. Bid
tabulations are attached.
Be
Ail bid received were evaluated in a
consistent manner by representatives of
following departments.
Police Department
Motor Vehicle Maintenance
General Services
the
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 2
C. Evaluation of bids are as follows:
Item %1 and 2 seven (7) automobiles.
The lowest bids submitted by Berglund
Chevrolet Inc. meets all required
specifications.
III.
IV.
Item %3 - two (2) cab/chassis for Paddy
Wagon, the low bid submitted by Magic
City Ford took exception to the Gross
Vehicle weight, alternator amperage,
rear axle rating, gas tank outlet.
These exceptions substantially affect
price quality and/or quantity and cannot
be waived as informalities. The second
low bid submitted by Berglund Chevrolet
Inc. meets all required specifications.
Item %4 - two (2) truck "Paddy Wagon"
bodies, as submitted by Truck Body
Corporation meets all required
specifications.
Issues
1. Need
2. Compliance with Specifications
3. Fund availability
Alternatives
Council accept the lowest responsible bids
for police and fire vehicles as follows:
Six (6) new police automobiles, One (1)
new fire automobile and two (2) new
police pick-up truck cab/chassis from
Berglund Chevrolet Inc., for the total
amount of $132,786.54.
e
Two (2) new Truck "Paddy Wagon" bodies
to be mounted on above cab/chassis as
submitted by Truck Body Corporation for
the total amount of $15,420.12.
a)
Need - requested vehicles are
necessary to continue to perform
required police and fire duties.
Honorable Mayor
Page 3
and City
b)
c)
Council
Compliance with specifications the
bids submitted by Berglund
Chevrolet Inc. and Truck Body
Corporation meet all required
specifications.
Fund availability - designated funds
are available in the Capital
Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Program to provide for
the purchase of requested vehicles.
B. Reject Ail Bids
Need - Police and Fire could not perform
their required duties in the most
efficient manner.
Compliance with specifications - would
not be a factor in this alternative.
Fund availability - Designated funds in
the Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Program would not be
expended.
Recommendation
Council concur with Alternative "A" - accept
the lowest responsible bids for Police and
Fire vehicles as follows:
Six (6) new Police automobiles, One (1)
new Fire automobile and Two (2) new
pick-up truck cab/chassis to Berglund
Chevrolet, Inc. for the total amount of
$132,786.54.
Two (2) new truck "Paddy Wagon" bodies
to be mounted on above cab/chassis to
Truck Body Corporation for the total
amount of $15,420.12.
B. Reject all other bids.
Appropriate $148,206.66 from Capital
Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program
to the following accounts to provide for this
purchase.
1. $133,125.52 to Police Department account
001-050-3113-9010.
2. $15,081.14 to Fire Department account
001-050-3213-9010.
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Page 4
Respectfully submitted,
Committee:~ C ~.
' George~. Snead
GCS/DDR/klm
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
J~es A. McClung ~
D. Darwin Roupe
0
0
4J
H
Or, ce of t~e City Clerk
January 13, 1989
File
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dea, ,~r. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29412, providing for the
vacation of an unused public water and sewer easement at the
Century Business Center, upon certain terms and conditions, which
Ordinance No. 29412 was adopted by the Council of the City of
Roanoke on first reading on Tuesday, January 3, 1989, also
adopted by the Council on second reading on Monday, January 9,
1989, and will take effect ten days following the date of its
second reading.
Sincerely, //~~
Mary F. Parker, C~IC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enco
pc: Ms. Beverly M. Huley, Center Properties I, L. P., One
Center, 901 East Cary Street, Richmond, Virginia 23219
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
~fr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
James
~ a~ M~niciaal Buildina 21§ C~urch Avenue SW Roonc~e, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-254'~
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 9thday of Janizary, 1989.
No. 29412.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE providing for the vacation of an unused public
water and sewer easement at the Century Business Center, upon
certain terms and conditions.
RE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
Mayor and City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest,
respectively, in form approved by the City Attorney, an appropri-
ate deed of release, or other documentation vacating and reZea-
sing certain water and sewer easements through property owned by
Center Properties I, L.P., and known as the Century Business
Center, located north of and paraZlel to present day Orange
Avenue, N.E., through Block 6, Linwood Land Company, as more
particularly set forth in the report of the Water Resources
Corrgnittee to this Council dated January 3, 1989.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Roanoke, Virginia
January 3, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
SUBJECT: Vacation of Easement
Century Business Center
The attached report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at it's
regularly scheduled meeting on December 27, 1988. The Committee recommends that
Council vacate unused water and sewer easements on property of Center Properties
I, L.P. in accordance with the attached report.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman
Water Resources Committee
ETB/RVH/fm
Attachment
CC:
City Manger
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities & Operations
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Center Properties I, L.P.
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE: December 27,1988
TO:~rs~ter Resources Committee
FROM:r ](it Kiser, Directo~o~Atilities & Operations
THRU: W. Robert Herber , ty Manager
SUBJECT: VACATION OF EASEMENT
CENTURY BUSINESS CENTER
I. Background:
City Council, by Ordinance No. 7134, dated October 20, 1941, closed an
alley north of and parallel to present day Orange Avenue, N.E.,
through Block 6, Linwood Land Company.
B. Alley Closing Ordinance reserved water and sewer easements to the City.
(See attached ordinance.)
II. Current Situation:
Center Properties I, L.P., owner of the property containing the ease-
ments, has requested that the City vacate the unused and un-needed
easements. (See attached letter.)
III. A. Need
B. Timin~
IV. Alternatives:
Committee recommend to City Council that it authorize the vacation of
the Sewer and water easements described in and retained by, Ordinance
No. 7134 (attached).
1. Need for removal of encumbering public easements on private pro-
perty is met.
2. Timin~ tn give owner full use of property as quickly as possible is
met.
Water Resources Committee
Vacation of Easement/Century Business Center
Page 2
Committee not recommend to City Council that it vacate easements.
1. Need for removal of easements not met.
2. Timin$ to remove quickly not met.
Recommendation: Committee recommend to City Council that it vacate water
and sewer easements on property of Center Properties I, L.P., in accor-
dance with Alternative "A".
KBK/RVH/fm
Attachments
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Engineer
BROWDEH, RUSSELL, ~ORi~I$ AND ~I/TCHER
9467
November 28, 1988
Roanoke City Water Resources Committee
c/o Kit B. Kiser, Director of
Utilities and Operations
Room 354, Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Century Business Center
Dear Mr. Kiser:
On behalf of Center Properties I, L.P., the Owner of
this project, I hereby request that the City vacate the ten
foot wide water and sewer easement created by Ordinance No.
7134, dated October 20, 1941, recorded December 23, 1941 in
the Clerk's Office of the Circuit Court of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia in Deed Book 672, at page 1. Please let
us know what additional actions are required (both by our
client and by appropriate governmental agencies) in order
to effect this Vacation.
Thank you very much for your help in this matter.
Sincerely,
Beverly M. Huley
BMH/pts
IN T~E COUNCIL FOR TH~ CITY OF ROA~0~E, VIi~GINIA,
The 20th day of October, 1941.
AN ORDINANCE vacatin6, discontinuing and closing a
certain alley in that block in the northeast section of the
City of Roanoke, being Block S, according to the Map of the
Linwood Land Company, bounded on the north by Pennsylvania
Avenue, on the east by Sixth Street, N. E., on the south by
Lynchbu~g Avenue, and on the west by what was formerly Fifth
Street, N. E.
WHEREAS, Roanoke T~uok Depot, Incorporated, has hereto-
fore filed its petition before Council in accordance with
law, in which said petition it requested Council to vacate,
discontinue and close a certain alley in tha~ block in the
northeast section of the City of Roanoke, being Block S,
'~accordlng to the Map of the Linwood Land Company, bounded
on the north by Pennsylvania Avenue, on the east by Sixth
Street, N. E., on the south by Lynchburg Avenue, and on the
west by what was formerly Fifth Street, N. E., ehich said
alley so requested to be vacated, discontinued and closed
is shown on a certain map or plat No. 1485, prepared in the
office of the City Engineer, dated October 1, 1931, and Wnlch
map or plat is on file in the office of said City Engineer
and to which reference is hereby made for a more particular
description of said alley, of the filing of which said
petition due notice was given to the public, as required
by law, and
'~.~REAS, in accordance with =he prayer cf :=id Petition,
viewers were appointed by Council to view the property and
report in writing, whether in their opinion, any inconvenience
would result from vacating, discontinuing and closing that
. 2 -
certain alley in said block which is bounded on the north by
Pennsylvania Avenue, on the east by Sixth Street, N. E., on
the south by Lyuchburg Avenue, and on the west by what was
formerly Fifth Street, N. E., and
'~EREAS, it appears from the report in writing filed by
said viewers in this proceeding (filed with the City Clerk,
together with the af~_~av~t of said viewers, on September 29,
1941) that no inconvenience would result, either to any
individual or to the public, from vacatir~, discontinuing
and closing the alley in questlou, to which report no
exceptions have been filed, and
?~r--J~REAS, it ~.ppears f~om evidence before Council that no
inconvenience ~ill result to the public by the vacating,
discontinuing and closing of said alley and that the rights
of neither the public nor any individual will be violated or
prejudiced, and
~l'h~.w~AS, it further appears to Council that petitioner
has agreed to bear and defray the costs and expenses incident
tc this proceeding, and
~E~AS, the City ~lanager has recommended that if the
alley is closed the city reserve the right to maintain or
construct sewer lines end water mains over the said alley,
in ?~ich reco~tmendatton Council concurs.
THEP~FOP~, ~E IT 0P~AI~D by the Council of the City
of Roanoke, Virginia, that certain alley in that block in
the northeast section of the City of Roanoke, being Block
6, according to the ...a~ of the Linwood Land Company,
bounded on the north by Pennsylvania Avenue, on the east
0y Sixth Street, L. r.
- , on the south by Lynchburg Avenue,
and on the west by v~at was formerly Fifth Street, N. E.,
be, and the same is hereby vacated, discontinued and closed,
the City of Roanoke, however, reserving unto itself a public
easement in the said alley for sewer lines and water mains
and the right of ingress and egress for the maintenance,
repair and construction of any property now or hereafter
used for such easement.
BE IT ~RTHER 0RDAlh~D that the City Engineer be, and
he is hereby directed to mark "Vacated, Discontinued and
Closed" the alley in block which is bounded on the north
by Pennsylvania avenue, on the east by Sixth Street, N. r
~.,
on the south by Lynchburg Avenue, and on the west by what
was formerly Fifth Street, N. E., ou all maps and plats cn
file in the office of the City Engineer of the City of
Roanoke, on which said maps and plats said alley is shown,
referring to the book and page of Resolutions and Ordinances
of the Council of the City of Roanoke wherein this Ordinance
shall be spread.
BE IT FD-RTP~R OP~AIh~D that the Clerk of this Council
deliver to the Clerk.of the -L~stings Court for the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, a copy of thla Qrdinance in order that
said Clerk of Court may make proper notation on all maps or
plats recorded in his said office, upon which is shown the
said alley herein vacated, discontinued and closed, as
provided by law.
Office of ~he City
January 13, 1989
File #67-165
~tr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 29413, authorizing the lease
of the Fishburn Park Caretaker's House to Mr. and Mrs. George Fo
Black'well, upon certain terms and conditions, which Ordinance No.
29413 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke on first
reading on Tuesday, January 3, 1989, also adopted by the Council
on second reading on Monday, January 9, 1989, and will take
effect ten days following the date of its second reading.
)/'%~-t~"~-'~'Sincerely' ~
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ra
Enco
pc: Mr. & Mrs. George Fo Black~ell, 2424 Brambleton Avenue,
So Wo, Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Ms. Deborah J. Moses, Chief of Billings and Collections
Hr. Kit 9. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
'Public Safety
Mr. Jimmie B. Layman, Manager, Parks and Recreation
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 9thday of January, 1989.
No. 29413.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE authorizing the lease of the Fishburn Park
Caretaker's House upon certain terms and conditions.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
City Manager and City Clerk are authorized to execute and attest,
respectively, in form approved by the City Attorney, a lease
agreement for the Fishburn Park Caretaker's House to George F.
and Charlotte S. Black'well, upon certain terms and conditions
deemed appropriate, as more particularly set forth in the report
to this Council from the Water Resources Committee dated Janu-
ary 3, 1989.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
'88
Roanoke, Virginia
January 3, 1989
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Lease of City Property
Fishburn Park Caretaker's House
2424 Brambleton Avenue, S.W.
The attached report was considered by the Water Resources Committee at it's
regularly scheduled meeting on December 27, 1988. The Committee recommends that
Council authorize a lease of the Fishburn Park Caretaker's House, 2424
Brambleton Avenue, S.W., to George F. & Charlotte S. Blackwell in accordance
with the attached report.
Respectfully submitted,
Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman
Water Resources Committee
ETB/RVH/fm
Attachment
cc:
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities & Operations
Director of Administration & Public Safety
Manager, Parks & Grounds
George F. & Charlotte S. Blackwell
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COI~UNICATI ON
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
THRU:
SUBJECT:
December 27, 1988
Members, W~ter Resources Committee
· Kiser, Direct. or of Utilities & Operations
W. Robert Herbe~~anager
LEASE OF CITY PROPERTY
FISHBURN PARK CARETAKER'S HOUSE
2424 BRAMBLETON AVENUE, S.W.
I. Background:
Caretaker's House in Fishburn Park is over 100 years old. It was
built prior to City's acquisition of the park. It has housed City
caretakers all of that time. Structure is a 2-story 6 room house.
George F. Blackwell, Grounds Supervisor, Parks & Grounds, was born in
the house and still resides there. Mr. Blackwell resides in the park
rent-free as an Employee-Caretaker. This system has been in use for
many years and is still in place at four (4) locations, Mountain View
and Villa Heights Recreation Centers and Fishburn and Mill Mountain
Parks.
II. Current Situation:
A. George F. Blackwell is retiring from his employment with the City. He
desires to continue to reside in the house and rent it from the City.
B. Parks & Grounds Dep't. desires to retain a caretaker-like person in
the park. Mr. Blackwell's background and experience would be ideal
for that purpose.
Co
Services to be provided would include locking and unlocking the vehi-
cular access points within the park as needed to facilitate public
use and to report needed repairs and activities not permitted in the
park.
Members Water Resource Committee
Fishburn Park Caretaker's House
Page 2
Rent of $300.00 per month for the first twelve (12) months has been
proposed and has been agreed to by Mr. and Mrs. Blackwell. (See
attached letter.) This is believed to be a very reasonable rent for
this area. Department of Real Estate Valuation has indicated that the
rent on a small brick house in this area would be from $375 to $400,
or so, and this is a very small frame house.
Alternative courses of action to this proposal are considered un-
workable. They are:
Rent through news or agent to general public. This has poten-
tial to violate agreement to use property for park purposes
only.
ii.
Demolish structure and add house area to park. This 100+ year
old house may qualify as having some historic value and is un-
likely to be demolished.
iii.
Conversion to other public use is a possibility, but structure
is too small and poorly laid out for any conceivable cost-
effective use.
Board structure up and try to prevent deterioration and van-
dalism. This would add another maintenance liability to a
number we already have.
Ail of the above would eliminate the resident caretaker in the park,
opening it to vandalism and other undesirable activities and requiring
other personnel to visit it to accomplish the necessary tasks pre-
sently provided by that caretaker.
III. Issues:
A. Need
B. Timin8
c. Income to city
IV. Alternatives:
Committee recommend to City Council that it authorize the lease of the
Caretaker's House, 2424 Brambleton Avenue, S.W., to George F. and
Charlotte S. Blackwell under the following terms and conditions.
Members Water Resource Committee
Fishburn Park Caretaker's House
Page 3
Rent to be $300.00 per month for the first twelve (12)
months, to be paid monthly in advance, then to be on a month
to month basis and automatically adjusted annually by any
change in the Consumer Price Index. Tenant will also be re-
sponsible for providing Tenant's Insurance.
ii. Utilities to be paid by lessee.
iii.
Maintenance, lessee to be responsible for inside painting and
related maintenance costs, lessor to be responsible for outside
painting and heating, electrical, plumbing and structural main-
tenance.
1. Need by City for park caretaker and by Mr. & Mrs. Blackwell for
use of residence is met.
2. Timin~ to permit lease to begin at the time of Mr. Blackwell's
retirement is met.
3. Income to City is $300.00 per month for first year, to be ad-
justed annually with C.P.I. thereafter.
Committee not recommend that City Council authorize the lease of the
Fishburn Park Caretaker's House.
1. Need for Caretaker not met.
2. Timin~ to permit lease to start when Mr. Blackwell retires is
not met.
3. Income to City is zero.
Po
Recommendation: Committee recommend to City Council that it authorize a
lease of the Fishburn Park Caretakers House, 2424 Brambleton Avenue, S.W.,
to George F. & Charlotte S. Blackwell in accordance with Alternative "A".
KBK/RVH/fm
Attachment
cc: City Attorney Director of Finance
Director of Administration & Public Safety
December 20, 1988
Hr. J. B. Layman, Hanager
Parks and Recreation
City of Roanoke
210 Reserve Avenue,
Roanoke, VA 24016
Dear Mr. Layman,
As discussed with you on several occasions concerning the rental
of the Caretaker's house at Fishburn Park, I agree to pay the $300.00
monthly rental fee and to perfom such duties as opening and closing
the locked gates as necessary and generally to be an additional eye
in the park, to report repair items and to report such actions that
are not allowed in the park.
It is also understood by me that the $300.00 rental fee will
in no way affect my retirement income.
Charlotte S. Blac~-w~
#
I