HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 12-08-8628461
REGULAR
WEEKLY SESSION ...... ROANOKE
December 8, 1986
7:30 p.m.
AGENDA FOR THE COUNCIL
CITY COUNCIL
Call to Order -- Roll Call· (Mr. Trou~t was absent).
The invocation will be delivered by the Reverend Michael C.
Hopkins, Pastor, Virginia Heights Baptist Church. Pr~ent.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States
of America will be led by Mayor Noel C. Taylor.
Presentation by the Mayor and members of Council.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Public hearing on the request of Robert M. and Carolyn
Cal]ahan that certain, tracts of land located at the
corner of Shull Road and Read Road, N. E., designated
as Official Tax Nos. 3121710 and 3121711, be hezoned
from RD, Duplex Residential District, to C-2, General
Commercial District. Mr. Arthur P. Strickland,
Attorney. Adopted Ordinance No. 28461 (6-0) on first reading.
Public hearing on the request of The Park-Oak Grove,
L.P., a Virginia partnership, that a tract of land con-
taining approximately 3.5 acres, located on Woodmar
Drive, S. W., designated as Official Tax No. 5090205,
be rezoned from RS-l, Single Family Residential
District and C-1, Office and Institutional District, to
RG-2, General Residential District, subject to certain
proffered conditions. Mr. William W. Terry, III,
Attorney. Ado~te~ Ordinance No. 28462 (6-0) on ~irat reading.
Public hearing on the request of Daly Seven, Inc., to
amend the Redevelopment Plan for the Gainsboro
Community Development Program Area in order to permit
the development of a motel on Lots lA and lB of the
Orange Avenue Industrial Park at the intersection of
Gainsboro Road and Orange Avenue. Mr. Donald L.
Wetherington, Attorney· A~pted R~olu~l~Lon No. 28463 (6-0).
(1)
CONSENT AGENDA APT~ROVED (6~0)
ALL MATTERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED
TO BE ROUTINE BY THE CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE
MOTION IN THE FORM LISTED BELOW. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DIS-
CUSSION OF THESE ITEMS. IF DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THAT ITEM WILL:
BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
Minutes of the regular meetings of Council held on Monday,
November 10, 1986, and Monday, November 17, 1986.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Dispense with the reading thereof and
approve as recorded.
C-6
A communication from Mayor Noel C. Taylor requesting an
Executive Session to discuss personnel matters relating to
vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and com-
mittees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (al
(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. ·
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Concur in request for Council to convene in
Executive Session to discuss personnel mat-
ters relating to vacancies on various
authorities, boards, commissions and com-
mittees appointed by Council, pursuant to
Section 2.1-344 (al (1), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended.
Annual report for the year 1986 of the Roanoke Neighborhood
Partnership.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Annual report for the year 1986 of Total Action Against
Poverty in the Roanoke Valley.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
A report of the City Manager requesting an Executive
Session to discuss a matter of acquisition of real property
for public purposes, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (al (2),
Code of Virginia (1950). as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Concur in request for Council to convene in
Executive Session to discuss a matter of
acquisition of real property for public
purposes, pursuant to Section 2.1-344
(al (2), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended.
A list of items pending from July 10, 1978, through
November 24, 1986.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
(2)
C-7 Qualification of Blair W. Fishwick as a member of the
Roanoke Arts Commission for a term ending June 30, 1989.
e
C-8
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
Qualification of Thomas L. Robertson as a member of the~
Virginia Western Community College Board of Directors for a term
ending June 30, 1990.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file·
The City Attorney requested an Execu~ve Session to d~cuss a matter involving acquis,
tion of real property for p, ub~i ~ oses. R EGUL~R~ A~ENDA
Hearing of Citizens Upon Public Matters:
a. Request of Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley
to present a progress report regarding services provided to
citizens of the City. Mrs. Harriett McClung, Spokesman.
Received and filed.
Petitions and Communications:
A communication from Mayor Noel C. Taylor, Chairman, Henry
Street Revival Committee, with regard to the appointment of
two additional members· ¢oncu~redin recommendation.
A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting that $20,382·68 be appropriated to the Artist in
Education program· Adopted Ordi~nce No. 28464 (6-0).
Reports of Officers:
a. City Manager:
Briefings: None·
Items Recommended for Action:
A report recommending continued regular salary payment
to Fire Lieutenant J. C. Jefferson, injured in the line
of duty, retroactive to November 22, 1986, for a period
of 60 days or until he is able to return to duty,
whichever occurs first. Adopted ~o2u~ion No. 28465 (6-0).
A report recommending authorization to execute Change
Order No. 5, in the amount of $87,092.70, to the
contract with Lanford Brothers Company, Inc., for deck
rehabilitation of the Main Street (Wasena) Bridge over
Roanoke River and N & W Railway. Adopted Ordinance No. 28466
(6-0) and Ordinance No. 28467 (6-0).
(3)
4. A report with regard to Phase
Oistrlct Storm Orain Improvements·
Reports of Committees:
(al A report with regard to the engineering agreement
for preparation of plans and specifications for
construction and restoration of the Washington Park
box culvert. Adopted Ord~Znance No. 28468 16-01 and Ordinance
No. 28469 (6-0).
(b) A report of the committee appointed to tabulate~
bids received for construction and restoration of
the Washington Park box culvert. Mr. Robert A.
Garland, Chairman. Adopted Ordi~ce No. 28470 (6-0) and
Ordinance No. 28471 (6-0).
I, Central Business
Adopted Ordinance No. 28472
Unfinished Business:
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending
execution of an indenture with Appalachian Power Company
granting permission to install overhead electric service in
an existing 50' public utility easement to the easterly
portion of the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology.
Mrs. Elizabeth T. Bowles, Chairman. Adopted Ordinance No. 28473
(6-0) on first readi~.
A report of the Water Resources Committee recommending
executi, on of a revocable license, with appropriate
insurance, to permit an ~encroachment over a portien of Day
Avenue, S. W., for installation of a brick veneer on pro-
perty at 701 First Street, S. W. Mrs. Elizabeth T. Bowles,
Chairman. Adopted 0rdinance No. 28474 (6-0) on first reading.
A report of the committee appointed to tabulate bids
received for construction of the Williamson Road storm
drain, Phase I, Contract II, and the Williamson Road East
Sanitary Sewer. Mr. Robert A. Garland, Chairman.
Adopted Ordinance No. 28475 (6-0) and Ordinance No. 28476 (6~0
None.
Introduction and Consideration of Ordinances and Resolutions:
Ordinance No. 28453, on second reading, amending the Code
of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by the addition
of a new Division 6, Downtown Service District, consisting
of new sections 32-102, Downtown service district created,
32-102.1, Additional tax imposed, 32-102.2, Downtown
service district defined, 32-102.3, Purposes of tax, and
32-102.4, Other powers and duties, to Article II, Real
Estate Taxes Generall?, of Chapter 32, Taxation, to pro~
for imposition of an additional real estate ta~ in a down-
town service district created and defined by this ordi-
nance, for the use of additional tax revenues collected
pursuant to this ordinance and for other powers and duties
of the City with respect to such downtown service district;
and providing for an effective date. Adopted O~din~nce No. 28453 (6-0).
(4)
10.
b. A Resolution recognizing PATRICIA S. HAMMEL for her service
to the City and for the Teacher of the Year honors bestowed
upon her. Adopted R~olu~on No. 28477 (6~0).
Motions and Miscellaneous Business:
a. Inquiries and/or comments by the
Council.
Mayor and members of City
b. Vacancies on various authorities, boards, commissions and
committees appointed by Council.
Other Hearings of Citizens:
Adopted Ordinance No. 28478, accepting a donation of the former baker~ of
The Kroger Company.
Appointed or reappointed the following persons;
C~istine Driscoll City of Roanoke Tra~port~on Safet~ Commission
Doris A. Alexander
S~an S. Goode )
Charl~ A. Price )
Paul C. Buford )
Roanoke N~ighborhood P~tn~h~p Stee~ing Committee
City Planning Commission
(5)
Of~e of ~ne O~y (~
December 10, 1986
File #178
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 28463, approving Amendment
No. 3 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Gainsboro Community
Development Program Area, which Resolution was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, December 8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Hary F. Parker, C~IC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Enc.
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Chuc'ch A",~'~ue, $.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
Page 2
December 10, 1986
cc:
Mr. Herbert D.
Redevelopment
Virginia 24017
Mr. H. Wesley White,
Director, City of Ro
Authority, P. O. Box
Mr. Stanley R. Hale,
Development Fund, 40
24016
Mr. Donald L. ~ether
Virginia 24002
Mr. Daniel F. Layman,
Virginia 24004
Mr. Percy T. Keeling,
Committee, Inc., 416
Virginia 24016
McBride, Executive Director, City of Roanoke
and Housing Authority, P. O. Box 6359, Roanoke,
Jr., Land Planning/Subsidized Housing
anoke Redevelopment and Housing
6359, Roanoke, Virginia 24017
President, Southwest Virginia Community
I First Street, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia
Mrs. Susan S. Goode, Chairman, City Planning Commission
Mrs. Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Zoning Administrator/Building
Commissioner
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. William ~1. Hackworth, Assistant City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. William G. Jones, III, Gainsboro Project Manager
Mr. Michael Dowe, President,~ Gainsboro Neighborhood
Development Corporation, 2912 Embassy Drive, N. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24019
Mr. George H. Robinson Heller, Administrator, Gainsboro
Neighborhood Development Corporation, 604 Gainsboro Road,
N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
ington, Attorney, p. O. Box 90, Roanoke,
Jr., Attorney, P. O. Box 720, Roanoke,
President, Gainsboro Project Area
Gainsboro Road, N. W., Roanoke,
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28463.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION approving Amendment No. 3 to the Redevelopment
Plan for the Gainsboro Community Development Program Area.
WHEREAS, this Council adopted on January 19, 1976, a Rede-
velopment Plan for the Gainsboro Community Development Program
Area, since amended by Amendments Nos. 1 and 2, which plan en-
ables the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to
perform certain activities within the Gainsboro area; and
WHEREAS, a third Amendment to the Plan has been proposed in
order to permit the development of a motel on a 2.08 acre tract
at the intersection of Orange Avenue and Gainsboro Road; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Amendment would delete Paragraph C.2.a.
(2) of the Redevelopment Plan, which presently prohibits the de-
velopment of motels within Industrial Areas as described on the
Land Use Map of the Plan.
WHEREAS, Amendment No. 3 to the Redevelopment Plan has been
approved by the Commissioners of the City of Roanoke Redevelop-
ment and Housing Authority by Resolution No. 2215, approved on
December 8, 1986; and
WHEREAS, the City's Planning Commission has recommended the
approval of Amendment No. 3.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of
noke
the City of Rea-
that Amendment No. 3 to the Redevelopment Plan for the Gains-
boro Community Development Program Area, having been duly
reviewed and considered, is hereby approved and the City Clerk
is directed to note such amendment on the copy of such Plan in
the records of her Office.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CERTIFICATE OF RECORDING OFFICER
e
The undersigned hereby certifies that:
1. He is the duly qualified and act~n~.~S~cretary Treasurer of
· d - the City
of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (hereinafter called
the "Local Public Agency") and the custodian of the records of the
Local Public Agency, including the minutes of the proceedings of the
Board of Commissioners of the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority (hereinafter called the "Governing Body") and
is duly authorized to execute this certificate.
2. Attached hereto is a true and correct copy of Resolution No.
2215 , including the WHEREAS clauses, adopted at a meeting of
the Governing Body held on the 8th day of December , 19 86 .
The resolution has been duly recorded in the minutes of the meeting
and is now in full force and effect.
Se
The meeting was duly convened and held in all respects in accordance
with law and the bylaws of the Local Public Agency. To the extent
required by law or the bylaws, due and proper notice of the meeting
was given. A legal quorum of members of the Governing Body was
present throughout the meeting, and a legally sufficient number of
members of the Governing Body voted in the proper manner for the
adoption of the resolution. All other requirements and proceedings
under law, the bylaws, or otherwise, incident to the proper adoption
of the resolution, including any publication if required by law,
have been duly fulfilled, carried out, and otherwise observed.
If a seal appears below, it constitutes the official seal of the
Local Public Agency and was duly affixed by the undersigned at the
time this certificate was signed. If no seal appears below, the
Local Public AgeDcy does not have and is not legally required to
have an official seal.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has hereunto
8th day of December , 1986 .
(SEAL)
set his hand this
Item No.
Date Approved
RESOLUTION NO. ~315
RESOLUTION APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 3
TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN, GAINSBORO
COM~g3NITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, CD-1
WHEREAS, by letter to the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority (Authority) dated November 26, 1986, Donald L.
Wetherington, Attorney, requested on behalf of Daly Seven, Inc.
and Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund (SVCDF) to
amend (Amendment No. 3) the Gainsboro Redevelopment Plan (Plan)
to allow for the development of a motel by Daly Seven, Inc.
(Developer) on property owned by SVCDF and known as Lots lA and
B, Section 4, Gainsboro Subdivision (Property); and
WHEREAS, the Plan does not presently allow for motel development
outside of areas designated for Commercial Land Use; and
WHEREAS, the Authority held a public hearing on December 4,
1986 relative to amending the Plan to permit development of a
motel on the Property and at which time none of the persons
attending said hearing voiced any opposition to the amendment; and
WHEREAS, the Authority after carefully considering the
proposed motel development and the land use changes required
finds that a motel is an appropriate use for the Property and
that the Plan should be amended to delete the prohibition against
motels in other than Commercial Land Use areas.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Commissioners of the
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority hereby
approve amending the Gainsboro Redevelopment Plan (Amendment No.
3) to delete paragraph c.2.a. (2) of the Plan, which prohibits
hotels, motels, rooming houses or other housing for transient use
outside of Commercial Land Use areas.
CITY C'..E!71<'~ CFF'iC~(
Roanoke City Planning Commission
December 8, 1986
Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Proposed Amendment No. 3 to the Redevelopment Plan for
the Gainsboro Community Development Program Area
On Wednesday, December 3, 1986, the Roanoke City Planning
Commission was briefed on plans by Daly Seven, Inc., to acquire property
in the Gainsboro Community Development Program Area with the intention
of constructing an Innkeeper Motor Lodge (see attached letter of
November 18, 1986). During a presentation by Don Wetherington, attorney
for Daly Seven, the Commission was advised that the Redevelopment Plan
for the Gainsboro Area would have to be amended in order to permit the
motel use and that speedy action was necessary or Daly Seven would lose
its industrial bond allocation and not be able to obtain bond financing
at a later date. The Redevelopment Plan presently prohibits motels in
any but the commercial land use areas; the subject property is in an
industrial area.
During the Commission meeting, both Mr. Stan Hale, President of
Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund, owner of the property in
question, and Mr. George Heller, Project Administrator for the Gainsboro
Neighborhood Development Corporation, appeared before the Commission in
favor of the request of Daly Seven. Both cited improvements that would
be made to the area in terms of providing jobs for unskilled labor and
compatibility with other uses in the Gainsboro area. The Gainsboro
Neighborhood Development Corporation by resolution unanimously supported
the proposed development.
City staff reported that they had not had time to properly review
the requested amendment and consequently could not make a recommendation
on this matter. Staff did identify several Comprehensive Plan policies
directly related to this proposed development:
Support the development of tourist destination attractions and
supporting services.
Room 355
2. Because of the limited amount of industrially zoned land in
Roanoke, the comprehensive plan and related ordinances should
protect these areas by restricting uses to only industrial
categories.
MunicJpatBuildin§ 215 ~ur~ Av~,S~Roanoke, Vi~inio24011 (703) 98t~2344
Members of Council
Page 2
Encourage the revitalization or creation of neighborhood
4. Discourage commercial strip development.
Staff felt that protection of industrial land was the most important
issue facing the request and that the number and quality (income level
and multiplier effect) of the Jobs created by the proposed use would be
significantly less than would normally be created by an industrial use.
In response to this concern, Mr. Heller explained that the
neighborhood supported the project because it would produce between 15
and 30 jobs which would be directly accessible to Gainsboro residents
without the training or skill requirements that are usually associated
with industrial uses.
After further consideration of the matter, the Planning Commission
voted 4-2 (Mr. Bradshaw and Mrs. Goode voting against the motion, Mr.
Jones absent) to recommend to City Council that the Redevelopment Plan
for the Gainsboro Community Development Program Area be amended to
provide for the motel use.
Respectfully submitted,
Susan S. Goode, Chairwoman
Roanoke City Planning Commission
SSG:JEM:mpf
cc: Mr. William M. Hackworth, Assistant City Attorney
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. Ronald H. Miller, Zoning Administrator/Building Commissioner
Mr. H. Wesley White, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Mr. Don Wetherington, Attorney for Daly Seven, Inc.
LAW OFfiCES
WETH~INGTON & ~ELC~ONNA
IlO0 UNITED VIRGINIA BANK BUILDING
pOST OFF~C£ BOX 90
Ro~d~o~, ¥~OL~ ~4002
November 18, 1986
aOV 18 19~
Planning & Economic Development
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Martha Franklin, Secretary
Roanoke City Planning Commission
355 Municipal Building
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Re: Proposed Amendment No. 3 to Redevelopment Plan
Gainsboro Community Development Program Area
Dear tls. Franklin:
for
I am writing to you on behalf of Daly Seven, Inc., a
Virginia corporation that wishes to acquire property in the
Gainsboro Community Development Program Area for the construc-
tion and operation of a motel.
Daly Seven, Inc. presently has an option to purchase
property shown on the enclosed drawing, generally situated at
the southwest intersection of Orange Avenue and 1-581, from
Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund.
The property is subject to certain restrictions and cove-
nants that originate in the Redevelopment Plan for Gainsboro
Community Development Program Area ("Redevelopment p "
lan ), as
previously amended, and those restrictions do not presently
allow for the construction and operation of a motel on the
property involved.
Daly Seven, Inc. would like for the Redevelopment Plan to be
amended to allow the construction and operation of a mote], on
the property under consideration.
The Redevelopment Plan can be modified under certain cir-
cumstances by the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority with the consent of City Council.
I am advised that in the two previous instances when the
Redevelopment Plan was amended, City Council requested the
WETHI~I~INGTON ~ ~ELCHIONNA
Ms. Martha Franklin,
November 18, 1986
Page Two
Secretary
recommendation of the Planning Commission before giving its
consent to those amendments.
I anticipate that this matter will be taken up by City
Council at its December 8 meeting.
I would appreciate your placing this matter on the Planning
Commission's December 3 agenda in order that the Commission may
make an appropriate recommendation to City Council by December 8.
Thank you very much for your help.
Sincerely,
DLW:gbm:6882
Enclosure
CC:
Mr. Robert J. Daly
Mr. William M. Hackworth
Mr. Daniel F. Layman, Jr.
Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund
City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority
_~ts lA &
'>/'~range Avenue Industrial Park
(Orange Avenue and 1-581, i~oanoke, Virginia)
ORAI~IG~ AVENUE
$4J./9'-_
0° $0'
lype: pianned induslrial park
square/eel: 90,910
acreage: 1ol lA = .843 ac. = 36,721 sq. fl.
lot lB = 1.244 ac. = 54,189 sq. fl.
lolal: 2.087 ac. = 90,910 sq. It.
zoned: LM
ulililies:
eleclric on sile
nalural gas on Gainsboro Road
waler on sile
sewer on site
IranspoHalion:
lo inlerslale access
to airp. orl
to ma~n rail line
lire protection:
hydrants
fire slalion
adjacent land use:
easements:
immediale other consideralions:
Southwest Virginia Community Development Fund
7 miles
1 mile
northwesl corner ol
properly
stalion #2; 1Y~ miles
new manufacluring
lacilities; highway ac-
cess to interslate.
spur; civic cenler
10' public ulilily;
15' easement
on main local Iralfic
artery
ROANOKE TIHES & WORLD-NEWS
NUMBER - 12505176
PUBLISHER'S FEE -
CITY OF ROANOKE
C/O MARY F PARKER
CITY CLEFKS OFFICE
RCOM 456 MUNIC IPAL BLDG
ROANOKe3 VA 24011
R£CEtvE[~
'86 OEO-8 P]'~-,
STATE CF VIRGINIA
C ITY OF ROAN()KE
AFFIDAVIT OF
PUBLI CAT[ON
I, (THE UNDERSIGNED) AN OFFICER OF
T I~IES-WORLD CORPORATION, WHICH COR-
PORATION IS PUBLISHEF OF THE ROANOKE
T IHES & WORLD-NEWS~ A DAILY NEWSPSDEF
PUBLISHED IN ROANOKE~ IN THE STATE OF
~/IRGINIA, DO CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED
~OTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN SAID NEWSPAPERS
DN THE FOLLOWING DATES
11/28/86 MORNING
WITNESS, THIS 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER 1986
OFFICER'S S I~NA TURE
NOTICE OF ~
PUBI. IC HEARIN
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Pursuant to the provisions of Title 36, Housing, Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended, the Council of the City of Roanoke
will hold a Public Hearing on Monday, December 8, 1986, at 7:30
p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the
Council Chamber of the Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W.,
in the said City, on the request of Daly Seven, Inc., to amend the
Redevelopment Plan for the Gainsboro Community Development Program
Area in order to permit the development of a motel on Lots IA and
lB of the Orange Avenue Industrial Park at the intersection of
Gainsboro Road and Orange Avenue.
A copy of this proposal is available for public inspection in
the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building. Ail
parties in interest and citizens
be heard on the question.
GIVEN under my hand this 25th
may appear on the above date and
__ day of November, 1986.
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
NOTE TO PUBLISHER:
Publish once in the morning edition on November 28, 1986.
Please send publisher's affidavit and bill to: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, Room 456,
Municipal Building, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
MINUTES CONSIDERED AT THIS COUNCIL MEETING
MAY BE REVIEWED ON LINE IN THE "OFFICIAL MINUTES" FOLDER,
OR AT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
Office of the Mayor
December 4, 1986
Honorable Members of
Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
I wish to request an Executive Session on Monday, December 8,
1986, to discuss personnel matters relating to vacancies on
various authorities, boards, commissions and committees ap-
pointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.1-344 (a) (1), Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
Mayor
NCT:js
Room 452 Municipal Building 215 Church A,,~nue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 240t I (703) 981-244~
Office ~ the Oly (3e~
December 10, 1986
File #109-488
Mr. James B. McCloskey
Chairman
Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership
Steering Committee
c/o Norfolk Southern Corporation
8 North Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24042
Dear Mr. McCloskey:
An annual report for the year 1986 of the Roanoke
Partnership, was before the Council of the City of
regular meeting held on Monday, December 8, 1986.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the report was
filed.
Neighborhood
Roanoke at a
received and
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
cc: Mrs. Jinni Benson,
Coordinator
Roanoke
Neighborhood
Partnership
Room456 MunlctpalBuildlng 215(3~urchAv~nue, S.W. Roanoke, Vlrglnla24Ci11 (703)981-2541
CITY
'86 NFIV25 119',42
Room 355, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(703) 345-8250
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
November 24, 1986
Dear Members of Council:
I would like to take this opportunity to thank you for your
support of the Partnership over the past year. The neighborhoods
have accomplished a great deal since the inception of the Roanoke
Neighborhood Partnership. Many of our original goals have been
achieved and we are now setting our sights on new challenges for
the coming years.
My final duties as outgoing chairman of the Steering
Committee are to present you with a copy of our annual report and
introduce you to our new chairman, James B. McCloskey. Jim has
served as secretary to the Steering Committee for the past year
and is a lawyer for Norfolk Southern Corporation. I look forward
to working with Jim on many challenging new projects this year.
The Partnership has enjoyed an excellent working
relationship with Council and administrative staff, and I am sure
you will continue to support the new executive members and the
Partnership in their endeavors.
Sincerely,
LWP/JB:kds
Enclosure
Room 355, Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(703) 345-8250
November 19, 1986
Dear Friend of the Partnership:
It is once again my pleasure to present you with an annual
report of the activities of tha Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership
for the past year. Neighborhood organizations throughout the
City have been working on a wide variety of projects. As we plan
for 1987, we will be looking forward to adding new neighborhoods
and projects to the Partnership.
I would like to share several highlights with you which I
feel were very significant to the growth of the Partnership. In
June, we brought the full Steering Committee together for a
two-day workshop at Hollins College. During the course of this
workshop, we took a look at where we have been, where we are now
and the new direction for the Partnership for the future. I am
confident that working together we will be able to accomplish our
new goals.
Our Business Partner Program was quite successful this year,
raising over $9,000 for development projects in neighborhoods.
We look forward to an even better year in 1987.
For a number of years, Roanoke has been sending delegates to
the Neighborhoods USA Conferences in other cities. It is time
for the Partnership to show off the wonderful things we have been
saying about Roanoke. Roanoke has been selected as the site for
the 1988 Neighborhoods USA Conference. I now pass the challenge
to the neighborhoods to prepare to show off that Roanoke charm.
I must take this opportunity to thank each of you for your
support during my two years as chairman. I have enjoyed being
part of the Partnership and look forward to a challenging new
year.
Cordially,
Lewis W. Peery, Chairman/~
O~lce c~ ~ne O~ Cien~
December 10, 1986
File #109-226
Mr. Theodore J. Edlich, III
Executive Director
Total Action Against Poverty,
P. O. Box 2868
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Inc ·
Dear Mr. Edlich:
An annual report for the year 1986 of Total Action Against
Poverty in the Roanoke Valley, was before the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 8, 1986.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the report was received and
filed.
Si ncerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Chura'n A~ue, S.W. Roanc~e, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2~1.1
Roanoke, Virgimia
December 8, 1986
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
This is to request an executive session of Council pursuant to
Section 2.1-344(a)(2), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, to discuss
acquisition of real property for public purpose.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
/mpf
Pending Items from July 10, 1978, through November 17, 1986.
Referral Date Referred To Item
7/10/78
City Manager
Recommendation No. 11 contained
in the Mayor's 1978 State of the
City Message. (Development of
Mill Mountain - hotel.)
5/6/85
City Manager
Communication from Vice-Mayor
James G. Harvey, II, in regard to
a Sister City relationship with
Asheville, North Carolina.
8/12/85
City Manager
Mayor's 1985 State of the City
recommendation No. I - establish-
ment of a working relationship
with the volunteer rescue squads
and the Roanoke Historical
Society for the purpose of
establishing a museum and
national headquarters for
volunteer rescue squads in the
City.
3/3/86
Howard E. Musser
Laddie Fisher
Richard S. Thomas
Member - Salem Vietnam
Veterans Chapter No. 14
Member - Roanoke Science
Museum
Request of the Salem Vietnam
Veterans Chapter No. 14 of the
Disabled American Veterans to
establish a permanent memorial to
the brave men and women involved
in the Space Shuttles Challenger
and Gemini tragedies.
6/23/86
City Manager
Matter regarding distribution of
cheese and butter to elderly per-
sons ·
8/25/86
City Manager
Mayor's 1986 State of the City
recommendation No. 6 streng-
thening the City's relationship
with Virginia Tech.
10/13/86
City Planning Commission
Request of James L. Cross, Jr.,
representing Nancy S. Wheeler;
Curtis W. Fitzgerald, repre-
senting Rafael and Gwendolyn
Porres; Spurgeon W. and Inez F.
St. Clair; and Earl H. and
Cheryl S. Mitchell, that a tract
of land lying between the 4800
and 5000 blocks of Melrose
Avenue, N. W., designated as
Official Tax Nos. 6090502,
6090503, 6090506, 6090508, and
6090509, be rezoned from C-2,
General Commercial District, to
LM, Light Manufacturing District.
P, qding Items from July
Referral Date
11/10/86
11/17/86
11/17/86
10, 1978, through November 17, 1986.
Referred To Item
City Planning Commission
Request of Gary E. Dogan and John
Lee Davenport that a certain
tract of land located at 908 12th
Street, S. E., designated as
Official Tax No. 4121701, be
rezoned from RD, Duplex Residen-
tial District, to C-2 General
Commercial District, subject to
certain proffered conditions.
Robert A. Garland
William F. Clark
Kit B. Kiser
Bids for underground traffic
signal work at the intersection
of Peters Creek Road and North
Lakes Drive, N. W.
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Question of reinstating security
officers at Roanoke Regional
Airport, Woodrum Field, and
Carvins Cove Reservoir, as police
officers.
(2)
December 10, 1986
File #15-230
Mr. Timothy L. Jamieson
Chairman
Roanoke Arts Commission
6857 Sugar Rum Ridge
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Jamieson:
This is to advise you that Blair W. Fishwick has qualified as a
member of the Roanoke Arts Commission for a term ending June 30,
1989.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
~IFP:se
Room456 MunicipatBuildln~ 215~urchAve~que,$.W. Roanoke, Vlr~lnla240~1 (703)981-2541
0-2
Oath or Affirmafiorr,o ,
State o] Virginia, ~it$t o~ Roanoke, to o~it: ~6 *%1~ 25 ~'~ :! :!:
I, Blair W. Fishwick _ , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that
I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as
a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission for a term ending June 30,
1989,
according to the best of my ability. So help me God.
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this
Off~:e (~ the Oty Oe~
November 14, 1986
7'
F~le #230-15
Mrs. Blair W. Fishwick
The Hotel Roanoke
19 North Jefferson Street
Roanoke. Virginia 24016
'Dear Mrs. Fishwick:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held
on Monday, November 10, 1986, you were elected as a member of the
Roanoke Arts Commission for a term ending June 30, 1989.
Enclosed you will find a certificate of your election and an
Oath or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, third floor of
the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue, S. W.
Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the
Municipal Building prior to serving in the capacity to which you
were elected.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
CitY Clerk
MFP:se
Enc.
cc: Mr. Timothy L. Jamieson, Chairman, Roanoke Arts
6857 Sugar Rum Ridge, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Commi ssi on,
Room 456 Municipal Building 2t5 ~urdn Avenue, S.W. Roonol~, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541
COMMONWEALTH OF
CITY OF ROANOKE
VIRGINIA
)
) To-wi t:
)
I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the
Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof,
do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on
the lOth day of November, 1986, BLAIR W. FISHWICK was elected as
a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission for a term ending June
30, 1989.
Given under my hand and seal of the City of Roanoke this
14th day of November, 1986.
City Clerk
December 10, 1986
File #15-a67
Mr. Willis M. Anderson
Chairman
Virginia Western Community
College Board of Directors
P. O. Box 12847
~Roanoke, Virginia 24029
Dear Mr. Anderson:
This is to advise you that Thomas L. Robertson
member of the Virginia Western Community
Directors for a term ending June 30, 1990.
has qualified as a
College Board of
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
,cc: Dr. Charles L. Downs, President, Virginia Western Community
College, P. O. Box 14065, Roanoke, Virginia 24038
~ ~ ,~V~n~l~l I~ildlng 215 Ogurch A~, S.W. ~, ~rgh~ 240t t (703) 981-2541
0-2
Oath or Affirmation of Office c~¥ ~,~;~_.
....... ~ u~-VICE
State o] gi~'ginia, City of Roanoke, to .wit: '86 N~,V 26 RI0:52
I Thomas L. Robertaon
-, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that
! will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of the State of Virginia, and that
I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me aL
a member of the Virginia l~estern Community College Board of Directors
for a term ending June 30, 1990,
according to the best of my ability. So help me God. ~/¢/ ~y
Subscribed and sworn to before me, this_ 2q day of
November 14, 1986
File #15-467
Mr. Thomas L. Robertson
Roanoke Memorial Hospitals
P. O. Box 13367
Roanoke, Virginia 24033
Dear Mr. Robertson:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke held
on Monday, November 10, 1986, you were elected as a member of the
Virginia Western Community College Board of Directors for a term
ending June 30, 1990.
Enclosed you will find a certificate of your election and an
Oath or Affirmation of Office which may be administered by the
Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, third floor of
the Roanoke City Courts Facility, 315 Church Avenue, S. W.
Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the
Municipal Building prior to serving in the capacity to which you
were elected.
Si ncerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
EriC .
CC:
Mr. Willis M. Anderson, Chairman, Virginia Western Community
College Board of Directors, P. O. Box 12847, Roanoke,
Virginia 24029
Dr. Charles L. Downs, President, Virginia Western Community
College, P. O. Box 14065, Roanoke, Virginia 24038
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 O'~urch Avenue, $.W. Roclnoi~, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541
COMMONWEALTH OF
CITY OF ROANOKE
VIRGINIA
)
) To-wit:
)
I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the
Council of the City of Roanoke and keeper of the records thereof,
do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council held on
the lOth day of November, 1986, THOMAS L. ROBERTSON was elected
as a member of the Virginia Western Community College Board of
Directors for a term ending June 30, 1990.
Given under my hand and seal of the City of Roanoke this
14th day of November, 1986.
City Clerk
December 10, 1986
File #22
Dr. Fred P. Roessel, Jr.
Executive Director
Mental Health Services of the
Roanoke Valley
Suite 410
920 S. Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24016-4494
Dear Dr. Roessel:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke on
Monday, December 8, 1986, Mrs. Harriett McClung presented a
progress report regarding services provided to citizens of the
City by Mental Health Services of the Roanoke Valley.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the report was received and
filed.
Si ncerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City C1 erk
MFP:se
cc:
Mrs. Phyllis T. Simmons, Chairman, Route 1, Box 589,
Daleville, Virginia 24083
Mrs. Harriett McClung, 2347 Johns Lane, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24018
Room456 Munlclcx~lBullding 21§OnurchA,~ue,$.W. Roonoke, N1rglnla24011 (703)981-25~.1
GOOD
COUNCIL.
MEMBERS
OF THE
ROANOKE.
DECEMBERJ 1986
EVENINGJ MAYOR TAYLOR AND MEMBERS OF THE ROANOKE CITY
MY NAME IS HARRIETT McCLUNG. I'M ONE OF THE THREE
OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES
ROANOKE
I AM
VALLEY WHO IS APPOINTED FROM THE CITY OF
PLEASED TO COME BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING TO
AGENCY IS
GIVE YOU A BRIEF UPDATE ON THE SERVICES THAT THE
CURRENTLY PROVIDING TO THE CITIZENS OF THE CITY.
DURING THIS PAST FISCAL YEAR $247~536 OF ROANOKE CITY'S TAX
DOLLARS WERE MATCHED WITH STATE AND FEDERAL DOLLARS AND FEES
TO PROVIDE $3,279,653 OF SERVICE TO ROANOKE CITY CITIZENS.
THIS AMOUNTS TO $13.00 WORTH OF SERVICES FOR EACH ROANOKE
CITY TAX DOLLAR EXPENDED, A MOST EFFICIENT RETURN ON LOCAL
TAX REVENUES.
2,377 CITIZENS RECEIVED ASSISTANCE DURING THE PAST YEAR
THROUGH OUR MENTAL HEALTH PROGRAMS. IN ADDITION~ 4,313
RESIDENTS PARTICIPATED IN WORKSHOPS, TRAININGJ AND SUPPORT
GROUPS PROVIDED BY OUR PREVENTION SERVICES PROGRAM. LAST
YEAR WE REPORTED ON THE NEW NORTWEST HUMAN DEVELOPMENT CENTER
AT 802 LOUDON AVENUE. THIS PROGRAMJ FUNDED ENTIRELY THROUGH
CITY FUNDSJ CONTINUES TO SERVE THE CITIZENS OF THE NORTHWEST
COMMUNITY. AMONG ITS SERVICESJ THIS INNOVATIVE PROJECT
INCLUDED THE CLINICAL PASTORAL EDUCATION TRAINING FOR THE
PASTORS OF FOUR NORTHWEST CHURCHES~ A WEEKLY SOCIAL CLUB FOR
CITIZENS WITH MENTAL RETARDATION, SPECIALIZED YOUTH
PROGRAMMING AND A WIDE VARIETY OF COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTH
PROMOTION ACTIVITIES. IT HAS SERVED TO MAKE ALL OF OUR
AGENCY'S PROGRAMS MORE ACCESSIBLE TO THE CITIZENS
NORTHWEST ROANOKE.
OF
OUR EMERGENCY OUTREACH STAFF PROVIDES CRISIS INTERVENTION
SERVICES IN THE ROANOKE CITY JAIL. IN ADDITION, AN EMERGENCY
OUTREACH SERVICES STAFF MEMBER HAS RECEIVED EXTENSIVE
SPECIAL TRAINING FROM THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENTS OF MENTAL
HEALTH AND MENTAL RETARDATION, AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES.
THIS WILL FACILITATE MORE EFFECTIVE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES AND LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES HAS ESTABLISHED A "CLUBHOUSE" PROGRAM
THAT CURRENTLY MEETS MANY OF THE SOCIAL AND VOCATIONAL NEEDS
OF OUR CITIZENS WHO ARE RETURNING TO OUR COMMUNITY FROM OUR
STATE HOSPITALS. IN OPERATION FOR ONE YEAR, "MOUNTAIN HOUSE"
IS NOW PREPARING TO EXPAND ITS REHABILITATION SERVICES.
SEVEN ROANOKE CHURCHES ARE NOW PROVIDING SOCIAL CLUBS FOR
APPROXIMATELY 175 OF THESE CITIZENS WHO ARE LIVING IN ADULT
HOMES. THE NEWEST CLUB, AT SOUTH ROANOKE Ur~ITED METHODIST
CHURCH, BEGAN OPERATING LATE IN 1985, THE OTHER CHURCHES
ARE: WINDSOR HILLS UNITED METHODIST, WOODLAWN UNITED
METHODIST, CHRIST LUTHERAN, AN~ ST~ JAMES EPISCOPAL, ST.
JOHNS EPISCOPAL , AND CHRIST EPISCOPAL.
WE HAVE INCREASED OUR SERVICES TO CITIZENS WITH MENTAL
RETARDATION IN AL!_ OU~' LOCALITIES; HOWEVER, A MAJORITY OF
THESE CLIENTS ARE FROM ROANQKE CITY. A TOTAL OF 530 CITIZENS
WITH MENTAL RETARDATION HAVE BEEN PROV:DED SERVICES TN OIJR
2
DIRECTLY OPERATED PROGRAMSJ WHICH RANGE FROM INDIVIDUAL AND
FAMILY COUNSELING TO DAILY LIVING SKILLS TRAINING IN
RESIDENTIAL SETTINGS, EXPANSION OF OUR RESIDENTIAL PROGRAMS
INCLUDES THE CONVERSION OF THE READ ROAD RESIDENCE TO A
LICENSED ADULT HOME SERVING 10 CITIZENS WITH MENTAL
RETARDATION, ALSO OUR HAZELRIDGE ROAD FACILITY IS UNIQUE AS
IT PROVIDES RESIDENTIAL SERVICES TO NOT ONLY PERSONS WITH
MENTAL RETARDATIONJ BUT ALSO THOSE WHO HAVE AUTISM ALONG WITH
MENTAL RETARDATION,
SEVERAL OF OUR PROGRAMS NOW ARE LOCATED IN A LARGER FACILITY
LOCATED AT 1322 SECOND STREET~ S.W. THESE INCLUDE THE
COUNSELING AND LIFE SKILLS CENTERJ THE SHORT-TERM CARE
PROGRAM~ AND THE STAFF OFFICES FOR THE APARTMENT LIVING
PROGRAM. THIS RELOCATION WILL ALLOW FOR INCREASED GROUP
COUNSELING AND TRAINING ACTIVITIES FOR CLIENTS AND THEIR
FAMILIES,
797 ROANOKE CITIZENS WERE SERVED BY PROGRAMS FOR THOSE
EXPERIENCING PROBLEMS WITH DRUGS AND ALCOHOL. AMONG THE
BENEFITS OF THESE PROGRAMS ARE ENHANCED QUALITY OF LIFE FOR
INDIVIDUALS AND FAMILIES~ DECREASED CRIMES COMMITTED TO
SUPPORT DRUG HABITS~ FEWER INCIDENTS OF DRUNK DRIVING
ACCIDENTS~ AND REDUCED DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AND JOB ABSENTEEISM.
THESE PROGRAMS INCLUDE DRUG AND ALCOHOL DETOXIFICATIONJ SHORT
AND LONG-TERM RESIDENTIAL TREATMENTJ OUTPATIENT INDIVIDUAL~
GROUP AND FAMILY COUNSELING~ AND DRUG AND ALCOHOL EDUCATION~
3
EARLY INTERVENTION A~ID PREVENTION PROGRAMMING~ INCLUDING NEW
PREVENTION PROGRAMMING IN A NUMBER OF THE CITY'S ELEMENTARY
SCHOOLS,
ON THE ATTACHED CHART YOU CAN SEE A MORE DETAILED BREAKDOWN
OF OUR CURRENT SERVICES TO RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES CONTINUES TO BE UNDER PRESSURE TO
PROVIDE AN INCREASING LEVEL OF SERVICES TO OUR CITIZENS
RETURNING FROM OUR STATE HOSPITALS. THESE PRESSURES ARE NOT
ACCOMPANIED BY CORRESPONDING INCREASES IN FUNDS. INCREASED
COORDINATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF VOCATIONAL
REHABILITATIONJ PROGRAMS LIKE THE PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED
"MOUNTAIN HOUSE"J AND THE EFFORTS OF ADVOCACY GROUPS SUCH AS
THE MENTAL HEALTH ASSOCIATION AND THE ALLIANCE FOR THE
MENTALLY ILL ARE ALL NECESSARY. HOWEVER~
INCREASE IN SUPPORT FROM ALL SOURCES WILL BE
THE NEEDS OF THESE CITIZENS ARE TO BE MET.
A CONSIDERABLE
NECESSARY IF ALL
AS VIRGINIA SEEKS TO REDUCE THE CENSUS OF STATE INSTITUTIONS
AND REQUIRES INCREASINGLY STRICT ADMISSION CRITERIA FOR
ADMISSIONS TO THESE FACILITIESJ OUR SERVICE TO THESE AFFECTED
CLIENTS AND THEIR FAMILIES IS INCREASINGLY VITAL.
THE EMOTIONAL EFFECTS OF NOVEMBER 4~ 198% HAVE CONTINUED FOR
MANY MONTHS AFTER THAT DISASTER. THE DISASTER SERVICES
PROGRAM CONTINUES TO PROVIDE COUNSELINGJ SUPPORT GROUPS~ AND
CASE MANAGEMENT TO PEOPLE AFFECTED BY THE FLOOD~ WITH NO
CHARGE TO THE VICTIMS. DEBRIEFINGS AND EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMS
HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO EMERGENCY AND HUMAN SERVICE WORKERS AND
4
AGENCIES. ONE STAFF MEMBER HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO CHD
INDUSTRIES. OUTREACH CONTINUES THROUGH TELEPHONE CALLS AND
VISITS. THE PROGRAM WORKS CLOSELY WITH THE OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES AND THE AMERICAN RED CROSS IN DEVELOPING A
COMMUNITY DISASTER PREPAREDNESS PLAN,
THE MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES BOARD IS A JOINT AGENCY OF THE
VALLEY GOVERNMENTS. AS A MEMBER OF THAT BOARDJ APPOINTED BY
THIS COUNCILJ I THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR
BEFORE YOU AND PLEDGE THAT WE WILL CONTINUE OUR COMMITMENT OF
QUALITY SERVICES TO THE CITIZENS OF ROANOKE CITY,
DR, FRED ROESSEL~ THE AGENCY'S EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR~ AND THOMAS
CHAPMANJ THE DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIONJ ARE HERE WITH ME AND
WE WILL BE HAPPY TO RESPOND TO ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
5
12/8/86
PAGE 6
MHSRV DIRECTLY OPERATED PROGRAMS
FY-86 STATISTICS/JURISDICTION
CITY OF ROANOKE
Unduplicated Units of
Client Count Service
Value of
Service
MENTAL HEALTH
Counseling
Extended Care
Clubhouse
Emergency Services
Kiwanis
Cottage School
Children's Center
Adolescent Crisis Unit
Prevention Services
MH Subtotal
726
575
99
893
13
10
11
50
4,313
6,690
3 299
2 128
3 054
1 218
1 637
1 072
2 085
1 577
2 375
hours $247
hours $233
days $120
hours $144
days $175
days $25
days $240
days $303
events $144
442
866
060
641
528
682
935
253
192
18 445
$1,635,599
MENTAL RETARDATION
Counseling and
Life Skills Center
Work Activities
Adult Development
Crisis Intervention
Read Road
Niagara Road
Hazelridge ICF/MR
Apartment Living
Short Term Care
College for Living
MR Subtotal
301 1,678
50 8,198
14 2,764
82 160
7 1,022
5 1,235
10 2,616
6 272
33 6,152
22 405
hours $147 213
days $123 333
days $93 325
hours $42 930
days $82 911
days $76 618
days $244 929
days $23 507
hours $16 030
hours $9,403
530 24,502 $860,199
SUBSTANCE ABUSE
New Directions
Hegira House
Residential
Alcoholism Program
SA Subtotal
TOTAL
558 5,076 hours $326,909
14 1,591 days $62,274
225 6,475 days $394,672
797 13,142 $783,855
8,017 56,089 $3,279,653
FY-86 Local Share
Service/Dollar
$247,536
$13
RECE
CITY CLERICS DFFICE
November 10, 1986
rv
Mrs Phyllis T Simmons
Miss Eunice Poindexter
Dr. Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
City of Roanoke
215 Church Ave., S. W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Mayor Taylor:
This is to request time on the agenda of Roanoke City
Council on December 8, 1986, for Mrs. Harriett McClung to
give a brief progress report about services provided to
the citizens of the City of Roanoke by Mental Health
Services of the Roanoke Valley.
Sincerely,
Executive Director
FPRjr:cd
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Mr. James D. Ritchie
Mrs. Harriett McClung
MENTAL HEALTH SERVICES OF THE ROANOKE VALLEY
EXECUTIVE OFFICES, Suite 410, 920 S. Jefferson Street, Roanoke, Virginia 24016-4494 - (703) 345-9841
Serving the Counties of Botetourt and Roanoke and the Cities ot Roanoke and Salem
Office ~ fi~e O~y Oen~
December 10, 1986
File #511
Mrs. Linda W. Pharis Mr. Robert W. Glenn, Jr.
c/o Center-In-The-Square 1878 Arlington Road, S. W.
One Market Square, S. E. Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mrs. Pharis & Mr. Glenn:
I am enclosing copy of a communication from Mayor Noel C. Taylor,
Chairman, Henry Street Revival Committee, recommending that you
be appointed as additional members of the Committee, which com-
munication was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on ~londay, December 8, 1986.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, Council concurred in the
recommendation.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, C~IC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Enc.
cc: Mayor Noel
Committee
C. Taylor,
Chairman,
Henry Street Revival
Room 456 Munlclpol Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roonoke, Vl~nla 24011 (703) 981-2..~41
Office of lhe Mayor
December 4, 1986
Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members
of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mrs. Bowles and Gentlemen:
At a meeting of the Henry
Wednesday, November 19, t986,
recommend to Council that Ms.
Glenn, Jr., be appointed as
Street Revival Committee.
Street Revival Committee held on
the committee unanimously voted to
Linda W. Pharis and Mr. Robert W.
additional members of the Henry
Your favorable consideration
appreciated.
of the recommendation will be
NCT:se
Sincerely,
Noel . Taylor,~hairman
Henry Street Revival Committee
Room 452 Municipol Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. I~:~anoke, Virginia 240t 1 (703) 981-2444
December 10, 1986
File #60-467
Mr. Joel M. Schlan§er
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28464, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 General and Grant Funds
Appropriations, by appropriating $20,382.68 to the Artist in
Education program, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of
the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December
8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Erlco
CC:
Mr. Edwin R. Feinour, Chairman, Roanoke City School Board,
3711' Peakwood Drive, S. 14., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dr. Frank P. Tota, Superintendent of Schools, P. O. Box 13145,
Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Mr. Richard L. Kelley, Executive for Business Affairs and
Clerk of the Board, P. O. Box 13105, Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Hilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 ~nurch A,~nue, S.W. Aoanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28464.
VIRGINIA,
4B
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1986-87 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, and providing for
an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1986-87 General and Grant
Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained, to read as follows, in part:
General Fund
Appropriations
Education (1) ...................................... $51,007,078
Other School Expenditures (2) ...................... 128,921
Grant Fund
Appropriations
Roanoke City Schools
Artist in Education
1986-87
Revenue
Roanoke City Schools
Artist in Education 1986-87
$ 9,353,557
(3-4) ................ 20,383
$ 9,353,557
(5-6) ................ 20,383
(1) Other Instr.
Costs
(2) Transfers to
Grant Fund
(001-060-6002-6021-0308)
(001-060-6012-6065-0801)
$(10,000)
10,000
(3) Artists
(4) Supplies
(5) Local Match
(6) Federal Grant Receipts
(035-060-6809-6021-0308) $ 18,883
(035-060-6809-6021-0309) 1,500
(035-060-6809-1101) 10,000
(035-060-6809-1102) 10,383
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
DIrlIARTMI'NT OF FINANC. E
(~ITY OF f~OANOKI~. VA.
December 8, 1986
CiTY C
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Joel M. Schlanger
Appropriation of Roanoke City School Grants
I have reviewed the attached request for appropriations
for the School Board. The Artist in Education program is funded
with $10,383 in federal funds and $10,000 in local funds. These
local funds were budgeted for and are available with the School
Board's account and are specifically identified in Mr. Kelley's
attachment to his request.
I recommend that you concur with the request of the
School Board.
JMS:dp
~'~1~I Edwin R. Feinour. Chairman
William White, Sr., Vice Chairman
Dor'~ld ~rtol
floanoke
City School Board
Sallye T. Coleman
[oVerne 8. Dillon
David K. Usk
James M Turner. J~.
Frank P. Tota, Superintendent
Richard L Helle¥. Clerk of the 8oard
P.O 80X 13105, Roanoke, Virginia 24031 · 703-981-2381
November 26, 1986
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Members of Council:
As the result of official School Board action at its meeting of November
25, 1986, the School Board'respectfully requests City Council to appropriate
$20,382.68 for the Artist in Education program to enhance the district's art
program. The program is federally funded in the amount of $10,382.68 with
a local match of $10,000.00.
Sincerely, . _
Richard k. Kelley
Clerk of the Board and
Executive for Business Affairs
rg
cc: Mr. Edwin R. Feinour
Dr. Frank P. Tota
Mr. William L. Murray, Jr.
Mr. Kenneth F. Mundy, Jr.
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
~Mr. Wil Dibling
r. Joel Schlanger (with accounting details)
Excellence in Education
ROANO[E CZT¥ SCEOOL BOARD
Roanoke, Virginia
APPROPRIATION Rgoug3T
Artist in Eduaation 195b-87
bsoq
035-060-b809-5021-0308 Artists
035-060-5809-6021-0309 Supplies
Appropriation 0nit ZBC
18,882.58
1,500.00
20, ~82~ 58
035-050-5809-1101
035-OhO-580q-1102
Local Hatch
Federal Grant Receipts
10,000.00
10,982.68
$ 20~ ]82.68
The Artist in Education program provides funds for the enhancement of the
district's arts program by bringing experts into the school for ~tudent
aorkmhops. The program is funded in the amount of $10,382.58 from federal
funds, eith the balance o£ $10,000 local match to be taken From account
001-060-5002-6021-0308. The program sill end September 30, 1987.
November 25, 1986
December 10, 1986
File #70-184
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 28465, extending the pay
benefits provided for by Resolution No. 4748 for a certain
emergency service employee, which Resolution was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, December 8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, C~IC
City C, 1 erk
MFP:se
E~lc.
cc: Mr. James C. Jefferson, 3608 Ventnor Road, S. E., Roanoke,
Virginia 24014
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. Jerry W. Kerley, Fire Chief
Mr. Eric C. Turpin, Manager, Personnel ~lanagement
Roc~'n 456 Muntcll:~l Building 215 Chur~q Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2~4.1
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28465.
A RESOLUTION extending the pay benefits provided for by Resolution
No. 4748 for a certain emergency service employee.
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 4748, adopted February 28, 1936, provides
that police officers and firefighters absent from duty because of
disabling injuries incurred in the line of duty shall suffer no loss
in compensation for sixty days;
WHEREAS; by Resolution No. 4748,
lished a local benefit for the City's
ers, and eligibility for such benefit
Council has voluntarily estab-
police officers and firefight-
is determined solely by the
terms of Resolution No. 4748, not by the Workers' Compensation Act or
related law;
WHEREAS, Resolution No. 4748 requires that extension of benefits
provided for by such resolution beyond sixty days shall be only upon
authority of Council;
WHEREAS, Lieutenant J. C. Jefferson of the Fire Department has
previously been determined eligible for such benefits, and by report
of December 8, 1986, the City Manager has recommended that benefits
available to such employee be extended beyond sixty days by authority
of Council.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council as follows:
1. Lieutenant J. C. Jefferson of the Fire Department shall be
paid the difference between his base pay and any sums received put-
suant to the Workers' Compensation Compensation Act for a period of
sixty days from November 22, 1986, or until such officer is able to
return to duty, whichever occurs first.
2. Such employee shall under no circumstances receive payments
from the City, including Workers' Compensation benefits, in excess of
his regular base pay.
3. The City Manager shall be authorized to terminate the benefits
provided for by this resolution should it be established by report of
a licensed physician that said employee is able to return to duty.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
RFr'~¥~q Roanoke Virginia
ITY - December 8, 1986
Honorable Noel C. Taylor,
and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Mayor
Extension of Pay Benefits
I. Back~round:
II.
Council Resolution No. 4748 of February 28,
1936, established policy for payment of
regular salaries in lieu of other
compensation paid by the City, to employees
of the Police and Fire Departments absent
from duty due to line-of-duty injuries, not
to exceed 60 days without approval of City
Council. City Council may consider paying
the employee injured in the line of duty for
additional time absent from his regular duty;
in excess of 60 days, but in no event will
payment in excess of 60. days be made until
authorized by Council.
July 22, 1986, J. C. Jefferson, a Fire
Lieutenant, was injured in the line of duty
while at a fire scene on 711 Norfolk Avenue,
NW. Fire Lieutenant Jefferson did not
contribute to the cause of the accident.
Ce
November 3, 1986, Council, by Resolution No.
28419 extended the pay benefits provided by
Resolution No. 4748 for an additional period
of sixty (60) days beginning September 24,
1986 and ending November 22, 1986
Current Situation:
Fire Lieutenant Jefferson suffered a
traumatic injury to his left elbow, with
infection. He had immediate pain following
the accident but the injury did not appear to
require immediate medical attention.
However,the pain persisted and he
sought medical treatment on July 23, 1986
Members of Council
Subject: Extension of
December 8, 1986
Page 2
Pay Benefits
III.
IV.
through the City Occupational Nurse who
examined him and referred him to Community
Hospital, Roanoke Valley. Lieutenant
Jefferson received full pay on July 23, 1986
and began on Workmen's Compensation on July
24, 1986.
Fire Lieutenant Jefferson has not been
released by his physician to return to duty.
His condition is not improving and surgery
may be indicated which would delay his return
to duty by another six to eight weeks.
City Council authorization is required for
regular salary payment to Lieutenant
Jefferson during his continued absence from
duty due to line of duty injuries.
Issues:
A. Employee morale.
B. Cost.
Alternatives:
Authorize regular Day an additional 60 days
or portion thereof needed until Lieutenant
Jefferson is able to return to duty
retroactive to November 22, 1986.
1. Employee morale will be enhanced.
2. Cost does not exceed funds budgeted.
Do not authorize paying Lieutenant
Jefferson's regular salary beyond 60 days
which ended November 22, 1986.
1. Employee morale will not be enhanced.
Cost will be reduced by one third or the
difference between regular salary and
Workman's Compensation.
Members of Council
Subject: Extension of Pay Benefits
December 8, 1986
Page 3
Recommendation is that Council concur in
Alternative "A" and authorize continued regular
salary payment to Lieutenant Jefferson retroactive
to November 22, 1986, for a period of 60 days or
until such officer is able to return to duty,
which ever occurs first.
Respectfully sq~mitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:JWK:jd
cc:
Director of Finance
City Attorney
Director of Administration and Public Safety
Fire Chief
December 10, 1986
File 5102
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28467, approving your
issuance of Change Order No. 5 to the City's contract with
Lanford Brothers Company, Inc., for the rehabilitation of the
Main Street (Wasena) Bridge over the Roanoke River and N & W
Railway right-of-way, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
December 8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Nary F. Parker, C~C
City Clerk
MFP:se
Enc.
cc: Lanford Brothers Company, Inc., P. O. Box 7330, Roanoke,
Virginia 24019
Mr. Wilburn C. Oibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
~lr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer
Mrs. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Room456 MunlclpalBulldlng 215C~ura~A'~'~ue, S.W.l~anoke, Vl~lnlo24011 (703)981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28467.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE approving the City Manager's issuance of Change
Order No. 5 to the City's contract with Lanford Brothers Company.
Inc., for the rehabilitation of the Main Street (Wasena) Bridge
over the Roanoke River and NW Railway right-of-way; and providing
for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke' that:
1. The City Manager or Assistant City Manager is authorized
and empowered to issue, for and on behalf of the City, upon fo~m
approved by the City Attorney, Change Order No. 5 to the City's
contract with Lanford Brothers Company, Inc., dated May 27, 1986,
related to the rehabilitation of the Main Street (Wasena) Bridge
over the Roanoke River and NW Railway right-of-way.
2. Such Change Order shall provide
changes in the work to be performed:
~RIGII~%L C~ A~/Dt~T
O~ AM~ INCLUDII~ PREVIC~S C~IANGE (kNIIEI{S
Additional 389.8 sq. yds. of deck rehabil-
itation
Additional 58.43 cu. yds. latex modified
concrete cement
Total of Change Order No. 5
Additional days resulting fr~m Change Order No. 5
for the following
$ 339,962.00
$ 353.809.59
+ $ 46,776.00
+ $ 40,316.70
$ 87,092.70
$ 440,902.29
None.
municipal
ordinance
In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this
shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
December 10, 1986
File #60-102
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28466, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 Capital Fund
Appropriations, by transferring $87,093.00 in connection with the
issuance of Change Order No. 5 to the City's contract with
Lanford Brothers Company, Inc., for deck rehabilitation of the
Main Street (Wasena) Bridge over the Roanoke River and N & W
Railway right-of-way, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council
of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday,
December 8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City C1 erk
MFP:se
Enco
cc: Mr. W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. Robert K. Bengtson, Traffic Engineer
Mrs. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Room 456 Munlclpal Building 215 O~urch Avenue, $.W. I~c~oke, Vlrgtnla 2401 t (703) 981-254t
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28466.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1986-87 Capital Fund Appropriations, and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1986-87 Capital Fund
Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained, to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Capital Improvement Reserve
Public Improvement Bonds - Series
Streets & Bridges
Main Street Bridge Rehabilitation
$8,704,272
1985 (1) ....... 7,249,823
6,708,818
(2) ............ 447,045
(1) Streets &
Bridges (A008-052-9577-9181) $(87,093)
(2) Approp. from
Bonds (A008-052-9541-9001) 87,093
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY CL[[2~$~2??ICE Roanoke, Virginia
Decemher 8, 1986
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Change Order No. 5 - Main Street(Wasena) Bridge
over Roanoke River and N&W Railway
I. Back,round on this subject is:
Lanford Brothers Company~ Inc. submitted a base bid in the
amount of $339,952.00 for Main Street (Wasena) Bridge over
Roanoke River and N&W Railway-Deck Rehabilitation, which
was accepted by City Council in Ordinance No. 28175 at a
regular meeting held on May 27, 1986.
B. Project includes:
1. Contract amount of $353~809.59 (base bid plus four
change orders).
2. Time limit of 180 consecutive calendar days.
Main Street Brid~e (Wasena) over Roanoke River and N&W
Railway was experiencing deck deterioration due to the
penetration of chlorides through the deck joints. The
deck, which had not had any major repairs since its 1938
construction date, is being rehabilitated in order to
improve the bridge's riding surface and to extend the life
of the bridge.
Deck deterioration of this bridge was studied by Hayes, Seay,
Mattern and Mattern in 1984 to determine the extent to which
deck rehabilitation is needed as a result of the chloride
penetration. The study included obtaining ten (10) test cut
samples from the bridge deck which were submitted for laboratory
analysis. The results of the analysis indicated that deck
rehabilitation was necessary.
II. Current situation of the subject is:
Unsound portions of the concrete brid~e deck were removed by
the contractor. These areas had been determined as being unsound
by Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern. Their findings revealed
that there was now a much greater amount of the rehabilitation
needed to restore these areas. That is, previous estimates of
400 square yards of rehabilitation have been increased by an
additional 389.8 square yards. At $120.00 per square yard, this
is an additional $46,776.00.
Page 2
III.
Latex modified concrete cement quantities required for a final
overlay on the bridge deck was increased from 142 cubic yards
to 200.43 cubic yards (an increase of 58.43 cubic yards). At
$690.00 per cubic yard, this is an additional $40}316.70,
needed for proper grade requirement.
Funding in the amount of $87~092.70 (the total of the above two
items) is available from the Public Improvement Bond - Series
1985 - Streets and Bridges Account No. 008 052 9577 9181 to
provide the subject work for Change Order No. 5.
Contract would increase to $440~902.29 by virtue of Change Order
No. 5 in the amount of $87,092.70. The same unit prices used in
the original low bid would also be used in this change order.
Contingency of $20~000.00 originally established with contract
award has $6~142.41 which is to be maintained pending total
project completion. Change Orders 1-4 are described as follows:
a. Change Order ~1 - $3,993.20 - repairs to face of curb.
b. Change Order #2 - $4,020.40 - sidewalk repair, west side
of bridge.
c. Change Order #3 - $1,876.80 - sidewalk repair, east side
of bridge.
d. Change Order #4 - $3,967.19 - bridge joint repair and conduit
work on east side of bridge.
e. Total of Change Orders 1-4 ~ .$.13}857.59.
Issues in order of importance are:
A. Necessity and justification of additional work.
B. Funding availability.
C. Timing requirements.
IV. Alternatives in order of recommendation are:
A. Authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 5 in the
amount of $87,092.70.
Necessity and justification of additional work exists.
Addition of these necessary repairs to the structural
deck will provide the extended bridge life that is
desired.
Funding availability is from the Public Improvement Bond -
Series 1985 - Streets and Bridges Account No.
008 052 9577 9181.
Page 3
3. Timing requirements would be acceptable.
B. Do not authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 5
in the amount of $87,092.70.
1. Necessity and justification of additional work
would continue to exist.
2. Funding would continue to be needed for these improvements.
3. Timing requirements would not be an issue.
V. Recommendation is that City Council approve Alterative "A" by taking
the following actions:
A. Authorize the City Manager to execute Change Order No. 5 in the
amount of $87,092.70.
Transfer $87,092.70 from the Public Improvement Bond - Series
1985 - Streets and Bridges Account No. 008 052 9577 9181 into the
existing Main Street (Wasena) Bridge Deck Rehabilitation Account
No. 008 052 9541 9001.
ectfully sub~tted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/RKB/dlh
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
December 11, 1986
File #27
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern
1315 Franklin Road, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28469, accepting your pro-
posal and awarding a contract for architectural and engineering
services for restoration and repair of the Washington Park box
culvert, in the amount of $97,699.00, which Ordinance was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, December 8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Enc.
cc: Mr.
Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public blorks
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mrs. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Room456 MunlclpalBuildlng 215 C~urch Avenue, S.W. Roano~e,~rglnlo24011 (703)981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28469.
AN ORDINANCE accepting a certain proposal and awarding a
contract for architectural and engineering services for restora-
tion and repair of Washington Park box culvert, upon certain
terms and conditions; authorizing the proper City officials to
execute the requisite contract; and providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS,
culvert is in a state
collapse; and
WHEREAS, there is
such problems; and
the City has learned that the Washington Park box
of deterioration and may be in danger of
a need for prompt action in order to remedy
WHEREAS, the firm of Hayes, Seay, Ma ttern & Mattern, which
well qualified to perform such work, has made a proposal to the
City for architectural and engineering services on this project;
and
WHEREAS, this Council has determined that immediate
necessary in order to continue with the project and to promote
the public health and safety.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that:
1. The proposal of Hayes, Seay, Ma ttern & Mattern, a copy
of which is on file in the Office of the City Engineer, made to
the City to provide architectural and engineering services for
is
action is
repair and restoration of the Washington Park box culvert is
hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager or Assistant City Manager and the City
Clerk are authorized to execute and attest, respectively, an
agreement with such firm for the provision of such services as
are more particularly set forth in the report of the City Manager
dated December 8, 1986.
3. The contract authorized by this ordinance shall be
the amount of $97,699.00, and the form of the contract shall
approved by the City Attorney.
perry and
is deemed to exist, and
effect upon its passage.
In order to provide for the preservation of public pro-
for the health and safety of the public, an emergency
this ordinance shall be in full force and
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
December 10, 1986
File #60-27
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28468, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 Capital Projects Fund
Appropriations, by transferring $97,699.00 in connection with the
award of a contract to Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern for archi-
tectural and engineering services for restoration and repair of
the Washington Park box culvert, which Ordinance was adopted by
the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, December 8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Eric o
cc: Mr. H. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public ~orks
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mrs. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Room456 MunlcipalBuildlng 215C~urc~Av~nue, S.W. Roanoke, Vlrginla24011 (703)981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28468.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain' certain sections of the
1986-87 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations and providing for an
emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1986-87 Capital Projects
Fund Appropriations be, and the same are hereby, amended and
reordained, to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Capital Improvements Reserve
Capital Improvement Reserve - Washington Park
Storm Drain (1) .................................
Sanitation
Washington Park Box Culvert (2) ................. .
(1) Wash. Park
Storm Drain
(2) Approp. from
Gen. Revenue
(A008-052-9575-9185)
(A008-052-9585-9003)
$(97,699)
97,699
$8,693,696
846,494
8,101,344
97,699
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
~ITY ~LE!~ ~' ~ L~banoke, Virginia
December 8, 1986
Honorable ~ayor ~n~ ~embers o~ airy ¢ounc£1'~ B~B -~ P B~
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Engineering Agreement for Preparing Plans and Specifications
for Construction/Restoration Washington Park Box Culvert.
I. Background:
ae
City Engineer's staff, along with Fire Department personnel,
made an inspection of the double 5' x 7' box culvert under
Washington Park as a followup to the November 1985 Flood, and
found it to be in a state of deterioration and cause for
serious concern.
City Charter under Emergency Conditions gives the City
Manager the power to select a qualified engineering firm
to accomplish the design in an expeditious manner. City
Council was notified of these conditions on April 30, 1986.
City Administration proceeded under cautious emergency con-
ditions and retained Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern to
develop plans and specifications for repair and/or replace-
ment of the damaged culvert. Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern
has considerable underground tunneling experience and is also
under contract with the City of Roanoke for Annual Bridge
Inspections.
Hayes, Sea¥} Mattern and Mattern began immediately to develop
plans and specifications. Since the existing culvert lies
under fifty feet of an old landfill site the design was dif-
ficult and several alternates were considered. Ultimately it
was decided to tunnel a new section of liner plate and 102
inch concrete pipe around the deteriorated culvert.
II. Current Situation:
me
Engineering Agreement with Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern
is based on a payroll multiplier plus reimbursable fees not
to exceed the amount of $97~699.00. The initial investiga-
tion, surveying and design alternates which required a third
party for borings and soils engineering, have taken the City
to the bidding process. Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern
have incurred expenses in the amount of $78}863.00 to date on
behalf of the City. (See attachment.)
Engineer was monitored to ensure effective utilization of
time on the project to date and every effort will be made to
keep cost to a minimum during the construction administration
phase.
Page 2
III. Issues in the order of importance are:
A. Qualifications of the firm.
B. Funding.
C. Obligation.
IV. Alternatives:
A. Award an engineering agreement with Hayes, Seay, Mattern and
Mattern, in an amount not to exceed $97,699.00.
Qualifications of the firm to provide plans and specifi-
cations for underground tunnelling work have been proven
with the many successfully completed projects for the
Washington D.C. Subway System.
Funding is available within the Capital Project Fund
Account, Washington Park Storm Drain, Account No.
008-052-9575-9185.
3. Obligation to Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern would be
met for incurred expenses to date.
B. City Council not award an engineering agreement with Hayes,
Seay, Mattern and Mattern.
1. Qualifications of the firm would not be an issue.
2. Funding would not be spent at this time.
3. Obligation to Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern would not
be met.
V. Recommendation:
Ae
Concur with Alternative "A" for authorization by City Council
for the City Manager to award an engineering contract to
Hayes, Seay, Mattern & Mattern in a form acceptable to the
City Attorney, in an amount not to exceed $97,699.00.
Be
Authorize the Director of Finance to transfer from the
Capital Project Fund Account No. 008-052-9575-9185 the amount
of $97~699.00 for the contract, to the Washington Park Box
Culvert Restoration Account No. 008-052-9585-9003.
Page 3
WRH/VRD/mm
Attachment
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities & Operations
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Cost Construction Technician
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
ATTACHMENT A
A&E Commission No. 4227
City of Roanoke
Washington Park Tunnel
PROPOSED FEE COMPUTATION
A. INVESTIGATION
Manhours
Hourly
Rate
Project Manager 21 $30.00
Engineer 12 18.00
Design Technician 0 12.00
Clerical 4.5 9.00
Total Labor
Labor overhead (133%)
Administrative Overhead and profit (125%)
Direct Expenses x 1.1
Task A Fee
Total
$ 630.
216.
41.
$ 887.
$ 1,179.
$ 2,653.
$ 33.
$ 2,686.
INITIAL DESIGN
Project Manager 60
Engineer 180
Design Technician 160
Specifications/Const. Administration 60
Soils Engineer 20
Survey 72
Clerical 40
Total Labor
Labor overhead (133%)
Administrative Overhead and profit (125%)
Direct Expenses x 1.1
Soil Borings x 1.1
Task B Fee
$30.00
18.00
12.00
25.00
18.00
8.50
9.00
$ 1,800.
3,240.
1,920.
1,500.
360.
612.
360.
$ 9,792.
$13,023.
$29,303.
$ 770.
$ 1,790.
$31,862.
SECOND DESIGN
Project Manager 60 $30.00 $ 1,800.
Engineer 200 18.00 3,600.
Design Technician 175 12.00 2,100.
Specifications/Const. Administration 60 25.00 1,500.
Soils Engineer 60 18.00 1,080.
Survey 72 8.50 612.
Clerical 36 9.00 324.
Total Labor
Labor overhead (133%)
Administrative overhead and profit (125%)
Direct expenses x 1.1
Soil borings x 1.1
Task C Fee
D. ADMINISTRATION OF CONSTRUCTION
Project Manager 52
Engineer 60
Design Technician 60
Specifications/Const. Administration 160
Soils Engineer 20
Survey 27
Clerical 60
Total labor
Labor overhead (133%)
Administrative Overhead and profit (125%)
Direct expenses x 1.1
Task D Fee
$30.00
18.00
12.00
20.00
18.00
8.50
9.00
$11,016.
$14,651.
$32,965.
$ 935.
$ 5,415.
$39,315.
$ 1,560.
1,080.
720.
3,200.
360.
230.
540.
$ 7,690.
$10,227.
$23,011.
$ 825.
$23,836.
SUMMARY
Task A
Task B
Task C
Task D
Total Fee
$ 2,686.
$31,862.
$39,315.
$23,836.
$97,699.
December 11, 1986
File #27
A. L. King, Ltd.
P. O. Box 503
Nitro, West Virginia
25143
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28471, accepting your pro-
posal for construction and restoration of the Washington Park box
culvert, in the total amount of $1,243,833.00, which Ordinance
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, December 8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
cc: Mr.
Hr.
H. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
~lr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mrs. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Room456 MunlclpolBulldlng 215C~urc~A~'~ue, S.W. Roanoke, Vlrglnla2401t (703)981-2541
December 11, 1986
File #27
L. M. Bradshaw Contracting, Inc.
3600-B Saint John's Lane
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28471, accepting the pro-
posal of A. L. King, Ltd., for construction and restoration of
the Washington Park box culvert, in the total amount of
$t,243,833.00, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 8,
1986.
On behalf of the Council, I would like to express
you for submitting your proposal for construction
of the Washington Park box culvert.
appreciation to
and restoration
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Enc.
Room456 MunlcipalB~ildlng 2150'~urchAvem~e,S.W. Roomoke. Virglnla24011 (703)981-254t
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28471.
AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of A. L. King, Ltd., for
construction and restoration of the Washington Park culvert, upon
certain terms and conditions, and awarding a contract therefor;
authorizing the proper City officials to execute the requisite
contract for such work; rejecting all other bids made to the City
for the work; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as
follows:
1. The bid of A. L. King, Ltd., in the total amount of
$1,243,833.00, for construction and restoration of the Washington
Park culvert, such bid being in full compliance with the City's
plans and specifications made therefor and as provided in the
contract documents offered said bidder, which bid is on file in the
Office of the City Clerk, be and is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the
City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute
and attest, respectively, the requisite contract with the success-
ful bidder, based on its proposal made therefor and the City's spe-
cifications made therefor, said contract to be in such form as is
approved by the City Attorney, and the cost of said work to be paid
for out of funds heretofore or simultaneously appropriated by
Council.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid
work are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify
each such bidder and to express to each the City's appreciation for
such bid.
4.
municipal
ordinance shall
In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this
be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
December 11, 1986
File #60-27
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28470, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 General and Capital Funds
Appropriations, by transferring $1,370,000.00 in connection with
the award of a contract to A. L. King, Ltd., for construction and
restoration of the Washington Park box culvert, which Ordinance
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, December 8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
E/lC o
CC:
Mr. H. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mrs. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Room456 MuniclpalBulldlng 2'~§OhurchA~nue, S.W. Roanoke,~rglnlo2401"l (703)981-25~.1
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28470.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1986-87 General and Capital Funds Appropriations, and providing
for an emergency.
~ WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1986-87 General and Capital
Funds Appropriations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and
~reordained, to read asfollows/ in part:-
General Fund
Appropriations
Public Safety $21,224,347
Police Patrol (1) ................................ 5,166,139
Fire Supression (2) .............................. 7,155,675
Non-Departmental 9,539,690
Transfers to Other Funds (3) ..................... 9,307,050
Capital Fund
Appropriations
Capital Improvement Reserve
Washington Park Storm Drain (4) ..................
Sanitation
Washington Park Box Culvert Construction/
Restoration (5) .................................
$ 8,355,457
508,285
9,395,581
1,370,000
(1) Salaries
(2) Salaries
(3) Transfer to
Capital
(A001-050-3113-1002) $( 467,046)
(A001-050-3213-1002) ( 467,046)
(A00i-004-9310-9508)
934,092
(4) Washington Park Storm
Drain
(5) Approp. from General
Revenue
(A005-052-9575-9185) $( 435,908)
(A008-052-9585-9003) 1,370,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
RECEiVeD
CITY CLERK~ ~%~ke, Virginia
December 8, 1986
'86 DE~-I P~:,~2
Subject: Construction/Restoration Washington
Park Box Culvert
I concur in the recommendation of the Bid Committee Report.
WRH/VRD/dlh
Respectfully,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Attachment:
cc:
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities And Operations
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Cost Construction Technician
Roanoke, Virginia
December 8, 1986
Honorable Mayor and Members Of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council
Subject: Bids For Construction/Restoration
Washington Park Box Culvert
I. Back~round:
Ae
City En~ineerin~ Staff, along with Fire Department Personnel made
an inspection of the double 5' x 7' Box Culvert under Washington
Park after the November 1985 Flood and found the structure in a
deteriorated state and cause for serious concern.
City Administration proceeded under cautious emergency conditions
and authorized the firm of Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern to
prepare plans and specifications to repair the damage.
City Council received, publicly opened and read two (2) bids for
subject project on November 10, 1986 and referred the bids to
a Bid Committee, to review the bids and report back to council.
D. Low Base Bid in the amount of $1~243~833.00 was submitted by
A. L. King, Ltd., Nitro, West Virginia.
II. Issues, in order of importance are:
A. Compliance of the bidders with the requirements of the contract
documents.
B. Amount of the base bid.
C. Engineering concerns.
D. Funds for construction.
III. Alternatives are:
Award a unit price contract to A. L. King, Ltd., in the amount
of $1,243,833.00 and establish a contingency for the project
in the amount of $126,167.00.
1. Compliance of the bidder with requirements of the
contract documents was met.
Page 2
Amount of the base bid is acceptable and is less than
the Engineers' estimate. It is very difficult to estimate
the cost on such a highly specialized type of construction
with rather uncertain working conditions.
3. Engineering concerns would be met for the construction and
restoration of the box culvert sections that have deteriorated.
4. Funds for construction of the project exist within General
fund accounts and Capitol Projects Fund accounts.
B. Reject all bids and not construct project.
1. Compliance of all bidders with the requirements of the
contract document would not be an issue.
2. Amount of unit prices would probably be higher if rebid
at a later date.
Engineering concerns would not be met. Construction/
Restoration would still be needed as soon as possible to prevent
total collapse of the box culvert and its attendant upstream
flooding.
4. Funds would not be expended.
IV. Recommendation is that City Council take the following action:
A. Award a unit price contract to A. L. King Ltd., in the amount
of $1,243.833.00 in a form acceptable to the City Attorney.
B. Reject all other bids received.
Authorize the Director of Finance to transfer from the General
Fund Accounts police salaries (001-050-3113-1002) $ 467,046.00
and Fire Salaries (001-050-3213-1002) $467,046.00 to "Transfer
to Capital Project Fund Account" 001-004-9310-9508, and transfer
from Capital Fund Projects Account Washington Park Storm Drain
(008-052-9575-9185) $435,908.00 and establish a new Capital
Projects Fund Account for "Washington Park Box Culvert
Construction/Restoration in the amount of $1~370,000.00.
($1~243}833.00 Contract and $126~167.00 Contingency.)
Respectfully submitted,
William F. Clark
RAG/KBK/WFC/VRD/dlh
Page 3
Attachment: Tabulation of Bids
cc:
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Utilities and Operations
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
TABULATION OF BIDS
CONSTRUCTION/RESTORATION WASHINGTON PARK
BOX CULVERT
Bids Opened Before City Council Monday November 10, 1986 at 7:30 p.m.
ADDENDUM BID BOND
BIDDER BASE BID RECEIVED RECEIVED
L. M. Bradshaw $2,249,500.00 YES YES
Contracting Inc.
A. L. King, Ltd. $1,243,833.00 YES YES
Engineers Estimte $2,500,000.00
Time of completion - 270 consecutive calendar days.
Robert A. Garla~, Chairman ' - Kit B. Kis r
William F. Clark
Of~:e o~ fne O~y Oe~~
November 12, 1986
File #27
Mr. Robert A. Garland, Chairman )
Mr. William F. Clark ) Committee
Mr. Kit B. Kiser )
Gentlemen:
The following bids for construction and restoration of the
Washington Park box culvert, were opened and read before the
Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on
Monday, November 10, 1986:
BIDDER BASE BID
A. L. King, Ltd.
L. M. Bradshaw Contracting, Inc.
$1,243,833.00
2,249,500.00
On motion, duly seconded and unanimously
referred to you for tabulation, report
Council.
adopted, the bids were
and recommendation to
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
cc: A. L. King, Ltd., P. O. Box 503, Nitro, West Virginia 25143
L. M. Bradshaw Contracting, Inc., 3600-B Saint John's Lane,
Ellicott City, Maryland 21043
Mr. Wilburn C. Oibling, Jr., City Attorney
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Chun~ Av~w~ue, S.W. Roanoke. Virginia 24011 (703) 981-254.1
December 11, 1986
File #60-27
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28472, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 Capital Fund
Appropriations, by transferring $75,000.00 in order to begin
construction of Phase I-A of the Central Business District Storm
Drain Improvements, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of
the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December
8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk
~lFP:se
Enc.
CC:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public lgorks
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mrs. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Room 456, Municipal Building 215 Onura~ Av~,nue, S.W. Roanoke, ¥1rglnla 2401 t (703) 981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28472.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1986-87 Capital Fund Appropriations, and providing for an emer-
gency.
WHEREAS,
Government of
exist.
for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that certain sections of the 1986-87 Capital Fund Appro-
priations, be, and the same are hereby, amended and reordained,
to read as follows, in part:
Appropriations
Capital Improvement Reserve
Capital Improvement Reserve - Storm Drains
Sanitation
Central Business District Storm Drain Ph.I
$8,716,365
(1)... 79,677
8,078,645
(2)... 75,000
(1) Storm Drains (A008-052-9575-9176) $(75,000)
(2) Approp. from
Gen. Revenue (A008-056-9571-9003) 75,000
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
RECE~\,ED
C{TY CLE:?.S OF?CS Roanoke, Virginia
December 8, 1986
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Phase I - Central Business District Storm
Drain Improvements
I. Background:
Central Business District experienced a heavy downpour on
Wednesday, August 6, 1986, which caused water to pond at the
level of the front door of the old Miller and Rhoads store at
the intersection of First Street and Campbell Avenue, S.W.
Within minutes after the heavy downpour, the water receded
into the storm drainage system.
Concerns were voiced to the City Administration by property
owners along Campbell Avenue, between First Street, S.W. and
Jefferson Street, that after recovering from the November
1985 Flood, apparent flood damages could occur again from
heavy downpours.
City Administration requested that the City Engineer investi-
gate what could be done to alleviate flooding from heavy
downpours.
II. Current Situation:
City Engineer's staff, in September, began review of the
entire storm drainage system in the Central Business
District. This consisted of checking each inlet for cleanli-
ness, size of existing throat openings, and size of exiting
pipe to the main flow channels. The main underground flow
channels were also checked for condition and adequacy.
Street Maintenance Department was requested to clean those
inlets and pipes found to need cleaning during field review.
This work was completed on October 31, 1986.
Page 2
Field investigation found that ninety percent (90%) of the
inlet openings are four foot-eight inches wide with the
height of the openings ranging from two to five inches. The
exiting pipes are predominently twelve inches in diameter.
The system was started in the 1800's and has been routinely
added to since that time. Street paving and other downtown
construction have added more flow to the system as the years
pass leading to today's problems.
City Engineer's staff has evaluated the existing storm drain
inlets and pipe systems, based on flow patterns in the main
flooding area of downtown Roanoke and has proposed new inlet
structures with sufficient throat length to intercept the
flow, along with the proper size of exit pipes to pass the
intercepted flow to the underground drainage system.
Attachment I shows the total number of proposed inlets and
pipes recommended to intercept the over-street storm water
flow before it reaches the lower areas of downtown Roanoke.
Attachment II shows the estimated cost of the total proposed
improvements ($184,888.00). Costs and locations are subject
to change due to actual subterranean conditions encountered
when the work is done. The downtown area is a honeycomb of
underground utilities that will be difficult to work around,
making firm correction plans impossible to produce and on-
site decisions mandatory.
III. Issues in order of importance:
A. Construction
B. Timin~
C. Fundin~
IV. Alternatives:
Council appropriate $75,000.00 to begin construction of Phase
I-A. Phase I-A is shown on Attachment III. Additional sta-
ges can be constructed as funding permits.
Construction of Phase I-A would allow for the majority
of over street storm water flow from higher elevation
areas of downtown to be intercepted before reaching the
problem areas of downtown Roanoke.
2. Timin~ is important to have the new inlets and larger
outlet pipes in place before the spring rainy season.
3. Fundin~ is available in the Capital Project Fund Storm
Drain Account Number 008-052-9575-9176.
Page 3
B. Council not appropriate funding for this construction.
1. Construction would not be an issue.
2. Timing would not be an issue.
3. Funding would not be expended.
Recommendation: Council concur with Alternate "A" and transfer
$75~000.00 from Capital Project Fund Storm Drain Account Number
008-052-9575-9176 to a new account to be established by the
Director of Finance in the amount of $71~500.00 with a contingency
of $3,500.00. It is quite probable that some proposed work may be
impossible to accomplish as planned, due to difficulties
experienced in working underground in downtown. This will
necessitate on-site decisions about alterations while downtown
traffic is being disrupted.
WRH/VRD/mm
Attachments
cc:
Director of Finance
City Attorney
Director of Utilities & Operations
Director of Public Works
City Engineer
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
ATTACRMENT II
CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT COST SUMMARY
TYPE
15" Concrete Pipe
18" Concrete Pipe
24" Concrete Pipe
30" Concrete Pipe
36" Concrete Pipe
Manholes
Drop Inlet DI-3B
Drop Inlet DI-3B
Drop Inlet DI-3B
Drop Inlet DI-3B
Drop Inlet DI-3B
Drop Inlet DI-3C
Drop Inlet DI-3C
L~8 ~
L=10'
L=12'
L=16'
Lm20'
L=8'
L~12'
QUANTITY ITEM COST
225 L.F. 35.00
436 L.F. 40.00
630 L.F. 45.00
115 L.F. 50.00
123 L.F. 55.00
8 Each 2,500.00
4 Each 2,200.00
2 Each 2,200.00
8 Each 2,600.00
7 Each 2,800.00
1 Each 3,500.00
9 Each 2,200.00
2 Each 2,500.00
TOTAL
7,875.00
17,440.00
28,350.00
5,750.00
6,765.00
20,000.00
8,800.00
4,400.00
20,800.00
19,600.00
3,500.00
19,800.00
5,000.00
TOTAL
+ 10% Contingency
TOTAL
$168,080.00
16,808.00
$184,888.00
ATTACHMENT III
PHASE I-A
Stage I
-Remove existing drop inlets at northwest and
southwest corner of Campbell Avenue and First
Street, S.W., install new DI-3B, L=12' inlets
and 18"/24" exit pipes.
SUBTOTAL COST
Stage II -Second Street between Salem Avenue and Norfolk
Avenue, S.W., west side, install new DI-3B, L=16'
inlet and 30" exit pipe, east side remove existing
drop inlet and install new DI-3B drop inlet and
24" exit pipe.
West Side $13,037.00
East Side 5~958.00
SUBTOTAL COST
Stage III-Salem Avenue, S.W., between Second Street and
First Street, S.W., remove existing 12" exit
pipes and install 24" exit pipes.
SUBTOTAL COST
Stage IV -Campbell Avenue between First Street and Jefferson
Street, remove existing inlets and 12" exit pipes
and install new DI-3C, L~8' inlets and new 24" exit
pipes.
SUBTOTAL COST
Stage V
-Southwest and southeast corner of Jefferson Street
and Campbell Avenue install new DI-3B, L=12' and
24" exit pipes.
Southwest Side
Southeast Side
$5,191.00
3~865.00
SUBTOTAL COST
$8,614.00
$18,995.00
$7,167.00
$27,668.00
$9,056.00
$71,500.00
3,500.00
$75,000.00
TOTAL COST
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL
Office o~ t~e Oly Oerk
December 11, 1986
File #27
F. L. Showalter, Inc.
P. O. Box 11525
Lynchburg, Virginia
24506
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of.Ordinan~e No. 28476, accepting your pro-
posal for construction of the Williamson Road Storm Drain, Phase
I, Contract II, and Williamson Road East Sanitary Sewer Projects,
in the total amount of $1,881,944.00, which Ordinance was adopted
by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held
on Monday, December 8, 1986.
Si ncerely,
Mary F. Parker, CrlC
City C1 erk
MFP:se
Enc.
cc: Mr.
M r.
W. Robert Herbert, City Hanager
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mrs. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Room456 Munlcl~c:~alBuildlng 215C]'lurchAve~ue, S.W. Roonoke, Vlrglnla24011 (703)981-2541
Ofl~ce o~ the Oty C]e~
December 11, 1986
File #27
Aaron J. Conner General Contractor,
P. O. Box 6068
Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Inc ,
Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28476, accepting the pro-
posal of F. L. Showalter, Inc., for construction of the
Williamson Road Storm Drain, Phase I, Contract II, and Williamson
Road East Sanitary Sewer Projects, in the total amount of
$1,881,944,00, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the
City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 8,
1986.
On behalf of the Council, I would like to express appreciation to
you for submitting your proposal for construction of the
Williamson Road Storm Drain, Phase I, Contract II, and Williamson
Road East Sanitary Sewer Projects.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Eric.
Room456 MuniclpalBuildlng 215C~urchAve~ue, S.W. Ro~m~:~e, Vlrglnla24011 (703)981-254.1
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28476.
AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of F. L. Showalter, Inc. for
construction of the Williamson Road Storm Drain, Phase I, Contract II,
and Williamson Road East Sanitary Sewer Projects, upon certain terms
and conditions, and awarding a contract therefor; authorizing the
proper City officials to execute
rejecting all other bids made to
for an emergency.
the requisite contract for such work;
the City for the work; and providing
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The bid of F. L. Showalter, Inc., made to the City in the
total amount of $1,881,944.00 for construction of the Williamson Road
Storm Drain, Phase I, Contract II, and Williamson Road East Sanitary
Sewer Projects, such bid being in full compliance with the City's
plans and specifications made therefor and as provided in the contract
documents offered said bidder, which bid is on file in the Office of
the City Clerk, be and is hereby ACCEPTED.
2. The City Manager or the Assistant City Manager and the City
Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to execute and
attest, respectively, the requisite contract with the successful
bidder, based on its proposal made therefor and the City's speeifica-
tions made therefor, said contract
by the City Attorney, and the cost
funds heretofore or simultaneously
to be in such form as is approved
of said work to be paid for out of
appropriated by Council.
3. Any and all other bids made to the City for the aforesaid
work are hereby REJECTED, and the City Clerk is directed to notify
each such bidder and to express
such bid.
4. In order to provide for
to each the City's appreciation for
the usual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is deemed
nance shall be in full force and effect upon
to exist, and this ordi-
its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
December 11, 1986
File #60-27
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Schlanger:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28475, amending and reor-
daining certain sections of the 1986-87 Capital and Sewage Funds
Appropriation Ordinances, by transferring $1,976,041.00 in con-
nection with the award of a contract to F. L. Showalter, Inc.,
for construction of the Williamson Road Storm Drain, Phase I,
Contract II, and Williamson Road East Sanitary Sewer Projects,
which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 8, 1986.
Si ncerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
E~lc .
cc: Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mrs. Sarah E. Fitton, Construction Cost Technician
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue, $.W. Roonoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-254.1
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28475.
AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
1986-87 Capital and Sewage Funds Appropriation Ordinances, and
providing for an emergency.
WHEREAS, for the usual daily operation of the Municipal
Government of the City of Roanoke, an emergency is declared to
exist.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of
Roanoke that Certain sections of 'the 1986-87 General and Sewage
Funds Appropriation Ordinances be, and the same are hereby,
amended and reordained, to read as follows, in part:
Capital Fund
Appropriations
Sanitation
Williamson Road Storm Drain Phase I (1) ...........
Williamson Road Storm Drain Phase I, Cont. II (2).
Capital Improvement Reserve
Storm Drains (3) ..................................
$ 9,391,110
- 0
1,580,542
7,403,900
1,387,465
Sewage Fund
Appropriations
Capital Outlay From Revenue
Williamson Road East Sanitary Sewer (4) ...........
Williamson Road East Sanitary Sewer, Phase I,
Cont. II (5) .....................................
$ 2,236,029
15,822
425,499
Retained Earnings
Unrestricted Retained Earnings (6) $11 514 816
(1) Approp. from Bonds
(2) Approp. from Bonds
(3) Storm Drains
(4) Approp. from General
Revenue
(5) Approp. from General
Revenue
(6) Unrestricted Retained
Earnings
(A008-052-9553-9001)
(A008-052-9554-9001)
(A008-052-9577-9176)
(A003-056-8413-9003)
(A003-056-8423-9003)
(X003-3336)
$( 163,077)
1,550,542
(1,387,465)
15,821)
425,499
409,678)
BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that, an emergency existing, this
Ordinance shall be in effect from its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk
~M.~'~F ~-i[.fgoanoke, Virglnia
CITY CLL~ .... u ~ ' December 8, 1986
'86 -1 P
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject:
Williamson Road Storm Drain,
Phase I, Contract II, and
Williamson Road East
Sanitary Sewer
I concur with the recommendations of the attached Bid Committee Report.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/ES/mm
Attachment: Bid Committee Report
cc:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities & Operations
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council
Subject: Williamson Road Storm
Drain, Phase I, Contract II,
and Williamson Road East
Sanitary Sewer.
Roanoke, Virginia
December 8, 1986
I. Back~round:
A. City Council received, publicly opened, and read two (2) bids
for the subject project on Monday, October 6, 1986.
Project is part of the main Williamson Road Storm System and is
a section extending from Fugate Road to Barkley Street. Included
with the project scope is a section of sanitary sewer known as
"Sanitary Sewer East" which is being constructed in conjunction
with the project.
Low Bid in the amount of $1,996~944.00 was submitted by
F. L. Showalter, Inc. of Lynchburg, Virginia in comparison with
the Engineer's estimate of $1,550~000.00 shown on the Bid
Tabulation Forms.
De
Mattern and Craig, the Consultant Engineer for this project,
later advised that they had inadvertently used a preliminary
estimate which did not reflect the full scope of the project
in its final form and had placed it erroneously on the bid
Tabulation form. The final estimate was confirmed at
$1,781,000.00.
Contractor's Bid was still 10.8% higher than the Engineers
final estimate and certain avenues of approach were considered
because the bid still exceeded available funds.
Rejection of both bids was considered since there
were only two bidders which may not reflect a
competitive situation.
Consultant Engineer was asked to carefully review the
bid unit prices and compare them with previous projects
to highlight any obvious, significant deviations. The
consultant then approached both bidders in an effort to
determine why the bids were high or if errors existed
in the posted unit prices.
Page 2
F. L. Showalter~ Inc., the low bidder, expressed a
strong desire to have the project awarded to them and
requested a meeting with the Engineering department to
discuss the possibility of negotiating unit prices to
reduce their bid.
Result of this meeting was an agreement from F. L. Showalter,
Inc. to reduce their total bid by $115,000.00 giving a new
bid price of $1,881,944.00 which is within 5.36% of the
Engineer's final estimate of $1,781~000.00.
New bid price is the result of reducing Unit Prices for all
items in the project without altering specifications, contract
documents and general conditions, or the scope of the job.
Sanitary sewer lines are being replaced as part of the storm drain
project because the construction of the storm sewer conflicts. It
was felt that it was more cost effective to replace the sanitary
sewer line along with this project.
II. Issues:
A. Compliance with the contract documents.
B. Amount of low bid.
C. Funding for construction.
III. Alternatives:
Award a unit price contract to F. L. Showalter, Inc. in the amount
of $1,$81~944.00 and establish a 5% contingency for the project
in the amount of $94,097.00.
Compliance with the contract documents is met. Low bid, as nego-
tiated, is in compliance with the Bidders Instructions and also
Section 14.2 of the specifications:
"If a bid from the lowest responsible bidder exceeds
available funds, the City of Roanoke reserves the right to
negotiate with the apparent lowest responsible bidder pursuant
to 23.1-14 (¢). Code of the City of Roanoke (1979). as amended.
Such negotiations with the apparent lowest responsible bidder
may involve discussion of reduction of quantity, quality or
other cost reductions in the best interest of the City of
Roanoke."
Page 3
IV.
Amount of low bid, as negotiated, is within 5.36% of the
Engineer's estimate and is acceptable for the following reason;
the Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation is
planning extensive work in the Roanoke area in the immediate
future. It is quite possible that future bids may be far less
competitive and considerably higher than the current prices
reflected in the negotiated units for this project due to the
increased demand for construction services.
3. Funding is available for the project from the current 85
Storm Drain Bonds Account and the Sewage Treatment Fund.
B. Reject all bids and readvertise the project at a later date.
1. Compliance with the contract documents would not
be an issue.
2. Amount of low bid may increase due to additional highway
construction activity anticipated in the Roanoke area.
3. Fundin~ would not be an issue since no funds would
be expended at this time.
Recommendation is that City Council Authorize Implementation of
Alternative A to Award a unit price contract to F. L. Showalter, Inc.
in the amount of $1~881,944.00 and establish a 5% contingency for the
Project in the amount of $94,097.00 in a form acceptable to the City
Attorney.
A. Authorize the Director of Finance to transfer the following funds
from the specified existing accounts.
1. From Williamson Road, SD, Phase I
Account No. 008-052-9553-9001
163,077.00
2. From S. D. Bonds
Account No. 008-052-9577-9176
1,387,465.00
3. From Williamson Road East Sanitary Sewer Project
Account No. 003-056-8413-9003 15,821.00
4. From Sewer Fund Retained Earnings
(appropriated) 409,678.00
Page 4
To the following accounts
Capital Account Williamson Road Storm Drain
Account No. 008-052-9554-9001
Phase I, Contract II
1,550,542.00
Williamson Road East Sanitary Sewer
(Account to be established in Sewer Fund
by Finance)
Phase I, Contract II
425,499.00
TOTAL: $1,976,041.00
Including $1~881,944.00 for contract and $94~097.00 for the
contingency.
B. Reject other bid received.
Respectfully submitted,
William F. Clark
RAG/ES/mm
Attachments: Tabulation of bids.
cc:
City Manager
City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director Utilities & Operations
City Engineer
Construction Cost Technician
TABULATION OF BIDS
WILLIAMSON ROAD STORM DRAIN PHASE I, CONTRACT II,
AND
WILLIAMSON ROAD EAST SANITARY SEWER
Bids opened before Roanoke City Council at 2:00 p.m., on Monday, October 6, 1986,
BIDDER BASE BID
F. L. Showalter, Inc. $1,996,944.00 *
Aaron J. Conner General Contractor, Inc. $2,077,616.35
Engineer's Estimate: $1,781,000.00
* Base Bid amount was negotiated to $1,881,944.00 by F. L. Showalter, Inc. in
accordance with Section 14.2 of the Contract Specifications.
Robert A~ Chairman
Kit B. Kiser
William F. Clark
O~:e of the Oly Qe~
December 11, 1986
File ~24-79
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
City ~lanager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Herbert:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28453, amending the Code of
the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by the addition of a new
Division 6, Downtown Service District, consisting of new sections
32-102, Downtown service district created, 32-102.1, Additional
tax imposed, 32-102.2, Downtown service district defined,
32-102.3, Purposes of tax, and 32-102.4, Other powers and duties,
to Article II, Real Estate Taxes Generally, of Chapter 32,
Taxation, to provide for imposition of an additional real estate
tax in a downtown service district created and defined by this
ordinance, for the use of additional tax revenues collected pur-
suant to this ordinance and for other powers and duties of the
City with respect to such downtown service district; and pro-
viding for an effective date, which Ordinance was adopted by the
Council of the City of Roanoke on first reading on Monday,
November 24, 1986, also adopted by the Council on second reading
on Monday, December 8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Mary f. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Enc.
Room 456 Munlcll:~l Building 215 Church Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, V~rglnla 2401t (703) 981-2541
Mr. W. Robert Herbert
Page 2
December 11, 1986
cc:
Mr. Guy W. Byrd, President, Downtown Roanoke, Incorporated,
410 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Mr. Robert W. Hooper, Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke,
Incorporated, 410 First Street, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24011
Mr. Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice President - Director,
Economic Development, Dominion Bankshares, P. O. Box 13327,
Roanoke, Virginia 24040
Mr. Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager
Mr Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr William L. Brogan, Municipal Auditor
Mr Gordon E. Peters, City Treasurer
Mr Jerome S. Howard, Jr., Commissioner of Revenue
Mr George C. Snead, Jr., Director of Administration and
Public Safety
Mr. Archie W. Harrington, Manager, City Information Systems
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Works
Mr. Brian J. Wishneff, Chief of Economic Development and
Grants
Mr. Donald S. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney
Mr. Raymond F. Leven, Public Defender, Suite 4B, Southwest
Virginia Building, Roanoke, Virginia 24011
The Honorable Jack B. Coulter, Chief Judge, Circuit Court
The Honorable James W. Flippen, Chief Judge, Juvenile and
Domestic Relations District Court
The Honorable Edward S. Kidd, Jr., Chief Judge, General District
Court
The Hono
The Hono
The Hono
1016, Sa
rable Ernest W. Ballou, Judge, Circuit Court
rable Roy B. Willett, Judge, Circuit Court
rable G. O. Clemens, Judge, Circuit Court, P. O. Box
lem, Virginia 24153
Miss Patsy Testerman, Clerk, Circuit Court
Ms. Patsy Bussey, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
Mr. Ronald Albright, Clerk, General District Court
Mr. Bobby D. Casey, Office of the Magistrate, P. O. Box
13867, Roanoke, Virginia 24037
Ms. Clayne M. Calhoun, Law Librarian
Mr. Robert L. Laslie, Vice President - Supplements, Municipal
Code Corporation, P. O. Box 2235, Tallahassee, Florida 32304
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28453.
VIRGINIA,
AN ORDINANCE amending the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979),
as amended, by the addition of a new Division $, Downtown Service
District, consisting of new sections 32-102, Downtown service dis-
trict created, 32-102.1, Additional tax imposed, 32-102.2, Downtown
service district defined,
Other powers and duties,
of Chapter 32, Taxation,
32-102.3, Purposes of tax, and 32-102.4,
to Article II, Real Estate Taxes Generally,
to provide for imposition of an.additional
real estate tax in a downtown service district created and defined
by this ordinance, for the use of additional tax revenues colleeted
pursuant to this ordinance and for other powers and duties of the
City with respect to such downtown service district; and providing
for an effective date.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as fol-
lows:
1. The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is
amended and reordained by the addition of a new Division 6, Down-
town Service District, consisting of new sections 32-102, Downtown
service district created, 32-102.1, Additional tax imposed, 32-102.2,
Downtown service district defined,
32-102.4, Other powers and duties,
Generally, of Chapter 32, Taxation,
32-102.3, Purposes of tax, and
to Article Il, Real Estate Taxes
to read and provide as follows:
Division 6. Downtown Service District.
§32-102. Downtown service district created.
Pursuant to the provisions of §§15.1-18.2 and 15.1-18.3,
Code of Virginia (1950). as amended, a downtown service
district is hereby designated and created for the purposes
set forth in §32-102.3 of this Code.
§32-102.1. Additional tax imposed.
To provide for additional governmental services not
being offered uniformly throughout the City, there is
hereby levied a tax of ten cents ($.10) for every one
hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed value of real
property and improvements located in the downtown ser-
vice district as defined by §32-102.2. Valuation and
assessment of real property, timing with respect to
valuation, assessment and payment, penalties and inte-
rest on delinquencies, abatement in the event a build-
ing is razed, destroyed or damaged or in the ease of a
natural disaster, assessment of new construction and all
other procedures for and details of administration and
collection of the tax imposed by this division shall be
the same as provided for by this Code for real estate
taxes generally.
§32-102.2. Downtown service district defined.
(a) The boundaries of the Downtown Service District
shall be defined to include the following area:
BEGINNING at the intersection of Wells Avenue, N.W.,
and Williamson Road, N. W., thence south with
Williamson Road, N. W., to the point where Williamson
Road. N. W., intersects with the Norfolk & Western
Railway line right-of-way; thence south from said
point along the Norfolk & Western Railway line right-
of-way which connects with and becomes the Norfolk
& Western Railway Main Track, Winston-Salem District;
thence south along the Norfolk & Western Railway Main
Track, Winston-Salem District. to Elm Avenue, S. E.;
thence west with Elm Avenue, S. E., and Elm Avenue,
S. W., to its intersection with Third Street. S. W.;
thence north with Third Street, S. W., to its inter-
section with Norfolk Avenue. S. W.; thence east with
Norfolk Avenue, S. W. to its intersection with Second
Street, S. W.; thence north with Second Street, across
Norfolk & Western Railway line right-of-way to Shenan-
doah Avenue, N. W.; thence east with Shenandoah Avenue,
N. W., to the southwest corner of Official Tax No.
2013606; thence north along the westerly property
boundary line of Official Tax No. 2013606 to Centre
Avenue, N. W.; thence east with Centre Avenue, N. W.,
to the southwest corner of Official Tax No. 2013018;
thence north along the westerly property boundary
lines of Official Tax Nos. 2013018 and 2013009 to
the southernmost property boundary line of Official
Tax No. 2013006; thence east along the southernmost
property boundary lines of Official Tax Nos. 2013006,
2013007 and 2013008 to the southeast corner of Offi-
cial Tax No. 2013008; thence north along the easterly
property boundary line of Official Tax No. 2013008
to Wells Avenue, N. W.; thence east with Wells Avenue,
N. W., to its intersection with Williamson Road, N. W.,
BEING the original PLACE OF BEGINNING.
(b) References to street names and Official Tax
Numbers set out in subsection (a) of this section are
based upon Roanoke City Official Appraisal Maps as
of October 28, 1986. The above described area is
fully shown on a Map, dated November 3, 1986, en-
titled "Downtown Service District, Roanoke, Virginia,"
a copy of which is on file and available for public
inspection in the Office of the Roanoke City Clerk,
Room 456,'Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia.
(c) Public utility facilities in or above the
public right-of-way, such as poles, lights, wire,
cable, conduit and piping, and railroad right-of-way
and track shall not be included within the downtown
service district or subject to the tax imposed by
this Division.
§32-102.3. ~urposes of tax.
(a) Taxes collected pursuant to this Division
shall be levied for and used to provide additional
governmental services not being offered uniformly
throughout the entire City, including, but not
limited to, economic and business development and
promotional activities intended to foster business
retention, business recruitment and developer re-
cruitment; planning for the development or revitali-
zation of downtown and for the transportation and
public facility and public space needs of downtown;
and those public purposes enumerated in §15.1-18.2(b),
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. Costs of col-
lecting, accounting for and administering the tax
provided for by this Division shall be a charge
against revenues derived from such tax.
(b) Taxes collected pursuant to this division
shall be segregated so as to enable the same to be
expended only in the downtown service district in
which raised.
§32-102.4. Other powers and duties.
The City shall have all those powers and duties
with respect to a downtown service district set
forth in §15.1-18.2(b). Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, including the power to contract with
any person, firm or corporation to provide addi-
tional governmental services in such district.
2. The effectiveness of the tax program authorized by this
ordinance on downtown revitalization and development shall be re-
viewed by City Council prior to July 1, 1992. At that time, Coun-
oil shall, in its discretion, decide whether to continue this tax
program, and, if Council'elects to continue the program, Council
shall establish the appropriate rate of taxation.
3. This ordinance shall be in full force and effect on and
after July 1, 1987.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
Honorable Noel C. Taylor, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke· Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Downtown Service District
I. Back~round:
'1~'o recent studies, Design 79 and Design 85, both strongly
recommended the establishment of a Downtown Service District
in order to obtain a basic but reliable source of funds to
support an ongoing downtown management program.
Downtown Service Districts can be established by certain units
of local government pursuant to Section 15.1-18.3, Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended to provide additional services of
government not being offered throughout the entire City.
II. Current Situation:
Service district proposal presented to City Council at its
October 20, 1986, regular meeting by Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
Proposal, in general, requested that City Council pass an
ordinance which would do the following (see attached
proposal):
1. establish a primary Downtown Service District;
levy and collect an additional 10 cents per $100 of
assessed value on real property contained within the
proposed service district boundaries; and
designate Downtown Roanoke, Inc., as its agent to receive
the proceeds of the additional tax levy and carry out a
program that will enhance governmental services in the
proposed Downtown Service District.
Proposed service enhancements to be provided by Downtown
Roanoke, Inc., fall within the following three general
categories:
Economic development - Business retention, recruitment,
and developer recruitment;
Members of City Council
Page 2
November 24, 1986
Management - Growth, transportation, and open space
planning; and
Community relations - Bolstering public/private
partnerships, image-building/marketing, and disseminating
information and developing information that can be used
by the City in its planning and budgeting processes.
III. City Council/City Administrative Actions:
A. City Council:
Referred request to City Manager for study, report and
recommendation;
Changed Council meeting hour to 7:30 p.m., on November
24, 1986, instead of the usual 2:00 p.m., to enhance the
opportunity for citizen involvement in the required
public hearing on the request; and
Set a public hearing on this matter for November 24,
1986, at 7:30 p.m.
City Manager has held two administrative public hearings to
receive citizen comment and disseminate information on this
matter (see attached meeting minutes). No citizen opposition
on this matter was expressed at either hearing.
IV. Issues as they relate to Council establishing a Downtown Service
District are as follows:
A. Need for Downtown Service District program.
B. Program funding.
C. Cost to general fund (start-up and annual).
D. Legal authority.
E. Accountability (program and finances).
F. Program implementation.
G. Impact on ongoing municipal functions.
V. Alternatives:
Establish, by ordinance, a Downtown Service District pursuant
to Section 15.1-18.3, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended;
approve a levy and collection of additional real property tax
on real property contained within the boundaries of the
Downtown Service District in the amount of 10 cents per $100
of assessed valuation; and authorize the City Manager to
negotiate an agreement, subject to Council approval, with
Downtown Roanoke, Inc., to implement the Downtown Service
District program.
Members of City Council
Page 3
November 24, 1986
Need for Downtown Service District program has been
documented in both the Design 79 and Design 85 studies
which focused on the revitalization of the City's Central
Business District. Moreover, the need is more apparent
as the sources of federal funds once available for
downtown renewal are no longer available.
Program funding will be provided by Council approving a
levy and collection of an additional real property tax on
real property contained within the boundaries of the
Downtown Service District in an amount of 10 cents per
$100 of assessed valuation.
Cost to ~eneral fund will be zero. Funds necessary to
put in an automated revenue collection system for this
program and pay for the preparation and dissemination of
tax tickets on a semi-annual basis will be approximately
$7,885 the first year. Annual recurring costs will be
approximately $1,000 thereafter. Ail costs associated
with administerin~ this new pro~ram will be deducted from
the revenues collected from the Downtown Service District
levy and not from the ~eneral fund.
Legal authorit~ to enact this program is found within
Section 15.1-18.3, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
5. Accountabilit~ for this program will be as follows:
a. Program implementation and results - City Manager.
b. Accountin~ - Director of Finance
c. Expenditure Audit - Municipal Auditor.
Pro,ram implementation will be handled via a service
contract with Downtown Roanoke, Inc. Said contract will
contain a defined scope of services, be in a form
acceptable to the City Attorney, and be approved by City
Council prior to any funds being collected or disbursed.
Impact on ongoin~ municipal functions will be almost
negligible. Once the accounting system adjustments are
made, the work created by this program can be handled as
a routine part of the daily operations of the Finance
Department and the Commissioner of Revenue's and
Treasurer's Offices. As stated in Section V.A.3. above,
the cost of administering this program will come from
Downtown Service District revenues not from the general
fund.
B. Do not establish a Downtown Service District.
1. Need to enhance the services offered by the City to the
downtown business community will still exist.
2. Program funding will not be an issue.
Members of City Council
Page 4
November 24, 1986
Cost to the general fund will still be zero. However,
when special service requests are made by the downtown
business community in the future, these requests may be
considered for inclusion in the regular City budget if
there are no other funding sources available at the time.
Legal authority for Council to establish a Downtown
Service District will still be available if Council
chooses to do so at a later date.
5. Accountability is not an issue.
Program implementation could still be done by Downtown
Roanoke, Inc. if a funding source can be identified.
Ye
Impact on ongoing municipal functions would not be an
issue from a revenue collection and disbursement point of
view. The City's ongoing economic development efforts,
however, would still not be able to provide services to
the downtown business community sufficient to meet the
development goals set forth in either the Design 79 or
Design 85 development plans.
VI. Recommendations:
It is recommended that City Council adopt Alternative "~' which
will authorize the following:
Establishment (as of July 1, 1987) of a primary Downtown
Service District which boundaries shall be as set forth on a
map dated November 3, 1986, entitled "Downtown Service
District, Roanoke, Virginia";
Levy and collection, as of July 1, 1987, of an additional real
property tax on real property contained within the above-
referenced boundaries in the amount of 10 cents per $100 of
assessed valuation; and
Negotiation by the City Manager with Downtown Roanoke, Inc.,
of a service contract to implement the Downtown Service
District program. Said contract shall be in a form acceptable
to the City Attorney and must be approved by City Council in
its final form prior to execution by the City Manager.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
Members of City Council
Page 5
November 24, 1986
WRH:EBR:mpf
enclosures
cc: Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. Jerome S. Howard, Jr., Commissioner of Revenue
Mr. Gordon E. Peters, City Treasurer
Mr. Brian J. Wishneff, Chief, Economic Development
Mr. Guy W. Byrd, President, Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
Mr. Robert W. Hooper, Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke,
Inc.
DOWNTOWN SERVICE DISTRICT
Summary
RECEI~F_D
CITY CLER~S ~?FICE
Proposal
Downtown Roanoke, Inc. is requesting Roanoke City Council to establish, pursuant to
State Code, a primary Downtown Service District {bounded generally by Norfolk & Wells
Avenues on the north, Elm Avenue on the south, the N&W Spur Line on the east, and
Third Street on the west} and designate DRI as the City's agent in receiving funds
and carrying out certain functions (following an approved work program) through the
use of these funds.
Functions
Downtown Service Districts are created to provide a higher level of functions or
services than a municipality is normally able to provide.
Roanoke's Downtown Service District, as proposed, would focus on Economic Develop-
ment (business retention, business recruitment, developer recruitment), Management
~p~nning, transportation madagement, public space management)' and Community Rela-
tions (public relations, government liaison, information & referral).
Funding
Downtown Service Districts are funded by an additional tax on all taxable real prop-
erty within the boundaries defined. We are proposing an additional lO cents per $100
of assessed value {over & above the current $1.2g per $100). Our estimates indicate
that this will generate approximately $100,000 annually to carry out the functions
described above.
DRI
Currently, Downtown Roanoke, Inc. is attempting to address the above functions, but
its effectiveness has been extremely limited by budgetary constraints and by the at-
tention it must devote to its many other functions which include retail promotions,
and representing the business community on all matters affecting downtown.
As envisioned, DRI would retain its basic structure as a non-profit, voluntary, mem-
bership organization -- still carrying out its traditional functions and supported
by dues. Although the imposition of an additional property tax would necessitate a
reduction in membership dues, the combination of these two primary funding sources
would result in an organization having an annual budget of approximately $130,000
to $150,000 -- sufficient to address all of downtown's needs and spreading the bur-
den of improving downtown equally; something impossible now.
Timetable
Downtown Service Districts are created by local ordinance. By submitting our proposal
to City Council on October 20, 1986, it is our hope that the necessary staff review,
public hearing and approval process can have the ordinance in place by January l,
1987.
DOWNTOWN SERVICE DISTRICT
Roanoke, Virginia
Proposal
Pursuant to Section 15.1 - 18.3, Code of Virginia (lgSO), as amended, Downtown
Roanoke, Inc. hereby requests that Roanoke City Council authorize the creation of
a primary Downtown Service District, funded by an additional tax of l0 cents per
$100 of assessed valuation on real property within said District, to carry out
certain functions for the improvement of downtown over and above those already
being provided.
Further, we request that the creation of said District become effective January
l, 1987; that it remain in effect for a period of five years, after which a review
by the City will determine whether or not it should be continued; and that Down-
town Roanoke, Inc. -- as the representative organization of the downtown business
community -- be designated as the contracting agency to receive and administer
the funds generated by the additional property tax.
Background
Downtown Roanoke, Inc. has been aware of the Service District concept since it was
first recommended as a possible source of~funds for a downtown management entity
in Design '79. In Virginia, Service Districts already exist in Winchester & Frank-
lin, and the concept is being 'explored in Richmond. Other cities utilizing such
districts include St. Louis, Memphis, Denver and Charlotte.
Design '85 reiterated the need for a stronger downtown organization and, like the
previous study, noted the Service District concept. It recommended the creation
of a Downtown Management Task Force. This recommendation was approved by the DRI
Board of Directors in the fall of 1985.
The Task Force was composed of:
Guy W. Byrd
H. Lawrence Davidson (ch.)
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
William H. Flannagan
Horace G. Fralin
Edwin C. Hall
James G. Harvey, II
William F. Hawkins
William S. Hubard
Sam Krisch
Charles I. Lunsford, II
Lewis W. Peery
Joel M. Schlanger
James M. Turner, Jr.
Michael A. Williams
Brian J. Wishneff
Paul C. Buford, Jr., of CANB served in an advisory capacity to the group.
The responsibilities of this Task Force included reviewing the state of the art in
downtown management, setting up goals & objectives for what a downtown management
entity should accomplish in Roanoke and determining the proper structure & funding
base for such an organization. Work was divided into three phases:
I. Determining desired functions and determining other area agencies
addressing those functions in one form or another.
II. Visiting other downtown organizations to gain first-hand knowledge
of their functions, structure and funding.
III. Applying the information gained in the first two phases to our situa-
tion and formulating a recommendation on the type of downtown organi-
zation best suited for Roanoke.
In April of this year the Task Force presented (ts ffndings back to the DRI Board.
In essence, it underscored the need for an organization with a larger staff and
budget, carrying out functions in these major categories:
Economic Develo~ent
Business Retention
Business Recruitment
Developer Recruitment
Management
Planning
Retail Mgmt
Transp. Mgmt
Pub. Space Mgmt
Community Relations
Advocacy
Public Relations
Gov't Liaison
Info & Referral
Funding alternatives had been examined, and the Task Force recommended the creation
of a Downtown Service District to supplement membership dues. The Board of Direc-
tors unanimously approved the Task Force report and fo~med a subcommittee to inves-
tigate the feasibility of creating such a District in Roanoke.
This subcommittee consisted of Guy Byrd, Larry Davidson, Paul Buford, Ed Hall Bill
Hubard and Jay Turner. '
The subcommittee, with the cooperation of City departments, set about the tasks
of conducting additional research about the concept, answering legal questions
regarding State enabling legislation, identifying and prioritizing permissible func-
tions, determining appropriate boundaries for the District, arriving at an accept-
able but adequate tax rate, and setting a desired timetable for implementation.
Members of City Council were advised that we were considering the concept, and a
meeting was held with key City personnel to discuss questions and procedural issues.
This done, a report was presented to the DRI Board in September. The Board unani-
mously approved the preparation and submittal of this formal request, thereby set-
ting the implementation process in motion. To date, this process has included the
preparation & dissemination of an information packet, a briefing of our membership,
a presentation to which all property owners within the proposed District were in-
vited and individual meetings with key property owners.
District Boundaries & Characteristic~
As proposed, the term primary "Downtown Service District" shall mean that area
bounded on the north by Norfolk Avenue, the Norfolk & Western right of way & property
lines and Wells Avenue respectively; on the south by Elm Avenue; on the east by the
Norfolk & Western spur line right of way and Williamson Road, respectively and on
the west by 3rd St., SW, 2nd St., SW and N&W and Frame One property lines, respec-
tively as shown on the attached map.
Our calculations indicate that the area contains 377 taxable parcels controlled by
217 owning entities. The current assessed valuation is approximately SlOB million.
Functions
The following is a detailed explanation of the functions to be carried out. They
fall into the three broad categories of Economic Development, Management and Community
Relations. Please note that those functions with no asterisk would be funded through
Service District revenues. Only certain facets of-irunctions with one asterisk would
involve Service District revenues.
Economic Development
1. Business Retention -- Aimed at keeping existing businesses and, where
appropriate, encouraging expansion within the downtown area. Involves
personal contacts to ascertain satisfacti, on levels and determine problems
or needs, then addressing them either through private sector incentives
(e.g. loan pools) or by acting as liaison between business & appropriate
governmental agencies.
Business Recruitment -- Multi-faceted. Geographic target area must be
determined by governing body. It should be oriented toward office &
commercial businesses targeted either as likely candidates for a move or
as needed to fill identified voids in our tenant mix. Efforts must in-
volve research, the development of marketing tools {e.g. brochures &
audio-visual presentations which not only extoll our assets but contain
hard data) and the matching of prospects with buildings and sites.
3. Developer Recruitment -- Involves identifying and securing developers
capable of carrying out projects (office, commercial, residential, etc.}
deemed necessary to the continued growth of downtown.
B. Management
*2.
*3.
Planning-- Includes general development plan updates (like Design '85)
as well as more specific studies involving downtown"s various functions
(e.g. retail development, housing) or detailed plans for specific areas
(e.g. Jefferson Street, 3rd to 5th area). Most should be done in conjunc-
tion with City but some, like marketing surveys & plans, should be the
sole province of the organization. Efforts should emphasize implementa-
tion.strategies. This function should also involve representation in the
design review process.
Transportation Management -- Assuming a more active role in traffic,
transit and parking issues. Particular functions could include working
with Valley Metro on various shuttle services (e.g. noontime shuttles to
the Kimball and Old SW/RMH employment centers) and the ~ecreation of a
parking validation system. Possible involvement in other parking matters
should also be considered.
Public Space Management -- Public spaces refer primarily to parks & plazas
(some of which may be privately owned} and, to a lesser degree, to streets
& sidewalks. "Management," as envisioned here refers not to on-going
capital improvements, maintenance and major events, but to advisory activi-
ties and recommendations geared toward improving the utilization & ap-
pearance of these spaces.
C. Community Relations
*l.
*2.
3.
Public Relations -- Presenting downtown as a unit in an 'effort to influence
perceptions. May take the form of general image-building or can be
focused on a specific issue.
Government Liaison -- Fostering communication and cooperation between the
public & private sectors on specific issues.
Informational & Referral -- Serving as a clearinghouse both for the dissem-
ination of information of interest to a constituency and the referral of
inquiries to appropriate agencies. This includes the sub-functions of
education, disaster assistance and maintenance of a data base.
3
Tentative First Year Work. Program
As envisioned at this time, and assuming $100,000 as anticipated revenue from the
District in calendar year 1987, activities to be carried out with District funds
are outlined in general terms below, according to function:
Economic Development
1. Business Retention (joining effort w/City Econ. Dev. Office)
-- Develop comprehensive listing of businesses within Service District
-- Initiate contacts to determine needs, problems, opportunities etc.
2. Business Recruitment '
-- Determine geographic target area
-- Develop comprehensive informational packet including basic data,
brochure, inventory of available space, etc.
-- Begin identifying prospects and initiate contacts
3. Developer Recruitment
-- Carry out initial research to determine a set of criteria deemed
by developers as constituting a favorable environment
-- Begin identifying (based on Design '85 and current conditions)
the types of projects most needed
-- Develop list of potential developers for the various types of
projects identified
B. Management
1. Planning
-- No'specific s~udies anticipated for 1987
2. Transportation Management
-- No specific activities anticipated for 1987
3. Public Space Management
-- Development (jointly with the City) of a unified directional
signage program
-- Continue design & packaging of Activity Center project (this
would be a "public space" on privately-held land)
C. Community Relations
1. Public Relations
-- Upgrade DOWNTOWNER newsletter and expand distribution
2. Government Liaison
-- Specific activities undetermined at this time
3. Information & Referral
-- Upgrade downtown data base for inclusion in information packet
{see Business Recruitment)
The monies expected to be generated via the District in 1987 would be devoted'solely
to the staff time, expenses and materials deemed necessary to carry out types of
activities stated above. If the District is established and DRI is designated to
administer the funds, we would submit a formal budget and work program each year for
City approval.
Accountability
Since public funds are involved, the uses to which they are put must be approved by
the City, and the designated agent administering the funds must be accountable to
the Municipal Auditor.
Involvement and Support
A concerted effort is being made to disseminate information about this proposal,
its purposes, and fiscal impacts. Thusfar, the following steps have been taken:
A. Presentation to BRI Board of Directors
B. Presentation to DR! Genera] Membership
C. Meetings with City staff
D. Notification of all property owners within the boundaries of the proposed
District and subsequent full briefing to all interested parties
E. Individual meetings with as many property owners as possible
F. Ongoing effort to secure signed forms from property owners endorsing the
concept (to be presented at Public Hearing)
To date, we have received no direct objections to the proposal.
Timetable
Our goal is to have the District go into effect and be designated as its agent as
of January l, 1987. ~
With this in mind, we ask that a Public Hearing on the matter be scheduled for Novem-
ber 24. This would allo~ just over 30 days for staff review and, if affirmative formal
action is taken in early December, allow time for the ordinance to be drafted and a
contract to be negotiated by the desired effective date.
5
PRIMARY
DOWNTOWN SERVICE DISTRICT
~ELLS AVENUE
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
DOMINION
BANKSHARES
December 1, 1986
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor
Mayor, City of Roanoke
Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue
Roanoke, VA 2t~011
Dear Noel:
I want you to know how much the downtown business community and
particularly Downtown Roanoke~ Inc. appreciate the confidence you
displayed in our area with the passing on the first reading of an
ordinance for the establishment of a downtown tax assessment district.
The positive approach with which you addressed this subject Monday
night was an indication of great things to come for the future of the
City of Roanoke. When we work collectively as a team we are able to
accomplish great things for the citizens of the entire city.
Downtown Roanoke has been given a unique opportunity to not only
serve its own constituents but to assist in the generation of additional
revenue that will benefit all citizens of the City. We appreciate the
trust you have placed in us and look forward as the geographic area
coined "everybody's neighborhood" to accomplishing great things with the
money which you have entrusted to our organization.
We would like to thank particularly the city staff for their excellent
cooperation and assistance on this project. Their patience and
understanding has been very helpful and they have hand]ed this in a very
professional manner. Particularly we would like to commend City
Manager Bob Herbert, Assistant City Manager Earl Reynolds, and
Director of Economic Development Brian Wishneff.
BTF:pmo
Sincerely,
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.~ C.E.D.
Vice President - Director
Economic Development
DOWNTOWN SERVICE DISTRICT ENDORSEMENTS
Name
1. Guy W. Byrd
2. Edwin C. Hall
3. H. Lawrence Davidson
4. Bridget B. Meagher
5. William F. Hawkins
6. E. Wertz/A. Williams
7. Michael M. Waldvogel
8. Patrick Shaffner
9. Earle R. Ware
10. Robert Szathmary
11. Robert Szathmary
12. John Williams
13. Thomas Hudson
14. James G. Bullington
15. James L. Trinkle
16. William H. Carder
17. C. W. Dooley
18. Larry E. Poteat
19. Michael Herman
20. John N. Lampros
21. Roy E. Elliott
22. Marilyn K. Elliott
23. Eldon L. Karr
24. Dorothy N. Walters
25. Warner Dalhouse
26. Walter Rugaber
27. H. S. Pritchett
28. H. S. Pritchett
29. H. S. Pritchett
30. James W. Jennings. Jr.
31. Douglas Cruickshanks
32. L. G. Lazarus
33. Charles D. Fox, III
34. Reginald K. Hutcherson
35. William A. Irvin, III
36. Edwin C. Hall
37. James L. Rock
38. James L. Rock
39. James L. Rock
40. James L. Rock
41. James L. Rock
42. James L. Rock
43. James L. Rock
44. James L. Rock
45. John Hilderbrand
46. Charles I. Lunsford. II
47. John Powell
48. H. S. McReynolds
Representinq
Bank of Virginia
Hall Associates
Davidsons
Alexander's
CANB
Wertz & Williams Ltd.
Franklin Associates
Parkside Prop. (SFCS)
United Virginia Bank
Security National Bank
120-122 E. Campbell Assoc.
123 E. Campbell Assoc.
The Ritz, Inc.
Mitchell Clothing Co.
Texas Tavern
Shenandoah Bldg. Assoc.
Downtown Parking Co.
Merchants Parking Co.
James L. Trinkle
William F. Trinkle
Monterey (Patrick Henry)
CANB Trust-Thurman (Heironimus)
Merchants Association
Blue Cross-Blue Shield
Self
J. W. Elliott Estate
Kimmerling Bros., Inc.
Johnston-Karr Partnership
7~9 W. Campbell
Dominion Bank. N.A.
Dominion Bankshares Prop.
Times-World Corp.
H. S. Pritchett & Dan Owen
Earle Properties
Market Place Center
Woods Rogers Hazlegrove
One Hundred Five Franklin
Sovran Bank
L. G. Lazarus Properties
Professional Prop., Inc. (4Q$)
First Federal S & L
Jefferson S & L
United Roanoke. Ltd.
Dom Trust - Lee
Dom Trust - Hartsook
Dom Trust - Lowe
Dom Trust - Vaughan
Dom Trust - Johnston
Dom Trust - Roa. Col. (land)
Dom Trust - Huff
Dom Trust - Henebry
Blanche Hilderbrand
Sixteen E. Church Assoc.
Mechanical Development Co.
Johnson-McReynolds Corp.
# of
Parcels
3
4
1
l
1
1
l
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
1
l
3
1
1
7
3
1
1
2
1
1
10
4
2
3
4
1
1
2
1
2
1
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
l
2
1
2
2
1
Name
49. Marc Fink
50. Thomas Schwendeman
51. Andy Roberts
52. Ed Bagwell
53. C. W. Dooley
54. Stephen A. Lucion
55. Stephen A. Lucion
56. H. Donald Thacker
57. R. H. Bennett
58. Horace G. Fralin
59. Horace G. Fralin
60. Horace G. Fralin
61. Malcolm M. Rosenberg
62. Hampton W. Thomas
63. Clay H. Turner
64, Walton Rutherfoord
65. Walton Rutherfoord
66. Louis Showalter
67. Thomas C. Robertson
68. Richard Kurshan
69. Abney Boxley, Jr.
70. Wm. & Gale Sowers
71. Gale J. Sowers
72. Doreen M. Hamilton
73. Morton C. Rosenberg
74. Morton C. Rosenberg
75. James H. Fulghum
76. Harry W. Whiteside
77. William j. Lemon
78. William Rakes
79. Dennis P. Kruger
80. Edward C. Moomaw, Jr.
81. Ellis H. Milan
82. James R. Lindsey, Jr.
83. Ruth Barrows
84. John Will Creasy
85. Sidney L. Katz
86. A. Bernard Levin
87. William Holdren
88. Kent T. Agnew
89. Sky Preece
90. James H. Cox
91. Dennis Cronk
92. Spencer Edmunds
93. Frederick L. Bulbin
94. Frederick L. Bulbin
95. Thomas V. Anderton
96. Thomas V. Anderton
97. James W. Parker
98. Sam Krisch
99. C. M. Irvin
100. Lynwood T. Atkins
lO1. Pamela S. Ross
102. Marc J. Small
102 Forms
Representin9 # of Parcels
Fink's Jewelers 1
Self 1
Mary Waynick 1
Foster/Waynick Properties 11
WRA-NYL (111 Franklin Plaza) 1
CANB Trust - Thurman 2
Self 2
C. and L. Investments 1
Self (Art Printing) 1
Carben (Grand Piano) 2
Newhaven 3
MFW Assoc. (Liberty Trust Bldg.) 1
Commonwealth Buildings 1
Ind. Dev. Auth (Commonwealth Park) 2
Haverty Building 1
Jefferson Associates 1
101 Investments 1
St. John's Episcopal Church 6
T-W Properties 1
Dona W. Rutherfoord 1
Nelson Ltd. Partnership 1
Gill Memorial Hospital 2
Self (Trustee)
L. J. Boxley (Boxley Bldg.) 1
Selves 2
Self 1
Va. Holdings Corp. (Hotel Roanoke) 3
Self 3
Self & Wife 1
Kirk Ave. Properties 1
Whiteside-Waldrop Parking 3
Self 2
S.W. Va. S & L 1
Self 1
Self (World Travel Service) 1
Self (Milan Bros.) 3
Carriage Park 1
Self (Furs by Don) 1
Associated Advertising 1
Self (Southern Pawn) 2
Self 1
H H C Corporation 1
Self (Agnew Seed) 1
Triad Investments 4
Allright Parking 11
M.C. Associates 1
Charter Federal S & L 2
Self (Samuel Spigel) 1
BFP Partnership 1
Sam's on the Market 1
Self 1
Roanoke Fish & Oyster 1
Krisch Hotels, Inc. 1
Norfolk Southern Corp. 2
Self (Atkins Photography) 1
Crystal Tower Associates 6
Self (Melton & Small) 1
112 Owning Entities (52%) 216 Parcels (57%)
These endorsements represent approximately $72,50~000 of the total estimated
valuation of $108,000,000 within the District (67%).
DOWNTOWN SERVICE DISTRICT
PROPOSAL
October 14, 1986
The Honorable Noel C. Taylor
Mayor, City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mayor Taylor:
It is with pride that Downtown Roanoke, Inc. submits here~th
its formal proposal for the creation of a Downtown Service Dis.
trict for Roanoke.
This proposal is the culmination of countless hours of WOrk
on the part of many people within the downtown business com-
munity, along with the higbest level of support and cooperation
of City officials.
We believe this to be a bold step forward for both downtown and
the City as a whole. It represents what we believe to be our
best opportunity to maintain and accelerate the momentum that
is producing one of the most vibrant, attractive and econom-
ically viable downtowns in the nation.
We sincerely hope that, after due consideration, it meets with
your approval, and we stand ready to assist in any way during
the review process.
GWB:nbk
Yours very truly,
Gu~'W. Byrd ~
President
CC:
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Wilburn C. DJ§ling, Jr., City Attorney
Jerome S. Howard, Commissioner of Revenue
Gordon E. Peters, City Treasurer
DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, INCORPORATED
410 PlR~T STREET, S.W.. ROANOKE, VlnGINIA24011 · (703)342.-202~
MINUTES
ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
DOWNTOWN SERVICE DISTRICT
November 4, 1986 - 7:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers
Persons in Attendance
Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager
Brian J. Wishneff, Chief, Economic Development
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, Office of Economic Development
Mark Williams, Assistant City Attorney
Robert W. Hooper, Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
Larry Davidson, Chairman, Downtown Service District Committee
Johnny Johnson
Joel Turner, Roanoke Times and Worlds News
Mr. Reynolds called the meeting to order and stated this was an
administrative public hearing to discuss the proposed downtown service
district. He noted that the hearing was not a requirement of the State
Code but was thought to be important by the City Manager. He advised
that the official public hearing would be held on Monday, November 24,
1986, at 7:30 p.m, in the City Council Chambers. He added that on
Wednesday morning, November 5, 1986, at 9:30 a.m., there would be
another administrative public hearing on this same matter. Mr. Reynolds
mentioned that on October 20, 1986, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., through its
Executive Director, had made a presentation to City Council regarding
the Downtown Service District proposing that such a plan be implemented
in the City of Roanoke, and subsequently, City Council referred the
matter to the administration for study and report back. Mr. Reynolds
then asked Mr. Hooper to summarize Downtown Roanoke In¢orporated's
proposal. Copies of the proposal were made available to everyone in
attendance.
Mr. Hooper stated that Downtown Roanoke, Inc. was requesting two things:
By January 1, 1986, the City authorize by ordinance the
creation of a Downtown Service District; and simultaneously
that
Downtown Roanoke, Inc., be designated as the agent to
administer the funds generated by this district.
Mr. Hooper stated he envisioned the funds being used for economic
development, planning and co~unity relations activities. He further
stated that the proposal was contained in Design 85, but the idea and
need for a stronger downtown management organization went back to Design
79. He added that a lot of work had gone into preparing the Downtown
Service District proposal, a lot of background research on alternatives
of how this might be done, and it is the feeling of the task force, the
Downtown Roanoke, Inc., Board, their membership, and people they had
contacted within the Downtown Service District, the the proposal holds
the most merit and spreads the burden more evenly to allow downtown to
pay its own way for performing functions over and above what the City
would normally be asked to provide.
The floor was then opened for questions.
Mr. Johnny Johnson spoke from the audience. He stated he was not
representing any specific group, only himself. He noted that he had
received calls on the matter and wanted to educate himself on this tax
issue. He asked the valuation on the property in the area.
Mr. Hooper responded that their calculations were approximately $108
million.
Mr. Johnson asked if that valuation included tax on non-taxable or
exempt properties.
Mr. Hooper stated it did not.
Mr. Johnson asked if the utilities had been included.
Mr. Hooper replied that utilities were covered for office buildings and
real property they owned, but there were no valuations placed on rights-
of-way or transmission lines.
Mr. Johnson stated he had been asked how much it would cost the
taxpayers to administer this program.
Mr. Hooper responded that it was his understanding that the ordinance
would be drafted so that any undue administrative costs would be
subtracted from funds received.
Mr. Johnson asked if the interest would go to the City or Downtown
Roanoke, Inc., if the City invested to the money as it usually does.
Mr. Hooper stated he did not know, but that could possibly pay for the
City's administrative costs if there were any.
Mr. Reynolds stated that it was his understanding that the City would be
contracting with Downtown Roanoke, Inc. for a set amount of funds on an
annual basis. He added that if those funds exceeded what the City
contracted for, possibly through investments, the excess revenues would
go into the general fund, as would any tax collection. He stated he
would contact Mr. Schlanger, Director of Finance, and get an official
response to Mr. Johnson's question.
Mr. Johnson asked the City's responsibility for those individuals who
would not pay the tax. He added that he thought at least 1/3 of the
properties within the Downtown Service District were probably absentee
ownership.
Mr. Hooper commented that at one time there were many absentee owners,
but that was not true any longer. He added that he did not envision
delinquency to be a problem at all because it was not a problem at the
present time. He commented that of the 377+ parcels in the district,
last year only 14 of those were delinquent.
Mr. Johnson concluded by stating he wanted to make it clear that he was
not present to upset or interfere with the merchants or the City, but he
wanted information in order to be able to answer questions.
There being no further comm~ents from anyone present, Mr. Reynolds
adjourned the hearing at 7:45 p.m.
MINUTES
ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLIC HEARING
DOWNTOWN SERVICE DISTRICT
November 5, 1986 - 9:30 a.m.
City Council Chambers
Persons in Attendance
Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager
Brian J. Wishneff, Chief, Economic Development
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, Office of Economic Development
Mark Williams, Assistant City Attorney
David Anderson, City Treasurer's Office
William Clark, Director of Public Works
Robert W. Hooper, Executive Director, Downtown Roanoke, Inc.
Larry Davidson, Chairman, Downtown Service District Committee
Joel Turner, Roanoke Times and Worlds News
Newsman from WSLS-TV
Mr. Reynolds called the meeting to order and stated this was an
administrative public hearing to discuss the proposed downtown service
district. He noted that this was the second and final administrative
public hearing on the issue of the Downtown Service District. He stated
that the City Manager felt that administrative hearings would be
productive in insuring that peoples' comments and concerns were
addressed before the Council public hearing. He advised that the
official public hearing would be held on Monday, November 24, 1986, at
7:30 p.m, in the City Council Chambers.
Mr. Reynolds then stated he would like to elaborate on a statement made
at last night's hearing so that the record would be clear with respect
to the revenue that would be transferred to Downtown Roanoke, Inc., if
that organization were approved as the City's agent for this program.
He said it was his understanding that Downtown Roanoke, Inc., for
planning purposes, had developed a $100,000 budget. He said that from
the City's perspective, the additional tax collected from the downtown
business community would be transferred to Downtown Roanoke, Inc., in
terms of the actual amount of revenue collected. As an example, if
$100,000 were collected, $100,000 would be transferred to Downtown
Roanoke, Inc., and likewise, if only $80,000 were collected, $80,000
would be transferred to Downtown Roanoke, Inc., and they would have to
look at the program goals and adjust to fit the revenue collected. He
then asked for comments from the audience.
Mr. Hooper further added that it was his understanding that any costs
incurred by the City to implement this program would be subtracted from
the revenues collected so that there would be no expense to the general
taxpaying public for this program.
A newsman from WSLS-TV asked the next steps in setting up the Downtown
Service District.
Mr. Reynolds replied that staff would be preparing a report for
Council's November 24, 1986, public hearing, and at that time Council
could either table, deny or approve the request or approve the request
with modifications.
Mr. Turner asked if individual property owners were notified of the
administrative public hearings.
Mr. Reynolds stated that the city did not notify individual property
owners, but had placed two display ads in the Roanoke Times and World
News and, at a previous Council meeting, had announced that hearings
would be held.
Mr. Hooper added that Downtown Roanoke, Inc., had mailed notices to
each individual property owner when the Downtown Roanoke Board had met
on the matter in September.
There being no further discussion, the meeting was adjourned at 9:40
CITY OF ROANOKE
INTERDEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION
COST ESTIMATE
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJ:
November 11, 1986
Earl Reynolds, Assistant City Manager ~,~j
Archie W. Harrington, Manager of C.I.S.
Estimated cost of implementing billings and accounts
receivable for special taxing district.
This is in response to your request for a cost estimate
to implement a procedure for handling billings and
receivables for the proposed special taxing district. Costs
includes only those associated with modifications to current
automatic systems. The modifications have been coordinated
by members of my staff with those of the Treasurer and the
Commissioner of Revenue.
Costs of these modifications will include Systems
Development time only and is estimated at five man weeks at
a cost of $7,000.
If I can be of further assistance in this please let me
know.
AWH:mwa
cc: George C. Snead
GORDON E. PETERS
TREASURER
DAVID C. ANDERSON
ASST. TREASURER
COST ESTIMATE
~- '_~-~---~ ~ _~__-~ POST OFFICE BOX ~ 451
~ (703) 981-2561
November 6, 1986
Mr. Earl Reynolds
Assistant City Manager
City of Roanoke
Re: Downtown Taxing District
Dear Earl,
On November 6, 1986 I met with you and your committee on the Downtown Taxing
District, and you requested that I supply you with an estimated cost for the
Treasurer's Office on the proposed Downtown special taxing district of approx-
imately 377 parcels, on a semi-annual payment schedule.
Below I am listing the estimated cost to the Treasurer's Office for this service:
Statement preparation, printing tickets,
payment processing, posting and filing;
50 hours at $9.37 plus 31% fringe
benefits
Postage
Envelopes and office supplies
Tax tickets
$613.74
$136.00
$ 31.70
$107.40
Total $888.84
I trust this information will be sufficient, and if you need additional information,
please do not hesitate to advise.
Gordon E. Peters
Treasurer
GEP/mvc
RECEI ~E',]
CITY C[ERXS i)!:F!gS
'86 NgV 19 AB~6
Roanoke, Virginia
November 24, 1986
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
Please reserve space on Monday's Agenda for a report concerning the
Downtown Service District.
Respectfully submitted,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/a
RECEIWED
CITY CLERICS uFFiCE
'86 NON' 19
November 19, 1986
The Honorable Mayor Noel C. Taylor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Taylor and Members of Council:
Subject: Downtown Service District
Prior to the administrative public hearings which this office held on the
above-referenced matter, Mr. Reynolds and I informally asked each of you if
there were any concerns or questions that you had regarding Downtown Roanoke's
prooosal. Your questions fell generally within four categories:
1. Application of the Downtown Service District concept to
neighborhood shopping areas;
2. Application of concept to residential neighborhoods in
order to generate additional revenues for projects, such
as paving, sidewalks, schools, etc.;
3. Council's ability/authority to readjust additional tax
(up or down) during the course of the program, and
4. Costs of starting the program as it would affect the
general fund.
I am forwarding to you a copy of a memorandum prepared by Mr. Dibling which
responds to each of the above issues in great detail. If, however, you have
additional questions, or need clarification on any of Mr. Dibling's responses, I
am sure that he will be more than happy to assist you.
Room 364 Municipal Building 2 t 5 Churc~ Avenue, S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 981-2333
Page 2
November 19, 1986
My full report and recommendations on this matter is being sent to you in
your regular Council package. As you raised these issues with us sometime ago,
I wanted to forward Mr. Dibling's responses to you as soon as I received them.
Sincerely,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH/a
E nc 1.
cc:
Mr. Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Assistant City Manager
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney
Mr. Joel M. Schlanger, Finance Director
Mr. Jerome S. Howard, Jr., Commissioner of Revenue
Mr. Gordon E. Peters, Treasurer
CITY OF ROANOKE
I NTERDE PARTMENTAL CO~MUN I CAT I ON
DATE: November 18, 1986
TO:
F ROM:
RE:
Earl B. Reynolds, Assistant City Manager ~')
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., City Attorney ~/~/
Downtown Service District
This is in response to your memorandum of November 3, 1986,
in which you posed four questions with respect to the proposed
Downtown Service District. I shall respond to your questions in
the order in which you asked them.
Your first question was whether a similar service district
could be established in a neighborhood shopping area, such as
Grandin Road or Williamson Road, if requested by the merchants.
Section 15.1-18.3, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, autho-
rizes the City Council to "...designate primary and secondary
downtown service districts for the purposes set forth in subsec-
tion (a) of §15.1-18.2 .... " Although there would seem to be
considerable legislative discretion in a local governing body
in designating primary and secondary downtown service districts,
it appears to me that the legislative intent of the General
Assembly in enacting §§15.1-18.2 and 15.1-16.3 was to authorize
a program of additional governmental services to promote revitali-
zation of traditional downtown business districts. Numerous
neighborhood shopping areas are located throughout the City of
Roanoke, but it is well recognized that there is only one down-
town business district within the City. Under these circumstan-
ces, I am doubtful that City Council could arbitrarily designate
a neighborhood shopping ares as either a primary or secondary
downtown service district. In any case, such designation of a
neighborhood shopping area would certainly be subject to challenge.
Your second question was whether the service district concept
could be applied to neighborhoods for making specific improve-
ments such as paving, sidewalks, schools, etc., and, if so, under
what circumstances. My answer to this question is in the nega-
tive for two reasons. First, any designation of a residential
neighborhood as a primary or secondary downtown service district
would be purely arbitrary and capricious and beyond the authority
of Council. Second, §15.1-18.2(b)(5) provides that the annual tax
collected within a downtown service district "...shall not be
levied for or used to pay for schools, police or general govern-
ment services but only for such additional services of govern-
ment as are not then being offered throughout the entire city .... "
The types of services about which you have inquired are offered
on a uniform basis throughout the City, and the service district
Earl B. Reynolds, Assistant City Manager
November 18, 1986
Page 2
concept cannot be used to fund such services. Since I am of the
opinion that the service district power cannot be utilized to
provide funding for residential neighborhood improvements such
as paving, sidewalks, schools, etc., there is no need to respond
to the second part of your inquiry.
Your third question was whether the City Council would have
the right to readjust the additional tax imposed in the Downtown
Service District prior to the end of the proposed five year pro-
gram. The answer to this question is in the affirmative. The
establishment of tax rates is an entirely legislative decision
for City Council, and Council may amend tax rates at its plea-
sure. Thus, at any time, City Council may reduce the additional
tax rate imposed in the Downtown Service District, increase such
rate (after proper advertisement and public hearing) or even
abolish the Downtown Service District.
Your fourth and final question relates to administrative
costs incurred in the collection of the additional taxes levied
in the Downtown Service District and in administration of the
downtown service district program. Your specific question was
whether these costs would be a charge against the additional tax
revenue collected within the Downtown Service District. My
answer to this question is in the affirmative. Section 15.1-18.2
(b)(5) provides that the proceeds from the annual tax within a
downtown service district "...shall be so segregated as to
enable the same to be expended in the district in which raised."
The same subsection authorizes a local governing body to levy
and collect an additional annual tax within a service district
"...to pay, either in whole or in part, the expenses and charges
for providing such additional governmental services in such dis-
trict .... " I am of the opinion that costs incurred by the City
in collecting the additional tax within the Downtown Service
District and costs incurred in administration of the downtown
service district program are a proper charge against revenues
derived from the additional tax in the Downtown Service District.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to these important
questions. I look forward to working with you in further explora-
tion of the downtown service district concept.
WCDJr:ff
The Honorable Jerome S. Howard, Jr., Commissioner of Revenue
The Honorable Gordon E. Peters, Treasurer
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Brian J. Wishneff, Chief, Economic Development and Grants
FOANOKE TIMES & WOF, LD-NFWS
NUMBER - 11216864
PUBLISHER'S FEE - $60.0q-
CITY OF ROANOKE
C/O MARY F PARKER
CITY CLERKS OFFICE
ROOM 456 MUNICIPAL BLDG
ROANOKE VA 24011
CITY CLEF,~ O: Fll;L
'86 NO'~21 P2:26
STATE OF VIRGINIA
~~ ITY OF ROANOKE
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, (THE UNDERSIGNED! AN OFFICER OF
TIMES-WORLD CORPORATION, WHICH COR-
PORATION IS PUBLISHER OF THE ROANOKE
TIMES & WORLD-NEWS, A DAILY NEWSPAPER
~UBLISHED IN ROANOKE, IN THE STATE OF
VIRGINIA, DO CERTIFY THAT THE ANNEXED
NOTICE WAS PUBLISHED IN SAID NEWSPAPERS
ON THE FOLLOWING DATES
11/14/86 MORNING
WITNESSt THIS 1TTH DAY OF NOVEMBER 1986
..........
OFFICER'S S I,~NATURE
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Pursuant to §58.1-3007, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended,
notice is given of a proposal to establish a Downtown Service District
in the downtown area of the City of Roanoke, pursuant to §15.1-18.3,
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. As proposed, the Downtown
Service District would require the levy and collection of an addi-
tional real property tax on real
City in the amount of ten cents
of assessed valuation. Proceeds
property
($.10) per
from such
in the downtown area of the
one hundred dollars ($100.00)
annual tax would be segre-
gated and expended in said Downtown Service District for additional
governmental services. The boundaries of the proposed Downtown
Service District and a description of the individual properties pro-
posed to be included in such District are as set forth on a map dated
November 3, 1986, entitled "Downtown Service District, Roanoke,
Virginia" on file and available for public inspection in the Office of
the Roanoke City Clerk, Room 456, Municipal Building, 215 Church
Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia.
A PUBLIC HEARING will be held before the Council of the City of
Roanoke on Monday, November 24, 1986, at 7:30 p.m., in the City Coun-
cil Chambers, Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., Roanoke,
Virginia, at which time citizens of the locality shall be given an
opportunity to appear before and be heard by City Council on the sub-
ject of establishment of a Downtown Service District and the proposed
tax increase with respect to real property located within such District.
GIVEN under my hand this ]]th day of November, ]986.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
Publish in full once on Friday,
November 14, 1986, in the Roanoke
Times-World News, Morning Edition.
Please mail bill and affidavit
of publication to ~ry F. Parker.
December 11, 1986
File #80-467
Mrs. Patricia S. Hammel
Highland Park Elementary School
1212 5th Street, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Dear Mrs. Hammel:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 28477, recognizing you for
your service to the City and for the Teacher of the Year honors
bestowed upon you, which Resolution was adopted by the Council of
the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December
8, 1986.
Si ncerely ,
Mary F. Parker, C~IC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Eric.
Room456 MunlcipalBulldlng 215ChurahAve~ue, S.W. Roanoke, Vlrglnla24011 (703)981-2541
December 11, 1986
File #80-467
Mr. Edwin R. Feinour
Chairman
Roanoke City School Board
3711 Peakwood Drive, S. H.
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. Feinour:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 28477, recognizing
PATRICIA S. HAMM£L for her service to the City and for the
Teacher of the Year honors bestowed upon her, which Resolution
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, December 8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Ilary F. Parker, C~qC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Room456 MunlciDolBuildlng 215C~urchAve~ue, S.W. Roonc~e, Vlrglnla24011 (703)981-2541
December 11, 1986
File #80-467
Dr. Frank p. Tota
Superintendent of Schools
P. O. Box 131a5
Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Dear Dr. Tota:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 28477, recognizing
PATRICIA S. HAMMEL for her service to the City and for the
Teacher of the Year honors bestowed upon her, which Resolution
was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular
meeting held on Monday, December 8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, C,HC
City C1 erk
MFP:se
E~c.
Room 456 Municipal Building 215 ~'~ur~ Avenue, S.W. Roanc~e, '~rglnla 24011 (703) 98t-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28477.
VIRGINIA,
A RESOLUTION recognizing PATRICIA S. HAMMEL for her service
to the City and for the Teacher of the Year honors bestowed upon
her.
WHEREAS, Patricia S. Hammel has
Roanoke City School division for the past
teaches reading in the Language Extension
Elementary School; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Hammel, a native of Mingo County, Williamson,
West Virginia, has assumed responsibility for developing and
implementing the reading extension center concept in the primary
grades and has demonstrated outstanding leadership in her school
by serving as a team leader; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Hammel has also served the division by develop-
ing and implementing a program to increase parental involvement
in the educational process and by assisting with the New/Begin-
ning Teacher Orientation Program; and
WHEREAS, Mrs. Harmnel has been selected as the Roanoke City
School Division's Teacher of
WHEREAS, Mrs. Hammel was
in the Commonwealth as one of
of the Year Award in Virginia.
THEHEFOHE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council
Roanoke that:
served as a teacher in the
two years and currently
Center at Highland Park
of the City of
the Year; and
selected from among all the teachers
two runners-up for the 1987 Teacher
1o Council adopts this means of commending the outstanding
professional services rendered to the City and the school divi-
sion by PATRICIA So HAMMEL and recognizing the high honors
bestowed upon Mrs. Harnmel.
2. The City Clerk is
of this resolution to Mrs.
Feinour, Chairman, Roanoke City School Board,
Tota, Superintendent, Roanoke City Schools.
ATTEST:
directed to forward an attested copy
Hammel, to the Honorable Edwin R.
and to Dr. Frank P.
City Clerk.
Of~e o~ the O~y Oe~
December 11, 1986
File #68
Mr. Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr.
City Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Dibling:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 28478, accepting the
donation of the former bakery of The Kroger Co. to the City;
authorizing you to prepare the necessary documents to effect this
transfer; and thanking The Kroger Co. for this donation, which
Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting held on Monday, December 8, 1986.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City C1 erk
MFP:se
Eric.
cc: Mr.
Mr.
W. Robert Herbert, City Manager
Joel M. Schlanger, Director of Finance
Mr. William F. Clark, Director of Public Horks
Mr. Charles M. Huffine, City Engineer
Mr. Brian J. Wishneff, Chief of Economic Development and
Grants
Mr. Kit B. Kiser, Director of Utilities and Operations
Ms. Deborah J. Mos~, Chief, Billings and Collectio~
*Added to c~bon copi~ on Novemb~ 16, 1987.
Room456 MuntcipalBuildlng 215 (~urch Avenue, S.W.P, oanoke, Vlrglnla24011 (703)981-2541
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 8th day of December, 1986.
No. 28478.
AN OI{DINANCE accepting the donation of the former bakery of The
Kroger Co. to the City; authorizing the City Attorney to prepare the
necessary documents to effect this transfer; thanking The Kroger Co.
for this donation; and providing for an emergency.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. This Council accepts the donation to the City by The Kroger
Co. of its former bakery, consisting of certain structures and seven
parcels bearing Official Tax Nos. 1110713, 1111305, 1111307, 1111310,
1111312, 1111315 and 1111316, subject to the parcels being donated to
the City free and clear of all liens and taxes owed to the date of
transfer, and the City Attorney determining that The Kroger Co. has
proper title to the said property.
2. The City Attorney is directed to prepare the necessary docu-
ments and to take any other measures necessary to effect the transfer
of this property to the City.
3. The City Clerk is directed to forward an attested copy of
this ordinance to The Kroger Co. thanking it and expressing Council's
appreciation for this generous donation of property to the City.
4. In order to provide for the usual daily operation of the
municipal government, an emergency is deemed to exist, and this ordi-
nance shall be in full force and effect upon its passage.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
~flce of ~e ¢i~
December 11, 1986
File #68
Mr. Edwin A. Sieveking
Vice President
Mid Atlantic Marketing Area
The Kroger Company
P. O. Box 14002
Roanoke, Virginia 24038
Dear Mr. Sievekin9:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 28478, accepting the
donation of the former bakery of The Kroger Co. to the City;
authorizing the City Attorney to prepare the necessary documents
to effect this transfer; and thanking The Kroger Co. for this
donation, which Ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke at a regular meeting held on Monday, December 8, 1986.
Si ncerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:se
Enc.
I~oom 456 Municipal Building 215 Church Avenue. S.W. Roanoke, Virginia 24011 (703) 98t-2541
RECEI¥~D
CITY ~
Roanoke, Virginia
'~6 ~'~:~ ''? December 8, 1986
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
Subject: Acceptance of Gift of Kroger Bakery Building
I. Back,round:
City of Roanoke is being offered as a gift, the recently
vacated Kroger Bakery facility located on Norfolk Avenue at
5th Street, S.W. The site includes two areas, one of 3,864
square feet located north of Norfolk Avenue, and a second
group of parcels totalling 2.62 acres (114,113 square feet)
south of Norfolk Avenue. The building complex includes two
separate buildings of 72,160 and 17,340 square feet. The
buildings are currently being carefully maintained and appear
to be in good condition.
Potential uses of the buildin~ and site include: storage or
warehouse use by either City of Roanoke or private sector
users; resale for use as a manufacturing or warehousing
facility; and, if the buildings or some portion of the
buildings were demolished, additional downtown parking. The
Engineering Department has estimated that the site will
acco~nodate roughly 350 parking spaces. If the parking option
were chosen, demolition and construction costs would be
incurred.
City of Roanoke all risk insurance costs would increase by
roughly $200 per year if the buildings were to be added to the
City's policy.
Acquisition of the Kro~er property would have a beneficial
impact on the planned widening of the 5th Street bridge as
land included in the gift would have to be acquired to
construct the bridge. City Council has already requested
state funding for this particular project.
II. Issues:
A. Timing.
B. Cost.
III. Alternatives:
Authorize the acceptance as a ~ift to the City the Kro~er
Bakery facility, comprised of tax numbers 1110713, 1111305,
1111307, 1111310, 1111312, 1111315, and 1111316.
Timin~ of the decision to accept the gift is critical as
the deadline for Kroger to use the full market value of
the gifted property for tax purposes is December 31,
1986.
Cost of accepting the gift will include performance of
legal work and interim maintenance of the structure.
Be
Do not authorize the acceptance as a gift the Kroger Bakery
facility.
Timin~ of decision would jeopardize any transfer due to
the lack of time between now and the end of the year tax
deadline.
2. Cost would not be an issue.
IV. Recommendation:
It is recommended that City Council authorize the acceptance as a
gift to the City from The Kroger Company of the Kroger Bakery
facility, comprised of tax numbers 1110713, 1111305, 1111307,
1111310, 1111312, 1111315, and 1111316. The property shall be
donated to the City free and clear of all liens and restrictions as
to use, and all taxes shall be paid by The Kroger Company to the
date of closing. Prior to acceptance the City Attorney shall
determine that these conditions are met and that The Kroger Company
has clear title to the property.
Respectfully submi~d,
W. Robert Herbert
City Manager
WRH:DWE:mpf
cc: City Attorney
Director of Finance
Director of Public Works
Director of Utilities and Operations
City Engineer
Chief, Economic Development and Grants
EDWIN A SIEVEKING
VICE PRESIDENT
MID ATLANTIC MARKETING AREA
PO Box 14002, Roanoke Virginia24038
December 8, 1986
}ir. W. Robert Herbert
llanager, City of Roanoke
215 Church Ave., S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear I4r. Herbert:
This will confirm our recent conversation in which I indicated
the wllliagness of The Kroger Co. to donate to the City of
Roanoke, the property formerly operated as our Roanoke Bakery
on Salem Ave. This donation is without restriction as to the
future use of the property by the City.
While we hope to conclude the donation-transfer prior to the
end of 1986, we would like to reserve until l~ebruary 15, 1987,
the right of reasonable accesS to the property in order to com-
plete the removal of equipment and other tangible personal
property.
Siacerely, ~
CC: }ir. Jim Hclntire