Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 12-07-87 SpMtgRoanoke City Special Session Council and Roanoke December 7, 3:30 p.m. Agenda City School Board 1987 1. Call to Order -- Roll Call. 2. Invocation. Mayor Taylor. 3. Statement of Purpose. Mayor Taylor. 4. Presentation of the 1988 Legislative Program. Mr. Dibling. 5. Comments by Senator Macfarlane and Delegates Thomas and Woodrum. 6. Corr~nents by the Mayor and Members of Council. 7. Corr~aents by the Chairman and Members of the School Board. 8. Corr~nents by City and School Administrations. 9. Closing remarks. Mayor Taylor and Chairman Feinour. 10. Adjournment. October 19, 1987 The HonoTable Chairman and Members Roanoke City School Board Roanoke, Virginia Ladies and Gentlemen: On behalf of the Mayor and Council, I wish to extend to each of you an invitation to the City's annual legislative meeting which will be held on December 7, 1987, at 3:30 p.m., in City Council's Conference Room. Our legislators have each agreed to be present at this time when the City's 1988 Legi- slative Program will be presented. The City's Legislative Program will, of course, include key items of interest to the School Board. With kindest personal regards, I am Sincerely yours, Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr. City Attorney WCDJr:fcf cc: The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent r lia~ X Parsons, Assistant City Attorney y F Parker, City Clerk October 29, 1987 The Honorable J. Granger Macfarlane Member, Senate of Virginia Po Oo Box 201 Roanoke, Virginia 24002 The Honorable A. Victo. Thomas Member, House of Delegates 1301 Orange Avenue, No W. Roanoke, Virginia 24012 The Honorable Clifton A. Woodrum, Member, House of Delegates P. O. Bo~ 1371 Roanoke, Virginia 2400? III Gentlemen: Pursuant to our 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 1988 Legislative Program of the City. The meeting will be held on Monday, December 7, 1987, at 3:30 pomo, 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 December 7 to discuss matters of mutual interest and conce.n to the City of Roanoke. Sincerely, ~~ Mary F. Parker, CMC City Clerk MFP:ra pc: The Honorable Mayor and Members of Roanoke City Council Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling. Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance R00~456 MIjnldpoll~utldlng 21§¢~rchA'~ue,$.W. Ro,~-~.3ke, VIiglnlo2,~1011 (703)¢781-2541 CITY OF ROANOKE INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION c!TY ~ - . . DATE: December 4, 1987 TO: FROM: RE: W. Robert Herbert, City Manager ~ael M. Schlanger, Director of Finance ry F. Parker, City Clerk William F. Clark, Director, Public Works James D. Ritchie, Director, Human Resources Kit B. Kiser, Director, Utilities and Operations George C. Snead, Jr., Director, Administration and Public Safety Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney //~ v~ 1988 Legislative Program I am attaching for each of you an early copy of the City's 1988 Legislative Program. I hope that you will each be pre- sent when it is presented to our legislators at 3:30 p.m. on December 7, 1987, in Council's Conference Room. Legislators may ask questions relating to your areas of expertise, and I would certainly appreciate your assistance in answering any such questions. Thanks once again for your helpfulness in preparing this Program. WCDJr:ff Attachment CITY OF ROANOKE 1988 LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM WILBURN C. DIBLING, JR. CITY ATTORNEY 464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011 703-981-2431 CITY COUNCIL Noel C. Taylor, Mayor Howard E. Musser, Vice-Mayor David A. Bowers Elizabeth T. Bowles Robert A. Garland James G. Harvey, II James O. Trout CITY MANAGER W. Robert Herbert SCHOOL BOARD Edwin R. Feinour, Chairman William White, Sr., Vice-Chairman Donald Bartol Sallye T. Coleman LaVerne B. Dillon David K. Lisk James M. Turner, Jr. SUPERINTENDENT Dr. Frank P. Tota TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ................................................. 1 Policy Statements ............................................ 2 Legislative Proposals ........................................ 8 Appendix ................................................... A-1 INTRODUCTION The City Council is pleased to commend this Legislative Program for consideration by the 1988 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 November 23, 1987. See Resolution No. 28881, at App. 3. The Program consists of two 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. The Program includes matters of concern to the City School Board. The educational statements that follow have the endorsement of both Council and the School Board, and Council is appreciative of the legislative recommendations of the Board. 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 1988 Session, and their consideration of his communications is deeply appreciated. Noel C. Taylor Mayor - 1 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. Mandated Programs Efforts to reduce huge federal deficits will almost certainly involve more responsibility at the State and local levels. As the federal government eliminates programs and functions, there will be a continuing temptation for the State to pass these programs and responsibilities down to its already financially stressed cities, towns and counties. It is, however, unrealistic to expect local governments to assume any new mandates, either through law or regulations, which require expenditure of local funds. Moreover, local tax- payers are not supportive of local tax increases to fund mandates from Richmond. - 2 The General Assembly and the Governor are urged to actively seek the reduction of excessive regulatory and statutory mandates. As noted in the 1984 Joint Legislative Audit and Review Commission (JLARC) study of Local Mandates and Fiscal Resources, State mandates in the area of education and social services are of serious financial concern to locali- ties. The General Assembly is strongly urged to address the local fiscal impact of State mandates during the 1988 Session. 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. 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, have resulted in over reliance on property taxes, placing local govern- ments 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 The Report of the Governor's Commission on Virginia's Future states that education should be the highest priority of the Commonwealth. Yet, the Report notes that Virginia has not honored its commitment to education. - 3 - Inadequacy of State funding of education is readily apparent in our own City. Using new methodology, the General Assembly set the per pupil cost of the Standards of Quality (SOQ) at $2,400 for Fiscal Year 1987-1988. Actual per pupil cost for City students, however, is estimated to be $3,923 for Fiscal Year 1987-1988. Moreover, the City schools actually receive only $848 per pupil for this Fiscal Year after application of the composite index and State sales tax to the SOQ fund- ing formula. Full funding of the State's share of the actual cost of the Standards of Quality and full funding of categorical educa- tional mandates is a high legislative priority of the City. Special Needs Of Central Cities 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. Consider these examples: The school superintendent of a small, rural county finds that he must implement a very costly education program for a disabled child. He knows that this program is already in place in a nearby city school system, and he suggests that the family consider moving to the city where the child can receive the needed ser- vices. A young, unemployed resident of a suburban county needs work, but he has no transporta- tion and needs training to qualify for most jobs he sees listed in the newspaper. He decides to move to the city where he can par- ticipate in a public jobs training program and make use of the public bus system. An elderly welfare recipient needs to be nearer to medical facilities. Her rural county has no hospital, no public transpor- tation, no public housing and no subsidized housing units. She hears about a new subsi- dized housing project for the elderly in a nearby city. She decides to move to the city where more affordable housing is available and where she can be closer to medical facili- ties. It is not surprising that our central cities include a dis- proportionate number of elderly, mentally ill, handicapped, disabled, illiterate, unemployed, impoverished and homeless persons. The City of Roanoke has graciously shared its municipal resources with those in need of services. The City's generosity continues while the communities from which these persons come make no contribution toward their sup- port. The magnet effect, however, creates an unfair finan- cial burden for the central city and its taxpayers. The financial drain of the magnet effect is compounded by the need of central cities to provide police, fire, trans- portation and water and sewer services at a level not re- quired in adjoining suburban or rural localities. These services benefit the entire region, but are paid for pri- marily by City taxpayers. Historically, the fiscal stress of central cities has been relieved by annexation. Recently, however, the power of annexation has without logic, been denied to the central cities which need it most. If the central cities of the Commonwealth are to remain strong, viable units of govern- ment, which is in the best interest of the Commonwealth, decisive action needs to be taken. Among those actions which should be considered are: Special funding by the Commonwealth of those services provided by central cities which benefit the entire region; Reinstitution of the annexation power of central cities; and Creation of financial incentives for local government mergers which result in stronger, more viable units of local government. Economic Development Economic development is a way of i~nproving 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 tile em- phasis of Governor Baliles on economic development, which includes all those activities that enhance the economic well being of the * The author gratefully acknowledges that the idea for these examples came frcm deliberations of the Local Govermnent Attorneys of Virginia Task Force on Local Government Structure. - 5 - 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. EXTENSION OF LOCAL EXCISE TAX TO ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES ALONE State Code ~58.1-3840 authorizes cities or towns having the general taxing power to levy an excise tax on "meals". The "meals" tax has been applied to alcoholic beverages which are sometimes considered to be an integral part of a "meal". Authority would not seem to exist, however, to apply the "meals" tax to alcoholic beverages alone because alcoholic beverages alone are not normally considered to fall within the definition of a "meal". The City seeks the flexibility to apply a local excise tax to (1) food served as a meal alone, (2) food served as a meal and alcoholic beverages or (3) alcoholic beverages alone. To accomplish this objective, it is suggested that §58.1-3840 be amended to read "...meals, alcoholic bever- ages, whether or not served as part of a meal,...." There is, of course, no intent to apply such tax to alcoholic beverages sold by State-operated stores or by retail estab- lishments for off-premises consumption. FINANCIAL STRESS OF URBAN SCHOOL DIVISIONS 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 knd 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 - 8 - 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 Commission on Vir- ginia's Future, Virginia needs an economic development strate- gy. 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 Virgi- nia's land poor cities. Tourism and convention activity 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. 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. o Cost of local government would increase rapid- ly at a time when localities can ill afford a new major drain on financial resources. Cost of defense of litigation may be a more serious problem than the obvious cost of paying judg- ments. When the City and an employee are sued, - 6 - conflicts may require a separate attorney for each party. A recent authoritative study shows that, of every $4 paid out in litigation by local government, $3 goes to legal costs; only $1 actually goes to compensate plaintiffs. Threat of harassing lawsuits may make local government officials less likely to act deci- sively where courageous or difficult actions are in order. Good government is difficult to achieve when officials operate under con- stant fear of lawsuits. The $25,000 cap on liability under the Virginia Tort Claims Act is illusory. Constant pressure will keep the cap spiraling upward. The City is opposed to any extension of the Virginia Tort Claims Act to localities and supports extension of immunity to certain groups of municipal employees and volunteers who are particularly vulnerable to suits which jeopardize the very existence of programs desired by the community. An ex- ample of a group of employees and volunteers needing immunity is coaches and officials serving in youth athletic programs sponsored by the City. - 7 - 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 considera- tion 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 distribu- tion of Basic State Aid to local school divisions. The evidence of the JLARC 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. SPECIAL EDUCATION Since FY80-81 the cost of special education services in the Roanoke City Schools has increased by 110%. The JLARC study on fiscal stress indicated that priority State funding should be provided to special education programs to meet the State's commitment to fund program mandates. The City Schools now employ 113 special education teachers and 60 special education aides, or 8.4 teachers per 1,000 students and 4.4 aides per 1,000 students. The State Basic Aid formula, however, only provides funding for 3.4 special education teachers per 1,000 students and .3 special educa- tion aides per 1,000 students. The State is requested to increase the number of special education teachers and aides in the Baslc Aid funding formula in order to reflect the actual number of such positions employed by school divisions with a high incidence of special education children. PRESCHOOL PROGRAMS FOR AT-RISK STUDENTS The Roanoke City Schools now serve 75 preschool pupils through Chapter I funds. An additional 475 four-year old youngsters from disadvantaged, single parent or moderate income homes require preschool educational services. Since - 9 - preschool education has proven to be an important factor in developing the academic potential of low income students, it is imperative that State assistance be provided to urban school divisions for this program. The State is requested to fund 50~ of the cost of this program. REMEDIAL READING AND LITERACY PROGRAMS The Roanoke City Schools now receive approximately $450,000 in remedial educational funds which are used to provide junior high school reading teachers and to reduce primary grade class size. The State's new literacy passport program will require additional reading instruction in grades 1 - 6 to provide low-achieving students with the reading skills necessary to obtain the passport. State funding should be approved to employ an additional 3.0 reading teachers per 1,000 students and subsequently raise the number of State funded instructional positions from 58.3 to 61.3 per 1,000 students. CAPITAL NEEDS OF SCHOOL DIVISIONS The General Assembly should appoint a Study Commission to review the capital needs of local school districts and de- termine if State categorical funding is required for capital maintenance and equipment replacement requirements. Several states now provide capital funds directly to local school districts with the proviso that these funds must be used for capital items. The study should specifically focus on short-term, recurring capital replacement items such as equipment, buses, furniture, roofs and other minor capital outlay items. A recent VEA study showed that over $1.4 bil- lion in school capital requirements are projected for local school divisions through FY92. EDUCATIONAL MANDATES The City and School Board are strongly opposed to legisla- tion that takes away the authority of local school boards and governing bodies to finance and manage local school divi- sions. Specifically, the City and School Board are opposed so mandates relating to teacher salary increases and the school calendar, requirements of additional school personnel without full funding, and State intervention in personnel policies. TRADE AND CONVENTION CENTERS A number of states around the country, including many in the Southeast (Tennessee, South Carolina and Alabama), have - 10 begun participating in funding of trade and convention cen- ters for localities. In some states, direct grants are be- ing given to localities to construct these facilities which generate substantial State and local tax revenues. There- fore, we would urge the General Assembly to set up a study committee to look at whether the State should be partici- pating financially, in some way, in the funding of trade and convention centers. The City of Roanoke has now completed a feasibility study as to whether there is a market for a trade center in Roanoke, and this study establishes the economic viability of such facility. A more detailed study now needs to be undertaken on location. Assuming the State concludes that it has a role in encouraging these facilities, the City requests $250,000 to do the planning, architectural and engineering work necessary to site this facility which would foster the economic development of all Southwest Virginia. FLOOD PROTECTION Flood protection is 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 contribute approximately $9 million as the non-federal share of a $24 million project to widen the Roanoke River and provide flood walls. The City requests the State to contribute 50% or $4.5 mil- lion of the non-federal share of this project. Any State funds provided by the Commonwealth for flood control shall be paid directly to the City. State funding for flood protection would minimize flood- caused reduction of State and local tax bases and lessen the need for State appropriations to deal with the aftermaths of flood disasters. After the November, 1985, flood, the State paid more than $600,000 to the City representing 21% of the City's flood damage. Such request is also reasonable since the State maintains that the waters of the Roanoke River are "State waters". FUNDING OF PARKING GARAGES AS "TRANSPORTATION ACTIVITIES" The Governor's Commission on the Twenty-First Century is continuing its work. The Subcommittee on Finance, headed by Senator Hunter Andrews, will be making a series of recom- mendations on giving localities additional local option revenue sources to support transportation activities. The City of Roanoke urges that the definition of "transporta- tion activity" be written so that parking garages are inclu- - 11 ded in the definition. Certainly, for urban areas, such as Roanoke, parking garages and the ability to build them are an integral part of transportation planning. TRANSPORTATION - IMPROVED ACCESS TO BLACKSBURG/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/Virginia Tech. See Resolution No. 28762, August 10, 1987, at Appendix page A-1. FULL FUNDING OF STATE MANDATED PROGRAMS JLARC's July, 1985, update to its 1984 State Mandates on Local Governments study recommended that State funding ~-~ncreased substantially for special education, social services auxiliary grants and State-mandated health programs. The City strongly supports this recommendation and also strongly supports full funding of the State's share of the actual costs of both Standards of Quality education mandates and categorical educa- tion programs, and continued State support of human services programs. Furthermore, the General Assembly and the Governor are urged to actively seek the reduction of excessive regula- tory and statutory mandates. HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND STATE AND LOCAL HOSPITALIZATION FUNDING JLARC is currently completing a study of discrepancies in funding of local health department and State and local hospitalization programs. On November 9, 1987, JLARC re- leased a preliminary staff briefing entitled "Funding the State and Local Hospitalization and the Cooperative Health Department Programs." The City commends to the General Assembly JLARC's new funding formulas for both programs which utilize the local revenue capacity ratio with an in- come adjustment. All cities and counties are required to have a health department by §32.1-30, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. These departments provide a wide variety of medical and environmental services. The current State formula for funding local health departments, which was developed in 1954, provides for a minimum local contribution of 18 per- 12 - cent and a maximum local contribution of 45 percent. This City's local contribution is currently at the maximum 45 percent level. According to the new JLARC study, the local share currently required bears no relationship to community health needs or to community ability to pay for services. JLARC has recommended a new funding formula for health departments which recognizes local revenue capacity and variations in the income of residents in each locality. Applying the JLARC-recommended funding formula, this City's local share of the health department budget would be reduced from 45 percent to 31.09 percent. If applied to the current City budget, this reduction in local share would have re- sulted in savings of $310,273. Applying JLARC's new formula to the State and local hospi- talization program, this City's local share of program costs is reduced from 25 percent to 17.27 percent. If applied to the current City budget, this reduction in local share would have resulted in savings of $14,300. The City urges support for the new JLARC-recommended funding formulas for health department and State and local hospi- talization programs. The new JLARC-recommended formulas represent a very positive step toward more equitable funding of central cities whose residents have a high demand for these services, but little ability to pay for them. MENTAL HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION - STATE FUNDING The State should provide adequate funding, including Title XX funds, to local community services boards for mental health, mental retardation services and substance abuse services. The City supports the community services com- ponent of the Department of Mental Health, Mental Retar- dation and Substance Abuse Services' comprehensive plan which calls for an additional $70 million a year in fund- ing for community services boards. This sum would be a step toward fulfilling the financial commitment the State made when it began the process of deinstitutionalization. This funding should not be diverted to State institutions and should not be at the expense of other human services programs. The City of Roanoke also believes that in-kind services should continue to be included as part of the local con- tribution to community services boards. The General Assembly must recognize through its method of funding for mental health and mental retardation programs the heavy, additional burden which is borne by those com- munities in close proximity to State institutions and fa- cilities. - 13 MENTAL HEALTH/MENTAL RETARDATION - DEINSTITUTIONALIZATION The City supports deinstitutionalization if it is done on a case-by-case basis which coordinates the needs of the indi- vidual with the resources of the community and if funds follow the patient or resident from the institution to the community. We do not support continued deinstitutionaliza- tion if done on the basis of a general percentage reduction in the census of State institutions. CORRECTIONS BLOCK GRANT FUNDING FOR JUVENILE FACILITIES Block Grant funding from the Department of Corrections for the Juvenile Detention Home, Sanctuary, and Youth Haven I has not kept pace with inflation resulting in an increasing local share of the cost of operations. Block grant funding should be provided at least at the same percentage of State funding that existed prior to the initiation of block grants. NURSING HOME FUNDING As in the past, the City requests the General Assembly to fund locally-owned nursing homes in the same way State facilities are funded. REPORT OF SUBCOMMITTEE TO STUDY OUTDOOR RECREATION NEEDS OF COMMONWEALTH House Joint Resolution No. 204 enacted by the 1987 Session of the General Assembly created a joint subcommittee to study the outdoor recreation needs of the Commonwealth. This subcommitee, chaired by Delegate Thomas, has made important recommendations to improve outdoor recreation opportunities in the Commonwealth. One of the subcommittee's recommenda- tions would create substantially improved funding of the Virginia Outdoor Fund Grant program which makes grants to localities on a 50-50 matching basis. The City supports the recommendations of this subcommittee which will allow this City to compete for Virginia Outdoor Fund Grants to improve and expand urban parks. Because federal funding of state and local park projects in the Commonwealth has declined from $7.9 million in FY1980 to $720,000 in FY1987, the recommendations of the subcommit- tee are very timely and important to the future well being of the City's park system. - 14- EXPLORE PROJECT The Explore Project has always consisted of three elements: (1) a destination point (zoo, theme park, museum, etc); (2) a parkway; and a (3) connection to Downtown Roanoke. Ini- tially, the connection element was a steam train connecting Downtown Roanoke and the Project site. Recently, it has been suggested that technical problems may make construction of the steam train element unlikely. The City Council views the Downtown connection element as being an essential ingredient of the Explore Project. If a steam train is not to be included in the Project, alternatives for other Downtown Roanoke connections must be developed and presented to Council for review and comment as quickly as possible. State funding of the Explore Project should ear- mark funds for study of the essential Downtown connection. VIRGINIA MUSEUM OF TRANSPORTATION The Virginia Museum of Transportation suffered massive flood damage in November, 1985. Since that time the Museum has moved to a new location and commenced a con- certed fund raising campaign to support flood restoration and continued operations. The 1987 Session of the General Assembly assisted by funding operating monies for the Museum in the amount of $100,000. Requested flood recovery money, however, could not be provided by the General Assembly. The City supports the Museum's request to the 1988 Session that a $500,000 one time appropriation for flood recovery be provided. The financial burden of exhibit restoration and relocation of the entire facility has been tremendous. The City also supports an increase in operating funding for the Museum from $100,000 to $125,000 per year due to the in- crease in the size of the Museum and its operations costs. 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 - 15 - valued at $40,000 to $50,000 must be offered on the market for five months before it can be razed. This City has implemented the historic district zoning authorities authorized by the State Code in the Market District and in Old Southwest. There is a problem, 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. HEALTH INSURANCE Risk spreading is a prime objective of any sound insurance program. When the number of insureds in a group plan is too small, however, risk spreading cannot be satisfactorily achieved, and premiums may be artificially inflated. This is a problem with the health insurance programs of many local governments. It is, therefore, recommended that legislation be enacted to permit local government employees to participate in the health insurance plan established by the Governor for State employees. The cost of such participation would be a re- sponsibility of the local governing body which should be per- mitted the flexibility of recovering a portion of such cost from its participating employees. Consideration should also be given to the effects of permitting retired local govern- ment employees to participate on the same basis as retired State employees. EXTENSION OF OCCUPATIONAL OISEASE PRESUMPTIONS Police officers, deputy sheriffs and firefighters have the advantage of nearly irrebuttable presumptions that heart disease and hypertension are occupational diseases under the Workers' Compensation Act. Firefighters have an additional presumption with respect to lung disease. The City current- - 16- ly has a Workers' Compensation Act liability of $2.6 million for heart, hypertension and lung awards made to public safety officers as a result of the statutory pre- sumption. Without 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. CORRECTIONS - OVERCROWDING OF LOCAL FACILITIES AND STATE FUNDING The City urges the Department of Corrections to share equally the burden of overcrowding with local governments so that no local facility is more overcrowded than State faci- lities as a whole. In addition, the City urges the State to fund fully the per diem reimbursement for all prisoners and to fully fund its share of capital costs for renovation and construction of local corrections facilities. WATER MANAGEMENT The City recognizes that certain areas of the Commonwealth have water supply and allocation problems. The City further believes that the Commonwealth should assume a meaningful role in water management planning. Specifically, the role of the Commonwealth should be as follows: To provide imaginative, positive and compre- hensive leadership in water management plan- ning; To study water deficit and allocation problems and to gather and compile information and data necessary to permit the development of a sound water management policy; and To provide technical expertise to local govern- ments in water management planning as authorized by ~62.1-44.38,F, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The City, however, is vigorously opposed to any State legis- lation which would regulate or limit the City's use of its existing water sources or which would impair the existing authorities of the City to develop new water resources. - 17 - As is well known, the City has excellent water sources which will meet the City's needs until at least 2025. In present day dollars, it would cost more than $110 million to develop these sources (more than $60 million in source development and more than $50 million for land acquisition). Inasmuch as these water sources were developed totally with local funds, it would be most unfair and inequitable for the Com- monwealth to attempt to regulate or limit the City's use of these sources. Moreover, any legislation which would allow other persons, including the Commonwealth and its cities, counties and towns, to make use of the City's water resour- ces would amount to subsidization of others by City taxpayers. 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 procedures. 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. - 18 - IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CiTY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, The 10th day of August, 1987. No. 28762. 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 Con~nonwealth's economic development strategy; and WHEREAS, 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 641 with Interstate 81 ciated with the access near the existing intersection of Route is the best solution to the problems asso- of Blacksburg and Virginia Tech to the Roanoke Valley. THEREFORE, BE Roanoke that: IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of 1. The Council joins with Virginia Tech in requesting that the Town of Blacksburg and the Commonwealth Transportation Board and the Virginia Department of Transportation corridor solution the Town of Blacksburg has best answer to the needs of the Commonwealth funds necessary for timely completion of the accept the identified as the and provide the project. A-I 2. The City Clerk is directed to forward attested copies of this resolution to the members of the Commonwealth Transportation Board, the Honorable Roger B. Hedgepeth, Mayor of the Town of Blacksburg, and Dr. William E. Lavery, Teeh. President of Virginia ATTEST: ~ City Clerk. A-2 IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, The 23rd day of November, 1987. No. 28881. VIRGINIA, A RESOLUTION adopting and endorsing a Legislative Program for the City for 1988, and establishing a Special Meeting of Council for 3:30 p.m. on December 7, 1987, for the purpose of presenting the Legislative Program to the City's delegation to the 1988 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 Ci~ty 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 Legislative Program to be advocated by the Council and tatives at the 1988 Session of the General Assembly; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by and endorsing a its represen- the Council of the City of Roanoke The Legislative Program transmitted by the City Attorney's dated November 23, 1987, is hereby adopted and endorsed by the as the City's official Legislative Program for the 1988 Ses- the General Assembly. A Special Meeting of City Council is hereby scheduled for 1987, at 3:30 p.m., in Council's Conference Room, Municipal as follows: 1. report, Council sion of 2. December 7, A-3 Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W. , in this City, the Legislative Program to the City's legislative 1988 Session of the General Assembly. for presentation of delegation to the 3. The City Clerk is directed to issue cordial invitations to the City's Senator and delegates to the 1988 Session of the General Assembly to attend Council's Special Meeting on December 7, 1987. ATTEST: City Clerk. A-4 Explore, .ievel...wifh Roanoke By DON TERP IT'S HIGH time the Hivec Foun- dation became forthright with the citizens of Western Virginia and lev- eled with us regarding the status and commitments of this River/Explore Project. quite frankly, there are too many unanswered questines: Giving it a political flavor increased inter- est but not information. The Roanoke Valley people have a right to know. Where does Dick Binford (for- merly of the San Diego Zoo) get the figures he's using to "sell" the "American Wilderness Park"? I tailed the other day to Jeff Jouett, in public relations at the San Diego Zoo, and the information he gave me doesn't relate to Binford's figures a.t all Acogrding to a July 31 article bi Dwayne Yancey in the Roanoke Times & World-News, Binlord used a statistical study done by Stanford University, Paid Alto, Calif., for the San Diego Zoo to develop the projec- tions for the Wilderness Park part of the River Project. To make a com- parison between the zoo in San Diego and the Wilderness Park in the Roanoke Valley is like trying to build Roanoke counties: Using figures more favorable to the River Founda- tion, in summer when there are more outsiders, 35 percent of the attend- ees at the San Diego Zoo come from San Diego. That same 35 percent in the Roanoke Wilderness Park pro- jectious means that:the Roanoke MSA (200,000) has to supply 350,000 attendees a year of the t million pro- jectton. That's 150,000 more than the total population in the vafley. San Diego has vast Marine and Naval installations. All military are admitted to the zoo free, but must pay for food, gifts, souvenirs and tram rides around the park, a very stable source of revenue. Roanoke has no military Lustallatious. With an ideal climate (one of the best in the United States), San Diego has a winter average low of 45 de- grees in January and a summer average high of 77 degrees in Au- gust. It never freezes in San Diego, there are few storms and only 41 days of precipitation a year. Roanoke has a winter average low of 2'/degroes in January and a summer average high of 85 degrees in Au- a Lear Jet using the tech specs and ' engineering .drawings for a Boeing cate that the River/Explorer Proj- ect is overstaifing its projections, unless there are factors that are not visible. .... Using the 27.8 percent factor, San Diego's 840 full-time employees become Hoanoke's 234, not the 649 that Blnford projects (Roanoke Times & World-News, July 21). San Diego's 300 year-roend part-time employses become Roaenke*s 83; giving flinford th~ benefit of peak summer employment in San Diego at 500 seasonal employees, Roanoke should only employ 139, not the 546 he claims in his projections. Of course, afl signals are off if there is something here we don't know about. The San Diego Zoo has public transportation via the No.. 7 bus route from the Santa Fe railroad station where it connects with a trel- iny from Mexico. Although the No. 7 bus carries only 10 percent of the attendees, that's over 300,000 visi- tors. By projection, the Explor- er/River Project should get 100,000 visitors a year by this means, if there ls public transportation to the park. Is any planned? As stated at tha beginning, it's PP n~ The San Diego Zoo has a budget of $40 million a year, with 2 percent of that ($800,000) coming for special projects. The San Diego Zoo is not self-supporting. The Wilderness Park near Roanoke is projected to have an operating budget of $11,130,000. This is 27.8 percent of the San Diego Zoo's budget. They have 3 million visitors a year in San Diego, with 50 percent in June, July and August. Out*of-state visitors represent only 25 percent in summer and 15 percent in winter. Forty percent of the summer vlsi- tore come from Los Angeles (popnia- lion 7,477,503), oely two hours by car at freeway speeds. . Roanoke has no such area to' draw from, but attendance at the Roanoke Wilderness Park is project- ed at I million visitors a year -- 33 percent of the visitors with only 27.8 percent of the budget. A smaller project should cost more, not less. San Diego's MSA (Metropolitan Statistical Area) bas a 1.8 million population, Roanoke's is 220,000 in- cluding Salem, Botetourt and gust. Roanoke has 121 days of pre- . time the River/Explorer Project cipitatioa and beinw-freezing aver- people leveled with the valley. What ages during December, January and will the commercial center, next to February, with November and the Blue Ridge Parkway, coesist of? i QUOTES TO NOTE ~ On his career:. "I haven't in the 23 years that I have been in the uniformed services of the United March having a good possibility of freezing days. ': The. San Diego Zoo operates year round, while a zoo in the Roanoke Valley would be closed dar- lng the four freezing months (half of November and half of March) and only at full enraing capacity during June, July and August. It looks as if 80 percent of the money has to be made in 20 percent of the time. As stated above, Binfard's pro- jectloes are based on ! million vlsi- tors a year. If 50 percent of 500,000 attend during June, July and August, the balance of 500,000 must be hah- dled during spring and fall (250,000) each), with, of course, the winter months producing no revenue. You can't shut a zoo down; expenses con- tinoe even with no income. Tbe San Diego Zoo employs 840 full-time employees including its Wilderness Park, 300 part-time and from 150 to $00 seasonal employees (college students). California has a lot of college students. Scaling San Diego's $40 million budget down to the $11 million (27.8 percent) projection for the Riv- er/Explorer Project seems to indl- The people who build it will be fool- Ish ff thcy den'l make it self-cen- rained with all facilities, restaurant, gift shop, gas station and motel/ho- . tel large enough to accommodate all · but the very peak crowds. Who will be spending mgney in Roanoke and ihow much? · If the commercial center is built ' in Bedford County, there will be no tax revenue for Roanoke County or City. Who will provide fire, police, . emergency and rescue services for that'1 million visitors? Who will maintain the roads that are project- .ed to be heavily traveled? One million visitors a year means a lot of cars (almost 2,000 a day during the summer months). Who's going to direct the heavy traf- .ftc to and from the park and at what cost? Who pays? · What will happen when the park rangers close the roads in winter, as . they do the Blue Ridge Parkway? ' How many park rangers, how many state-park em01oyees must be added .to handle t million visitors a year? Will the River Road be turned ~nto a four-lane highway connecting the Roanoke Valley with Smith Mountain Lake and bypassing Route 24? My guess is, it will by de~anlt if not by design. Come on fellows, give Roanoke Valley residents credit for some brains. Lay it out on the table so we can all look at it. Are you really working this hard for a zoo? over small projects by individual* ("little science"): 'Ti'he big] centers are very attractive to members of