Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 11-22-88 SpMtgSPECIAL SESSION ...... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL November 22, 1988 3:00 p.m. AGENDA 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10, Call to Order. Roll Call of City Council members. Roll Call of School Board members. Invocation. The ttonorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor. Statement of Purpose. The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor. Welcome to legislative officials and School Board members. Presentation of 1989 Legislative Program. Mr. Wilburn Dibling, ,Ir., City Attorney. Statements by the Honorable Honorable A. Victor Thomas, Woadrum, III. Closing statement. Mayor Taylor. Adjournment. J. Granger Macfarlane~ and the Honorable Clifton the A. O~ce ot n~. Moyor November 17, 1988 The Honorable Vice Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: Pursuant to Section 10 of the Roanoke City Charter, this is to advise you that there will be a special meeting of Council and the Roanoke City School Board on Tuesday, November 22, 1988, at 3:00 p.m., in the City Council's Conference Room. The purpose of the special meeting will be to discuss the 1989 Legislative Program of the City. Sincerely, Mayor NCT:ra pc: Mr. Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Wiiburn C. Dibiing, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. James M. Turner, Chairman, Roanoke City School Board, P. 0. Box 1020, Salem, Virginia 24153 Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools, P. 0. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 Mr. Richard L. Kelley, Executive for Business Affairs and Clerk of the Board, P. 0. Box 13105, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 Room 452 Municipal Building 2t5 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, 'virginia 24011 (703) 981-2444 COMMONW£ALTH OF VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES RICHMOND October 20, 1988 Ms. Mary F. Parker Roanoke City Clerk 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 Dear Mary: Thank you so much for your letter of October 17, 1988. As I had indicated to your office, I have a 2:00 o'clock court appearance on the afternoon of Tuesday, November 22, 1988. I will attempt to attend this meeting as soon as possible following my court appearance. Of course, this is a situation over which I have no control Very truly ylurs,~ CAW/mw cc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke Mr. W. Robert Herbert Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. Mr. Joel M. $chlanger Mr. James M. Turner Dr. Frank P. Tota Mr. Richard L. Kelley City Council Office of ~e Ci~ Cle~ October 17, 1988 The Honorable J. Granger Macfarlane Member, Senate of Virginia P. O. Box 201 Roanoke, Virginia 24002 The Honorable A. Victor Thomas Member, House of Delegates 1301 Orange Avenue, No W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 The Honorable Clifton A. Woodrum, Member, House of Delegates P. O. Box 1371 Roanoke, Virginia 24007 III Gentlemen: Pursuant to telephone conversations this week, I am pleased to invite you to meet with the Members of the Roanoke City Council and the Roanoke City School Board to discuss the 1989 Legislative Program of the City. The meeting will be held on Tuesday, November 22, 1988, at 3:00 p.m., in the City Council's Conference Room, fourth floor of the Municipal Building. The Members of Council and the School Board look forward to meeting with you on November 22 to discuss matters of mutual ,interest and concern to the City of Roanoke. Sincerely, ~~ 't. Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP: va pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City 3anager Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mr. James M. Turner, Chairman, Roanoke City School Board, P. 0. Box 1020, Salem, Virginia 24153 Members, Roanoke City School Board Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools, P. 0. Box 13145, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 Mr. Richard L. Kelley, Executive for Business Affairs and Clerk of the Board, P. 0. Box 13105, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 Room 456 Municipal Building 215 C~urch Avenue SW Roanoke. V~rg;nia 24~1 t (70,3) 981-254t 1989 cITY COUNCIL Noel C. Taylor, Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Vice-Mayor David A. Bowers Robert A. Garland Howard E. Musser James O. Trout SCHOOLBOARD James M. Turner, Jr., Chairman Sa#ye T. Coleman, Vice-Chairman Donald Barto/ Marilyn L. Curtis Edwin R. Feinour Ve/ma B. Self CITY MANAGER W. Robert Herbert SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Frank P. Tota Wilburn C Dibling, Jr. City Attorney 464 Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2431 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction .................................................. 1 Policy S~atements ............................................. 2 Legislative Proposals ......................................... 8 Charter Amendments ........................................... 17 Appendix .................................................... A-1 Index ....................................................... A-8 INTRODUCTION The City Council is pleased to commend this Legislative Program for consideration by the 1989 Session of the General Assembly. This Program has been prepared by our City Attorney, Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., with the assistance of comments and suggestions from Council members, School Board members, City and School administrators and citizens. It was adopted and endorsed by City Council on September 26, 1988. See Resolution No. 29303, at App. A-3. The Program consists of three parts. The first part is a series of policy statements which represent the philosophy of Roanoke City Council on a number of important policy issues. Obviously, it is impossible to anticipate all the legislative issues that will arise during the course of any session of the General Assembly, and these policy statements should provide helpful guidance to our legislators throughout the Session. The second part of the Program con- sists of specific legislative proposals of the City, and the third part consists of recommended Charter amendments. A Resolution requesting the Charter amendments is included at App. A-4. The City Council is uniquely qualified to understand the legislative needs of this City and its people, and I am of the opinion that this Program is responsive to those needs. With the support of our legislators, and this City is for- tunate to have legislators who are most supportive and re- sponsive to the needs of our City and its citizens, I know that our City government and School Division will be improved and that the quality of life for our citizens will be advanced. If during the course of the Session our legislators have questions concerning the position of the City on legislative matters, they are encouraged to contact our City Attorney who I know will be pleased to respond after consultation with Council or the School Board and any other appropriate officials. I also know that the City Attorney will be in contact with our legislators on many occasions during the 1989 Session, and their consideration of his communications is deeply appreciated. Noel C. Taylor Mayor - i POLICY STATEMENTS EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT Local governments were originally organized to provide essential services and protection that citizens could not or would not provide for themselves. Examples of such essential local services are education, provision for health and welfare, police and fire protection, delivery of safe water, sewage treatment and refuse collection. Local governments and their officials are continually striving for economy and productivity in delivery of such services. Unfortunately, the essential services for which local governments were originally created have been over- shadowed by numerous less critical programs mandated by the federal and State governments. The federal and State governments should recognize that local governments are the best vehicle for the delivery of basic public services because local governments are closest to the people and most responsive to their needs. Further- more, basic public services cannot be performed in the most effective way if Virginia adopts the federal model of over- regulation with the State dictating in minute detail the structure of all local government, the administrative and legislative procedures to be followed uniformly by all local governments and the details of all programs administered at the local level. With more and more programs and functions being returned to the states and localities by the federal government, it is important that local governments be granted greater auton- omy to manage their own affairs and that the Commonwealth re- frain from intervention in local policy and administrative issues. REVENUE AND FINANCE The study of local governments conducted by the JLARC in 1983 found that most local governments are fiscally stressed and that cities are generally more fiscally stressed than counties. Furthermore, the same study found that the fiscal stress of localities has been increasing in recent years. A major factor in the fiscal stress of localities is the level of State aid and State mandates. State aid to locali- ties has grown at a rate considerably less than the rate of growth in State general fund revenues, and, at the same time, the State has continually imposed new unfunded man- dates on the localities. These factors are compounded by rapidly shrinking federal aid. - 2 - The problem of fiscal stress is further complicated by the continued erosion of the local tax base. The General Assembly is Urged not to cap, remove or further restrict any revenue sources that are currently available to localities, including taxing authority and user fees. Investigation and study of additional local revenue sources is also encouraged. Historically, real and personal property taxes have been the foundation of local tax revenues. The State's restriction and erosion of other local resources, however, has resulted in over reliance on property taxes, placing local govern- merits in financial Jeopardy. JLARC's own study shows that the real property tax rate in Virginia is the second highest among fifteen Southern states and fifty percent higher than nine Southern States. The City supports additional and more equitable sources of revenue, but the decision on which, if any, local revenue sources should be reduced or eliminated should be strictly a local decision. EDUCATION F The ~eport of the Governor's Com.~oo~ uture states that ~---*~ ..... "T-'°°~v~ vu v~rg~nla,~; ~u Snou~ ~e the highest priority ~ Commonwealth. Yet, the Report notes that Virginia has not honored its commitment to education. Inadequacy of State funding of education is readily apparent in our own City. For Fiscal Year 1988-1989, the General Assembly set the per pupil cost of the Standards of ~uality (SOQ) at $2,397. Actual per pupil cost for City students, however, is estimated to be $4,236 for Fiscal Year 1988-1989. ~oreover, the City schools actually receive only $976 per pupil for this Fiscal Year (including one time hold harmless payment for enrollment loss) after application of the composite index and State sales ta~ to the SOQ funding formula. Full funding of the State's share of the actual cost of the Standards of ~uality and full funding of categorical edu- cational mandates is a high legislative priority of the City. SPECIAL NEEDS OF CENTaUr. CITIES ~ITHOUT ANNEXATION PO~E~ The larger, more urbanized, central cities of the Common- wealth, such as this City, provide a full range of housing, health, mental health, transportation, social and humanitari- an services. School systems in these cities provide excel- lent special education programs, and private charities located in central cities provide a broad range of chari- table assistance. These factors make the Commonwealth's central cities a magnet for those in need of services. Con- sider these facts: - 3 - That the City has over 3800 subsidized housing units while Roanoke County and Salem have only 460 and 216, respec- tively; That the City's elderly population is at 25~ and increasing; 'That 19~ of the City's population is below the age of 18 meaning that 44~ of the City's population are consum- ers of governmental services with little ability to pay for these services; and That, by 1987, 36~ of children in the City Public School System came from economic- ally deprived homes (up from 15.8~ in 1980). In spite of these demographic negatives, the City has made tremendous strides in economic development· Downtown has been revitalized; industrial parks have been established; and new businesses and industries have been attracted· It is un- likely, however, that these recent successes can be sustained over the long term. In this regard, the major problem fac- ing the City is an inadequate inventory of developable land· Much of our mountainous terrain is either undevelopable or developable only at tremendous costs. Other land in the heart of the Roanoke Valley is subject to flooding and un- developable. Roanoke's peculiar problems are compounded by the need of central cities to provide police, fire, transportation, and water and sewer services at a level not required in adjoining suburban or rural localities. These services benefit the entire region, but are paid for primarily by City taxpayers. Historically, the fiscal stress of central cities has been relieved by annexation. Recently, however, the power of annexation has, without logic, been denied to the central cities which need it ~ost. If the central cities of the Commonwealth are to remain strong, viable units of govern- ment, which is in the best interest of the Commonwealth, decisive action needs to be taken. Among those actions which should be considered are: Reinstitution of the annexation power of central cities; Creation of financial incentives for local government mergers which result in stronger, more viable units of local government; and - 4 - Special funding by the Commonwealth of those services provided by central cities which benefit the entire region. REGIONAL ISSUES The most difficult issues facing Virginia's local governments today affect more than one Jurisdiction, and the regional scope of these issues will continue to grow. For example, siting of landfills and sewage treatment plants, development of water resources and transportation systems and dealing with the threats of air and water pollution all require regional response. Yet in dealing with these issues, irrational factors often cause the best management, engineering or technical solutions to be rejected. If local governments are children of the Commonwealth, then the Commonwealth, our parent, must not stand by and allow the health and welfare of the entire region to be adversely affected by the failure of local governments to act in the best interests of the region. ~here local governments are unable to agree with respect to a vital issue facing the region, for example siting a landfill, then the Commonwealth must establish a mechanism that will allow it to step in and impose a solution for the benefit of the region and the entire State. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT Economic development is a way of improving the economy and tax base of the Commonwealth and its localities. Virginia has, unfortunately, lagged behind neighboring states in its economic development programs and activities. The City endorses the em- phasis of Governor Baliles on economic development, which includes all those activities that enhance the economic well being of the Commonwealth and. its political subdivisions, and the increased efforts of the Division of Industrial Development to foster eco- nomic development in Virginia. According to the Report of the Governor's Comm~ssion on Virginia's Future, Virginia needs an economic development strategy. The Commonwealth is implored to form a partnership with its localities to develop a statewide strategy which should recognize the unique economic development problems of Virginia's land poor cities. Tourism and convention acti- vity should be recognized as integral components of economic development. The Commonwealth is also urged to study the idea of a grant program to allow localities to make the necessary capital improvements to compete effectively for economic development opportunities. - 5 - DRUGS The City and School Board are vitally concerned about the problems caused by drugs in our society and support efforts to increase programs designed for the prevention and cure of drug abuse. GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY Every session of the General Assembly brings new assaults on the doctrines of governmental immunity for political sub- divisions and official immunity for local government employees. These doctrines should be retained, and in fact strengthened, for, among others, the following reasons: Local governments would be forced by loss of immunity to eliminate or cut back high risk functions or services, such as operation of nursing homes, parks and playgrounds and athletic programs, and such action is not in the public interest· Frivolous suits would be encouraged. Local governments would be viewed as a "deep pocket" making them an easy target for plaintiffs who could bring suit without even attempting to identify the employee allegedly at fault. Cost of local government would increase rapid- ly at a time when localities can ill afford a new major drain on financial resources. Cost of defense of litigation may be a more serious problem than the obvious cost of paying Judg- ments. ~hen the City and an employee are sued, conflicts may require a separate attorney for each party. A recent authoritative study shows that, of every $4 paid out in litigation by local government, $3 goes to legal costs; only $! actually goes to compensate plaintiffs. Threat of harassing lawsuits may make local government officials less likely to act deci- sively where courageous or difficult actions are in order. Good government is difficult to achieve when officials operate under con- stant fear of lawsuits. The $25,000 cap on liability under the Virginia Tort Claims Act is illusory. Constant pressure will keep the cap spiraling upward. - 6 - The City is opposed to any extension of the Virginia Tort Claims Act to localities and supports extension of immunity to certain groups of municipal employees and volunteers who are particularly vulnerable to suits which Jeopardize the very existence of programs desired by the community. An ex- ample of a group of employees and volunteers needing immunity is coaches and officials serving in youth athletic programs sponsored by the City (~ee page 13). - 7 - LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS SALES TAX - LOCAL OPTION The City strongly urges the General Assembly to enact legislation authorizing all localities to levy an additional one-half cent local option sales tax, the revenues from such additional tax to be used for general government purposes. This tax authority would be in addition to the one cent local option sales tax now available to cities and counties. If authorized and levied by the City, the Director of Finance estimates an additional $5.7 million would be generated for the City's general fund. FULL FUNDING OF STATE MANDATED JLARC's July, 1985, update to its 1984 State Mandates on Local Governments study recouended that St~u~ding be -- nc~'~-~a~ed substantially for special education, social ser- vices auxiliary grants and State-mandated health programs. The City strongly supports this recouendation and also strongly supports full funding of the State's share of the actual costs of both Standards of quality education mandates and categorical education programs, and continued State sup- port of human services programs. Furthermore, the General Assembly and the Governor are urged to actively seek the reduction of excessive regulatory and statutory mandates. EDUCATION - FULL FUNDING OF STANDARDS OF QUALITY The General Assembly should recognize the long standing support of public education by local governments. For many years, local governments have funded educational costs beyond their required share in efforts to provide quality education. Increased funding for education, including full funding of the State's share of the actual costs of the Standards of quality and full funding of categorical educational mandates, is a top priority of City Council. Increased State funding should be achieved without reduction to other funding com- ponents of the State's public education budget or to other State funding items affecting local governments. The State should also factor public school capital improvement costs into the Standards of quality and should begin to share in funding such costs. Finally, no changes to educational funding formulas, which would reduce State funding of any school division, should be recommended without specific notice of such pro- - 8 posed changes being given to each school division, each local government and the Virginia Municipal League and the Virginia Association of Counties. Public hearings should be held with respect to such proposed changes at locations throughout the Commonwealth. Notice with respect to any changes to be presented to any Session of the General Assembly should be given at least ninety days prior to the commencement of the Session. EDUCATION - FINANCIAL STRESS OF URBAN SCHOOL DIVISION~; As an urban school division, the Roanoke City Schools are faced with the dilemma of educating an increasing number of disadvantaged youngsters while struggling with decreasing financial resources as a result of municipal overburden evi- dent in the cities of the Commonwealth. The fiscal stress experienced by urban localities and their school divisions is demonstrated by the 1986 JLARC study of local fiscal stress and state aid. Ten of fourteen major urban school divisions in Virginia were classified by this study as "High Stress--Poor Fiscal Position" category. The factors which caused the classifi- cation of these urban school divisions as fiscally-stressed included: high tax effort, large special education popula- tion, a significant number of low income housing units, a transient student population and a high per pupil cost. One of the prime recommendations of the 1986 JLARC study was that stressed urban areas should receive special con- sideration in State funding formulas. The study recommended that these formulas be periodically reassessed and should include measures of local fiscal stress. The City Council and School Board urge the General Assembly to include measures of local fiscal stress in the formula used for the distribution of Basic State Aid to local school divisions. The evidence of the JLAHC study also indicates that Virginia's urban school divisions require improved State categorical funding assistance if they are to provide the educational services needed to educate disadvantaged youth. State funding assistance is required for preschool programs, remedial reading and literacy programs, dropout prevention, summer school, special education and innovative technology programs. Such funding must represent a real increase in the total State funds received by urban school divisions and not a mere shifting of funds from one appropriation category to another. - 9 - E_DUCATION - OPPOSITION TO TEACHER SALARY MANDATES The City strongly opposes State mandates for teacher salary increases. These mandates take away local officials' ability to make appropriate budget decisions and have im- posed undue financial hardships on local governments· Fur- ther, the teacher salary mandates have created tensions in local governments when salary mandates are funded at the expense of salary increases for other local government em- ployees. FUNDING FOR LOCAL SOCIAL SERVICES PROGRA~ State funding of local social services programs has not kept pace with State and Federal mandates. Examples of State mandates are as follows: Care of children found to be in need of treatment because of emotional and psychi- atric problems manifested in aggressive behavior, attempted suicide, truancy, runaways, etc.; Placement of emotionally handicapped children for adoption; Placement of recipients of Aid to Dependent Children in Jobs or provision of work related training; Child abuse and neglect investigation and treatment services; and Adult abuse and neglect investigation and treatment services· The State Department of Social Services has insufficient funds allocated to it and has been forced to pass the short- fall on to the localities. In this City, the shortfall in the Eligibility Division (ADC, Food Stamps, Medicaid, etc.) for this fiscal year Is $274,000. For the same period, the shortfall of needed funds to pay for foster care and day care is over $500,000. The 1989 Session of the General Assembly is requested to appropriate sufficient funds to defray State-mandated programs. RIVER CHANNELIZATON Flood protection remains one of the highest priorities of City Council. In this regard, the City is being requested by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to participate in a lO-mile - 10 - channelization of the Roanoke River within the boundaries of the City. The total cost of this project is approxi- mately $31,000,000, and, with recreation bridges and low water bridges, the non-Federal cost is estimated at approx- imately $17,000,000. It will be vividly recalled that the 1985 flood took ten lives in the Roanoke Valley and caused $300,000,000 of damage in this City alone. Subsequent to the flood, the Commonwealth paid the City $750,000 in reimbursement of eligible costs. Moreover, the negative effects of the 1985 flood continue. Within the City, land and buildings having a value of $1,000,000,000 lie along the Roanoke River. As their financial capability allows, businesses employing thousands of persons are considering re- location. Because of its limited land inventory, compounded by lack of annexation power, it is of great concern that busi- nesses will leave the City. With respect to flood control, it is hoped that the Common- wealth will choose to be proactive rather than reactive. State funding for flood protection would lessen the need for State appropriations to deal with the aftermaths of flood disasters and minimize flood caused reduction of State and local tax bases. There are, of course, a number of ways in which the Commonwealth could provide financial assistance for flood control. For ex- ample, the Department of Transportation could provide funding for relocation of bridges or construction of bike trails, and the Commission on Outdoor Recreation could provide funds for park access and relocation of tennis courts. Careful considera- tion should be given to the many ways in which the Commonwealth could assist this important project. TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTER FUNDING The City has completed a feasibility study which establishes the economic viability of a trade and convention center in downtown. In addition, the study shows that the facility would generate $2,179,000 in new tax revenue each year; of this amount, $1,022,00 would be new State tax reve- nue. At this time, a City Manager appointed task force is studying location, financing and operation of the proposed facility. Trade and convention business is a vital and bene- ficial industry, and the Commonwealth would be the largest financial beneficiary, through additional tax revenues, of the facility proposed to be constructed in this City. More than twenty states around the country have begun to participate financially in the funding of local trade and convention centers. The General Assembly is urged to estab- lish and fund a program for the financing of local trade and convention centers. - 11 - NURSING HOME FUNDING As in the past, the City requests the General Assembly to fund locally-owned nursing homes in the same way State- Owned facilities are funded. OPEN SPACE RECREATION AND CONSERVATION FUND House Joint Resolution No. 204 enacted by the 1987 Session of the General Assembly created a Joint Subcomit- tee to study the outdoor recreation needs of the Common- wealth. This Subcommittee, chaired by Delegate Thomas, made important recommendations to improve outdoor recre- ational opportunities in the Commonwealth. One of the recommendatio~s of the Subcommittee which was not adopted by the 1988 Session of the General Assembly was the estab- lishment of an Open Space Recreation and Conservation Fund to meet the capital outlay needs of State and local parks. The City urges the 1989 Session of the General Assemb- ly to provide adequate funding to the Open Space Recreation and Conservation Fund. Federal funding of park improvements and expansions has been drastically reduced. The Open Space Recreation and Conservation Fund should set aside 50~ of its funds to be made available to local governments for park im- provement and expansion projects on a 50-50 matching basis. DAY CARE - PROPOSED REGULATIONS SHOULD NOT EXTEND TO PARKS AND RECREATION PROGRAMS The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission is currently conducting a study of day care programs operated by local governments. This study results primarily from complaints of private day care operators that local govern- ments are unfairly competing with them. Proposed day care regulations, which would apply to local governments, include the requirement that inside temperatures be maintained be- tween 68° Parenheit and 72° Farenheit; requirement of a one to 20 ratio of staff to children; requirement of one toilet aud one sink per 15 preschoolers; etc. The City of Roanoke does not operate traditional day care programs which compete with the private sector. Our Parks and Recreation Department does operate programs for children which are designed to promote educational, recre- ational, athletic or social opportunities for them. Exten- sion of the proposed day care regulations to these programs would increase their cost tremendously and/or require that the number of children participating in these programs be drastically reduced or even that the programs be eliminated. - 12 - The General Assembly is urged to carefully consider the definition of "day care" and not extend State regulation to programs offered by parks and recreation departments, which do not provide meals for participants, and are intended to provide educational, recreational, athletic or social oppor- tunities for children. IMMUNITY FOR STAFF AND VOLUNTEERS IN YOUTH ATHLETIC PROGRAM~; The City's non-profit, youth athletic programs are sup- ported by several City employees and many volunteers. These volunteers serve as coaches, assistant coaches, league offi- cials, etc. It is well known that these athletic programs involve high risk activities which expose staff and volun- teers to considerable liability. If these athletic programs, which are so beneficial to our youth, are going to continue, the General Assembly will need to extend immunity to the local government employees and volunteers who oversee them. FIRE PROGRAMS FUND The 1985 Session of the General Assembly created the Fire Programs Fund which is supported by an assessment in the amount of eight-tenths of one percent of the total direct gross fire insurance premium income against insur- ance companies writing fire insurance iu the Commonwealth. Seventy-five percent of the total amount collected has been allocated to local governments for the purposes of fire ser- vice training, constructing, improving and expanding regional fire service training facilities and purchasing firefighting equipment or protective clothing. Pursuant to a sunset clause included in the legislation, it will automatically expire on July 1, 1990. In this City, the Fire Department has used allocations from the Fire Programs Fund to outfit each of the 230 members of the Fire Suppression Division with new turn-out gear at a cost in excess of $100,000. In addition, the Department is in the process of purchasing a breathing air machine at a cost of approximately $20,000, and the training program has benefitted by the purchase of badly needed training manuals and audio visual equipment. If the Program con- tinues, consideration is being given to dedicating the City's allocations to a regional training center to be participated in by this City and neighboring localities. The Fire Programs Fund has proven itself to be a useful piece of legislation, and the General Assembly is urged to repeal the sunset clause. - 13 - CORRECTIONS BLOCK GRANT FUNDING FOR JUVENILE FACILITIES Since the inception of block grant funding for Juvenile facilities in 1982, the State's percentage of financial participation in operatinE this City's Juvenile facilities has significantly decreased. The 1989 Session of the General Assembly should amend the block grant pro- gram to provide that localities will receive funds in an amount at least equal to the amount received under the reimbursement formulas in effect when the block grant program was established. In additiou, the program should provide for annual inflation adjustments and adjustments due to program changes. TRANSPORTATION - IMPROVED ACCESS TO BLACKSBUEG/VIRGINIA TECH Direct access between the Roanoke Valley and Blacksburg/ Virginia Tech is important to economic development efforts in Southwest Virginia. The City supports a study commis- sioned by the Town of Blacksburg which finds that a new road leading from the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center east to a point near the existing intersection of Route 641 with Interstate 81 is the best solution to the problems associated with access between the Roanoke Valley and Blacksburg/Vlrginia Tech. See Resolution No. 28762, August 10, 1987, at Appendix page ~-f. PARKING AS AN ELIGIBLE TRANSPORTATION EXPENDITURE For urban areas, such as this City, parking structures are an integral, crucial part of the transportation system and its planning. Currently, the City gets approximately $6,000,000 annually as its urban allocation out of the State transporta- tion fund. Legislation should be enacted which would give urban localities the option of spending some of the urban allocation funds on parking structures. EXTENSION OF OCCUPATIONAL DISEASE PRESUMPTIONS Police officers, deputy sheriffs and firefighters have the advantage of nearly irrebuttable presumptions that heart disease and hypertension are occupational diseases under the Workers' Compensation Act. Firefighters have au additional presumption with respect to lung disease. The City currently has a Workers' Compensation Act lia- bility of $2.6 million for heart, hypertension and lung awards made to public safety officers as a result of the statutory presumption. - 14 - Without voicing any opinion as to the wisdom of the current presumptions, the City urges the General Assembly not to extend the occupational disease presumption to new diseases, such as cancer. The high incidence of cancer among Americans is known to all of us, and, as terrible as this disease is, it should not be the subject of a work related presumption. DEMOLITION OF HISTORIC STRUCTURES State Code $15.1-503.2 authorizes counties and cities to designate historic landmarks, buildings and structures and historic areas; to create an architectural review board to review and approve reconstruction or alteration of historic structures; and to prohibit the razing or demolition of historic structures without following certain procedures. The State statute further provides that a historic structure may not be razed until it has been offered on the market at a price reasonably related to its fair market value for a certain number of days without any bona fide contract for such structure being executed. For example, a structure valued at $40,000 to $50,000 must be offered on the market for five months before it can be razed. This City has implemented the historic district zoning authorities authorized by the State Code in the ~arket District and in Old Southwest. There is a problem, how- ever, with the minimal penalties authorized by the State Code for razing a historic structure without following the required procedures. Section 15.1-503.2 is part of the State zoning enabling legislation, and for violations of local zoning ordinances, $15.1-491(e) authorizes a penalty of not less than $10 nor more than $1,000. No person should be permitted to destroy a priceless part of the community's heritage and pay a mere fine of $1,000 as a cost of doing business. It is recommended, therefore, that $15.1-503.2 be amended to state that razing or demolition of a historic structure in violation of a historic district zoning ordinance adopted pursuant to $15.1-503.2 shall be punishable as a Class 1 misdemeanor which carries a penalty of confinement in Jail for not more than twelve months and a fine of not more than $1,000, either or both. In addition, such person should be liable for a civil penalty in the amount of the assessed value of the historic structure destroyed. Such civil penalty would be paid to the local government to be used in historic preser- vation activities. SEIZURE OF ASSETS OF DRUG DEALERS Under existing law, assets seized by local law enforce- ment agencies from drug dealers are soId and the proceeds - 15 - are paid into the State Literary Fund after a lengthy court proceeding. See SS18.2-249 and 4-56, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. An exception permits a local law en- forcement agency to make use of a seized motor vehicle for drug investigation as long as it deems necessary; once the agency ceases to use the motor vehicle, it is sold pursuant to statutory procedures and the proceeds are paid into the Literary Fund. See $18.2-249.C. The City urges the General Assembly to amend S18.2-249 to permit local law enforcement agencies to retain all assets seized from drug dealers, including money, for ex- clusive use in investigation of drug and drug-related of- fenses or for the purchase of equipment, including vehicles, to be used in such investigations. Appropriate record keep- ing procedures should be established, and the program should operate similar to the Federal asset seizure program. RELOCATION BENEFITS Section 25-245 of the State Code requires a local government to pay relocation benefits to any person who moves his business or dwelling as the direct result of federally assisted building enforcement activities. This section paralleled a similar federal provision found in 42 U.S.C. S4637 which was repealed by P.L. 100-17, Title IV, f415, 101 Stat. 255, enacted April 2, 1987. Thus, neither federal law nor regulation requires payment of relocation benefits under the circumstances set out in ~25-245. Relocation benefits can run from several thousand dol- lars in the case of a renter to more than $15,000 in the case of a homeowner. City inspectors, some of whom are federally funded, should not be deterred from enforcing the building codes to protect lives and safety by the State requirement of relocation benefits. Congress has wisely repealed the requirement of relocation benefits under these circumstances, and the General Assembly is requested to follow suit. COLLECTIVE BARGAINING Any legislation authorizing collective bargaining for public employees in general or for any public employee group should be opposed. All public employees now have effective grievance proce- dures. Both the City and the School Board have developed effective means of communication which permit public employees to voice their concerns. Collective bargaining would be a detriment to the progress which has been made. - 16 - CHARTER AMENDMENTS ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY Subsection (5) of $2 of the City Charter lists the ways in which the City can acquire property, enumerating acquisi- tion by "purchase, gift, devise, condemnation or otherwise." Such commonly relied upon methods of property acquisi- tion as lease and lease purchase are not mentioned. Also, although acquisition by "devise" or gift of real property under a will is mentioned, no mention is made of acquisi- tion by "bequest" or gift of personal property under a will. Therefore, it is recommended that $2 be amended to read "purchase, lease, lease purchase, gift, devise, bequest, condemnation or otherwise." SALARIES OF MAYOR, VICE-MAYOR AND COUNCIL M~MRERS Section 6 sets out salaries for the Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Council members. Section 6, however, is superseded by S14.1-47.2, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which establishes maximum salaries for mayors and council members of all cities. Therefore, S6 of the Charter should be amended to conform to general law. PROCUREMENT - GENERALLY Section 40 provides that all contracts for more than $10,000 shall be awarded "...to the lowest bidder, after public advertisement and competition .... ,, This section overlooks that in some cases, such as the award of a fran- chise, the contract will be awarded to the highest bidder. It also overlooks that, in procuring professional services pursuant to the competitive negotiation procedure estab- lished by State Code, actual bids are not received and award need not be to the lowest proposer. Therefore, it is recom- mended that S40 be amended to require award "...after public advertisement and competition, as may be prescribed by general law." PROCUREMENT - EMERGENCY Section 41 authorizes the City Manager to make emergency procurement of any "improvements" or "public work" without advertising and receiving bids. Such procurement must be reported at the next regular meeting of Council. Experience has proven that emergency procurements do not always relate to "improvements" or "public work" as these terms are ordi- - 17 - narily defined. For example, emergency procurement may be required with respect to a machine or a part of a machine required to keep the Sewage Treatment Plant or Water Plant operating. Therefore, S41 should be amended to permit an emergency "purchase" as well as emergency procurement of "improvements" or "public work." CONFLICTS OF INTEREST Section 61 prohibits Council members or other officers of the City from contracting with the City. The same sec- tion prohibits any officer who has the duty of auditing, settling or providing for payment of claims against the City, from being an owner or interested in any such claim. Insofar as SS1 attempts to regulate conflicts of inte- rests, it is inconsistent with and superseded by the State and Local Government Conflict of Interests Act. The Act specifically supersedes all charter provisions. See ~2.1- 639.1. Therefore, the Charter provision serves only to cause confusion and should be repealed. PENALTY FOR ZONING VIOLATIONS Subsection (23) of ~62 sets out criminal penalties for zoning violations. Nonwillful violations are punishable by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $100. Willful violations are punishable by a fine of not more than $250. In each case, a fine of $10 per day is applicable. Section 15.1-491(e), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, authorizes a local governing body to adopt a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $1000 for zoning violations. The State Code provides a more appropriate penalty, and ~62(23) of the Charter should be amended to conform to the State Code. - 13 - iN THE COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF ROANOKE, The 10th day of August, 1987. No. 28762. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION supporting the improvement of access between the Roanoke Valley and Virginia Tech. WHEREAS, direct access between the Roanoke Valley and Virginia Tech is a key ingredient in the success of economic development efforts in Southwest Virginia; and WHEREAS, the Governor of Virginia has identified improvement of transportation facilities as an important part of the Commonwealth's economic development strategy; and WHEREA~, a study commissioned by the Town of Blacksburg shows that a new road Leading from the Virginia Tech Corporate Research Center east to a point near the existing intersection of Pa~ute 641 with Interstate 81 is the best solution to the problems asso- ciated with the access of Blacksburg and Virginia Tech to the Roanoke Valley. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that: l. The Council joins with the Town of Blacksburg and Virginia Tech in requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation accept the corridor solution the Town of Blacksburg has best answer to the needs of the Commonwealth funds necessary for timely completion of the identified as the and provide the project. 2. The City Clerk is directed to forward attested copies of this eesolution to the members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the Honorable Roger E. Hedgepeth, Mayor of the Town of and Dr, William E. Lavery, President of Virginia Blacksburg, Tech. ATTEST: City Clerk. IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 26th day of September, 1988. No. 29303. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION adopting and endorsing a Legislative Progr%m for the City to be presented to the City's delegation to the 1989 Session of the General Assembly. WHEREAS, be aware of WHEREAS, the members of City Council are in a unique position to the legislative needs of this City and its people; previous Legislative Programs of the City have been re- sponsible for improving the efficiency of local government and the quality of life of citizens of this City; and WHEREAS, Council is desirous of again adopting and endorsing a Legislative Program to be advocated by the Council and its represen- tatives at the 1989 Session of the General Assembly; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The Legislative Program transmitted by the City Attorney's report, dated September 26, 1988, is hereby adopted and endorsed by Council as the City's official Legislative Program for the 1989 Ses- sion of the General Assembly. 2. The City Clerk is directed to issue cordial invitations to the City's Senator and delegates to the 1989 Session of the General Assembly to attend Council's Special Meeting relating to legislative matters, the date and time of such meeting to be established. the ATTEST: City Clerk. A-3 IN TRE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 26th day of September, 1988. No. 29304. A RESOLUTION requesting the 1989 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia.to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended. WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Council held on September 26, 1988, at 2:00 P.M., in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building, after due and proper publication of the notice of public hearing pur- suant to S15.1-835, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which notice contained, inter alia, an informative S-mm~ry of each of the proposed amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952 hereinafter referred to, a public hearing with respect to such proposed amendments ~as held before the City Council at which all citizens so desiring were afforded oppor- tunity to be heard to determine if the citizens of the City desire that the City request the General Assembly to amend its existing Charter in the form and ~anner hereinafter referred to and as provided in the aforesaid notice; and WHEREAS, upon conclusion of such public hearing and upon considera- tion of each proposed amendment to such Charter, the Council is of opinion that the 1989 General Assembly should be requested to amend this City's Charter as hereinafter set forth. THEREFORE, EE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The General Assembly of Virginia is hereby requested at its 1989 Session to amend the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as presently amended, by deleting the words hereinafter shown as stricken and by adding the words hereinafter shown as underscored: A-4 $2. Powers of the city. In addition to the powers mentioned in the preceding section, the said city shall have power: (5) To acquire by purchase, lease, lease purchase, gift, bequest, devise, condemnation or otherwise, property, real or personal, or any estate or interest therein, withis or without the city or State and for any of the purposes of the city; and to hold, improve, sell, lease, mortgage, pledge or otherwise dispose of the same or any part thereof. $6. Compensation of the mayor, vice-mayor and of councilmen. of the ~yor, vice-~yor and each council member shal~e such ~he ~i~ es~ab~e~eneral law. ~c~l~h~ ~ payable no less frequently than $40. Contracts for public improvements; purchases. Any purchase, public work, or improvement, costing more than ten thousand dollars, except as provided in the next succeeding section, shall be executed by contract. All con- tracts for more than ten thousand dollars shall be awarded · c thc Ic=c~ rcc~c==i~Ic biddc~, after public advertisement and competition, am may be prescribed by e~-i~aa~eneral law. ~ The city council shall have the power to reject any a--~ all bids and all advertisements shall contain a reserva- tion of this right. A-5 J41. Improvement by direct labor; emergency work. After bids shall have been advertised for and received for making any public improvement or doing any public work, the council may authorize the making of such improvement or doing such work by the direct employment of the necessary labor and purchase of the necessary materials and supplies on the basis of detailed estimate submitted by the city manager; provided the probable cost of such work or improvements as shown h¥ such estimate is less than the bid of the lowest responsible bidder for the same work or improvement; and provided further, that the city manager shall certify to the council that in his opinion the cost of making such improvement or doing such work will not exceed the said estimate. Separate accounts shall be kept of all work and improvements so done or made. In an emergency requiring immediate action, the city manager may make any purchase or cause any such improvements to be made or ot-~ p-~lt'~ work t~be done by direct employment of the necessary labor and purchase of the necessary material and sup- plies without previously advertising for or receiving bids therefor. Every such case shall be reported by him in writing to the council at its next regular meeting with a statement of the facts constituting such emergency. Separate accounts shall be kept of all such work; provided that nothing in this or the next preceding section shall prevent the said city from doing maintenance and repair work by direct labor and from maintaining a reasonable force of men for that purpose. General disqualifications. a%~'~s~,-~'-w~-t~-~u~a-~m~m~t~eeeT--~o~'-a~9'-;ork or labor ordered ~~-~~~-~ fo~ci ~-~ the A-6 §62. Zoning. (23) Said regulations shall be enforced by the division of building inspection which is empowerd to cause any building, structure, place or premises to be inspected and examined and to order in ~riting the remedying of any condition found to exist therein or,thereat in violation of any provision of the regula- tions made under authority of this or the preceding paragraph. The owner or general agent of the building or premises where a violation of any provision of said regulations has been committed or shall exist, or the lessee or tenant of an entire building or entire premises where such violation has been committed or shall exist, or the owner, general agent, lessee or tenant of any part of the building or premises in which such violation has been com- mitted or shall exist, or the general agent, architect, builder, contractor or any other person who commits, takes part or assists in any such violation or who maintains any building or premises in which any such violations shall exist shall be guilty of a misde- meanor, punishable by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than ~a~-~.f-t~ thc ~-i-~-~a~y--t4~e-~ee~-~a~c~-~tr~ ~v.~ml~7 In any case of the existence of a violation of any provision of said regulations the owner, lessee, tenant or agent shall be subject to a civil penalty of fifty dollars. Any such person who having been served with an order to remove any such violation, shall fail to comply with said order within ten days after such service or shall continue to violate any provisions of the said regulations in the respect named in such order shall also be subject to a civil penalty of two hundred fifty dollars. 2. The City Clerk is directed to forthwith, as provided by $15.1-834, Code of Virginia (195~), as amended, transmit to each of the members of the General Assembly of Virginia representing the City of Roanoke at the 1989 Session of the said General Assembly two copies of this resolution setting forth the requested amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952 Zo be put into the form of a bill to be introduced at the 1989 Session of the General Assembly. ATTEST: City Clerk. A-7 INDEX POLICY STATEMENTS Economic Development. · · · · 5 Education ............ . . · · 3 Effective Government. · · · · 2 Governmental Immunity ....... Revenue and Finance ....................................... 2 Special Needs of Central Cities Without Annexation Power.. 3 LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS Collective Bargaining ..................................... 16 Corrections Block Grant Funding for Juvenile Facilities...14 Day Care - Proposed Regulations Should Not Extend to Parks and Recreation Programs ............................ 12 Demolition of Historic Structures ......................... 15 Education Financial Stress of Urban School Divisions .... 9 Education - Full Funding of Standards of Quality .......... 8 Education - Opposition to Teacher Salary Mandates ......... 10 Fire Programs Fund ........................................ 13 Immunity for Staff and Volunteers in Youth Athletic Programs ................. .13 Nursing Home Funding ...................................... 12 Occupational Disease Presumptions - Extension ............. 14 Open Space Recreation and Conservation Fund ............... 12 Parking as an Eligible Transportation Expenditure ......... 14 Relocation Benefits ....................................... 16 Hlver Channelization ...................................... 10 Sales Tax - Local Option .................................. 8 Seizures of Assets of Drug Dealers ........................ 15 Social Services Programs - Funding ........................ 10 Trade and Convention Center Funding ....................... Transportation - Improved Access To Blacksburg/Vlrgtnia Tech ..................................................... 14 ,C. HARTER AMENDMENT8 Acquisition Of Property.. · 17 Penalty For Zoning Violations ............................. 18 Procurement - Emergency ................................... 17 Procurement - General ..................................... 17 Salaries Of Mayor, Vice-Mayor and Council Members ......... 17 A-8 Office of the City Clerk September 28, 1988 File #132-137 The Ilonorable Clifton A. Woodrum, Member, House of Delegates P. O. Box 1371 Roanoke, Virginia 24007 Dear Delegate Woodrum: III I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 29304, requesting the 1989 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended, which Resolution No. 29304 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 26, 1988o Sincerely, SHE:.a Eric. Sandra H. Eakin Deputy City Clerk Rotan 456 Municil:~al 'BuJlclir~l 215 Church Av~que SW Roonc~e Vlrg~n~a 240t I (70~) 981-2541 September 28, 1988 File #132-137 The Honorable A. Victor Thomas Member, House of Delegates 1301 Orange Avenue, H. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 Dear Delegate Thomas: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 29304, requesting the 1989 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended, which Resolution No. 29304 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on ~nday, September 26, 1988. Sincerely, Sandra Ho Eakin Deputy City Clerk SHE:fa Enco Room456 MunicipalBuilding 215 Church Avenue SW 1"~3anc~e ~r.cl~nia24~311 (703)98t-2541 Office o~ the Cry Cler~ September 28. 1988 File #132-137 The Honorable J. Granger Macfarlane Membe,. Senate of Virginia P. O. Box 201 Roanoke, Vi.ginia 24002 Dear Senator Macfavlane: I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 29304. requesting the 1989 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended, which Resolution No. 29304 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on ~onday, September 26, 1988. Sincerely. Sandra H. Eakin Deputy City Clerk SHE:va Enc. Rooc'n 456 Munic:i~:)°l Building 2 t§ C~,.x'ch Avenue S W Roono~-.e ~rg~n~O 24011 (703) 98%2541 Office of the City C:er~ September 28, 1988 File #132-137 Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Dear Mr. Dibling: [ am attaching copy of Resolution No. 29304, requesting the 1989 Session of the General. Assembly of Viryinia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended, which · Resolution No. 29304 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 26, 1988. Sincerely, Sandra H. Eakin Deputy City Clerk SHE:fa Enco pc: Mr. W. Robert H~rbert, City Manager Mr. Joel M. S¢~ld~4~er, Director of Finance Room456 MunicJl:~lBuilcling 215C'~urchA',~ue SW Roono~.e V~rg~nia240'~1 (700)981-25,41 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 26th day of September, 1988. No. 29304. A RESOLUTION requesting the 1989 Session of the General Assembly of Virginia to enact certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended. WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Council held on September 26, 1988, at 2:00 P.M., in the Council Chamber in the Municipal Building, after due and proper publication of the notice of public hearing pur- suant to ~15.1-835, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which notice contained, inter alia, an informative summary of each of the proposed amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952 hereinafter referred to, a public hearing with respect to such proposed amendments was held before the City Council at which all citizens so desiring were afforded oppor- tunity to be heard to determine if the citizens of the City desire that the City request the General Assembly to amend its existing Charter in the form and manner hereinafter referred to and as provided in the aforesaid notice; and WHEREAS, upon conclusion of such public hearing and upon considera- tion of each proposed amendment to such Charter, the Council is of opinion that the 1989 General Assembly should be requested to amend this City's Charter as hereinafter set forth. THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The General Assembly of Virginia is hereby requested at its 1989 Session to amend the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as presently amended, by deleting the words hereinafter shown as stricken and by adding the words hereinafter shown as underscoredi 82. Powers of the city. In addition to the powers mentioned in the preceding section, the said city shall have power: (5) To acquire by purchase, lease, lease purchase, gift, bequest, devise, condemnation or otherwise, property, real or personal, or any estate or interest therein, within or without the city or State and for any of the purposes of the city; and to hold, improve, sell, lease, mortgage, pledge or otherwise dispose of the same or any part thereof. ~6. Compensation of the mayor, vice-mayor and of councilmen. ~-~- tha~-~-~4~ay~-~i-~-~4vc-~~-~our ~$4~~-eig t h-~~-~cu r -~ r e~4~- pc r--pc a ~, ~-~l%~:-~e~i~ thcucand-~LSa~-~_ yoa~ The salary of the mayor, vice-mayor and each council member shal~e' such as ~from time to time f~d~y ordinance of city council ~ith- ~ ~e~i~ estab~e~y g~eral law. ~c~l~es shall be payable no less frequently than monthly. 840. Contracts for public improvements; purchases. Any purchase, public work, or improvement, costing more than ten thousand dollars, except as provided £n the next succeeding section, shall be executed by contract. All con- tracts for more than ten thousand do~lars shall be awarded ...... a~ter public advertisement and competition, as may be prescribed by ~ general law. Eut The city council shall have the power to r~ect any and all b~ds and all advertisements shall contain a reserva- tion of ~his right. ~41. Improvement by direct labor; emergency work. After bids shall have been advertised for and received for making any public improvement or doing any public work, the council may authorize the making-of such improvement or doing such work by the direct employment of the necessary labor and purchase of the necessary materials and supplies on the basis of detailed estimate submitted by the city manager; provided the probable cost of such work or improvements as shown by such estimate is less than the bid of the lowest responsible bidder for the same work or improvement; and provided further, that the city manager shall certify to the council that in his opinion the cost of making such improvement or doing such work will not exceed the said estimate. Separate accounts shall be kept of all work and improvements so done or made. In an emergency requiring immediate action, the city manager may make any purchase or cause any such improvements to be made or ot--~ p--~lic work to be done by direct employment of the necessary labor and purchase of the necessary material and sup- plies without previously advertising for or receiving bids therefor. Every such case shall be reported by him in writing to the council at its next regular meeting with a statement of the facts constit,~ting such emergency. Separate accounts shall be kept of all such work; provided that nothing in this or the next preceding section shall prevent the said city from doing maintenance and repair work by direct labor and from maintaining a reasonable force of men for that purpose. General disqualifications. §62. Zoning. (23) Said regulations shall be enforced by the division of building inspection which is empowerd to cause any building, structure, place or premises to be inspected and examined and to order in writing the remedying of any condition found to exist therein or thereat in violation of any provision of the regula- tions made under authority of this or the preceding paragraph. The owner or general agent of the building or premises where a violation of any provision of said regulations has been committed or shall exist, or the lessee or tenant of an entire building or entire premises where such violation has been committed or shall exist, or the owner, general agent, lessee or tenant of any part of the building or premises in which such violation has been com- mitted or shall exist, or the general agent, architect, builder, contractor or any other person who commits, takes part or assists in any such violation or who maintains any building or premises in which any such violations shall exist shall be guilty of a misde- meanor, punishable by a fine of not less than $10 nor more than $1000. ~e~--~e-t-i-~r~-~*rd-~-m~r~-~han - o~ ~ ~ld r~d- du ~-~ of~cns~-~-~-~nd -~-~Y-~--~~-f~z~ ~- ~f~oF- thc-~s~-~-~~a{~_~%_~ti~r any ease of the existence of a violation of any provision of ~aid regulations the owner, lessee, tenant or agent shall be sub,eot to a civil penal~y of fifty dollars. Any such pergon who having been served with an order to remove any such violation, shall fail to comply ~ith said order ~lthin ten days afte~ such service or ~hall continue to violate any provisions of the said regulations in the respect named in ~uch order shall also be sub~ect to a civil penalty of t~o hundred fifty dollars. 2. The City Clerk is directed to forthwith, as provided by ~15.1-834, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, transmit to each of the members of the General Assembly of Virginia representing the City of Roanoke at the 1989 Session of the said General Assembly two copies of this resolution setting forth the requested amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952 to be put into the form of a bill to be introduced at the 1989 Session of the General Assembly. ATTEST: City Clerk. September 28, 1988 File #132-137 Mr. WilDurn C. Dibling, City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Jr. Dear ~1r. Dibling: I am attaching co~y of Resolution No. 29303, adopting and endorsing a Legislative Program for the City to be presented to the City's delegation to the 1989 Session of the General Assembly, which Resolution No. 29303 was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 26, 1988. Sincerely, SHE:fa EriC. pc: Mr. Sandra H. Eakin Deputy City Clerk W. Rober~.~ert, City ~tanager $oel M. $¢.h~l~ger, Director of Finance . :. Room456 Mun~cq~all~ilcllng 215 C~urc~ Avenue SW P,c~nc~e ~rg~nia2401~ (703)981-25~.1 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 26th day of September, 1988. No. 29303. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION adopting and endorsing a Legislative Progr%m for the City to be presented to the City's delegation to the 1989 Session of the General Assembly. WHEREAS, be aware of WHEREAS, the members of City Council are in a unique posit[on to the legislative needs of this City and its people; previous Legislative Programs of the City have been re- sponsible for improving the efficiency of local goverament and the quality of life of citizens of this City; and WHEREAS, Council is desirous of again adopting and endorsing a Legislative Program to be advocated by the Council and its tatives at the 1989 Session of the General Assembly; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows: 1. The Legislative program report, dated September 26, 1988, Council as the City's official Legislative Program for the 1989 Ses- sion of the General Assembly. 2. The City Clerk is directed to issue cordial invitations to the City's Senator and delegates to the 1989 Session of the General Assembly to attend Council's Special Meeting relating to legislative matters, the date and time of such meeting to be established. represen- transmi-tted by the City Attorney's is hereby adopted and endorsed by the ATTEST: City Clerk. WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR. CITY OF ROANOKE OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595 703-981-2431 September 26, 1988 WILLIAM X PARSONS WILUAM M. HACKWORTH MARK A WILLIAMS KATHERINE HOWE JONES The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: 1989 Legislative Program Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: By report, dated September 12, 1988, I transmitted to Council a proposed Legislative Program for the 1989 Session of the General Assembly· This report was referred to City Council acting as a com- mittee of the whole for appropriate action on September 26, 1988. At the same time, Council established a publ£c hearing for September 26, 1988, with respect to proposed City Charter amendments. The required public hearing has been properly advertised, and the Legislative Program is now before Council for action. In this regard, I recommend to you the following: Adoption of the attached resolution endorsing the Legislative Program. Adoption of the attached resolution requesting the General Assembly to amend the City Charter as set out in such resolution. Establishment of a date to present Council's 1989 Legislation Program to the Cityts representatives to the 1989 Session of the General Assembly. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, City Attorney WCDJr:fcf Attachments cc: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mary F. Parker, City Clerk C/o M~Ry F PARKER RObM ~5o MuNICIPaL STMTE OF VI~INi~ CITY CF AFFIC~vlT CF POOLIC~TICN 1, (THb oNOE~IGNEO) AN UFFICmR bP TIM~b-mCRLO bORPORATION, mHiCH CdR- PGR~TION tS PUULISHcR CF THE R~ANOKE TIMES ~ m~RLG-iNEwS~ A ~AiLY NEWSPAPER POcLiSHED IN RCANCKE, IN THE STATE OF VIRGINIA~ Ub CERTIFY THAT TH~ ~NNEXED 09/1o/8~ MC~NIN~ .ITNESS~ SEPTE~BE~I~88 CFFICER'S SIGNAIUP~E NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CITIZENS OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE: NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Council of the City of Roanoke will, pursuant to $15.1-835, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, hold a public hearing on Monday, September 26, 1988, at 2:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers, Municipal Build- ing, in said City, at which time citizens of the City of Roanoke shall have an opportunity to be heard to determine if such citi- zens desire Council to request the General Assembly of Virginia to make certain amendments to the Roanoke Charter of 1952, as amended, which amendments are informatively s~mm-rized as fol- lOWS: · Amend and reenact subsection (5) of $2, Powers of the city, to authorize the City to acquire property by lease, lease purchase and bequest. Amend and reenact $6, Compensation of the mayor, vice-mayor and of councilmen, to provide that the salaries of the mayor, vice-mayor and council mem- bers shall be established pursuant to general law. Amend and reenact $40, Contracts for public improve- ments; purchases, to provide: "All contracts for more than ten thousand dollars shall be awarded pursuant to competition, after public advertise- ment, as may be prescribed by general law." Amend and reenact $41, Improvement by direct labor; emergency work, to authorize the city manager to make an emergency "purchase" without previously advertising or receiving bids therefor. Repeal $61, General disqualifications, such section having been superseded by the State and Local Govern- ment Conflict of Interests Act. Amend and reenact subsection (23) of $62, Zoning, to conform the penalties for zoning violations to those permitted by ~15.1-491(e), as amended (a fine of not than $1000.00). Code of Virginia (1950), less than $10.00 nor more GIVEN under my hand this ]4tb day of September, 1988. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk (NOTE TO PUBLISHER: Publish once on Friday, September 16, 1988. Send bill and Publisher's Certification to: ~ary F. Parker, City Clerk 456 Municipal Building Roanoke, Virginia 24011) (Morning Edition) (Evening Edition) September 14, 1988 File #83-137 Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, City Attorney Roanoke, Virginia Jr. Dear Mr. Dibling: Your r~port transmitting a proposed Legislative Program for the 1989 Session of the General Assembly, was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, September 12, 1988.. On motion, duty seconded and unanimously adopted, the report was referred to City Council acting as a con~nittee of the whole for appropriate action on Monday, September 26, 1988. On further motion~ duly seconded and unanimously adopted, Council set a public hearing for Monday, September 26, 1988, at 2:00 p.mo, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on pro- posed City Charter amendments. MFP:ra Sincerely,[.,~~. /i~l.,~.~~ ~ary F. Parker, C~C City Clerk pc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City ~anager OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY September 12, 1988 The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council Roanoke, Virginia Re: 1989 Legislative Program Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen: Attached for your review and comment is a draft of a proposed City Legislative Program for the 1989 Session of the General Assembly. I believe the Program includes all legislative suggestions made by the Mayor and Council. I emphasize that the Program is in draft form at this time. Council may amend or delete any provision or add addi- tional provisions to the Program. After Council has had a full opportunity for review of the docu- ment, it is hoped that the Program can be officially adopted at the Council meeting of September 26, 1988. This will allow Council to schedule its annual meeting with our legislators at an early date. Please note that, for the first time in several years, the Legislative Program includes proposed Charter amendments. For the most part, these amendments are required to conform our Charter to provisions of State Code or to take advantage of discretionary authority generally granted to cities, but unavailable to this City under our Charter. Charter amendments may be requested of the General Assembly only after a public hearing which must be advertised ten days in advance. See $15.1-835, Code of Virginia. I am requesting that Council author-T~e such advertisement to permit a public hearing to be held on September 26, 1988, at the time Council considers the Legisla- tive Program for formal adoption. The Program includes many excellent suggestions from members of Council and the City Manager and his staff, and ! wish to gratefully acknowledge these contributions. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, Wi~, Jr. City Attorney WCDJr:fcf Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council September 12, 1988 Page 2 Attachment CC: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance Mary F. Parker, City CIerk