HomeMy WebLinkAboutMins 07/21/03 - 12/01/03NOTICE
Pursuant to Commonwealth of Virginia, Library of Virginia Records
Management and Imaging Services Division, Records Retention and
Disposition Schedule, General Schedule No. 4, County, City and Town
Administration Records, Series No. 0! 0001; and General Schedule No.
19, Administrative Records, Series No. 010037, those items referred to
in the Minutes for full text other than Ordinances and Resolutions
have been destroyed in compliance with Guidelines provided by the
Library of Virginia.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
1
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
July 21, 2003
2:00 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, July 21,
2003, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the City Council Chamber, fourth
floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roa~.oke,
Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration,
Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, Requiar Meetings,
Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt, William D.
Bestpitch (left the meeting prior to adjournment), M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe,
Jr., and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ......................................................................... 6.
ABSENT: Council Member BeverlyT. Fitzpatrick, Jr. - .................................. 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend J. Donald Earv:ood,
Associate Pastor, Villa Heights Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
DECEASED PERSONS: Mr. Cutler offered the following resolution expressing
sympathy upon the passing of the late Clare White:
(#36429-072103) A RESOLUTION memorializing the late Clare Stone White, a
native of Roanoke and a retired editor and features writer for The Roanoke Times.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 67, page 506.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36429-072103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
2
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-GREENWAY SYSTEM-SCHOOLS: Alan G.
Soltis, Vice President, Lanford Brothers Contractors, and Past President, Virginia
Road and Transportation Builders Association* (VRTBA), addressed Council on
behalf of local members of the organization. He called attention to a partnership that
was formed approximately two years ago with the Roanoke City Schools, Roanoke
County Schools, Botetourt County Schools and the Salem School District to achieve
the following goals: to reinforce with students the importance of maximizing the
opportunity to receive a quality education in the Roanoke Valley's school system by
demonstrating practical ways in which the curriculum can provide a better
opportunity to be successful in their life long profession; to present opportunities
available in the construction industry for both those who will attend college to
become engineers, bookkeepers and business, persons, as well as those who will
enter the job market directly out of high school; and to instill the importance of
becoming good corporate citizens upon graduation by joining the work force and
giving something back to the communities in which they live and work. He stated
that due to a team effort by many persons in the Roanoke Valley, the above stated
goals have been achieved.
Mr. Soltis advised that in 2002, through the Roanoke Neighborhood
Partnership program, a $4,500.00 grant was approved for the Raleigh Court Civic
League to complete a portion of the Murray RUn Greenway project, which extends
behind Patrick Henry High School. He explained that initial quotes received by the
Raleigh Court Civic League for the project was in the range of $17,000.00, which was
considerably higher than the budget; however, VRTBA saw the project as an
opportunity to not only teach students the importance of the greenway system in
the Roanoke Valley, but to demonstrate how private companies can help their
communities. He advised that local members of the Virginia Road Builders
Association agreed to construct the project for the $4,500.00 grant and donated all
materials and labor; working in conjunction with the Roanoke Valley Greenway
Commission and City's Parks and Recreation Department, additional funding was
identified for plantings and a new wooden guardrail which acted as an enhancement
to the project; and it is estimated that a $4,500.00 grant was turned into a $25,000.00
plus benefit for the community. He stated that.sin'ce the project is located behind
Patrick Henry High School, students learned about the greenway system and how
the design and construction of a transportation system comes together, and
students in the applied construction group assisted with actual construction.
3
Mr. Soltis advised that the success of the Partners In Education program is
due, in large measure, to the Roanoke Valley School System, the City's Department
of Parks and Recreation, the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, civic ieacues,
businesses and government leaders working together in an effort to make their
community the very best it can be. Therefore, on behalf of the Virginia Road and
Transportation Builders Association, he presented the City of Roanoke with a
symbolic acrylic dump truck with the following inscription: "The City of Roanoke, a
Virginia Road and Transportation Builder Partner in Education-- Building the Future
Through the Youth of Today, 2002-2003?'
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by one
motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda and if discussion was
desired, that item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately. He called specific attention to two closed sessions to discuss vacancies
on boards and commissions and terms of a contract in negotiation.
COMMITTEES.CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on
certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before
the body.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene
in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards,
commissions and committees appointed by the Council, pursuant to Section 2.2-
3711 (A)(I), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler Dowe, and Mayor
Smith ...................................................................................................... ~-----6.
NAYS: None .................................................................................. .~ ...... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
.. ANNUAL REPORTS-COMMITTEES-REAL ESTATE VALUATION: A
communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith transmitting the 2003 Annual Report of
the Board of Equalization, was before Council.
Mr. Harris moved that the communication and report be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor
Smith ...................................................................................................... -6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
CITY MANAGER-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager
requesting that Council convene in a Closed meeting to discuss terms of a contract
in negotiation, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(30), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, was before the body.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler Dowe, and Mayor
Smith ....................................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-COMMUNITY PLANNING-ROANOKE ARTS
COMMISSION-COURT COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD-FIFTH PLANNING
DISTRICT COMMISSION: The following reports of qualification were before Council.
Clifford R. Weckstein as a member of the Court
Community Corrections Program Regional Community
Criminal Justice Board, for a term ending June 30, 2005;
Darlene L. Burcham as a member of the Roanoke Valley
Alleghany Regional Commission, for a term ending
June 30, 2006;
Paula L. Prince as a member of the City Planning
Commission, for a term ending December 34, 2004; and
5
William B. Hopkins, Jr., to fill the unexpired term of Robert
Humphreys, resigned, ending June 30, 2004; and George
Kegley and Charles E. Jordan for terms ending June 30,
2004, as members of the Roanoke Arts Commission
Mr. Harris moved that the reports of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler Dowe, and Mayor
Smith ........................................................................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS:NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
ARMORY/STADIUM: Brian J. Wishneff, representing Citizens for a Sensible
Stadium Decision, appeared before Council in support of renovating Victory
Stadium; and advised that because Victory Stadium was constructed in 1942 does
not mean that the facility has out lived its useful life when many other great stadiums
in the United States were constructed prior to Victory Stadium.
In delivering his presentation, Mr. Wishneff reviewed various documents that
are on file in the City Clerk's Office; i.e.: a stadium comparison of the new Victory
Stadium/Amphitheater and a renovated Victory Stadium; excerpts from consultants
reports by Cellar Door Promotions, C. H. Johnson Consulting, and International
Sports Properties; a Chronology of Studies and Cost Estimates from January 1996 -
August 2000; a document entitled, "Stadium/Amphitheater: an Evaluation Process,"
prepared by Barry L. Marsh, Architect and Certified Value Specialist; a Victory
Stadium Renovation/Replacement Study (Budget Analysis), prepared by Rosser
International; copy of an e-mail from Michael Pul/ce, Architectural Historian,
Roanoke Regional Preservation Office, Virginia Department of Historic Resources,
with regard to the possibility of historic status for Victory Stadium; Project Costs for
Victory Stadium with State and Federal Historic Tax Credits; copy of an e-mail from
Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent of Schools, with regard to the Schools'
Transportation operation; New Stadium Operating Budget Comparisons; Annual
6
Economic Comparison of Victory Stadium to the Proposed Stadium/Amphitheater;
copy of an e-mail from the City's Utilities Engineer with regard to the Flood
Reduction Project; copy of an e.mail from the City Engineer with regard to funding
for the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project; Section 36.1-429, Code of the City
of Roanoke, (1979), as amended, with regard to seating for spectator purposes;
remarks of former Council Member William H. Carder before the Board of Zoning
Appeals with regard to lights from the field at Hidden Valley Intermediate School; a
quote from Eric Earnhardt as contained an article in The Roanoke Times, on behalf
of Carillon Roanoke Memorial Hospital, with regard to Carilion's new parking garage
next to Victory Stadium; remarks of Council Member William D. Bestpitch at the
October 15, 2002 Council meeting with regard to the importance of preservation; and
a document with regard to amphitheaters, four main reasons why multi-use facilities
do not work.
Mr. Mark Hurley, 1018 Howbert Avenue, S. W., advised that Victory Stadium
has been discussed in various formats since 1995, and in 2001, Council proclaimed
that it had finally made a decision regarding the facility and it was time to move
forward. He expressed concern that when old issues are revisited, old wounds in
the City of Roanoke are reopened, therefore, Council should move forward with the
decision that was made in 2001. He stated that Council's vote was 6 - 0 to construct
a new stadium in 2001; in an effort to think "outside of the box", Mr. Wishneff is
trying to make the point that multi-purpose complexes are being abandoned by
communities such as Cincinnati, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh; and such facilities are
referred to as "cookie cutter" stadiums which were built in the 1970's as dual
facilities for professional football and baseball and used for a short time. He stated
that teams are abandoning these types of stadiums, not because of their use, but
because they make more money by constructing their own stadiums. He referred
to Mr. Wishneff's remarks regarding football stadiums that were constructed prior
to Victory Stadium, and pointed out that those stadiums have been constantly
renovated, while nothing has been done to Victory Stadium in approximately 60
years; and upon renovating, the City will probably discover that renovation costs will
be much higher. He advised that the question before Council is: Victory Stadium
can be renovated, but 15 years from now, will Victory Stadium be the quality of
stadium that represents the citizens of Roanoke and those high school students who
play sports in the facility? He stated that Roanoke's students do not deserve a
mediocre, or just adequate facility, they deserve a standard of quality. He advised
that Council has made good and sound decisions about the forward progress of the
City; although it has been difficult at times, Council has already made the right
decision regarding the Victory Stadium issue; ail of the facts have been reviewed;
there may be problems to overcome with the proposed new stadium/amphitheater,
such as parking, neighborhood issues, lights, etc., but in making its decision,
Council and City staff are committed to ensuring that the new facility will work.
7
' Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., spoke against a new
stadium/amphitheater on Orange Avenue due to traffic concerns which have not
been adequately addressed; and the City of Roanoke currently has a qualitystadium
that can be renovated. He stated that the question should be decided by the voters
of Roanoke through a referendum.
Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that the City of Roanoke
has a history of destroying its historical buildings and historical sites, which must
stop; and asked that Council reconsider its decision to move forward with the
Orange Avenue stadium/amphitheater complex. She referred to petitions signed by
citizens from all quadrants of the City who favor the renovation of Victory Stadium
because of its historical value. She stated that residents of Gainsboro do not want
the stadium/amphitheater to be constructed in their neighborhood because it is the
wrong location for an amphitheater, which facilities are typically constructed in a
quiet and serene location without all of the traffic concerns that the Orange Avenue
site will raise.
Mr. Tom Link, 2201 Carolina Avenue, S. W., addressed the vision for the future
of Victory Stadium and the City's duty to honor the deed of 1941 with Norfolk and
Western Railway (NS) which requires that the City maintain Victory Stadium. He
advised that in the 1970's, the City of Indianapolis made a decision to pursue the
sports market; by 1998, there was a $1.13 billion impact on the City of Indianapolis,
with eight governing bodies of sports headquartered in the City, 17 new sites have
been added through either renovation or new construction, $400 million has been
generated in building construction, with over $700 million added in payrolls, or about
$35 million a year. In summary, he stated that the City of Indianapolis made
visionary decisions to strive for a certain goal; and the City of Roanoke has the same
vision and possibilities with Victory Stadium and the sports complex that currently
surrounds Victory Stadium. Secondly, he referred to the City of Charlottesville, the
home of Scott Stadium, and advised that in 1962, Scott Stadium held less than
10,000 people, while today, the facility is a 60,000 seat venue, which did not happen
by accident, but by design. He stated that Victory Stadium has unused space under
the grandstands consisting of 170,000 square feet that could be developed; and if
one takes out 50,000 square feet for locker rooms and concessions and another
20,000 square feet for storage, etc., 100,000 square feet could be turned into office
space at $10.00 per square foot, therefore, $1 million per year would be generated
from the facility. He referred to the agreement with the Norfolk and Western Railway,
through the Virginia Holding Corporation, that the City would maintain Victory
Stadium; however, over the years, the City has not honored its pledge. He inquired
if Victory Stadium has ever been properly marketed as a complex. For the above
reasons, he advised that Council should reconsider its vote, because there is a
tremendous investment in Victory Stadium and it is a question of capitalizing on
what the City already has and determining what it can be in the future.
8
Council Member Bestpitch and Mr. Wishneff engaged in dialogue regarding
the maximum dollar amount proposed by Mr. Wishneff to renovate Victory Stadium;
whereupon, Mr. Wishneff responded in the range of $10 million, along with
construction of a separate stand alone amphitheater.
Council Member Cutler referred to a conversation with a promoter who has
been instrumental in bringing big time entertainment to Roanoke for the past 15
years who states that he does not use Victory Stadium because it is too risky in
terms of problems with inclement weather and drainage, and he is reluctant to hold
concerts in such close proximity to a hospital. He advised that the proposed new
facility on Orange Avenue will bring versatility by meeting multiple needs; it will
provide a good facility for markets the size of Roanoke's that cannot justify a stand
alone arena like the Nisson Center in northern Virginia; and just as the Roanoke
Civic Center has successfully accommodated hockey and basketball, the new facility
will successfully accommodate up to 10,000 sports fans for games and up to 18,000
spectators for musical and other kinds of amphitheater based entertainment.
Council Member Wyatt called attention to the number of occasions that the
Victory Stadium issue has been discussed by the Council in open forums where
citizens have had the opportunity to voice their concerns. She expressed concern
that by continuing to debate the issue, a message is being sent to Roanoke's young
people that the memories of Roanoker's are more important than the future of
Roanoke's youth. She stated that Roanoke's express concerns about their young
people moving to other areas, and it is this kind of "let me hold on to the past at all
costs" that sends Roanoke's young people to places like Atlanta and Charlotte
where they have constructed new stadiums. She stated that the Council has
listened, it has debated the issue, and it reached a decision in May 2001 to construct
a stadium/amphitheater on Orange Avenue.
Council Member Dowe referred to numerous contacts by citizens regarding
the issue, and the one question he has asked repeatedly is whether those same
citizens use Victory Stadium for anything other than the Fourth of July celebration.
He also referred to Roanoke's young people who have expressed excitement
because they believed that Roanoke might be constructing a new
stadium/amphitheater facility; and if the question is placed on a referendum for a
vote by the citizens, a majority of the young people are not of voting age, therefore,
their voice will not be heard in the decision. He also referred to dialogue with young
people who have moved away from the Roanoke Valley who state that one of the
main reasons they left Roanoke was due to the lack of progress and the perception
that Roanoke is not moving forward, therefore, they do not wish to return to the
Roanoke Valley to live. He added that if there are promoters who are reluctant to
bring entertainment venues to Victory Stadium because of its proximity to a hospital,
it would be detrimental for entertainment to be a part of Victory Stadium, or an
amphitheater. He referred to optimism by some citizens regarding the ability to do
9
new things at a new place, and asked the following question of Roanoke's citizens:
If Victory Stadium is renovated, will the citizens of Roanoke support the facility at
times other than the Fourth of July celebrations.
Council Member Bestpitch referred to previous comments regarding the
success of Shaftman Performance Hall at the Jefferson Center, however, one of the
reasons that Shaflman Performance Hall has succeeded beyond the expectations
of many is because the facility is the right size. He referred to recent high profile
performances at the Roanoke Civic Center that were not sold out events, therefore,
there is no evidence to suggest that the City can sell thousands of tickets to 30+
outdoor performances at a stand alone amphitheater. He stated that all persons who
have expressed an opinion on the issue have a sincere interest in what is best for
the future of the City of Roanoke; Ms. Wyatt previously mentioned Council's process
in reaching its previous decision; Mr. Wishneff pointed out that there was not a great
deal of public discussion about the decision to change the location and to construct
a new facility in a different location; and the Council should have done a better job
of communicating the design and the proposal to the public prior to voting on the
issue. Therefore, Mr. Bestpitch moved that the July 21,2003 meeting of City Council
be recessed until Thursday, July 31, 2003, in the Roanoke Civic Center Auditorium,
for the purpose of holding a public forum on the proposed stadium/amphitheater
project, to enable the issue to be explained to the public. He encouraged the City
administration to solicit assistance by news media throughout the community to
serve on a panel to receive and review written questions to ensure that there are a
variety of questions without duplication. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
The Mayor suggested that Council establish the ground rules as to
composition of the panel; whereupon, Mr. Bestpitch clarified his motion to provide
that the City administration will include as many members of the news media as
possible by including a broad representative panel consisting of newspapers, radio
stations, and television stations; and questions will be submitted by the public.
Vice-Mayor Harris advised that his sense from the community is that there is
an overwhelming majority who believe that the stadium/amphitheater at the Orange
Avenue site is the wrong project in the wrong place for the wrong amount of money,
which is not to say that he does not see merit in the new stadium/amphitheater.
However, he stated that the point he would like to make is that the $18 million is not
a check that Nelson Harris will have to write, it is a rather large check that involves
the money of Roanoke's citizens, and it is unwise for the Council to continue down
a path of an $18 million project which, the overwhelming majority of the community,
does not want and does not support. He stated that the public forum could be held,
but it appears to be a little too late; the entire idea of representative democracy is
that the Council is elected to represent the will of the community, which is a
responsibility that he takes seriously, and he will try to honor what he has heard in
an overwhelming way from the citizens of the City of Roanoke. He stated that he will
10
support the motion, although it is not a wise stewardship of the Council's time; and
during the public forum process, he asked that citizens be given the opportunity to
respond or to share their opinions.
The Mayor called attention to a different point of view on the
stadium/amphitheater project, and inquired if representatives of Citizens for a
Sensible Stadium Decision will be afforded the opportunity during the public forum
to present their views; whereupon, Mr. Bestpitch clarified that that was not the intent
of his motion.
Following further discussion, by consensus of the Council, the following
motion offered by Mr. Bestpitch, seconded by Mr. Cutler, with friendly amendments
proposed during the discussion, was adopted:
A public forum will be held on Thursday, July 31,2003, at 7:00 p.m., in
the Auditorium of the Roanoke Civic Center, with regard to the
proposed stadium/amphitheater project.
7:00 - 7:30 p.m.
Presentations by City staff/consultants, etc.
7:30 - 8:00 p.m.
Questions from citizens
8:00 p.m. - until
Remarks by citizens
At 4:05 p.m., Council Member Bestpitch left the meeting.
COMMITTEES-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Brenda Powell, Chair, Fair Housing
Board, presented the 2003 Annual Report of the Fair Housing Board.
Ms. Powell advised that for the fiscal year 2003, the Fair Housing Board began
the task of addressing the 42 impediments in the 2001 Fair Housing Study;
community meetings were held to help categorize and prioritize the list of
impediments and impediments fell into three main categories: Regional
Cooperation, Regional Transportation, and Education and Outreach.
With regard to Regional Cooperation, she stated that Council is requested to
develop a strategy to address fair housing with other surrounding governments
because it is important to all citizens to live harmoniously together in the Roanoke
Valley, to share the housing burden, and to live free of discrimination. She added
that Council is requested to address Regional Transportation with surrounding
governments and businesses because it affects all citizens, personnel and
productivity, and it places a limitation on housing choices and affects economic
status. In regard to education and outreach, Ms. Powell advised that the Fair
Housing Board addressed fair housing through training sessions for Board
11
members, staff and housing providers, a facilitator from the Virginia Fair Housing
Office participated and 25 persons attended the training sessions; two workshops
on zoning and fair housing were held, which were attended by Fair Housing Board
members, City staff, members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, the Architectural
Review Board and personnel and housing providers from the City of Salem and
Roanoke County; Members of the Fair Housing Board attended the Annual Housing
Conference which was held at The Hotel Roanoke, they attended and co-sponsored
the Housing Seminar with the Roanoke Regional Housing Network; members are
working to bring the City's fair housing ordinance into compliance and they are also
working on a Fair Housing booklet; a Fair Housing Fair was held at Valley View Mall;
fair housing awareness has been created using billboards throughout the City; and
members of the Board participated in the Southeast by Design Family Fun Daywith
displays and handouts.
In summary, Ms. Powell advised that there is an increased awareness and
knowledge of fair housing in the City of Roanoke; the City is on its way to providing
a better housing arena for all citizens to participate fully in the housing market
without social or economic discrimination; concerns for next fiscal year include:
education and outreach, to serve as advisors, to complete the fair housing
pamphlet/booklet, to check on the status of regional cooperation and transportation,
and most of all, to begin the process where the City of Roanoke is the leader in fair
housing.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the Annual Report
would be received and filed.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
LANDMARKS/HIST.PRESERVATION: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the Certified Local Government Program (CLG)
establishes a partnership between local governments, the Federal Historic
Preservation Program, and the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (VDHR);
the program allows VDHR to certify local governments for their preservation
program in exchange for future funding opportunities; goals of the program are to
promote viable communities through preservation, to recognize and to reward
communities with sound local preservation programs, and to establish credentials
12
of quality for local preservation programs; and 24 local governments in Virginia
currently have CLG status, including the Cities of Alexandria, Charlottesville,
Lynchburg, Richmond, Williamsburg, and Winchester.
Itwas further advised that acceptance into~ the CLG program enables localities
to be eligible to apply for grants that can be used for a variety of purposes; grants
are typically on a 50~50 match basis and can be used for survey and nomination of
historic areas or properties, preservation planning, public education programs,
training, and rehabilitation of historic public buildings; and should the City apply for
and be awarded any such grants in the future, local match funding would have to be
identified.
It was explained that listing on the National Register of Historic places is an
economic development and revitalization tool because of rehabilitation tax credits
that are available; many areas of the City may be eligible for listing on the National
Register, but need to be surveyed and nominated; and the CLG program would make
grant money available for an ongoing historic survey program in the City of
Roanoke.
It was further explained that the Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan
supports the survey and nomination of historic districts, and recommends that
Roanoke undertake a comprehensive inventory of historic properties and areas in
the City and consider historic districts; the plan further recommends that
neighborhood and stakeholder input be considered in the inventories, and the City
should promote local, State and Federal incentives to encourage rehabilitation of
historic districts; the City's current program meets requirements for becoming a
Certified Local Government; no change in the City Code, or the City's policies, or
practices is required; and to maintain Certified Local Government Status, an annual
report on activities to the Virginia Department of Historic Resources is required.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a resolution authorizing
the City Manager to apply for acceptance into the Certified Local Government
Program and to execute the necessary documents.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36430-072103) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to apply for
acceptance into the Certified Local Government Program of the Virginia Department
of Historic Resources; and to take other related actions as necessary.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 67, page 508.)
13
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36430-072103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Smith ......... 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch were absent.)
BUDGET-GRANTS.YOUTH: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that the Department of Criminal Justice Services notified the City of
Roanoke and Roanoke County of an allocation of funds under the Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant Program (JAIBG); allocation of $48,493.00 in
Federal funds was awarded jointly to the two jurisdictions, and a joint local match
of $5,388.00 is required.
It was further advised that the allocation formula provides $34,706.00 Federal
and $3,856.00 match for the City of Roanoke, and $13,787.00 Federal and $1,532.00
match for Roanoke County; staff from both jurisdictions have met and developed
program proposals for use of the funds; Roanoke County will provide a substance
abuse intervention education program through the schools; the City of Roanoke, in
collaboration with the Boys & Girls Club, will provide services to students
suspended or otherwise absent from school during the day; funding for the City's
match of $3,856.00 is available in Account No. 001-631-3330-1002, Outreach
Detention; and the City of Roanoke will serve as fiscal agent for the funds.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to accept the
$48,493.00 JAIBG grant allocated to the City of Roanoke for $34,706.00, and to
Roanoke County for $13,787.00 and to execute the agreement with the Depart,nent
of Criminal Justice Services; that Council appropriate $53,851.00 and increase
corresponding revenue estimates of $48,493.00 in Federal funds and $1,532.00 in
County match funds in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the
Grant Fund Account and transfer $3,856.00 from Outreach Detention, Account No.
001-631-3330.1002, to the above established Grant Fund account.
Mr. Harris offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36431-072103) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, and dispensing with the
second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 67, page 510.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36431-072103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Smith .......... 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch were absent.)
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36432-072103) A RESOLUTION authorizing acceptance of a Juvenile
Accountability Incentive Block Grant from the Virginia Department of Criminal
Justice Services on behalf of the City, authorizing execution of any and all necessary
documents to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant and applicable
laws, regulations, and requirements pertaining thereto.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 67, page 512.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36432-072103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Smith ........ 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch were absent.)
BUDGET-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising
that notification has been received from the Commonwealth of Virginia Commission
for the Arts that a $5,000.00 Local Government Challenge Grant has been awarded
to the City of Roanoke; and application for the grant was made at the request of the
Arts Council of Roanoke Valley, Mill Mountain Theatre, Opera Roanoke, Roanoke
Symphony Orchestra, and Young Audiences of Virginia.
It was further advised that in order to receive the funds, the Commission must
obtain written confirmation that local tax revenue dollars will be used to match or
exceed the amount of the grant; and for fiscal year 2003-04, the above referenced
organizations will receive local tax dollar funding through the Roanoke Arts
Commission, in the following amounts.
15
Arts Council of Blue Ridge
Mill Mountain Theatre
Opera Roanoke
Roanoke Symphony Orchestra
Young Audiences of Virginia
$13,165.00
11,665.00
7,966.00
26,865.00
3,966.00
Grant funds will be distributed to the five sponsoring agencies in the amount
of $1,000.00 each.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to executc the
necessary documents, including documents that will provide for indemnification by
the City, which are required for acceptance of the grant, to be approved as to form
by the City Attorney; appropriate $5,000.00 in State grant funds and establish a
corresponding revenue estimate in accounts to be established by the Director of
Finance in the Grant Fund entitled, "Challenge Grant FY 04".
Ms. Wyatt offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36433-072103) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 67, page 513.)
Ms. Wyatt moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36433-072103. The mqtion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Smith .......... 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch were absent.)
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36434-072103) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a Local
Government Challenge Grant from the Virginia Commission for the Arts.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 67, page 5'14.)
16
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36434-072103. The motion
was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Smith ......... -5.
NAYS: None .................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch were absent.)
FDETC: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the
proposed Workforce Investment Area Ill Chief Local Elected Officials Charter
Agreement will replace the existing agreement continuing the Fifth District
Employment and Training Consortium; the purpose of the prior local governmental
agreement between the participating jurisdictions was for administration of the
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) through continuation of the Fifth District
Employment and Training Consortium (FDETC), an agency established to provide
administrative and programmatic oversight of regional workforce development
initiatives; and since that time, the FDETC has closed its doors and jurisdictional
membership was changed when the City of Clifton Forge voted to join Alleghany
County.
It was explained that:
· The existing Agreement should be replaced with a document that
accurately reflects the current situation, dissolution of the FDETC and
revised membership.
· Federal WIA regulations allow the reconfiguration of service delivery
areas to reflect and accommodate regional priorities and alliances such
as the addition of Clifton Forge to Alleghany County.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve the Workforce
Investment Area III Chief Local Elected Officials Charter Agreement to reflect
changes as above referenced.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36435-072103) A RESOLUTION authorizing adoption of the Workforce
Investment Area III Chief Local Elected Officials Charter Agreement to replace the
exisiting Fifth District Employment and Training Consortium Agreement and
authorizing the Mayor to execute such Agreement, upon certain terms and
conditions.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 67, page 514.)
17
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36435-072103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Smith ......... 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch were absent.)
BUDGET-GRANTS-FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION: The City
Manager submitted a communication advising that the Fifth Planning District
Commission Disability Services Board (DSB) is responsible to local governments
and serves as a critical resource for needs assessment, information sharing and
service opportunities for citizens with disabilities, their families and the community;
the following jurisdictions in the Fifth Planning District have enacted resolutions
establishing participation in a regional effort and appointed a local official t.o serve:
Cities of Roanoke, Salem and Covington, Counties of Roanoke, Craig, Botetourt and
Alleghany, and the Towns of Clifton Forge and Vinton; and other members of the
DSB include representatives from business and consumers.
It was further advised that Council authorized the Director of Finance to serve
as fiscal agent for the Fifth Planning District Disabilities Services Board on
September 25, 1995, pursuant to Resolution No. 32675-092595; the State Department
of Rehabilitative Services has allocated funds in the amount of $15,000.00 for a one-
year period to provide direct services that will assist physical and sensory disabled
individuals with home based personal care services; and the grantee, Family
Services of Roanoke Valley, will provide the required $1,666.00 cash match.
The City Manager recommended that Council appropriate $15,000.00 in State
grant funds for the DSB and establish a corresponding revenue estimate in certain
accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund.
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36436-072103) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second re~.ding
by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 67, page 516.)
18 -
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36436-072103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Smith ......... 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch were absent.)
BUDGET.HOUSINGIAUTHORITY-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that on August 7, 2000, Council authorized the City
Manager, by resolution, to apply to the Virginia Department of Housing and
Community Development for $100,000.00 for the Derelict Structures Fund grant on
behalf of the Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization and Two B
Investments; funds may be utilized for acquisition, demolition, removal,
rehabilitation or repair of specific, targeted derelict structures; a 100 per cent match
of local funds is required; funds were awarded and the funding agreement was
executed between the City and the Department of Housing and Community
Development on May 29, 2001; the Northwest Neighborhood Environmental
Organization has expended its $50,000.00 allocation; due to unforeseen issues, Two
B Investments was unable to utilize funds as required in a timely manner; therefore,
the City of Roanoke has $50,000.00 in unexpended funds available.
It was further advised that at this time Blue Ridge Housing Development
Corporation ("Blue Ridge"), a local non-profit housing group, wishes to use the
remaining $50,000.00 to renovate property located at 1018 Jamison Avenue, S. E.,
which property is located in the Southeast by Design neighborhood; the house was
constructed in 1900 and contains 2,793 square feet; the property is vacant and in
poor condition and has experienced partial gutting; proposed redevelopment
includes gutting, interior and exterior rehabilitation, electrical and plumbing
upgrades, HAVC and emergency upgrades, and water and sewer upgrades; Blue
Ridge Housing Development Corp. can immediately begin work on the property for
use as a showcase property to market the Southeast project; the property was last
used as a four-unit residence and renovations would convert the structure back to
a duplex featuring the ability to live in one side and rent out the other side; and Blue
Ridge Housing Development Corp. is committing $70,000.00 from line of credit, and
in partnership with TAP will commit another $30,000.00 in private funds for match.
The City Manager recommended that Council allocate the remaining
$50,000.00 Derelict Structures Fund grant to Blue Ridge Housing Development Corp.
on a reimbursement basis, and authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement
between the City of Roanoke and Blue Ridge Housing Development Corp.
19
Mr. Cutler offered the following resolution:
"A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of an Agreement between the City and
Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation in order to provide funds from the
Derelict Structures Fund, in the amount of $50,000.00, to Blue Ridge Housing
Development Corporation for renovation of property located at 1018 Jamison
Avenue, upon certain terms and conditions."
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of the resolution. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Dowe.
Mr. E. Duane Howard, 508B Walnut Avenue, S. W., advised that Council
Member Dowe should abstain from voting due to a possible conflict of interest
inasmuch as he is the recipient of a home through Blue Ridge Housing Development
Corporation and a close relative serves on the Board of Directors of Blue Ridge
Housing Development Corporation. He stated that it appears that $150,000.0@ will
be expended for renovations to the house, while the property next door is valued at
$58,000.00 and another house in close proximity is valued at $59,700.00. He advised
that the City states that it does not have the necessary funds to renovate Victory
Stadium, but it appears that the City $150,000.00 to invest in renovating a house in
southeast Roanoke that is in poor condition.
The City Manager advised that the monies represent available State funds set
aside for derelict structures; a significant appreciation will occur in the homes as
work continues, and the house in question is believed to be a good use of Derelict
Structure grant fund monies. She explained that two-thirds of the funds will come
from private sources, no City money will be placed in the project, other than the
Southeast By Design program; and the program addresses several of the City's
goals to increase home ownership and to remove rental property in the southeast
section of the City.
The Mayor advised that it appears that $70,000.00 will be committed by Blue
Ridge Housing Development Corporation and $30,000.00 will be committed by Total
Action Against Poverty, with the City of Roanoke authorizing another $50,000.00, for
a total renovation cost of $150,000.00; whereupon, he requested a clarification by the
City Manager. He also inquired as to how Derelict Structures grant funds have been
used in the past and opportunities for future expenditure of funds.
..The City Manager advised that the $50,000.00 has been allocated to the City
for approximately two years, the City worked with a property owner in the
Warehouse Row area that did not proceed with renovation as was indicated, and the
City has been requested to reallocate the funds to another project within the City, or
to return the funds to the State. She explained that at the time funds were
appropriated approximately two years ago, the City received a total of $100,000.00,
20
$50,000.00 of which was allocated to the Warehouse Row project, and the other
$50,000.00 was allocated to a project sponsored by the Northwest Neighborhood
Environmental Organization which has now been completed. She stated that she
would confer with City staff to address the Mayor's questions and respond to the
matter either before the end of the Council meeting, or at the Council meeting on
Monday, August 4, 2003.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting appropriation of the following, was before Council.
$800,000.00 for the Patrick Henry High School project; funds will
be used for architectural fees for development of construction
documents and construction management services for the
project.
$75,000.00 for the Comprehensive School Reform Grant for Huff
Lane MicroVillage; funds will provide for replication of
successful intervention programs from other school divisions at
the school and provide staffing for a MicroSociety program,
which includes staff development and skills instruction for
students, to be 100 per cent reimbursed by Federal funds.
$75,000.00 for the Comprehensive School Reform Grant for
Oakland School; funds will provide for replication of successful
intervention programs from other school divisions at math skills
instruction for students, to be 100 per cent reimbursed by
Federal funds.
$50,000.00 for the Comprehensive School Reform Grant for
Noel C. Taylor Learning Academy; funds will provide for
replication of sucessful intervention programs from other school
divisions at the school and implement a basic skills program,
which includes staffdevelopment and remedial skills instruction,
to be 100 per cent reimbursed by Federal funds.
$110,295.00 for the Schools' reading program; funds will pay for
reading materials for elementary school reading programs; and
a private donation has been received for the new program.
$5,000.00 for the D-Day Memorial Program; funds will pay for D-
Day Memorial visitations by students; and a private donation has
been received for the program.
21
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36437-072103) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 School and School Capital Projects Funds Appropriations, and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 67, page 517.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36437-072'103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Smith .......... 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch were absent.)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS: NONE.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL:
TRAFFIC-TRANSPORTATION SAFETY: Council Member Cutler read int~ the
record a communication from Whittington W. Clement, Secretary of Transportation,
in connection with a resolution adopted by Council in support of rail alternatives to
complement planned improvements to 1-81.
TRAFFIC: Council Member Wyatt requested a briefing with regard to the traffic
situation at Brandon Oaks Retirement Community.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard, and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for any necessary and
appropriate response, recommendation or report to Council.
22
ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridge Crest Road, Hardy, Virginia,
spoke in favor of renovating Victory Stadium. He advised that Victory Stadium is a
historical site because of its connection to world War II veterans and should be
recognized as such. He commended Council for voting to hold a public forum on
Victory Stadium on July 31 to allow the citizens of Roanoke to be heard. He stated
that issues relative to the City's agreement with the Norfolk and Western Railway
Company to maintain the land, and the cost of constructing a new
stadium/amphitheater on Orange Avenue should be more fully addressed. He
inquired as to why an American flag is not flown at Victory Stadium.
Mr. E. Duane Howard, 508B Walnut Avenue, S. W., encouraged Council to hold
the public forum on the proposed stadium/amphitheater project on a Saturday to
allow for broader citizen participation. He advised that sentiments expressed by
citizens when signing the petition against the Orange Avenue site is that many
people are excited about the proposed new stadium/amphitheater facility, but they
were disappointed when they learned of the possibility that Victory Stadium might
be torn down. He stated that the public forum should be handled in such a way that
there is sufficient time for explanation of the project and for questions and remarks
by citizens; therefore, holding the public forum on a Saturday and continuing until
all speakers have been heard is the right thing to do.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: NONE.
At 4:50 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for two Closed
Sessions.
At 5:50 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with Mayor
Smith presiding and all Members of the Council in attendance, with the exception of
Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Harris
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open me~ting
requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such
public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Smith ......... 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch were absent.)
23
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT
COMMISSION: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Regional Commission, created by expiration of the term of office of
David K. Lisk; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations.
Ms. Wyatt placed in nomination the name of Jennifer L. Pfister.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Pfister was appointed as a member
of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, for a term ending June 30,
2006, by the following vote:
FOR MS. PFISTER: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................................................................... 5.
(Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch were absent.)
, OATHS OF OFFICE-FLOOD REDUCTION/CONTROL: The Mayor advised that
the one year term of office of Edgar V. Wheeler as a member of the Flood Plain
Committee expired on June 30, 2003; whereupon, he opened the floor for
nominations.
Ms. Wyatt placed in nomination the name of Edgar V. Wheeler.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Wheeler was reappointed as a
member of the Flood Plain Committee for a one year term ending June 30, 2004, by
the following vote:
FOR MR. WHEELER: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................................................................... 5.
(Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch were absent.)
At 5:55 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess until 7:00 p.m.,
in the City Council Chamber.
At 7:00 p.m., on Monday, July 21,2003, the Council meeting reconvened in the
City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church
Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding.
24
PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick, Jr. (arrived late), C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor Ralph K.
Smith (arrived late) ........................................................................................ 6.
ABSENT: Council MemberWilliam D. Bestpitch ........................................ 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, CityAttorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
The invocation was delivered by Vice-Mayor Harris.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Vice-Mayor Harris. .
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Vice-Mayor Harris advised that Shining Star
Awards are presented to persons who go above and beyond the call of duty to be of
service to their fellow man and woman and to their community.
On behalf of the Members of Council and citizens of the City of Roanoke, he
stated that he was pleased to present a Shining Star Award to Ms. Melissa Williams,
a dispatcher in the City's 911 Center. He explained that on the evening of June 11,
2003, the 911 Center received a suspicious circumstances call advising that a male
subject had been talking to a friend who was staying at a local hotel; the victim was
talking from a cell phone in the parking lot of the hotel when the victim°s friend heard
some type of altercation over the telephone and the telephone line was
disconnected; Dispatcher Williams was working the police board on this particular
evening and dispatched the call; police officers, without success, checked the
parking lot for the victim°s vehicle, and then called the victim's cell phone number
because they believed that there was a possibility of foul play. He further explained
that Dispatcher Williams contacted the victim's credit card company and was
advised that the victim had used a local ATM machine, at which point Dispatcher
Williams arranged to have the video tape at the ATM forwarded to the Detective
Bureau the following day. He advised that shortly thereafter, another jurisdiction
contacted the City to advise that an individual had reported being abducted from a
Roanoke hotel at gun point, forced into the trunk of her vehicle and she had escaped
after the suspects let her sit in the back seat when stopping at an ATM; later, the
victim's vehicle returned to Roanoke City where a police officer spotted it, a vehicle
pursuit took place, and all three suspects were apprehended by police.
25
Vice-Mayor Harris advised that Dispatcher Williams remained on the job
beyond her normal work hours in order to coordinate information with the next shift
of dispatchers; and she is to be commended for her exemplary actions which helped
to avert what could have been a more tragic outcome.
FIRE DEPARTMENT-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Kenneth Harper,
representing the Board of Directors and Members of Roanoke Emergency Medical
Services, addressed Council on the occasion of the anniversary of 75 years of
volunteer service to the Roanoke Valley. He advised that Julian Stanley Wise and
nine other persons formed the Roanoke Life Saving Crew, the first of its kind, with
the goal of providing emergency life saving skills at the scene of an accident,
drowning or other emergency. He stated that word spread of the work of Roanoke's
volunteers and many communities called upon them to aid in rescue efforts and to
assist in organizing rescue squads in other areas; many advances in training and
equipment have taken place during this time, but the idea of people helping people
in need continues; and the citizens of Roanoke should be proud to be the home of
the first life saving and first aid crew in the world.
Mr. Harper expressed appreciation to current and past City Council Members
for their years of continued support, thereby keeping the history, vision and
volunteer spirit of Julian Stanley Wise alive; whereupon, he presented a plaque to
the City of Roanoke in recognition of Honorary Life Membership to Roanoke
Emergency Medical Services.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT-BUILDINGS/BUILDING DEPARTMENT.CITY
PROPERTY-LEASES: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids, the Vice-
Mayor advised that bids were to be received in the City Clerk's Office for extension
of the lease agreement to an existing lease of City-owned buildings located at 117
and 119 Norfolk Avenue, S.W., until 1:00 p.m., on Monday, July 21, 2003, and the
bids were to be held, unopened, by the City Clerk until the 7:00 p.m. session of
Council; whereupon, the Vice-Mayor inquired if there were persons in the Council
Chamber who had questions or objections with regard to the opening of the bids.
Hearing none, the Vice-Mayor called upon the City Clerk to open the bids;
whereupon, the City Clerk advised that only one bid was received prior to the
deadline from Warehouse Row, L. P.
The Vice-Mayor advised that the bid would be referred to the City Manager for
report and recommendation to Council.
Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a
pubic hearing for Monday, July 21, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, in connection with a lease extension agreement to an existing
lease of City-owned buildings located at 117 and 119 Norfolk Avenue, S. W., the
matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Monday, July 7, 2003, and Monday, July 14, 2003.
At this point, the Mayor entered the meeting and presided over the reminder
of the Council session.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that in August, 2002,
the City of Roanoke entered into a lease agreement with Warehouse Row, L.P. for
the lease of property known as the Warehouse Row buildings located at 117 and 119
Norfolk Avenue, S. W., for a 40 year term, beginning September 1, 2002; as
Warehouse Row, L.P. is utilizing historic tax credits to fund renovation of the
buildings, funding requires a lease greater than 391/2 years from the time renovation
is complete; and since renovation is expected to be complete in August, 2003,
Warehouse Row, L.P. is requesting the City to amend the lease agreement so that
the lease will provide for a term of 40 years, commencing July 25, 2003, which will
allow Warehouse Row, L.P. to meet historic tax credit requirements, with all other
terms of the existing lease to remain in full force and effect.
It was further advised that since the amendment and lease extension involve
a period of more than five years, applicable statutes require an invitation to receive
bids for the extension and a public hearing by the governing body; an invitation to
bid and a notice of public hearing were advertised and bids were to be submitted by
1:00 p.m., on July 21, 2003, with a public hearing to be held by the Council at
7:00 p.m.
The City Manager recommended, following the public hearing and opening
and consideration of the bids, that Council accept the most responsive bid and
authorize the City Manager to execute a second amendment and lease extension to
extend the lease of the property for a term of 40 years, commencing July 25, 2003,
to be approved as to form by the City Attorney; and authorize the City Manager to
take such further action as may be necessary to accomplish the lease extension.
27
Mr. Cutler offered the following ordinance:
(#36438-072103) AN ORDINANCE accepting the bid of Warehouse Row, L. P.,
and authorizing a second amendment and the extension of an existing lease
between the City of Roanoke and Warehouse Row, L. P., for the lease of property
known as the Warehouse Row Building located at 117 and 119 Norfolk Avenue,
S. W., (the "Property"); authorizing the City Manager to execute such second
amendment and lease extension; and dispensing with the second reading by title of
this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 64, page 520.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36438-072103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be heard
in connection with the matter.
Don Buffington, representing Warehouse Row, L. P., expressed appreciation
for the City's support of the Warehouse Row project.
No other persons wishing to be heard, the Mayor declared the public hearing
closed.
~ There being no questions/discussion by Council, Ordinance No. 36438-072103
was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Smith ...... 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
(Council Members Fitzpatrick and Bestpitch were absent.)
At this point, Council Member Fitzpatrick entered the meeting.
ZONING: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by Council on Monday,
April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, July 21,
2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request
of Boutros and Sheila Melki that a tract of land located at 926 Indiana Avenue, N. E.,
identified as Official Tax No. 3060505, be rezoned from RM-I, Residential Multifamily,
Low Density District, to CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, the matter was
before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Monday, July 7, 2003, and Monday, July 14, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the
subject parcel, zoned RM-1, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District, contains
approximately 13,222 square feet; a 1,800 square foot, one story structure, formerly
used as a church fellowship hall, is located on the subject parcel and fronts on
Indiana Avenue; and a 900 square foot covered porch is attached to the eastern end
of the building, was before Council.
It was further advised that the petitioner proposes to maintain the existing
building and to provide an appliance repair center; such use would be permitted in
a CN district; however, CN rezoning is inappropriate in this case; the CN district is
intended to maintain or create commercial core areas within a neighborhood, rather
than permitting the unplanned dispersion of commercial uses throughout the area;
and a rezoning of the subject parcel of land in order to allow a single commercial
use among primarily residential uses is not consistent with the intent of the CN
district.
The City Planning Commission recommended that the request be denied; and
advised that given the surrounding land use pattern and the intent of the CN,
Neighborhood Commercial District, the Planning Commission cannot support the
request for rezoning to CN.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
"AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, and Sheet No. 306, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, to rezone
certain property within the City; and dispensing with the second reading by title of
this ordinance."
29
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of the ordinance. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Harris.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be heard
in connection with the matter.
Eric R. Spencer, Attorney, representing Boutros and Sheila Melki, advised that
his clients purchased a former church fellowship hall containing approximately 1800
square feet for the purpose of establishing a small appliance repair business; the
property is separated from a Light Manufacturing zone by one viable residential
property, and the owner of the property was present to express his support of the
request for rezoning. He stated that even though the proposed use is not true
neighborhood commercial, it is a viable use inasmuch as it is approximately 60 - 70
feet from a Light Manufacturing district.
Mr. Fred Crews, 918 Indiana Avenue, N. E., spoke in support of the request for
rezoning. He advised that he owns property next door to the property in question,
the building was sold to Mr. and Mrs. Melki under false pretenses, other businesses
operate in the area, and Mr. Meiki should be permitted to operate his small appliance
business at the proposed location.
Mr. Richard Hendricks, 933 Missouri Avenue, N. E., advised that the
community is a small neighborhood composed of single family homes; there are no
sidewalks in the neighborhood and the only access from house to house is by street,
therefore, a commercial property would increase traffic and lead to hazardous
conditions for children who live in the neighborhood; more noise would be
generated as a result of the commercial establishment and property values would
decease. He called attention to no trespassing signs which were installed on the
property by the petitioners following denial of the request for rezoning by the City
Planning Commission, and large appliances have been moved into the building by
the petitioners. He stated that the neighborhood would like to grow with single
family homes, rather than businesses, and asked that Council support the residents
of the area by denying the proposed rezoning, thus allowing the neighborhood to
remain a quiet and safe place to live.
Mr. Allen Mueller, 3299 Happy Hollow Road, Blacksburg, Virginia, Elder,
Church of Christ, advised that a small appliance business will not impact traffic or
threaten the safety of residents. He stated that the building purchased by Mr. Melki
was not constructed for residential purposes, but for use as a fellowship hall, the
building contains no bedrooms, a small kitchen area, two restrooms and a covered
patio, therefore, in order for the structure to be used as a residence, major
construction will be required.
30
R. Brian Townsend, Agent, City Planning Commission, called attention to a
concern of the City Planning Commission in regard to establishing a commercial use
in the middle of a residential neighborhood; and advised that the Planning
Commission was swayed by the 32 signatures on a petition signed by residents of
the neighborhood. He further advised that the City Planning Commission was also
concerned that a significant amount of property in the area is currently zoned CN,
C-2 and LM and intrusion of commercial zoning in this part of the neighborhood is
not only inappropriate in relation to the City's Comprehensive Plan, but also
inappropriate zoning in terms of the way a zoning pattern should take place. He
noted that the property has a number of available uses other than residential and
there are a number of uses, either permitted outright or by special exception from
the Board of Zoning Appeals, that are available to the petitioners should the
application for rezoning be denied; and there are 27 permitted uses in the CN district
that would also be available to the petitioners, or their successors, at this location.
He advised that the position of the City Planning Commission and staff is that CN
zoning is more appropriate on a major or arterial street that does not have immediate
exposure to the internal part of the neighborhood.
No other persons wishing to be heard, the Mayor declared the public hearing
closed.
There being no discussion/questions by Council, the above referenced
ordinance was lost by the following vote:
AYES: None ......................................................................................... 0.
NAYS: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor
Smith ........................................................................................................ 5.
(Council Member Dowe abstained from voting.) (Council Member Bestpitch was
absent.)
ZONING: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on
Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday,
July 21, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the
request of HASI Partnership to amend proffered conditions to rezoning as set forth
in Ordinance No. 30040-52190, repealed and amended by Ordinance No. 31443-
051793, in connection with property located at 3342 Melrose Avenue, N. W., identified
as Official Tax No. 2660417, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, July 4, 2003, and Friday, July 11, 2003.
31
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that in May,
1990, Official Tax No. 2660417 was rezoned from C-2, General Commercial District,
to LM, Light Manufacturing District, conditional by the adoption of Ordinance No.
30040-52190; proffers were repealed and amended in May, 1993, pursuant to
Ordinance No. 31443-051793; a petition to amend proffered conditions was filed on
April 30, 2003, a first amended petition was filed on June 5, 2003, a second amended
petition to amend proffered conditions was filed on June 26, 2003; and the petitioner
requests that the following conditions be repealed:
The subject property shall be used only for any of the following purposes:
(a)
General storage and warehousing establishment engaged in the
storage of miscellaneous merchandise not for sale on the same
premises;
(b)
Establishment engaged in the wholesale distribution of goods;
and
(c) No outside storage will be allowed on the premises.
It was further advised that the petitioner requests that the following conditions
be applied to Official Tax No. 2660417:
(1) The subject property shall be used only for any of the following
purposes:
(a)
General storage and warehousing establishments
engaged in the storage of miscellaneous
merchandise not for sale on the same premises;
(b)
(c)
Establishments engaged
distribution of goods;
in the wholesale
Manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in
the manufacture, assembly, mixing, processing or
other processes related to the creation of new
products and including as an accessory use, the
retail sale of goods manufactured on the premises,
where all such manufacturing, assembly, mixing,
processing or other processes related to the
creation of new products, and retail sales of goods
manufactured on the premises, are wholly enclosed
in a building;
32
(d)
Establishments engaged in the retail sale of
building or construction supplies and equipment
provided the gross floor area of such buildings is
not less than 20,000 square feet;
(2) There will be no freestanding signage on the property;
(3) Any outside storage shall be screened with a solid fence (wood,
vinyl, or metal) so as not to be visible from Melrose Avenue and from
the cemetery.
It was explained that the attorney for the petitioner agreed to file a Second
Amended Petition to modify the language of proffer number 3 to include the
screening of any outdoor storage from the cemetery along the rear of the property,
in addition to screening such outdoor storage from Melrose Avenue.
The City Planning Commission recommended the Council approve the
request, as amended, given the surrounding land use pattern and proffered
conditions.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36439-072103) AN ORDINANCE to amend §§36.1-3 and 36.1-4, Code of the
City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 266, Sectional 1976 Zone Map,
City of Roanoke, in order to amend certain conditions presently binding upon certain
property previously conditionally zoned from C-2, General Commercial District, to
LM, Light Manufacturing District; and dispensing with the second reading by title of
this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 67, page 522.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36439-072103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris.
Edward A. Natt, Attorney, appeared before Council in support of the request
of his client.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be heard
in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public hearing
closed,
33
Them being no discussion/q uestions by Council, Ordinance No. 36400-061603
was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ 0.
(Council Member Bestpitch was absent.)
EASEMENTS-NEWSPAPERS-DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, INCORPORATED-
CENTER IN THE SQUARE: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk
having advertised a public hearing for Monday, July 21, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to a proposal of the City of
Roanoke to allow encroachment into the public right-of-way of four modular
newsracks, two of which are to be located near the SunTrust Building, 510 Jefferson
Street, S. E., and two to be located at Market Square, S. E., near Center In The
Square, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Wednesday, July '16, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that City staff has
worked with Downtown Roanoke, Inc., (DRI), and various publishers on the
placement and appearance of news racks located along public sidewalks throughout
the downtown area; two specific locations are currently being addressed to improve
the appearance and safety of the racks and to allow various publishers to utilize a
uniform modular news rack that will be owned and managed by DRI, eliminating
individual racks at those two locations; and DRI has requested permission to install
two of the modular news racks, with all necessary appurtenances thereto, at each
of the two locations downtown where several individual racks are currently located;
and the proposed racks will create encroachments into the public rights-of-way at
Franklin Road and at Market Square.
It was further advised that the proposed encroachment at Franklin Road will
extend approximately two feet into the sidewalk from the concrete planter; units
measure 4 feet wide by '1.5 feet deep and 6 feet wide by 1.5 foot deep; both units are
5 feet high; the sidewalk of Franklin Road at this location is approximately '10 feet
wide; the proposed encroachment at Market Square will extend approximately 2 feet
into the sidewalk from the curb; the units are the same size as those proposed for
the Franklin Road location; the sidewalk of Market Square at this location is
34
approximately 17.5 feet wide; liability insurance and indemnification of the City of
Roanoke by the applicant shall be provided, subject to approval of the City's Risk
Manager; and the Architectural Review Board granted a Certificate of
Appropriateness on July 10, 2003, for the two racks in Market Square inasmuch as
they will be installed within an historic district.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance, to be
executed by Downtown Roanoke, Inc., and recorded in the Clerk's Office of the
Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke, granting a revocable license to allow
installation of four modular news racks that encroach into the public rights-of-way
as described above.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36440-072103) AN ORDINANCE granting a revocable license to permit the
encroachment of two modular news racks extending approximately two (2) feet onto
the sidewalk of Franklin Road and two modular news racks extending approximately
two (2) feet onto the sidewalk of Market Square, S. E., upon certain terms and
conditions; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 67, page 523.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36440-072103. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be heard
in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public hearing
closed.
There was discussion with regard to the chaining of news racks to the City's
infrastructure; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the City has increased
enforcement and as many of the news racks as possible will be located off of the
City's major arterial roadways. She stated that most major cities in the United
States have experienced the same problem, and the proposed modular newsrack
may be the solution for the future.
Question was raised as to whom will control the content of publications to be
included in the news racks; whereupon, the City Manager advised that Downtown
Roanoke, Inc., will contract with various companies for the placement of
publications in the news racks. She stated that the City's involvement will be to
authorize the necessary encroachments for the news racks to be located in the
public rights-of-way in the same way that the City would approve an encroachment
35
for an awning into public right-of-way, etc. She added that the expectation is that
Downtown Roanoke, Inc., will recover its costs for the modular units, but the
proposal is not intended to be a money making venture.
Ordinance No. 36440-072103 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ 0.
(Council Member Bestpitch was absent.)
LEASES-TELEPHONE EQUIPMENT.WATER RESOURCES-EQUIPMENT:
Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public
hearing for Monday, July 21, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard, with regard to a proposal of the City of Roanoke to lease a portion of
the Summit Water Tank and ground site to Nextel WIP Lease Corp., d/b/a Nextel
Partners, for installation of antennas and related equipment thereon to provide for
radio and wireless telecommunications services, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Sunday, July 13, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Council approved
and adopted the City of Roanoke Policy as to Wireless Telecommunications
Facilities located on City property, dated January 21, 1997, pursuant to a
recommendation of the Water Resources Committee dated February 3, 1997.
It was further advised that the City currently provides leased space on three
water tanks to Virginia PCS Alliance, L.C., on four water tanks to Triton PCS Property
Company, L.L.C., and on one water tank to Cellco Partnership, d/b/a Verizon
Wireless; and lease agreements with the companies for use of City water tank
facilities provide that the agreements will expire on July 31,2007, with an option to
renew, each upon mutual agreement of the parties.
It was further advised that Nextel WIP Lease Corp., a Delaware corporation,
d/b/a Nextel Partners, with its principal office located at 4500 Carillon Point,
Kirkland, Washington, has requested to lease a portion of the Summit Water Tank
and ground site, which is located in the area of 4500 Franklin Road, S. W., at the end
of Summit Way Drive, S. W., Official Tax No. 5380121, to install directional antennas,
connecting cables and appurtenances; and Virginia PCS and Triton currently lease
space on the Summit Water Tank, however, City staff has determined that space is
available for another wireless provider on the site.
36
It was explained that to lease the property, a lease agreement is required as
well as a public hearing; terms and conditions of the lease are in accordance with
the City of Roanoke Policy as to Wireless Telecommunication Facilities located on
City Property dated January 21, 1997, and substantially similar to existing lease
agreements with other entities using the City's water tanks; term of the lease will be
for four years, commencing on August 1, 2003, and expiring on July 31, 2007, and
may be renewed for up to two five year terms, upon mutual agreement by the parties;
the lease requires that the lessee post security to guarantee removal of electronic
facilities at the end of the lease, and security in the amount of $8,500.00 will be
required; and rental fees are as follows per month, per provider:
$1,325.00/month from August 1, 2003, through
December 31, 2003.
$1,550.00/month from January 1, 2004, through
December 31, 2004.
$1,675.00/month from January 1, 2005, through July 31,
2007.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve and authorize the City
Manager to execute a lease agreement between the City of Roanoke and Nextel WIP
Lease Corp., a Delaware corporation, d/b/a Nextel Partners, in a form to be approved
by the City Attorney; and authorize the City Manager to take such further actions and
to execute such additional documents as may be necessary to implement and
administer the lease agreement.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#36441-072103) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the proper City officials to enter
into a Lease Agreement between the City and Nextel WIP Lease Corp., a Delaware
corporation, d/bla Nextel Partners, for use of a portion of a City owned water tank
and the site on which it sits, which is located in the area of 4500 Franklin Road S. W.,
at the end of Summit Way Drive, S. W., Tax Map No. 5380121, known as the Summit
Water Tank, and which will provide that Nextel Partners will use such area for the
placement, operation, and maintenance of personal communication system
antennas and related equipment, upon certain terms and conditions; authorizing the
City Manager to take such further action and execute such additional documents as
may be necessary to implement and administer such Lease Agreement; and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 67, page 525.)
37
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36441-072103. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be heard
in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public hearing
closed.
There being no discussion/questions by Council, Ordinance No. 36441-072103
was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Cutler, Dowe and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ 0.
(Council Member Bestpitch was absent.)
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard, and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for any necessary and
appropriate response, recommendation or report to Council.
COMPLAINTS-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Mr. George Gunther, 3038 Melrose
Avenue, N. W., addressed Council in reference to Melrose Towers, where he has
been a resident for the past two years. He stated that he is being evicted from
Melrose Towers because he called attention to the incompetency of management of
the facility, and because he stood up for his rights and the rights of others residing
at Melrose Towers.
POLICE DEPARTMENT.SCHOOLS: Mr. Ray Lewis, former School Resource
Officer at Patrick Henry High School, advised that he would withdraw his grievance,
which was filed against the Police Department, if the City Manager will agree not to
change the School Resource Officer Program.
ARMORY/STADIUM: The following persons addressed Council with regard to
Victory Stadium:
Mr. Brian Wishneff, 2913 Wycliffe Avenue, S. W., representing Citizens for a
Sensible Stadium Decision, advised that at the 2:00 p.m. Council session, he
presented a list of approximately 35 stadiums throughout the country; i.e.: Ohio
State, Notre Dame, the Rose Bowl, the Orange Bowl, etc., and the one thing that all
of the stadiums have in common is that they are older than Victory Stadium;
therefore, a certain segment of Roanokers are offended by comments that Victory
Stadium has seen its better days, because older and more famous stadiums are still
standing and being used. He stated that the cost to the City of renovating Victory
Stadium, when taking into consideration certain tax credits, is approximately $8
38
million and the true cost of the proposed new stadium/amphitheater project is over
$21 million. He added that the additional cost to the City, when considering
operating costs and debt service costs, are over $1 million more per year for the new
stadium versus Victory Stadium, therefore, the economics are overwhelmingly in
favor of renovating Victory Stadium. He called attention to a new eight foot flood
wall that will begin construction in the spring of 2004, which, when completed will
remove the issue of flooding at Victory Stadium; 4,000 - 5,000 parking spaces will
be available as a result of the new Carillon Parking Garage, as well as 20 acres of
land that will be purchased across Reserve Avenue by the Roanoke Redevelopment
and Housing Authority as a part of the Biomedical Park. He stated that homes near
the new stadium/amphitheater site on Orange Avenue are so close to the facility that
it will cause a negative impact on property values; and throughout the United States,
people are trying to re-create the old historic look which already exists in Roanoke
with Victory Stadium; whereupon, he presented a rendering of what a new
amphitheater adjacent to Victory Stadium could look like. He advised that he
previously pointed out that no record could be found that Council had discussed the
new stadium at a public meeting before the vote was taken on May 21, 2001; and it
is unprecedented for Council to spend this amount of public money for this kind of
public facility without a vote of the citizens by referendum. Therefore, he requested
that Council allow the citizens of Roanoke to vote on the issue at a public
referendum.
Mr. Marly Gordon, 2720 Peppers Ferry Road, Christiansburg, Virginia, former
General Manager and Director of Operations of the Roanoke Rush, advised that
during the three seasons that the Roanoke Rush played football at Victory Stadium,
less than $30,000.00 per year was spent to make the field playable; and four major
problems existed: outdated public address equipment, cramped locker rooms,
deteriorating bricks, and bad field drainage. He stated that he did not wish to speak
against the proposed new stadium/amphitheater, and not as a representative of any
current or past sports organizations, and his purpose was to speak as an individual
citizen. He advised that Victory Stadium could be improved by expanding current
locker rooms and problems associated with noise could be addressed by tearing
down the current press box and constructing a new press box on the visitor side of
Victory stadium.
Mr. Robert Andrews, 1212 Lakewood Drive, S. W., spoke in support of
renovating Victory Stadium for future generations of young people who wish to play
and enjoy sports at the facility.
Mr. Tom Link, 2201 Carolina Avenue, S. W., advised that amateur sports is big
business and could be even bigger for Roanoke City and for the entire Roanoke
Valley if Victory Stadium is marketed correctly; and there are valid reasons why
Victory Stadium should be renovated and funds invested to make the facility a focal
point for the entire Roanoke Valley. He advised that in the 1970's, the City fathers
of Indianapolis, Indiana, decided to make sports a part of the City's economic
development plan, the result was $1.18 billion in economic income over a 20 year
39
period, resulting in $400 million in construction and $693 million in payrolls, for an
investment of $124 million by the City, which represents a nine to one return on
investment. He stated that no location in the City of Roanoke offers a comparable
site to Victory Stadium, and asked that Council imagine a total complex with soccer
fields, tennis courts, football fields, softball fields, a baseball field, completion of
170,000 square feet of space, with multiple courts for basketball, volleyball, indoor
soccer, inline hockey, squash, handball, fitness, cheerleading, state of the art
lighting, a new scoreboard complete with video and graphics, the land bet'ween
Victory Stadium and Maher Field being used as an amphitheater, the river bank
being cleaned up to allow for a canoe and kyaking school along the river, and a
trolley connecting Victory Stadium and Crystal Spring with downtown Roanoke, the
Virginia Museum of Transportation and the Roanoke Civic Center. He added that
once the campus for the biomedical institute is in place, knowledge workers will
make Roanoke their home.
Mr. John Graybill, 2443 Tillett Road, S. W., called attention to the deteriorated
condition of Jefferson High School prior to renovation, and advised that Victory
Stadium has not yet fallen into the same state of disrepair and could be renovated.
He also called attention to other renovated sites throughout the City, such as the
Grandin Theater, Warehouse Rowe, and neighborhood revitalization, etc. He stated
that when he served as Principal of Patrick Henry High School, he received no
complaints that Victory Stadium was too large, or there was excessive noise, or
there was a lack of parking. He referred to competition with the City of Salem and
the venues that are hosted by the City of Salem, as opposed to the City of Roanoke,
such as the Roanoke Fair which was held at Victory Stadium for many years in the
past. He encouraged the City to renovate Victory Stadium and properly promote the
facility in the future.
Mr. Tom Bradley, 2042 Westover Avenue, S. W., advised that numerous
businesses in the Roanoke Valley would be willing to donate labor and/or products
so that Victory Stadium could be renovated.
Mr. Elliott Wheeler, 1408 Maiden Lane, S. W., inquired if the City will be
required to return the land to Norfolk Southern if a decision is made to demolish
Victory Stadium, pursuant to the terms of a previous agrement.
Mr. Mark Hurley, 1018 Howbert Avenue, S. W., advised that Council has not
heard a great deal from those persons who are in favor of the new
stadium/amphitheater project on Orange Avenue because Council voted in May2001
to construct the new facility; and to renovate Victory Stadium to a quality facility will
cost more than constructing a new facility. He stated that those cities throughout
the United States that have constructed classic stadiums for baseball, such as Tiger
40
Field and Riverfront Stadium, discovered that in the long run the effectiveness of
renovating the stadiums was not worth the effort, because new facilities will bring
more people, more revenue, more economic growth and a better quality of life. He
spoke against holding a referendum for a vote by citizens because the citizens of
Roanoke elected the Members of City Council to make those kinds of decisions.
Ms. Barbara Myler, 912 Stewart Avenue, S. E., called attention to fond
memories of Victory Stadium, and spoke in support of renovating Victory Stadium
so that Roanoke's children will have the opportunity to participate in sports. She
advised that Victory Stadium should be renovated as a memorial to Roanoke's World
War II veterans.
Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridge Crest Road, Hardy, Virginia, advised that very little
money has been spent on Victory Stadium in approximately 30 years; therefore, he
requested a complete cost analysis to fully renovate Victory Stadium, as compared
to a new stadium/amphitheater. He stated that Victory Stadium was constructed as
a tribute to World War II veterans and the citizens of Roanoke have a right to vote in
a referendum on the future of the stadium. He added that based upon sentiments
expressed by citizens when signing petitions to renovate Victory Stadium,
approximately 80 per cent of Roanoke's citizens favor saving Victory Stadium, while
10 to 20 per cent do not know the entire story; therefore, all of the facts need to be
presented so that citizens will know what is at stake.
Mr. Richard Lucas, 3019 Corbleshaw Road, S. W., advised that he was
appalled at the idea of tearing down Victory Stadium for all of the reasons mentioned
by previous speakers. He stated that Victory Stadium is a part of Roanoke's history,
with Fourth of July celebrations that have become tradition, attended by thousands
of persons from the Roanoke Valley, and there is no other facility in Roanoke that
will accommodate that many people.
Mr. Robert Lynch, 2810 Floraland Drive, N. W., advised that Victory Stadium
is a political issue as much as a financial issue for the citizens of Roanoke. He
stated that the City of Roanoke requires and promotes the preservation of historic
buildings in the downtown Roanoke and old southwest areas; therefore, the same
principle should apply to preservation of Victory Stadium as a historic landmark; and
the Carilion conglomerate should not dictate what happens to Victory Stadium. He
asked that Council place the issue on a referendum and allow the citizens of
Roanoke to decide if they want a new stadium/amphitheater, or a renovation of
Victory Stadium. He suggested that the Carilion Biomedical facility be constructed
on the Orange Avenue site and allow Victory Stadium to remain at its current
location.
41
Mr. Sherman Lea, 1638 Lonna Drive, N. W., advised that Citizens for a Sensible
Stadium Decision, started its petition drive approximately 90 days ago, not knowing
what kind of reaction it would receive from the public; and there has been an
overwhelming public response with support that cuts across every segment of the
community - geographic, social, ethnic, economic, political, gender, age - do not
build the new stadium/amphitheater, but renovate current Victory Stadium. He
explained that some people support Victory Stadium for sentimental reasons, some
persons do not support the new stadium/amphitheater project because of traffic
concerns and noise from the interstate, combining the two facilities, the potential for
a negative impact on property values, costs, and some believe that construction of
a separate amphitheater is a better alternative; but the one thing that all persons
seem to agree on is the opportunity to give the citizens of Roanoke a chance to vote
on the issue through a public referendum. On behalf of Citizens for a Sensible
Stadium Decision, he presented the Mayor with petitions signed by approximately
5,126 Roanoke City voters and 2,040 signatures from persons throughout the
Roanoke Valley.
The Reverend Johnny Stone, 1801 Lynn Street, N. W., spoke on behalf of the
Gainsboro community and the Roanoke Valley, because the issue crosses racial and
cultural lines since citizens of the City of Roanoke will pay for the new stadium, or
renovations to Victory Stadium, with their tax dollars. He stated that the Lincoln
Terrace and Gainsboro communities have fallen victim to the progress of the City
of Roanoke many times in the past; and $15 million plus has been devoted to the
Lincoln 2000 project, therefore, he requested that the City not ruin a $15 million
community project with loud noise, bum per to bumper traffic, parking problems, and
bright lights, etc. at the Orange Avenue site. He added that a new stadium is a good
idea in the location of Victory Stadium.
Mr. Michael Flanery, 2211 Wycliffe Avenue, S. W., advised that he is a
homeowner in the City Roanoke and a business owner in the Roanoke Valley. He
stated that he envisions a first class facility that will be representative of the quality
of Roanoke and the quality of life that exists in the Roanoke Valley. He advised that
the worst decision that one can make, other than a bad decision, is no decision at
all; and Victory Stadium is a monument in history for Roanoke and it cannot stand
with a "band-aid treatment," as evidenced in the past. He commented that Victory
Stadium needs an all out 100 per cent effort by the City, and, if that is not to occur,
the City of Roanoke should pursue another course of action, because nothing would
be a worse monument to the City and to the honor of World War II veterans than a
crumbling stadium in another part of town. He encouraged Council to hold a public
referendum to allow the citizens of Roanoke to vote on the issue and to enable
citizens to come together and to support whatever decision is made by the voters
and by the City Council.
42 -
Ms. Angela Norman, 1731 Michael Street, N. W., requested that Council
reconsider its decision to construct a new stadium/amphitheater on Orange Avenue.
She stated that although she is a strong advocate for economic development and for
progress, she is equally concerned about the budget for the proposed new
stadium/amphitheater project, the location, and parking issues. She addressed
unexpected expenditures, the time factor, and other variables that would impact the
construction of a new stadium. She advised that currently Route 460E is a highly
traveled and often times congested area, especially at the proposed location, and
expressed concern with regard to vehicle safety issues and pedestrian traffic;
parking at the Roanoke Civic Center has been an ongoing problem, especially during
major events, with the use of shuttles providing little relief, therefore, parking issues
will be compounded with construction of the proposed new facility. She stated that
the citizens of Roanoke should have a stronger and more decisive voice in the final
outcome of a new stadium project; Victory Stadium is a historical landmark; and she
strongly supports the renovation of Victory Stadium based on facts presented by
Brian Wishneff, an economic development specialist, and others who have
addressed the issue.
Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., advised that if Victory Stadium
is in disrepair, the City of Roanoke is to blame because it has neglected Victory
Stadium for over 30 years. He called attention to events that are held at Victory
Stadium such as the Cancer Walk, Festival in the Park, and the track is used for
walking and jogging. He stated that if Victory Stadium had been properly
maintained, the City of Roanoke could have hosted the Franklin Graham Crusade
instead of the City of Salem, which would have brought more money into the City's
coffers.
Mr. Robert Gravely, 3360 Hershberger Road, N. W., advised that citizens of
Roanoke should have the opportunity to express their opinion in the form of a public
referendum on the future of Victory Stadium; and with proper marketing, Victory
Stadium could be a money making venture for the City. He spoke against the
Orange Avenue site for the proposed new stadium/amphitheater because of the
existing traffic situation, and advised that if the Roanoke Civic Center is properly
marketed, there will be a need to construct a larger civic center, which should be
explored instead of constructing a new stadium/amphitheater. He stated that more
development should be scattered throughout the City of Roanoke, as opposed to
being concentrated in the downtown area.
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., demanded that Council provide
for an official and binding referendum on the future of Victory Stadium, or a new
stadium/amphitheater. In doing so, she also demanded that historic Victory Stadium
43
be renovated if, upon review and an impartial decision based upon data, it is decided
through a referendum by citizens of the Roanoke Valley, that a new stadium should
be built, and citizens demand that the facility be constructed in a location where the
quality of life of nearby residents will not be deteriorated, and where increased traffic
will not have an impact on nearby neighborhoods if an amphitheater is to be built.
She added that citizens demand that the facility be built in a quiet, serene place
where entertainment, music and the arts will not be drowned out by the constant
hum of traffic on nearby roadways, or noise from accidents and sirens. She advised
that citizens demand a referendum instead of the stall and stop public forum which
is scheduled for Thursday, July 31.
Mr. E. Duane Howard, 508 Walnut Avenue, S. W., advised that Council
Members were elected by the citizens of the City of Roanoke to take actions, to serve
in the best interest of the citizens of Roanoke, and to represent true democracy. He
stated that the petitions that were filed with the Mayor and signed by over ~),000
citizens represent true democracy as to the wishes of the citizens of Roanoke
regarding the fate of Victory Stadium.
Mr. Don Divers, 6112 Buckland Mill Road, N. W., raised questions with regard
to the proposed new stadium/amphitheater and Victory Stadium cost comparisons;
and spoke in support of placing the matter on a public referendum for a vote by the
citizens of Roanoke. He asked that Council not make rash decisions regarding the
Orange Avenue site which is not a good location for a new facility.
Alison Blanton, 1701 Arlington Road, S. W., appeared before Council as
President of the Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation, which was founded in
1988 as a non-profit valley wide organization to promote the preservation of historic,
cultural, and natural resources in the Roanoke Valley. She called attention to The
Hotel Roanoke, the N & W Passenger Station, the Grandin Theater, and other
structures that were either vacant, abandoned, near demolition, or in decline, many
of which were included on the Historic Preservation's endangered sites list, and
noted that both Victory Stadium and the riverfront access along the Roanoke River
are included on the endangered sites list. She asked that the City of Roanoke work
with the Preservation Foundation as partners to ensure that all parties are good
stewards of Roanoke's historic resources; debate has taken place as to whether
Victory Stadium is a historic landmark; and recently the Virginia Department of
Historic Resources rendered an opinion that Victory Stadium is potentially eligible
for the National Register of Historic Places, however, the permission of the City of
Roanoke is required before the determination can be made. She stated that citizens
lament the fact that historic buildings such as the Academy of Music, the American
Theater and othe.rs were demolished, and if given the opportunity to go back in time
and rethink the decision, they would handle the issue quite differently today;
44
therefore, she advised that Council is requested to do the right thing by Victory
Stadium. She called attention to a policy in the City's Comprehensive Plan to
identify and to preserve historic landmarks in the City; and the Roanoke Valley
Preservation Foundation encourages the City of Roanoke to do so and offers its
assistance. She stated that the Board of Directors does not oppose the new
stadium/amphitheater project, but wishes to protect cultural, historic and natural
resources; therefore, Council is encouraged to investigate the significance of
historic landmark status for Victory Stadium and look at ways to renovate the
facility.
Mr. Bill Tanger, 257 Dancing Tree Lane, Botetourt County, spoke as a member
of the City's Flood Plain Committee, and as Chair of the Friends of the Roanoke
River. As a person who has been involved with flood issues for approximately 30
years, specifically the Roanoke River, he stated that the Victory Stadium issue has
prompted further debate that has been long over due and more facts, discussion and
evaluation of alternatives are needed. On the issue of flooding at Victory Stadium,
which has never been fully researched or considered, he advised that it is known
that historically the stadium was flooded five times in its 61 year history; and had the
new flood reduction project been in place, Victory Stadium would have flooded only
once in 1985, which is classified as a 100 year flood. He noted that a Council
Member recently stated that he could not see "spending millions of public dollars
on a stadium in the flood way because sooner or later it would flood again";
however, using that logic, Mr. Tanger stated that the Sewage Treatment Plant should
be relocated as well, since sooner or later the facility will flood again; and more
reasonable is the decision to flood proof the Sewage Treatment Plant. To further
illustrate the point, he stated that if the City were to stop spending public dollars on
projects in the flood plain, it would be necessary to abandon the following City
projects: the City Market Building, the City Market, the Virginia Museum of
Transportation, Center in the Square, the Art Museum, and the Roanoke bus station,
etc., which does not include all private enterprise in the flood way amounting to
hundreds of businesses. He added that another prime example is Carillon Roanoke
Memorial Hospital which did not move out of the flood way, but instead flood
proofed the facility, allowing the hospital to continue expansion of its facilities. He
stated that the rationale to construct a new stadium/amphitheater because Victory
Stadium might flood once in every 100 years is not a good enough reason.
There being no further business to come before the Council, at 8:45 p.m., the
Mayor declared the meeting in recess to be reco~tvened on Thursday, July 31,2003,
at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium of the Roanoke Civic Center, for a public forum on the
proposed stadium/amphitheater project to be located on Orange Avenue.
The regular meeting of Roanoke City Council which was recessed on Monday,
45
July 21, 2003, until Thursday July 31, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., in the Auditorium of the
Roanoke Civic Center, 710 Williamson Road, N. W., was called to order, with Mayor
Ralph K. Smith, presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, C. Nelson
Harris, Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor Ralph K. Smith .................................................. 5.
ABSENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., and Beverly T. Fitzpatrick,
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
The Mayor advised that the purpose of the meeting is to conduct a public
forum on the proposed stadium/amphitheater project on Orange Avenue, N.W. He
stated that the rules of Council will govern the proceedings; since all Members of
Council have expressed opinions on the issue, an independent moderator will
facilitate the meeting, while Council retains the right to interject with comments or
questions, the rule of Council is that the session will be primarily to listen; and all
questions are to be directed by the moderator to the presenters.
The Mayor introduced Frosty Landon, Moderator, retired editor of The
Roanoke Times and founder and Executive Director of the Virginia Coalition for
Open Government.
Mr. Landon explained that the agenda was structured as follows:
7:00 -7:30 p.m.
7:30 - 8:00 p.m.
8:00 p.m. - until
Presentation on the new stadium/
amphitheater
Responses to questions by City staff and
experts
Citizen comments and questions
Mr. Landon advised that citizens may participate in the meeting in the
following ways:
(1) Persons may write their questions on a card that will be supplied by
City staff to be turned in by the end of the first presentation.
(2) Persons may sign up in the Lobby prior to 8:30 p.m., in order to
make comments at a later time during the meeting.
He introduced the following members of the panel:
Fred Krenson, Rosser International
Ken MacDonald, Red Light Management
Charlie Anderson, Architect, City of Roanoke
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance, City of Roanoke
Paul Anderson, Transportation Consultant, Hayes, Seay, Mattern and
Mattern
He also introduced John Carlin, Anchor, WSLS Television, Channel 10, who
will assist in sorting through questions to be addressed during the question and
answer portion of the meeting, and advised that questions will be sorted by priority
and category to avoid duplication.
As background, Mr. Landon advised that Victory Stadium was constructed in
1942 and for more than a half century, the facility served the City well; in 1995
Council began a study of potential improvements; the Parks and Recreation
Department prepared internal planning studies over the next two to three years; in
2000, an economic feasibility study was prepared by C. H. Johnson which
recommended that the City build a new facility rather than renovate Victory Stadium;
in August, 2000, the firm of Rosser International reviewed several renovation options
at the current site; in 2001 Council considered the options and voted to seek other
sites that would be suitable for a new stadium; and in 2001 Council voted to build
a new stadium at the Williamson Road and Orange Avenue site. He stated that there
have been previous opportunities for public input, although some persons believe
that sufficient opportunities have not been provided; the users of an amphitheater-
type structure and stadium were asked last year to provide their views as to what the
City needs, what is feasible, how their needs, festivals, etc., could best be met; and
City Council and City Planning Commission rezoning hearings were held; therefore,
there has been some input. He advised that the community is sharply divided on the
issue; therefore, Council would like to hear further input.
47
Fred Krenson, Vice-President, Rosser International, an architectural,
engineering and planning firm, that specializes in design of mass seating and public
performance venues, stadiums, arenas, amphitheaters, was the first presenter. He
showed slides of facilities that Rosser International has designed throughout the
United States, ranging from a 2000 seat stadium to an 81,000 seat olympic stadium
and various size stadiums in between.
(For full text of Mr. Krenson's presentation, see transcript on file in the City Clerk's
Office.)
The second presenter was Ken MacDonald, representing Red Light
Management.
(For full text of Mr. MacDonald's presentation, see transcript on file in the City
Clerk's Office.)
At this point, Mr. Landon introduced the question and answer portion of the
meeting.
* QUESTION: In regard to the deed of gift by which the City acquired the land
on which Victory Stadium was constructed, which was based on the conditiol~ that
the stadium would be constructed within three years and thereafter maintained by
the City, the City argues that such a condition which took place in '1941 was too long
ago. Therefore, why did the City obtain a release of the condition from Norfolk
Southern releasing four feet of the 30 acres for the widening of Jefferson Street, but
expressly reimposing the original condition and covenant? Were all Members of the
Council aware of the covenant regarding the original stadium when Council voted
for a new stadium? If so, how did Council justify violating the covenant?
ANSWER: William M. Hackworth, City Attorney, advised that the covenants
generally require that the property be used for certain purposes, including
recreational uses. Council has not made a decision on the use of Victory Stadium
or removal of the stadium; therefore, other recreational uses for the site have not
been discussed. The City Manager has been in contact with Norfolk Southern
officials who have assured the City that they will release the covenants, but they
would like to know what the eventual use of the property will be before they --.gree
to release the covenants, which is not viewed as an impediment to future plans to
develop the property.
QUESTION: What happened to the proposal for an all weather track in the new
stadium project?
48
ANSWER: Fred Krenson advised that the proposal for an all weather track at
the existing stadium site was feasible from a dimensional standpoint when raising
the field was considered; however, a problem was encountered when the water
retention berm proposed by the U. S. Corp of Engineers was placed on the north
side of the Roanoke River, thus, the track would not physically fit on the existing
stadium site. In regard to the new stadium site, the track would move the stands
farther away from the football field and farther away from the potential for side
staging; therefore, the decision was made to provide for tracks at the school sites
at a considerably lower budget and to maximize the football game impact, as well
as the amphitheater function from the stadium.
QUESTION: Why not construct a flood wall around the stadium with flood
gates and sump pumps which would eliminate the issue of flooding?
ANSWER: Fred Krenson responded that the flood wall was one of the
proposals in 1996 which basically requires a massive flood wall that would include
the stadium and the armory. It was determined to be more expensive than the $14
million option and was not the selected option in 1996.
QUESTION: Why hasn't relocating the armory, tearing down the building and
using that area for a permanent covered stage been considered, and using the field
with either folding chairs or benches that could be set up by City staff, or patrons
could bring their own blankets and chairs?
ANSWER: Fred Krenson advised that tearing down the armory was
considered as long as it was rebuilt at another location which would cost
approximately $10 million. If a stage is placed on that end of the stadium, it would
be facing south which would reduce light and light control opportunities, and it is
not a desirable direction for the stage to face in order to have less of a light impact
on a performer in the late evening hours.
QUESTION: How much would it cost to tear down Victory Stadium and why
is the figure not included as a cost in the Orange Avenue site?
ANSWER: Fred Krenson responded that no decision has been made to
demolish Victory Stadium; however, the cost was analyzed in several other studies
in the range of $600,000.00.
QUESTION: The Virginia Department of Transportation recently said, after
looking at the Williamson Road and Orange Avenue traffic problems, that no action
could be taken to correct the problems because the cost would far outweigh the
benefits. Why has this not been acknowledged?
49
ANSWER: Paul Anderson advised that the traffic management plan
acknowledged that there will not be major improvements at either the 1-581/Orange
Avenue interchange, or along Williamson Road; the facility will be typical of most
other entertainment facilities, with very little traffic most of the time; however,
during events, there will be significant traffic, but the good thing is that events will
be held at typically off peak hours. Williamson Road, being a busy roadway with
four lanes and Orange Avenue being six lanes wide, has a lot of traffic during regular
peak hours, but there is considerable available capacity during off peak traffic hours,
and since events usually occur during off peak hours, the facility would take
advantage of existing capacity, which is what the traffic management plan is built
around.
QUESTION: When two events occur at the Civic Center, in the auditorium and
the coliseum, how can a third event be held simultaneously across the street and
still address all parking needs?
ANSWER: Paul Anderson advised such a scenario would add to the challenge.
The same people will control the booking of the sites, it is a rare occurrence when
two major events are booked at the same time, although it does happen; and the key
will be in scheduling events and trying to provide some offset between start times
of the events. When events are sold out, shuttles will be provided which is a
concept that was tested at the Civic Center on shows in August and September,
2002. Free parking is available in the downtown parking garages, variable message
signs along the interstate and along major arterials will advise patrons of parking
conditions so they will know if the parking lots are full and where they can take
advantage of free parking and shuttles to transport them to and from the site.
QUESTION: Why has no detailed budget been provided for all expenses
relative to traffic control, or made available on line and in a prominent location?
ANSWER: Paul Anderson advised that budgets were produced for both the
cost of operating the various events, including costs for shuttles, staff incl-ding
police officers, bus drivers, and parking attendants at the various lots, upgrades to
existing streets around the site, and a coordinated signal system and video
surveillance equipment to help monitor the traffic situation. Charlie Anderson
advised that a traffic plan has been implemented and tested, and the plan works; and
the operational side of the traffic plan requires more police officers and variable
messaging sign boards on the interstate and on other major arterials that connect
the facility. Budget information is in the traffic plan for the various scenarios, the
traffic study team looked at a number of different scenarios involving the individual
facilities, including multiple events at both facilities and associated operational
costs, and information is available in the City Engineer's Office.
QUESTION: Whywould Roanoke be competitive for amphitheater events given
Roanoke's population size compared to that of other amphitheaters?
ANSWER: Ken MacDonald advised that there was some skepticism with
entertainment venues like Cher, Elton John and Lord of the Dance which were sell
out shows. The Roanoke market has performed well and performed better than
other markets of the same size. Promoters may not be able to run as many events
through a market the size of Roanoke as some of the bigger markets, but if there are
a reasonable number of events of a diverse nature and spaced chronologically apart,
Roanoke is a good performing market. The outdoor concert experience in some
instances exceeds the indoor arena experience and if patrons want to see a show
and if they experience a nice evening, outdoor events have proven to be successful.
QUESTION: Your past experience does not show any location that has a
multiple use concept, such as Roanoke is proposing. If this design is state of the art,
cite examples of other projects with both a stadium and an amphitheater.
ANSWER: Ken MacDonald advised that he has promoted shows in various
stadiums; however, the difference is, Roanoke had the forethought to build the
infrastructure for a concert in advance of the event. Quite often, football stadiums
are built for football teams or by athletic directbrs for a single purpose, and other
amenities are built afterwards. The advantage in Roanoke is that the need for shows
has been anticipated and promoters will be able to produce shows at a lesser cost
than going into a stadium that does not have any of the necessary amenities, which
will make the facility more attractive and provide an opportunity for shows with
attendance in the range of 10,000 - 12,000 persons. In most cases, when talking
about a stadium event, promoters would need more than 10,000 - 12,000 people to
make the economics of the event work.
QUESTION: If an amphitheater were built at Victory Stadium in the end zone
of the current stadium, with modernization to the current facility, would it provide a
good venue with openness, a good view and the lack of 1-581 traffic, etc.
ANSWER: Mr. MacDonald advised that a show can conceivably be conducted
at any location; but the key is holding an event at a location where people will want
to come. The Victory Stadium location may no.t be any more attractive than the
Orange Avenue site and unless there are real assurances that patrons will not get
wet during rainfall and that the show will go on, he would not promote a show at
Victory Stadium. When the Dave Matthews concert was booked, it was a known
quantity that the concert might be flooded out; however, other acts would not have
agreed to such a stipulation in which case the promoter would have to guarantee
payment even in the event of rain.
51
Mr. Krenson responded that one of the positive features of the
stadium/amphitheater proposal is joint use of dressing rooms, concessions and
restrooms that would be used not only for entertainment, but for sporting events as
well. In thinking about the value of the dollar, it is important to be wise stewards of
finances, so the combination facility makes a lot of sense. If a new amphitheater is
constructed along with upgrades to Victory Stadium, it will be necessary to spend
more money to replicate restrooms, concessions, etc., that will be used very few
times during the year.
QUESTION: Why is this project being funded with general obligation bonds
and not revenue bonds?
, ANSWER: Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance, advised that it is less expensive
to issue general obligation bonds than revenue bonds, because revenue bonds
typically have a stream of revenue tied to them. Approximately five to six years ago,
when the City was planning a stadium solution, the City began to set funds aside
from its operating revenues each year in anticipation of either building a new
stadium or renovating Victory Stadium; therefore, the City set aside an additional
amount of funding until it reached an amount that the City could issue general
obligation bonds without going the revenue bond route.
QUESTION: Does the $18 million figure include the cost of the pedestrian
bridge across Orange Avenue?
ANSWER: Mr. Krenson responded in the affirmative.
QUESTION: There are a number of questions about the intended use of the
Victory Stadium site. When you (Mr. Krenson) heard from the City Council, user
groups, etc., as to why the Victory Stadium site was not appropriate for stadium and
amphitheater purposes, but might be more appropriate for other uses, flooding
notwithstanding, what is the real agenda for the site? What did you hear on these
issues when you were hired by the City? What does the City want to do with the
land where Victory Stadium now stands and why is the City trying to get rid of the
stadium from that location?
ANSWER: Mr. Krenson advised that his charge was to provide options for the
Council to consider; options ranged from six to eight different ways to renovate the
facility and recover all or a part of that, ways to keep the facility from flooding, ways
to allow the facility to continue to flood, but on a reduced quality level, what would
happen if the facility is torn down and a new facility is constructed, or construct
recreational space on the site. There was no agenda on how to use the site.
QUESTION: Did the City pay $200,000.00 for land that was assessed at
$37,000.00? Are the correct dollar figures being reported to citizens and to Council
on the value of the land?
ANSWER: Mr. Hall advised that the City engages in what is referred to as
market appraisal which means that it assesses all of the properties in the City,
including private residences, reviews relative sale prices in the area, and the
condition of properties, etc. He stated that he was not involved in the transaction;
however, if one owns property in an area that is going to be developed, the property
logically becomes more valuable if the property is needed for development of a
project. He further stated that he was not aware of the details of the relativity
between the assessed value of the property via the City's appraisal process each
year, as opposed to what the real value of the property is when it is needed for the
project site.
QUESTION: Why does the City claim that traffic problems are greater at the
Victory Stadium site when the intersection of Jefferson Street and Reserve Avenue
is rated on the traffic scale as a "B" and Orange Avenue and Williamson Road is
rated as an "E"?
ANSWER: Paul Anderson spoke to the proposed new site inasmuch as traffic
at the existing stadium site has not been analy~, ed. The level of service "E" at the
Williamson Road and Orange Avenue intersection is based on peak hour traffic
volumes which occur between 4:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m., 90 minutes ahead of when
the peak real traffic for shows would occur; traffic drops off fairly significantly
between 5:30 and 6:30 p.m. and again from 6:30 to 7:30 p.m.; therefore, the rating
of "E" represents the volume that exists in the peak traffic hours. No analysis has
been done on what the traffic volume would be in the off period; however, City staff
is looking at placing police traffic control at the intersection to handle unique traffic
flows that will come before and after an event. For the existing stadium, there would
need to be a type of traffic management plan.
QUESTION: Were any sites outside Roanoke City limits considered? What
would be the cost of constructing a stadium to accommodate high school football
games and a large amphitheater in the area with ample parking for large
performances in an area outside of the corporate limits of the City?
ANSWER: Mr. Krenson advised that no sites outside of the City were
considered; costs would be considerably higher, mostly because of property
requirements for a parking lot to accommodate at least 3000 cars if the facility were
moved to a remote location. No parking inventory currently exists that would be
useable land and if there were an occasional very large event, parking numbers
would grow in excess of 5000 - 6000 spaces. It is not inconceivable, but significant
issues would have to be considered relative to any remote site.
53
QUESTION: Has any thought been given to the fact that an 18,000 seat
amphitheaterwill not hold the 22,000 persons who attended the 4th of July Music For
Americans celebration at Victory Stadium?
ANSWER: Charlie Anderson advised that City staff on duty at the 2003 4th of
July celebration counted between 15,000 - 16,000 persons, as opposed to the
reported 22,000.
QUESTION: How much will it cost to tear down the existing stadium and who
will pay for it?
ANSWER: Mr. Hall advised that the cost of tearing down the stadium would
be borne by the City; however, no decision was made on the fate of Victory Stadium
at the time that Council voted to build a new stadium/amphitheater.
QUESTION: Why did the City allow Victory Stadium to get in such a poor state
of repair?
ANSWER: Mr. Landon referred to former City Managers and former City
Council Members and advised that there could not be elaboration on the question
by non policy makers.
QUESTION: How many times has Victory Stadium flooded in the past 50
years?
ANSWER: Charlie Anderson advised that the stadium flooded in 1972, 1978,
1985, 1992 and 2003.
QUESTION: The 100 year flood occurred in 1985. It has been said that
proponents of saving Victory Stadium at its present site believe that with a berm and
with the planned flood control project, only the 100 year flood would have hit Victory
Stadium.
ANSWER: Charlie Anderson advised that the statement is not totally correct,
the flood wall is designed to take a 25 - 30 year duration flood, and some of the
floods would have passed the flood wall or the berm.
QUESTION: If seating capacity is reduced by going away from the large
stadium, will the cost of tickets be increased to produce the same guaranteed
revenues?
ANSWER: Ken MacDonald advised that the proposed new stadium is
proposed to be designed to accommodate a variety of seating configurations. If a
performer/act states that a certain amount of dollars is needed to entertain at a City
facility, the promoter will make an educated guess on how many tickets will be sold;
54
the promoter considers the cost of the act, plus the cost of producing the show, and
divides that by the number of tickets that are believed will be sold, which is how the
ticket price is determined. Every show is different, every artist's guarantee is
different, and every cost of producing a show is different.
QUESTION: Has a projection been prepared on revenues and economic
impact from the proposed facility on Orange Avenue? If there is an event with
tickets selling at $50.00 each and approximately 20,000 patrons, how much will be
spent in the City beyond the ticket price?
ANSWER: Mr. MacDonald advised that it is a plus to have a stadium near other
businesses, and if the stadium or amphitheater is isolated, no economic benefits will
be achieved by adjacent businesses. Estimates are that a promoter can use as high
as six times a ticket price to one time a ticket price, depending on the nature of the
audience.
Mr. Landon read the following questions with regard to topics that are issues
for the City administration and/or the City Council to address:
Did City Council or the City Manager recently talk with Carillon about
the use of the stadium site for the bio medical facility?
What is the intended use of the site now occupied by Victory Stadium?
Has a regional facility been considered with Roanoke County and the
City of Salem?
No one has shown a picture of the current Orange Avenue site and the
view looking at the stadium, and perhaps that is because the site looks
to 1-581. Would you welcome the news media to the site to show the
view?
A comment was made to the School Board by the City Manager that
some high school traditions would have to be changed. What are those
traditions?
Mr. Landon concluded the question and answer portion of the meeting and
advised that the meeting would proceed to the public comment period. He asked
that speakers limit their remarks to up to three minutes each.
55
W. Alvin Hudson, 1956 Hope Road, S. W., advised that he was a Member of
City Council when the vote was taken on the Orange Avenue location; he did not
have the opportunity to vote on the issue inasmuch as he was absent on the day that
the vote was taken, but prior to the meeting, Council voted 7-0 to retain the Victory
Stadium site; however, a Member of Council asked for the courtesy of looking at
other locations, and at no time was he notified that the issue was to be brought up
again. He stated that the matter was handled poorly by the City administration; and
citizens should have been involved in the decision; comments continue to be made
about the condition of Victory Stadium; however, Council should take into
consideration the previous condition of The Hotel Roanoke, and Jefferson High
School, and the old post office building, all of which the City and others took the
time and the opportunity to renovate into the first class structures that they are
today. He advised that Victory Stadium is a part of Roanoke's history and should be
preserved; and Council should reconsider its decision and allow the citizens of
Roanoke the opportunity to vote on the fate of Victory Stadium.
Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridge Crest Road, Hardy, Virginia, advised that the citizens
of Roanoke have the right to vote on the future of Victory Stadium; the majority of
persons in attendance favor renovating Victory Stadium; and referred to an
agreement with Norfolk and Western Railway which states that the City of Roanoke
will maintain the facility. He took issue with a recent newspaper article in which a
Member of Council stated that Victory Stadium is crumbling; however, he conceded
that the stadium is in need of repairs.
Ms. Kathryn Marlow, 405 Washington Avenue, S. W., spoke as a citizen having
no nostalgia for Victory Stadium, but as a citizen looking at where the City is going
and how it needs to get there. She advised that identifying progress as bigger,
better, and faster is not what Roanoke should be about, because that is not the way
to keep young people in the area and Roanoke should embrace what it has and pay
attention to the wishes of the citizens who reside in the City. She stated that if
Council has not decided what is to become of Victory Stadium, it would appear that
no accurate cost is available for what is to be done at the Orange Avenue site,
because either Victory Stadium will be demolished, or renovated, or the facility will
be left to crumble as an eyesore, which is not a valid option. Second, she inq[~ired
as to how many houses and how many people will be displaced if the stadium is
moved to Orange Avenue, and why is the City not concerned about taking people's
homes. She stated that renovating Victory Stadium will not displace people from
their homes and should be taken into consideration by the City.
It was noted by a member of the City staff that no homes will be acquired as
a result of the Williamson Road/Orange Avenue location for the proposed
stadium/amphitheater.
56
Brian J. Wishneff, 1010 First Union Building, 213 South Jefferson Street,
expressed amazement at some of the answers to the earlier questions by the panel.
He asked if the consultants know that the City plans to purchase 22 acres of surface
land across the street on Reserve Avenue that would be available for surface
parking; do the consultants know that Carilion is constructing an 1100 car garage
next to Victory Stadium; and do the consultants know that there are 4000 - 5000
potential parking spaces within walking distance, yet the consultants said in their
report that there is not enough on site parking. Secondly, with regard to the close
proximity to Carilion Roanoke Memorial, he added that a hospital spokesperson has
stated that in the history of the hospital, there has never been one complaint about
Victory Stadium. Thirdly, he advised that the consultants continue to state that the
flood plain project will be completed 25 years from now, when, in truth, the project
will start in the spring of 2004. With regard to flooding conditions, he stated that no
floods, other than the 1985 flood, occurred more than once in 100 years, and not
once every eight years as reported by the consultants.
Mr. Bill Tanger, 129 Thurston Avenue, N. E., advised that the process has
failed and should have included public notice of the different issues and alternatives
when alternatives were first proposed and voted on arbitrarily without any kind of
public input or comment. He stated that his involvement does not stem from any
emotional attachment to Victory Stadium, but because of what might happen to the
Williamson Road area. He added that he appeared before Council and submitted
numerous recommendations that would alleviate traffic problems; and the question
about the pedestrian bridge is not whether the bridge goes over Orange Avenue, the
question is whether it goes over Carver Avenue. Since the pedestrian bridge does
go over Orange Avenue and drops down hill, he asked that persons in the audience
visualize that they are in a wheelchair, on a long sloping ramp, when they get to the
end of the ramp, they are at Carver Avenue traffic, they cross Carver Avenue traffic,
and then wheel up 30 feet to get back to where they were on the other side of
Orange Avenue, all of which does not make good sense. He advised that he
suggested taking out the bottleneck at Plantation Road, but the City stated that
funds were not available; however, if the project is to be done, it should be done
right. He stated that no studies have been conducted on the noise impact to the
stadium, or to the residential area from the stadium/amphitheater, and no study has
been done regarding the light impact; therefore, there are many unanswered
questions. He spoke to the need to form a bipartisan commission, or group of
objective persons, to compile facts, to prepare a comparative analysis, and to
present the information at a referendum where citizens can vote on the issue.
57
Mr. Delvis O. "Mac"McCadden, 2'102 Carroll Avenue, N. W., advised that some
things might be legal, but that does not mean that they are right; and Council's 6 -
0 vote on the stadium/amphitheater issue might have been legal, but it was not right
because citizens were not given the opportunity to voice their opinion; and when
citizens looked at the proposed plans at the civic center, they were not aware that
a vote was to be taken by the Council that same evening. He commended Council
on its decision to do something, but expressed disappointment in how itwas done.
He called attention to a proposal that may be presented to Council in the near future
to construct another facility on the Victory Stadium site using the same bricks that
were used to construct Victory Stadium.
Ms. Melanie Steel, 1 '130 Howbert Avenue, S. W., a boxing promoter formerly
associated with Victory Gym, a youth boxing program housed beneath Victory
Stadium where thousands of dollars of equipment is setting dormant, including a full
size boxing ring, advised that Victory Gym is not included in renovation photographs
of Victory Stadium's current condition. She called attention to the potential for
various uses of Victory Stadium, such as Victory Gym, concerts like Dave Matthews,
and 4th of July celebrations, etc., that are not being taken into consideration. She
stated that Victory Stadium deserves a second chance and just because something
is "a little banged up" does not mean that it should be abandoned.
Mr. Ken Parry, 2601 Baird Street, S. W., advised that it is hoped that the issue
will generate enough interest in the City of Roanoke by the citizens of Roanoke,
homeowners and taxpayers, to demand that Council allow the matter to be brought
to a democratic closure through a public referendum. He stated that the purpose of
Council is to work in the best interest of the citizens that they were elected to
represent and not spend taxpayers dollars on a mini-sized facility in the Williamson
Road area. He advised that the City of Roanoke already has a stadium that can be
renovated for $9 - '10 million, thus saving taxpayers' dollars.
Mr. Steve Colston, 1817 Northwoods Lane, Salem, Virginia, advised that there
is a problem with both the current Victory Stadium and with the proposed new
facility on Orange Avenue; however, if everything is even, why not allow
sentimentalities to carry the day and retain a legacy, instead of building a new
stadium/amphitheater and destroying Roanoke's past. He encouraged the City to
maintain the legacy of Victory Stadium.
58 --
Mr. Robert Lynch, 2810 Floraland Drive, N. W., advised that he normally
depends on those politicians that he voted for to speak for him, but in this case, his
elected leaders have let him down by not allowing adequate citizen input into the
original decision to build a new stadium. He stated that his first concern relates to
the method used to reach a decision on the new stadium/amphitheater, and input by
taxpayers and voters should have been the first consideration. He asked the
following questions: Can Council honestly say that the voice of the citizens was
heard in regard to the original decision to construct a new stadium? Can Council
deny that the wants and needs of the Carillon conglomerate have not had any
influence on the decision to build a new stadium and to demolish the current
stadium? Do current and past City Council Members hold any responsibility for the
current condition of Victory Stadium? At what point do the needs of government by
big business, for big business, override the needs of taxpayers and the voting
citizens of Roanoke. He stated that the people who favor the new stadium are those
who stand to make a profit on the project, such as consultants, contractors, the
Carillon corporation and others who will be involved in the construction process.
He noted that it is time to let the people who will be paying the bill for the project
have the opportunity to vote on how their tax dollars will be spent. He asked the
following series of questions: Has anyone given serious thought to moving the
Carillon project to the land that is proposed to be used for the new
stadium/amphitheater, or is the City so afraid that it will offend the powers that be
in the Carillon conglomerate, that they may abandon the bio-medical project, or
move the project to another City? How many long term jobs will be provided by the
Carillon project and how much will it cost the citizens of Roanoke to build the
infrastructure needed to support the project? Will long term benefits be worth initial
costs? Can anyone guarantee that a new stadium will be promoted aggressively
enough to pay its own way? How can any facility generate enough revenue to
support itself when it is not used on a regular basis? He asked that Council
Members cause the issue to be placed on a referendum to be voted on by the
citizens of Roanoke, whether it be a new stadium or a renovated Victory Stadium.
Mr. John R. Graybill, 2443 Tillett Road, S. W., spoke in support of renovating
Victory Stadium. He commended those persons in attendance, and asked that no
vote be taken by the Council this evening since two members of the Council were
absent and the citizens of Roanoke want to know their position regarding the fate
of Victory Stadium. He stated that the flooding of Victory Stadium is not an issue
because past costs have been addressed within the City's annual budget; and if
Victory Stadium is properly marketed promoters will use the facility.
59
Dr. John Bohon, 5012 Cave Spring Circle, S. W., advised that Victory Stadium
is the first World War II memorial in America.' He stated that Victory Stadium is
located in a beautiful place by the Roanoke River, with Mill Mountain overlooking the
area; he worked in the vicinity of Victory Stadium for over 40 years and there were
no complaints by the hospital regarding noise, other than the stock car races that
were held for a short time. He advised that for some people, Victory Stadium is
hallowed ground and encouraged Council to vote in favor of renovating the stadium
for future generations of Roanokers.
Ms. Jessica Howe, 202 Madison Avenue, N. W., advised that memories live in
one's heart, and one does not have to see a structure every day to remember it. She
stated that a memorial to World War II veterans could be erected at the new
stadium/amphitheater and a new stadium/amphitheater will make Roanoke a better
place to live.
Ms. Shakira Moyer, 3738 Signal Hill Avenue, N. W., an upcoming junior at
William Fleming High School, advised that Victory Stadium is crumbling; therefore,
she spoke in support of a new stadium/amphitheater. She stated that to grow as a
City means to advance in other areas; and a memorial could be constructed at the
new stadium/amphitheater to honor World War II veterans. She added that the young
people of Roanoke should be included in any type of vote and should be allowed to
enjoy better facilities than the current Victory Stadium has to offer.
Mr. Darrell R. Boles, 1623 Shamrock Street, N. W., advised that the
deteriorating condition of Victory Stadium occurred because the City failed to make
the necessary repairs to the facility; and citizens of Roanoke should be allowed to
have input into how their tax dollars are spent. He referred to stipulations of the
agreement with Norfolk and Western Railway with regard to the use of Victory
Stadium, and inquired if the land will revert back to Norfolk Southern if Victory
Stadium is demolished. He inquired as to how the proposed amphitheater on
Orange Avenue will compare, seating-wise, with other amphitheaters.
Ms. Patricia Rodriguez, 120 Twenty-third Street, S. E., called attention to
conversations with Council Members regarding Victory Stadium, in which one
Member of Council stated that he believed it is progressive to build a new stadium
and it is important that Roanoke be seen by others as a progressive city, to which
statement she strongly disagreed. In this day and age, she stated that being
progressive means celebrating and renovating unique pieces of architecture; by
renovating the past, the future is honored; people of all walks of life and every age
group appreciate Victory Stadium because of events that have been held in the past;
and if another stadium is constructed, Victory Stadium will eventually be torn down.
6O
Ms. Rodriguez advised that Victory Stadium elicits a wonderful feeling, it is
enabling to be seated in the stands, the size of the stadium is one of its many
virtues, it is located on a beautiful site, and it is unique to have the backdrop of a
mountain and a beautiful river running along side the stadium. She stated that she
represents hundreds of persons who want to see Victory Stadium renovated, and
asked that the citizens of Roanoke be allowed to vote on the fate of Victory Stadium
through a public referendum.
Mr. Richard Rife, 1416 Sherwood Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the
proposed new stadium/amphitheater, because it is time to stop looking 50 years in
the past and instead look 50 years into the future. He stated that Victory Stadium
has served the community honorably and well, but its time has passed; as an
architect and a preservationist, he stated that he supports the renovation of old
structures, but he also knows that certain structures do not lend themselves to
renovation and reuse; and his architectural firm designed the Jefferson Center, the
Grandin Theater, and Breckinridge, Woodrow Wilson and Addison Middle Schools,
but the design of these landmark buildings allowed them to be renovated into
modern facilities that meet current and future needs. He stated that Victory Stadium
cannot be cost effectively renovated to meet the needs of a modern sports
entertainment venue; and the proposed new stadium/amphitheater facility
represents a very innovative design that in years to come will be widely copied
throughout the country. He agreed with previous speakers that the decision making
process leading up to this evening's meeting leaves much to be desired, but
Council's decision to construct a new stadium/amphitheater is the correct decision
and he hopes Council will stand by its previous vote on the issue. He also agreed
with previous speakers that it is nice to reminisce about past glories, but it is time
to build a new venue in which to create new glories - it is time to build a new Victory
Stadium.
Ms. Sarah Brooks, 2912 Avenham Avenue, S.W., spoke to the location of the
proposed new stadium/amphitheater from the viewpoint of anyone who has tried to
attend an event at the Roanoke Civic Center when more than one activity is being
held concurrently; from the standpoint of one who has waited in traffic for up to 45
minutes only to be directed to an off-site venue to park, bused to the Civic Center
and then back to the parking facility, following the event. She stated that to add a
stadium/amphitheater to existing Civic Center parking problems will only compound
the issue. Having been involved with Festival in the Park for a number of years, she
stated that Roanoke does not have a good climate for outdoor events; those persons
attending a football game will attend because they want to watch football and will
sit in the rain regardless of weather conditions, but people will not pay money to sit
in the rain to listen to a concert, even with a canopy over the facility. She advised
that Victory Stadium provides a site that has reasonable access from 1-581 and
61
Route 419 and downtown Roanoke, there is a lot of history at the Victory Stadium
site, and the site itself is far more practical, whether the current Victory Stadium is
demolished and another facility is constructed, than constructing a
stadium/amphitheater in an already congested area of the City.
Mr. Tom Link, 2201 Carolina Avenue, S. W., advised that the process that led
to the public forum needs to be readdressed and both sides of the question should
be taken into consideration; because the process of looking at only the Orange
Avenue site does not provide citizens with all of the opportunities to express their
opinion on both the Orange Avenue site and renovation of Victory Stadium. He
stated that the City does not have to tear up the history of Victory Stadium to ~,love
to the future; for example: the rotunda at the University of Virginia which is under
going renovations, Scott Stadium in Charlottesville started small and is now one of
the largest stadiums in the Commonwealth of Virginia, and Roanoke can renovate
Victory Stadium which is the biggest city-owned stadium in Virginia and make it the
best. He advised that under the seats of Victory Stadium is approximately 340,000
square feet of space, which could be used for such things as basketball courts,
volleyball courts, inline hockey and a multitude of other uses. He called attention to
the 5000+ signatures of citizens who want to provide input as to the future of Victory
Stadium, and suggested that a commission be appointed to review the overall issue
and to submit recommendations that can be voted on at a public referendum.
Ms. Lynn Davis, 1674 Sigmon Road, S. W., advised that Victory Stadium
provides a sense of place, it represents an icon to the community similar to the Mill
Mountain Star, Mill Mountain Theater, the City Market, Jefferson High School, etc.,
and it is not possible to erect a new sense of place. She stated that she is not
convinced that the flood plain is a problem, new research in urban forestry and other
flood abatements is becoming more and more sophisticated, causing flood control
issues to be much easier to address than in the past. She asked that future study
be given to renovating Victory Stadium at a cost that will be acceptable to most
taxpayers of the City of Roanoke.
Ms. Mark McConnel, 546 Camilla Avenue, S. E., addressed the issue of
sustainability which involves building in such a way so as not to impact the
environment in a way that is more detrimental than it needs to be; the Federal
Government, including all branches of the Armed Forces, have mandates for
sustainable design; and the number one thing that should not be done if a building
is to remain sustainable, is to demolish an existing structure to create a new
structure of similar purpose. He expressed concern with regard to the City of
Roanoke and its ties to the natural environment; and the City's 2020 Comprehensive
Plan, the Urban Forestry Plan, and the branding exercise all address Roanoke's tie
to its'natural environment. Therefore, he expressed concern that the City might be
continuing on its current path which is most destructive to the environment- filling
up a landfill with a renovatable structure, although the proposed
stadium/amphitheater is a good idea. He expressed concern regarding the distance
of seats from the stage in the proposed stadium/amphitheater. He discussed the
funding mechanism and renovation of Victory Stadium using Historic Rehabilitation
Tax Credits; and advised that Victory Stadium was the first monument to victory in
World War II; therefore, the facility is a State Historic Landmark and can be a
National Historic Landmark, qualifying through corporate structuring for tax credits
that could finance one-third of the renovation cost.
Mr. Mark Frye, 812 Wildwood Road, S. W., advised that he moved to Roanoke
17 years ago after having lived in numerous cities throughout the United States, and
the Roanoke Valley is by far the best of all. He stated that Roanoke is a special place
made up of special people and special attractions, a few of which are the Roanoke
City Market, The Hotel Roanoke, Mill Mountain, the Mill Mountain Star and Victory
Stadium. He added that Victory Stadium is special, he cannot imagine the facility
being torn down because Victory Stadium belongs to the citizens of Roanoke and
they should be allowed to decide its fate through a public referendum. From the
standpoint of a parent of teenagers, he expressed concern about the traffic at the
Orange Avenue site if a stadium/amphitheater is constructed at that location.
Mr. Don Bouldin, 2114 Berkley Avenue, S.W., referred to an existing cemetery
in the area proposed for the new stadium/amphitheater complex on Orange Avenue
and inquired as to who will pay for the cost of moving the cemetery. He stated that
drawings show the proposed new stadium/amphitheater under steep steps which
will create a hardship for elderly or disabled persons. He referred to comments
regarding the deteriorating condition of Victory Stadium since nothing has been
done to the facility for the past 60 years, and asked if a new stadium/amphitheater
will suffer the same fate in 50 - 60 years. He inquired as to who will pay for
demolishing Victory Stadium; and what will be the status of the agreement with
Norfolk Southern if Victory Stadium is torn down. He spoke in support of renovating
Victory Stadium.
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke in support of saving
Victory Stadium. She encouraged all persons in attendance to attend the City
Council meeting on Monday, August 4, 2003, to demonstrate their interest in the
issue. She stated that many of the supporters of either stadium have already left the
meeting, but it is hoped that the diminished crowd at this point does not diminish
the outpouring that was expressed earlier in the evening.
Ms. Barbara Myler, 912 Stewart Avenue, S. E., spoke in support of renovating
Victory Stadium. She stated that Roanokers have fond memories of activities they
have attended at Victory Stadium, and suggested that the City investigate whether
Victory Stadium is eligible for historic tax credits that could be used to fund
renovation.
63
Mr. E. Duane Howard, 508-B Walnut Avenue, S. W., advised that some
Roanokers have been accused of living in the past, when others refuse to see the
future of Victory Stadium. He stated that the future of sports is not in baseball,
football, or even soccer, but in the gravity games, a venue alone that could support
a renovated Victory Stadium. He added that some Roanokers are concerned about
the past because the past was free of crime and violence, the word of the people
was heard and not stifled, City Council followed the democratic rule and did not
create its own rules, there were public servants who did not want to live off of the
public, and a man's honesty was rewarded and not punished. He stated that
Roanokers are proud of the past, they are proud of a past that will not allow historic
names to be changed and buildings to be torn down, a past where Roar~okers
believed in freedom ofthe press. He further stated that Roanokers know they cannot
live in the past, but they can capitalize on the past by renovating Victory Stadium;
however, it appears that the City has chosen to ignore its future. He called attention
to petitions signed by over 7,000 persons in the Roanoke Valley in support of
renovating Victory Stadium, and advised that if it is the will of the people to renovate
Victory Stadium, the City has an obligation to support those wishes, right or wrong.
Mr. James St. Clair, 1322 Essex Avenue, N. W., expressed concern about the
proposed location of the new stadium/amphitheater relative to traffic issues; and the
stadium should be located outside of the City's corporate limits. He stated that there
should have been more communication with citizens prior to the public forum and
in the future Council should provide more opportunities for open dialogue with
citizens on issues of concern to the community. He advised that Victory Stadium
should be renovated in order to accommodate the recreational needs of the total
community.
Mr. Larry Johnson, 6164 Burnham Road, S. W., Roanoke County, referred to
other historical buildings in the City of Roanoke that have been demolished, such
as the American Theater, Lee Junior High School, the Academy of Music, and the
Hunter Memorial Viaduct. He called attention to renovation of the former Jefferson
High School and The Hotel Roanoke, both of which are successful projects today,
and stated that the City of Roanoke has done a good job in saving some of its
historical sites; therefore, the same should be done for Victory Stadium because it
is a historical landmark.
Mr. Sherman Lea, Sr., 1638 Lonna Drive, N. W., inquired if consideration has
been given to the type of turf that will be used in the proposed new stadium, and
requested a response at a later time. He addressed the issue of Roanoke's history
of taking major public expenditures for public facilities to the citizens through a
referendum. He conceded that there are instances in which cities, such as Roanoke,
need not take bond issues to the voters, examples of which include situations where
the City is fulfilling a contractual obligation, or when the City must meet a specific
mandate, but when spending large sums of tax dollars on traditional public facilities,
the City of Roanoke's history has been to take issues to the public through a
referendum. He called attention to the Roanoke Civic Center bond issue which was
not approved until the third try; there have been some comments that the only time
past City Councils have gone to the public for a referendum was when a bond issue
was tied to a tax increase; however, records.in the City's Finance Department
indicate that bond referendums held in 1987 for $10 million, in 1990 for $15.3 million
and in 1997 for $39 million were not tied to a tax increase; and since the last bond
referendum in 1997, the City Council has authorized or issued over $130 million in
debt, which was authorized without a public referendum. He stated that a staggering
number of citizens agree that a referendum is needed on the Victory Stadium issue.
Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., spoke in support of allowing the
citizens of Roanoke to decide on the fate of Victory Stadium through a public
referendum. He addressed the condition of Victory Stadium and advised that past
City Councils and past City administrations are to blame since no funds were
appropriated by the City for needed repairs. He referred to the condition of East
Gate Park and advised that in 1997, following the bond referendum, residents were
promised basketball courts, tennis courts, etc., but no improvements have been
made to date other than a small piece of playground equipment.
Ms. Harriet S. Lewis, 1015 Palmetto Street, N. W., representing Radio Station
WTOY, shared some of the comments received from listeners; i.e., some question
the wisdom of spending $18 million when there are other needs in the City,
particularly in the northwest community that have gone unaddressed; impact to the
surrounding northwest communitywith the proposed placement of the new stadium
at Williamson Road and Orange Avenue; the current process to receive citizen
comment; a black cemetery near the proposed stadium which was disturbed when
1-581 was built -- how will contractors afford the cemetery the proper respect and
how will stadium attendees and fans be warned and fined should they desecrate the
cemetery; the proposed complex will be located in an area surrounded by
residential neighborhoods, in addition to a high and constant volume of heavy
traffic; the City of Roanoke prides itself on being a city of neighborhoods, therefore,
why would the City reduce the quality of life for those citizens living within one block
of this intrusive complex; and failure by the City to hold a public forum at the onset
of the new stadium proposal may have been an unintended oversight, however,
when any municipal body assumes an ongoing posture via its policies and
procedures of restricting input, censoring legitimate discourse, and limiting
comments and questions from its citizens regarding major issues, it is predictable
that the same body will continue to ignore critically important facets of a process
that are part and parcel of the democratic way of doing business.
65
Mr. Donald Dickerson, 4441 Oleva Street, N. W., spoke in support of renovating
Victory Stadium. He stated that it is the City's fault that the stadium has deteriorated
because no funds were spent on renovation for approximately 60 years, and even
though something is old does not mean that it is of no use. He inquired if a new
stadium/amphitheater is constructed on the Orange Avenue site, will it too fall into
a state o~f disrepair due to lack of maintenance by the City. He also inquired as to
why all'City faC~lifles~appear to be constructed on the north side of Roanoke.
Calvin H. Johnson, 3530 Windsor Road, S. W., Chair, Roanoke Civic Center
Commission, advised that the Civic Center Commission supports the proposed new
stadium/amphitheater, which represents the future for the City of Roanoke, the
Roanoke Valley and southwestern Virginia. He stated that the proposed facility will
provide Roanoke with the opportunity to hold events that it does not currently have
the facilities to host; and the stadium/amphitheater is a new concept that will benefit
not only the City of Roanoke, but other cities similar to Roanoke. He explained that
the debt for the new facility will be addressed through revenues from events that are
held at the facilities, along with other tax dollars. He asked that Council not rescind
its previous action to construct a new stadium/amphitheater at the Oange Avenue
site.
Mr. Randy Harrison, 2311 Westover Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of saving
Victory Stadium and stated that Roanokers are fortunate to live in a city with a
mountain and a river that runs through the heart of the City. He called attention to
the many sporting activities that could be held at Victory Stadium and along the
Roanoke River, such as canoeing and fishing, Maher Field, the tennis courts and the
South Roanoke Sports complex. He expressed concern that public facilities are
constructed in Roanoke, while infrastructure needs continue to suffer. He
questioned whether costs associated with the new stadium/am phitheater have been
accurately reported; and Roanoke should save Victory Stadium and actively market
the facility in competition with the City of Salem.
Mr. Robert Gravely, 3360 Hershberger Road, N. W., advised that he is not as
concerned about the condition of Victory Stadium as the lack of marketing of the
facility by the City. He stated that citizens do not support attractions at the Roanoke
Civic Center because the average citizen cannot afford the price of a ticket;
therefore, Victory Stadium should be renovated for future use. He advised that there
is a need to create more jobs for Roanoke's citizens, City Council should represent
the citizens of the City of Roanoke and not large business interests, Council must
be accountable and responsible when spending taxpayers' money; and there should
be more diversity in Roanoke City which can be achieved by marketing Roanoke to
all races.
There being no further speakers, Mr. Landon expressed appreciation to all
persons who participated in the meeting.
66
The Mayor expressed appreciation to Mr. Landon for serving as moderator
over the proceedings and declared the meeting adjourned at 10:30 p.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Mayor
67
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
August4,2003
9:00 a.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
August 4, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., the regular meeting hour, in the City Council Chamber,
fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of
Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2,
Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1,
ReGular Meetings, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Resolution
No. 36193-010603 adopted on January 6, 2003, which changed the time of
commencement of the regular meeting of Council to be held on the first Monday in
each month from 12:15 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt, William D.
Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Mayor Ralph K.
Smith ........................................................................................................... 6.
ABSENT: Council MemberAIfred T. Dowe, Jr.- ............................................ 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
COMMITTEES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed'Meeting to discuss vacancies on
certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before
the body.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to
convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
68
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and
Mayor Smith ....................................................................................... -6.
NAYS: None ................................................................................... --0.
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
(The Closed Session was later deferred until the regular meeting of Council on
Monday, August 18, 2003.)
COMMITTEES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss a special award,
being the Shining Star Award, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(10), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, was before the body.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to
convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and
Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... -6'
NAYS: None ...................
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
(The Closed Session was later deferred until the regular meeting of Council on
Monday, August 18, 2003.)
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A
communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in a Closed
Meeting to discuss disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in
open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy
of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, was before the body.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
69
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ 0.
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
(The Closed Session was later deferred until the regular meeting of Council on
Monday, August 18, 2003)
CITY ATTORNEY-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Attorney
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to consult with legal counsel
regarding a specific legal matter requiring the provision of legal advice by counsel,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before
the body.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney
to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and
Mayor Smith ................................................................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ 0.
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
(The Closed Session was later deferred until the regular meeting of Council on
Monday, August 18, 2003.)
At 9:05 a.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess to be reconvened in
the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, for a Joint Meeting
of Council and the City Planning Commission, and briefings by the City Manager.
At 9:10 a.m., the Council Meeting reconvened in Room 159 Emergency
Operations Center Conference Room for a joint meeting of Council and the City
Planning Commission.
70 -
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS PRESENT: Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.,
D. Kent Chrisman, Fredrick Williams, and Richard Rife, Vice-Chair.
ABSENT: Paula L. Prince, Henry Scholz, and Robert B. Manetta, Chairperson.
OTHERS PRESENT: Brian R. Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and
Development; Christopher L. Chittum, Senior City Planner; and Martha P. Franklin,
Secretary, City Planning Commission.
Council Member Dowe entered the meeting.
COUNCIL- COMMUNITY PLANNING- NEIGHBORHOOD PLANS:
PrQiected Timetable for Conclusion of All Neiclhborhood Plans:
Chris Chittum, Senior City Planner, Department of Planning and Building
Development, presented an update on neighborhood plans. He advised that
neighborhood plans started in 1998 in Raleigh Court with the Greater Raleigh Court
Neighborhood Plan and since that time neighborhood planning efforts have been
accelerated. He reviewed a map showing the areas that have been completed, those
areas that are in progress and future areas to be addressed; and advised that
currently 12 neighborhood plans have been adopted by Council, some going back
to 1989 and 1990 (South Roanoke and Greater Deyerle), six neighborhood plans are
underway, three of which are now in the approval process, and will go to the City
Planning Commission later this month, two other neighborhood plans will, and is
hoped to increase the number up to approximately 18 neighborhood plans by the
end of the year. He added that later in the process will be the Hollins/460 East area,
the South Peters Creek area, Garden City and Mill Mountain.
The Carvins Cove Natural Reservoir should be added to the list of
neighborhood plans.
All of the Neighborhood Plans are available to be downloaded on the intranet
and a hard copy will also be available.
The goal is to have all neighborhood plans completed by the end of the year
2004.
71
Given that the Deyerle and South Roanoke Neighborhood Plans predate the
City's 2020 Comprehensive Plan, following completion of all neighborhood
plans, the Deyerle and South Roanoke Neighborhood plans will be updated.
Mr. Chittum reviewed a document entitled: Vision 2001-2020 Implementation
Update which includes elements of Neighborhood plan actions, status,
ongoing efforts or completed tasks and timeframe for completion.
(For full text, see document on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
Discussion:
What will be done to ensure that the time line is implemented? The City
Manager responded that as Neighborhood Plans are adopted, those items will
be lifted out that are of concern to specific neighborhoods and placed in the
Comprehensive Plan; many of the items contained in both the indivi.dual
Neighborhood Plans as well as those in the Comprehensive Plan require
budgetary consideration it is proposed, on an annual basis, to take those
items into account when prioritizing budget recommendations to the Council.
She advised that some projects/items may take years to implement, may need
to be completed in phases, but it is anticipated that vision implementation
update, as well as a summary of requests of issues raised by neighborhoods,
will be used as a building block upon which budget recommendations will be
made; the responsibility of oversight of implementation rests with the
Department of Planning Building and Development and the Department of
Management and Budget.
Two steps might need to be taken: (1) A matrix that contains all of the general
actions called for in the Vision Plan on one access and each of the
neighborhoods on another access to ensure that in each of the Neighborhood
Plans all bases have been covered with respect to the vision goals~ (2) If
actions can be reduced to paper, by making an addition to the adopted
Neighborhood Plan, it would give the neighborhood association and the
people living in the neighborhoods a kind of action agenda to follow in order
to track the progress in the neighborhood toward each of the goals, and
would also serve as a reminder to keep the process from falling behind.
72
It will be necessary to hear from the neighborhoods as to their interests and
respond accordingly.
As a part of Leadership Team meetings, department managers are
encouraged to embrace that part of the Comprehensive Plan that they are
responsible for and the annual report helps to reinforce the relationship and
even through we are looking at a 20 year plan, many of the decisions that City
operating departments make on a daily, weekly and monthly basis over time
tend to add up to accomplishing some of the policy changes and goals;
therefore, City departments are constantly reminded to use the Neighborhood
Plan in connection with how they take on operational decisions as well as
policy planning.
In bringing about the desired results, there must be economic and social
diversity in all City neighborhoods and it will be critical to a number of ideas
to engage a consultant who is progressive and visionary.
The City Manager advised that support of the neighborhoods is important
because some neighborhoods have become so comfortable in being a part of
a particular description that a lot of what is addressed becomes a partnership
between the neighborhood's willingness to look at something different and
a consultant's willingness to expose the City to the opportunity for something
different; therefore, there is a need for not only an enlightened consultant, but
an enlightened citizenry in order to make the recommendations of the
consultant become a reality.
A question was raised regarding the request of a property owner on Frontier
Road (Mr. Shumate) who would like to install a handicapped ramp. Staff advised that
the Zoning Ordinance Committee has reviewed a series of changes to setback
requirements that would allow encroachments into the setback for certain non
enclosed buildings, such as a handicapped ramp or unenclosed porches; and more
flexibility is proposed in the new zoning ordinance for these types of circumstances
to provide ways to allow citizens to do certain things without having to go to the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
73
ZONING SIGNS:
Update on Sign Requlations in the Zoning Ordinance:
Nancy Snodgrass, City Planner, advised that the overall goal of Vision 2001-
2020 is to make Roanoke an attractive place for people of all ages, backgrounds, and
income levels to live, work, and play, which requires not only sound social and
economic policies, ut also a strong commitment to excellence in community design
and appearance.
She reviewed recommended actions in Vision 2001-2020, as follows:
(1) Revise the Zoning Ordinance to strengthen site development,
landscaping, and signage requirements in village centers.
(2) Review development codes to ensure regulations that encourage
quality development and protection of public health, welfare and safety.
City desion principals of Vision 2001-2020 include:
Local and regional commercial centers and commercial corridors.
Visual clutter and excessive lighting should be discouraged.
Signs should be consolidated and co-located on single displays or
monuments attractively designed.
Signs (public and private) should be limited in number and scaled in
size to minimize visual clutter.
The purpose of developing a statement regarding signs is to protect property values,
to provide an attractive economic and business climate, physical appearance of the
City, to protect the scenic and natural beauty of certain areas, and to prevent
distractions, hazards and obstructions; keys to understanding sign regulatory
concepts are: what is a sign, what are the different types of signs, and how is sign
area and permitted allotment calculated; the definition of a sign is any object, device,
structure, fixture or placard, or portion thereof, using graphics, symbols, and/or
written copy designed specifically for the purpose of advertising, identifying,
directing or attracting attention to any establishment, product, goods, service or
activity; freestanding signs include monument and pole type signs and attached
signs include bracket, awning, canopy or marquee, wall, projecting and window.
74
In reviewing the definition of a sign area - Consideration No.1 - Support Structure:
Shall not enclose any portion of the support structure (supports, uprights on which
sign is placed or wall to which sign is attached), provided the sign does not include
any message, logo, or emblem; and Consideration No. 2 - Individual Letters: Entire
area encompassing all elements of the matter displayed and Signs within a Frame:
entire area including any frame or border.
Ms. Snodgrass reviewed the basis for sign area calculation and advised that
the proposed draft provides for: freestanding and attached signage calculated
separately, freestanding sign area allotment tied to lot frontage and attached sign
area allotment - tied to linear frontage of building. With regard to double faced signs,
the committee consensus is only one side of a double faced sign counts toward the
sign area allotment, provided that faces are parallel or not placed at more than a 45
degree angle.
She reviewed samples of signs and issues associated with the signs; and
other issues include placement of wall signs, prohibition of certain types of signs and
wall signs above a certain height; and reported the following on outdoor advertising:
Billboards - location and size:
Commercial Corridor and Downtown Districts - maximum 300 square feet
Light Industrial and Heavy Industrial Districts - maximum of 672 square feet
Ten per cent embellishment permitted
Billboards-s acin :
350 feet - same side of street
300 feet - residential district
250 feet - school, library, church, museum, or park
250 feet - 1-581 and Roy L. Webber Expressway
660 feet - Blue Ridge Parkway
500 feet - boundary/collector - arterial
75
In closing, she advised that the next steps will include compilation of the draft
sign ordinance, review by the Steering Committee, public review and comment phase
and Steering Committee assessment.
Discussion:
For every linear foot of Iow frontage, there would be one foot of free standing
sign face allocation, or for every linear foot of building frontage, there would
be one square foot of building sign allocation.
The City was disappointed when the General Assembly did not elect to
authorize enabling legislation to enact lighting conditions; the City is limited
in what it can do regarding sign lighting and outdoor lighting in parking lots,
and had the State passed enabling legislation, the City could have required
lumens, etc.
The number of hours that committee members have devoted to the zoning
ordinance update is incredible, and staff should keep a tally of the number of
volunteer hours expended by citizens. Is there a way to provide incentives for
property owners to develop better signage? The City Manager responded that
"opportunities are available and it is possible for the Industrial Development
Authority and the City's Economic Development Department to look at
incentives, particularly with regard to rehabilitation done by various
businesses.
The proposed new ordinance differentiates between changing a sign and
changing a sign face which are two different things, one of which basically
says if the sign structure is in place the day the new ordinance is adopted, the
sign structure itself is grandfathered which allows a change out of the face of
the sign and still maintains its non conforming status; therefore, the sign face
can be interchanged and the nonconformity issue does not come into play.
There being no further business, at 10:00 a.m., Vice-Chair Rife declared the
meeting of the City Planning Commission adjourned.
Following a brief recess, the Council's work session continued.
76 ¸
PARKS AND RECREATION:
Parks and Mill Mountain Zoo U;)date:
Beth Poff, Executive Director, Mill Mountain Zoo, Inc., presented a video in
regard to the future of the Mill Mountain Zoo. She advised that a new office structure
is under construction, and a log home structure was donated to the zoo which is
currently under construction with volunteer labor and materials. She stated that the
Mill Mountain Zoo has been accredited with the American Zoo Association (AZA)
since 1995, approximately 2000 facilities throughout the United States are USDA
approved, but only 180 are AZA accredited. She called attention to marketing efforts
through public service announcements; and advised that 60 per cent of the zoo's
budget is derived through persons who visit the zoo and purchase food or gift items;
Roanoke City accounts for approximately 48 per cent of visitation, with visitors from
the immediate three county area, and the other half consists of tourists who travel
100 miles or more to the area; approximately 2,800 households are members of the
zoo and pay admissions taxes, sales taxes, and payroll taxes, therefore, the zoo
contributes not only back to the community, but provides employment for up to five
individuals from entry level positions starting at the gift shop to the more higher end
positions. She expressed appreciation for the City's assistance over the past years
with regard to a renewed lease agreement which will expire in 2006, renovation of
buildings, construction of a new back road access to the zoo, upgrade to the
electrical system, and further growth and improvement of the zoo.
Ms. Poff called attention to three issues on which the zoo is requesting the
City's assistance; i.e.: a $175,000.00 capital request for water improvements, the
need to look at creative ways to address parking; and support of signage th rough the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) on Route 220 and 1-581.
There was discussion with regard to the signage request; whereupon, Ms. Poff
advised that the zoo is willing to pay for signage; however, VDOT is currently
reviewing revised guidelines for the revised TAD system and it is a matter of
determining whether VDOT will make a decision based on old guidelines or wait until
new guidelines are approved which may not occur in the near future.
In a discussion, it was stated that there should be close coordination between
the City's Master Planning process, the City's parks, and plans for the Mill Mountain
Zoo; many persons want to keep most of Mill Mountain undeveloped, therefore, the
question was raised as to whether the Board of Directors of the Zoo has considered
the feasibility of a second campus for expansion without having to deal with the
constraints and topography of Mill Mountain.
77
Ms. Poff responded that when a decision was made as to the size of zoo that
the it was decided as to what size zoo there Roanoke area would support year in and
year out, it was believed that an eight acre facility would be best for a community the
size of Roanoke; after the decision was made, the Board of Directors worked with the
then Mill Mountain Development Committee, which is now the Mill Mountain Advisory
Committee, for approval of a Master Plan for the eight acres, and currently, the zoo
operates on approximately five and one-half acres of land, with room to grow.
There was discussion with regard to parking, which is currently in a holding
pattern until Mill Mountain Park as a whole proceeds through the Master Plan
process; whereupon, Ms. Poff advised that satellite types of parking are under
consideration and it is also a good time for the Board of Directors and the Mill
Mountain Advisory Committee to develop a plan for approximately 230 parking
spaces to support activities on the mountain.
Mr. Fitzpatrick expressed concern with regard to the zoo in its current location
because it will never be the kind of zoo that it deserves to be on top of Mill Mountain.
He encouraged the Board of Directors to think about 50 years from now instead often
years from now, because Roanoke deserves a better zoo than eight acres; when Mill
Mountain was a children's zoo, it had a much better chance of attracting major
crowds because there were no other children's zoos close by; as a region there
needs to be an understanding of what should be done in order to have a great zoo
which would encompass more than eight acres of land and provide other amenities,
including water, etc.
Ms. Poff advised that she would prefer to use the word "charming" instead of
"small" to describe the Mill Mountain Zoo, Mill Mountain is one of the smallest
accredited zoos in the country; and a 20, 30 or 50 acre facility would require a $20 -
$50 million expenditure per year.
HOUSING/AUTHORITY:
Scattered Site Development:
John R. Baker, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, presented slides of certain single family infill development in the City of
Roanoke that the Redevelopment and Housing Authority has developed on its own,
and some with other developers. With regard to the Lincoln 2000, HOPE VI project,
he advised that the inventory of public housing in the City of Roanoke was reduced
by demolishing 145 units of public housing, to both reduce the density in Lincoln
Terrace and to reduce the overall inventory of public housing in the City of Roanoke;
the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority has also indicated a strong
78
interest, as new public housing is developed in the future, to address more scattered
site bases, to integrate into neighborhoods, and to provide economic diversity in the
neighborhoods, rather than building large areas of public housing as was done in the
1950's and 1960's. He stated that as 145 units of public housing were demolished,
single family and duplex homes are being rebuilt which will be available for sale in
approximately 36 months; he showed slides of a house on Dunbar Street in the
Washington Park area, which is one of the houses that the Housing Authority just
completed that contains three bedrooms, two baths, handicap accessible and
assessed at $86,000.00 which was recently occupied. He also showed slides of other
houses and amenities in each, such as a fire place, accessible and easily obtainable
pantry and counter space, a deck, 1300 square feet of living space, etc., which will
also be available for home ownership.
Mr. Baker advised that the sale price of the houses on Dunbar Street are in the
range of $40,000.00 plus, with at least two bathrooms, and most of the houses
needed rehabilitation while being sensitive to providing housing that is compatible
with the overall character of the neighborhood.
The City Manager advised that quite often when the City acquires properties,
provides the necessary rehabilitation to maintain the original structure and certain
other amenities to make the structure a home ownership house for the future, more
money is invested in the house than the sale value of the house. However, she stated
that certain intangibles are involved in the process which begins with improvement
of housing stock in the neighborhood by encouraging neighbors in the immediate
vicinity to make improvements. She explained that initially, costs could be more than
the initial value of the home; however, it is necessary to look at the long term benefit
insofar as the overall impact to the neighborhood.
Mr. Baker addressed questions in regard to lease purchase to promote
diversity, not of housing choice, but of economic status of individuals in the
neighborhoods. He advised that one specific house referred to in his presentation
was a lease purchase arrangement that required the Housing Authority to wait for the
family to save enough money for a down payment to qualify for a mortgage; other
houses under the lease purchase option provide that the Housing Authority will build
the house with public housing funds, a Iow to moderate income person below 80 per
cent of the median would reside in the house and the resident would have up to 36
months to purchase the house, with the mortgage amount to be based on the
homeowner's ability to pay.
The City Manager advised that many of the properties referred to by Mr. Baker
are those properties that the City has made funds available to the Housing Authority
to purchase at delinquent tax auctions in order to place houses on infill lots in the
79
City; there has been a concern that someone could purchase the lot and hold it for
speculative purposes, which could mean that the land would remain as a vacant
piece of property for many years. She stated that for the last 18 months, the City has
been an active participant with the Housing Authority to identify either homes or
vacant lots that would be good candidates for infill housing.
There was discussion with regard to the size of the yard; whereupon, Mr. Baker
advised that the Housing Authority has tried to duplicate lot sizes on the block, and
one Member of Council stated that it would be better to err on the side of providing
extra yard area than not enough, especially if families with young children reside in
the houses.
The City Manager referred to dialogue with Council Members regarding the
Patterson Avenue area and the need to revitalize the area, as well as a vehicle to
upgrade Mountain View to a historic home and discontinue use of the facility for
Parks and Recreation purposes. She referred to an apartment building owned bythe
Housing Authority in the same area, and inquired if there is an interest by Council in
working with the Housing Authority toward certain creative alternative uses and
funding sources, in addition to a funding source that has already been identified by
the Housing Authority. She stated that it could be used as a pilot for addressing the
Patterson Avenue and West End area of the City.
There was discussion that the City of Roanoke does not have a growing
population base, more than likely the family that moves into one house is moving out
of another house, therefore, the chain continues; whereupon, the City Manager
advised that the City has gone to great lengths to develop the Riverside Center and
with the plan for new jobs, it is hoped that there will be housing choices in Roanoke
City that allow people to make a choice to live in the City of Roanoke, versus
neighboring jurisdictions. She stated that the population is growing as a region, but
today the City of Roanoke does not have the housing choices that give people the
options they need to live in the City. In the case of affordable housing, she advised
that someone will vacate a housing unit, move into another unit, but unfortunately the
person who moves in is not always a City resident, so there is the challen0e of
supporting not only Roanoke's own population of Iow and moderate income
residents, but persons from other communities; therefore, on the entire continuum
of housing, there is a need to start tearing down or closing down substandard
housing units in the City.
There was discussion in regard to the boarding up of houses when they
become vacant and the question was raised as to whether the City can prohibit the
boarding up of houses; whereupon, the City Manager advised that under current
State Code, cities and other communities are limited on how active they can be in a
particular property so that a homeowner or landlord does have the choice of boarding
up the property and as long as the property owner keeps the grass cut and if the
appearance of the exterior is in a reasonable condition, there is not a lot that the City
can do to prompt the owner to remove the boards and improve the home. She
explained that the house must be in very poor condition, and subject to demolition,
or unpaid taxes, before the City has the potential to intervene. She advised that the
City has about 200 houses that are past the point of repair that need to be
demolished, it will take approximately two years to demolish all of the properties,
which will leave a vacant piece of property to be addressed by either encouraging the
property owner to donate or sell the lot for infill housing, or the property could reach
the point that there are enough liens for a tax sale.
Mr. Cutler referred to a communication from Chairman Fink dated June 24,
2003, regarding to a draft statement of purpose and expectations for the City of
Roanoke and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, which provides
for an evaluation of the relationship between the Housing Authority and the City; and
the document also states that the Housing Authority is in the process of founding a
consortium to coordinate all housing related initiatives in the City of Roanoke in
order to minimize duplication and to maximize efficiency. Mr. Baker advised that the
document is a work in progress and Dr. Cutler suggested that a copy of the statement
be forwarded to the Members of Council and that the draft statement be the topic of
discussion at a future work session of the Council and the Housing Authority.
Discussion:
In looking at the different income levels, values in housing, and interactions
of the market, there is a need to engage in discussions with regard to all
different forms of housing, and it should be taken into consideration that
persons who are in the market for condominiums, homes and other housing
options are generally looking in the urban center and do not expect to find
those forms in the suburbs. This is an avenue that should be explored to look
at potential opportunities.
The opportunity for the City to partner with the Housing Authority is greater
today than ever before.
81
STREETS AND ALLEYS:
Pavement Cut Policy:
Phillip Schirmer, City Engineer, presented a briefing on the City's pavement cut
policy. He explained that any work within the public street right of way requires a
street opening permit; currently City crews, both utility crews as well as public works
crews, are exempt from acquiring permits; a permit costs $36.00; authority to
regulate work in public streets is contained in the City Code; and approximately 2,000
utility cuts occur within the City each year, which includes either cuts by the City of
Roanoke, or by utility companies and telecommunications providers. He presented
slides of typical utility pavement cuts throughout the City.
The City Manager advised that the City has stepped up its efforts to ensure that
utility companies repair pavement cut areas and meet warranty terms.
The City Engineer advised that the City does not currently have a written policy
or standards to detail restoration service; the City has not traditionally accepted
repairs to pavement that have been questionable, but the City has accepted less than
first quality work, therefore, staff is drafting a new policy for utility cuts in the public
rights- of- way, which is a work in progress and is approximately 90 per cent
complete. He stated that the City recognizes that there is an obligation to
accommodate utilities in public streets rights- of- way, the City wishes to maximize
the life of its public infrastructure, including street pavement and sidewalks, while
addressing the public safety and minimizing inconvenience to those persons who
use public streets and sidewalks.
The City Manager advised that the City has stepped up its efforts to ensure that
utility companies are required to repair pavement cut areas and meet warranty terms.
She also advised that people in the City of Roanoke tend to park on sidewalks; the
matter has been addressed through enforcement efforts which have been met with
mixed results; in addition to City Code requirements, the community needs to, in a
proactive way, take the position that parking on City sidewalks is an unacceptable
practice, because of the damage to sidewalks and expenses associated with repairs.
Dr. Cutler advised that City employees and citizens should be discouraged
from parking on grass as well, because the capability of the soil to support
vegetation is destroyed.
The City Engineer called attention to the following areas for improvement: to
be proactive in inspections, with follow up warranty inspection; improved standards
to publish standards for repairs by addressing workmanship, materials and
timeliness of repairs; and continue to improve coordination and communication with
utility company providers. He advised that the City will require contractors to certify
backfill material density to ensure 95 per cent compaction of material, which is
82
essential to demonstrate that the contractor has achieved the best in terms of
compacting material; all utility cuts will be included in a database to provide the
capability of identifying the utility company, or the contractor responsible for the
work by location and date of work; and a limit on the number of open permits
(currently there is no upper threshold on the number of permits that are allowed and
Roanoke Gas Company can have as many as 100 or more open permits, with an
average of 70 - 80 pavement cuts a month).
Mr. Schirmer advised that the goal is to inspect the work upon completion and
within 30 days followed by an I1 month inspection to check for defects; and if the
contractor or utility company fails to make the proper repairs, the City will make the
repairs and bill the contractor/utility company accordingly. He stated that permit
accountability is intended to ensure that when a permit is Issued, contractors know
they are accountable for the utility cut until it is repaired in a satisfactory manner. He
advised that under the proposed new policy, contractors will be given three options
for use of backfill material; the City's first preference is to use native materials, or the
best materials from the dirt that came out of the hole; in the event that materials
cannot be re-used, select imported material can be used; and the third option is
called controlled density backfill, or flowable fill, which is a concrete product that is
costly, but almost foolproof.
He addressed improved communications and advised that monthly liaison
meetings will be held with utility contractors and the utility companies to share
schedules regarding redevelopment areas; City staff will prepare a two year forecast
of paving schedules, which could be placed on the Internet with the City's GIS
technology, which will also show the last time a street was paved, the schedule for
street paving this year so that contractors can plan their work in advance, and if a
street is torn up after it is paved by the City the contractor will be responsible for the
necessary repairs. He addressed permit fees which are currently $36.00, but do not
cover the City's current cost per permit; approximately two hours of staff time is
involved, or $100.00 based upon the current charge out rate, therefore, an adjustment
in the permit fee is necessary; many cities have gone to what is called a pavement
degradation fee, which is a sliding fee structure based on the diminished life of a
pavement after a utility cut which has decreased the life of the pavement; the fee is
not in lieu of expenses associated with making the repair, but the fee that would be
assessed and rolled back into the paving program to cover the cost of the diminished
pavement life. He explained the proposed fee is based upon current repaving costs
which are approximately $50.00 per square yard to pave City streets, and the
proposal would provide if a one year old pavement is cut, the contractor would be
assessed a fee equal to about nine per cent of the cost of repaving the street and
from that point, fees would be assessed on a sliding scale basis.
83
A question was raised in regard to installing utilities underground when
repaving occurs; whereupon, Mr. Schirmer advised that underground utilities are
outlined in the City's Comprehensive Plan, the expense of under grounding utilities
usually falls upon the person desiring that the utilities be placed underground, and
the only areas of the City where undergrounding can be required are special
redevelopment areas and the C-3 District.
The City Manager clarified that undergrounding of utilities is required for new
housing developments in the City.
Mr. Schirmer advised that the next step will be to finalize the written policy to
develop a fee structure as a part of the policy and certain City Code amendments will
be required.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
CELEBRATIONS:
Mr. Cutler inquired about the status of EventZone; whereupon, the City
Manager advised that the contract with EventZone has not been executed due to a
question regarding insurance coverage; therefore, the first quarterly payment has
not been issued to the organization. She stated that the Executive Director is aware
of the issue and is attempting to make the necessary adjustments.
ITEMS LISTED ON THE 2:00 P.M. COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING
DISCUSSION/CLARIFICATION; AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE 2:00 P.M.
DOCKET:
SCHOOLS-LEGISLATION:
With regard to agenda item 6.a.1 .- Endorsement of additional State funding for
education, Mayor Smith inquired as to how funds will be made available by the State;
whereupon, the City Manager advised that there has been no prejudgement on how
funds will be allocated. She called attention to the JLARC study relative to
deficiencies in the funding for education; the State Board of Education has recently
suggested a significant increase in the amount of State funds for education for the
upcoming year, but State Board of Education support does not suggest to the
General Assembly how or where to find the money, only that education should be a
priority. She advised that the resolution before the Council speaks to the number of
positions that are already funded with local monies that would, in effect, be eligible
for State funding, which would free up additional local funds for either reuse by the
schools, or for reallocation in some other way. She stated that this is a very
ambitious request of the State, given the economy and the condition of the State
generally.
84
COUNCIL: Council Member Dowe addressed security issues in the Council
Chamber, especially in view of the recent shooting of a Council Member in New York
City, and asked that the Councilman be remembered in a moment of silence at the
2:00 p.m. Council session.
It was the consensus of Council that security issues should be discussed with
the City Manager in a more private setting.
Council Member Dowe requested that Council join in a moment of silence for
Honorable James Davis, and the Mayor asked that Council also remember comedian,
Bob Hope, who recently passed away.
Council Member Fitzpatrick advised that during their lifetime, numerous
persons have made many notable contributions to the City of Roanoke, were not
remembered upon their passing in a moment of silence during a formal Council
setting; therefore, he asked that Council exercise caution so as not to set a
precedent.
COMPLAINTS - ANIMALS/INSECTS: Council Member Bestpitch requested a
status report by the City Attorney on actions taken by the City to date in regard to the
excessive number of dogs that were housed in a private residence on Walnut Avenue,
S.W. The City Attorney reported that with the assistance by the Angels of Assisi, the
dogs were transported to a location in Patrick County.
At 1:00 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for one Closed
Session, to be held in the Council's Conference Room.
At 1:25 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened for a briefing in Valley Metro's
Specialized Transit-Arranged Rides (S.T.A.R. Services).
BUSES: David Morgan, General Manager, Valley Metro, presented information
on the S.T.A.R. Services - Specialized Transit - Arranged Rides. He advised that:
Valley Metro contracts with Unified Human Services Transportation, Inc.,
(also known as RADAR) to provide specialized transportation for
residents of the Roanoke Valley who have a physical or mental condition
which would prohibit them from using standard public transportation,
such as Valley Metro's fixed route bus service.
The entire City of Roanoke, Town of Vinton and City of Salem are service.
areas and hours of operation are 5:45 a.m. to 8:45 p.m., Monday through
Saturday.
85
Applications for qualification for ridership are submitted to Valley Metro
for review and a determination is made on eligibility. All decisions are
based on the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) guidelines and
regulations.
Under the current contract between Valley Metro and RADAR, Valley
Metro pays a total of $13.85 per one-way trip, less the rider's collected
fare. The collected fare per trip is $2.50 (which is the maximum allowed
by the ADA.
Annual Expenses:
Fiscal year 2001
Fiscal year 2002
Fiscal year 2003
Fiscal year 2004
*budgeted
$317,299.92
$343,298.55
$452,289.43
$484,750.00*
32,000 trips
31,500 trips
35,000 trips
Valley Metro and RADAR work together to provide valuable
transportation services to qualified individuals. Valley Metro takes all
applications, confirms certification, notifies clients, and handles all daily
fare ticket sales, as well as monthly pass sales, for the S.T.A.R. service.
RADAR conducts the curb-to-curb service, and their drivers are trained
in passenger assistance, defensive driving, CPR and wheelchair
securement procedures to make the trip safe and enjoyable for all
passengers.
As a part of the contract, Valley Metro monitors the performance of
RADAR through spot checks, maintenance reports on equipment and
ensures that training of operators is up to speed.
Mr. Morgan advised that several certified passengers have requested to be
transported from Roanoke City to Roanoke County for various purposes, which
requests have been denied because Roanoke County is out of the service area; two
issues should be addressed: (1) cost - RADAR is open to amending its contract to
provide the service on a surcharge basis in the range of $7.00 - $8.00 per trip each
way, with the potential of as many as 20 - 40 trips per day to sites in Roanoke County.
He explained that if a passenger lives in Roanoke County and if their destination is
in the county, the rider must use CORTRAN and pay the $3.50 fare and if their
destination is in Roanoke City, or in the City's service area, they will use S.T.A.R.; and
the Town of Vinton is the only locality in the Roanoke Valley to participate in both
RADAR and CORTRAN. (CORTRAN serves Roanoke County and does not transport
riders into Roanoke City, RADAR serves Roanoke City and does not transport riders
into Roanoke County, and the Town of Vinton is located within Roanoke County,
therefore, the Town uses both transportation systems.)
86
There was discussion with regard to looking at the broader issue, one in which
Valley Metro would serve as the region's transportation agency, with creation of
State or Federal inducements; Council can move the issue forward by encouraging
discussions at regional forums with other elected officials from surrounding
localities.
Further discussion centered around providing service for one subset of the
population who have physical and/or mental disabilities that preclude them from
using the regular transportation service, as opposed to all other citizens in the City
who may wish to reach a specific destination in Roanoke County by bus; therefore,
the issue of public transportation policy should be looked at from the broader need
of the entire community and not just one segment of the community.
Following further discussion, it was the consensus of Council to refer the
matter to the General Manager of Valley Metro and to the City Manager for report
back to the Council and to the Board of Directors of the Greater Roanoke Transit
Company with regard to available options that could be pursued in addressing the
broad picture.
At 1:50 p.m., the Council meeting was declared in recess to be reconvened at
2:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber.
At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, August 4, 2003, the Council meeting reconvened in
the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church
Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt, William D.
Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith ........................................................................................ 7.
ABSENT:None ........................................................ ~.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend Rawleigh W. Quarles,
Pastor, Staunton Avenue Church of God.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Smith.
Council Member Dowe requested a moment of silence in memory of the late
James E. Davis, a New York City Council Member, who was shot by a political rival
in the balcony of the Council Chamber at City Hall on July 24, 2003.
87
· PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution
designating Ms. Pearl Fu as an Honorary Goodwill Ambassador at Large for thG City
of Roanoke, in recognition of her many contributions to the cultural richness of the
community:
(#36442-080403) A RESOLUTION recognizing Pearl Fu as an honorary Goodwill
Ambassador at Large for the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 1.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36442-080403. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick and
Mayor Smith ....................................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ 0.
The Mayor presented Ms. Fu with a ceremonial copy of the above referenced
resolution and a Star Basket containing items made in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-CITY GOVERNMENT: The Mayor recognized the
following participants in the City's 2003 Summer Internship Program:
Ashley Reynolds- a rising Senior at Hollins University, who interned in
the Office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court;
Jamie Staples - a rising Senior at Longwood College, who interned at
the Roanoke Civic Center;
Marcus Croson - a December 2002 graduate of Norfolk State University,
who interned in the Department of Finance;
John Barrett - a rising Junior at Virginia Tech, who interned in the
Department of Technology;
Sarah Krieger - a Graduate Student from Radford University, who
interned in the General Services Department;
Shayla Evans - a rising Senior at Virginia State, who interned in the
Department of Real Estate Valuation;
Joshua Mabrey - a rising Senior at Pensacola Christian College, who
interned in the Billings and Collections Department;
88 -
Tanicka McKinnon - a 2003 graduate of Virginia Tech, who interned in
the Economic Development Department;
Kevin Saunders - a rising Junior at Davidson College, who interned at
the Wastewater Treatment facility;
Benjamin Crew - a rising Senior at Virginia tech, who interned in the
Department of parks and Recreation; and
Steve Grenoble, Justin Reynolds, Ben Gilmer and Wes Ketron - rising
Seniors at Radford University, and Nicole Paynotta, a 2003 Graduate of
the University of Virginia, who interned in the Engineering Department
and assisted with the Storm Water GIS project.
The Mayor expressed appreciation to each student for their participation in the
program and presented them with a City of Roanoke logo lapel pin.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by one
motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if discussion was
desired, that item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately.
MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meetings of Council held on Monday,
December 18, 2000; Monday, June 2, 2003; and Monday, June 16, 2003, were before
Council.
Mr. Dowe moved that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and that the
Minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ...................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .................................................................................... -0.
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT: A
communication from Carol Tuning tendering her resignation as a member of the
Personnel and Employment Practices Commission, effective immediately, was before
Council.
89
Mr. Dowe moved that the communication be received and filed and that the
resignation be accepted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ 0.
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-HOUSING/AUTHORITY-PERSONNEL
DEPARTMENT-FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION: The following reports of
qualification were before Council:
Alphonzo L. Holland, Sr., as a member of the Personnel and
Employment Practices Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2006;
Gregory W. Feldmann as a Commissioner of the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority, for a term ending August 31,
2006; and
Ralph K. Smith and R. Brian Townsend as members of the Roanoke
Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission, for terms ending June 30, 2006.
Mr. Dowe moved that the reports of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ................................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ 0.
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS:NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
ARMORY/STADIUM-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: Mr. Harris moved that Council
rescind its previous action to construct an $18 million stadium/amphitheater on
Orange Avenue and Williamson Road. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
90 -
Mr. Harris advised that in order for the project to go forward, it should have
broad community support because of the amount of money that is involved and the
long term implications that the project will have should it be constructed; his sense
of the community is that support does not exist; and there appears to be three
primary concerns related to the project; i.e.: the amount of sentiment in the
community regarding maintenance and renovation of Victory Stadium, concerns
relative to the dual nature of the stadium/amphitheater and the possibility of building
two diluted facilities, and the cost of the stadium/amphitheater project, given the
current needs of the community. He advised that Council made a unanimous
decision in May 2001 to proceed with the project; however, his role and responsibility
as an elected Member of City Council is to represent what he considers to be the will
of the community; therefore, several weeks ago, he publicly shared his concerns
about the stadium/amphitheater project and stated that he could not continue to
support the project in honor of his responsibilities as an elected official to represent
the interests of all citizens of the City of Roanoke. Therefore, Vice-Mayor Harris
stated that it is for those reasons that he offered the motion and co-authored a letter
with Council Member Fitzpatrick advising that they would introduce a motion at
today's Council meeting to rescind the previous motion adopted by Council. He
expressed appreciation to all persons who communicated with him over the past
several weeks which helped to shape his position on the stadium/amphitheater issue.
The Mayor advised that 19 persons had signed up to speak; whereupon, he
called upon Ms. Brenda Hale, 3595 Packwood Drive, S. W., who advised that the most
precious commodity of the Roanoke Valley is its youth who deserve the best
opportunities that are available, both now and in the near future. She stated that the
Roanoke community deserves the same consideration; a new stadium/amphitheater
would provide unlimited opportunities for the City of Roanoke and indecisions must
be laid to rest; when the visionaries conceived the Mill Mountain Star, they pressed
on with a dream; and there is an opportunity to have a second icon, which will be
unique to the Roanoke Valley - a new stadium/amphitheater that could provide
unlimited revenue return for many years to come. She stated that change is difficult
to come by in the Roanoke Valley, but cities, like individuals, must go through change
which leads to growth and development, in order to be competitive and to place the
locality in a win/win situation; and the dream will not only benefit the Roanoke
community, but encourage individuals from other cities and states to visit the Star
City. She encouraged Council to abide by its previous decision to construct a new
stadium/amphitheater at the Orange Avenue/VVilliamson Road site in an effort to
continue to move the City of Roanoke forward.
91
Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., expressed opposition to the
proposed new stadium/amphitheater, and concern with regard to other facilities in
Roanoke City that are not used and have not been properly marketed by the City;
therefore, he urged that Victory Stadium be properly renovated and marketed. He
called attention to traffic concerns at the Roanoke Civic Center and advised that if a
new stadium/amphitheater is constructed at the Orange Avenue/Williamson Road
location, traffic congestion will be compounded. He asked that Council allow the
citizens of the City of Roanoke to decide on how their tax dollars will be spent.
Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridge Crest Road, Hardy, Virginia, advised that Council is
not listening to the wishes of the taxpayers who want Victory Stadium to be
renovated. He stated that Victory Stadium is a City historic landmark that should be
preserved and suggested that the Parks and Recreation Department be moved from
its present location on Reserve Avenue to the stadium site, which would enable
construction of an amphitheater on Reserve Avenue at the current location of the
Parks and Recreation building. He also spoke in support of renovating Victory
Stadium in memory of World War II veterans; and out of respect for World War il
veterans, he encouraged the City to fly a United States Flag at Victory Stadium.
Mr. John Kelley, 2909 Morrison Street, S. E., expressed concern with regard to
traffic congestion if the stadium/amphitheater is constructed on the Orange Avenue
site. He also expressed concern with regard to costs and advised that the debt of
Roanoke City is at an all time high, having risen from $800.00 per person prior to the
arrival of City Manager Burcham to $2,000.00 per person currently, which is the
State's mandatory limit. He stated that the overwhelming majority of citizens believe
that there is more to the issue than the location of a new stadium; i.e.: could it be
that Carilion Health Care Corporation or the new Biotech would like to acquire the
land for future expansion, and it could be that some Members of City Council, either
knowingly or unknowingly, have been used to change the stadium site so that these
two groups can gain access to the property. If the rumor is true, he stated that there
should be an investigation of the allegations. In the interest of the total Roanoke
community, he requested that Council place the matter on the November ballot to
enable the citizens of the City of Roanoke to vote on the fate of Victory Stadium.
Ms. Liz Rodriguez, 120 23rd Street, S. E., advised that Victory Stadium is an
invaluable resource to the Roanoke community, and if the stadium is renovated,
attendance at events will increase. In conclusion, she advised that Victory Stadium
has the potential to be new again, while preserving the history and memories of
Roanoke and its citizens.
Ms. Pat Lawson, 1618 Riverside Terrace, S. E., spoke in support of renovating
Victory Stadium for sentimental and historic preservation reasons.
92
Mr. Dick Kelley, 550 Chaplet Road, S. E., commended the City on the
successful renovation of Jefferson High School and The Hotel Roanoke; and advised
that Roanokers are proud of Victory Stadium and want the facility to be renovated for
use by present and future Roanoke citizens for sporting events that cannot be
accommodated in the proposed smaller facility on Orange Avenue and Williamson
Road. He stated that costs will not be kept to $18 million when taking into
consideration the overpass and tearing down Victory Stadium, relocating the
Schools' transportation facility to the City's salt storage facility, and other grading
and fill material. He called attention to the availability of parking in the Victory
Stadium area, and inquired as to the City's justification if it disregards the signatures
of 7,000 persons who signed petitions in support of saving Victory Stadium.
Mr. E. Duane Howard, 508 Walnut Avenue, S. W., advised that the future of
sports lies not in football, baseball or soccer, but in BMX biking, skateboarding and
what is called the X and gravity games, and the only way that Roanoke can keep its
youth is to accommodate the true sports of the future, by renovating Victory Stadium
and providing a 20,000 - 25,000 seat venue where gravity games can be held. He
suggested that Council ask the youth of Roanoke to state their wishes in regard to
the types of sports activities that interest them.
Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., raised questions in connection
with information provided by the City to the consulting firm of C. H. Johnson; i.e.:
Why was the consultant told that evening events at Victory Stadium would disturb
patients at Carillon Roanoke Memorial Hospital, when recently a spokesperson for
Carillon stated that no disturbances as a result of Victory Stadium activities/events
have been experienced by the hospital. Why was the consultant told that renovation
costs for Victory Stadium and for constructing a new stadium would be the same?
Why would City Council ignore the wishes of citizens who want to keep Victory
Stadium and make it a show place and an asset for Roanokers? She questioned the
remarks of Ken McDonald, a concert promoter, who stated in 2001 that he was
impressed with the creativity of the multi-purpose sports and concert facility,
however, he would probably not spend his own personal money to build such a
facility, but he now speaks in support of construction of the facility.
Mr. Tom Link, 2201 Carolina Avenue, S. W., advised that the person who has
the most to gain from the proposed new amphitheater project is Ken McDonald,
concert promoter. He spoke with regard to the involvement of Mr. McDonald in
venues such as Clear Channel Communications and the NBA formed, Arena
Ventures, owner of the Roanoke Dazzle, which has a five year renewable contract
with the City of Roanoke, whereby the City promised to build the Roanoke Dazzle an
office and other improvements totaling over $5 million, with the guarantee that Clear
Channel Communications would bring 26 - 28 entertainment events to Roanoke each
year, and the Roanoke Dazzle can opt out at the end of 2004 if basketball attendance
has not met projections. He added that the Roanoke Dazzle has experienced
problems in generating an audience, the commitment of Clear Channel
Communications for 26 - 28 other events in either 2002 or 2003 has not been
93
honored, and the guarantee by Clear Channel Communications has not been
enforced bythe City of Roanoke. He also referred to the Nautilus complex in Norfolk,
a $52 million science museum complex that opened in 1994, which has never reached
its projected revenue dreams, was constructed over the projected construction
budget and has reduced its prices on numerous occasions by as much as 44 per cent
in one case alone in its attempt to prop up sagging revenues, and the bond rating for
the City of Norfolk dropped during this period from A to A-I. In conclusion, he
inquired as to why City Council would accept the projections of Clear Channel
Communications when there is ample evidence that its projections are not reliable,
why would City Council place the City of Roanoke at risk of becoming over extended,
making future borrowing more expensive, and why would Council want to make the
City of Roanoke the pawn in an experiment that is designed to benefit the
stockholders of Clear Channel Communications and not the citizens of Roanoke.
Mr. Roy Kinney, 2975 Rosalind Avenue, S. W., advised that Council was elected
to transact the business of the majority of the citizens of the City of Roanoke,
therefore, Council is obligated to make its decisions based on the wishes of the
majority of the electorate.
Mr. Don Baldwin, 2114 Beckley Avenue, S. W., quoted from the C. H. Johnson
consulting report, as follows: "The demand for concerts at such a dual purpose
facility will not approach the levels achieved by single purpose amphitheater
facilities." and "The estimates are that 3 - 5 second or third tier events might use
such a facility in its first few years of operation. Those events would attract
anywhere from 500 to 3,000 attendees, an occasional special concert event may
attract more than 3,000 attendees, but such events are rare." He asked if Council was
aware that a single use amphitheater was never studied; and did Council know that
the City Administration is projecting five events at 7,500 attendees, and not three to
five events with 500 to 3,000 attendees as estimated by the consultant. He advised
that the City Manager is quoted in the newspaper as guaranteeing that the price of
the new stadium will be $18 million; whereupon, he asked if Council Members will
stand behind the City Manager's statement.
Ms. Freda Tate, 3323 Circle Brook Drive, S. W., advised that if Victory Stadium
is renovated, young people will use the facility. She asked that the fate of Victory
Stadium be decided upon by the voters of Roanoke at a referendum.
Ms. Patricia Rodriguez, 120 23rd Street., S. E., advised that the youth of
Roanoke should have the opportunity to experience and to appreciate the history of
Victory Stadium. She stated that the size of Victory Stadium is one of its many
attributes; and surrounding localities would be pleased if the City of Roanoke did not
have Victory Stadium because if a smaller facility is constructed, the competition of
having a stadium that will provide more seating is eliminated. She added that the
majority of Roanoke's citizens favor renovation of Victory Stadium, or the
opportunity to express their views at a public referendum.
94
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke in support of allowing the
citizens of Roanoke to vote on the matter at a public referendum. She stated that
Victory Stadium is a historic landmark and should the City seek historic designation,
tax credits could be used to serve as an economic and revitalization tool for
rehabilitation of Victory Stadium. She added that the City of Roanoke advocates
historic preservation as a part of the City's recently adopted Comprehensive Plan.
Mr. Rick Williams, 3725 Sunrise Avenue, N. W., spoke to the feasibility of
engaging the community in fund raising efforts to either renovate Victory Stadium,
or to construct a new stadium, similar to fund raising efforts for Jefferson High
School and The Hotel Roanoke renovations, with the City of Roanoke providing a
certain percentage of funds. He stated that the arrangement would provide a useful
way of both constructing a new facility, while offering those persons who care deeply
about Victory Stadium to have the opportunity to not only participate in saving the
facility, but also to devise a credible strategy for adaptive reuse, whether or not the
facility continues to function as a stadium.
Mr. Robert Gravely, 3360 Hershberger Road, N. W., spoke with regard to the
marketing of Victory Stadium and ways to attract more people to Roanoke. He
advised that the average wages of City employees are such that they cannot afford
to purchase a house, or the price of tickets to events at the Roanoke Civic Center,
citizens are over taxed, and taxpayers' money should not be spent on the needs of
big business.
Mr. Bill Dreiser, 2506 Stanley Avenue, S. E., advised that a vast number of
Roanokers want Victory Stadium to be renovated.
Ms. Mary Stewart Link, 2201 Carolina Avenue, S. W., concurred in the remarks
of a previous speaker that there are many citizens who would be willing to contribute
financially to the cost of renovating Victory Stadium; therefore, she expressed
support for the renovation of the facility. She stated that with renovation of Victory
Stadium, the historical value could be retained and the City could have a newly
renovated facility for less money than the cost of the proposed stadium/amphitheater
on Orange Avenue/Williamson Road.
Mr. Wilfred Noel, 2743 North view Drive, S. W., inquired if consideration has
been given to the loss of revenue to the City if a new stadium/amphitheater is
constructed at Orange Avenue/Williamson Road, thus leading to the potential exit of
a prominent business in the Williamson Road area. He stated that other localities
are currently building monuments to World War il veterans, but the City of Roanoke
is talking about demolishing its historic monument to war veterans. He expressed
concern that the Victory Stadium issue is dividing the Roanoke community.
95
Mr. Read Lunsford, 1525 West Drive,S. W., Chair, Flood Plain Committee,
advised that renovations to Victory Stadium must be at a two foot elevation above
the one hundred year flood plain; therefore, if the stadium were to be utilized in
whatever shape, it must start at 12 feet above the flood plain, which is not a good
common sense approach. He stated that Victory Stadium will never be an economic
engine for the City of Roanoke, it will not generate the kind of revenues that a new
stadium/amphitheater combination will create; therefore, he expressed support for
the proposed new stadium/amphitheater at the Orange Avenue/Williamson Road site.
Ms. Barbara N. Duerk, 2607 Rosalind Avenue, S. W., advised that the Victory
Stadium location and design has been an arduous process for over a decade, with
multiple public meetings. She stated that Victory Stadium should be renovated for
use above and beyond school related sports purposes; Roanokers should have a
sense of place and the name of Victory Stadium and McClelland Field should be a
part of any new facility. She asked that Council support the construction of a new
stadium/amphitheater at the Orange Avenue location.
Mr. Bill Tanger, 257 Dancing Tree Lane, Botetourt County, a member of the
City's Flood Plain Committee, advised that flood records date back 100 year.=, and
only one 100 year flood has occurred during that time. He presented Council
Members with a copy of the C. H. Johnson Consulting report and advised that the
report is based on erroneous information provided by the City Administration to the
consultant; and even though the consultant recommended construction of a new
stadium, the recommendation was based on false information. He stated that the
consultant also made numerous negative comments about the hybrid form of
stadium, including deficiencies such as the closest seats being 160 feet away, the
crowned field will cause bad sight lines for those who are seated past the mid line
of the field, the most expensive seats are uncovered, and concert events can damage
the field. In summary, he stated that the consultant's report is based upon false
information regarding the flood plain, parking issues, and noise issues at Carillon
Roanoke Memorial Hospital. He advised that 80 per cent plus of the citizens of
Roanoke have expressed a desire to renovate Victory Stadium, or at the least to not
construct a new stadium.
96
The Mayor read the following excerpt from the report of C. H. Johnson,
Consultant:
"As indicated in the Price, Waterhouse, Coopers data presented at the
beginning of this section, the profit margins of amphitheaters is
shrinking, changing economic influences are forcing shrewd promoters
to assume larger shares of event risks to provide performers with
guaranteed fees, this increased risk for promoters places a premium on
booking shows in larger markets at the most efficient and attractive
facilities in order to minimize exposure to potential losses. The Roanoke
market area has not yet reached the level of population and income
necessary to consistently support larger amphitheater concerts. Some
performers that live off of the smaller crowds of around 5,000 or less
could turn a profit in the Roanoke market, but this would only account
for a few smaller events per year and could not support a large
amphitheater. The more traditional layout and inherent functional
compromises such as a mixed use facility would present would
generally preclude it from attracting more than five or six events per
year. The risk involved in playing a facility with a compromised seating
grid and sight lines would preclude the facility from consideration by
acts that are big enough draws to pick and choose their play dates and
venues. The financial characteristics associated with the entertainment
events that would play in such multi purpose facility would generate
moderate net revenues from an operational standpoint, but would not
generate revenue capable of covering additional capital costs
associated with any permanent stage."
The Mayor advised that the City's own consultant identified shortcomings of
a mixed use facility, and he also called attention to conflicting views from members
of the City's Flood Plain Committee. He referred to telephone calls from persons
throughout the community who have expressed an interest in purchasing Victory
Stadium in order to save the facility.
Mr. Fitzpatrick advised that the stadium/amphitheater is a regional project,
which should involve Roanoke County, the Town of Vinton and the City of Salem, all
deciding together what is needed for the Roanoke Valley as a region. He stated that
an amphitheater is far better for Roanoke's future than the concept of a multi use
facility and if Roanoke builds the right kind of facility, it will generate visitors from as
far away as Washington, northern Virginia, and North Carolina. He added that the
bottom line is that the proposed project does not have Victory Stadium in it, because
it is not known how much it would cost to renovate Victory Stadium and he would be
97
reluctant for the citizens to vote on any project without first understanding the cost;
and estimates to renovate Victory Stadium range from $5 million to $67 million,
however, it is not known if the stadium is structurally sound because the facility has
not been tested. He advised that the bottom line is that there is not sufficient
participation to support Victory Stadium, and if citizens do not attend stadium events,
the facility becomes a cost to the citizens of Roanoke forever; Roanoke needs a
facility that will generate a return on investment and bring money into the
community, and if a regional facility is constructed, the cost can be shared among
local governments of the Roanoke Valley. He stated that funds are not available to
do the kinds of things that have been done in the past, whether it be The Jefferson
Center, or The Hotel Roanoke, or even Victory Stadium, unless there is some form of
additional income from another source. He added that Roanoke has an aging
population that does not want its taxes to increase, young people are leaving the area
to go to other localities because the right kind of jobs are not available; therefore,
the Members of Council must be incredibly responsible to ensure that available
funds are spent wisely, which also supports regional action. He stated that more
research needs to be done on the proposed Orange Avenue/Williamson Road site
to determine if it is a good location, to review all viable opportunities before taking
any action on Victory Stadium, or if a facility might be constructed that would be an
addition to Victory Stadium. He advised that when spending the taxpayers' money,
Council must ensure that it understands what taxpayers are receiving for their money
and that funds are spent on projects that benefit Roanoke's current and future
generations. He explained that the City of Roanoke has not reached the point where
Council can either make a good decision on behalf of the citizens, or bring a project
to the citizens that they can vote on; therefore, he would prefer to stop the
stadium/amphitheater project, review all options and then vote with citizen
involvement on whether to construct a new stadium, whether Victory Stadium should
be renovated, or whether an additional facility such as an amphitheater should be
constructed.
Mr. Cutler advised that the City of Roanoke should construct the new
stadium/amphitheater at Williamson Road and Orange Avenue as a logical expansion
of the Roanoke Civic Center complex; Roanoke's school students have played sports
in an obsolete facility for far too long; if the project stays on course, an innovative
new facility could be open in time for football season in 2006; and if Council adopts
the motion to reconsider the Council's vote which was taken in May 2001 to construct
a new facility, the vote would stop any progress toward this goal for a long time to
come. He stated that time would be needed in order to open debate regarding
alternative sites; and if Victory Stadium, or any other site were decided upon, it would
require at least three more years of design and construction or reconstruction. He
advised that the more he learns about the condition of Victory Stadium's reinforced
concrete structure, or the effect of 61 years of water collecting between the concrete
98
and the reinforcing rod, and deterioration of the stadium's framework, the more
convinced he is as to how expensive reconstruction of the facility will be. Therefore,
he explained that citizens of the City of Roanoke would be looking at $30 million to
rebuild Victory Stadium and to construct a separate amphitheater, versus $18 million
to move ahead with the plan that is currently underway to combine the stadium and
the amphitheater as a part of the Civic Center complex. He stated that he favors
progress on a new stadium/amphitheater on Orange Avenue/Williamson Road and
will oppose the motion to reconsider the Council's previous action.
Mr. Dowe advised that he toured Victory Stadium and observed the dilapidation
of the facility, and saw first hand the damage to the facility as a result of the 1985 and
2003 floods. He stated that Roanoke's citizenry is not only decreasing, but getting
older, therefore, the issue of sustainability must be taken into consideration because
there are not a lot of entertainment venues that will draw 20,000 - 25,000 persons
from the older audience to the facility; and Roanoke is no longer a 25,000 seat
market, therefore, in order to attract 20,000 - 25,000 people to a sporting event, it
would be necessary to have a flagship program such as Virginia Tech at Lane
Stadium in Blacksburg. He stated that when entertainers commit to perform in a
facility, they are looking for a guarantee that the money will be available, regardless
of whether ticket sales are up or down, and they want to entertain in a facility where
they sound good; Victory Stadium was not built for sound but for football, therefore,
the entertainment value of Victory Stadium will not be any different unless there is
cart blanche authority to change the overall feel of the facility. He stated that there
have been some valid concerns relative to traffic at the proposed site on Orange
Avenue which has forced the City to look at creative traffic management and the
scheduling of events, and out of 365 days a year, four events could potentially cause
a problem. He expressed concern that if a referendum is held, a large number of
persons who use Victory Stadium will be eliminated from the vote because they are
not old enough to vote. He stated that it has been a difficult decision to make
because he has had to balance the vision of what would be best for the young people
of Roanoke, with respect and acknowledgment of and for those persons who have
helped to create history.
Mr. Bestpitch advised that an important question was raised over the past few
weeks of discussion; i.e.: what is the basic job of an elected official; an obvious
answer to the question is to represent the will of the majority of the people, but
another obvious answer is to listen to all of the people, to study all available
information on a difficult question, to learn as much as possible, to analyze
information, and to make the best decision that the elected official is capable of
making. He stated that another question that has been raised is whether there is a
private corporate interest in the Victory Stadium site; the City Manager has informed
City Council that officials of Carillon were contacted to inquire in the event that the
99
Victory Stadium property becomes available, if Carilion would have an interest in
acquiring the property, and the response by Carilion was no. He pointed out that the
City of Roanoke currently has a memorial dedicated to veterans who fought during
World War il which is located in Lee Plaza. He called attention to remarks that
Roanoke likes to tear down historic structures; whereupon, he referred to The Hotel
Roanoke, the City Market Building, GOB North which was turned into the Higher
Education Center, GOB South which was turned into 8 Jefferson Place for market
rate apartments, Center in the Square which houses various museums and Mill
Mountain Theater, Jefferson High School which was turned into The Jefferson
Center, the Grandin Theater, the Dumas Hotel which is now in the process of
renovation and expansion for another performing arts venue, the N & W Passenger
Station and the Virginian Railway Passenger Station, and the almost 54 year old star
on Mill Mountain, all of which does not take into account the private commercial
buildings on Salem Avenue, Campbell Avenue, Church Avenue, and Jefferson Street.
He advised that the primary spokesman on the Victory Stadium issue has been Mr.
Brian Wishneff whose proposal has been to renovate Victory Stadium and to build
a separate amphitheater facility; if a separate amphitheater is constructed for only the
purpose of using the facility as an amphitheater, it then becomes clear that the
stadium is for high school sports only; although high school sports are important
and if that is the sole purpose of the stadium, cost comparisons should be made as
to what it would cost to renovate the stadium for high school sports; and it has been
suggested that Victory Stadium could be renovated for as little as $6 million with
historic tax credits, or the number could be as high as $15 million or more. He
referred to events held in Elmwood Park, entertainment that started with Festival in
the Park, the Taste of the Blue Ridge Blues and Jazz Festival, the Henry Street
Festival, the Easter Seal Summer Concert series, the City Market area, the Local
Colors Festival, Center in the Square, The Jefferson Center with Shaftman
Performance Hall, First Union Plaza, the Art Museum and IMAX Theater, venues and
events that are held at The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center, the Dumas Hotel,
the Coliseum and the Auditorium at the Roanoke Civic Center, along with
improvements to upgrade the Civic Center complex; and if a stadium/amphitheater
is constructed on the Orange Avenue/Williamson Road site, the sense of a
contiguous arts and entertainment district for the City of Roanoke will be created
that will provide a scenergy for the area.
Ms. Wyatt advised that it is her job to represent all of the citizens of Roanoke
and to do what she considers to be the right thing. She stated that she would put
Roanoke up against any other city in the nation and in the state when it comes to
historic preservation; however, it has been 15 years since the City of Roanoke built
something new for the future of its children; i.e.: two new swimming pools, one in
Washington Park and one in Fallon Park, which is an indictment about not looking
toward Roanoke's future and the future of its children. She advised that she
100
understands the importance of preserving memories, but memories live in the heart
and not in bricks and mortar, and there comes a point in time when it is necessary
to let go of the past in order to move into the future.
The motion offered by Mr. Harris, seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick, that Council
rescind its previous action to construct a stadium/amphitheater on Orange
Avenue/Williamson Road, was lost by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Smith ....................... 3.
NAYS: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler and Dowe ...................... -4.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS-LEGISLATION: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that Virginia's Joint Legislative Audit and Review
Commission (JLARC) released a report in February2002 that summarized its findings
and recommendations regarding State and local funding of the Standards of Quality
(SOQ); and JLARC suggested that the State Board of Education consider funding
three "tiers" of support for elementary and secondary education:
· Tier 1 - Meeting estimated costs of the SOQ, based on current standards at
current cost levels;
· Tier 2 - Funding costs of practices the majority of school divisions already
engage in, but do not consistently receive State funding for, such as lower
pupil-teacher ratios than prescribed by the SOQ; and
· Tier 3 - Helping to fund capital costs and enhanced teacher salaries.
101
It was further advised that subsequently, Council adopted the 2003 Legislative
Program which supported "restructuring the State's tax system to raise State tax
revenues to generate the additional funding required annually for education;"
Council's Legislative Program also incorporated the Roanoke City School Board's
Legislative Program that called on the General Assembly "to improve its share of
funding public education based on the results of the JLARC study;" and most
recently, the Board of Education agreed on May 28 to a set of SOQ modifications that,
in large part, addresses the JLARC "Tier 2" recommendations, including the
following:
One full-time principal in each elementary school
One full-time assistant principal for each 400 students in each school
Additional elementary resource teachers for art, music and physical
education
Reduction in the secondary school pupil to teacher ratio from 25:1 to
21:1 to support scheduled planning time for secondary teachers
Reduction in the speech language pathologist caseload from 68 to 60
students
Two technology positions per 1,000 students in grades K-12 division-
wide
One full-time reading specialist per 1,000 students
These chanqes would add 158.8 positions in Roanoke and qenerate $4.4 million in
additional State revenue, if fully funded; 116 of these positions are already beinq
locally funded, meaninq that only 42.8 positions would actually have to be added at
a cost of $2.1 million; and the net effect then would be an increase of $2.3 million in
State revenue that could be used to fund other priority school initiatives.
It was explained that at the same time that Virginia localities have been
struggling to adequately fund elementary and secondary education, higher education
in Virginia has also been besieged by unprecedented State funding cuts that have
resulted in teaching and administrative staff reductions, reduced course offerings for
students, and increased tuitions and fees for both in-state and out-of-state students.
It was further explained that to serve as an advocate for quality education in
Virginia, "The Alliance for Virginia's Students" was formed by four founding
organizations that are committed to providing Virginia's students - kindergarten
through college - with the best possible education and are working together to
achieve that common goal; collectively, they represent thousands of Virginians who
have a compelling interest in the education of all Virginians; the organizations
include the Virginia Education Coalition, the Virginia Business Higher Education
102
Council, including public college presidents, Virginia First Cities Coalition, and the
Virginia Association of Counties; and to help bring this important issue to the
attention of the General Assembly in advance of its next session, the Alliance is
asking participants to adopt a resolution endorsing additional State funding for
education.
The City Manager advised that Roanoke has been an active participant in the
efforts of Virginia First Cities Coalition to promote education funding reform in
Virginia; therefore, to continue this effort, she recommended that Council adopt a
resolution endorsing additional State funding for education, that a copy of the
resolution be forwarded to state legislators; and that Council include the issue in the
2004 Legislative Program for the 2004 Session of the Virginia General Assembly.
Mr. Cutler offered the following resolution:
(#36443-080403) A RESOLUTION supporting Virginia's public school students
and urging the General Assembly to provide additional State dollars to fully fund the
actual costs of the Standards of Quality and the legislative guidelines for higher
education funding.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 3.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36443-080403. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
The City Manager corrected a response which was given to the Mayor at the
9:00 a.m. work session that if the Standards of Quality are approved and adopted by
the State and funding is made available, approximately 159 positions would be added
to the school system, generating $4.4 million additional State revenue if funded; of
those positions, 116 are already funded by local funds which means that the City of
Roanoke would have to fund an additional 42.8 positions, but the City would still see
revenue in excess of its expenditures of $2.3 million in State revenue, which would
make other monies available for other school initiatives or items.
Resolution No. 36443-080403 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7.
NAYS: None .................................................................................. -0.
103
STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that on September 17, 2001, Council adopted Ordinance No. 35588- 091701
permanently vacating an alley, effective ten days following the date of adoption; as
a condition of the ordinance, the petitioner was required to prepare and record a
subdivision plat showing the vacated portion of the alley and the combination of the
alley with the adjoining parcels; and the ordinance required that the plat be prepared
and recorded within a period of 12 months, orthe ordinance would be null and void.
It was further advised that a subdivision plat was submitted for review on
November 8, 2001; plat review comments and request for revisions were forwarded
to the surveyor and the petitioner on November 26, 2001; as a part of the requested
revisions, signatures of the seven affected property owners were required; the
process of signing the plat continued for more than a year; the last signature
obtained was dated and notarized on November 12, 2002; the plat was resubmitted
for review on December 9, 2002, and approved on December 19, 2002; plat
recordation occurred on December 20, 2002; copies of the recorded plat were
returned to the City on December 31, 2002; and as the chronology indicates, due to
problems associated with obtaining signatures from the various property owners, the
"null and void" date of September 27, 2002, was exceeded.
It was stated that when the property owners attempted to record revised deeds,
it was discovered that the above-referenced ordinance had lapsed; since all
conditions of the ordinance were satisfied with the recordation of the plat in Map
Book 1, pages 2537 and 2538, the property owners have requested that Ordinance
No. 35588-091701 be readopted and amended with the condition that the conditions
set out therein will be met within a period of 24 months (September 27, 2003).
The City Manager recommended that Council readopt and amend Ordinance
No. 35588-091701, with the condition that the period of time required for satisfaction
of the conditions will be revised from 12 months to 24 months.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36444-080403) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Ordinance No.
35588-091701; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 5.)
104 --
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36444-080403. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................... 0.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-TRAFFIC-BUDGET-GRANTS: The City Manager
submitted a communication advising that the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles
(DMV) is the administering agency for pass through funds provided by the United
States Department of Transportation for highway safety projects in Virginia; DMV
offers these funds to successful applicants for activities which improve highway
safety in Virginia; the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles has awarded the City of
Roanoke Police Department $15,000.00 for overtime and related FICA expenditures
associated with conducting selective enforcement activities which target Driving
Under the Influence (DUI), speeding, and motor vehicle occupant safety; the grant
period is from October 1, 2003 through September 30, 2004; and this is the eighth
year that the City of Roanoke has received funds under the program.
It was further advised that there is a statistically proven proportional
correlation between levels of motor vehicle law enforcement and traffic accidents in
the City of Roanoke; historically, speed and alcohol are factors in 17 per cent of
Roanoke's motor vehicle accidents; and the program allows officers to concentrate
on alcohol impaired drivers and speeders at times when such violations are most
likely to occur.
The City Manager recommended that Council accept the Driver/Occupant
Awareness grant and authorize the City Manager to execute the grant agreement and
any related documents, subject approval as to form by the City Attorney; appropriate
$15,000.00 and increase the corresponding revenue estimate in accounts established
by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund.
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36445-080403) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by
title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 6.)
105
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36445-080403. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ................................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................. 0.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36446-080403) A RESOLUTION accepting the Driver/Occupant Awareness
grant offer made to the City by the Virginia Department of Motor Vehicles, and
authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 7.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36446-080403. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None .................................................................................... 0.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET.GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the Bulletproof Partnership Grant Act of 2001, enacted
by the '107th United States Congress, provides funds to eligible law enforcement
agencies for the purchase of bulletproof vests; the grant program is managed by the
Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance; and
on June 30, 2003, the City of Roanoke was awarded $9,474.00 for bulletproof vests
purchased by the Police Department in fiscal year 2002-03.
The City Manager recommended that Council accept the Bulletproof Vest
Partnership reimbursement of $9,474.00 and authorize the City Manager and the Chief
of Police to execute any agreements related to said grant.
106 -
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36447-080403) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by
title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 8.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36447-080403. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36448-080403) A RESOLUTION accepting a grant made to the City by the
United States Department of Justice for the reimbursement of the cost of bulletproof
vests, and authorizing excecution of any required documentation on behalf of the
City.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 9.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36448-080403. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... -7.
NAYS: None ................................................................................. -0.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the U. S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) has awarded the Roanoke Police
Department a one-time only grant of $4,840.00 to train 25 police officers and ten law
enforcement officers from surrounding jurisdictions on the Gang Resistance
Education and Training Program (G.R.E.A.T.); the grant period is from January 16,
2003 to January 15, 2004; the G.R.E.A.T. Program is a school-based, life-skills
competency program taught by uniformed police officers; the Program is designed
to enable youth to develop positive attitudes toward police officers, avoid conflicts,
107
be responsible, set positive goals, and resist peer pressure; and statistics indicate
that students who participated in the program had lower rates of victimization, more
negative views about gangs, more favorable attitudes toward the police, more peers
involved in pro-social activities, and lower levels of involvement in risk seeking
behaviors.
The City Manager recommended that Council accept the Gang Resistance
Education and Training Program grant and that she be authorized to execute the
grant agreement and any related documents; and appropriate grant funds totaling
$4,840.00, with a corresponding revenue estimate in accounts to be established by
the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund.
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36449-080403) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of the
2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by
title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 10.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36449-080403. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36450-080403) A RESOLUTION accepting the Gang Resistance Education
And Training (G. R. E. A. T.) grant offered to the City by the U. S. Department of
Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), and authorizing
execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 11.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36450-080403. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
108
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
NONE.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL:
CITY COUNCIL-SCHOOLS: Council Member Dowe called attention to an annual
conference, "Emerging Leaders", which is held in the City of Roanoke composed of
leadership from black colleges and universities, and suggested that City staff learn
more about the program and extend formal greetings to program participants in the
future.
CITY COUNCIL-CITY EMPLOYEES-NEWSPAPERS-WATER RESOURCES:
Council Member Cutler acknowledged and commended two new electronic
newsletters: E-News, Environmental News from the City of Roanoke, and On Good
Authority, a monthly newsletter for City of Roanoke and Roanoke County employees
involved in the formation of the Regional Water and Wastewater Authority.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-CITY COUNCIL-SCHOOLS: Council Member Bestpitch
addressed the appropriate process for moving forward with the School Resource
Officer issues and school safety. He suggested that Council request the formation
of an organizing task force which would include City staff and School staff to review
issues and concerns regarding school safety in a comprehensive manner; and the
organizing group would develop a process that could be used over the next few
months by a larger task force. He called attention to a joint Council/School Board
Retreat which is scheduled for November 21, at which time the two bodies could
discuss the issue, and any necessary refinements could be made prior to the end of
the calendar year. He proposed that the organizing group be composed of two
representatives of the School Board, the Superintendent of Schools, the Executive
for Student Services the City Manager, two Members of City Council, preferably Vice-
109
Mayor Harris since he previously served on the School Board and Council Member
Wyatt who is a retired long term teacher in the City's School system. He requested
that Council be provided with a report on the status of the organizing task force in
approximately two weeks.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Vice- Mayor Harris and Council Member Wyatt, the
City Manager, the Chief of Police, two members of the School Board, the
Superintendent of Schools, and the Executive for Student Services, be appointed to
serve as an organizing group to develop a process and the composition of a task
force to jointly consider the issues of school safety and appropriate roles and
responsibilities of School Resource Officers; that recommendations be developed
no later than December 31, 2003; and that any changes in assignments and
procedures for the School Resource Officer program be suspended until the study
process is completed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
In clarification of the motion, Mr. Bestpitch advised that the goal of the
organizing group would be to organize the process, including composition of a task
force, which could include students, parents, teachers, a broad representation of the
community; and the organizing group would work over a three month period from
August to November.
· ~,ln a discussion as to whether Council should instruct the City Manager to
suspend any changes in the School Resource Officer Program until the process is
completed, a Member of Council expressed concern that Council could be accused
of telling the City Manager how to manage City manpower; whereupon, Mr. Bestpitch
amended his motion to request that the City Manager consider whether changing the
School Resource Officer program should be suspended until the study process is
complete. Dr. Cutler, who seconded the motion, concurred in the amendment.
The following motion, as amended, was unanimously adopted:
Council concurred in the appointment of an organizing group composed
of Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris, Council Member Linda F. Wyatt, the City
Manager, the Chief of Police, the Chair of the Roanoke City School
Board, a School Trustee to be selected by the School Board, the
Superintendent of Schools and the Executive for Student Services, to
develop a process and the composition of a joint task force which will
be charged with the responsibility of jointly considering the issues of
school safety and the appropriate roles and responsibilities of School
Resource Officers, with recommendations by the task force to be
submitted no later than December 31, 2003. The City Manager was
requested to consider whether changes and assignments with regard
to School Resource Officers should be suspended until the process is
completed.
110
CITY COUNCIL-SPORTS ACTIVITIES-SCHOOLS-GREENWAY SYSTEMS: With
regard to the two new high schools, Council Member Cutler requested the
opportunity to review plans for athletic tracks and how exterior grounds will be
landscaped and committed to greenways.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard, and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for any necessary and
appropriate response, recommendation or report to Council.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-SCHOOLS: Mr. Alex Hincker, 4042 South Lake Drive,
S. W., read a communication on behalf of his mother, Alice Hincker, who was out of
the City. He quoted from a statement made by the City Manager on January 6, 2000,
when she was interviewed by WDBJ-TV Channel 7 News on the day she was
welcomed to Roanoke as the new City Manager, "The solution to our community's
problems don't just rest with the government, they really rest with the total
community, and I am going to invite the community to be part of a solution." In her
letter, Ms. Hincker advised that the City Manager appears to have rescinded the
invitation she sent to the people of Roanoke on that day in January, and she has not
lived up to the expectation that she created when she spoke those words to the
community. She stated that when it comes to the operation of the Police Department
and the School Resource Officer program, the City Manager and the Chief of Police
have taken actions that have created additional problems for the community; and
they have not involved the community in identifying solutions to the problems; if
citizens are to believe all that they have been told by Dr. Harris and by the School
Board, they can only conclude that Chief Gaskins and Ms. Burcham took action
without input from the Superintendent of Schools, orthe School Board, and no input
was solicited from parents, students, teachers and School Resource Officers, both
past and present. She asked that the Roanoke community be allowed to be a part of
the decisions that affect Roanoke's children, that the community be heard regarding
programs that directly affect the safety and security of citizens, and that the
community be a part of the solution to Roanoke's problems. She stated that the
Roanoke community has been speaking out with regard to School Resource Officer
Butch Lewis in an attempt to be a part of finding solutions to the City's problems', and
asked that Council keep in mind that many members of the community speak not
from personal experience, but they have taken the time to familiarize themselves with
the work of noted experts in the field of school safety and security; many members
of the community have expertise in areas that enable them to suggest the best
practices for the schools and/or the Police Department and they have knowledge that
enables them to legitimately question and to condemn the actions of the Chief of
Police and the City Manager.
111
Ms. Carol Bragh, 2259 Westover Avenue, S. W., President, Patrick Henry High
School PTSA, applauded Council's decision to appoint a task force to study school
safety and the School Resource Officer issues. She stated that it is important to all
citizens of Roanoke to believe that their children are in a safe school environment,
and it is believed that the decision of the City Manager to revamp the School
Resource Officer program is inappropriate and harmful to the program. She stated
that the process of building relationships takes years to develop, it represents the
crux of the program as it relates to students, to the relationships between staff and
the School Resource Officers, and the community. She quoted from the National
Association of School Resource Officers on the subject of periodic rotation of SROs:
"One of the most important underlying themes in maintaining an SRO program is the
establishing of relationships. The success of any SRO program, just as the success
of any school administrative team and staff, hinges upon the establishment and
maintenance of meaningful, long term relationships. Law enforcement managers
must take into account that school districts and students not only enjoy the stability,
but count on it to reduce tension in the school climate. The establishment of
meaningful relationships is a process, not an event. Relationships are built over a
period of time and not over night. Consistency and stability in SRO assignments must
exist in order to nurture relationships and to prevent disruptions in meaningful
working relationships between the SRO, other agencies, and the school distri.ct with
whom they work".
Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that because Officer Butch
Lewis had the courage to stand up and to speak out for what he believed to be right,
he is being punished by the City Administration. She stated that she has heard
parents speak highly of Officer Lewis and what he has done for the Roanoke City
Schools and they want him to continue to serve at Patrick Henry High School. She
advised that Officer Lewis is being made a scapegoat and it is up to Council to insist
that he be reassigned to Patrick Henry High School where he has built a relationship
and a trust with both students and staff.
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., expressed concern as to
whether Council is listening to the comments of Roanoke's citizenry; citizens have
voiced their concern regarding the renovation of Victory Stadium for sentimental and
historic preservation reasons; with some frequency, Council tends to reverse its
decisions, whereupon, she referred to the Comprehensive Plan which cites historic
preservation as one of the main objectives, but when Council was faced with the
opportunity to select a public building (Victory Stadium) which could be a main
attraction in this part of the country, the opportunity was voted down in favor of a
new stadium/amphitheater near the Civic Center complex. With reference to School
Resource Officer Butch Lewis, she stated that Council hired the City Manager and
Council has the right to supervise her activities, therefore, Council should speak up
for the citizens of the City of Roanoke.
112
Mr. Marvin Lloyd, 331 Cedar Avenue, Vinton, Virginia, Pastor to School
Resource Officer Butch Lewis, requested that Council rescind the transfer of Officer
Lewis to William Fleming High School. He spoke to the importance of continuity in
the School Resource Officer program, in order to build good relationships with
students and school staff. He advised that the City Manager has made a _poor
decision in the reassignment of Officer Lewis to William Fleming High School; the
community is in an uproar and the quickest and best way to deal with the issue is to
reassign Officer Lewis to Patrick Henry High School where he has established a solid
relationship with students and staff.
Mr. E. Duane Howard, 508 Walnut Avenue, S. W., spoke against appointment
of the City Manager and the Chief of Police to the school safety task force organizing
group.
Ms. Pamela Corcoran, 2250 Sewell Lane, S. W., advised that her children attend
Roanoke City Public Schools; she is active in school activities and school related
organizations, therefore, she called for accountability with regard to safety and the
School Resource Officer program, and requested that Council fulfill its charge to
represent the best interests of the citizens of Roanoke. She asked that Council step
in and acknowledge that the City has erred in scorning and penalizing its
messengers, such as Officer Lewis and others. She advised that the City has in place
a system for promoting school safety and for managing violent incidents that is not
working; and from the point of view of a school volunteer with thousands of hours
of time in various capacities and from having been associated with 14 City schools
as a part of her family's learning community, it is obvious that certain things are
broken and need to be fixed in Roanoke's school system.
Mr. Robert Gravely, 3360 Hershberger Road, N. W., advised that School
Resource Officer Butch Lewis showed courage when he spoke out about the violence
issue in Roanoke's schools, with the goal of protecting the lives of young peopl,~ and
protecting school property. He stated that Officer Lewis should not be punished
because he failed to follow the chain of command, and the City should be careful
about how it treats City employees. He stated that City employees should not only be
corrected when they fail to do their jobs properly, but they should be commended
when they do their jobs well.
Mr. Matthew Reames, 1930 Sheffield Road, S. W., advised that as an individual
who taught for five years at Woodrow Wilson Middle School, he knows first hand the
value of the School Resource Officer program and the importance of maintaining
consistency in the program; it takes time to build trust between the School Resource
Officer and school faculty and staff, to adjust to school routines, to learn the school
community and families; and every time a school is assigned a new Resource Officer,
it takes time to gain the necessary trust. He stated that the City's plan to offer SRO
training to all new police officers and any interested current officers is admirable, but
113
becoming a School Resource Officer requires more than just the required 40 hour
basic class; according to the Virginia Model of SRO programming from the
Department of Criminal Justice Services, being an SRO requires community
experience, and the interest and ability to work with youth, school personnel and the
public to solve problems; it requires SROs to perform multiple roles, including those
of law enforcers, instructor of law related education classes, criminal justice liaison,
and role model; and in short, it requires a specialist within the Police Department. He
explained that the School Resource Officer program of the Roanoke City Police
Department has had a long and proud history and is the fourth oldest program in the
State as of 2002, the '13 Roanoke City Police School Resource Officers have a
combined total of 72 years of experience as SROs, five officers have seven or more
years of experience as SROs, and one officer has '18 years of SRO experience, the
second longest in the State. He advised that instead of being in concert with the
National Best Practices for School Resource Officer Programs, Roanoke City has
decided that experience is not important; and National Best Practices states that a
rotation based solely upon the time in which an officer has served in a specific
assignment should be discouraged and instead, consistency is recommended. Since
the National Best Practices are being ignored, he requested that Council challenge
the City Manager and the Police Chief to share with the citizenry the model SRO
programs or policies upon which they are projecting their success.
Ms. Alice McCaffrey, 7870 Cedar Edge Road, S. W., President, Central Council
Parent Teacher Association, commended Council on its action to appoint an
organizing task force to address school safety and the SRO issue, and it is hoped
that there will be interaction between different sections and functions of the City to
provide more hope for regional cooperation as all elements work together in the City
of Roanoke. On behalf of the Central Council PTA, she questioned whether rotating
School Resource Officers is in the best interests of students, do parents and
teachers have a voice in the issue concerning safe school environments, and the
action Council took earlier in the meeting will help to address the issue of school
safety.
Ms. Pat Lawson, '1618 Riverside Terrace, S. E., expressed concern with regard
to the leadership of the City of Roanoke.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: NONE.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting which was held earlier in the
meeting, Mr. Bestpitch moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of
his or her knowledge that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2)
only such public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any
Closed Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council.
114
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... -7.
NAYS: None ............................................................................................ -0.
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at
6:10 p.m.
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
APPROVED
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
115
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
August 18, 2003
2:00 p;m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
August 18, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the City Council Chamber,
fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of
Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2,
Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1,
Reoular Meetings, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended.
PRESENT: Council Members Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert
Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson Harris and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
ABSENT: None ...................................................................................... 0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend Pamela P. Crump,
Pastoral Assistant for Christian Education, High Street Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Smith.
REGULAR SESSION
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
PROCLAMATIONS-SPORTS ACTIVITIES: The Mayor presented a proclamation
declaring Friday, August 29, 2003, as Hokie Pride Day.
116
CONSENTAGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by one
motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if discussion was
desired, that item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately. He called specific attention to five closed sessions. '-
MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday, July 7,
2003, and recessed until Friday, July 18, 2003, were before the body.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council dispense with the reading of the minutes
and that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris,
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: ................................................................................................. -0.
COMMITTEES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on
certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before
the body.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor as
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ..................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ 0.
CITY COU NCIL-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT: A communication from Mayor
Ralph K. Smith requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss a
special award, being the Shining Star Award, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(10),
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body.
117
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor as
above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the
City Manager requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss
disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in open meeting would
adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before
the body.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0.
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY.CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the
City Manager requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss
disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in open meeting would
adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before
the body.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the
following vote:
118
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ......................................................................................... -.----7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... -0.
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the
City Manager requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss
disposition of publicly-owned property, where discussion in open meeting would
adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the public body,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before
the body.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS:None .......................................................................................... 0.
ZONING-ANNUAL REPORTS: A report of the Board of Zoning Appeals
transmitting the annual report of the Board for fiscal years July 1, 2001 through
June 30, 2002, and July 1, 2002 through June 30, 2003, was before Council.
It was advised that for fiscal year 2001-2002, the Board of Zoning Appeals held
12 regular public hearings and three specially called hearings, during which there
were 14 variance requests, 47 special exception (use) requests, and three appeals
to the Zoning Administrator's decisions; for fiscal year 2002-2003, the Board of
Zoning Appeals held 11 regular public hearings, during which there were 14 variance
requests, 37 special exception (use) requests, and no appeals to the Zoning
Administrator's decisions.
It was further advised that in the current year, goals of the Board of Zoning
Appeals are to: continue to serve the citizens and developers of the community in
furthering the use, development and redevelopment of property through variances
and special exceptions; continue to act as a discretionary administrative body and
to make decisions in matters where a person or party within the community is
aggrieved by a decision made in the enforcement of the Zoning Ordinance; and
recommend to the City Planning Commission and to City Council the necessary
revisions and amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, in order for the Board to
continue to provide fair and equitable service to the community and to its citizens.
119
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that the Annual Report be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
ANNUAL REPORTS-INDUSTRIES: A communication from the Industrial
Development Authority transmitting the Annual Report for fiscal year 2003, was
before Council.
It was advised that activities in fiscal year 2003 include:
Approved and disbursed remaining reimbursement funds, in the
amount of $500,000.00, to Advance Auto, pursuant to the Performance
Agreement from last year.
Approved the funding of facade grants as follows:
Mexicorp, Incorporated for $11,704.00;
SNC Properties, LLC, for $9,025.50; and
Angell Associates for $18,150.00.
Assisted the Virginia Lutheran Homes in financing a new facility and
upgrading its current facility.
Entered into an amendment to the Loan Agreement with Cooper
Industries.
Worked with WELBA I, LLC, to assist in its financing needs by inducing
a manufacturing project in the amount of $6,000,000.00.
Worked with Carilion Health System to assist in financing needs by
approving another bond issue in the amount of $110,000,000.00, of
which $50,000,000.00 represents new bond funds and the remaining
$60,000,000.00 represents refunding money.
Made an economic development grant to the Carilion Biomedical
Institute in the amount of $50,000.00.
120
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that the Annual Report be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
OATHS OF OFFICE.COMMITTEES-COURT COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
BOARD-LIBRARIES-FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION-VIRGINIA'S FIRST
REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY AUTHORITY: The following reports of
qualification were before Council:
Gall Burruss as a member of the Court Community Corrections
Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board, for a term
ending June 30, 2005;
Wilburn C. Dibling, Jr., as a member of the Roanoke Public Library
Board, for a term ending June 30, 2006;
William D. Bestpitch as a member of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany
Regional Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2006; and
William D. Bestpitch as a City of Roanoke representative to Virginia's
First Regional Industrial Facilities Authority, for a term ending
September 24, 2006.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that the reports of qualification be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. -7.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... 0.
REGULAR~
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
121
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY-VICTIM/WITNESS/JUROR
PROGRAM-GRANTS: A communication from the Commonwealth's Attorney advising
that the Victim/Witness Assistance Program has been awarded a 12 month,
$102,757.00 grant (#04-J8554VW03) for July 2003 through June 2004 from the
Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS), which will allow the Victim/Witness
Assistance Program to continue to provide comprehensive information and direct
services to crime victims and witnesses, in accordance with the Virginia Crime
Victim and Witness Rights Act; and the Victim/Witness Program continues to
operate with a full-time coordinator for the Circuit Court, one full-time assistant for
the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court and one full-time assistant for the
General District Court.
It was further advised that the Victim/Witness Program is coordinated by the
Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney; the cost to the City for the grant would be
$25,671.00 as a local cash match, for a total grant budget of $128,428.00; and the
local cash match is equal to that of fiscal year 2002-2003 and is included in the
General Fund fiscal year 2003-2004 adopted budget in the Transfer to Grant Fund
Account.
The Commonwealth's Attorney recommended that Council accept
Victim/Witness Grant #04-J8554VW03, in the amount of $102,757.00, with the City of
Roanoke providing $25,671.00 as a local cash match from monies provided in the
Transfer to Grant Fund Account in the fiscal year 2003-2004 budget, for a total grant
of $128,428.00; authorize the City Manager to execute all appropriate documents to
obtain the grant; appropriate funds totalling $128,428.00 and increase
corresponding revenue estimates in accounts to be established by the Director of
Finance in the Grant Fund; and transfer $25,671.00 from the General Fund Transfer
to Grant Fund, Account No. 001-250-9310-2535, to a Grant Fund account to be
established.
A communication from the City Manager concurring in the request of the
Commonwealth's Attorney was also before Council.
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36451-081803) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page12.)
122 ---
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36451-081803. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#36452-081803) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a grant made
to the City of Roanoke by the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Criminal
Justice Services for a Victim/Witness Assistance Program and authorizing the
execution and filing by the City Manager of the conditions of the grant and other
grant documents.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 14.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36452-081803. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
BUDGET.DRUGSISUBSTANCE ABUSE-COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY: A
communication from the Commonwealth's Attorney advising that Federal funding
was made available to the Commonwealth of Virginia to be used for development
of several Multi-Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutors statewide; the positions
were developed to coordinate prosecutorial efforts among independent jurisdictions,
reduce fractional and duplicate prosecutions, enhance the recovery of criminal
assets, utilize Federal, State and local resources to assure maximum prosecutorial
effectiveness and to provide specialized prosecutorial resources to the regional
drug enforcement effort; the Commonwealth's Attorneys of Craig County, Franklin
County, Roanoke County, and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem applied on October
9, 1987, to the Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council, the State agency
responsible for administration of the grant money to fund a Multi-Jurisdictional
Special Drug Prosecutor; Council accepted the Multi-Jurisdictional Special Drug
Prosecutor Grant in April 1988, and a full-time Special Drug Prosecutor was hired in
July, 1988; and annual re-application for funding is required.
123
It was further advised that on April 15, 1994, funding for the Drug Prosecutor's
Office was transferred from the Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council to the
Compensation Board; the Compensation Board approved funding for the Drug
Prosecutor, in the amount of $84,994.00, on April 28, 2003, which funding will
continue through June 30, 2004; local match is $21,861.00, for a total of $106,855.00;
and funding for the local share is available in the Transfer to Grant Funds Account.
The Commonwealth's Attorney recommended that Council accept funding
from the Compensation Board, in the amount of $84,994.00, with the City of Roanoke
providing local match funding of $21,861.00; authorize the City Manager to execute
the requisite documents to obtain funding from the Compensation Board;
appropriate $84,994.00 in State grant funds and establish a corresponding revenue
estimate in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund;
and transfer $21,861.00 from the General Fund Transfer to Grant Fund Account
No. 001-250-9310-9535 to the Grant Fund account above created.
A communication from the City Manager concurring in the request of the
Commonwealth's Attorney was also before Council.
Ms. Wyatt offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36453-081803) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 15.)
Ms. Wyatt moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36453-081803. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36454.081803) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of funding for the
regional drug prosecutor's office from the Compensation Board of the
Commonwealth of Virginia and authorizing the acceptance, execution and filing of
appropriate documents to obtain such funds.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, 17.)
124
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36454-081803. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
BUDGET-POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-DRUGS/SUBSTANCE ABUSE-
COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY: A communication from the Commonwealth's
Attorney advising that in an effort to better fund law enforcement efforts to fight
crime, particularly drug crime, in 1986, the Federal government adopted a system of
asset forfeiture, whereby forfeited assets, under certain conditions, could be
returned to local law enforcement agencies, police and prosecutors for use in their
fight against crime; in July, 1991, the Virginia asset forfeiture statute, which
generally is patterned after the Federal statute, took effect, providing that forfeited
criminal assets may be returned to local police and prosecutors for use in the fight
against crime; periodically, assets seized as evidence are ordered forfeited by the
local courts to the police or to the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney to be used
for criminal law enforcement efforts; and in August 1991, a grant fund account for
cash assets forfeited to the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney was established
with an appropriation of $25,000.00.
It was further advised that since August 1991, the Office of the
Commonwealth's Attorney has expended the $25,000.00 originally appropriated, and
periodically receives additional funds from the State's asset sharing program; grant
requirements provide that the funds be placed in an interest bearing account and
that interest earned be used in accordance with program guidelines; revenues
collected through June 30, 2003, for the grant total $169,143.00, interest on the
account collected through June 30, 2003, is $16,098.00, funding received in excess
of revenue estimates total $23,609.00, and needs to be appropriated; and funds must
be appropriated before they can be expended for law enforcement.
The Commonwealth's Attorney recommended that the Director of Finance
be authorized to increase revenue estimates for Forfeited Criminal Assets
Account No. 035-150-5140-7107 and Forfeited Criminal Assets Interest Account
No. 035-150- 5140-7275 in the amounts of $20,545.00 and $3,064.00, respectively,
and appropriate funds to Forfeited Criminal Assets Accounts No. 035-150-5140-
7275 in the Grant Fund.
A communication from the City Manager concurring in the recommendation
of the Commonwealth's Attorney was also before Council.
125
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36455-081803) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 18.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36455-081803. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
BUDGET-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the Virginia Department of Social Services issued a
Request for Proposals to use Federal funds to provide job search, coaching, and job
retention services for Temporary Assistance to Needy families Hard to Serve (TANF)
recipients; the City of Roanoke's Department of Social Services responded to the
RFP with a proposal outlining its intent to work collaboratively with TAP- This Valley
Works, to provide work-related services; under the proposal, eligible TANF
recipients who must obtain employment, but who have not been in compliance with
certain regulatory requirements, are provided customized job search assistance;
and case managers work with the individuals to develop and to initiate an
individualized plan of action to meet compliance requirements and to assist in
securing and maintaining employment.
It was further advised that the City of Roanoke was awarded $207,000.00 in
grant funding under the TANF Hard-to-Serve Project for fiscal year 2004;whereupon,
the City Manager recommended that Council accept the Temporary Assistance to
Needy Families Hard to Serve Project grant of $207,000.00, and authorize the City
126
Manager to execute all appropriate documents to obtain the grant; and that Council
appropriate funding of $207,000.00 and establish a corresponding revenue estimate
in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund.
Mr. Cutler offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36456-081803) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 19.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36456-081803. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36457-081803) A RESOLUTION authorizing acceptance of a grant award
under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Hard-to-Serve Project
from the Virginia Department of Social Services, for the purpose of providing job
search, job coaching and job retention services for eligible TANF recipients who
must obtain employment, and authorizing execution of any and all necessary
documents to comply with the terms and conditions of the grant.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 20.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36457-081803. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowel Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith .......................................................................................... -7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
127
CONVENTION AND VISITOR'S BUREAU-REGIONAL IDENTITY: The City
Manager called upon Craig Fifer, the City's Web Master, for a briefing on the
Discover Roanoke Kiosk, which will be highlighted at the Mill Mountain Discovery
Center, and will be officially showcased when Virginia Society of Parks and
Recreation employees visit the City Roanoke in early September.
Mr. Fifer advised that as America's top digital City for two years, the City of
Roanoke is always looking for ways to use technology to benefit residents,
employees and visitors. He explained that the Discover Roanoke Kiosk is a web-
based Kiosk, meaning that all locations on the Kiosk will be linked to the Internet,
with updates from a central location, which should improve the timeliness of
material. He stated that the goal of the kiosk is to present an overview of Roanoke
area attractions/activities, shopping venues, restaurants and general demographic
statistical information, along with other useful information such as weather reports
and directions to various locations or points of interest. He added that initial
partners in the project include the City of Roanoke, the Roanoke Valley Convention
and Visitors Bureau, and The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center, which is the
team that developed the pilot prototype, and it is hoped to partner with other local
jurisdictions and businesses to expand the project over the next several months.
He advised that material will come from the City's website, the Roanoke Valley
Convention and Visitors Bureau on line data base, all of which will be brought
together for presentation in one format; maps can be pulled from on line mapping
sites, and weather conditions can be pulled from on line weather sites, etc., so as
to provide the most up to date information at all times. He stated that the initial
location for the regional kiosk will be The Discovery Center on Mill Mountain, since
the Discovery Center serves as a gateway for many visitors, particularly those
traveling off the Blue Ridge Parkway. In addition to The Discovery Center, he
advised that two kiosks will be placed in the new Visitor's Center which will open in
November in the old Passenger Station, several kiosks will be placed at The Hotel
Roanoke and Conference Center in the near future and other locations include
Center in the Square, the Roanoke Civic Center, the Library Cafe, the Airport, public
facilities in other localities, certain State offices, shopping centers and other
locations that generate heavy traffic. He explained that over the next few months,
staff will evaluate the success of the pilot locations and determine appropriate
locations for future kiosks.
Staffofthe Department of Technology presented an on line demonstration of
information that can be accessed via the regional kiosk.
128 -
There was discussion with regard to: the size of computer monitors; if
directions will be provided to various attractions/restaurants in the Roanoke Valley;
the feasibility of providing a printer at each kiosk location; the time frame for placing
a kiosk at the Roanoke Regional Airport and assistance by the Airport Commission
with funding; the cost of kiosk hardware and software, which is in the range of
$2200.00; inclusion of area businesses as a part of kiosk information; not every
restaurant or attraction will be listed on the kiosk, in which it was pointed out that
the attractions, hotels, and restaurants listed on the kiosk will be those that are
members of the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau (RVCVB), which
means that not only will they derive a benefit from the work that the Visitor's Bureau
will put into the database, but members will receive an additional benefit that they
had not previously received at no additional cost, which will act as another selling
point to recruit businesses and area attractions to join the RVCVB; and the feasibility
of a providing a map or a one page handout to shopping centers and other
attractions/restaurants that would be separate from the kiosk.
David Kjolhede, Executive Director, Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors
Bureau, spoke in support of the regional kiosk and advised that printers will be
made available at the new Passenger Station location. He stated that the regional
kiosk program will provide a great potential for the Roanoke Valley region and the
RVCVB is excited to be a part of the project.
AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS-DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: The Director of
Finance presented the June 2003 Financial Report, which includes General and
School Fund amounts that are unaudited and subject to change during the course
of the City's external audit. He advised that a comprehensive financial report of all
funds of the City will be included with the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
Mr. Hall stated that fiscal year 2003 ended on a positive note from a financial
standpoint, despite a national and local economy that has been strained by the war
with Iraq and which again continued to fall short of desired results; and fiscal year
2003 was also affected by several mid-year adjustments in funding from the
Commonwealth. He reported that the General Fund revenue estimate for fiscal year
2003 was $194,201,628.00, while actual collections totalled $194,388,023.00 and total
General Fund revenue collected increased .85 per cent from the prior year and
exceeded the estimate by .10 per cent; and expenditures came in at about one and
one-half per cent under budget, the largest portion of which was unspent personnel
salaries and fringe benefits. He advised that revenues grew less than one per cent
compared to the prior year which includes salary increases for City employees and
the goal of increasing the City's debt service capacity to $570,000.00 per year, and
with those increases built into the budget, it still increased 1.18 per cent compared
to fiscal year 2002.
129
He explained that Council adopted Ordinance No. 26292 on December 6, 1982,
which established a reserve of General Fund balance for the Capital Maintenance
and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP), specifically for maintenance and
replacement of capital equipment; computed per the requirements of Ordinance No.
26292, CMERP for fiscal year 2003 for Schools is $529,557.00.00 and $2,480,774.00
for the City, for a total of $3,010,331.00, or 1.48 per cent of General Fund
appropriations.
Ann Shawver, Deputy Director of Finance, presented highlights of the year end
unaudited fund balance report.
There was discussion in regard to the future of the CMERP; whereupon, the
Director of Finance advised that the long term financial plan of the City through
2007 includes the goal to add more capital funding in the budget, in order to get
away from reliance on the CMERP. The City Manager advised that there would still
be a small year end balance, but it would not be specifically generated for the
purpose of addressing those kinds of ongoing maintenance and replacement items,
some of which are on a three-four and five year cycle in order to build full funding
into the budget. She further advised that during the Council's Financial Planning
Session in March, Council agreed to a cycle whereby the City would gradually move
toward this goal, but the important thing to emphasize is that the CMERP is largely
due to funds generated from vacant positions in the City's workforce, which
increases the burden on those remaining City employees. She stated that if the
City reaches a point where it fills all vacant positions, there would be no year end
fund balance which is the reason that it is necessary to stop relying on CMERP as
a source of funds for ongoing issues. She advised that this is the first year that
significant amounts of money have been set aside in the operating budgets.
There was discussion in regard to the source of unobligated appropriations
in the School CMERP; whereupon, Richard L. Kelly, Assistant Superintendent for
Operations, advised that personnel lapse in school accounts in terms of salaries
and fringe benefits provide a source of funds, and a second source of funds relate
to the debt reserve which was created for the Patrick Henry High School project,
and until those funds are expended for debt service, they will be used for capital
projects.
Mr. Bestpitch advised that vacancies within the City workforce place
additional responsibilities on remaining employees, which will ultimately impact the
level of service that is provided to Roanoke's citizens, and expressed specific
concern with regard to Police and Fire/EMS personnel. He added that there could
be a need to look at some of the positions to determine if a smaller number of slots
are needed and a higher salary; whereupon, he asked that the issue be referred to
2004 budget study for discussion by Council.
130 -
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the Financial Report
would be received and filed.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
BUDGET.SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting that Council appropriate funds to the following school accounts, was
before the body.
$95,000.00 for Fallon Park Elementary School improvements;
funds will be used for design fees for the electrical, heating,
ventilation and air conditioning upgrade at Fallon Park
Elementary School; and funding will be provided from the School
Fund Reserve.
$240,000.00 for Westside Elementary School improvements;
funds will be used for preparation of construction and bidding
documents and for construction administration of renovations
and an addition at Westside; and funding will be provided from
the School Fund Reserve.
$22,000.00 for the 2003 Instructional Support Team Project to
assist the division in providing services for children with
disabilities at Fallon Park Elementary School; and the new grant
program will be funded from Federal Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act funds.
The transfer of $1,332,365.00 in unappropriated balances of
Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Funds
remaining at June 30, 2003, to a Reserve for Capital
Improvements for Future School Construction Costs will provide
cash funding for planned future school renovation and
construction costs; and it is anticipated that the future
appropriation of the funds will be made to the School Capital
Projects Fund.
The transfer of $872,500.00 in Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Funds appropriated during the 2003
fiscal year from the Construction of Transportation Facility
account in the School Fund to the School Transportation Facility
account in the School Capital Projects Fund will enable all costs
of the new facility to be recorded in the School Capital Projects
Fund and will allow for appropriate capitalization of the project
upon completion of construction.
131
A report from the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in
the request of the School Board, was also before the body.
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36458-081803) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 General, School, and School Capital Projects Fund Appropriations,
and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 21.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36458-081803. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
HOUSING AUTHORITY: The City Manager advised that Council at its meeting
on July 21, 2003, raised certain questions with regard to the Derelict Structures
Fund Grant; whereupon, she submitted a communication responding to the
Council's inquiries.
The City Manager advised that the intent of the Derelict Structures Fund is to
fund projects that address "residential, commercial or industrial structures which
are in such poor condition as to cause a blight upon the neighborhood;" funds may
be utilized for acquisition, demolition, removal, rehabilitation or repair of specific,
targeted derelict structures; and a 100 per cent match of local funds is required.
It was advised that funds were awarded and a funding agreement was
executed between the City and the Department of Housing and Community
Development on May 29, 2001; the Northwest Neighborhood Environmental
Organization has expended its $50,000 allocation; and due to unforeseen issues,
Two B Investments was unable to utilize its funds as required in a timely manner;
therefore, the City has $50,000.00 of unexpended funds available.
132 -
It was further advised that at this time Blue Ridge Housing Development
Corporation ("Blue Ridge"), a local non-profit housing group, wishes to use the
remaining $50,000.00 to renovate property located at 1018 Jamison Avenue, S. E.;
the property is located in the Southeast... by Design neighborhood; the house was
constructed in 1900, contains 2,793 square feet and is currently vacant; the property
is in poor condition and has had some partial renovation on the interior of the
structure; proposed redevelopment includes interior and exterior rehabilitation,
electrical and plumbing upgrades, HAVC and emergency upgrades, and water and
sewer upgrades; and Blue Ridge can immediately begin work on the property and
use the property as a showcase to market the Southeast project.
It was explained that the property was last used as a unit residence and
renovations would convert the structure back to a duplex, featuring the ability to live
in one side and rent out the other side; construction bids from three local
contractors came in at an average of $150,000.00; and Blue Ridge is committing
$50,000.00 from its line of credit, and has been approved for a $50,000.00
construction loan from First Citizens Bank.
It was stated that the City's primary housing goals are to provide greater
housing choices and to raise the assessed values of properties in the City's core
neighborhoods; the average house assessment in the Southeast...by Design
neighborhood is only $55,000.00 and homeownership rate is 56 per cent; significant
renovation of the property would fit in the neighborhood, however, rehabilitation
costs incurred are the investment for the area and may be higher than the eventual
sales price of the structure; and this approach is the most viable solution to
addressing vacant properties within the City until market demand improves.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve allocation of the
remaining $50,000.00 Derelict Structures Fund grant to Blue Ridge Housing
Development Corporation on a reimbursement basis, and authorize the City Manager
to execute an agreement between the City of Roanoke and Blue Ridge Housing
Development Corporation, to be approved as to form by the City Attorney.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution:
(#36459-081803) A RESOLUTION authorizing execution of an Agreement
between the City and Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation in order to
provide funds from the Derelict Structures Fund, in the amount of $50,000.00, to
Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation for renovation of property located at
1018 Jamison Avenue, upon certain terms and conditions.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 24.)
133
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36459-081803. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
Mr. Duane E. Howard, 508 Walnut Avenue, S. W., advised that Council Member
Dowe should abstain from voting on the recommendation inasmuch as he is the
direct recipient of a house through Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation,
and Mr. Dowe's vote would represent a conflict of interest. He advised that
$150,000.00 is proposed to be invested in a derelict structure house in southeast
Roanoke, however, he expressed concern that the City of Roanoke allows housing
to become derelict and tolerates derelict landlords who allow their properties to fall
into various states of disrepair; and the $50,000.00 could be better used to tear down
the house and donate the land for more greenspace. He stated that the house was
constructed in 1900, which means that it is approximately 42 years older than Victory
Stadium, yet the City proposes to invest $150,000.00 in renovation costs, while the
fate of Victory Stadium has not been decided. He referred to problems in the
southeast area of Roanoke because the City will not enforce basic civil codes of
conduct, and until the City addresses core issues and neighborhood concerns,
placing a large sum of money into renovating one house in southeast Roanoke will
not make a great deal of difference to the area.
Alvin Nash, Executive Director, Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation,
advised that the house is part of the Southeast by Design Project; the structure was
used for duplex purposes and will be renovated into a first class building, following
appropriate architectural and historic guidelines. He stated that First Citizens Bank
has committed $120,000.00 to the project, which is the "shot in th arm" that is
needed to turn the southeast area around; therefore, it is a perfect investment for the
Derelict Structures Fund grant for the future of southeast Roanoke and will be in line
with proposed improvements in the southeast neighborhood. Upon development,
he advised that the house will be sold and provide a good investment property.
The Mayor advised that he serves on the Advisory Board of First Citizens
Bank, but earns less than $10,000.00 per year, whereupon, he inquired if he has a
conflict of interest in voting on the matter. The City Attorney responded that since
the Mayor earns less than $10,000.00 per annum, he would have no conflict of
interest, and may cast his vote on the resolution before Council.
Resolution No. 36459-081803 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS: None ......................................................................................... 0.
134 -
INTRODUCTION AND
RESOLUTIONS:
CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
CITY COUNCIL: Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution providing that
the 9:00 a.m. work session of the Council on the first Monday in each month will
convene in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, instead of the City
Council Chamber:
(#36460-081803) A RESOLUTION amending Paragraph 6 of Resolution No.
36414-070703, adopted on July 7, 2003, which resolution established a meeting
schedule for City Council for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2003, and
terminating June 30, 2004, in order to provide that the portion of the regular
meetings which begin at 9:00 a.m. for the conduct of informal meetings, work
sessions or closed meetings of City Council will be convened in the Emergency
Operations Center (EOC) Conference Room instead of Council Chambers.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 25.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36460-081803. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 7.
NAYS:None ....................................................................................... ~.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL:
BUDGET-PARKS AND RECREATION: Council Member Fitzpatrick advised that
he has requested the City Manager to compile information with regard to creating
a trolley system for the City of Roanoke, which would operate between the Virginia
Museum of Transportation, the City Market and Crystal Spring, and reinstituting the
incline on Mill Mountain.
Vice-Mayor Harris concurred in the remarks of Mr. Fitzpatrick and requested
that cost information be provided to Council in early 2004 for consideration, during
fiscal year 2004 budget discussions.
135
Mr. Fitzpatrick called attention to the potential of major tourism dollars that
would come to the Roanoke Valley if Mill Mountain is better utilized, and advised that
he is suggesting a form of information gathering to determine what, if any, grants
might be available to the City.
The City Manager advised that the success of both the trolley and the incline,
in large measure, will be determined on whether the City can secure Federal and
State Federal Highway and Transportation funding.
Inclusion of the matter in the City's 2004 Legislative Program was also
mentioned.
EMERGENCY SERVICES: Council Member Cutler referred to the recent
blackout in the New York area which had far reaching effects, and inquired if the City
of Roanoke is prepared to respond to a potential blackout and/or other emergency
situation; whereupon, the City Manager advised that procedures to address a
blackout are included in the City's Emergency Response Plan; however, recent
events have caused the City to give the issue more attention. She called attention
to significant upgrades to electrical systems, particularly underground and in the
downtown area of the City, and the City communicates regularly with officials of
American Electric Power to ensure that temporary blackouts are minimized.
Mr. Cutler spoke in support of providing Roanoke's citizens with the
necessary information to heighten their awareness in the event of a blackout or
other emergency.
PARKS AND RECREATION.ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-TREES.
COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT: Council Member Cutler commended staffofthe
City's Communications Department and the Parks and Recreation Department with
regard to the Quarterly Guide to Parks and Recreation Programs in the City of
Roanoke. He advised that the Urban Forestry Plan is available for distribution.
DONATIONS/CONTRIBUTIONS-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-JEFFERSON
CENTER: The Mayor expressed appreciation to Woodmen of the World for donating
an American flag to be flown near Fitzpatrick Hall at The Jefferson Center, and
advised that a dedication ceremony will be held on September 11, 2003.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard, and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for any necessary and
appropriate response, recommendation or report to Council.
136
ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridge Crest Drive, Hardy, Virginia,
spoke in support of renovating Victory Stadium, and inquired as to why an American
flag is not flown at Victory Stadium. He stated that the majority of the voters of the
City of Roanoke would like to cast their ballot through a public referendum on the
question of renovating Victory Stadium, or constructing a new facility on Orange
Avenue; therefore, he requested that Council reconsider its previous decision to
construct a new stadium/amphitheater at the Orange Avenue/~Nilliamson Road site.
ARMORY/STADIUM: Ms. Pat Lawson, 1618 Riverside Terrace, S. E., spoke in
support of saving Victory Stadium. She announced that she will campaign for the
Office of Mayor of the City of Roanoke in 2004.
COMPLAINTS-CITY COUNCIL.HOUSING/AUTHORITY-GRANTS: Mr. E. Duane
Howard, 508 Walnut Avenue, S. W., referred to his previous remarks questioning
whether Council Member Dowe has a conflict of interest in voting on funding for
renovation of a house at 1018 Jamison Avenue, S. E., under the Derelict Structures
Fund grant administered by Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation,
inasmuch as Council Member Dowe is the recipient of a house that was constructed
through Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation. He also referred to a City
employee who is the recipient of a house through the same organization and
questioned if there is a conflict of interest in view of the City employee's relationship
with and knowledge of the program through Blue Ridge Housing.
Council Member Dowe advised that he looked at the land on which his house
is constructed early in the process, he secured a loan through a banking institution
at the same market rate that was available to any other person seeking a loan at the
same time, a contractor was selected and ready to begin construction on his house;
however, it was not until the ribbon cutting ceremony that he became aware of the
City of Roanoke's involvement.
COMPLAINTS-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate
Avenue, N. E., requested that Council review the new traffic pattern on Williamson
Road relative to installation of a median and turning lanes, which have created a
traffic hazard for motorists.
ARMORYISTADIUM-HOUSINGIAUTHORITY-GRANTS: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35
Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke in response to a previous remark make by Alvin Nash,
Executive Director, Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation, in regard to the
Derelict Structures Fund grant. She advised that two years ago, Blue Ridge Housing
Development Corporation purchased a house on Gilmer Avenue which has been
vacant and has gradually deteriorated, it has now been decided that the house will
be demolished and Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation has agreed to
construct another house of similar character. She stated that she was disturbed by
the remark of Mr. Nash with regard to the Gainsboro community when Blue Ridge
137
Housing Development Corporation, itself, is a property owner that has neglected its
property on Gilmer Avenue, even though another citizen bid on the property with the
intent of renovating the house. She clarified that the Gainsboro community is not a
derelict neighborhood, but a neighborhood that is in the process of a rebirth.
Ms. Bethel advised that the Victory Stadium issue is still alive because the
Council has not chosen to hold a public referendum on the question to enable the
citizens of Roanoke to vote on the fate of the stadium.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: NONE.
At 4:05 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for five closed
sessions.
At 5:45 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with Mayor
Smith presiding and all Members of the Council in attendance, with the exception of
Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Member Dowe.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Bestpitch
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such
public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick,
and Mayor Smith .......................................................................................... 5.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ 0.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Member Dowe were absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-TRANSPORTATION SAFETY: The Mayor
advised that there is a vacancy on the City of Roanoke Transportation Safety
Commission to fill the unexpired term of David Prince, resigned, ending October 31,
2006; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations.
Mr. Bestpitch placed in nomination the name of Chaun Dooley.
138
There being no further nominations, Mr. Dooley was appointed as a member
of the City of Roanoke Transportation Safety Commission, to fill the unexpired term
of David Prince, resigned, ending October 31, 2006, by the following vote:
FOR MR. DOOLEY: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and
Mayor Smith .................................................................................. 5.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Member Dowe were absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-TOWING CONTRACT: The Mayor advised
that there is a vacancy on the Towing Advisory Board to fill the unexpired term of
Ronald L. Wade, resigned, ending June 30, 2006; whereupon, he opened the floor
for nominations.
Mr. Bestpitch placed in nomination the name of Michael W. Conner.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Conner was appointed as a member
of the Towing Advisory Board to fill the unexpired term of Ronald L. Wade, resigned,
ending June 30, 2006, by the following vote:
FOR MR. CONNER: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and
MayorSmith .................................................................................................. 5.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Member Dowe were absent.)
Inasmuch as Mr. Conner is not a resident of the City of Roanoke, Council by
consensus, waived the City residency requirement.
At 5:50 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess to be reconvened at
7:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber.
At 7:00 p.m., on Monday, August 18, 2003, the Council meeting reconvened in
the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members Linda F. Wyatt (arrived late), William D.
Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson
Harris and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ..................................................................... -7.
ABSENT: None ...................................................................................... 0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
139
The invocation was delivered by Council Member William D. Bestpitch.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Smith.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the
Council on Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing
for Monday, August 18, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, on the request Akzo Nobel Coatings, Inc., that a portion of Roanoke
Avenue, S. W., adjacent to Burks Street, be permanently closed by barricade, the
matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, August 1, 2003 and Friday, August 8, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the
petitioner proposes to install a locked gate over the right-of-way and a guard house
adjacent to the street; the guard house will be on the petitioner's property and will
be staffed from 6:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., and the gate will be left open at all other
times; the proposed barricade will not affect access to utilities, and since no
right-of.way is being conveyed, public utility easements are not necessary for the
petition.
It was further advised that closing Roanoke Avenue at Burks Street will have
no impact on traffic in the area; the barricade will allow the petitioner to effectively
incorporate the portion of right-of-way as part of its site, while the City retains
ownership; the petitioner will be required to provide a gate with a double lock to
allow full-time access by Norfolk Southern; and due to Norfolk Southern's need for
access, vacation of the right-of-way is not feasible.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
request to close Roanoke Avenue, by barricade, to the west of its intersection with
Burks Street, S. W., pursuant to the following conditions:
The petitioner will be responsible for erecting a gate with a double lock
system to allow Norfolk Southern employees access via their own lock
and keys.
The petitioner shall allow access to the closed portion of Roanoke
Avenue to the City of Roanoke, or any party representing or acting on
behalf of the City of Roanoke, and to all public utility entities with
facilities located within the right-of-way.
140 --
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36461-081803) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the alteration and closing by
barricade of certain public right-of-way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, subject to
certain conditions; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance bytitle.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 26.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36461-081803. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the request. There being none, he declared the public hearing
closed.
There being no questions or comments by Council, Ordinance No.
36461-081803 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... -6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................ -0.
(Council Member Wyatt was absent.)
Council Member Wyatt entered the meeting.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the
Council on Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing
for Monday, August 18, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, on the request of Roanoke Country Club, Inc., and the Scott Robertson
Memorial Fund, a Virginia Non-Stock Corporation, that a 15-foot right-of-way,
extending in a northeasterly direction from the northerly boundary of Densmore
Road, N. W., be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed, the matter was
before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, August 1, 2003 and Friday, August 8, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the
Scott Robertson Memorial Fund petitioned the City in April 2002 for the lease of a
portion of East Gate Park to be used for its First Tee Junior Golf Program; a City
Planning Commission public hearing was held on April 18, 2002, and Council
approved the request in a public hearing on May 20, 2002; and the Council (and City
141
Planning Commission) determined that use of a portion of East Gate Park for a First
Tee Golf Program was substantially in accord with Vision 2001-2020, the City's
Comprehensive Plan.
It was further advised that the Scott Robertson Memorial Fund has since
discontinued its plans for a First Tee Junior Golf Program at East Gate Park, and
now plans to establish the project on property adjacent to the Roanoke Country Club
at the eastern end of Densmore Road, N. W.; the Scott Robertson Memorial Fund
plans to lease property from the Roanoke Country Club and combine the property
with its property which is described as Official Tax No. 2670906; and since the
subject portion of right-of-way lies between properties owned by the Scott
Robertson Memorial Fund and the Roanoke Country Club, they plan to split the
vacated property evenly.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
petitioner's request to vacate, discontinue and close the subject portion of
right-of.way, subject to the following conditions, and does not recommend that the
petitioner be charged for the property.
The applicant shall submit a subdivision plat to the Agent for the
City Planning Commission, receive all required approvals,
therefor, and record the plat in the Office of the Clerk of the
Circuit Court for the City of Roanoke; said plat shall combine all
properties which would otherwise dispose of the land within the
right-of-way to be vacated in a manner consistent with law, and
retain appropriate easements for installation and maintenance of
any and all existing utilities that may be located within the
right-of-way, including the right of ingress and egress.
Upon meeting all other conditions to the granting of the
application, the applicant shall deliver a certified copy of the
ordinance approving the request for recordation in the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court, indexing the same in the name of
the City of Roanoke, as Grantor, and in the name of the
petitioner, and the names of any other parties in interest who
may so request, as Grantees; and the applicant shall pay such
fees and charges as are required by the Clerk of Circuit Court to
effect such recordation.
Upon recording a certified copy of the ordinance approving the
request with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke,
the applicant shall file with the City Engineer, the Clerk's receipt,
demonstrating that such recordation has occurred.
142
If the above conditions have not been met within a period of one
year from the date of adoption of the ordinance authorizing the
request, said ordinance shall be null and void with no further
action by City Council being necessary.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#36462-081803) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and
closing a certain public right-of.way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as more
particularly described hereinafter; and dispensing with the second reading of this
ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 28.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36462-081803. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
There being no questions or comments by Council, Ordinance No. 36462-
0801803 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ 6.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0.
(Council Member Dowe abstained from voting inasmuch as he is a member of
Roanoke Country Club, Inc.)
CITY CODE-ZONING-TOWING CONTRACT: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523
adopted by the Council on Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised
a public hearing for Monday, August 18, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
the matter may be heard, with regard to proposed amendments to the Zoning
Ordinance to better define and differentiate between certain interrelated land use
activities that involve towing services, wrecker services, new and used motor
vehicle sales and service and a new and used commercial motor vehicle sales and
service, the matter was before the body.
143
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, August 1, 2003 and Friday, August 8, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that on
April 17, 2003, the Planning Commission recommended to Council the approval of
a measure amending the Zoning Ordinance as it pertains to various motor vehicle
oriented establishments; on May 19, 2003, Council considered the recommended
text amendments and, after public hearing and discussion, referred the proposed
measure back to the Planning Commission to provide additional information to, and
input from, property and business owners and other interested parties.
It was further advised that the Planning Commission held a public hearing on
the proposed text amendments on July 17, 2003; and Planning Commission
discussion centered around the following:
The prohibition of the parking of tow trucks in residential
districts to protect the quality of residential neighborhoods;
Prohibiting the parking of panel trucks in residential districts
because of their size;
Problems associated with a "weight-based" definition of
commercial motor vehicles as they relate to the ability of
inspectors in the field to determine weight in enforcement of the
regulation; and
The concern that a single axle of single rear wheels definition of
a commercial motor vehicle would still allow for motor vehicles
of a size that would impact the quality of life in residential
neighborhoods.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
proposed text amendments as set forth in a proposed measure; and given the
additional input from the industry and further consideration of those issues by staff
and the City Planning Commission, the Planning Commission supports the
proposed text amendments as set forth in the measure.
144
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36463-081803) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining §36.1-25,
Definitions; subsections (26) and (37) of §36.1-206, Permitted uses; subsection (5)
of §36.1-207, Special exception uses; subsection (26) of §36.1-227, Permitted uses;
subsection (3) of §36.1-228, Special exceotion uses: subsection (24) of §36.1-249,
Permitted uses; subsection (8) of§36.1-250, Special exception uses: subsection (11)
of §36.1-270, Permitted uses; subsection (5) of §36.1-271, Soecial exceotion uses;
§36.1-206, §36.1-207, and §36.1-250, by deleting certain uses as permitted uses or
uses by special exception; and §36.1-435, Parking_ of commercial vehicles, and
adding new subsections (51) and (52) of §36.1-206, Permitted uses; subsections (28)
and (29) of §36.1-249, Permitted uses; subsections (10) and (11 ) of §36.1-250, Sr~ecial
exceDtion uses; subsection (12)of §36.1-270, Permitted uses; and subsection (6)
of §36.1-271, Special exception uses, of Chapter 36.1, Zoninq, of the Code of the City
of Roanoke (1979), as amended; and dispensing with the second reading by title of
this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 31 .)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36463-081803. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning and Community Development, advised
that on May 19, 2003, Council considered the recommended text amendments and
following the pubic hearing and discussion, referred the proposal back to the City
Planning Commission to provide additional information and to receive input from
property and business owners and other interested parties; and subsequent to
Council's action, the Planning Department mailed over 180 information packets to
business establishments in automobile sales, service, motor vehicle repair, and
towing and wrecker services and held a public forum on June 4, 2003. In addition,
he stated that the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Services mailed over
60 information packets to Roanoke Neighborhood Partnership Steering Committee
members and neighborhood leaders; in response to over 240 packets that were
mailed, the Planning Department received six telephone inquiries, 19 businesses
were represented at a June 4 session and one neighborhood leader was in
attendance. He stated that as a result of the sessions, staff identified certain
specific issues regarding proposed definitions of a commercial motor vehicle and
used motor vehicle sales and service establishments, requirements for general
service establishments, and prohibition of the parking of tow trucks and roll back
tow trucks in residential areas. He further stated that in consideration of the
comments received from business representatives, City staff identified and the City
Planning Commission acted on three areas of proposed text amendments for
further study and reconsideration over and above what the May 19 public hearing
described. He advised that the first is the definition of a commercial motor vehicle;
the Planning Commission supports a revised definition that excludes vans, pickup
trucks and panel trucks from the definition of commercial motor vehicles; and the
145
Planning Commission reviewed the definition to clarify that those three types of
vehicles would not be considered commercial motor vehicles. In regard to general
service establishments engaged in the repair of automobiles, motorcycles or trailers,
he explained that considerable input was received from the industry regarding
restrictions on repairs, either by the type of vehicle, or the nature of which the repair
could take place; slides of car sales and/or repair services throughout the City were
presented to illustrate the types of issues that exist under the current ordinance as
definitions of automobile repair establishments slowly move to what becomes
automobile salvaging and towing services in some cases; automobiles are stacked
in the rights-of-way on certain sites; and the more problematic areas exist in the
older part of the City where the commercial establishment is close to residential
boundaries. He called attention to the need to regulate the habitual repair which
takes place outside of the building and advised that the City Planning Commission's
intent is not to regulate the emergency repair, but to ensure that ongoing repairs
take place within a building. He stated that currently, because definitions are
intermingled, it is difficult to enforce specifically and one of the goals of the
proposed amendments is to more clearly differentiate between these types of uses
for the future. He added that the City Planning Commission considered revisions
relative to automobile service establishments, and general service establishments
would be allowed to repair motor vehicles, except commercial motor vehicles, and
operators of these establishments would be allowed to repair and to sell five repairs,
or rebuilt cars, in one calendar year without being considered a car sales
establishment, which would have no restriction on the limitation of the number of
cars that could be sold that are held by mechanics liens; for example: if the
business has 15 cars with mechanics liens in the course of the year, all of those
vehicles could be sold without restriction and the restriction would apply to the five
that are not otherwise sold on the premises; and the City Planning Commission
recommends that all repair and maintenance activity shall occur wholly in an
enclosed building. In the C-3 District, which is downtown, he advised that no
change is recommended in that the same rules would apply to car repair or general
service establishments, except that any motor vehicle could be repaired in the LM
District; the same provisions would apply with regard to selling five vehicles and
having no restriction on the sale of cars through mechanics liens, and all repairs and
maintenance activity shall occur in an enclosed building, in the HM District, he
stated that the same rules would apply so as to provide for consistency in terms of
definitions and regulation across the districts and within each district, by making
small differentiations between commercial districts, which tend to be in the major
visible corridors and the LM and HM Districts. He stated that the City Planning
Commission also discussed the parking of commercial vehicles in residential
districts and the Planning Commission reaffirmed its recommendation to not
exempt tow trucks and roll back tow trucks from the definition of commercial motor
vehicles for the purpose of parking in a residential district; the Planning
Commission continues to have concern regarding the consequences of a blanket
exemption of tow trucks and roll back tow trucks from the prohibition of the parking
of commercial vehicles in a residential district; concerns include the size and noise
of such motor vehicles, as well as the potential for any number of tow trucks to be
parked at any given location, and the potential impact on the quality of life and street
146
safety in the neighborhoods; therefore, the City Planning Commission reaffirmed its
recommendation not to further exclude any other types of vehicles from the
commercial motor vehicles definition.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons who would like to speak in
connection with the public hearing; whereupon, Mr. Leo Trenor, 3343 Preston
Avenue, N. E., advised that his goal is to stop the illegal sale of automobiles in the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and the proposed recommendation of the City Planning
Commission will promote the sale of automobiles by unlicenced persons. He
advised that State Code provisions provide that if a dealer rebuilds two salvaged
vehicles within a year, the dealer must obtain a license as a rebuilder; State law also
provides that used parts can be sold only by a salvage dealer; therefore, the illegal
activity currently taking place in the City of Roanoke is due to the City's lack of
enforcement. He expressed concern as to how the City will enforce the limitation of
five repairs, or rebuilt cars, in one calendar year; whereupon, he suggested that the
limitation of five vehicles be stricken from the proposed ordinance and that the City
allow enforcement through the Virginia Division of Motor Vehicles.
Mr. Robert Young, 5266 Sunset Drive, called attention to numerous meetings
that were held to address proposed revisions; however, no changes are proposed
by City staff that will provide for improved regulation and enforcement. With regard
to parking tow trucks in residential areas of the City, he called attention to the
importance of an operator having his vehicle close by in the event of an emergency
which could be life threatening to a person involved in an accident.
A representative of G & J Towing and Recovery reiterated the remarks of Mr.
Young.
Mr. Ronnie Scaggs, 3517 Melrose Avenue, N. W., questioned why the City of
Roanoke is enacting regulations that are not enforceable. He advised that some of
the slides shown by Mr. Townsend are of unlicenced businesses which will not be
addressed under the proposed ordinance. He stated that the proposed regulations
provide that garages must have four walls, and inquired if garage doors must be
closed when repairs are underway, because it would be costly to install an air
conditioning unit in a large garage with a 15 - 18 foot ceiling.
147
Mr. Tommy Wood, 1749 Granby Street, N. E., appeared before Council on
behalf of towers that are included on the City of Roanoke's tow list who respond
daily to emergency calls by the Police Department. He stated that towers are
required to be on the scene of an emergency within 20 minutes, which will create a
problem for tow truck operators who have to leave their home, travel to their place
of business where the wrecker is parked and respond to the incident, all of which
cannot be done within the required 20 minute time frame. He advised that there
might be as many as two wreckers in a residential neighborhood on any given
night; therefore, for those towers on the Roanoke City tow list, he requested that tow
truck operators be allowed to take their wreckers home at least two nights a week,
if necessary, and suggested the placement of a sticker on the windshield to indicate
that the wrecker is on call on the City's rotating tow list.
Mr. Chris Craft, 1508 East Gate Avenue, N. E., concurred in the remarks of Mr.
Wood. He called attention to those persons who repair vehicles illegally in their
garages, or in the front and side yards of their buildings, and advised that there is
a need to decrease or eliminate illegal car sales in the City of Roanoke. He spoke
in support of allowing a tow truck operator to park the wrecker in their residential
neighborhood when on call.
There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public hearing
closed.
The City Manager corrected remarks made by previous speakers that the
proposed ordinance is not enforceable. She advised that any ordinance adopted by
the Council is subject to review by the City Attorney's Office and is therefore
enforceable; and if additional zoning and code enforcement staff is needed in order
to enforce the ordinance under consideration by the Council, or any other ordinance
of the City, it is her obligation to bring the matter to the Council's attention. With
regard to the ordinance presently before the Council, she stated that one of the
issues of concern is that currently there is a vagueness in the definitions, it is
difficult for staff to enforce and to address some of the issues that were depicted in
the slides that were previously shown by Mr. Townsend; therefore, staff is
requesting a clarification of definitions. She added that numerous inconsistencies
currently exist that the Zoning Ordinance update will address.
148
There was discussion in regard to the number of tow trucks that could be
parked in a residential neighborhood on any given evening; whereupon, Mr.
Townsend advised that it is a difficult question to answer because if a tow truck
operation is headquartered in an adjacent locality, and if the tow truck operator lives
in the City of Roanoke, the operator could bring the vehicle home with him even
though the business is not Roanoke City based. Upon further discussion, it was
agreed that between 10 and 20 wreckers could be parked throughout the residential
streets of the City of Roanoke on any given night.
Some Members of Council, as well as Mr. Townsend, advised that the
complaints received by citizens primarily have related to commercial vehicles
generally, and not a large number of complaints have been received regarding the
tow trucks in the residential neighborhoods of the City.
Mr. Townsend explained that City Planning stafftook a very conservative view
on the recommendation, while acknowledging the comments of Mr. Wood and Mr.
Young, and the public hearings regarding concerns about public safety; the City
Planning Commission basically weighed the likelihood of impacts on public safety,
versus the likelihood of adverse impacts on Roanoke's residential neighborhoods;
and there is no absolute answer in terms of how many tow trucks will be parked in
any given neighborhood. He advised that the City Planning Commission also took
a very conservative view of not making too many exceptions to the rule regarding
vehicles in residential neighborhoods; the Planning Commission made an exception
related to pickup trucks, vans and panel trucks because most personal vehicles
currently can be as large as pickup trucks and vans, etc., but a tow truck was
considered to be of a size and scale that the City Planning Commission was not
willing to make an exception.
It was suggested by a Member of Council that any loop hole with regard to the
sale of vehicles by unlicenced builders should be referred to the City's Legislative
Committee for further consideration.
Following further discussion of the matter with regard to that portion of the
recommendation pertaining to the parking of tow trucks and roll back tow trucks in
residential neighborhoods when the tow truck operator is on call, several Members
of Council expressed concern that when the service is needed, the operator should
be allowed to retrieve the wrecker as quickly as possible, and especially in view of
the 20 minute response time imposed by the City's Police Department in order to be
included in the City's tow list; therefore, a compromise would be in order.
149
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Ordinance No. 36463-081803 be amended to
exempt tow trucks and roll back tow trucks. The amendment was seconded by Ms.
Wyatt and unanimously adopted.
Ordinance No. 36463-081803, as amended, was adopted bythe following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................... 0.
CITY CODE-ZONING-TOWING CONTRACT: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that enforcement of Section 20-71 of The Code of the City
of Roanoke (1979), as amended, pertaining to parking of commercial motor vehicles
in residential districts has been hampered by lack of a definition of the term
"commercial motor vehicle;" proposed amendments to Section 20-71 provide,
among other things, that certain trucks, construction equipment, trailers,
semi-trailers, taxis, limousines, tow trucks, and dump trucks, may not be parked or
left standing on any street or alley located in a residential district for more than two
hours; certain school buses and emergency vehicles, vehicles being loaded or
unloaded, vehicles belonging to or used by the occupant of a business when the
premises constitute a lawfully existing use, as well as vans, pickup trucks and panel
trucks, which would otherwise constitute "commercial motor vehicles," are
exempted from the application of the ordinance; no motor vehicle, however,
designed to transport dangerous materials may be permitted to park in a residential
district; and enforcement of Section 20-71, as amended, is intended to dovetail with
the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which relate to parking
commercial vehicles in a residential district.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance amending
Section 20-71 of the City Code pertaining to the regulation of on-street or alley
parking of commercial motor vehicles in residential districts.
150
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36464-081803) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining §20-71, Parkina
of commercial trucks., of Article IV, StoPl=in;h Standina and Parkin(~, of Chapter 20,
Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
to provide for the definition of commercial motor vehicle and to prohibit the same
from parking on the streets and alleys in a residential district under certain
circumstances; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 45.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36464-081803. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Ordinance No. 36464-081803 be amended to exempt
tow trucks and roll back trucks. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and
unanimously adopted.
Ordinance No. 36464-081803, as amended, was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith .......................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................... 0.
CITYCODE.ZONING-SIGNSIBILLBOARDSIAWNINGS: Pursuant to Resolution
No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having
advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 18, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to a proposed amendment of
Chapter 36.1, Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), Section 36.1-693, .Notice
of hearing, as amended, by deleting the requirement of erecting signs when a
proposed amendment affects more than 25 parcels of land, the matter was before
the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, August 1, 2003 and Friday, August 8, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the
purposed text amendment deletes the requirement that when a proposed
amendment affects the district classification of more than 25 parcels of land, at least
one sign shall be erected on each corner of each block on which any affected
151
properties lie; such sign is required to provide notice of public hearing, indicating
the proposed change, identification of affected properties, and the time, date, and
place of such hearing; the posting requirement that is the subject of the proposed
text amendment is not mandated by the City Charter or by the Code of Virginia; the
proposed amendment will reduce the logistical impact on a comprehensive rezoning
of the City, such as that which will be undertaken with the preparation of a new
Zoning Ordinance and zoning map; and consideration of a new Zoning Ordinance
will necessitate the amendment of district classifications throughout the City, in
order that all parcels are zoned in a manner that is consistent with the new Zoning
Ordinance.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt the
proposed amendment to Section 36.1-693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36465-081803) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining §36.1-693, Notice
of hearincJ, Division 5, Amendments, Article VII, Administration, of Chapter 36.1,
Zoninq, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by repealing the
required placement ofsignage on property when a proposed amendment affects the
district classification of more than twenty-five (25) parcels; and dispensing with the
second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 48.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36465-081803. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36465-081803 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................ -7.
NAYS: None ........................................................................................... -0.
152 -
OTHER BUSINESS:
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: An appeal of H & W Properties, LLC, filed
by Dana A. Walker, to a decision of the Architectural Review Board (ARB), for a
Certificate of Appropriateness for the installation of siding, corner boards and
window facings at 702 Marshall Avenue, S. W., was before Council.
Mr. Walker advised that in his presentation, he would present facts as to what
the decision has not been about, followed by what the decision should be about, in
addition to samples of proposed materials for Council's inspection. He stated that
he would attempt to demonstrate that the Architectural Review Board's decision was
not about needed repairs, moisture problems, encasement allowing further
deterioration, installing gutters and down spouts, a front porch that was removed
20 plus year ago, long lasting paints now available, materials using the same design,
maintaining the architecturally defining features of the building for character
defining changes, absentee landlords, landlords taking money out of the community,
landlords that do not maintain their properties and pretend to be uninformed about
City ordinances, or those who start a project without the same design materials. He
advised that the Architectural Review Board's decision was based on the obvious
fact that not only do they not want vinyl in the historic neighborhoods and will not
approve vinyl unless it is the only alternative, but the ARB believes that it has the
privilege to ignore the City's current ordinance and work on its own agenda. He
stated that all of the time that was spent discussing, confirming and securing styles,
procedures and samples of proposed materials was a significant waste of time and
effort because no products of the same design were going to be approved by the
Architectural Review Board when considering the following: with amendments and
changes, he fully cooperated by addressing every issue and concern that came out
of the two Architectural Review Board hearings; he proposed to remove the 4 x 4
Dutch-lap siding, J- channel and corner boards and replace them with matching 5 x 5
Dutch-lap siding with integral J- channel for doors, windows and corners: he
proposed to cover windows and door facings and asked the Architectural Review
Board to choose between the traditional, the fluted, or the three piece corner boards,
of which the Board favored the three piece corner boards; and he proposed to
secure and replace loose, deteriorated or missing original siding boards prior to
installation of the vinyl and installation of gutters and down spouts. He added that
the Architectural Review Board was reminded on two occasions by the Assistant
City Attorney that the current ordinance allows vinyl in the historic district; and the
Agent to the Architectural Review Board and the Chair of the Board were asked on
two occasions to identify which repairs they were concerned with, however, to date
no response has been received. He stated that the proposed amendments were
omitted from staff comments prepared for the second Architectural Review Board
153
hearing and had to be restated at the time of the hearing; he was recently informed
by the Agent to the Architectural Review Board that last year the Architectural
Review Board and the City Planning Department jointly decided to require a
Certificate of Appropriateness on all vinyl siding projects, whether or not the same
design materials were being used, but what she failed to state was that the action
was taken without the approval of Council, although next month, an ordinance
amendment will be formally presented to the Council for action. Until the current
ordinance is changed, he requested that Council take the following into
consideration: the ordinance allows vinyl in the H-2 District and requires that
materials be of the same design, not the same type of material; the architectural
compatibility is the desire, not the architectural duplication; the ordinance requires
that the architecturally defining features be maintained and not duplicated, and the
style of the vinyl and trim defines the character. He presented samples of proposed
materials; i.e.: 5 x 5 Dutch-lap siding which is an identical match to the original
siding that is currently on the house, an integral J-channel for doors, windows, and
corners which will provide the same offset features as the original materials once
the vinyl is installed, and a three piece corner which is an identical match to the
original corner materials.
Robert B. Manetta, Member, Architectural Review Board, presented a report
of the Board, addressing the history of the request:
On May 8, 2003, the Architectural Review Board considered the request
of H & W Properties, LLC, as submitted by Mr. Walker, for a Certificate
of Appropriateness approving synthetic siding being installed on a five-
unit dwelling at 702 Marshall Avenue, S. W., at which time Mr. Walker
stated that he was unable to keep paint on the house and wished to add
the vinyl siding in order to improve the property; some Board members
expressed concern that the house was suffering from moisture damage
because of a lack of gutters and down spouts which prevented the
paint from adhering to the surface of the house.
Staff advised that synthetic siding is permitted in the H-2 District,
provided that materials of the same design are used and the
architecturally defining features of the building are maintained; the
project was not using materials of the same design and therefore,
required ARB review.
At the ARB meeting, M r. Walker proposed different size siding materials
and improvements to the front porch and stated that the Board should
have a more lenient standard for properties on Day and Marshall
Avenues.
154
A motion to approve the application failed and Board members voting
against the application stated that the proposal was inconsistent with
the guidelines because the proposed siding did not match the size and
shape of the existing siding, window and door details, and material
samples were not submitted; the Board also stated that siding is a
character defining feature of the house; and the house is suffering from
moisture damage that the improper installation of siding could
exacerbate.
Mr. Walker filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Board's decision
on June 5, 2003, and was heard by Council on June 16, 2003, at which
time Council requested that Mr. Walker return to the ARB with major
details on his proposal.
On July 10, 2003, the ARB considered Mr. Walker's amended
application at which time he proposed to remove the 4 x 4 Dutch-lap
vinyl siding that he had previously begun to install and replace it with
5 x 5 Dutch-lap vinyl siding, add an integral J.channel door and window
trim, provide three options on corner boards, replace loose or missing
original boards, and add gutters and down spouts; staff remained
concerned with the proposal because the building lacked regular
maintenance and needed to be repaired due to moisture problems as
a result of the lack of gutters and down spouts; and the application for
synthetic siding for an improved appearance is not consistent with the
H-2 Architectural Guidelines.
Comments from the ARB included that a building should only be
covered with synthetic siding under the most compelling of
circumstances, because it is not consistent with the architectural
character of the historic district; encasing the building would allow
further deterioration of the original material; and a motion to approve
the application failed.
Mr. Walker filed an appeal of the Architectural Review Board's decision
on August 1, 2003.
Mr. Manetta advised that Section 36.1-345(c) of the Zoning Ordinance
provides: "The installation or replacement of siding ...shall not require a certificate
of appropriateness, provided that such installation or replacement is performed
using materials which are of the same design as those on the building, structure or
landmark, and provided that such installation or replacement maintains the
architectural defining features of the building or landmark."
155
He advised that the H-2 Architectural Design Guidelines adopted by the
Architectural Review Board and endorsed by Council state that historic wood siding
is a distinctive feature of many Roanoke residences and that changing or covering
siding can often alter or destroy the authentic character of a building; and guidelines
further recommend that the following be considered specificallywhen evaluating the
installation of synthetic siding:
Do not replace sound historic siding with new materials to achieve an
"improved" appearance. Historic wood siding is a distinctive feature
that helps to define the visual characteristics of a building.
Retain existing siding: identify and keep the original exterior siding
materials as well as any unique siding.
Mr. Marietta advised that the Architectural Review Board recommends that
Council affirm the Board's decisions and deny the issuance of a Certificate of
Appropriateness for property located at 702 Marshall Avenue, S. W.
Ms. Sarah M use, 617 Sixth Street, S. W., representing Block Pride Association
of Day and Marshall Avenues, a group of approximately 340 homeowners and
renters of Day and Marshall Avenues, advised that with encouragement and support
from the City of Roanoke, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Solid
Waste Management and the Clean Valley Council, the Association has helped to
motivate homeowners, property owners and residents to clean up debris and bulk
items from streets, yards and alleys in a ten block area. Because of block pride, she
stated that they have helped to promote major revitalization, with 12 homes currently
being restored to their original historic character, leading to increases in property
values, removal of an average of 12 tons of debris during each cleanup, and
improved the quality of life and safety of residents, mainly by getting to know their
neighbors and encouraging neighborhood pride. She advised that seven houses
have been sold this year on Day and Marshall Avenues to energetic persons who will
restore and live in the historic structures, which is encouraging to the growth and
vitality of downtown living. She asked that the City help the neighborhood to
continue the trend of revitalization and restoration of its historic district, and advise
all property owners to abide by the H-2 Guidelines endorsed by City Council and
those standards set by historic districts in the Commonwealth of Virginia. She
stated that 702 Marshall Avenue, located in the Southwest Historic District, owned
by Mr. Dana Walker, has been a rental property for many years, containing a total of
five units; the property has been neglected with only minimal repairs in order to pass
rental inspection; and the house is missing gutters, a safe front porch, has major
moisture issues which could lead to significant health issues in view of mold and
mildew. She added that Mr. Walker wishes to cover the original historic fabric of the
156
house with synthetic siding; however, siding has been proven to seal in moisture if
a problem already exists, thus increasing the moisture problem, leading to health
issues for tenants, destroying the house, and deceasing property values. During the
Architectural Review Board meeting, she stated that Mr. Walker advised that the
Board should have a more lenient standard for properties on Day and Marshall
Avenues; whereupon, she advised that this statement reflects a perception that is
out of touch and unwarranted, because there are many hard working people who are
making a difference in the historic neighborhood, bringing back the structural
integrity and the original architectural features of historic homes in the area, while
building a strong community. She added that if anything, there should be more
stringent standards set by the H-2 Guidelines; 702 Marshall Avenue is a visible
structure and architectural features should be restored; the structure is an eyesore
as it currently stands and will become an even greater problem if moisture issues
are not addressed and if the historic fabric of the house is changed. She invited the
Members of Council, the City Manager and Mr. Walker to participate in a walking tour
of Day and Marshall Avenues, in order to showcase the progress of restoration and
the vitality of this historic neighborhood.
Mr. Jim Haynes, 545 Day Avenue, S. W., advised that it is time to change the
stigma of most non-residents toward the Marshall Avenue area, or the idea that the
area should be allowed to continue the spiral that absentee landlords promote,
however, this change cannot effectively happen without the help of City government.
He further advised that his personal experience with the City Planning Department
and the Architectural Review Board has been helpful; their knowledge base and
willingness to work with him has been a necessity in restoring properties in the area
and by working together they have achieved the goal of restoring beautiful and
affordable homes which should grace the City for another 100 years. He stated that
Council has an opportunity to start now with a change for the neighborhood; Mr.
Walker and other principles of H & W Properties purchased the house at 702
Marshall Avenue, which was designated as a Historic District prior to the date of
purchase, and now they wish to change the rules in order to take a "band-aid"
approach to improvements to the house. He asked that Council deny the request
and require landlords of Day and Marshall Avenues to step up to the plate and to
maintain and to renovate their properties within the guidelines of the City Planning
Department and the Architectural Review Board.
Valerie Eagle, 1225 Third Street, S. W., President, Old Southwest, Inc., advised
that the neighborhood organization is dedicated to combating community
deterioration and, as such, they support the work of the Architectural Review Board.
She stated that the Board has been effective in reducing the use of synthetic
building materials in the historic district so that the architectural elements which
define the buildings can be seen, as well as preserved; and when synthetic siding
157
is used, many underlying problems such as leaks, gutter failures and structural
cracks are hidden from view and go undetected for long periods of time, causing
irreparable damage. She stated that she is a real estate broker engaged in the
practice of selling on a daily basis in old southwest, as well as other parts of the
Roanoke Valley; as such, she is interested in preserving the property rights of
individuals, but the historic district is similar in nature to deed restrictions in other
neighborhoods, and property owners and investors are aware of the historic overlay
and its oversight by the ARB; investors in particular should be keenly aware of the
benefits of ARB enforcement and should want to make modifications that are in
keeping with ARB guidelines because of the positive effect on rising property values
in the Historic District. She advised that it is especially important in the areas of
Elm, Day and Marshall Avenues, which have been the slowest streets to increase in
value, with some of the finest examples of historic characteristics. She stated that
Old Southwest, Inc., will hold a walking tour of the area on Thursday, September 18,
2003, at 7:00 p.m., and invited the Members of Council and the City Manager to
participate in the tour in order to see the condition of properties that have been left
to the wishes of absentee landlords who do not voluntarily meet the spirit, or the
letter of the Historic Guidelines. She advised that denying the appeal of H & W
Properties will show support for work of City Planning staff, the Architectural
Review Board, and Old Southwest, Inc.
Ms. Jackie Cannaday, 424 Washington Avenue, S. W., a resident of Old
Southwest, and a Member of the Board of Directors of Old Southwest, Inc., spoke
in support of the work of the Architectural Review Board, and stated that every
house in old southwest, regardless of its location and use, should have its
architectural integrity maintained. She added that the old southwest neighborhood
is one of the jewels of Roanoke and it is the City's duty to maintain the rich history
of the area.
Mr. Paul Economy, 536 Day Avenue, S. W., a member of the Board of Directors
of Old Southwest, Inc., read a statement of the Board of Directors advising that the
Historic District of old southwest is a valuable asset to the City of Roanoke; at one
time old southwest was considered to be the premier neighborhood in the City, and
residents aspire to attain that reputation once again. He stated that the value of old
southwest comes in a multitude of architectural styles, with many architectural
details that grace each home, whether it be a large mansion or a small bungalow;
few other neighborhoods in the Commonwealth of Virginia contain so many diverse
examples of housing between 1890 and 1930; and Council has appointed and
charged the Architectural Review Board with the responsibility of ensuring that work
on these structures will preserve the architectural features and the historic
characteristics of each building and the neighborhood as a whole. He stated that
the Board of Directors supports the efforts of Old Southwest, Inc., to retain existing
158
forms, features and materials of historic properties which are the essence of the
district; the Board endorses the Secretary of the Interior's standards of rehabilitation
which are based on the premise that retention of historic materials and features and
their craftsmanship are of primary importance, and the use of vinyl or aluminum
siding is not recommended. Therefore, on behalf of the Board of Directors, he
expressed opposition to the use of synthetic siding on existing historic properties
unless no other option is available, because replacing or recovering wood siding
severely diminishes the unique aspect of historic materials and craftsmanship; in
most cases, application of such material entails removing architectural details such
as window headers, corner boards and distinctive siding of shingle patterns and
also flattens the three dimensional profile with marks of each building's uniqueness;
changes to character defining features of buildings also alter the visible relationship
between buildings when character defining details are covered or removed from
numbers of buildings in the Historic District, and the character of the entire district
could be seriously damaged. He advised that synthetic siding has been used with
the implication that it is a maintenance free product; however, it is frequently used
as a cosmetic fix over peeling paint, stains, or other signs of deterioration which can
progress unnoticed to become major structural problems; it is not a substitute for
proper repairs of ongoing maintenance; and with the advent of a new long duration
paint, the argument of synthetic siding as an economical alternative is not
necessarily valid. In summary, he stated that the Board of Directors of Old
Southwest, Inc., believes that if old southwest is to retain its historic charm,
uniqueness and reputation as one of Virginia's outstanding historic districts, the use
of synthetic siding is inappropriate and should not be approved by the Architectural
Review Board unless no other option is available. Therefore, he requested that
Council uphold the decision of the Architectural Review Board and deny the appeal
for Certificate of Appropriateness requested by the petitioner.
Mr. Edwin C. Hall, 218 23rd Street, S. W., advised that the owners of the
property located at 702 Marshall Avenue, S. W., are not absentee landlords, bL:t are
and have been residents of the City of Roanoke for most of their lives. He explained
that his purpose in appearing before Council is not to determine whether vinyl siding
is appropriate or inappropriate, but to state that the ordinance allows vinyl siding.
He advised that the intent is to maintain and to repair a deteriorating piece of
property. He asked that Council consider the legal basis for the appeal of the
Architectural Review Board's decision and consult with its legal counsel because
it is believed that the request is appropriate under the City's current ordinance.
The Mayor initiated discussion with regard to the cost of vinyl siding, verses
wood, and whether or not building code regulations exist that govern the
installation of vinyl siding over wood in areas of the City other than the Historic
District.
159
Mr. Bestpitch advised that the primary function of the Architectural Review
Board is to determine what is appropriate and what is not appropriate within the
context of the Historic District; and how does the request change or modify the
district as a whole, and not just the specific property under discussion. He stated
that there is only one reason to have a Historic District - to encourage the
preservation of historic neighborhoods and to ensure property owners that when
they purchase and make major investments in restoring and maintaining homes in
their original architectural character, that another property owner will not be allowed
to do something to their property that devalues the investments of other property
owners. He stated that the City of Roanoke should identify incentives to recognize
and to reward those property owners who are trying to do their best for the Historic
District.
Based on evidence, testimony and documents presented to the Council, Mr.
Bestpitch moved that the decision of the Architectural Review Board on July 10,
2003, be affirmed, and that no Certificate of Appropriateness be issued for the
installation of siding, corner boards and window facings at 702 Marshall Avenue,
S. W., as set forth in the petition for appeal on the grounds that the proposed
installation would not maintain the architectural defining features of the building.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and unanimously adopted.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard, and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for any necessary and
appropriate response, recommendation or report to Council.
NUISANCES-INDUSTRIES-EQUIPMENT-STREETS AND ALLEYS: Mr. Chris
Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., referred to overgrown weeds at the corner of
East Gate Avenue and 13th Street, which is creating a traffic hazard; the need for
guard rails along the steep portion of Tinker Creek; and the existence of
underground gas tanks at the former Getty convenience store near the Roanoke
Center for Industry and Technology.
COMPLAINTS-HOUSING/AUTHORITY-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Robert Gravely,
3360 Hershberger Road, N. W., expressed concern with regard to the City's aging
infrastructure, the need for creation of more jobs leading to home ownership for
citizens, and sufficient wages for City of Roanoke employees.
160
At 9:25 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess until Friday, August 22,
2003, at 9:30 a.m., at the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority Community Room, 1020
Hollins Road, N. E., for a joint meeting of Roanoke City Council and the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors, for an update on the proposed Regional Water and
Sewer Authority.
The Monday, August 18, 2003, regular meeting of the Council of the City of
Roanoke reconvened on Friday, August 22, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in a joint session with
the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors in the Community Room, Roanoke Valley
Resource Authority, 1020 Hollins Road, N. E., with Mayor Ralph K. Smith and
Chairman Joseph P. McNamara presiding.
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: William D. Bestpitch,
M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T. Fitzpatick, Jr., Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor Ralph K.
Smith ..................................................................................................... 5.
ABSENT: Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris and Council Member Alfred T. Dowe,
J r.----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------2~
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRESENT: Michael W. Altizer,
Joseph B. Church, Richard C. Flora, H. Odell "Fuzzy Minnix and Chairman Joseph P.
McNamara .................................................................................................... 5.
ABSENT:None .................................................................................... ~.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Representing Roanoke City: Darlene L. Burcham, City
Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance;
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk; and Michael McEvoy, Director of Utilities.
Representing Roanoke County: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator;
John M. Chambliss, Jr., Assistant County Administrator; Paul Mahoney, County
Attorney; Diane D. Hyatt, Chief Financial Officer; and Gary Robertson, Director of
Utilities.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by Mr. Chambliss.
The purpose of the meeting was to provide an update on the proposed
Water/Waste Water Authority.
161
Ms. Burcham advised that at the last meeting of Council and the Board of
Supervisors in February, 2003, staffs of Roanoke City and Roanoke County
recommended certain principles upon which a Water and Wastewater Authority
would be formed with the entities of the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County; the
purpose of today's meeting is to demonstrate the continued enthusiasm on the part
of both staffs for the formation of an Authority and to share details of their work over
the past six months. She stated that County and City staffs have met at least every
two weeks and many employees have joined in the process of reviewing various
aspects of the formation of the Authority. She advised that the two staffs are looking
toward an implementation date of July 1, 2004, which will require numerous
activities that the Council, the Board of Supervisors and their respective staffs will
be engaged in.
Mr. Hodge advised that a vast amount of work has been done and the two
staffs have worked together as a team, addressing virtually all issues. He called
attention to numerous meetings yet to be held to obtain the input, leadership and
advice of the Board of Supervisors and City Council, and community meetings will
be held with the constituencies of both Roanoke City and Roanoke County. He
referred to certain key dates to address legal issues that will require approval of the
Board of Supervisors, City Council and the State Corporation Commission.
Mr. McEvoy and Mr. Robertson presented an overview of the time line
necessary for the Authority to be operational by July l, 2004:
Finance Officers from both localities will review information regarding
technology and finance issues that will need to be resolved. The City
Attorney and the County Attorney will discuss the mechanics of how
the Authority will be formed and decisions of the governing board that
will oversee the Authority.
Over 20 employee teams have been appointed, City and County
employee teams have met to discuss every issue from financial,
operational, human resources, etc., and will most likely continue to
meet until the implementation date; a newsletter is prepared to keep
employees up to date on progress and decisions.
162
Several joint meetings between the two governing bodies will be held
over the next several months to discuss progress and to consider
certain actions that the two governing bodies will need to take in order
to make the Authority a reality by the July I deadline, which will include
discussions in connection with Articles of Incorporation and
membership on the Authority's Board, as well as financial issues
regarding rate and asset studies.
Roanoke County has scheduled community meetings for each of its
magisterial districts, which will be held at each of the five County high
schools. The first meeting is scheduled for Thursday, September 11,
at Hidden Valley High School, followed by September 15 at Cave Spring
High School, September 16 at William Byrd High School, September 25
at Glenvar High School, and September 30 at North Side High School,
all beginning at 6:00 p.m., and continuing until all questions have been
addressed.
An employee team is currently reviewing development issues; Roanoke
City and Roanoke County have planning offices that engage in planning
review and subdivision development in specific manners, and a study
of integration of utility functions of the departments is underway, with
a draft report expected by the early winter time frame.
Roanoke County and Roanoke City have jointly engaged the firms of
Black an Veatch and Draper Aden Consultants to prepare a rate study
and asset evaluation of both County and City facilities and draft
studies are due by October 13.
At a joint meeting of City Council and the Board of Supervisors which
has been scheduled for November '19, the two bodies will be requested
to approve Authority Board membership.
The final rate study and asset report will be due on January 1,2004, and
should incorporate comments as a result of draft review.
The Human Resources team will review mechanics associated with
insurance and retirement plans/benefit plans; the employees are the
City's and the County's greatest resource, they have many concerns
and questions, therefore, a draft report will be available by January 1,
2004, which will address issues regarding employee insurance,
benefits, etc.
163
It is proposed to hold another joint meeting of Council and the Board
of Supervisors in mid January 2004 to approve the rate study and to
discuss formation of the Authority.
The Finance team, composed of Jesse Hall, Diane Hyatt and their
respective staffs, have addressed debt issues and financial
applications, with a financial report projected for early spring of 2004.
The Articles of Incorporation will be submitted to the State Corporation
Commission by February 1, 2004, for approval.
Informational flyers will be mailed in the Spring of 2004 to City and
County customers advising of those actions that have been taken by
the two governing bodies, listing changes that customers can expect
when the Authority is operational on July 1, 2004, and because many
of the utilities in the City of Roanoke are located in the public rights-of-
way, it will be necessary to hold public hearings during the March time
frame regarding a franchise that will allow the Authority to work within
City rights-of-way.
Staff will finalize the first Authority budget in the Spring of 2004.
The Technology team will complete draft reports by the Spring of 2004,
looking at not only financial applications, but a joint billing system.
Additional joint City-County community meetings are proposed for the
time frame of February - April 2004.
If the State Corporation Commission approves all submittals, the first
Authority Board meeting could be held in the April 2004 time frame, at
which time the Authority will adopt operating By-Laws and procedures
and engage in a budget workshop.
It may be necessary to hold another joint meeting of Roanoke City and
Roanoke County in May/June 2004 to address remaining issues.
The second Authority Board meeting could be held in May 2004, which
would be targeted toward adopting a budget to allow the Authority to
be fiscally solvent, effective with the new fiscal year beginning July 1,
2004.
164 ....
The third Authority Board meeting could be held in the mid-June time
frame to adopt the Authority's general operating policies and to
authorize contracts.
A joint meeting of City Council, the Board of Supervisors and the new
Authority Board will be held at the end of June to celebrate the new
Authority, which is proposed to be operational by July 1, 2004.
(See time line on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
Mr. Hall presented a briefing on technology and financial support:
One of the principles that the team started out with was the idea that
most of the financial and technology support services would be
provided on a contractual basis by one or the other of the localities
which would reduce start up costs, enable an earlier start up and
allow the Authority to have the best of both worlds regarding software
and technology, while providing use of the newest system of either
locality.
Financial and accounting services will be provided by Roanoke County
which will include the general ledger, fixed assets, budgeting and
purchasing, the human resources system and payroll services.
The City of Roanoke will provide utility billing services, since the City
has newer software than Roanoke County, with the ability to
accommodate County accounts into the system.
A final recommendation has not been made regarding collections,
however, the guiding principle is that the process must ensure
convenience to customers in remitting payments.
Both localities currently use Motorola systems, and the City's Lotus
Notes system will be used for e-mail.
· A separate website will be developed for the Authority.
Imaging for records storage will be performed using the City's system.
The remote monitoring system for flows and levels will be a
combination of City and County systems, and the Authority will develop
its own network which will be integrated with City and County
networks, since Authority employees will need access to systems
within the network for both localities.
165
Actions that need to be taken in the near future are: the City's system
for billings is in need of a hardware upgrade in order to have the
capacity to add Roanoke County accounts for billing purposes, the
system needs an expanded software license for billing, potential staff
augmentation will be needed prior to start up to address integration
and transition of data, the cost of which will be billed back to the
Authority.
(See Technology and Financial Support briefing paper on file in the City Clerk's
Office.)
Ms. Hyatt reviewed issues relating to the debt of Roanoke County and
Roanoke City and related fixed assets.
Currently, the City of Roanoke has the following outstanding utility debt
and net fixed assets (net fixed assets refer to the cost of the assets,
less the accumulated depreciation on the assets.) -- a water debt of $24
million, a sewer debt of $14 million, for a total of $38 million; and net
fixed assets in water of $50 million, sewer of $94 million, for a total of
$144 million.
The City records the entire asset for the Wastewater Treatment Plant,
although other localities, including Roanoke County, share debt in their
portion for the upgrades that were recently completed.
All City debt is General Obligation Bonds, which are the most flexible
kinds of debt, and as General Obligation debt, there are no restrictions
on the transfer of assets to the Authority.
The City can enter into an agreement with the Authority to transfer the
assets, and in exchange, the Authority will make payments to the City
to equal the debt service coverage.
The County of Roanoke has outstanding utility debt in the water fund
of $56 million, in the sewer debt of $18 million, for a total of $74 million;
in net fixed assets, water has $82 million, sewer $25 million, for a total
of $107 million. Included in these numbers are $16 million of sewer
debt for the County's share of the completed upgrades to the
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Since Roanoke County currently does not have ownership ip the
Wastewater Treatment Plant, such is not included in fixed assets. Only
a small portion of the County debt is General Obligation debt, which
can be handled in the same way as the City's debt as described above.
166
The majority of the County's debt is Revenue Bonds which place
restrictions on the sale or lease of the County's assets.
Revenue bonds of the County can be broken down into two categories:
Sewer debt financed through the Virginia Resources
Authority, or VRA; the County's sewer revenue debt totals
$16 million and is financed through the VRA; the Master
Indenture for this debt provides that the system may be
transferred and the debt may be assigned to another
entity, with the written consent of VRA. In order to give its
consent, the Authority must go through the same credit
analysis process that the VRA engages in on all loan
applicants to ensure that revenues generated from the
system are sufficient to meet debt service. VRA requires
a 115 per cent coverage of net revenues to debt service.
Water revenue debt which is bound by the County's 1991
Master Indenture restrictions when it sold original bonds
for the reservoir; County water revenue debt totals $55
million and falls under the 1991 Master Indenture. This
document provides that the County cannot lease, sell,
encumber or otherwise dispose of the system without the
consent of two-thirds of the bondholders.
The best option at this point appears to be a refinancing of the bonds
in order to obtain different restrictions. Through a refinancing, money
can be saved; however, market rates have shifted in the last two
months, therefore, savings may not be as great as they were at one
point; and provisions of the Indenture can be changed. Provisions of
the 1991 Indenture included a proposed reservoir and distribution
system, therefore, they had to be somewhat stricter, but the system has
now been operational for seven years, and there is a certain amount of
history to support making the covenants less restrictive.
Two of the main things that are desired to be accomplished include use
of off-site facility fees as part of the revenues when computing the
revenue coverage, and allow the transfer of assets and debt to the new
Authority. The Virginia Resources Authority advises that it can
accomplish both of these goals if refinancing is done through VRA.
Roanoke County is currently in the process of applying for the Fall 2003
Bond pool to be sold by VRA, which bonds will sell in December 2003;
refinancing through the VRA also provides the advantage that all
revenue debt on sewer and water will be with one entity and will
facilitate the transfer of assets and debt.
167
Roanoke County and Roanoke City are currently in the process of
finalizing VRA Revenue Bonds for the next phase of the Wastewater
Treatment Plant; both localities are following the same procedure to
inform VRA as to the Iocality's intent; i.e.: the City will borrow $23
million and the County will borrow $11 million, with the bonds
currently scheduled to close in October 2003.
As with other VRA debt, it is planned to transfer debts to the Authority
with the credit approval process.
(See briefing paper on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
Mr. Hackworth reviewed provisions of the Virginia Water and Waste Authority
Act:
The Act has been effective for many years and has been used by
numerous Authorities throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia. The
Act was used to create the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority.
The Authority will have broad powers in the provision of water to
provide for impalement, treatment and delivery of water to citizens.
The Act allows the Authority to engage in all aspects of collectio~ and
treatment of wastewater, although wastewater is not proposed at this
time.
Storm water management is a logical extension of the powers of an
Authority because storm water is a regional issue and not an issue that
any one locality alone must address, therefore, the provision will be
kept in mind as work proceeds on the Authority, should the political
decision be made at some point in the future to add wastewater to the
powers, duties and responsibilities of the Authority.
Enabling legislation allows an Authority to be created very simply. In
this case, it requires a concurrent resolution, or ordinance, or
agreement between the two localities, which document must be set out
in the proposed Articles of Incorporation that will be filed with the State
Corporation Commission.
Acts of Incorporation require the inclusion of a name for the Authority,
names of participating localities, names, addresses and terms of office
of initial members of the Board of the Authority, the purposes for
which the Authority is created, and the number of Board members from
each locality.
168 -
It is proposed that the Authority will engage in the process of
identifying future water sources, although such will not be specified in
the By-laws so as to allow the Authority to have the broadest powers
authorized by enabling legislation and to not limit the Authority to
perform any particular project.
Once City Council and the Board of Supervisors have acted on a
concurrent resolution, the document is required to be submitted to the
State Corporation Commission for approval.
Enabling legislation provides for the joinder, or addition, of Other
localities to an Authority after the Authority is created.
The Act requires that thers not be fewer than five members to the Board
of the Authority. The Board of Supervisors and the Council have
agreed in principle by the adoption of a resolution that there will be
equal representation on the Authority; and it is proposed that thers be
three members from each jurisdiction as appointed by the governing
bodies.
The dilemma of a tie vote may be created which will be addressed by
Mr. Mahoney.
Enabling legislation allows elected officials from the governing bodies
to serve on the Authority Board; initially Board members would be
appointed for staggered terms which would be set out in the Articles of
Incorporation, members would be appointed for initial terms of four
years, and Board members could succeed themselves. Once a Board
is created, it would be required to elect a Chair, a Secretary and a
Treasurer, which two offices could be combined. The law does not
require that the Secretary and Treasurer be members of the Board,
therefore, the Board could elect a staff person from one of the
jurisdictions.
Once the Authority is created, it would adopt By-Laws. If a Board
member should resign or leave office for a specific reason, a
replacement would be selected by the governing body which made the
initial appointment of the position. Board members are allowed to
receive compensation for their services and compensation would be
set by the governing bodies who are members of the Authority, and
Board members are allowed to receive compensation or reimbursement
for expenses in performing their duties.
Enabling legislation allows for appointment of alternates, although
such is not recommended by the staffs of the City and the County.
169
Once the Authority is created, it would have the power to appoint a
Chief Administrative Officer.
Once the Authority is created, it would have the same power as any
corporation or governmental corporation, it would have a term of
existence of 50 years, authority to adopt its own By-Laws and internal
operating regulations, selection of the location of its office, the full
power to sue and to be sued as a legal entity, the power to acquire
property, both with in and without the jurisdictions of Roanoke City and
Roanoke County, the right of eminent domain, the power to acquire
propertywith and without those jurisdictions exercising that power; the
Authority would not have the authority to condemn property of either
the City or the County without the permission of the City or the County;
the Authority would be subject to the land use regulations and
Comprehensive Plan of whatever jurisdiction wherein a facility is to be
located; and a special requirement that if an impoundment system, or
reservoir or dam are to be constructed in any locality, such would
require the consent of the governing body of that locality.
Once created, the Authority would have the power to issue revenue
bonds which would be payable from revenues of the Authority.
The Authority would have the power to combine its water and sewer
system into a single system for purposes of operation and financing,
the power to borrow money just like a locality, and once created,
enabling legislation allows any political subdivision to lend, advance
or give money or property to such Authority.
Once created, the Authority is authorized to fix, charge and collect fees
for both water and waste water treatment, and the power to set
connection fees for water and sewer, with rates and fees that are to be
fair and reasonable. In setting such fees, the Authority would be
required to provide ample public notice by advertising, holding a public
hearing and providing notice to the City and County governing b~dies
before acting to establish any rate or fee.
Administrative work for the Authority would be contracted for through
the County or the City.
Once the Authority issues revenue bonds, those bonds are strictly the
obligation of the Authority; bonds do not constitute debt of either
locality, and there is no pledge of the full faith and credit of either
locality for the bonds.
170
Once the Authority is created, none of the property, or its assets, would
be subject to local taxation.
(See Virginia Water and Waste Water Authority Act in file in the City Clerk's office.)
Mr. Mahoney reviewed the proposed Articles of Incorporation:
The Authority needs a name that will represent the brand of the
Authority.
Membership is recommended to be six; and the Virginia Water and
WasterWater AuthorityAct requires at least five members. In February
2003, the Board of Supervisors and City Council adopted guiding
principles to direct staff and emphasized equal representation for the
City and the County, and six members are suggested which is a
manageable number. Membership must be identified no later than
November 2003 to meet statutory requirements with respect to notice
and advertising for adoption of a measure in January 2004 by both
localities, to be forwarded to the State Corporation Commission.
A tie breaker methodology is needed. Alternatives are: ('1) a tie breaker
does not have to be appointed; (2) the Authority Board could appoint
the tie breaker; (3) a Circuit Court Judge could appoint the tie breaker;
(4) there would not be equal representation by both localities on the
Authority; and (5) appointment of a person to be agreed upon by both
the Council and the Board of Supervisors who would act as the tie
breaker. Guidance is requested from the Board of Supervisors and
City Council.
No decision by the Council and the Board of Supervisors is requested
at this time, however, it is requested that the decision be made by the
November 19, 2003 meeting of the two bodies.
(See proposed Articles of Incorporation on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
During a discussion of the matter, a suggestion was offered that each locality
would appoint its initial three members to the Authority Board and a majority of the
Board would agree on a seventh member, which would allow flexibility for each
jurisdiction to determine the number of elected officials, City staff, citizen
appointments, etc.
Question was raised in regard to establishing compensation for the Authority
Board; whereupon, Mr. Mahoney advised that it is a decision to be made by the
Council and the Board of Supervisors.
171
It was noted by a Member of City Council that there may be potential localities
that will be interested in future membership to the Authority that do not view
themselves as what is traditionally thought of as the Roanoke Valley; the Roanoke
Valley extends all the way from Roanoke City to the Albemarle Sound; whereupon,
it was mentioned that the term "Blue Ridge Water and Waste Water Authority" might
be viewed as more inclusive.
In response, Mr. Mahoney referred to Pages 1 and 2 of the proposed Articles
of Incorporation which require an affirmative vote of a majority of the members from
each political subdivision of the Authority in order to include additional members on
the Authority, and any additional agreement with other political subdivisions, entities
or persons for the bulk sale of surplus water or the acceptance and treatment of
waste water.
Since the localities are potentially talking about storm water management,
water based recreation, watershed management, etc., a Member of City Council
suggested that consideration be given to using the term, "Water Management
Authority" instead of "Water and Waste Water Authority".
A question was raised by a Member of Council in regard to holding joint
City/County community meetings during the time frame of September/October;
whereupon, the City Manager advised that to this point Council has not discussed
the matter, therefore, staff requests direction from Council in regard to establishing
community meetings in the City.
The City Manager inquired if the Council and the Board of Supervisors would
like for their respective staffs to schedule another joint session in the near future.
She suggested that as a part of the agenda, staffs would address the naming issue
and share information on the various names that were proposed by employees. She
called attention to the regional branding activity which is currently in progress and
the possibility that the regional branding effort could yield a name, or portion of a
name, that might be appropriate for the Authority.
There was discussion in regard to the importance of keeping both Roanoke
City and Roanoke County residents informed as the process unfolds and that the
governing bodies and their respective staffs should do all they can to promote the
highest level of communication with City and County residents.
A suggestion was offered that future meetings will be less formal to enable
Council and the Board of Supervisors to communicate around the table, that
meetings be held at either a City or a County facility, and allow time for input by
citizens of both jurisdictions.
172 -
With regard to regional community meetings, the County Administrator
proposed that the meetings be held jointly to demonstrate a spirit of togetherness
and cooperation to Roanoke Valley citizens, and joint meetings would provide the
opportunity for City or County residents to attend a community meeting(s) of their
choice, regardless of the location. Upon question, the City Attorney advised that it
would be legally permissible for the two localities to hold joint community meetings
in both Roanoke City and Roanoke County.
There being no further business, at 11:00 a.m., the Mayor declared the meeting
of Roanoke City Council adjourned.
(The next joint meeting of City Council and the Board of Supervisors will be held on
Friday, October 17, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., at the Roanoke County Administration
Building, Fourth Floor Training Room, 5204 Bernard Drive.)
APPROVED
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
173
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
SEPTEMBER 2, 2003
9:00 a.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Tuesday,
September 2, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., the regular meeting hour, in the Emergency
Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building,
215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith
presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section
2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, Rec~ular Meetings, Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, and pursuant to Resolution No. 36193-010603 adopted by the
Council on January 6, 2003.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick, Jr., Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ................................... 5.
ABSENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris and Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.- ........... -2.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
COMMITTEES.CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on
certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(I), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before
the body.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to
convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, and Mayor
Smith ........................................................................................................... 5.
NAYS: None .......................................................................................... -0.
(Council Members Dowe and Harris were absent.)
174
CITY PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss acquisition of real
property for a public purpose, where discussion in open meeting would adversely
effect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the City, pursuant to Section
2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950) as amended.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Wyatt and Mayor
Smith ....................................................................... 5.
NAYS: None ......................................................................... --0.
(Council Members Dowe and Harris were absent.)
A joint meeting of Council and the Roanoke City School Board convened at
9:05 a.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., with Mayor Ralph K. Smith and
Chairperson Gloria P. Manns presiding.
All Council Members were in attendance.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Member Dowe arrived late.)
SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: William H. Lindeey, Melinda J. Payne (arrived
late), Kathy G. Stockburger, Ruth C. Willson, and Gloria P. Manns, Chair.
ABSENT: Robert Sparrow and David R. Trinkle.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk; E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent of Schools; and Cindy Lee, Clerk, Roanoke
City School Board.
175
LEGISLATION -COUNCIL-SCHOOLS:
Coordination of 2004 Legislative AqendA:
The City Attorney advised that:
*The 2004 Legislative Program will combine both the Council's and the
School Board's legislative agenda, which will be presented to area
legislators at a luncheon meeting on Monday, December 2, 2003.
*Council will receive a final draft of the 2004 Legislative Program for
review on November 3, 2003 and Council will be requested to act on the
Program at its meeting on Monday, November 17, 2003.
*Community input was solicited last year with mailings to
approximately 60 neighborhood, employee and business groups,
Chambers of Commerce, etc.; however, the response was not
overwhelming.
*It is believed that tax reform/restructuring will be a big issue for the
Virginia General Assembly in 2004.
Mr. Bestpitch, Chair, Legislative Committee, advised that:
*Legislative Committee meetings are proposed for Monday, October 6
and Monday, November 3, 2003, with additional meetings to be
scheduled as needed.
*Council Members and School Trustees will be provided with copy of
suggestions submitted to date by Council and City staff for inclusion
in the Legislative Program, with any additional items to be submitted to
the City Attorney, or the Chair of the Legislative Committee, as soon as
possible.
*Rather than mailing a large volume of material, it would be more cost
effective to summarize legislative items, with a cover letter advising
that persons desiring more information should contact the City
Attorney's Office.
176
The City Manager advised that it has been the City's practice for the last two
years to adopt the Virginia First Cities Coalition agenda as a part of the City of
Roanoke's Legislative Program; the number one priority of the First Cities Coalition
is educational funding; materials will be available in the near future from the First
Cities Coalition that localities and others are encouraged to use as candidates for
the Virginia General Assembly are interviewed regarding their position on education.
Chairperson Manns advised that the Legislative Program of the Schools will
be adopted on November 13, 2003, following meetings of those School districts that
are represented in the Schools Consortium, which is composed of 13 school
districts in Virginia.
Superintendent Harris advised that:
*The School Boards Consortium started as an initiative in the Roanoke
Valley and spread to 13 school districts that currently make up the
Southwest Virginia School Boards Consortium.
*School Boards have reviewed funding for construction and combined
the total cost of construction needs for the initial five to six districts
that joined the Consortium and other school districts have followed.
*Construction costs across the State are a common issue and the
mission of the Schools Consortium has broadened to address a
specific statement with regard to funding. If the Standards of Quality
(SOQ) are fully funded, school systems will recoup the money they are
spending out of their operating budgets for construction, and the
JLARC study has clearly pointed out that the State has been under
funding the SOQ by 50 - 55 per cent.
*The goal of the School Consortium is to create an awareness and a
grass roots effort to ensure that schools are adequately funded in order
to demonstrate the type of progress that is necessary for Roanoke's
students.
The City Manager advised that:
*There should be a single-prong of attack relative to educational
funding, and the Virginia First Cities Coalition has advocated more
funding for education, which is specifically tied to the JLARC
recommendation.
177
*The School Boards Consortium should be encouraged to give more
focus to the JLARC recommendation than funding for capital
improvements, which will be an uphill battle inasmuch as the State has
not agreed to be involved in capital improvements funding,
*The JLARC study points out that the State is significantly under
funding education, and if localities are successful in pursuing the
JLARC recommendation, more money would be available for other
purposes.
Council Member Wyatt advised that:
*At a recent meeting of the Virginia Municipal League Education Policy
Committee, it was pointed out that over $350 million in Standards of
Quality are unfunded.
*A concern of the VML is that the State will take money from other
programs that impact cities like Roanoke and shift the money in order
to fund the Standards of Quality; therefore, the issue should be
addressed in the City's 2004 Legislative Program.
The City Manager advised that it was her understanding that the Federal
Government is not providing an adequate level of funding for special education in
the School system, and inquired if that continues to be a problem. She stated that
Council will meet with Congressman Bob Goodlatte later in the day, and she would
be willing to address the issue at that time.
Superintendent Harris responded that special education funding is still
woefully under funded and well below the threshold authorized by Congress, which
is somewhere in the range of 20 per cent.
Dr. Harris was requested to provide a dollar amount before the 12:00 noon
meeting with Congressman Goodlatte.
PROCUREMENT CODE/PURCHASING:
178 '-
Opportunities for ~oint purchasincl:
The Director of Finance advised that one of the processes used for
procurement is to accept the State's contract for certain goods and services, which
is also followed by the School system.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Member Dowe entered the meeting).
The City Manager advised that:
*There are occasions when the City can accept bids under the State's
contract and while the State's contract is available as an opportunity to
evaluate good bench marking, the City has found that it can under cut
the State contract in some instances.
*No joint purchasing currently exists between the City and the School
system.
*Discussion has taken place with regard to merging certain
administrative functions into a more efficient operation and she has
discussed with the Superintendent of Schools the opportunity for City
and School staffs to work together on health insurance which might be
an area where the two entities could combine need and demand in
order to get a better rate in the future.
Mr. Fitzpatrick requested that the staffs of the City and the Schools discuss
the benefits of joint purchasing, whether it be for automobiles or textbooks, etc.
Superintendent Harris advised that Roanoke City works with other school
districts with regard to joint purchasing of supplies; and discussions in the past
between the City of Roanoke, the City of Salem and Roanoke County led to the
formation of a Consortium to address the purchasing of health insurance in a effort
to lower insurance premiums.
179
The City Manager advised that she has proposed to Dr. Harris that the two
entities work together to determine what might be avenues for a pooled kind of
approach for health insurance for City and School employees; the challenge is that
the School system operates on a different annual cycle, benefits are different among
the two entities, and the School Board pays significantly more as a contribution
toward health insurance for school employees than does the City; therefore,
numerous variables must be considered. She added that Council has also inquired
about other opportunities for joint purchasing and the two staffs will study the
matter and report to Council by the end of the calendar year.
At this point, Ms. Payne entered the meeting.
POLICE DEPARTMENT:
School Safety/Update On School Discipline Task Force:
Ms. Stockburger, Member of the organizing group, advised that:
*The group held its first meeting on August 21, 2003, to discuss its
charge by Council and the School Board.
*Discussion took place as to whether the group should be called an
organizing committee to review the appointment of a task force.
*Two basic objectives were discussed: (1) What is the role of the
School Resource Officer? (2) Is there a common definition of safety -
is it necessary to come to some fundamental understanding of the
issue of consistency in school discipline, and are the practices that are
currently in place significant enough to address the student who is not
going through the judicial system, but is disruptive in the classroom?
*Discussion among the group centered around bringing the judicial
piece into the conversation and the fact that many of the disruptive
students are not and do not belong in the court system, but at the same
time something needs to be done; and classroom teachers need to be
supported by the School administration and by principals.
*The process itself was a topic of discussion and some members of the
group favor facilitators who will help to coordinate the process so as
to reach agreed upon outcomes.
180 ---
*The group discussed a few non-negotiables, the major one being that
any facilitator must attend all meetings and be able to communicate
with the task force in both written and oral form.
*The group was given a charge to complete the process by the end of
the calendar year, therefore, it is proposed to have significant
information available for the Council/School Board work session on
November 21, 2003.
*The second largest responsibility will be a determination on how the
Task Force will be appointed - will it be a combination of self-selection,
or representatives from groups, including groups outside of
stakeholders such as Parent-Teacher Associations, parents, etc.
*The goal is to keep the number workable, but not to exclude any
person who might wish to participate.
*A decision will need to be made at some point as to whether the group
will be ongoing on a small scale.
Mr. Bestpitch suggested that the group not only consider providing support
for teachers, but training as well, because it appears that the School system is faced
with more and more challenging young people, and teachers could benefit from
additional training on how to manage some of the more difficult students who may
not be to the point of being involved in the juvenile justice system, but are in need
of some type of intervention; and the last message that should be conveyed to
students is that no one has any control within a classroom if a police officer is not
present.
Superintendent Harris was requested to comment on his proposed "Round
Table"; whereupon, he advised that:
*The goal is to create what is referred to as the "Superintendent's
Round Table on Quality Education" by the end of September, 2003.
*A facilitator will be announced within approximately seven days, who
should be a person other than school staff or a volunteer.
181
*The purpose of the Round Table is to engage in a discussion
regarding quality education from the perspective of parents, guardians
and leaders in the community. What does a quality education in the
Roanoke City Public Schools look like from the perspective of
instruction, achievement and academics? What does a quality
education look like from the perspective of school safety, discipline and
orderliness? What does school safety look like from the perspective
of parent and community involvement?
*The "Round Table" has generated considerable interest by persons in
the community who would like to serve. Kick offfor the "Round Table"
is proposed for October 1,2003, with 60 - 75 persons considered to be
a workable group.
*It is hoped that the end product will be those indicators that have been
identified and agreed upon to provide quality education for those
students who attend Roanoke City Public Schools.
*A report will be submitted to the School Board in April 2004, to be
included in the Board's priorities, with action steps to be implemented
by the School administration.
*Separate, but a part of the study, will be student input from the high
schools, as well as employee input, to determine if there is a
congruence between those indicators from the community and those
from School Board employees.
SCHOOLS:
Update on Career and Technical Education in the Hicjh School Upqrade Plans;
Council Member Cutler advised that graphics planning for the new high
schools refer to the liberal arts side of the program, and it is hoped that the same
amount of attention will be given to career and technical education facilities as will
be given to other college preparatory type programs.
182 --
Superintendent Harris advised that:
*The two firms conducting the high school facilities study
recommended that because Gibboney and Lawson Halls were in such
good condition and space was flexible to provide programs, the two
facilities should continue to be used, but there would be a need for
upgrade and improvements which are incorporated into the overall
plan.
*Gibboney and Lawson Halls are adaptable to programs that require
large open spaces.
*The new heating and ventilation systems have been incorporated into
the plan and have been completed at Gibboney Hall.
*Once the upgrade at the first high school is completed, Gibboney Hall
will be some distance away, and closer access to the main academic
building has been incorporated into the master plan to provide for
direct access.
*The architect is working with the appropriate School official on a
master plan for each facility that will focus on a certain amount of
revamping of the traditional career and technical plans with new
equipment and facilities.
*Some of the programs to be provided in the upgraded facility will
include automotive, culinary arts, cosmetology, manufacturing
technology, etc.
U~date on the Present and Proiected Future Status of Blue Ridae Technical
Academy:
Superintendent Harris advised that:
*The program continues to move forward.
*The School Board/School Administration has attempted to ensure that
Blue Ridge Technical Academy (Blue Ridge) is not seen as a curriculum
separate from other career and technical education programs.
*There will be a change in leadership due to a resignation, but the resignation
will not in any way negatively impact the progress of Blue Ridge.
183
*The goal is to increase the number of students because Iow enrollment
has been a concern in that Blue Ridge has not attracted the number of
students from the region that were initially projected.
*If enrollment numbers do not increase, it may be necessary to move
the program back to the high schools.
Discussion Reqardinq Middle School and Hi,Ih School Sports Pro~jrams:
Superintendent Harris advised that:
*During the last school year, the following middle school sports were
offered: softball, co-ed soccer, intramural co-ed tennis, basketball,
boys and girls wrestling, volleyball, coed tennis, boys track, boys
basketball, and middle school football which follows the high school
schedule.
*A fair number of students participate in after school sports, but there
are other after school activities that draw students away.
*There are challenges in attracting participation in soccer and
wrestling.
*Coaching is an issue, given the number of coaches that are needed,
which means that a coach who also teaches and coaches after school
hours could work as many as 12 hours a day.
*At the time of day that middle school sports occur, it is difficult to find
officials who are willing to participate because they are either on the
job, or must officiate after their normal work hours.
*Funding is an issue since there is no paid admission to games and the
School budget funds total costs.
*The following sports are offered at the high school level: Patrick
Henry High School: football (four teams), boys and girls cross country,
volleyball, golf, cheerleading, girls tennis, basketball, wrestling, indoor
track, swimming, baseball, softball, soccer, tennis, outdoor track and
lacrosse. At William Fleming High School: baseball, basketball, boys
and girls cheerleading, cross country, football, golf, soccer, softball,
swimming, diving, tennis, indoor and outdoor track, volleyball and
wrestling.
184 "-
*There is also a challenge in regard to the coaching staff as above
described.
Review of Plans For Athletic Tracks and How External Grounds Will Be
Landscaped and Committed to (~reenways At the Two New Hiah Schools:
Council Member Cutler advised that one of the variables in the stadium
discussion was the issue of athletic tracks, and inquired if the School Board plans
to install track and field facilities that are of a quality sufficient to host State-wide
track meets. He also inquired about landscaping/greenway access for the two new
high schools.
Superintendent Harris advised that:
*The City Manager was requested to defer any decision regarding the
location of athletic tracks until the upgrade for the two high schools is
completed.
*Athletic tracks will be located at each of the high schools, but they will
be of different sizes.
*Athletic tracks will not be constructed to seat a large number of
persons.
The City Manager advised that it was her understanding that the two high
schools are in favor of track facilities on site, as opposed to a separate larger facility
in a distant location.
Relative to greenways and landscaping, Dr. Cutler advised that William
Fleming High School is closer to the Lick Run Greenway and Patrick Henry High
School is closer to the Murray Run Greenway and cross country teams and science
classes could use both greenways, therefore, it appears that grsenways ars a part
of School opportunities. Superintendent Harris concurred in the remarks of Mr.
Cutler.
Mr. Bestpitch addressed drainage problems in connection with construction
in the vicinity of the Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and Science building, and
asked that the City Manager and the School Board ensure that drainage problems
in that area of the City are not exacerbated.
185
Discussion Reqardinq Participation in the Council/School Board "Buddy
System" and Al~l~ror~riate Channels of Communication:
Chairperson Manns advised that the "Buddy System" is as follows:
School Trustee Willson - Vice-Mayor Harris
School Trustee Stockburger. Council Member Bestpitch
School Trustee Trinkie. Council Member Fitzpatrick
School Trustee Payne - Council Member Wyatt
School Trustee Sparrow - Council Member Dowe
School Trustee Lindsey. Council Member Cutler
Chairperson Manns - Mayor Smith
Ms. Stockburger advised that there may be value in looking at an
institutionalized, yet informal way, of communicating between Council Members and
School Trustees on issues that either overlap or dovetail. She stated that some
localities use a system referred to as, "Two By Two"; i.e.: two School Board
members and two City Council members for the purpose of streamlining
communications on issues around which there should be ongoing dialogue between
the two bodies, the intent of which is not to bring up new topics or to engage in
crisis management, but to expedite communications on issues that generally would
be constructive, and would involve issues that have an overlap to the Council and
the School Board. She proposed that the concept be explored and that the two
bodies decide on its value and whether other meeting time could be decreased as
a result of the program. She stated that the program would not be intended to
replace the "buddy system", but would be in addition to; and volunteered to obtain
more information on how groups in other localities operate.
There being no further business, at 10:40 a.m., the joint meeting of Council
and the School Board was concluded and the Mayor declared the Council work
session in recess.
The Council met in Closed Session in the Council's Conference Room to
conduct interviews for a vacancy on the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority.
186
The Council meeting reconvened at 12:00 noon for lunch and the annual
meeting with Congressman Bob Goodlatte in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler,
Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt and
Mayor Ralph K. Smith ............................................................................... 7.
ABSENT:NONE ..........................
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth; City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Dirsctor of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
OTHERS PRESENT: Congressman Bob Goodlatte, and Peter Larkin, District
Director for Congressman Goodlatte.
COUNCIL-LEGISLATION:
On behalf of the Members of Council, the Mayor welcomed Congressman
Goodlatte and Mr. Larkin to the meeting.
Congressman Goodlatte advised that:
*Interstate-81 is on the front burner of the State and the State will have
to make a major decision regarding future plans for the highway.
· 1-81 needs attention and alternatives include: (1) a simple widening, (2)
a widening that includes separating trucks from cars that may include
tolls, and (3) a method involving a rail component. The rail component
would provide for double tracking the railroad line that runs through the
Shenandoah Valley; however, Norfolk Southern is not interested in that
alternative, but has expressed an interest in identifying and obtaining
Federal aid, since the Federal Government assists with every other
form of transportation.
*Norfolk Southern has presented an alternative to upgrade the old main
southern line that runs up the east side of the Blue Ridge Parkway and
assistance will be needed to connect the line between Manassas and
Front Royal.
187
*There is a continuing interest on the part of the State to see that rail
alternatives work; whereupon, he suggested that there be dialogue with
railroad officials, but to date Norfolk Southern has been unwilling to
assume the $2 billion plus that is estimated for the project.
*Railroads own their own rights-of-way, they are protective of those
rights-of.way and do not want to deal with the Federal Government
which, in effect, would allow the Federal Government to retain too
much control, and has had an impact on passenger rail service
inasmuch as the passenger rail line extends from Roanoke to
Lynchburg to Richmond to Washington, D. C. and to the Shenandoah
Valley.
*Amtrak has a nation wide right-of-way for passenger rail service on all
rail lines in the United States; and when the TransDominion Express
became operational he, along with Congressman Rick Boucher,
introduced legislation in the Congress, the intent of which is to give the
TransDominion Express access to Norfolk Southern and CSX rail lines
not only because of the nation wide right-of-way of Amtrak, but also
because it is hoped that Amtrak will provide rolling stock.
*The greatest concern with regard to what is going on with Interstate-81
is that the State has used the public/private partnership as an
opportunity to find a way to do what has to be done on I-8'1 and to shift
resources from the western part of the State to other parts of the State,
which is wrong. Such action would basically require tolls of such a
magnitude so as to make Southwest Virginia unattractive to
businesses that may be considering locating or expanding their
businesses in or to southwest Virginia.
*Two basic proposals have been presented regarding 1-81; i.e.: one is
gold-plated and one is too inexpensive; the STAR Solution separates
cars from trucks which would include separate exit ramps, separate
interchanges, additional lanes, environmental impacts, all of which
could cost up to $7 - 8 billion, and the Fluor proposal which involves
three lanes and prohibits trucks in the third lane could cost $1.8 billion
and is too inexpensive. Neither proposal appears to be workable.
188 -
*The legislature should make a preliminary decision on whether to
have separate lanes for trucks and cars in the very near future because
when the Highway Bill moves on to Congress sometime next year, if the
State has not made a decision by that time, Virginia will be left out of a
large sum of money that will be sought by other parts of the country.
Toils must be lower because $65.00 one way throughout 325 miles of
Virginia is outrageous, especially if Southwest Virginia is to remain
competitive with other localities that would like to be the transportation
corridor for all business.
*It is expected that the State will make a preliminary decision on which
is the preferred route and allow both STAR Solutions and Fluor to bid
on that basis.
*He supports enhancement monies because communities like Roanoke,
Lynchburg, Staunton, and Harrisonburg should have more than just
highway funds.
*There may be some positive news in the near future with regard to the
old First Street Bridge.
*Interstate-73 is of ongoing interest and concern, and a decision as to
what will happen in southeast Roanoke City is still unresolved and is
obviously a problem.
*Route 220, as it currently exists, could use improvements, but even
with improvements, the roadway will never be safe for a school bus
picking up and dropping off children at the same time that a tractor
trailer is traveling on the highway. He has encouraged the State to
make it possible for persons to sell land for the right-of-way, but the
historic district issue needs to be resolved. The matter is unresolved
at this point, but is expected to be settled in the not too distant future,
however, a lack of funds will Impact the decision.
'1-81 is a priority that will come ahead of 1-73. In the meantime, limited
actions can be taken to make Route 220 safer; and he has strongly
supported an interstate highway connector to the State of North
Carolina.
*An appropriations request for the Roanoke River Flood Control Project
has been submitted, the House Bill contains only $2 million, and the
final decision of the House and the Senate is not known at this time.
189
*The Roanoke River Greenway will take place simultaneously with
segments of the Roanoke River Flood Control Project.
The City Manager advised that the most expensive part of the greenway is
included in the second phase of the Flood Control Project and is the most
challenging and costly component.
Congressman Goodlatte further advised that:
*In September, leaders in technology from approximately ten different
countries will visit the City of Roanoke for a Conference on Technology
at The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center, and $1 million was
appropriated for the Conference which will provide an opportunity to
highlight the Roanoke Valley.
*He was successful in securing $1,050,000.00 for the Greater Roanoke
Transit Company to be used for heavy duty buses and a new RADAR
facility.
*Another request has been submitted for the O. Winston Link Museum,
pending the Transportation Bill.
*A request has been submitted on behalf of the Art Museum of Western
Virginia or capital funds for construction of a new building.
*A request has been submitted for Carilion Health Care to support the
new "Smart Operating Room" which will bring the Roanoke Valley to
the forefront in medical technology.
*A request has been submitted for a Southwest Virginia Dental Access
Program to provide dental care for Iow income children.
*Funds were obtained in order to expand Virginia Western Community
College for distance learning.
The Mayor advised that Council met earlier in the day with the School Board,
a discussion took place regarding Federal funding for special education students,
and it was reported that mandated regulations require the expenditure of
$13,357,000.00, however, the City of Roanoke is reimbursed only $2,334,000.00 by
the Federal Government, or 17 per cent.
190 -
Congressman Goodlatte advised that in the past, Congress committed to a 40
per cent reimbursement, presently the target is for the reimbursement to be in the
Iow 20 per cent in about nine years, and there will be steady, but slow improvement
in the reimbursement per centage.
Council Member Fitzpatrick advised that Blue Ridge Public Televison recently
connected the largest digital server in the United States to Virginia Western
Community College for the purpose of distance education in southwest and south
side Virginia. He asked that Congressman Goodlatte review the matter to determine
if this range of technology will provide an opportunity to do different things in the
future. He further advised that it is hoped that the City of Roanoke will submit a
proposal in the near future with regard to the trolley/incline for Mill Mountain.
Council Member Cutler inquired if there is a role for the Federal Government
to play in the Roanoke Valley's effort to bring better air service to Roanoke.
Congressman Goodlatte responded that beginning September 12, 2001, a pull
out of all air service in the Roanoke Valley was experienced, the City of Lynchburg
was severely impacted and Wyers Cave was almost wiped out; $20 million per year
was included in a program to provide assistance to certain communities to improve
air service; each year hundreds of airports throughout the United States have
applied for funds; however, the City of Lynchburg was the only airport in Virginia to
receive funding, in the amount of $500,000.00, which was used to restore air service
by Delta Airlines.
The City Manager advised that the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission has
submitted an application for $1 million, with the understanding that the City has a
more than adequate match to the $1 million.
Council Member Bestpitch emphasized education and transportation issues,
because funding for special education has many implications for education funding
overall. He stated that the average cost of educating a child with special needs is
significantly higher than the average cost of educating other children and Impacts
the school system when requirements are mandated to provide the education, but
funds are not forthcoming. He added that much is heard about Federal interest to
ensure that schools are accountable for the outcomes of education, but mixing
accountability without providing additional resources to get the job done, creates
difficulties.
191
Congressman Goodlatte advised that localities should not be required to fund
any program unless government provides the funds; he has sought and continues
to seek greater accountability between the Standards of Learning in Virginia and
Federal requirements; secondly, cities and school districts around the country
should have greater flexibility in allocating their dollars and addressing issues of
accountability, rather than the bureaucrats in Washington allocating the funds to
those areas where money is not needed, while leaving other important areas in need.
He added that there is merit in stating that there will be some flexibility for localities
to test which may lead to some schools being closed or started over; and
requirements from the Federal Government should only be commensurate with the
Federal Government's involvement, which is only eight or nine per cent of the total
amount of education, and should not be the driving force, given the struggle with
regard to identifying special education dollars. He advised that there will not be a
dramatic increase from the Federal Government on public education in general, but
the plan is to provide some increase.
The Mayor and Members of Council commended Congressman Goodlatte for
his efforts on behalf of the City of Roanoke.
There being no further business, at 1:25 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting
in recess.
The Council's work session reconvened at 1:25 p.m., in Room 159, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, City of Roanoke, for one briefing.
CITY EMPLOYEES:
The City Manager advised that in March 2003, the City administration initiated
the flrst comprehensive City em ployee survey and contracted with The Virginia Tech
Center for Survey Research to conduct the survey; whereupon, she introduced a
briefing on survey results.
Susan Willis-Walton, representing The Virginia Tech Center for Survey
Research, advised that:
*Seven in ten City employees (70.1 per cent) think of their benefits as
part of their earnings.
*In comparing the City of Roanoke with other localities, 13 items were
selected from different content areas; City of Roanoke responses were
compared to 388 localities with 750 - 1,875 employees; and 60 per cent
of comparison localities are located on the East Coast.
192 -
*Outstanding strength (92 per centile) "1 feel that the work I do is
important."
*Other strengths (81st - 89th percentile):
"The work done by City employees makes Roanoke a better place for
citizens."
"1 have a clear idea of my job responsibilities."
"1 have the skills necessary to perform my job well."
"1 like the type of work I do."
*Two questions above average (53rd and 62nd percentile):
"Employees receive communications from the top management of the
City of Roanoke often enough."
"If I do a job, I have a better chance of getting ahead."
*Six questions below average (36th and 46th percentile):
"Job promotions with the City are fair."
"1 feel free to express my opinions in my job without worrying about
negative results."
"City policies for employees are carried out in a consistent manner."
"The City of Roanoke as a whole is well-managed."
"The City as a workplace is free of harassment, intimidation and
discrimination"
"The City of Roanoke treats employees equally regardless of the
gender of the employee."
*Next steps:
Holding departmental and City wide focus groups on key survey
issues
Overall survey results and results by group have been released to
department heads
Survey response team formed
Results are available to employees via the Intranet
Results will be shared with employees through a series of articles in
the City Corner
Survey results have been discussed at Director's Retreat
*Survey instructions were:
CSR at Virginia Tech as outside contractor
Explained purpose of survey
Employees to receive feedback
Assured of confidentiality
193
Survey was voluntary, could also decline to answer individual
questions
Could write additional comments
Told to write in group number
Fifty-nine seatings were scheduled from March 10 - 14, 2003 (36
throughout the City and 23 in the EOC)
Surveys were sent to Fire/EMS, Water operations, Youth and Water
Pollution Control Plant.
*Survey topics included benefits and compensation, communication,
diversity, environment, evaluations, job expectations, job satisfaction,
job training, leadership, morale, motivation, recognition, service to
citizens, values and work life.
*Goals of the survey:
To foster communication and employee input
To maintain most effective workforce possible
To identify key strengths and weaknesses as perceived by employees
To create a better working environment for all employees
*Methodology used:
Invitation process
Survey pre-test process
Survey instrument design
66 survey items
Survey administration procedures
1,328 employees completed surveys
70 per cent response rate, _+1.48 margin of error
Compilation of data
Tabulation of results
*Respondent demographic characteristics:
53.5 per cent - 40 years of age or older
73.3 per cent reported race as "White"
69.8 per cent reported annual salary >$40,000.00
64 per cent male
63 per cent have worked for the City six or more years
*Highlights of levels of employee agreement with selected statements:
I understand that the Employee Core Values (honesty, respect,
responsibility, and teamwork) are an important part of how we provide
service - 83 per cent
194
Protecting the environment is a priority for the City - 78 per cent
Providing high quality service to citizens is a priority with the City of
Roanoke - 81 per cent
Overall, my morale at work is good - 73 per cent
*Statements with the highest employee agreement (percentage
"strongly and somewhat agree")
I have the skills to do my job well (96.0)
I feel my work is important (95.9)
I like the work I do (95.3)
I have clear job responsibilities (93.1)
City employee work makes the City a better place (91.5)
*Statements with least employee agreement (percentage "strongly and
somewhat agree")
Job promotions are fair (32.6)
City as a whole is well-managed (39.2)
City welcomes free and open input (43.3)
Policies carried out in a consistent manner (42.2)
Employees treated with respect (46.4)
The City Manager advised that another survey will be conducted in
approximately one year and the current survey will be used as a benchmark to
identify progress.
At 1:50 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess until 2:00 p.m., in the
City Council Chamber.
At 2:00 p.m., on Tuesday, September 2, 2003, the Council meeting reconvened
in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T.
Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith ........................................................................... -7.
ABSENT:NONE ................................
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
195
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend David A. Fraser,
Pastor, Faith Alliance Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: NONE.
CONSENTAGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda are
considered to be routine by the Members of City Council and will be enacted by one
motion; there will be no separate discussion of the items; however, if discussion is
desired, the item will be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately.
CITY COUNCIL-PARKS AND RECREATION.LEASES: A communication from
the City Manager requesting Council schedule a public hearing for Monday,
September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,
with regard to a contractual agreement for operation of the Rocwood Indoor
Adventure Center, was before the body.
It was explained that the City of Roanoke Department of Parks and Recreation
has finalized the "competitive negotiation" process and identified an experienced
service provider to operate and maintain the Rocwood Indoor Adventure Center,
which is located within the Parks and Recreation Administrative Building, 210
Reserve Avenue, S. W.; and in order to execute a contract between The Climbing
Performance Institute, Inc., and the City of Roanoke, a public hearing is required to
be held.
Mr. Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith ...................................................................................... -7.
NAYS: NONE .......................................................................... -0.
CITY COUNCIL-BUDGET: A communication from the City Manager requesting
that Council schedule a public hearing for Monday, September 15, 2003, at
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider an
adjustment to the City of Roanoke Fiscal Year 2003-04 budget, was before the body.
196
It was explained that each year the Year-end General Fund Balance and
Retained Earnings for Internal Service Fund and Enterprise Funds are appropriated
for funding of the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program
(CMERP) and other necessary items; and pursuant to Section 15.2-2507, Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended, a locality may amend its budget to adjust the aggregate
amount to be appropriated during the current fiscal year as shown in the current
adopted budget, however, any such amendment which exceeds one per cent of total
expenditures shown in the adopted budget, or the sum of $500,000.00, whichever is
lesser, must be accomplished by publishing a notice of public hearing.
Mr. Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith ..................................................................... -7.
NAYS:NONE .........................................
CITY COUNCIL-EASEMENTS-SCHOOLS: A communication from the City
Manager requesting that Council schedule a public hearing for Monday,
September 15, 2003, or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the
conveyance of an easement to Appalachian Power Company at Patrick Henry High
School.
Mr. Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................ 7.
NAYS:NONE ....................................
EASEMENTS-CITY COUNCIL-CITY PROPERTY: A communication from the
City Manager requesting that Council schedule a public hearing for Monday,
September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,
with regard to conveyance of an easement on City owned property on Barnes Road,
N. W., was before the body.
197
Mr. Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith .............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS: NONE .......................................................................... -0.
OATHS AND OFFICE-COMMITTEES.ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION-
FIFTHPLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION-YOUTH: The following reports of
qualification were before Council:
Kathleen W. Lunsford as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission,
for a term ending June 30, 2006;
Jennifer L. Pfister as a member of the Roanoke Valley-Allegheny
Regional Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2006, and
Kristina W. Hodges as a member of the Youth Services Citizen Board,
for a term ending May 31, 2006.
Mr. Cutler moved that the reports of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. -7.
NAYS: NONE ..................................................................................... -0.
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: NONE.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
198
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
BUDGET-GRANTS-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the City of Roanoke's Homeland Defense initiative has
been commended for its innovation and training of first responders; since the
terrorist threat has increased, focus on the use of Roanoke Police Department
Citizen Police Academy graduates serving as volunteers within the Police
Department has taken on a new importance; the Police Department has begun to
train its Citizen Police Academy graduates to assist in roles that might free sworn
police officers to patrol the streets, and prevent and react to criminal activities; and
currently, funding of the Citizen Police Academy is provided by citizen and business
donations, as well as by special fund raising within the community.
it was further advised that the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice
Services has awarded the City of Roanoke a $4,050.00 One-Time Special Request
Fund for Local Law Enforcement Agencies Grant; a local match of $1,350.00 is
required, with funds for the match having been identified; and funds from the grant
will support continuation of existing training of the basic and advanced Citizen
Police Academy and the recent expansion of the program to encourage graduates
to provide volunteer services within the Police Department.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to accept the grant,
in the amount of $4,050.00, from the Virginia Department of Criminal Justice One-
Time Special Request Fund for Local Law Enforcement Agencies, with the City of
Roanoke providing $1,350.00 as a local cash match from funds budgeted in the
Police Training budget, Account No. 001-640-3115-2044; that the City Manager be
authorized to execute the grant agreement and any related documents, to be
approved as to form by the City Attorney; that Council appropriate of $5,400.00 and
establish corresponding revenue estimates in accounts to be established by the
Director of Finance in the Grant Fund; and transfer $1,350.00 from Police Training,
Account No. 001-640-3115-2044, to Transfer to Grant Fund, Account No. 001-250-
9310-9535.
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36466-090203) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 General and Grant Funds Appropriations, and dispensing with the
second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 49.)
199
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36466-090203. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith .......................................................................................... -7.
NAYS:NONE ........................................................................................ -0.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#36467-090203) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of the One Time
Special Request Fund for Local Law Enforcement Agencies by the Commonwealth
of Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and authorizing the execution
of any required documentation on behalf of the City.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 51.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36467-090203. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith ......................................................................................... 7.
NAYS:NONE ..................................................................................... -0.
BUDGET-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER-COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
BUILDING: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the United
States Bankruptcy Court leases space in the Commonwealth Building; funding is
needed for renovation and expansion of office space currently utilized by the iJ. S.
Bankruptcy Court; cost of renovation and expansion will be covered through
adjustments to the lease contract over a period not to exceed five years; and
additional funding is needed for completion of Phase I of the project.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to transfer $180,000.00
from the following sources to the U. S. Bankruptcy Court: $133,414.00 from FY03
Unappropriated Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program Funds,
Account No. 0013- 3323, $29,800.00 from the Residual Equity Transfer Account from
the closeout of Management Services and Materials Control Funds, Account No.
001-3337, and $16,786.00 from the Capital Improvement Reserve Buildings, Account
No. 008-052-9575-9173.
200 -'
For the Civic Center Expansion and Renovation Project, the City Manager
recommended transfer of $260,000.00 from the Capital Improvement Reserve-
Buildings Account No. 008-052-9575-9173, to the Transfer to Civic Center Fund,
Account No. 008-530-9712-9505; appropriate 260,000.00 in the Civic Center
Expansion/Renovation, Phase I, Account No. 005-550-8615-9003, and establish a
corresponding revenue account in the Civic Center Fund.
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance.
(#36468-090203) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 General, Civic Facilities and Capital Projects Funds Appropriations,
and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 52.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36468-090203. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith ............................................................... -7.
NAYS:NONE ............................................................ -0.
HUMAN RESOURCES.BUDGET-GRANTS-VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT
COMMISSION: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City
of Roanoke is the grant recipient for Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funding, thus,
Council must appropriate funds for all grants and other monies received, in order
for the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board to administer WIA programs;
the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board administers the Federally
funded Workforce Investment Act (WIA) for Area 3, which encompasses the Counties
of Aileghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin and Roanoke, and the Cities of Covington,
Roanoke, and Salem; and WIA funding is intended to be used for the following
primary client populations:
Dislocated workers who have been laid off from employment
through no fault of their own;
Economica!ly disadvantaged individuals as determined by
household income gmdelines defined by the U. S. Department of
Labor;
3. Youth who are economically disadvantaged, or have other
barriers to becoming successfully employed adults; and
201
4. Businesses in need of employment and job training services.
It was further advised that the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board
has received a Notice of Obligation (NOO) from the Virginia Employment
Commission authorizing Workforce Investment Area 3 to spend $101,565.00 for the
Adult Program and $518,742.00 for the Youth Program, which serve economically
disadvantaged persons, and $128,313.00 for the Dislocated Worker Program, which
serves persons laid off from employment through no fault of their own in Program
Year 2003 (July 1, 2003 - June 30, 2004).
The City Manager recommended appropriation of Western Virginia Workforce
Development Board Workforce Investment Act funding, in the amount of
$748,620.00, and establish corresponding revenue estimates in accounts to be
established in the Grant Fund by the Director of Finance.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance.
(#36469-090203) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 54.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36469-090203. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith ............................................................................................. 7.
NAYS:NONE ......................................................................................... 0.
CITY MARKET-FEE COMPENDIUM: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that Downtown Roanoke, Inc., (DRI) administers the day
to day operations for the Historic Roanoke City Market, vendors selling goods on the
City Market currently pay DRI a monthly market space fee (formerly a curbage fee)
ranging from $20.00 to $30.00, or a daily rate of $5.00 per space; DRI uses fee
revenues for DRI management fees and to fund operational and marketing expenses
for the City Market; and fees were last revised in 1991.
202 - -
It was further advised that a DRI City Market Fees Subcommittee consisting
of several vendors was formed to evaluate the fee schedule and to submit a
proposal to the Market Rules Committee; on August 4, 2003, the fee proposal was
approved by the Market Rules Committee (which included vendor representatives)
and a quarterly meeting was held with market vendors; those venders in attendance
unanimously approved the fee proposal; and on August 12, 2003, the DRI Board of
Directors voted in favor of the new market space fees, effective January 1, 2004.
It was noted that the current market space fee schedule was approved
pursuant to Resolution No. 35494-080601 on August 6, 2001, but no fee increases
were made at that time; in light of the need to update the market fee schedule and
to enhance promotional efforts, which was expressed by vendors participating in
the process, the following are recommended:
The Monthly Primary/Shared permit or license will be $35.00 per space.
The Monthly Saturday Only permit or license will be $40.00 per space.
The Daily permit or license will be $10.00 per space.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve market space fees as
above described and amend the City's Fee Compendium accordingly, effective
January 1, 2004.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36470-090203) A RESOLUTION providing for an amendment to the fees
charged for the use of market spaces at the Roanoke City Market, with such
changes to be effective January 1, 2004; and directing amendment of the Fee
Compendium.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 56.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36471-090203. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Messrs. Mark Woods and Tony Thomas, market vendors, spoke in support of
the proposed rental fees.
David Diaz, President, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., spoke in support of the
proposed curbage rental fees.
203
Resolution No. 36470-090203 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt
and Mayor Smith ......................................................................................... -7.
NAYES:NONE ................................................................................... 0.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS:NONE.
INTRODUCTION
RESOLUTIONS:
AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
CITY COUNCIL-VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE: Mr. Dowe offered the
following resolution designating Mayor Ralph K. Smith as Voting Delegate and Vice-
Mayor C. Nelson Harris as Alternate Voting Delegate for the Annual Business
Session and meetings of the Urban Section of the Virginia Municipal League and
designating the City Manager as the Staff Assistant for any meetings of the Urban
Section on Tuesday, October 21, 2003, said meeting to be held in the C;ty of
Roanoke:
(#36471-090203) A RESOLUTION designating a Voting Delegate and Alternate
Voting Delegate for the Annual Business Session and meetings of the Urban Section
of the Virginia Municipal League and designating a StaffAssistant for any meetings
of the Urban Section.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 57.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36471-090203. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... 7.
NAYS:NONE ......................................................................................... 0.
204 - -
CITY COUNCIL-NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES: Mr. Harris offered the
following resolution designating Council Member M. Rupert Cutler as Voting
Delegate and Council Member William D. Bestpitch as Alternate Voting Delegate for
the Annual Business Meeting of the National League of Cities to be held on Saturday,
December 13, 2003, in Nashville, Tennessee.
(#36472-090203) A RESOLUTION designating a Voting Delegate and Alternate
Voting Delegate for the Annual Business Meeting of the National League of Cities.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 58.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36471-090203. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith ....................................................... 7.
NAYS:NONE ..................................................................................... --0.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR, VICE-MAYOR AND
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL:
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: Council Member Bestpitch requested that
a July 21, 2003, entry on the Council's Pending Items List with regard to a review of
the Architectural Review Board appeals process, be removed from the Pending
Items List.
CITY COUNCIL-GREENWAYS: Council Member Bestpitch referred to
correspondence from a citizen in regard to non-paved running paths that were
constructed and maintained in the Denver, Colorado, area by volunteers. He advised
that most of the City's greenways and paved surfaces do not provide the best
conditions for those persons who run on a regular basis, and asked that the matter
be referred to the City Manager to determine if there are projects in the City of
Roanoke where volunteers could be used in the development of non-paved running
spaces.
CITY COUNCIL-FIRE DEPARTMENT: Council Member Cutler read a
communication from Forest Jones, City Manager, City of Salem, expressing
appreciation to the City of Roanoke for assistance in extinguishing a fire on August
20, 2003, at the Northwest True Value Hardware store located on West Main Street
in the City of Salem.
205
CITY COUNCIL-DECEASED PERSONS: Council Member Wyatt requesteo that
the City Attorney prepare a measure memorializing Mrs. John H. Parrot (Brooke),
wife of former Council Member John H. Parrot, who served on the Roanoke Public
Library Board.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard, and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for response,
recommendation or report to Council.
COMPLAINTS: Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., presented
photographs depicting the deterioration of Mason Mill, and asked that the City
Manager address the situation as soon as possible. He referred to unsightly
conditions in the vicinity of 13th Street where junk vehicles are parked along the
curb.
ARMORY/STADIUM-COMPLAINTS: Mr. John Kepley, 2909 Morrison Avenue,
S. E., addressed Council with regard to the decision to construct a new
stadium/amphitheater at Orange Avenue and Willliamson Road. He called attention
to the financial irresponsibility of the decision and advised that when the City
Manager took office in January 2000, the debt load per citizen was approximately
$600.00 versus approximately $2,000.00 currently and climbing; and numerous new
taxes have been imposed during the current City Manager's administration which
have been approved by Council.
He further advised that:
*The proposed deficit for the 2007 budget will be approximately $15
million and inquired as to how the deficit will be met the answer is a
major increase in real estate taxes for Roanoke's citizens.
*From 1988 to 1992, the debt increased $36 million over a five year
period; from 1993 to 1998 another $30 million; and from 1999 to 2003 -
$119 million.
*The City Manager has stated that the new stadium complex will cost
no more than $18 million, but if the real truth is known, another $10 to
$12 million could be added, bringing the total cost to approximately $30
million.
206
*He referred to the $38 million that will be spent next year to build a new
Patrick Henry High School, or the $40 million that will be spent for a
new William Fleming High School in 2007; and the lease agreement
with a local business man for $110,000.00 per month for 240 months,
or 20 years, which equals $26 million, with only rent receipts to show
for the expenditure, which represents fiscal irresponsibility.
*A task force should be appointed and charged with the responsibility
of curbing the reckless spending of taxpayers' money.
ARMORY/STADIUM: Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that
she is concerned about the future direction of the City of Roanoke, and disrespect
for honest and open debate. She also expressed concern about the route that four
elected officials and one Council Appointed officer took with regard to the proposed
stadium/amphitheater project at Willlamson Road and Orange Avenue, and inquired
as to why certain City officials are throwing logic and caution to the wind in order
to present a contested project in contested territory. She advised that barrels have
been uncovered at the proposed site without extensive study as to their contents;
and inquired if this shows concern for close by neighborhoods such as Lincoln
Terrace, Gainsboro and other surrounding neighborhoods, yet construction plans
for the new facility continue. She stated that false information was provided to the
City's consultants and false impressions were given about the true cost of the
stadium/amphitheater project; and a common thread throughout the entire process
has been a lack of dissemination of the true facts.
PAY PLAN-PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT-ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Robert
Gravely, 3360 Hershberger Road, N. W., expressed concern with regard to the
leadership of the City of Roanoke. He called attention to the need for an improved
pay scale for City employees and a more educated work force. He spoke against
construction of a new stadium/amphitheater on Orange Avenue and Williamson
Road, and encouraged the City to renovate and aggressively market Victory Stadium.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
FIRE DEPARTMENT-WATER RESOURCES: The City Manager advised that
during and immediately following the fire at Northwest True Value Hardware, the City
of Roanoke provided water to the City of Salem for several days, in order to ensure
an adequate and clean water supply.
COMPLAINTS: In regard to the previous remarks of Mr. Craft concerning the
Mason Mill project, the City Manager advised that a mechanical problem was
experienced some time ago and City staff is currently assessing costs in order to
repair the damage which will be extensive due to the age of the Mill.
207
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager presented an update on the Street
Crimes Unit which became operational on August 1,2003, and advised that as a part
of the program, police officers have focused their attention on known high crime
areas which have been the location of frequent citizen complaints.
HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The City Manager advised that recently a citizen
appeared before Council questioning whether there is a conflict of interest relative
to Council Member Dowe's purchase of property in the City of Roanoke, and his
subsequent construction of a house through Blue Ridge Housing Development
Corporation. She explained that several months ago, the City responded to the
Regional Office of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development in
regard to a question regarding a potential conflict of interest; whereupon, she
reported that on August 22, 2003, a communication was received from the Director
of the Richmond Office, U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,
advising that the department found that documentation provided by the City is
sufficient to close the matter, with a determination that no conflict of interest
violating public trust, as codified in HUD's Community Development Block Grant
regulations, has occurred.
CITY CODE-MOPEDS: The City Manager advised that effective September 30,
2003, the City of Roanoke will begin enforcement enforce of the moped ordinance
and the community will be advised of the various locations where mopeds may be
registered.
At 2:45 p.m., the meeting was declared in recess for one briefing and two
closed sessions.
At 2:55 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor
Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, for a briefing on
management of the City's parking garages and surface lot parking.
PARKING GARAGES:
Representatives of Lancor Parking, LLC, presented the following:
*A history of Lancor's corporate profiles include:
Established in 1989
World headquarters in Midtown, Atlanta
Fastest growing parking company worldwide
Manages a multitude of facilities in 17 cities
315+ locations
1,000+ employees
Annual gross revenue in excess of $52 million
208 P-
Believes that their customers are best served by associates with local
ownership
*Corporate profile with regard to parking operations/consulting includes:
Office Class "A"
Municipal
Special Events
Residential
Mixed-use
Hospitals
*Experience includes:
2000 Democratic National Convention
2001 Sugar Bowl
2002 Winter Olympic Games
*Some of Lancor's contracts/acquisitions include:
City of Roanoke - 4,000 spaces
Forsyth Medical Center
High Point Regional Medical Center
Bank of America - Charleston, South Carolina
Dominion Tower - Norfolk, Virginia
Atlantic Station
One Atlantic Center
Buckhead Plaza
Underground Atlanta
Atlanta Exchange (Macy's)
Capital City Plaza
BellSouth Metro Plan
Resurgence Plaza
Centennial Tower
Renaissance Center
South Trust Centergy & Metropolis
*First year accomplishments, Customer Service Improvements - City of
Roanoke:
Friendly and responsive staff
Presentable Booths
Windshield wash
City map program
Superior customer service
"1 Wish" program
Mystery Parker Program
Message in a Bottle
209
*First year accomplishments, Maintenance and Cleanliness - Facility
Cleaning Procedures
Daily cleaning
Equipment maintenance
Scheduled monthly painting
Landscaping services
Bulbs and lamps
*First year accomplishments, Equipment Replacement/Enhancements
On line system
Complete access control
Occupancy tracking
True parking scenario
Enhanced Revenue
Enforcement:
Parking enforcement ambassadors
Ticketing technologies
Ticket track system
*Maintenance and Cleanliness:
Daily cleaning
Equipment maintenance
Scheduled monthly painting
Landscaping services
Bulbs and lamps
*First year accomplishments/recommendations implemented:
Problems found and fixed:
Maintenance and equipment at Gainsboro
Fire systems at Williamson Road Garage
Plumbing at Century Station Garage
Wiring at Market Square Garage
Conduit issues at ail garages
Waiting list reduction:
New equipment enhancement
Card audit
Transit revenue:
Cashier audits
Validation Programs:
City guest validation tracking
210 -
Paid validation program
*Future Coals and Projects in Progress
Alternative Revenue Solutions
Billboard advertising opportunities
Ticket Advertising
Garage Security Plan
Create Way Finding Signage
Direct area visitors to parking
Variable parking special signs
Marketing campaign
Parking is available in the Market
Objective parking consulting
Validation programs
Discounted validation plan
At 3:20 p.m., the Mayor declared the City Council meeting in recess for two
Closed Sessions, which were conducted in the Council's Conference Room, fourth
floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke.
At 3:55 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with Mayor
Smith presiding, and all Members of the Council in attendance.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Cutler
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open meeting
requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2) only such
public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any Closed
Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith ........................................................................................... 7.
NAYS: ................................................................................................. O.
OATHS OF OFFICE-PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT-CITY EMPLOYEES: The
Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Personnel and Employment Practices
Commission created by the resignation of Carol W. Tuning, and called nominations
to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Bestpitch placed in nomination the name of Edward C. Bradley.
211
Them being no further nominations, Mr. Bradley was appointed as a member
of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission, for a term ending June 30,
2006, by the following vote:
FOR MR. BRADLEY: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, Wyatt, and Mayor Smith ...................................................................... 7.
NAYS: ................................................................................................ 0.
OATHS OF OFFICE-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The Mayor advised that the four
year term of office of Joseph F. Lynn an a Commissioner of the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority expired on August 31, 2003, and called for
nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Joseph F. Lynn.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Lynn was reappointed as a
Commissioner of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, for a term
ending August 31, 2007, by the following vote:
FOR MR. LYNN: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris,
Wyatt, and Mayor Smith ................................................................................... -7.
OATHS OF OFFICE-SCHOOLS: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on
the Virginia Western Community College, Board of Directors, created by the
ineligibility of Audrey Wheaton to serve another term, and called for nominations to
fill the vacancy.
Mr. Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Joseph B. Wright.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Wright was appointed as a member
of the Virginia Western Community College, Board of Directors, for a term ending
June 30, 2007, by the following vote:
FOR MR. WRIGHT: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, Wyatt, and Mayor Smith .......................................................................... 7.
NAYS: ................................................................................................ 0.
OATHS OF OFFICE-HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: The Mayor advised that
the one year term of office of Vickie L. Price as a member of the Human Services
Committee expired on June 30, 2003, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
212 -
Mr. Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Vickie L. Price.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Price was reappointed as a member
of the Human Services Committee for a term ending June 30, 2004, by the following
vote:
FOR MS. PRICE: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris,
Wyatt, and Mayor Smith ............................................................ -7.
There being no further business, at 4:00 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting
in recess until Friday, September 5, 2003, at 8:30 a.m., for the City Council's
Planning Retreat, to be held at the Donaldson Brown Hotel and Conference Center,
on the campus of Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia.
The September 2, 2003 City Council meeting reconvened on Friday, September
5, 2003, at 8:30 a.m., in the Executive Board Room, Donaldson Brown Conference
Center, on the campus of Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K.
Smith presiding.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler,
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick Jr. (arrived late), C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith ...................................................................................... -6.
ABSENT: Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.- ................................ 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City
Clerk.
OTHERS PRESENT: Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for
Community Development; George C. Snead, Jr., Assistant City Manager for
Operations; and Dr. Bruce Blaylock, Facilitator.
The meeting was opened with a welcome by Dr. Mark McNamee, Provost and
Vice-President of Academic Affairs, Virginia Tech.
Dr. Bruce Blaylock, a professor at Radford University, served as Facilitator.
COUNCIL: Dr. Blaylock commended the Council on establishing a tremendous
amount of ground in its previous Council Retreats, and advised that the agenda for
the day would include strategic planning which can be broken down into a triangle,
including Action, Results, Goals, Strategies, Mission and Vision; with the Vision
serving as the planning piece - What does Council want to see for the City of
Roanoke? He stated that the Council would engage in an exercise to reaffirm its
213
mission and to establish goals for the coming year, with a focus on results to
accomplish goals and an exercise enumerating those things that have been
accomplished that the Council is most proud of; to affirm orto revisit the Vision for
2012; to review the four established strategic goals to ensure that they continue to
represent the Council's direction; to identify the most pressing issues for attention
by Council in the coming year; and to establish a timetable for addressing specific
issues.
Members of Council and the City Manager participated in an exercise listing
accomplishments of the City of Roanoke during the past year:
*The water situation has improved and the City is on a path to a long
term solution.
*Adopted the Comprehensive Plan/Neighborhood Plans.
*Resignation of a Member of City Council - the unexpired term was
filled and the process ran smoothly.
*The Victory Stadium issue was addressed while maintaining
professional and personal respect/lines of communication were kept
open.
*Progress on housing issues: Southeast by Design which is the
revitalization of a Iow to moderate income neighborhood; and (2)
encouraging more market rate development on available City property.
*Initiated steps to improve air service by working with other
governments in the area and the Roanoke Regional Chamber of
Commerce/improved working relationships with other governments.
*Established a good working relationship with the School Board.
*Improved the quality of appointments to a number of Council
Appointed boards and commissions.
*Adopted an improved process for appointment of persons to boards
and commissions.
*Upon the retirement of the Director of Real Estate Valuation; a Council
Appointed Officer, the position was merged with the responsibilities of
the Director of Finance. A smooth transition occurred while
streamlining operations and increasing efficiency.
214 -
*Developed better working relationships with elected entities in
surrounding jurisdictions through more interaction and thinking of the
area as a region/the City of Roanoke reached out to other localities.
*First employee survey has established a good baseline for future
surveys/a plan is in place for responding to the survey/and a plan of
action will be developed.
*Saved taxpayers' money by taking advantage of Iow interest rates and
refinancing the City's long term debt.
*Reduced the number of City owned vehicles which has lowered
emissions and reduced air pollution.
*Strengthened greenway trail system management of Carvins Cove
Watershed for recreation.
(At this point, Council Member Fitzpatrick entered the meeting.)
*Actions taken by the City Manager have led to an improved
environment.
*The City was impacted by State budget cuts/lack of revenue growth.
The decrease was absorbed without a negative impact on service to
Roanoke's citizens.
*Much progress has been made on revising the Zoning Ordinance a
group of approximately 20 citizens have volunteered a tremendous
amount of time reviewing the ordinance line by line and point by point.
*The Council and the City Manager have taken on a major role in the
Virginia First Cities Coalition to address State budget cuts.
*Council is more decisive in making leadership decisions.
*Protection of Roanoke's neighborhoods through architectural
standards.
*Successfully addressed the naming of something in memory of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr.
*Addressed the need for improvements on the first floor (Planning,
Building and Code Enforcement are more responsive to the
community).
215
*Working effectively to address deer management in the City.
*A newly formed committee, the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates,
have taken neighborhood organizations to a higher level of advocacy.
*The City organization and the Roanoke community have engaged in a
higher use of technology.
*Establishment of Event Zone.
*Downtown housing has been increased through endorsement by
Council of the housing policy.
*Adoption of the 2003 Legislative Program/five bills were introduced
and approved by the Virginia General Assembly.
*Adoption of a new procurement ordinance that brings structure to the
City's procurement system.
*Improved coordination of planning and coordination with market area
vendors/outdoor dining.
*Greater follow through and accountability on the Comprehensive Plan.
*Council and the City Manager are more comfortable with change and
dealing with conflict when there is not a perfect resolution, which has
made the City organization stronger.
*A good working relationship between Members of Council, the City
Manager, and Members of the City staff.
*Improved Council communication.
There was discussion with regard to ways to improve communication with
citizens; whereupon, the following comments were offered:
*Televise on RVTV Channel 3 informal Council briefings and joint
sessions ofthe Council and other Council Appointed committees, such
as the Roanoke City School Board, Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority, Architectural Review Board, City Planning
Commission, etc.
*Summary by the City Manager of each agenda item listed under the
City Manager's section of the agenda prior to introduction of the item.
216 -
*Posting of announcements routinely read by the Mayor prior to each
Council meeting on a screen in the Council Chamber.
*Summarization of actions taken at each Council meeting immediately
following the Council meeting on RVTV-Channel 3.
*Summarization of the contents in the title paragraph of each budget
ordinance.
*Electronic voting by the Council as a time saving measure.
The facilitator reviewed the 2012 Vision - Principals to Guide Our Future:
*Recognized as the Capital of Western Virginia: Economic,
Government, Service, Culture
*Strong Neighborhoods: Quality City Infrastructure, Livable Homes
*Recognized for Educational Excellence: 1't Rate Schools, Preschools
to Universities
*City Connectivity with Universities and Colleges
*Riverfront Developed as an Exciting, Mixed Use Focal Point: To Live,
To Work, To Play
*Protection of Our Natural Beauty and Resources
*Reuse and Redevelopment of Land for Better Uses
*Businesses and Individuals Investing in Roanoke, in Downtown
*Entertainment Destination Point: Major Events, Sports and Festivals
*Young Adults Choose to Live Here: Reputation as an Exciting Place to
Live
* Ease in Travel To and From Roanoke: Air, Rail, Highway
*Quality Water Supply: Adequate, Affordable Costs Meeting Community
Needs
*Strong Community Pride in Roanoke
217
*Financially Sustainable City Government with Cost-Effective Service
Delivery
Dr. Blaylock inquired as to changes, if any, that the Council would like to
make in the 2012 Vision; whereupon, the following were reported:
CHANGE: Ease in Travel To and From Roanoke: Air, Rail, Highway
TO: Ease in Travel To, From and Within Roanoke: Air, Rail, Highway
CHANGE: Strong Neighborhoods: Quality City Infrastructure, Livable
Homes
TO: Strong Neighborhoods: Quality City Infrastructure, Market Rate Or
Mixed Use Homes
ADD: Develop River Front As An Exciting Focal Point
ADD: Roanoke Should Have Jobs That Lead to the Area Being the
Economic Engine for the Region.
Dr. Blaylock led the Council in a review of the following goals/objectives:
GOAL NO. 1 - HEALTHY LOCAL ECONOMY
Objectives:
*Promote development of upper end housing opportunities.
*Partner with other localities to attract businesses to Roanoke Valley.
*Actively promote and market "Roanoke"- our brand.
*Support the retention and expansion of local businesses and increase
participation by all businesses.
*Strengthen the Roanoke Valley link to other metropolitan areas via air
service, rail service and interstate highways.
*Diverse local economy: medical, government, tourism, small
businesses.
*Place for businesses to start and grow.
218
*Development of a quality workforce linked to job opportunities.
*Raise per capita income at level to support families.
*Wastewater, water capacity to support businesses, including water
reuse.
*Expanded outdoor activities in the natural area.
*Highest retail sales tax per capita- more unique, distinctive shopping
opportunities attracting shoppers.
(No changes were suggested by Council to Goal No. 1.)
GOAL NO. 2 - STRONG NEIGHBORHOODS
Objectives:
*Improving property maintenance through prevention and enforcement-
including removal of blighted/worn-out structures.
*Involving citizens as responsible partners in enhancing quality of
neighborhoods and addressing neighborhood problems.
*Supporting home ownership and well-maintained, safe homes - range
of homes available at affordable prices.
*Developing and using realistic, usable neighborhood plans that link to
Comprehensive Plan and guides the future of the neighborhood.
*Protecting the integrity of the neighborhood through
design/development standards, standards for infill.
*Preserving our community heritage - our architecture, our
neighborhoods, our housing options.
*Significant improvement in specific targeted neighborhoods.
*Linking neighborhoods to amenities.
*Pedestrian-friendly street designs and neighborhoods.
*Diverse incomes living in neighborhoods.
*Maintaining/improving City infrastructure: streets, streetscapes.
219
(No changes were suggested by Council to Goal No. 2.)
GOAL NO. 3 - VIBRANT GREATER DOWNTOWN
Objectives:
*Increasing residential opportunities in downtown area, including
attracting support businesses, supermarket, drugstore, other retail.
*Expanding downtown revitalization into areas surrounding
neighborhoods.
*Supporting major projects: education center, Riverside Center, - job
opportunities, building/infrastructure development.
*Enhancing downtown aesthetics and cleanliness - greenspaces, trees,
streets and streetscapes.
*Protecting quality of downtown development through zoning,
development standards, quality infrastructure.
*More adequate, accessible parking to support downtown revitalization.
*Developing reputation as center for culture and arts, entertainment.
*Expanding entertainment opportunities.
*Developing connecting districts - market, financial rail.
*Alive 24/7.
*Maintaining integrity for downtown.
*Determining best land use in downtown.
*Becoming destination point - people coming to and attracted to
downtown.
Council suggested one revision to Goal No. 3:
CHANGE: Developing reputation as center for culture and arts,
entertainment.
TO: Developing reputation as center for culture and arts, entertainment-
support office and institutional uses.
220
GOAL NO. 4 - QUALITY SERVICES: RESPONSIVE, COST EFFECTIVE
Objectives:
*Investing and using technology in service delivery and management.
*Evaluating City performance through City surveys and benchmarks.
*Developing and retaining productive, motivated workforce with well-
trained, competent and diverse employees.
*Process of continuous improvement empowering employees to offer
ideas and to try a new approach.
*Quality City facilities and buildings.
*Streamlining service delivery.
*Focusing on core competency of City.
*City providing valued services, responsive delivery.
*Use of green technology and resources by City government.
*Customer service valued and demonstrated by our City employees.
Greater accountability for services, results.
No changes were suggested by Council to Goal No. 4.
The Facilitator requested that Council and the City Manager break out into
three teams to review each of the objectives listed under the four goals, and respond
to the following questions: "1 know this objective will be completed when?" "What
will it look like when we get to the point that we are satisfied?"
Dr. Blaylock requested that each team take a specific goal and draft actions
that they believe are appropriate for the Council and the City Manager during the
coming year, in order to reach a vision on what the goal should look like at the end
of one year. Secondly, each team was requested to place a check mark indicating
whether the action is to be initiated by the City Manager or the City Council; if an
individual Member of Council wishes to take responsibility, they were requested to
place their initials beside the item; and the two Assistant City Managers were
instructed to engage in an activity identifying obstacles that could prevent
successful completion of an action.
221
Following the exercise, Council and the City Manager were instructed to
identify top and high priority items.
Dr. Blaylock advised that a compilation of responses would be prepared
following the meeting and forwarded to the City Manager.
(See compilation on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
The City Manager advised that the responses by Council Members in the
priority ranking of certain items reinforced some of the attention that has been given
by Council to those items. She called attention to budget challenges, and input by
Council will provide good direction to City staff; and all items will be reviewed
following receipt of the summary by Dr. Blaylock.
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the September 2, 2003
meeting of City Council, which was recessed until Friday, September 5, 2003, at
8:30 a.m., adjourned.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Mayor
222
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION--ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
September 15, 2003
2:00 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
September 15, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the City Council
Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue,
S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to
Chapter 2. Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of
Procedure, Rule 1, Reqular Meetinqs, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended.
PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.,
C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, and Mayor Ralph K.
Smith ............................................................. 6.
ABSENT: Council Member M. Rupert Cutler ........................... 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend Johnny Stone,
Pastor, Hill Street Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led
by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
DECEASED PERSONS-LIBRARIES: Mr. Harris offered the following resolution
memorializing the late Betty Brooke Morris Parrott:
(#36473-091503) A RESOLUTION memorializing the late Betty Brooke Morris
Parrott, wife of former Council Member John H. Parrott.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 59.)
223
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36473-091503. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
On behalf of the City of Roanoke and the Members of Council, the Mayor
presented a ceremonial copy of Resolution No. 36473-091503 to Mr. Parrott.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by one
motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda and if discussion was
desired, that item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and considered
separately. He called specific attention to five requests for closed sessions to
discuss vacancies on boards and commissions and the terms of contracts in
negotiation.
MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday,
July 21,2003, and recessed until Thursday, July 31,2003, were before the body.
(For full text, see Minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and
that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 5.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
(Council Member Wyatt was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
224
COMMI'I-FEES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on
certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was
before the body.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to
convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on various authorities, boards,
commissions and committees appointed by the Council, as above described. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 5.
NAYS: None .................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
(Council Member Wyatt was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
CITY COUNCIL-CITIZEN OF THE YEAR: A communication from Mayor Ralph K.
Smith requesting that Council convene in aCIosed Meeting to discuss the Citizen
of the Year award, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(10), Code of Virginia (1950),
as amended, was before the body.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to
convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss the Citizen of the Year award as above
described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 5.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
(Council Member Wyatt was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
225
CITY COUNCIL-CITY PROPERTY: A communication from the City Manager
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss the disposition of
publicly-owned property, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, was before the body.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
to convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss the disposition of publicly-owned
property as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 5.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
(Council Member Wyatt was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
CITY COUNCIL-CITY PROPERTY: A communication from the City Manager
requesting that Council convene a Closed Meeting to discuss the disposition of
publicly-owned property, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, was before the body.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
to convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss the disposition of publicly-owned
property as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 5.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
(Council Member Wyatt was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
226
CITY COUNCIL-CITY PROPERTY: A communication from the City Manager
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss the disposition of
publicly-owned property, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, was before the body.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
to convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss the disposition of publicly-owned
property as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted
by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 5.
NAYS:None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
(Council Member Wyatt was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
FRANCHISES-CITY COUNCIL-CABLE TELEVISION: A communication from the
City Manager requesting that Council schedule a public hearing for Monday,
October 6, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard,
with regard to adoption of a revised Cable Television Ordinance and approval of
renewal of the Franchise Agreement, was before the body.
The City Manager advised that City of Roanoke representatives, along with
representatives of Roanoke County and the Town of Vinton, have been negotiating
a renewal of the Cable Television Franchise Agreement between the City and
CoxCom, Inc., d/b/a Cox Communications Roanoke, which will also involve
adoption of a revised Cable Television Ordinance for the City.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager
that a public hearing be held on Monday, October 6, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, as above described. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
227
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 5.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
(Council Member Wyatt was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
AUDIT COMMITTEE: Minutes of a meeting of the Audit Committee held on
Tuesday, September 2, 2003, were before Council.
The following items were discussed:
Internal Audit Report:
Real Estate Valuation
Sheriff's Canteen Fund and Jail inmate Fund
Purchasing Cards
Facilities Management
School Safety - Update
Municipal Auditing Annual Plan -June 30, 2004
Audit Committee Annual Report- June 30, 2003
Municipal Auditing Annual Report -June 30, 2003
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that the Minutes of the meeting of the Audit
Committee be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and
adopted by the following vote:
228 --
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 5.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
(Council Member Wyatt was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
COMMITTEES-TOWING CONTRACT: A report of qualification of Michael W.
Conner as a member of the Towing Advisory Board, for a term ending June 30,
2006, was before Council.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that the report of qualification be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 5.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
(Council Member Wyatt was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
BUDGET-COMMONWEALTH'S A-I-rORNEY: A report of the Commonwealth's
Attorney presenting cost collection results for fiscal year 2002-2003, was before
Council.
(For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
229
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the Help Eliminate Auto Theft (H.E.A.T.) Program is a
cooperative effort between the Virginia Department of State Police, the Department
of Motor Vehicles, and 61 local law enforcement agencies across the
Commonwealth of Virginia; based on population, Virginia has enjoyed a 25.6%
decrease in the number of auto thefts since implementation of the H.E.A.T.
Program in 1992; and as part of the 2002-2003 H.E.A.T. Program, funds were
allocated in the form of grants to financially support implementation of new auto
theft enforcement initiatives by law enforcement agencies.
It was further advised that in recognition ofacontinuing trend of auto thefts
occurring in the Roanoke Valley, the Police Department developed a plan to
proactively address thefts; on August 5, 2003, the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of State Police awarded the City of Roanoke $6,911.00 in grant funds
to establish a "Bait Vehicle Program"; grant funds will be used to purchase the
appropriate bait vehicle equipment and software needed to successfully operate
one bait vehicle; the goal of the "Bait Vehicle Program" is to aid law enforcement
officers and detectives with reduction of auto thefts in the Roanoke Valley; using
the Police Department's crime analysis statistics, the bait vehicle will be used in
areas where frequent vehicle thefts occur; information retrieved from the bait
vehicle will also provide the Court with comprehensive verifiable case information
to aid in the successful prosecution of auto theft cases; and once established, the
program will serve as a deterrent for future car thieves.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to accept agrant of
$6,911.00 from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of State Police, subject
to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and that Council appropriate State
grant funds in the amount of $6,911.00, with acorresponding revenue estimate in
accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund.
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36474-091503) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second
reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 60.)
230 -
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36474-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None .................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36475-091503) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of the Help
Eliminate Auto theft (H.E.A.T.) Grant offer made by the Commonwealth of Virginia
Department of State Police and authorizing the execution of any required
documentation on behalf of the City.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 61 .)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36475-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
CITY CODE-ANIMALS/INSECTS-FIREARMS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the City continues to address issues relating to
options for the management of deer population; a temporary solution to managing
the City's deer population has been developed that would utilize two retired
Roanoke police officers as temporary City employees who, working as a team, will
remove antler-less deer through use of a suppressed rifle provided by the City;
and implementation of the temporary plan is scheduled to begin in October 2003.
231
It was further advised that Section 21-80 of the Code of the City of Roanoke
(1979), as amended, states that "it shall be unlawful for any person to shoot any
gun, pistol or any other firearm within the limits of the City, except in the case of
urgent necessity, this section shall not apply to members of the city police force,
members of the established armed forces and members of bona fide gun clubs,
shooting ranges approved by the City Council and established in the City for their
use, and persons shooting in licensed shooting galleries"; while the City Code
provides an exception for police officers, the temporary employees will not be
"members of the city police force" inasmuch as they will be hired for the deer
program exclusively; and there is no provision in Section 21-80 that allows forthe
discharge of a firearm for the purpose of culling the antler-less deer population.
It was explained that the proposed amendment to Section 21-80 states that
"persons authorized by the City to cull antler-less deer under the conditions of the
Urban Deer Management Program Permit (DPOPP) granted to the City by the
Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries" will be allowed to discharge a
firearm within the limits of the City; and the proposed amendment to Section 21-
80 will enable the City to implement its deer management plan.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance amending
Section 21-80 of the City Code with regard to the discharging of firearms.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36476-091503) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Section 21-80,
Discharqinq Firearms, Article Ill, Weapons, of Chapter 21, Offense-Miscellaneous,
of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to exempt persons
authorized by the City to cull antler-less deer from the application of Section 21-
80; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 62.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36476-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
232 -
Mr. Joseph Schupp, 2323 South Jefferson Street,. a member of the City's
Wildlife Task Force, commended the City of Roanoke on moving ahead with a
portion of the recommendations of the Wildlife Task Force. He advised that the
Wildlife Task Force recommended a two-prong approach, i.e.: implementing an
urban archery program and a sharpshooting program; one program without the
other will not solve the deer problem, but will represent a good start, and the
urban archery portion of the recommendations is an important and necessary step.
He presented an outline that the City could use to ensure strongly controlled
situations regarding the selection of qualified archers, and advised that other cities
currently involved in urban archery include Colonial Heights, Franklin, Lynchburg,
Martinsville, and the Towns of Altavista, Amherst, Blacksburg, Chistiansburg,
Farmville, Independence, Tazewell, West Point and Fairfax County. He stated that
sharpshooting alone is costly and will not resolve the problem, and implementing
the urban archery phase will demonstrate to Roanoke's citizens that the. City is
keeping an eye on taxpayers' money, while proceeding with a necessary and free
to the taxpayers portion of the program.
Ms. Heidi Baird, 542 Dillard Road, S. W., representing taxpayers with humane
attitudes toward wildlife, advised that the City of Roanoke has far more important
issues on which to spend its time and money than whether deer are destroying
vegetation in certain neighborhoods. She inquired if the City has given any
consideration to the consequences of persons shooting guns in urban
neighborhoods, or wounded deer in residential neighborhoods, or wounded deer
that could run down Route 419 which could cause a traffic accident, all of which
bare severe consequences, and should be addressed by Council prior to enacting
the deer management program. She asked that action on the matter be deferred
and that the recommendations of the Wildlife Task Force be publicized.
Mr. Bestpitch advised that there is evidence that deer over population is a
problem, not just for the City of Roanoke, or the Commonwealth of Virginia, but
throughout most, if not all of the country. He stated that he has been contacted
by numerous citizens over a number of months on the issue and he has assured
them that the City of Roanoke will ensure that eliminating the deer over population
will be done in a restricted and controlled manner, while taking into consideration
the concerns of citizens, such as discharge of firearms within neighborhoods and
the time of day that such operations will be conducted, etc. He added that the
proposed City Code amendment presently before the Council does not include any
of the restrictions that have been previously discussed in detail by the Council, and
expressed concern that the proposed amendment is broader than previous Council
discussions. Therefore, he offered a substitute motion that the matter be referred
back to the City Manager for further study and report to Council.
233
The motion failed for lack of a second.
The City Manager advised that a program is currently under review by City
staff to address the specifics of the deer management program. She assured
Council that the intent of the program is to engage in the activity on public
property; if the City received a request from a private property owner to enter their
property for the purpose of engaging in deer culling, the policy as currently
written, but has not been formally adopted by Council, would require that the
private property owner contact the City and the private property owner would be
required to agree to certain conditions under which the City would engage in the
activitY on private property. She stated that emphasis has been placed on
antle'rless deer because experts report that such action would reduce the herd
significantly inasmuch as that particular kill represents the equivalent of four deer
in the future, as opposed to bucks with antlers. She explained that City staff was
not comfortable with finalizing the deer management program until Council
approved the proposed City Code amendment, which is the last of the options that
were offered and considered in terms of an approach to deer management in the
City. She advised that some months ago, the City received a proposal by an expert
company that the City had intended to engage in this activity which involved
baiting deer into a particular area and would further concentrate and limit the area
in which the activity would occur; however, current State Code provisions do not
allow this specific method of action; therefore, as a part of the City's 2004
Legislative Program, special action will be requested by the 2004 Session of the
General Assembly. She advised that upon completion, Council could be provided
with administrative regulations regarding deer management prior to
implementation.
There was discussion in regard to the remarks of a previous speaker in
connection with injured deer; whereupon, the City Manager advised that every
round of fire would have to be accounted for; if a deer is struck and leaves the
area, no more shooting would be allowed and those individuals hired by the City
would be required to recover the deer before moving on to another site.
Mr. Bestpitch expressed concern that Council is being requested to vote on
an ordinance amending the City Code prior to completion of the deer management
plan; Council has been told by the City Manager that at some point the guidelines
could be submitted to the Council, but there is no assurance that the guidelines
will be presented to the Council, and he would preferto reviewthe guidelines prior
to voting on the proposed amendment to the City Code.
234
Ordinance No. 36476-091503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, and Mayor Smith-5.
NAYS: Council Member BestpJtch ................................... 1.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
INDUSTRIES-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that on May 19, 2003, Council authorized the City
Manager to execute an Option Agreement with Roanoke Development, LLC, for the
purchase of New Tract F, designated as Official Tax No. 72301 05, at the Roanoke
Centre for Industry and Technology (RCIT), which was executed and is dated
June 10, 2003; the proposed developer, Roanoke Development, LLC, was
contacted by SEMCO, Incorporated of Virginia, to design and construct a build-to-
suit manufacturing facility for its sole use, which SEMCO would lease from
Roanoke Development, LLC; since that time, SEMCO has decided to own and
construct the building itself rather than to use a development corporation and now
desires that the Option Agreement be assigned to SEMCO to enable purchase of
the property from the City; and the Option Agreement provides that it may be
assigned upon the written consent of the City of Roanoke and Roanoke
Development, LLC; and Roanoke Development, LLC, has agreed to such
assignment.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute an
Assignment and Amendment No. One to the Option Agreement for the sale of New
Tract F at RCIT and to take such further action and to execute such other
documents as may be required for sale of such property, subject to approval by
the City Attorney; the transfer will keep the same basic terms and conditions
related to project scope, investment, and commitments as was made in the original
Option and the separate letter of understanding supplied by SEMCO, Incorporated,
however, Roanoke Development, LLC, will be released from any further obligations
since SEMCO, incorporated, will assume all obligations.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
(#36477-091503) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the Execution of an
Assignment and Amendment Number One with SEMCO, Incorporated of Virginia, to
the Option Agreement with Roanoke Development, LLC, for the option to purchase
an approximate 18.437 acre parcel of land known as New Tract F located at the
Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology ("RCIT"), upon certain terms and
conditions; authorizing the City Manager to take such other action and to execute
235
such other documents as may be required to implement the sale of such property
at RCIT to SEMCO, Incorporated of Virginia; and dispensing with the second
reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 64.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36477-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
PAY PLAN-STATE COMPENSATION BOARD-CITY SHERIFF: The City Manager
submitted a communication advising that the Master Deputy Sheriff program is a
career enhancement program offered to Sheriff's offices by the State
Compensation Board, beginning in 1995; at the time, the Sherifftookadvantage of
the opportunity through an agreement with the City Manager; and the program
continues today, but is not reflected in the City's Pay Plan Ordinance, along with
similar career development programs.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve an amendment to the
Pay Plan Ordinance to include the Master Deputy Sheriff program, which provides a
five per cent increase to the base salary up to, but not exceeding, five per cent
above the pay range maximum of deputy sheriffs who are appointed by the Sheriff,
pursuant to guidelines set forth by the Virginia State Compensation Board.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36478-091503) AN ORDINANCE amending Ordinance No. 36312-051203,
adopted May 12, 2003, adopting and establishing, among other things, a Pay Plan
for officers and employees of the City, effective July 1,2003, by the addition of a
new Paragraph 1S, and the renumbering of subsequent paragraphs in the
ordinance, in order to include a provision relating to an increase in the base salary
of persons qualified and appointed by the Sheriff as Master Deputy Sheriffs; and
dispensing with the second reading by title paragraph of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 65.)
236
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36478-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that Congress has appropriated funds for continuation of
the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) for the period of October 1,2003
through September 30, 2005, to be administered by the Bureau of Justice
Assistance and the U. S. Department of Justice; the purpose of the LLEBG program
is to provide funds to units of local government to underwrite projects designed to
reduce crime and to improve public safety; and the City of Roanoke has been
awarded LLEBG grant funds in the amount of $102,351.00.
It was further advised that grant conditions require a local match amount of
$11,372.00, for a program total of $113,723.00; the award renews Roanoke's
LLEBG Grant program for the eighth consecutive year; grant funds must be used
for: (1) payment of overtime to presently employed law enforcement officers for
the purpose of increasing the number of hours worked by such personnel and (2)
procuring equipment, training and other materials directly related to basic law
enforcement functions; police bicycle patrol, directed at specific/problem areas or
neighborhoods will be continued through this program; and deadline for
acceptance of the grant is September 29, 2003.
It was explained that grant funds become available only after a public
hearing and an LLEBG program advisory committee meeting have been conducted
by the Police Department; the public hearing and the LLEBG Advisory Committee
meeting must be conducted prior to November 13, 2003; the LLEBG Program
requires that all grant funds ($102,351.00) be placed in an interest bearing
account; based on interest earned during the past year of LLEBG funding, interest
earnings of $1,500.00 are anticipated for the grant; and the local cash match of
$11,372.00 is available in the Police Department's State Asset Forfeiture Account.
237
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to accept the Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) of $102,351.00 from the Bureau of Justice
Assistance, with the Police Department providing $11,372.00 as a local cash match
from State Asset Forfeiture Account No. 035-640-3302-2149, and $1,500.00 in
anticipated interest earnings; that she be further authorized to execute the grant
agreement and any related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City
Attorney; and that Council appropriate funds, in the amount of $115,223.00, and
establish corresponding revenue estimates in accounts to be established by the
Director of Finance in the Grant Fund.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36479-091503) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 67.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36479-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36480-091503) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of the Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant offer made by the Bureau of. Justice Assistanc~ and
authorizing the execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 68.)
238
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36480-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
BUDGET-GRANTS-YOUTH: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that the City of Roanoke has been selected as a grantee for the second
year of a three-year funding cycle for Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY)
program, under provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, in the amount
of $126,675.00 annually; funds are used to cover salaries and fringe benefits of a
Youth Counselor Ill, a Youth Counselor II, a relief counselor and related program
activities in the Sanctuary Outreach program; and the required local match is
offered as in-kind services.
It was further advised that the U. S. Department of Health and Human
Services awards grants for services in three-year cycles; the project period for this
grant began September 30, 2002, and will end on September 29, 2005; the focus
of the program is to alleviate problems of runaway and homeless youth and their
families, strengthen family relationships and encourage stable living conditions;
through the intervention program, Sanctuary outreach staff offers runaway and
homeless youth and their families a combination of shelter-based and home-
based supportive services that will decrease the incidence of repeat runaway
episodes; and program services include: 24 hour intake and referral access,
temporary shelter, individual, group and family counseling, community service
linkages, aftercare services, case disposition and recreation opportunities.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to accept the grant,
in the amount of $126,675.00 in 2003_2004, from the U. S. Department of Health
and Human Services (Grant No. 03CYO433/02) for Sanctuary's RHY Outreach
program; to execute the grant agreement and any related documents required by
the Department of Health and Human Services, subject to approval as to form by
the City Attorney; and that Council appropriate funding, in the amount of
$126,675.00, and increase the corresponding revenue estimate in accounts to be
established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund.
239
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36481-091503) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second
reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 69.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36481-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36482-091503) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance ora grant from
the United States Department of Health and Human Services to be used for salary
and fringe benefits of counselors and related activities in the Outreach program;
and authorizing the execution of the necessary documents.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 71.)
. Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36482-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
240
BUDGET-EMERGENCY SERVICES-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
has announced allocation of the Base 2003 Office of Domestic Preparedness
Equipment Program Grant, which is designed to allow local governments in Virginia
to purchase equipment that will enhance their ability to respond to terrorist acts
involving weapons of mass destruction; the City of Roanoke has been allocated
$79,657.00 based upon a formula that provided $20,000.00, plus 62.7 cents per
capita, and funding will be made available upon review of the equipment budget
detail listing and approval by the Virginia Department of Emergency Management
and the Office of Domestic Preparedness.
It was further advised that the funds which require no local match, must be
used according to requirements specified by the Office of Domestic Preparedness;
and the 2003 grant allows for the purchase of equipment from 12 commodity
areas, including personal protective equipment, detection and monitoring
equipment, decontamination equipment, and communications.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute any
documentation required in connection with obtaining and accepting the above
referenced allocation, to furnish such additional information and to take such
additional action as may be needed to implement and administer the funds and
agreements, said documents to be subject to approval as to form by the City
Attorney; and that Council appropriate funding, in the amount of $79,657.00, to
accounts in the Grant Fund to be established by the Director of Finance, and
establish a revenue estimate in the same amount.
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36483-091503) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second
reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 72.)
241
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36483-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#36484-091503) A RESOLUTION accepting a Base 2003 Office of Domestic
Preparedness Equipment Program Grant made to the City by the Virginia
Department of Emergency Management for the purpose of purchasing equipment
to enhance the City's ability to respond to terrorist acts involving weapons of mass
destruction, and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of
the City.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 73.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36484-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of Finance submitted the
Financial Report for the City of Roanoke for the month of July 2003.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the July Financial
Report would be received and filed.
242
REPORTS OF COMMI'I-fEES:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting appropriation and transfer of the following, was before Council.
$166,770.00 in a supplemental appropriation for school
transportation charges; the monies will fully fund the cost of
transporting pupils for No Child Left Behind programs.
$1,102,554.00 from the 2003-04 Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Fund, to provide monies for instructional and
administrative technology requests, school bus replacement, facility
maintenance and custodial equipment requirements, district-wide
furniture replacement, grounds services equipment, facility
maintenance vehicle replacement, purchase of video surveillance
systems, and repair of a roof.
$50,000.00 for the Comprehensive School Reform grant program at
Noel C. Taylor Learning Academy; Taylor Learning Academy will
implement a basic skills program which includes staff development
and remedial skills instruction, and this continuing program is 100
per cent reimbursed by Federal funds.
$67,092.00 for the Governor's School program to provide instruction
in science and math to high school students; the continuing program
will be supported by State funds and tuition collected from
participating school districts.
$14,000.00 for the Instructional Support Team Project to provide
services for children with disabilities at Fallon Park Elementary School,
to be funded with Federal funds.
$1,981.00 for the Special Education Assistive Technology program to
purchase equipment and software to assist students with disabilities,
to be 100 per cent reimbursed by Federal funds.
A report of the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the
request, was also before the body.
243
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36485-091503) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections
of the 2003-2004 School Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second
reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 74.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36485-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
BONDS/BOND ISSUES-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City
School Board advising that as a result of School Board action taken at a meeting on
September 9, 2003, the School Board adopted a resolution to participate in the
2003 Interest Rate Subsidy Program Bond Sale - VPSA School Financing Bonds
(1997 Resolution) Series 2003 C; and proceeds of the bond issue will be used in
lieu of Literary Fund loans approved by the State for the Roanoke Academy for
Mathematics and Science project.
It was further advised that Council is requested to adopt a resolution
indicating that the City of Roanoke desires to participate in the VPSA bond issue;
and Council will be requested to conduct a public hearing and to take other
procedural matters that may be required for participation in the VPSA bond issue.
A report of the Director of Finance concurring in the request of the School
Board, was also before Council.
244
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36486-091503) A RESOLUTION authorizing and directing the City Manager
to file an application with the Virginia Public School Authority seeking bond
financing in an amount estimated not to exceed $5,000,000.00 to finance the
replacement of the existing school building at Roanoke Academy for Mathematics
and Science, previously approved pursuant to Resolutions No. 35439-070201 and
No. 35440-070201, adopted by the Council at its July 2, 2001, meeting.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 76.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36486-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ................................................ -- .... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
NONE.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER-AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: Council Member
Wyatt, Council's liaison to the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, advised that the
Civic Center Commission has requested more timely transmittal of the City's
monthly financial reports.
245
FIRE DEPARTMENT-REFUSE COLLECTION-EQUIPMENT: Council Member 'Wyatt
advised that it has been reported that in lieu of purchasing a ladder engine for the
Fire Department, the City will purchase three refuse collection vehicles;
whereupon, the City Manager advised that she would respond to the inquiry prior
to the Council's 7:00 p.m. session.
TRAFFIC: The Mayor requested that the City Manager review the new traffic
lane changes on Williamson Road.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA~-I-ERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard; and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for response,
recommendation or report to Council.
COMPLAINTS-ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. John Kepley, 2909 Morrison Street,
S. E., inquired as to why four Members of Council are allowed to dictate, control
and ignore the wishes of thousands of citizens of the City of Roanoke who have let
their voices be heard regarding the fate of Victory Stadium. He stated that if the
citizens were allowed to vote on whether to save Victory Stadium, Council's
previous decision would go down in defeat, and of the Members of Council who
favor a new stadium/amphitheater, Council Member Dowe is the only native
Roanoker; therefore, Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Wyatt and former Council
Member William Carder have few memories of Victory Stadium, or its vital
importance to the thousands of citizens who want to save the facility. He
expressed appreciation to Mayor Smith, Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Member
Fitzpatrick for their support to publicly vote to reopen the Victory Stadium issue.
COMPLAINTS-ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue,
N.E., advised that instead of building a new stadium the City should pave
Williamson Road, provide residents of Gainsboro with the funds that were
previously promised by the City, address traffic congestion on Orange Avenue,
install universal turn lanes on Williamson Road, and seek ways to save taxpayers'
money, while not dividing the community.
246 -
BUDGET-NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: Ms. Norma Smith, 11 - 14th
Street, S. W., called attention to HUD funds which were allocated for Hurt Park. She
requested clarification as to whether the funds were designated for Hurt Park, or
for the Hurt park neighborhood in general. In view of long standing community
needs, she asked that the funds be used for the entire Hurt Park community.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: NONE.
At 3:05 p.m. the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for two City Manager
briefings and five Closed Sessions.
ZONING: The City Manager introduced a briefing on the Zoning Ordinance;
whereupon, Nancy Snodgrass, City Planner II, addressed the following landscaping
standards in the existing Zoning Ordinance and the proposed update to the Zoning
Ordinance: Vision 2001-2020 provides that "Trees and other vegetation represent
both an environmental resource and an important landscape feature in the quality
of life in the City."
The Urban Forestry Plan provides that "Roanoke will take action in order
to achieve an average tree canopy of 40 per cent within ten years".
Policy approach to Vision 2001-2020 provides that buildings and trees
should shape the City's image rather than asphalt and signs; and
maintaining and increasing the City's tree canopy will have a beneficial
impact on air quality, storm water control, noise levels, temperature, and
visual appearance.
Recommended actions - Vision 2001-2020 include revision of the
Zoning Ordinance to address landscaping to encourage commercial
centers rather than strip development, strengthen landscaping
requirements in village centers, and establish tree canopy goals that
include preservation standards and planting of trees based on zoning
district and density.
247
Overview of the Urban Forestry Plan includes preparation of new
standards for better tree preservation, planting and maintenance in
private non-residential areas and private developments; and adoption of
zoning regulations requiring "green" site development and parking areas.
Urban Forestry Plan policies include that an updated Zoning Ordinance
will minimize environmental damage during development process-
generous tree canopy in parking lots, preserve existing trees and
minimum tree canopy percentages by zoning district.
Urban Forestry Plan zoning regulations include benchmark landscaping
regulations with other localities, stronger tree canopy requirements for
parking lots, use of native trees where possible and tree canopy banks.
Landscaping standards applicability
Existing code: Comprehensive development plan
Proposed draft: Comprehensive and basic development plans
Where is landscaping required?
Existing Code: Buffer yards, street yard trees and parking lots (interior)
Proposed draft: Buffer yards, street yard trees, parking lots (interior and
perimeter) foundation and tree canopy.
Buffer Yards
Existing code: One size fits all, generic description and deciduous caliper
and spacing
Draft ordinance: Variable scale, two definitive options and approved plant
list
Street Yard Trees
Existing Code: one per 50 feet, deciduous trees (minimum two and one
half inches caliper)
Proposed draft: One per 35 feet, approved plant list
248
Parking Lots: Interior
Existing Code: Surface parking areas equal to five per cent of interior of
parking area
Proposed draft: Surface planting areas equal to five per cent of interior of
parking area; trees at rate of 20-year tree canopy of 25 per cent of
parking area; approved plant list and planting island standards.
Parking Lots: Perimeter
Existing Code: No requirement
Proposed draft: Eight-foot planting strip along perimeters that abut
public street or property line; one deciduous tree per 30 feet and
evergreen shrubs three feet on center; and approved plant list.
Foundation Landscaping
Existing Code: No requirement
Proposed draft: Building facades fronting on public streets, three feet
deep, one shrub per three linear feet and exempt if no required front
yard.
Tree Canopy
Existing Code: No requirement
Proposed draft: Minimum tree canopies by district, 10 to 20 per cent of
site; planted and existing; preservation bonus; and credit for other
requirements.
Landscaping: Overview
Benchmark regulations, development plans, approved plant list, buffer
yard types, parking lot perimeters, tree canopy - site and parking lots,
and foundation planting.
Discussion by Council:
Commitments made by officials of Calvary Baptist Church in connection
with the demolition of a parking lot and proposed landscaping around
the parking lot have not been honored, to which the Director of Planning
and Code Endorsement advised that he would review the site
development plan to determine if there are binding commitments.
249
Some tree canopy is not attractive, for example: older residential streets
where American Electric Power has shaped the trees into a "Y" and the
center of the tree has been removed; whereupon, the Director of
Planning and Code Enforcement advised that from a Zoning Ordinance
point of view, a specified tree list is proposed to enable the City to select
the right type of tree for a specific location.
Not only should there be guidelines in regard to tree canopy, but tree
management as well, particularly in older neighborhoods; whereupon,
the City Manager advised that if Council wishes to accelerate the
replacement of trees in order to address some of the older
neighborhoods which are lined with unattractive trees, the City
administration could provide a plan of action and costs to address the
issue.
A program has worked well in some localities in which home owners
volunteer to nurture a tree planted by the locality on private property,
and it was suggested that the City of Roanoke explore the feasibility of
the program.
CITY MARKET:
The City Manager introduced a briefing on management of the historic City
Market Building byAdvantis Corporation, including a six month update, progress
to date in identifying additional tenants, lease renewals, capital improvements, etc.
Representatives of Advantis Corporation, including Tim Allison, Zachary
Means and Kimberly Bisger, with over 40 years of combined real estate experience,
advised that:
An overview of Advantis includes a century of wisdom, a full service
commercial real estate company, 500 employees and 775 brokers, 7,500
client transactions over the last five years, 13 regional offices throughout
the southeast, GVA partner with global real estate network with member
firms in 85 countries on five continents, and 30 million square feet under
management.
250
Current Advantis locations include offices in Atlanta, Georgia; Chesapeake,
Virginia; Durham, North Carolina; Jacksonville, Florida; Newport News, Virginia;
Norfolk, Virginia; Orlando, Florida; Raleigh, North Carolina; Richmond, Virginia;
Tampa, Florida; Tysons Corner, Virginia; and Washington, D. C.
GVA worldwide includes international strategic partnership, 85 offices in
70 firms in 20 different countries, over 3,600 commercial real estate
professionals, over $13 billion in worldwide transactions and 137 million
square feet under management.
Leasing and sales teams in the Richmond Office include 60 employees,
11 agents, 3.5 million square feet of property for leasing and
management, and no conflicts of interest.
Advantages of contracting with Advantis include a team approach,
technology (any site program), commitment to increase business, greater
exposure, and track record of outstanding performance and results.
Leasing goals include 100 per cent occupancy, no delinquency, quality
tenants, increased rent revenues and lease of second floor market
building space.
The marketing approach includes marketing flyers, newspaper
advertisements, representation at ICSC's, tenant relationships, cold
calling.
Leasing activity:
Tenant
· Grass Roots
· Hong Kong Restaurant
· Tavern on the Market
· Cuticles
· The Galleria
· Subway
· Nuts & Sweet Things
Lease Value
$ 68,224.00
162,265.00
163,895.00
10,765.00
62,529.00
134,680.00
11,724.00
251
Management services include property management, facility
management, construction management, lease audits and facility
consulting services.
Management goals for the City Market Building include retaining existing
tenants, creating operating efficiencies and controlling expenses,
improving maintenance operations, implementing preventative
maintenance plans, and aligning the Market Building in the Downtown
Master Plan.
Capital Improvements include HVAC requirements, electrical
components, interior finishes, ADA and exterior finishes.
It was advised that:
One of the biggest challenges has been to lease second floor space.
The Market building has a history of occupants with late rents and
Advantis is working with tenants to ensure that payments are made on
time.
Advantis would like to ensure that rents are not too high, while
maintaining a good return of profit for the City of Roanoke.
The first and foremost goal is to retain as manyofthe current tenants as
possible.
There is a desire to bring in local, regional and national tenants, with the
goal of attracting a group of cohesive tenants..
252 -'-
Lease negotiations are underway with Subway restaurant.
Question was raised as to how a national chain such as a Subway
restaurant would compete with local small business operators;
whereupon, it was advised that it would work to the advantage of other
tenants because clientele driving bywho may not be from Roanoke would
see the Subway sign and stop, and would then visit the food court;
Subway is a national food chain and the first reaction of a market tenant
is that they could potentially loose business, but if one looks beyond the
initial two to three weeks of activity, in the long run, local tenants would
gain business through additional foot traffic and a brand name
acknowledgment that will attract people to the area.
It is anticipated that there will be a $40,000.00 - $50,000.00 annual rate
of return on the Market Building.
Advantis does not propose changes that will have a negative impact;
however, it wishes to align the property to work with the City and the
City's Master Plan over the next five to ten years.
The City of Roanoke would like to encourage an atmosphere of night life
for downtown events; to do so, the "mom and pop" types of operations
will be required to work more hours; if more traffic is to be brought
downtown to the City Market Building, or to Center in the Square, etc.,
there is a need for more big names to serve as a drawing point, and a
Subway restaurant by itself will not accomplish this goal, but will be a
stepping stone.
The City Market building has provided a kind of incubator step for
numerous businesses, and if the businesses continue to grow, they can
be offered more space.
The goal of Advantis is to retain existing tenants, to help them grow in
their businesses and to be successful, to be involved in operations, to cut
costs and to make the City Market building as profitable as possible,
while making the facility a better place for people to visit, which is a
challenge in that it requires a considerable amount of money,
organization, skills, changing vendors, etc.
253
A good preventative maintenance plan should be implemented that will
not allow the building to deteriorate which is expensive.
There is a need to align the City Market building and its use with the
downtown master plan.
Deferred maintenance items include: HVAC, coils have been cleaned, a
chemical treatment is in place to change the water system, and a local
contractor, Renew, Inc., has been engaged for janitorial maintenance.
Capital expenses required for the building include: design of the HVAC,
with engineering and electrical components to be received within three-
four weeks; interior finishes such as new furniture, new carpet on the
upstairs floor on the mezzanine level, ADA requirements, issues
throughout the building concerning counter and sidewalk entrances, etc.,
for venders and certain exterior functions.
There was discussion in regard to the need to bring more light into the
building and the feasibility of adding more light fixtures as a part of the
request for proposals on the engineering component.
At 4:50 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council Meeting in recess for five
Closed Sessions, which were held in the Council's Conference Room.
At 6:45 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with all
Members of the Council in attendance, except Council Member Cutler.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Bestpitch
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her knowledge
that: (1) only public business matters as were identified in any motion by which
any Closed Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City
Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following
vote:
254 --
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
FLOOD REDUCTION/CONTROL: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on
the Flood Plain Committee, created by the resignation of Sandra Kelly; whereupon,
he opened the floor for nominations.
Mr. Bestpitch placed in nomination the name of Frank Caldwell.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Caldwell was appointed as a
member of the Flood Plain Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2004, by the
following vote:
FOR MR. CALDWELL: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
Bestpitch and Mayor Smith ............................................. 6.
(Council Member Cutler was absent)
At 6:50 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess until
7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber.
At 7:00 p.m., on Monday September 15, 2003, the Council meeting
reconvened in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K.
Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., William D. Bestpitch,
BeverlyT. Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda E. Wyatt, and Mayor Ralph K.
Smith ............................................................... 6.
ABSENT: Council Member M. Rupert Cutler ........................... 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The invocation was delivered by Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris.
255
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of Americawas led
by Mayor Smith.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by Council
on Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for
Monday, September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
maybe heard, on the request of Kermit and Dorothy Shriver that a portion of an
alley located off Thyme Street, S. E., at the rear of Lots 4, 5 and 6, Official Tax Nos.
4041901 - 4041 904, inclusive, be permanently vacated, discontinued and closed,
the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
T/rneson Friday, August 29, 2003, and Friday, September 5, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the
petitioner requests closure of an alley lying between four of their parcels of land;
the petitioner purchased the adjoining properties from Carillion Health System in
1997; the unimproved alley requested for closure lies between Official Tax Nos.
401904 inclusive; the alley is approximately 150 feet long and 20 feet wide, or
3,000 square feet; and the petitioner owns all parcels, in addition to Official Tax
Nos. 4041905-4041907 inclusive.
It was further advised that the petitioner's properties are zoned C-1, Office
District, as are the properties immediately to the south of the subject alley; the
western side of BelleviewAvenue is zoned RM-2, Residential Multi-Family, Medium
Density; the northern side of Thyme Street, which encompasses properties fronting
on Linden Street, is zoned RS-3, Residential Single Family, High Density District;
parcels to the south and east of the subject alley are vacant and lie on a steep
uphill grade; residential properties lie to the north and west of the alley; and the
petitioner's property at Official Tax No. 4041902 consists of a triplex with rental
units.
It was explained that the alley is currently partially paved off of Thyme
Street; the petitioner uses the alley for ingress and egress to a parking lot and an
accessory structure covers a portion of the southeastern corner of the alley; and
Thyme Street is improved for approximately 100 feet southeast of the alley.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
request and that the petitioner be charged $750.00 for the alley.
256 -
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36487- 091503) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and
closing a certain public right-of-way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as more
partitularly described hereinafter; and dispensing with the second reading by title
of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 78.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36487-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Kermit E. Shriver, petitioner, appeared before Council in support of the
request.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the public hearing.
There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Ordinance No. 36487-091503 be amended to
include the following: Approval of the application is contingent upon the applicant
paying $750.00 for consideration of the right-of-way. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted.
Ordinance No. 36487-091503, as amended, was adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
257
ZONING: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on
Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for
Monday, September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard, on the request of L & M Properties, EEC., to rezone three tracts of
land located on Wertz Avenue and Mississippi Avenue, N. E., consisting of 14.401
acres, more of less, identified as Official Tax Nos. 3130301, 3130504, and
3130312, from HM, Heavy Manufacturing District, to LM, Light Manufacturing
District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the Petitioner, the matter was
before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The/~oano/~e
T/meson Friday, August 29, 2003, and Friday, September 5, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the
petitioner proposes to market the subject properties for a distribution center,
which under LM permitted uses, would be an "establishment engaged in the
wholesale distribution of goods; because of limited vehicular access to the site
from Hollins Road and surrounding single-family residential uses, staffadvised the
petitioner that some of the LM uses permitted by right and by special exception in
the zoning ordinance would be inappropriate on the subject properties; the First
Amended Petition limits the uses on the subject properties to 14 of the 27 LM
permitted uses; and uses of the subject properties, as limited by proffer, narrow
the parameters in such a manner that the adjacent and surrounding residential
neighborhoods are not compromised by impact of the land use and associated
vehicular traffic.
It was further advised that the petitioner's requestappropriately applies a
light manufacturing designation, with conditions, to the subject properties; and
the down-zoning request represents an opportunity for reuse and revitalization of
an old manufacturing property that has not been successful as a heavy
manufacturing site.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
request.
258 -
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36488-091503) AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 3 i 3, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City, subject to certain conditions
proffered by the applicant; and dispensing with the second reading of this
ordinance by title.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 80.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36488-091503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordir~ance
No. 36488-091503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
ZONING: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on
Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for
Monday, September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard, on the request of L & M Properties, L.L.C., to rezone three tracts of
land located on 2820 Ridgefield Street, N. E., consisting of 0.1055 acre, more or
less, identified as Official Tax No. 3130330, from HM, Heavy Manufacturing
District, to RM-1, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District, the matter was
before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, August 29, 2003, and Friday, September 5, 2003.
259
The City Planning Commission submitted awritten report advising that the
subject property is bounded on the north and west (to the side and rear of the
subject lot) by a site currently zoned HM, Heavy Manufacturing District, and
formerly utilized by Halmode Apparel; the site is the subjectofthe current petition
to rezone from HM, Heavy Manufacturing District, to LM, Light Manufacturing
District; all properties directly to the south of the subject property fronting on
Ridgefield Road are zoned RM-1, Residential Multifamily, Low Density District, and
are developed residentially; and properties directly to the east on the opposite side
of Ridgefield Road are also zoned RM-1 and developed as single-family dwellings.
It was further advised that the subject property is currently located within
the fence enclosing the site of the former Halmode Apparel distribution center and
is a separate tract of land from the Halmode site; rezoning of the subject property
to RM-1 would make the residential structure conforming and allow for its
impr. ovement and viable utilization as a residential structure, the purpose for
which it was originally constructed; and the requested RM-1 zoning designation
and single-family residential use would be consistent with the balance of the block
in which the subject property is located.
The City Planning Commission recommended that the request for rezoning
be approved, given the potential for retaining and utilizing a viable residential
structure adjacent to other residential properties.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36489-091503) AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of
Roanoke (] 979), as amended, and Sheet No. 313, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City; and dispensing with the
second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 82.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption Ordinance No. 36485-091503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
260
There being no discussion or questions by Council, Ordinance No. 36489-
091503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
ZONING: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on
Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for
Monday, September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard, on the request of GCSWVA Co., L.L.C., to rezone a tract of land
located at the corner of Duke of Glouchester Street, S. W. (private), and Duke of
Glouchester Street, S.W. (public), containing 1.3 acre, more of less, identified as a
portion of Official Tax No. 5500114, from RM-2, Residential Multifamily, Medium
Density District, to C-1, Office District, subject to certain conditions proffered by
the petitioner, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in 7-he Roano/ce
7-/rne$ on Friday, August 29, 2003, and Friday, September 5, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the
rezoning request is for 1.3 acres of vacant land on the southern portion of Official
Tax No. 5500114, with said parcel of land to be subdivided at a later date in
accordance with the metes and bounds description of the petition to rezone; and
the petitioner proposes to construct a medical clinic on the subject property.
It was further advised that because of the transitional nature of the property
being situated between commercial development along Duke of Glouchester Street
and multifamily development, the proposed change in use is a reasonable
development strategy which is consistent with the City's Comprehensive Plan.
The proffered general and professional offices, medical
office, and medical clinic are compatible uses with the
mixed-used character of the area.
In addition to the proffered site plan's location of the
building clos~ to the street with parking to the side and
rear, the entrance to the site and parking lot is located on
Duke of Glouchester Street from adjoining residential uses.
261
Although Official Tax No. 5500115, abutting the subject
property on the southwest, is a vacant parcel zoned RM-2,
Residential Multifamily, Medium Density district, residential
development would be limited by topography and adjacent
land uses including 1-581 and a shopping center.
It was noted that two of the proffered uses, general and professional offices
and medical offices, are permitted by right in the C-1, Office District; and the third
proffered use, medical clinic, requires the approval of a special exception by the
Board of Zoning Appeals.
Given the transitional nature of the property and the current mixed land use
pattern surrounding the subject property, the City Planning Commission
recommended that Council approve the request for rezoning to C-1, Office
District, with proffered conditions; because of concerns with regard to site
development as related to tree canopy, the Planning Commission further
recommended that during the comprehensive site plan development process that
the petitioner maximize the planting of deciduous tree cover and that buffering
using evergreens be limited to the parking lot next to Duke of GIouchester Street.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36490-091503) AN ORDINANCE to amend §36.1-3, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 550, Sectional 1976Zone Map, City of
Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City, subject to certain conditions
proffered by the applicant; and dispensing with the second reading of this
ordinance by title.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 84.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36~,90-091503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris.
Richard Rife, Agent, GCSWVA Company, LLC, advised that Dr. Weiserbs and
his six partners are gastroenterologists currently located in the City of Roanoke;
and they seek to rezone the property to construct a new single story office in order
to develop a private endoscopy center adjacent to the building, which will be a new
endeavor in the City of Roanoke, since the closest endoscopy center in Virginia is
located in the Richmond area. He further advised that his client has proffered to
limit uses to general and professional offices, medical offices, or medical clinics; if
262 -
Council approves the request for rezoning, the next step is to proceed to the
Board of Zoning Appeals for a special exception for a medical clinic use in a C-1
District; and his client has proffered to develop the site in substantial conformance
with the site plan, the proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood, the
proposed use is compatible with the neighborhood, the proposed use will provide
a good transitional use and provide a positive development for the site, the
proposed use is consistent with and supports design principles of Vision 2001-
2020, the building will be used as much as possible to screen parking from the
two adjoining streets, the project utilizes an existing underdeveloped property in
the City of Roanoke, rather than moving into a more suburban location
contributing to urban sprawl, existing road and utility systems will be utilized, and
Roanoke's economic development strategy as a regional medical center will be
reinforced. He called attention to City Planning Commission discussion and a
suggestion by Planning staff that some of the trees on the site be restored to such
a level that at maturity they would equal 25 per cent of the area of the site;
whereupon, he presented a written proffer, however, he advised that he neglected
to obtain the signature of Dr. Weiserbs and the City Attorney advises that since he
is the Agent and not the owner of the building, the proffer is not legally binding.
He stated that the proffer is submitted in good faith and asked that Council
instruct the Agent for the City Planning Commission to submit the proffer to the
Board of Zoning Appeals, at which time he would submit same on behalf of his
client.
In clarification, the City Attorney advised that both the City Code and the
State Code require that all proffers be signed by the property owner, which
represents a legally binding commitment, and a proffer cannot be enforced against
an agent unless the agent has been authorized by resolution for the corporation to
submit the proffer. He stated that the ordinance before the Council includes
certain proffers in the amended petition filed on August 6, 2003, but does not
include the proffer above referenced by Mr. Rife; however, Mr. Rife's suggestion
that the Board of Zoning Appeals allow the proffer as a condition to approval of a
special use permit, which would be enforceable, is satisfactory.
In a discussion as to whether action on the matter could be deferred
pending a signed proffer by the petitioner, Mr. Rife requested that Council act on
the request for rezoning this evening inasmuch as sale of the property is
contingent upon the rezoning and the subsequent Board of Zoning Appeals action,
therefore, his client is anxious to move forward with the matter.
The Mayor inquired if there were other persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
263
There being no further discussion by Council, Ordinance No. 36490-091503
was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS-COMMUNITY PLANNING: The City Clerk
having advertised a public hearing for Monday, September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.,
or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of the City
Planning Commission with regard to a proposed amendment to Vision 2001-2020,
the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Norwich neighborhood Plan, the
matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
T/rnes on Friday, August 29, 2003, and Friday, September 5, 2003, and in The
Roanoke Tr/bune on Thursday, September 4, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written, report advising that in
the planning process, residents and staff identified the following issues facing the
Norwich neighborhood:
Unique, but aging housing stock
Lack of curb and guttering and street trees
Previously self-supporting neighborhood that now lacks an
identifiable core
Vacant land along the Roanoke River located in the floodway
and flood plain
A popular park that could use some improvements (Norwich
Park)
264 -
In order to address the issues, it was further advised that the plan features
the following priority recommendations:
Housing renovation and revitalization:
Consider listing the core area of Norwich to the National
Register of Historic Places.
Physical improvement of neighborhood gateways and side streets:
Develop a streetscape plan for Roanoke Avenue and Bridge
Street with more on-street parking, curb and gutter, and tall
canopy trees to help with traffic calming.
Encourage the establishment of a vibrant village center:
Expand the current CN zoning around Russell and Bridge
Streets at Roanoke Avenue to reinforce the center of the
neighborhood.
Develop a recreational use plan for the HM zoned land along Roanoke
River:
Utilize the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project to
provide more access to the vacant land to use as a park
g ree nway.
Improve the existing neighborhood park (Norwich Park):
Consider more parking along Roanoke Avenue for ball
games, and a separate playground for small children.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
Norwich Neighborhood Plan as a component of Vision 2001-2020.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36491-091503) AN ORDINANCE approving the Norwich Neighborhood
Plan, and amending Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include
the Norwich Neighborhood Plan; and dispensing with the second reading of this
ordinance by title.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 85.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36491 -091503. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Harris.
265
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the matter; whereupon, Ms. Betty Blankenship, 2316 Russell
Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the Norwich Neighborhood Plan.
There being no further speaks, the Mayor declared the public hearing
closed.
The being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance
No. 36491-091503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS-COMMUNITY PLANNING: The City Clerk
having advertised a public hearing for Monday, September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.,
or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of the City
Planning Commission with regard to a proposed amendment to Vision 2001-2020,
the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Wasena Neighborhood Plan, the
matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, August 29, 2003, and Friday, September 5, 2003, and in The
Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, September 4, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the
following positive features of the Wasena neighborhood need to be maintained:
Home and infrastructure are in very good condition.
Healthy mix of owner and renter occupied homes, and range of
housing options.
Amenities, such as Wasena Park, Wiley Drive, proximity to
downtown, and iow crime rate.
266 -
It was further advised that staff noted the following issues in the Wasena
plan that need to be addressed:
A former industrial district along the River
The village center along Main Street
Wasena Bridge and its transition onto Main Street
in order to address the above listed issues, the plan features the following
recommendations:
Zoning Based on the Future Land Use Map
Maintain a zoning district similar to the current RM-i in
residential areas in the update of the zoning ordinance.
Expand the number of uses permissible in the current industrial
area to allow for a mix of commercial and high-density
opportunities.
Amend the zoning ordinance to ensure that new residential
development is compatible with existing structures in terms of
setbacks and lot coverage, and to maximize the development
potential of vacant properties and structures.
Regulate the conversion of single-family homes to multifamily
by requiring a special exception approval to ensure that
compatibility with the existing neighborhood is maintained.
Housing:
Encourage a continuation of the neighborhood's current
residential mix of single-family, duplex, and multi-family
structures.
267
Economic Development:
Market the Main Street village center with particular emphasis on:
Small-scale buildings with two-three stories.
Neighborhood commercial uses with minimal noise and lighting
impacts.
Shared parking arrangements, including public/private partnerships.
Target the former ice and cold storage building and industrial district
for adaptive reuse. Considerations for development should include:
Zoning that allows for flexibility in permitting a vibrant m~x of
commercial and residential uses, particularly live/work space.
High-tech or other industrial uses that have a minimal environmental
and neighborhood impact.
Possibilities for public/private partnerships.
Infrastructure:
Implement traffic-calming measures and gateway improvements on
both ends of Main Street and Wasena Bridge.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
Wasena Neighborhood Plan for adoption as a component 'of Vision 2001-2020.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36492-091503) AN ORDINANCE approving the Wasena Neighborhood
Plan, and amending Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include
the Wasena Neighborhood Plan; and dispensing with the second reading of this
ordinance by title.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 86.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36492-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris.
268
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36492-091503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS-COMMUNITY PLANNING: The City
Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, September 15, 2003, at 7:00
p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of the City
Planning Commission with regard to a proposed amendment to Vision 2001-2020,
the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Morningside/Kenwood and Riverdale
Neighborhood Plan, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
7-/me$ on Friday, August 29, 2003, and Friday, September 5, 2003, and in The
Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, September 4, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that
residents and staff identified the following major issues facing the
Morningside / Kenwood/Riverdale neighborhood:
A lack of new homeowners in the area.
Maintenance and upkeep of an aging housing stock.
Recurring zoning code violations such as outdoor storage and
inoperable vehicles.
Ineffective street design along major corridors.
Lack of restaurants and other commercial amenities in village centers.
269
To address the issues, the Neighborhood Plan features the following priority
recommendations:
Housing:
Develop materials and create liaisons with the appropriate groups--i.e.
realtor associations, chamber of commerce, etc.--to market the
neighborhoods' strengths, especially the abundance of larger, affordable
homes, convenient locations, and a pedestrian-oriented neighborhood
design.
Zoning:
Lower zoning density from multifamily to single-and two-family in selected
areas (between village centers), leaving higher density zoning in and around
village centers. In addition, zoning in village centers should encourage a
mix of uses and building sales that are appropriate in a neighborhood
setting. Zoning codes should promote the development of well-designed
commercial structures that encourage pedestrian activity.
Infrastructure:
· Implement streetscape improvements such as planting species-appropriate
street trees, installing and enhancing sidewalks and curbs, and adding
parking lanes. Priority streets are:
Dale Avenue
Riverland Road/Bennington Street/1 3th Street
· 9th Street
Economic Development:
Apply for the reinstatement of State Enterprise Zone One in 2004·
Code Enforcement:
Enforce housing maintenance codes and use public nuisance abatement
ordinances--including the Rental Inspection Program--to compel
compliance. Encourage citizen participation in the identification of code
violations.
270 -
The above described priority recommendations address the most prominent
issues in the neighborhood, but are not comprehensive; the plan contains a
number of other action items; Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan,
provided the framework for the plan; and policies and actions of the plan are
consistent with Vision 2001-2020.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
Morningside/Kenwood/Riverdale Neighborhood Plan for adoption as a component
of Vision 2001-2020.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36493-091503) AN ORDINANCE approving the Morningside/Kenwood and
Riverdale Neighborhood Plan, and amending Vision 2001-2020, the City's
Comprehensive Plan, to include the Morningside / Kenwood / Riverdale
Neighborhood Plan; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by
title.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 88.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36493-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36493-091503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
271
ENTERPRISE ZONE: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk
having advertised a public hearing for Monday, September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.,
or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on an application of the City of
Roanoke to the Department of Housing and Community Development, pursuant to
provisions of the Virginia Enterprise Zone Act, Sections 59.1-1 70, et. seq., Code of
Virginia, (1950), as amended, to seek designation as an Enterprise Zone of
property located within the City of Roanoke described as follows, to replace the
City's current Enterprise Zone One which expires on December 31, 2003, the
matter was before the body.
Enterprise Zone One A shall consist of portions of downtown; the
industrially and commercially zoned areas west of downtown; the
industrial corridor along Shenandoah Avenue north of the Norfolk
Southern Rail Lines, continuing along Shenandoah Avenue until Peters
Creek Road, and continuing along the NS lines until Peters Creek
Road; industrially zoned properties to the south of Salem Turnpike,
contiguous with the Shenandoah Avenue corridor; industrially zoned
properties in and around the Norwich Neighborhood; some
industrially zoned properties north of the Norwich Neighborhood
north of the Roanoke River; the industrially and commercially zoned
properties in and around the Wasena Neighborhood, specifically along
the Main Street Village Center and along Eighth Street; the Roanoke
Industrial Center off of Ninth Street; the commercially zoned
properties comprised of the Southeast By Design project area;
industrially and commercially zoned properties in the Southeast
Quadrant of the City immediately south of the Norfolk Southern Rail
Lines; industrially and commercially zoned properties in the
Gainsboro Neighborhood; the 11 th Street Commercial Village Center;
commercially zoned properties to the north and south of Orange
Avenue from 11 th Street to 24th Street; commercially zoned properties
north of Melrose Avenue between 11 th Street and 24th Street; larger
commercially zoned properties on Melrose Avenue between 31st Street
and Adams Street; commercially zoned properties along Williamson
Road north of Rutherford Avenue and south of Hershberger Road; and
the industrially and commercially zoned properties to the north and
south of Orange Avenue east of Williamson and west of Tinker Creek.
272
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on August 31, 2003 and September 7, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on January 1,
1984, the Commonwealth of Virginia designated Enterprise Zone One, then known
as the City of Roanoke's Urban Enterprise Zone; the designation for Enterprise
Zone One is scheduled to expire on December 31, 2003, precipitating the
submission of a new application requesting a new designation; the Virginia
Enterprise Zone Act of 1982, as amended, authorizes the Governor to designate up
to five additional areas within the Commonwealth as Enterprise Zones as of
January 1,2004; and such designation would make qualified business firms which
locate or expand within such a zone eligible for significant benefits, including
credits on State taxes and local incentives.
It was further advised that in accordance with the Department of Housing
and Community Development's Virginia Enterprise Zone Program regulations, the
local governing body must hold at least one public hearing affording citizens or
interested parties an opportunity to be heard on such matters before submitting
an application to the Department of Housing and Community Development for
consideration; such public hearing will be held at the Council's meeting on
September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.; the application will seek designation as an
Enterprise Zone of property located within the City of Roanoke as above described
and as shown on a map of Enterprise Zone One A; copy of the draft application is
attached to the City Manager's communication which lists local incentives on
pages 38 - 45; and Council is requested to endorse such local incentives and to
indicate the Council's intent to adopt the incentives if the Enterprise Zone
designation is granted to the City.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to apply, on behalf
of the City of Roanoke, to the Virginia Department of Housing and Community
Development, to have that area of the City shown on the Enterprise Zone One A
Map and as described on Attachment 3 to the communication as an Enterprise
Zone, pursuant to provisions of the Virginia Enterprise Zone Act, as amended. She
further recommended authorization to submit all necessary information to make
application for such Enterprise Zone designation; to meet other program
administrative and reporting requirements; and to take such actions and to
execute such additional documents as may be necessary to obtain such Enterprise
273
Zone designation; that the City Manager be further authorized to meet and to
comply with Enterprise Zone requirements regarding identifying and selling all
surplus public land, as defined in the Enterprise Zone regulations, throughout the
life of the Enterprise Zone; and that Council endorse the application, by resolution,
and express the City's intent to adopt local incentives set forth in the application
and certify that a public hearing was held as required by Enterprise Zone Program
Regulations.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#36494-091503) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to apply to
the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development to have a certain
area of the City designated as an Enterprise Zone that will replace the City's
Enterprise Zone One, which expires on December 31,2003.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 89.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36494-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the public hearing. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
There being no questions or comments by Council, Resolution No.
36494-091503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
274 -
ZONING-COMMUNITY PLANNING: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted
by the Council on Monday, April 6, 1981,the City Clerk having advertised a public
hearing for Monday, September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
the matter may be heard, on the proposed amendment of subsections (a) and (c),
Section 36.1-345, District requlations: certificate of appropriateness, Chapter
36.1, Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to address
installation or replacement of siding, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roano/~e
Times on Friday, August 29, 2003, and Friday, September 5, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted awritten report advising that the
H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District, covers a large portion of the Southwest
Historic District, which is listed on the Virginia Landmarks Register and the
National Register of Historic Places; the intent is to ensure the preservation of
buildings which, either aggregate or individually, are of special community
significance; and a specific purpose of the H-2 district is to "encourage
preservation, protection, and enhancement of streetscapes, structures and areas of
architectural, historic or cultural importance."
It was explained that Subsections 36.1-345 (a) & (c) of the H-2 regulations
are proposed to be amended so that residents of the Southwest Historic District
can better preserve, protect, and enhance streetscapes and structures; a great
concern facing the district is the inappropriate installation or replacement of
siding; and an effective way to further the intent of the H-2 preservation district is
to require an applicant to apply for a Certificate of Appropriateness from the
Architectural Review Board (ARB) for installation or replacement of siding.
it was further advised that in general, Section 36.1-345(a) provides that
installation or replacement of any exterior structure in the H-2, Neighborhood
Preservation District, requires a Certificate of Appropriateness; a structure is
defined as anything which is constructed or erected with a fixed location on the
ground, or attached to something having afixed location on the ground, such as a
wall, building, fence sign; however, the ordinance contains provisions which
exempt certain activities from the general requirement of obtaining a Certificate of
Appropriateness; and Section 36.1-345(b) provides that activities of ordinary
maintenance such as painting and minor repairs that are of a frequent or
maintenance related nature, do not require a Certificate of Appropriateness,
provided that installation and replacement are performed using materials which
are of the same design as those architectural features of the structure.
275
It was explained that under the current ordinance, an applicant is not
required to obtain a Certificate of Appropriateness for installation or replacement
of siding, as long as the applicant is using materials which are of the same design
as the siding existing on the building and which maintain the architectural defining
features of the building; because of the significance that installation or
replacement of siding can have on the appearance of a neighborhood and the
architectural integrity of the neighborhood's historic character, the Architectural
Review Board requests that an applicant be required to obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness from the Board for such work, along the same lines as an
applicant who wishes to make most other exterior changes to a property.
It was noted that the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation District, is intended to
ensure the preservation of buildings which, either aggregate or individual, are of
speciai community significance; requiring an applicant to obtain a Certificate of
Appropriateness for installation or replacement of siding allows staff and the
Architectural Review Board an opportunity to review proposed applications to
ensure that installation does not have an adverse impact on the architectural
integrity of the structure and the neighborhood.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
proposed amendment, which furthers the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the
H-2 District to protect the Southwest Historic District and to maintain the
architectural integrity of structures in the neighborhood.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36495-091503) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining §36.1-345,
District regulations: certificate of appropriateness, of Subdivision D, H-2,
Neighborhood Preservation District, of Division 5, Special District Regulations, of
Article III, District Regulations, of Chapter 36.1, Zoning of the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, by amending subsections (a) and (c) to address the
installation or replacement of siding; and dispensing with the second reading by
title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 91.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36495-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
276
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter; whereupon, Mr. Jim Haynes, 645 Day Avenue,
S. W., and Ms. Sarah Muse, 617 6th Street, S. W., appeared before Council in
support of the proposed amendment.
There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public hearing
closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36495-091503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
BONDS/BOND ISSUES-BUDGET-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM-WATER
RESOURCES: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted bythe Council on Monday,
April 6, 1981, and pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having
advertised a public hearing for Monday, September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the proposed adoption of a
resolution authorizing the City to contract a debt and to issue sewer revenue
bonds of the City, in a principal amount not to exceed $25,000,000.00, to finance
the costs of capital improvements to the Roanoke Regional Water Pollution Control
Plant, pursuant to Section 15.2-2606.A, Code of Virginia(1950), as amended, the
matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Tuesday, September 2, 2003, and Tuesday, September 9, 2003.
The City Manager and the Director of Finance submitted a joint
communication advising that the design phase for Contract A of the 2003 Wet
Weather Improvements at the Roanoke Regional Water Pollution Control Plant has
been completed for Contract A; bids for Contract A were received from four
qualified contractors on August 21,2003; and this is the first of a series of three
separate projects which will complete the planned improvements to the Water
Pollution Control Plant facilities, with Contracts B and C expected to bid in early
2004.
277
It was further advised that the Departments of Finance and Utilities have
evaluated both the issuance by the City of tax exempt general obligation or
revenue bonds at competitive sale and issuance by the City of sewer revenue
bonds to evidence a loan from the Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund
administered by the Virginia Resources Authority for funding of the above stated
projects; the Virginia Resources Authority has approved a 20 year loan, in a
principal amount of $17,511,501.00, at an interest rate not to exceed 3.75 per
cent; the Virginia Resources Authority has provided a verbal commitment to
increase the loan amount, not to exceed $23,300,000.00, prior to loan closing;
interest rate is below current municipal bond rates; and issuance of revenue bonds
through the Virginia Resources Authority is advantageous in consideration of
future plans for aWater and Waste Water Authority to be established between the
City of Roanoke and Roanoke County, which funding level is expected to be
adequate for the City's share of the contracts for all three projects (A, B & C).
The City Manager and the Director of Finance recommended that Council
take the following actions:
Adopt a resolution authorizing issuance of sewer revenue bonds of
the City to the Virginia Resources Authority as administrator of the
Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund.
Authorize the City Manager and the Director of Finance to take the
necessary steps to close on the bond issuance.
Appropriate bond proceeds in an account(s) to be created by the
Director of Finance in the Water Pollution Control Fund to provide for
construction of Contract A, B and C.
Establish accounts receivable from partnerjurisdictions according to
the cost allocation formula set forth in the 2003 Wastewater
Agreement and appropriate funds to be received ($24,300,000.00),
to the same project account.
278 -
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#36496-091503) A RESOLUTION authorizing the issuance of not to exceed
twenty-five million dollars ($25,000,000) principal amount of revenue obligations
of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in the form of sewer revenue bonds of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia, for the purpose of providing funds to pay the cost of capital
improvements to the sewer system of the City, a revenue producing undertaking of
the City, such capital improvements constituting wastewater treatment facilities
within the meaning of Title 62.1, Chapter 22, Section 62.1-224, of the Code of
Virginia, 1950; fixing the form, denomination and certain other details of such
bonds; providing for the issuance of such bonds to the Virginia Resources
Authority ("VRA"), as administrator of the Virginia Water Facilities Revolving Fund,
to evidence the borrowing to be made by such City from VRA pursuant to a
financing agreement by and between VRA and such City; approving the form and
the terms, conditions and provisions of such financing agreement and authorizing
and directing the execution and delivery thereof; and appointing the Director of
Finance as Registrar and Paying Agent for such bonds.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 93.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36496-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in
connection with the public hearing. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Resolution No.
36496-091503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Bestpitch, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, and
Mayor Smith ......................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
279
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#36497-091503) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 Water Pollution Control Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with
the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 96.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36497-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Bestpitch, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, and
Mayor Smith ......................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
BUDGET-CMERP: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk
having advertised a public hearing for Monday, September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m.,
or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to proposed
adjustment to the City of Roanoke Fiscal Year 2003-04 Budget, in connection with
appropriation of funds for the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement
Program (CMERP), the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
T/mes on Friday, September 5, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Section 2-189
of the City Code established a reserve from the year-end General Fund balance for
the funding of capital improvements and capital maintenance and equipment
replacement; the amount reserved from the undesignated fund balance is
calculated as ten per cent of total General Fund appropriations, less any sums paid
for General Fund debt service during the fiscal year; and CMERP funding available
for appropriation totals $2,480,773.00.
280 -
It was further advised that additional funding from the Commonwealth of
Virginia for highway and street maintenance will increase $229,076.00 above the
estimate established with adoption of the fiscal year 2003-04 General Fund
budget; funding in the amount of $93,804.00 in Capital improvement Reserve
funding for street related projects is designated for the Campbell Avenue Two-Way
Traffic project and needs to be appropriated; and the total of all funding resources
available for appropriation is $2,803,653.00.
It was explained that a list of CMERP funding recommendations address the
following categories:
· Contributions/Commitments $ 466,170.00
· . · Capital Projects 921,728.00
· Fixed Asset Maintenance 391,589.00
· Operational Equipment 180,398.00
· Other 618,768.00
· Vehicular Replacement 225,000.00
Total $2,803,653.00
It was further explained that department CMERP funding requests totaled
approximately $4.9 million in non-technology and non-vehicular related
items/initiatives; requests for technology-related items/initiatives totaled an
additional $3.0 million; technology requests are reviewed and prioritized by the
Information Technology Committee and a separate report will recommend
appropriation of funds for technology needs; and all vehicular requests are
reviewed by the Fleet Management Division Manager and evaluated based upon an
approved set of replacement criteria.
The City Manager recommended that Council take the following action:
Authorize the Director of Finance to increase the revenue estimate
for highway maintenance in the amount of $229,076.00.
Transfer funding in the amount of $93,804.00 from Capital
Improvement Reserve - VDOT Match to accounts as more fully
described in an attachment to the communication.
281
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36498-091503) AN ORDINANCE to amend and reordain certain sections of
the 2003-2004 General, Water, Water Pollution Control, Civic Facilities, Capital
Projects and Fleet Management Funds Appropriations, and dispensing with the
second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 97.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36498-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter; whereupon, Mr. Robert Gravely, 3360
Hershberger Road, N. W., suggested that City employees be allowed to have input
into the types of equipment purchased by the City, in order to deliver services to
Roanoke's citizens. He called attention to trees within the City that need to be
pruned and are in danger of damaging property, and the need to repair the City's
outdated infrastructure. He stated that taxpayers' money is being spent on
unnecessary projects and programs, while the City's workforce is not paid
adequately for the work they do. He added that youth are leaving the Roanoke
Valley because of the poor job market.
There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public hearing
closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36498-091503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ................................. ~ ................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
282
PARKS AND RECREATION-CITY PROPERTY-LEASES: Pursuant to instructions
by the Council, City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday,
September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, with regard to a proposed lease of a portion of City-owned property
located at the Parks and Recreation Department, 210 Reserve Avenue, S. W., to
Climbing Performance Institute, Inc., to operate the Rocwood Indoor Adventure
Center, for an initial one-year term, with an option to extend for an additional four
years, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, September 5, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Rocwood
Indoor Adventure Center, located within the Parks and Recreation Administrative
Building, 21 Reserve Avenue, S. W., is a multi-faceted climbing facility serving
residents of Roanoke and guests; the facility, which opened in March 1993, offers
4,000 square feet of recreation space, including various climbing walls, a climbing
tower, a climbing cave, a rappelling station, an equipment storeroom and a
staff/reception area; and the Rocwood facility provided an excellent recreation
opportunity for youth and families of Roanoke, but unfortunately, the expense of
operating Rocwood exceeded revenues and the facility was closed in July, 2002.
It was further advised on September 16, 2002, Council adopted Resolution
No. 36065-091602, approving the "competitive negotiation" process to obtain a
proposal from a minimum of two service providers to manage the Rocwood Indoor
Adventure Center; Climbing Performance Institute, Inc., from Fayetteville, North
Carolina, submitted the most qualified proposal for operation and management of
the facility; and Climbing Performance Institute will have the resources to increase
operational hours and programs, while providing a more effective and efficient
means of operating the Rocwood Indoor Adventure Center for Roanoke's citizens.
Following the public hearing, the City Manager recommended that she be
authorized to execute an initial Lease and Agreement with Climbing Performance
Institute, Inc., for operation and maintenance of the Rocwood Indoor Adventure
Center for one year, with an option to renew for an additional four years, in a form
to be approved by the City Attorney.
283
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36499-091503) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to enter into
a lease and maintenance agreement with Climbing Performance Institute, Inc., for
the lease, operation and maintenance of the Rocwood Indoor Adventure Center,
upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with the second reading-bytitle
of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 101.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36499-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Member, Ordinance
No. 36499-091503 was adopted by the following vote: .
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ........................................... r ................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... 0.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER-SCHOOLS-EASEMENTS: Pursuant to instructions
by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday,
September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, on the proposed conveyance of a 15-foot easement to extend an existing
overhead power line located at Patrick Henry High School, 2102 Grandin Road,
S. W., to Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric Power, to provide
electric service to a mobile classroom, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, September 5, 2003.
284 -
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Appalachian
Power Company has requested a 15 foot wide easement to extend an existing
power line on the Patrick Henry High School site, in order to provide underground
electric service to a mobile classroom; whereupon, the City Manager
recommended, following the public hearing, that she be authorized to execute the
appropriate documents granting an easement to Appalachian Power Company, said
documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#36500-091503) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the donation and conveyance
of a 15 foot overhead easement to extend an existing overhead power line, across
City-owned property located at 2102 Grandin Road, S. W., to Appalachian Power
Company, to provide electric service to a mobile classroom at Patrick Henry High
School, upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with the second
reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 102.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36500-091503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36500-091503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O,
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
285
APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY-AMERICAN ELECTRIC POWER-SCHOOLS:
Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public
hearing for Monday, September 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
the matter may be heard, with regard to the proposed conveyance of a 15-foot
overhead and underground easement, with a 40 square foot area, to accommodate
a new pole across City owned property on Barns Avenue, N. W., identified as
Official Tax No. 6610101, to Appalachian Power Company, d/b/a American Electric
Power, to provide underground electric service for the new Roanoke City School
Transportation Facility, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roano/~e
T/rnes on Friday, September 5, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Appalachian
Power. Company has requested a 15 foot wide easement across City-owned
property located on Barns Avenue, N. W., to provide underground electric service
to the City's new Transportation Center, together with an area of approximately
1,600 square feet to accommodate a new pole; whereupon, the City Manager
recommended, following the public hearing, that she be authorized to execute the
appropriate documents, to be approved as to form by the City Attorney.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following ordinance:
(#36501-091503) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the donation and conveyance
of a 15 foot overhead and underground easement, across City-owned property
located on Barns Avenue, identified as Official Tax No. 6610101, together with an
approximate 1,600 square foot easement to accommodate a new pole, to
Appalachian Power Company for the purpose of providing underground electric
service to the School Board of the City of Roanoke's School Transportation Facility,
upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with the second reading bytitle
of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, .Page 103.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36501 -O91503. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
286 -
· There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance No.
36501- 091503 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith ............................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ..................................................... O.
(Council Member Cutler was absent.)
OTHER BUSINESS: NONE
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA'I-rERS:
The Mayor advised that Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be
heard; and matters requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred
immediately for response, recommendation or report to Council.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-PAY PLAN-CITY JAIL-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mrs. Zoe
Hewitt-Stinnette, 2531 Peters Creek Road, N.W., spoke in support of a higher pay
scale for public safety employees.
COMPLAINTS-ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. John Kepley, 2902 Morrison Avenue
S. E., continued his remarks from the 2:00 p.m. Council session. He advised that
the four Members of Council who voted for the proposed new
stadium/amphitheater have been unjust and inconsiderate in their vote to tear
down Victory Stadium, they have violated the rights of the citizens of Roanoke and
caused much grief and anguish. He stated that the right and honorable solution is
to allow the citizens of Roanoke City to vote on the issue because if the citizens
are not allowed to vote, there will continue to be anger and discontent among the
great majority of Roanoke's citizens; and there should be a better working
relationship between City Council, the City Manager and the citizens of Roanoke, in
order to bring about progress in the right way. in conclusion, he expressed
287
appreciation to the three Council Members who are native Roanokers, Mayor
Smith, Council Member Fitzpatrick and Vice-Mayor Harris, who want to keep
Victory Stadium, and for their vote to publicly reopen the Victory Stadium issue for
discussion. He referred to another beloved historical landmark which was about to
be destroyed,Jefferson High School; however, the late Judge BeverlyT. Fitzpatrick,
Sr., almost single handedly saved Jefferson High School from being town down and
the citizens of Roanoke are now in his debt and they are proud of the restored
Jefferson Center. Therefore, he suggested that Council Member Fitzpatrick, son of
the late Judge Fitzpatrick, step forward and follow in the footsteps of his father in
regard to Victory Stadium.
PAY PLAN-COMPLAINTS-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Robert Gravely, 3360
Hershberger Road, N. W., expressed concern with regard to the City's aging
infrastructure, the need for more jobs for Roanokers, and the provision of
adequate wages for City employees.
The being no further business, at 8:10 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting
adjourned.
APPROVED
A'I-rEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
288
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
October 6, 2003
9:00 a.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on
Monday, October 6, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., the regular meeting hour, in the
Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke,
Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2,
Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure,
Rule 1, Regular Meetinqs, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended; and pursuant to Resolution No. 36193-010603 adopted on
January 6, 2003, which changed the time of commencement of the
regular meeting of Council to be held on the first Monday in each month
from 12:15 p.m. to 9:00 .m.
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, William D. Bestpitch,
M. Rupert Cutler, and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ........................ 4.
ABSENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Linda F. Wyatt ................................ 3.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F.
Parker, City Clerk.
COMMI-I-rEES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor
Ralph K. Smith requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to
discuss vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and
committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1),
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body.
289
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to
convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain authorities,
boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Bestpitch, Cutler and Mayor
Smith ....................................................... 4.
NAYS: None ............................................. 0.
(Council Members Wyatt, Dowe and Fitzpatrick were out of the
Conference Room when the vote was recorded.)
CITY A'I-rORNEY-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City
Attorney requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to consult
with legal counsel on a specific legal matter requiring the provision of
legal advice by counsel, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(7), Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the request of the City
Attorney to convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion
was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Bestpitch, Cutler and Mayor
Smith ....................................................... 4.
NAYS: None ............................................. 0.
(Council Members Wyatt, Dowe and Fitzpatrick were out of the
Conference Room when the vote was recorded.)
290
CITY COUNCIL-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: A joint meeting of Council
and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority was called to
order at 9:05 a.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, with
Mayor Smith and Chairman Fink presiding, and all Members of the
Council in attendance.
ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Carolyn M. Bumbry, James
Gregory W. Feldman, Christie Meredith-Wills, Joseph
Chairman Ben J. Fink.
AUTHORITY
W. Burks, Jr.,
F. Lynn and
ABSENT: Commissioner H. Victor Gilchrist.
OTHERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; Mary F.
Parker, City Clerk; RolandaB. Russell, Assistant City Manager for
Community Development; George C. Snead, Jr., Assistant City Manager
for Operations; John P. Baker, Executive Director, and Sue Marie Worline,
Secretary, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA); and
John Grove, Attorney, representing the RRHA.
HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The Mayor welcomed Housing Authority
Commissioners and staff to the meeting.
Chairman Fink reviewed the following draft Statement of Purpose
and Expectations for the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
"The Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority is uniquely
empowered by the Code of Virginia and is charged with three primary
responsibilities:
291
Maintenance of 1,328 units of public housing in nine
developments to serve economically disadvantaged citizens
in the City of Roanoke.
Administration of 1,321 Section 8 rental housing vouchers to
assist economically disadvantaged citizens in the City of
Roanoke.
Utilization of redevelopment and rehabilitation powers to
assist the City of Roanoke in major economic development
and neighborhood revitalization initiatives.
As constituted by State law, the relationship between the City
and the RRHA is unique among alt other organizations in the
community. City Council created the RRHA and appoints the
Board of Commissioners for four year terms of office. For
redevelopment and revitalization projects, the City sets
policy and direction and the RRHA implements the programs
and projects of the City. For public housing and Section 8,
RRHA is heavily regulated by HUD policies and guidelines in
the fulfillment of its responsibilities.
A strong partnership between the City and the RRHA is
essential to the success of the overall mission of both the
unique powers and roles, which, combined in a working
partnership, provide the greatest opportunity for addressing
the challenging issues facing Roanoke today. Recognizing
the importance of meaningful partnerships, the RRHA has
founded Case Management Roanoke Valley Consortium
(CMRV Consortium), with the mission to coordinate case
management functions among all community organizations,
292
and to create an integrated system for intake, referral, and
assessment to be used by all service providers. In addition,
the RRHA is in the process of founding a consortium to
coordinate all housing-related initiatives in the City in order
to minimize duplication and maximize efficiency.
In order to keep purposes and activities of each aligned, City
Council will establish policy that can be used as guidelines by
the Board of Commissioners. Recognizing a responsibility to
its appointing entity, the Board of Commissioners will keep
City Council fully informed on issues of mutual interest. The
Executive Director of the RRHA works closely with the City
Manager, and the respective staffs of the City and the RRHA
form an effective team in carrying out the day-to-day
operations that make the partnership effective."
Chairman Fink called attention to $23 million of unmet needs and
the RRHA is facing cuts from HUD which will require the organization to
focus on high priority needs.
He stated that the RRHA would like to:
Ensure that housing units meet curb appeal.
Look at going beyond the City limits so as not to
concentrate public housing solely in the City of
Roanoke.
Review mixed financing projects, which could
market rate housing as well as Iow income housing.
be
293
Improve the overall quality of public housing.
If there are future HOPE VI funds, the RRHA would like
to work with the City to use the funds in a manner that
make the greatest impact on the City.
RRHA would like to continue the philosophy of serving
as a leader in working with other agencies to bring
services to residents of Iow rent housing.
In reference to Section 8 housing, the RRHA would like
to increase services to residents through a philosophy
of self-sufficiency.
The RRHA would like to use Section 8 program funds
by helping homeowners to revitalize neighborhoods
through home improvements without increasing rent.
The RRHA would like to continue to implement
redevelopment programs requested by Council and to
assist the City in identifying plans for new
redevelopment areas in the future.
The RRHA would like to work with Total Action Against
Poverty and other area jurisdictions on Section 8
housing vouchers so that the City of Roanoke does not
become concentrated with the Section $ program.
Council appoints the RRHA Board of Commissioners
and there should be a better integration within City
agencies in order to partner with the City of Roanoke
on housing issues/initiatives.
294
The Board and staff of the RRHA support the City's
policy of targeting funds to revitalize neighborhoods
and wishes to continue providing affordable financing
and grants to property owners to make substantial
improvements and to provide for neighborhood
diversity.
To look at market rate housing to help revitalize
neighborhoods.
To work with City staff to identify opportunities both
within and outside the City.
Chairman Fink proposed that an ad hoc committee composed of
two Members of City Council and two Commissioners of the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority be appointed to draft a statement
of policy for consideration by Council and the Housing Authority.
Chairman Fink was requested to highlight any changes that the
proposed statement of policy would represent over the present
relationship between the City and the Housing Authority; whereupon, he
advised that the policy would be a recognition that the Housing Authority
is not like other public entities because it is established by State law and
the Board of Commissioners is appointed by City Council. He stated that
there have been instances when the Housing Authority believed that it
was treated like a nonprofit entity, such as Blue Ridge Housing Network,
etc.; and the Housing Authority is entrusted with unique powers that
should be recognized and integrated in a better way by the staff of both
295
the City and the Housing Authority. He added that there have also been
instances when the Housing Authority was not aware of City policy or
programs that affect its operation, therefore, a closer working
relationship would be advantageous.
Upon question, Chairman Fink advised that relocating the RRHA
administrative office in the Municipal Building complex has been
discussed by the Executive Director and the City Manager, and it has
been suggested that a satellite office be established, which will be
addressed in the City's space needs report.
Vice-Mayor Harris, Council's liaison to the RRHA, called attention to
monthly breakfast meetings in which he, along with the Chair, Executive
Director of the Housing Authority, the City Manager, and one Member of
City Council and one Housing Authority Commissioner participate on a
rotating basis. He advised that all Members of Council and all
Commissioners of the Housing Authority have been rotated in on at least
one occasion over the past year, and he is open to suggestions if the
Council, or the Board of Commissioners would prefer to transact
business in a different manner.
He advised that over a year ago, the Housing Authority Board of
Commissioners expressed a desire to move beyond the traditional role
that the Board has been accustomed to playing in the community which
has been three-fold: (1) as managers of public housing, (2) as managers
of Section 8 rental housing and (3) as the arm that acquires land for the
purposes of the City, and specifically economic development. He
explained that as the City and the Council became more engaged in
neighborhood redevelopment and housing issues, the Housing Authority
was of the opinion that it could bring to the table certain expertise, staff
296
and knowledge and a partnership with the City; and the matter has been
a specific topic of conversation at monthly breakfast meetings and in
individual discussions. Therefore, as Council's liaison to the RRHA, he
stated that it is important to address the matter in a joint session of the
Council and the Board of Commissioners; and it has been his impression
that the majority of Council has responded in a positive manner to
exploring, defining and developing a new and more engaged role for the
Housing Authority as it relates to the City's housing efforts beyond
Section 8 or public housing. He affirmed the suggestion of Chairman
Fink to move the discussion to the next level which is to explore a joint
policy statement in reference to the new role of the RRHA.
Mr. Harris moved that Council appoint two Members of City Council
and that the Housing Authority appoint two members of the Board of
Commissioners to develop a statement of purpose and to report back to
the Council and to the Board of Commissioners in the near future. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
Mr. Fitzpatrick advised that in the past the RRHA has been treated
like a "step child" by the City, which is not an appropriate role, therefore,
it is important to agree on a memorandum of understanding. He stated
that the Housing Authority should be a full partner with the City and the
two entities should explore avenues that have not been used to this point
insofar as the ability of the RRHA to accomplish certain projects. He
called attention to the opportunity for regionalism because most
communities in southwest Virginia do not have Redevelopment and
Housing Authorities and income could be created by providing those
kinds of services to governments that request assistance. He stated that
there is a tremendous opportunity to enhance the City of Roanoke as the
center of southwestern Virginia; therefore, he encouraged Council to
adopt the motion and offered to serve on the ad hoc committee.
297
Question was raised as to whether the RRHA has approached other
jurisdictions in regard to expanding the role of the Housing Authority in a
regional context; whereupon, Chairman Fink advised that the Housing
Authority is working with the Roanoke Regional Housing Network, the
Executive Director has discussed housing opportunities with college
officials in southwestern Virginia, and avenues of cooperation are being
explored with other jurisdictions.
In reporting back, Mr. Bestpitch asked that the ad hoc committee
provide specific recommendations and suggestions regarding better
integration and partnership between the City and the RRHA.
The motion was unanimously adopted.
At this point, Council Member Wyatt left the meeting.
In regard to Section 8 housing vouchers, it was reported that
Roanoke County holds 83 housing vouchers, 80 of which represent
housing units in the City of Roanoke.
There was discussion in regard to whether there is a method for
monitoring the progress of persons living in subsidized housing;
whereupon, the Executive Director advised that the Housing Authority
currently uses a measurement matrix that identifies the status of the
family from crisis to self-sufficiency.
The Mayor requested a comparative analysis of Section 8 housing
vouchers of other localities, which could be used as a benchmark in
analyzing Roanoke's progress, including the status of the localities five
years ago compared to the present time; whereupon, the Executive
Director advised that the information will be compiled.
298
Council Member Cutler called attention to proposed plans to move
a major portion of the operations of the Harrison Museum to the former
Dumas Hotel and, as a community, Roanoke should be concerned about
the Harrison School Building and the Harrison community; therefore, the
matter should be on the radar screen of the appropriate entity.
Chairman Fink presented an activities report on RRHA projects
dated October, 2003.
(For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
The City Manager advised that today's discussion is due in large
measure to the City's creation of a Department of Housing and
Neighborhood Services approximately two years ago; prior to that time,
there was no concentrated effort to address housing and neighborhood
issues in the City of Roanoke and both the Council and the City
Administration recognized that housing is a key economic development
tool for the community. She added that significant steps have been taken
to focus attention on the issue of housing of all types and descriptions,
of all economic levels and to address the key role that the private sector
should play in the development of housing in the community. She added
that the fact that the City made the acknowledgment of housing is one of
the reasons that the current discussion is taking place, because prior to
that time housing was seen as a responsibility, from the public's
standpoint, of the RRHA, and certain nonprofit organizations throughout
the community had varying roles in the development of housing. She
noted that the community has spent exclusive time looking at the issue
of Iow and moderate income housing and not at housing in general;
currently, she is a member of the Governor's Task Force on Urban Policy
299
and, at a recent meeting, a significant amount of time was devoted to
the issue of housing in older urban communities throughout the State of
Virginia. She explained that some localities will request State Code
changes in regard to urban policy, i.e.: (1) to allow new construction in
order for neighborhoods to receive tax abatement which is not currently
allowed under the Dillon Rule, (2) to allow tax credits for market rate and
upper market rate housing, as opposed to tax credits exclusively for Iow
and moderate income housing, with the idea of mixed use development
where there would be market rate and Iow income housing in the
same project, and (3) a regional focus on housing and housing issues,
because in today's world there are no incentives to promote or discuss
regional housing activity. She advised that it is her personal opinion that
State law and a legislative change will be required to encourage or to
incentivize a regional approach to housing. She stated that 71 per cent
of housing in the City of Roanoke is valued at less than $100,000.00, the
average or median price of a house in the year 2000 in the City of
Roanoke was in the range of $80,000.00; the City of Roanoke has the
second lowest median average of the urban areas for housing, with the
City of Petersburg being the lowest; those are issues that will not be
addressed through programs like Section 8, public housing, or
lease/purchase, all of which are directed toward Iow and moderate
income persons; and Roanoke will have to initiate programs, or lobby for
programs, that provide the opportunity to produce market rate and above
housing in the City of Roanoke. She stated that as officials embark upon
either a different kind of working relationship with the RRHA, or a
different working relationship generally around housing, resources will
not be available at the Federal and/or State level to jump start those
kinds of activities, and will most likely require General Fund
appropriation. She advised that she is hopeful that the private sector will
get on the band wagon when they can be convinced that market rate
300
housing is acceptable within the City of Roanoke, because unfortunately
Roanoke has earned the reputation over time that it is not a suitable
location for market rate or above housing, and developers look to the
City of Roanoke as the situs for Iow and moderate, income housing. She
stated that Roanoke deserves better, the community deserves and wants
better, and additional resources are needed to make any and all of those
things happen. She advised that the City of Roanoke has a staff that is
committed to working on these issues, but with limited resource
allocations, the City must be prudent with regard to future investments.
Relative to previous comments of Chairman Fink that the RRHA
does not believe that it has been involved with City programs and policy,
she reminded Council that the City of Roanoke is about to enter into a
contractual arrangement for preparation of a housing plan in which
housing stock will be identified, along with advantages and
disadvantages of the City's housing stock, and actions that need to be
taken from a strategic standpoint to modify housing needs and resources
within the City. She explained that the study will take approximately one
year to complete and the Housing Authority and others, particularly the
real estate community, will be involved in the study.
There being no further business, at 10:10 a.m., the Mayor declared
the Council meeting in recess, and advised that Council would convene in
Closed Session in the Council's Conference Room to conduct interviews
for vacancies on the Architectural Review Board and the Industrial
Development Authority.
At 1 ] :30 a.m., the Council's work session reconvened in Room 159
of the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building.
301
ITEMS LISTED ON THE
DISCUSSION/CLARIFICATION;
2:00 P.M. DOCKET:
2:00 P.M. COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING
AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE
The City Manager advised that Dr. Cutler had raised a question in
regard to the Regional Wastewater Collection and Treatment Contract
with area jurisdictions; whereupon, she stated that one subdivision is
currently being served by Montgomery County. She stated that sludge
programs cost the City of Roanoke approximately $1 million per year,
and pursuant to contractual arrangements, bio-solids are spread on
farmlands at the request of farmers at no charge. She advised that the
Director of Utilities will provide more detailed information.
The City Manager advised that the Mayor also raised a question
with regard to acceptance of Office of Domestic Preparedness Homeland
Security Grant funds; whereupon, she provided a list of items on which
funds totaling $246,434.00 are proposed to be spent.
Council Member Cutler referred to the Regional Wastewater
Collection and Treatment Contract with area jurisdictions and inquired if
the City Manager foresees a situation in the future where a comparable
contract will be needed for storm water management. The City Manager
advised that Roanoke City is receiving storm water at the present time
and referred to general discussions among her counterparts about the
need, once all of the storm water management plans are developed, to
discuss implementation of a user fee and the pooling of the user fee for
capital projects which would minimize the amount of storm water run off.
With the support of other regional partners, she stated that storm water
is a category that could be added to the Water/Waste Water Authority.
302
Mr. Bestpitch requested further elaboration on continuation of the
position of Restricted Eligibility Worker; whereupon, the City Manager
advised that any time the City accepts a grant, action by Council is
required. She explained that the agreement has been in place since
1994, the item on today's agenda is an annual renewal, the $36,000.00
represents the cost of the employee plus benefits on the condition that
the Eligibility Worker will be stationed at the State Health Department.
She stated that the position is available only so long as funding sources
are available.
Mr. Bestpitch inquired, if funding is decreased or discontinued by
the State and there continues to be a need for the position, is the
Restricted Eligibility Worker position one more State funded position that
the City of Roanoke will be expected to fund.
The City Manager advised that persons will be required to come
from the Heath Department to the City's main location to apply for
service and in that process, some people will fall to the way side; and
having the Eligibility Worker on site will increase the number of
applications and the likelihood that those persons will be eligible for
assistance. She explained that if the Eligibility Worker position is not
available at the Health Department site, a portion of the work will be
shifted back to the main staff, which will increase the work load for
remaining staff.
With regard to acceptance of Office of Domestic Preparedness State
Homeland Security grant funds, in the amount of $246,434.00, the Mayor
inquired about funding for an item referred to as Reverse 911;
whereupon, the City Manager advised that Reverse 9] ] allows for calls
303
containing a specific message to be placed to every citizen in a certain
area of the City, or potentially to the entire City, if necessary. She
explained that Reverse 911 is an automated message service and the City
would have to purchase the required software.
Question was raised with regard to the police command vehicle
which is proposed to be purchased with Homeland Security Grant funds;
whereupon, the City Manager advised that most communities maintain a
command vehicle for major incidents in order to provide the necessary
equipment to monitor an emergency situation. She explained that the
command vehicle will be located at the scene of the incident and will be
equipped with direct communication to radio and other equipment, such
as fax machines, computers, etc., which means that resources can be
deployed to an event on site.
Council Member Fitzpatrick presented information on the City's
branding effort. He advised that a considerable amount of work has
taken place, including a trip to Portland, Maine, to observe how that
locality has used its branding initiatives. He explained that the initial
concept was to devise a regional sense of direction, numerous meetings
were held, and a Steering Committee was appointed composed of
representatives of Economic Development, the Roanoke Arts Council, the
Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, private business owners,
The Regional Alliance, City Planning and Development staff, Members of
Council, the City Manager's Office and Roanoke City Public Schools. He
stated that Landor Associates was employed to prepare the study which
involved the engagement of focus groups, and man-on-the-street
interviews in an effort to compile a specific set of recommendations for
Roanoke. He explained that long term, branding is not considered to be
a logo, but an image and a sense of direction for persons not only in the
304
City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Valley, but more importantly outside of
the area in order to look at Roanoke and to get a sense and feel of what
Roanoke is about. He advised that branding may be one of the most
important business issues of the City because the City has never had a
marketing sense of direction, or an image that is designed specifically to
target Roanoke. He stated that the purpose of the briefing was to share
with Council the initial finality of the branding process and City staff
recommends that the design be worn on a polo shirt by City staff serving
as volunteers at the Virginia Municipal League Annual Conference Host
City Night on Monday, October 20, in an effort to gauge the reaction of
Roanoke's guests to the proposed image.
Mr. Fitzpatrick read the folloWing positioning statement:
"In a world where cities often feel loud and overcrowded and
as hard as the concrete they're built upon, the City of
Roanoke offers something unique - unexpected balance.
Roanoke has the amenities that you'd expect from a dynamic
urban center, without losing the charming feeling of a
smaller place. Roanoke is a city that encourages you to make
things happen, because it's big enough to provide multiple
opportunities but small enough so you can make an impact.
And the natural beauty that many cities lack has not been
lost in Roanoke with the beautiful Blue Ridge Mountains
visible from most every city street."
Mr. Fitzpatrick read the following definition:
"The Roanoke logo visually expresses the soaring spirit of
optimism that defines the city. The colors are a balance
between urban sophistication and friendly charm.
305
The mountain, made up of three individual and unique
shapes, illustrates the balance and stability of the city. The
gray portion represents the dynamic urban culture while the
green is reminiscent of the charming neighborhoods and
surrounding natural beauty. The cap of blue symbolizes the
Blue Ridge Mountains that can be seen from almost every
street in the city.
The central star is derived from the well-loved icon atop Mill
Mountain. The star embodies the heritage spirit of the city.
The dynamic rays of light illustrate the energy of exciting
new ideas and the ability to make things happen."
Council Member Fitzpatrick displayed a poster board of the
proposed image and advised that there are many ways in which it can be
implemented; and the image is not intended to replace the City Seal, or to
be a logo, but the design is intended to be a sense or image of what
Roanoke is about.
On a regional basis, the City Manager advised that the Roanoke
region is not working on an image, but a name for the region, and two
images are currently being tested on businesses and residents. She
stated that concentration is on identifying a name for the region that
does not include "Roanoke".
Discussion centered around the fact that when Council
appropriated $300,000.00 for the branding effort, there was to be a
visual component and a marketing component that would address
Roanoke's assets and strengths and how to market those components, in
addition to economic development marketing, tourism marketing and
marketing Roanoke as a community, etc.
306
Mr. Fitzpatrick explained that his presentation is the initial piece of
the presentation and more information is yet to come; however, the
visual piece becomes the cornerstone of the entire program.
It was the consensus of Council to authorize the image to be worn
on a polo shirt during the Virginia Municipal League Annual Conference
Host City Night on Monday, October 20, 2003.
The City Manager advised that information
Council with regard to locations where Roanoke's
image has already been tested.
will be provided to
proposed branding
At 12:35 p.m., the meeting was declared in recess until 2:00 p.m.,
in the City Council Chamber.
At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, October 6, 2003, the Council meeting
reconvened in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor
Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia,
with Mayor Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt,
William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith ................................................ 6.
ABSENT: Council Member Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.- ............ 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F.
Parker, City Clerk.
307
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend Ken
Atkins, Pastor, West End Presbyterian Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America
was led by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
PROCLAMATIONS-ARTS COUNCIL OF THE BLUE RIDGE: The Mayor
presented a proclamation declaring the month of October 2003 as
National Arts and Humanities Month.
PROCLAMATIONS-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Mayor presented a
proclamation declaring the month of October 2003 as Crime Prevention
Month.
PROCLAMATIONS-LIBRARIES: The Mayor presented a proclamation
declaring the month of October 2003 as Family History Month, and
Saturday, October 18, 2003~'as Family History Celebration Day.
PROCLAMATIONS-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The Mayor presented a
proclamation declaring October 5 - 11,2003, as Fire Prevention Week.
PROCLAMATIONS-HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The Mayor presented a
proclamation declaring October 5 - 11, 2003, as Mental Illness
Awareness Week.
PROCLAMATIONS: The Mayor presented a proclamation declaring
October 19 - 25, 2003, as Building Character Week.
3O8
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent
Agenda were considered to be routine by the Members of Council and
would be enacted by one motion in the form, or forms, listed on the
Consent Agenda, and if discussion is desired, the item will be removed
from the Consent Agenda and considered separately.
Item C-4, a communication from the Honorable David C. Anderson,
Treasurer, advising of his retirement, effective December 31, 2003, was
removed from the Consent Agenda for separate discussion.
MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meetings of Council held on
Monday, August 4, 2003; Monday, August 18, 2003, and recessed until
Friday, August 22, 2003, were before the body.
Mr. Harris moved that Council dispense with the reading of the
minutes and that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: .................................................. 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
309
EASEMENTS-PARKS AND RECREATION-CITY PROPERTY: A
communication from the City Manager requesting that Council schedule a
public hearing for Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to conveyance of an
easement on City-owned property located in Jackson Park, was before the
body.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the request of the City
Manager. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.
CITY PROPERTY: A communication from the City Manager
requesting that Council schedule a public hearing for Thursday,
October 23, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, with regard to leasing 7.05 acres of City-owned property
located near Back Creek in Roanoke County for agricultural purposes, was
before the body.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the request of the City
Manager. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the
following vote:
310
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
PARKS AND RECREATION-COMMI'I-rEES: A communication from
Steven C. Buschor, Director, Parks and Recreation, advising of the
resignation of The Reverend David Walton as a member of the Parks and
Recreation Advisory Board, was before the body.
Mr. Harris moved that the communication be received and filed and
that the resignation be accepted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................ 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
PARKS AND RECREATION-COMMI'I-YEES: A communication from
Steven C. Buschor, Director, Parks and Recreation, advising of the
resignation of Onzlee Ware as a member of the Parks and Recreation
Advisory Board, was before the body.
311
Mr. Harris moved that the communication be received and filed and
that the resignation be accepted. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMITTEES-PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT-SCHOOLS-YOUTH:
report of qualification of the following persons was before Council.
A
Edward C. Bradley as a member of the Personnel and
Employment Practices Commission, for a term ending
June 30, 2006;
Michael F. Urbanski and Joseph B. Wright as members of the
Virginia Western Community College, Board of Directors, for
terms ending June 30, 2007; and
Cheryl D. Evans as a member of the Youth Services Citizen
Board, for a term ending March 31,2006.
Mr. Harris moved that the report of qualification be received and
filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the
following vote:
312
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................ O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
REGULAR AGENDA
CITY TREASURER: A communication from the Honorable David C.
Anderson, City Treasurer, advising of his retirement effective
December 31,2003, was before Council.
Vice-Mayor Harris commended Mr. Anderson for his service to the
City of Roanoke and moved that the notice of retirement be received and
filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
BONDS/BOND ISSUES-SCHOOLS: Pursuant to instructions by
Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday,
October 6, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, in connection with approval by the City of Roanoke of general
obligation bond, or bonds, in an amount estimated not to exceed $5
million, for the purpose of financing replacement of the existing school
building at the Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and Science, the
matter was before the body.
313
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The
/~oano/~e Times on Thursday, September 18, 2003 and Thursday,
September 25, 2003; and in The Roano/ce Tribune on Thursday,
September 25, 2003.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36502-100603) A RESOLUTION authorizing the issuance of not
to exceed $5,000,000 General Obligation School Bonds, Series 2003-A,
of the City of Roanoke Virginia, to be sold to the Virginia Public School
Authority and providing for the form and details thereof.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 105.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36502-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to
be heard in connection with the public hearing.
There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
There being no questions or comments by Council Members,
Ordinance No. 36502-100603 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
314
FRANCHISES-CABLE TELEVISION: Pursuant to instructions by
Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday,
October 6, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be
heard, on the adoption of a revised Cable Television Franchise Ordinance,
and an ordinance approving and authorizing execution of a 15 year
renewal of the Cable Television Franchise Agreement held by CoxCom,
Inc., d/b/a Cox Communications Roanoke, the matter was before the
body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The
t~oano/~e Times on Sunday, September 21, 2003 and Sunday, September
28, 2003; and in The £oano/~e Tribune on Thursday, September 25,
2003.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36503-100603) AN ORDINANCE providing for one or more non-
exclusive franchises to construct, operate, and maintain one or more
cable television systems within the City of Roanoke, Virginia, and
dispensing with the second reading by title paragraph of this Ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 114.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36503-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
A communication from the City Manager advising that pursuant to
Ordinance No. 30479-42291, the City entered into a Cable Television
315
Franchise Agreement, dated May 1, 1 991, for a term of 12 years with Cox
Cable Roanoke, Inc., predecessor in interest to CoxCom, Inc., d/b/a Cox
Communications Roanoke; at about the same time, Roanoke County and
the Town of Vinton also entered into similar Franchise Agreements; and
such agreements arose out of the three jurisdictions negotiating jointly
with Cox Cable Roanoke, Inc.
It was further advised that CoxCom, Inc., has requested a renewal
franchise with the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, and the Town of
Vinton and representatives of the three jurisdictions have been
negotiating with Cox Communications for a renewal agreement; on
April 21, 2003, pursuant to Ordinance No. 36290-042103, Council
extended the 1991 Cable Television agreement for six months, until
October 31, 2003, to allow renewal negotiating to be completed; such
negotiations have been completed and a Cable Television Franchise
Agreement acceptable to the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County, the Town
of Vinton and Cox has been reached among the parties, subject to their
respective agreements; in connection with the negotiation, the City
retained an outside consultant familiar with cable television franchising
matters; during the negotiation process, it was also recommended that
the City's prior Cable Television Franchise Ordinance adopted on
April 22, 1991, pursuant to Ordinance No. 30478-42291, be replaced
with a revised Cable Television Franchise Ordinance; such revised Cable
Television Franchise Ordinance has been drafted by the consultant and
reviewed by representatives of the three jurisdictions and by Cox;
representatives of the City and the consultant for the City recommend
adoption of a revised Cable Television Franchise Ordinance, to which Cox
has no objections; and the purpose of such action is to update the prior
ordinance and to incorporate current legal requirements.
316
Certain terms of the Agreement include:
The Agreement will be for a term of 15 years, from
November 1,2003 through October 31,201 8.
Cox will provide a capital grant for educational and
governmental access capital equipment and facilities,
in the total amount of $1,1 50,000.00 to be paid as
follows:
$575,000.00 to be paid on or before May 1,2004;
$345,000.00 to be paid on or before November 1,2006 and
$230,000.00 to be paid on or before November 1,2008.
Payment of the above funds will be made to the fiscal agent for the
Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee.
Cox will continue to carry RVTV on Channel 3 on Cox's
system, and will also continue to provide a public
access channel. Cox will provide up to five additional
governmental or educational access channels based on
a showing of need for such channels.
Cox will pay to the City a franchise fee in the amount
of five per cent of gross revenues, in accordance with
Section 17 of the revised Television Franchise
Ordinance. (The amount of franchisee fee payments
that the City received from Cox in fiscal year 2003 was
approximately $984,000.00.) The amount budgeted to
be received in fiscal year 2004 is approximately
$1,049,000.00.
317
The City can regulate rates within limits for the cable operator's
basic tier under current Federal law, the City cannot regulate any rates for
any tiers above the basic tier, nor can the City regulate the programming
that Cox carries on its system (other than the access channels) which are
matters left to the discretion of the cable television operator under
current Federal law.
The City Manager recommended Council adopt the revised Cable
Television Franchise Ordinance, effective October 31, 2003; approve
terms of the Cable Television Franchise Agreement and authorize the City
Manager to execute such Agreement between the City of Roanoke and
CoxCom, Inc., in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, with the
Agreement to provide for the items above mentioned and such other
terms and conditions as are deemed to be in the best interest of the City;
and authorize the City Manager to take such further actions and to
execute such additional documents as may be necessary to implement
and administer the Cable Television Franchise Agreement.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to
be heard in connection with the public hearing.
Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., advised that while he
is not opposed to the franchise agreement with Cox Communications, he
requested that Council discuss cable rate increases, overall rate structure
and the billing system with representatives of Cox Communications.
Mr. Robert Gravely, 729 Loudon Avenue, N. W., reiterated the
remarks of Mr. Craft and advised that if cable rates continue to increase,
the average Roanoke citizen will be unable to afford the service. He
advised that he was not in disagreement with renewal of the franchise,
but requested that the rate structure be reviewed by the City.
318
There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public
hearing' closed.
There being no questions or comments by Council Members,
Ordinance No. 36503-100603 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36504-100603) AN ORDINANCE approving and authorizing the
execution of a Cable Television Franchise Agreement by and between the
City of Roanoke, Virginia and CoxCom, Inc., d/b/a Cox Communications
Roanoke; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 155.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36504-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
319
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
ELECTIONS: The General Registrar submitted a communication
advising that due to construction/renovation, it is necessary to move
Highland No. 1 Precinct currently located at the Jefferson Hall Gym to The
Jefferson Center, 541 Luck Avenue, S. W., on a temporary basis, and
requested approval by Council.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance.
(#36505-100603) AN ORDINANCE temporarily changing the polling
place for Highland Precinct No. 1 from the Jefferson Hall Gym at $40
Church Avenue, S.W., to Room 105, Jefferson Center, at 541 Luck
Avenue, S. W.; and dispensing with the second reading by title paragraph
of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 157.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36505-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris.
Mr. Charles Harlow, representing Blue Ridge Independent Living
Center, inquired if the change of polling place will be indefinite;
whereupon, the Registrar advised that a temporary change is proposed at
this time; however, the Jefferson Gym has been sold and will no longer be
available for voting purposes; therefore, a permanent location will be
requested following the November 2003 election.
320
Mr. Harlow advised that as a former City employee who worked at
The Jefferson Center for a number of years, he could attest to the fact
that The Jefferson Center is not one of the easiest locations for persons
with disabilities to enter and to exit. He stated that if The Jefferson
Center is to be used as a polling place indefinitely, ramps should be
installed and better parking facilities should be provided. He added that
parking for handicapped persons in the "U shaped" area at the entrance
to The Jefferson Center is not properly identified.
Council Member Bestpitch advised that he previously occupied
office space at The Jefferson Center and a concern was that visitors to the
facility would often park in the handicapped spaces outside the main
entrance to The Jefferson Center. He stated that the space should be
more clearly marked for handicapped usage and asked that the record
reflect that there is a problem, spaces located immediately in front of the
building should be more clearly identified as handicapped parking only.
Therefore, he requested that the matter be referred to the City Manager
for review.
Ordinance No. 36505-100603 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith ................ ~ ................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
321
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
WATER RESOURCES: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that the existing 1994 Wastewater Agreement among the City of
Roanoke and Roanoke County, the City of Salem, the Town of Vinton, and
Botetourt County has been substantially updated and revised to reflect an
agreed upon cost sharing formula for the 2003 Wet Weather
Improvements at the Water Pollution Control Plant; the revision was
necessary since existing contract terms require separate negotiation of
cost sharing of each major capital improvement; and following
discussion, costs for the project were determined based upon existing
capacity allocations.
It was further advised that other changes were desired by all
parties, including a different method of metering the City's flow
contribution to the Water Pollution Control Plant and revised rate
calculations for monthly flow charges; and to address ongoing
maintenance needs, all parties will make payments~ based upon flow
allocation, into a capital fund, which fund will allow plant staff to plan
improvements over multiple years while relieving budget uncertainty for
partner jurisdictions.
The City Manager recommended that the Mayor be authorized to
execute the 2003 Regional Wastewater Collection and Treatment Contract
on behalf of the City of Roanoke; and authorize the City Manager to take
such further action and to execute such other documents as may be
necessary to implement and to administer such contract, such documents
to be approved as to form by the City Attorney.
322
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36506-100603) AN ORDINANCE endorsing the 2003 Regional
Wastewater Collection and Treatment Contract among the City of
Roanoke, Roanoke County, the City of Salem, the Town of Vinton, and
Botetourt County and authorizing the Mayor to execute such Contract on
behalf of the City; authorizing the City Manager to take such further
actions and to execute such documents as may be necessary to
implement and administer such Contract; and dispensing with the second
reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, 159.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36506-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
POLICE DEPARTMENT-EMERGENCY SERVICES-GRANTS: The City
Manager submitted a communication advising that the U. S. Marshals
Service has proposed the formation of a "Joint Fugitive Task Force" (JFTF)
to improve cooperative efforts among local jurisdictions in locating
wanted persons; the mission of the Task Force will be to conduct, in a
coordinated manner, investigations and to arrest local, State and Federal
fugitives with outstanding warrants for crimes of violence; members of
323
the Task Force will include the United States Attorney's Office, United
States Marshals Service, Virginia Department of Game and Inland
Fisheries, the Franklin County Sheriff's Office, Roanoke Police, Bedford
County Sheriff's Office, and the Wytheville Police Department;
membership of the Task Force will be limited to one investigator and one
alternate from each agency, with the exception of the State agencies
which may assign additional investigators due to their large geographical
coverage areas; all local and State law enforcement officers will be
required to be deputized as Special Deputy U. S. Marshals; the
deputations will remain in effect throughout the tenure of the officer's
assignment on the Task Force; supervision of personnel assigned to the
Task Force will be the mutual responsibility of participating agencies,
however, day-to-day operations and administrative control of the Task
Force will be the responsibility the U. S. Marshals Joint Fugitive Task Force
Coordinator; the Coordinator will oversee prioritization and assignment
of targeted cases and related investigative activities in accordance with
stated objectives of the Task Force; the Memorandum of Understanding
with the Task Force provides that the City will hold harmless the United
States from any claim, cause of action or judgment resulting solely from
the negligent acts of its employees and that the City will assume liability
for the negligence of its employees and for any property damage to
Federal vehicles resulting from the use of such vehicles by City police
officers; and this assumption of liability by agreement is not a waiver of
sovereign immunity.
It was further advised that the Police Department currently has a
similar function with the Drug Enforcement Administration and with the
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms; participating in the Task Force
will allow police officers to access the U. S. Marshal's on-line search
mechanisms in an attempt to locate fugitives; and participating officers
will learn new skills from interaction with officers from other agencies.
324
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute
the Memorandum of Understanding for the U. S. Marshals Service Blue
Ridge Fugitive Apprehension Strike Team Joint Fugitive Task Force of the
Western District of Virginia.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36507-100603) AN RESOLUTION authorizing the execution of a
Memorandum of Understanding with the U. S. Marshal's Service and other
law enforcement agencies regarding the Blue Ridge Fugitive
Apprehension Strike Team Joint Fugitive Task Force of the Western
District of Virginia.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 160.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36507-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
POLICE DEPARTMENT-EMERGENCY SERVICES-GRANTS: The City
Manager submitted a communication advising that the Virginia
Department of Emergency Management has announced allocation of the
2003-11, Office of Domestic Preparedness State Homeland Security Grant
Program, which is designed to allow local governments in Virginia to
supplement funding received from the 2003-11 Equipment Grant Program;
the 2003-11 Grant is intended for first responders to have better
325
preparedness to combat and deal with terrorist acts involving
weapons of mass destruction and to mitigate the costs of enhanced
security at critical infrastructure facilities during periods of hostilities
with Iraq, and, if enough funding remains, to help with costs in future
periods of heightened threat.
It was further advised that the City of Roanoke has been allocated a
total of $246,434.00 under the grant, which amount is based upon a
formula that provided $50,000.00, plus $2.07 per capita to the City of
Roanoke; and funding will be made available upon review of the budget
detail listing and approval by the Virginia Department of Emergency
Management and the Office of Domestic Preparedness.
It was explained that funding, which requires no local match, must
be used according to requirements specified by the Office of Domestic
Preparedness; the 2003-11 Grant allows localities to spend funds in four
areas of need in First Responder Preparedness, including specialized
emergency response equipment and terrorism incident prevention
equipment; design, development, conduct and evaluation of exercises for
the combating of terrorism; institutionalizing awareness and performance
level training; and for planning and administrative costs associated with
updating and implementing the State's Homeland Security strategy; the
grant requires that the City participate in and complete an assessment of
its abilities to handle a terrorist attack; and it is anticipated that the
assessment will take a sizeable amount of time on the part of key
responders and management personnel.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute
any agreements or documentation required in connection with obtaining
and accepting the allocation of funds, and to furnish such additional
information and to take such additional action as may be needed to
326
implement and to administer such funds and agreements, said
documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney; and that
Council appropriate funding of $246,434.00 and establish a
corresponding revenue estimate in accounts to be established by the
Director of Finance in the Grant Fund.
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36508-100603) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the
Office of Domestic Preparedness State Homeland Security Grant,
amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 Grant Fund
Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 161.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36508-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
327
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36509-100603) AN RESOLUTION authorizing the application to
and acceptance of the 2003-11 Office of Domestic Preparedness State
Homeland Security Grant from the Virginia Department of Emergency
Management to obtain federal funds under the federal Office of Justice
Programs (OJP), National Domestic Preparedness Office Grant Programs
and authorizing the execution of any required
documentation on behalf of the City.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 162.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36509-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
EMERGENCY SERVICES: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that since July 1, 1986, the City has been under
contract with the Virginia Department of Emergency Management to
respond to Level III hazardous materials incidents in a regional concept
involving firefighters/EMTS from the Cities of Roanoke and Salem; and on
November 18, 2002, Council authorized the City Manager to renew the
agreement to participate in a Level III Regional Response Team, with the
agreement to be renegotiated biannually in order to keep funding and
reimbursement needs current.
328
It was further advised that the City of Roanoke benefits in several
ways from the contract; the City receives reimbursement for training,
team member physical examinations and purchase of related equipment;
and without the State contract, the City would still have a need for a
hazardous materials response team, but would not have the
corresponding benefit of being a reimbursed regional provider.
It was explained that the present VDEM hazardous materials team
contract expires on June 30, 2004; VDEM agreed to furnish $15,000.00
per year in "pass-through" funds in order to assist with the purchase of
equipment, physicals, and to attend training programs needed to comply
with Federal and State response criteria mandates; and pass-through
funding totaling $15,000.00 has been received from VDEM.
The City Manager recommended that Council accept "pass-
through" funding which honors the two-year Virginia Department of
Emergency Management hazardous materials team contract for the
period July 1, 2002 until June 30, 2004; that Council appropriate
$15,000.00 as follows: $10,000.00 to Expendable Equipment and
$5,000.00 to Training and Development under the Hazardous Materials
Response Team Grant; and establish a revenue estimate of $15,000.00 in
Account No. 035-520-3226-3226.
Mr. Harris offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36510-100603) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the
FY04 Hazardous Materials Response Team Grant, amending and
reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 Grant Fund
Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 164.)
329
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36510-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36511-100603) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to
accept, on behalf of the City of Roanoke, "pass-through" funding from a
two-year contract with the Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of
Emergency Management, to participate in a Regional Hazardous Materials
Response Team.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 165.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36511-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
330
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-PARKS AND RECREATION-
LANDMARKS/HISTORIC PRESERVATION-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: The
City Manager submitted a communication advising that as a part of the
multi-regional Blue Ridge Parkway viewshed planning process, the most
recent Virginia Outdoors Plan states the necessity for local governments
to acquire private land in order to preserve and to protect the view shed
of the Blue Ridge Parkway; the City's Vision Plan articulates the benefit to
the entire community of preserving trees in the Roanoke Valley; currently,
there are approximately 55 acres of heavily forested land identified as
Official Tax Nos. 4470101 and 4480101 that lay contiguous to the Blue
Ridge Parkway and Mill Mountain Park, which are privately owned; and the
property owner is interested in preserving the land as a pristine open
public space rather than seeing the land developed.
It was further advised that in order to keep the property as a
natural reserve, the property owner has agreed to sell both parcels of
land to the City of Roanoke for $140,000.00, which is slightly under the
assessed value; before purchase can be made, a Phase I Environmental
Site Assessment and a metes and bounds survey will be conducted for
both parcels of land; partial funding of $57,185.00 is available in an
undesignated capital fund balance and the remaining funds of
$89,365.00 are available in capital fund interest earnings; and total cost
of $146,550.00 includes the cost of assessment, survey and property
purchase.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve purchase of
properties described as Official Tax Nos. 4470101 and 4480101,
contingent upon return of an acceptable title search and environmental
assessment; and appropriate funds in an account to be established by the
Director of Finance in the Capital Projects Fund.
331
Mr. Cutler offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36512-100603) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for land
acquisition at Mill Mountain, amending and reordaining certain sections
of the 2003-2004 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing
with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 165.).)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36512-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
Elizabeth Belcher, Coordinator, Roanoke Valley Greenways,
expressed appreciation to the City for taking this initiative to not only
protect the Blue Ridge Parkway, but to enlarge Mill Mountain Park. She
advised that Mill Mountain is a unique resource to the citizens of the City
of Roanoke and to the Roanoke Valley as a region because few localities
have a natural park that runs through their city. She further advised that
a general agreement was signed with the Blue Ridge Parkway several
years ago to facilitate connecting Roanoke's greenway network to Blue
Ridge Parkway trails, which includes the Chestnut Ridge Trail around the
campground and the horse trail that parallels the Blue Ridge Parkway
almost to Explore Park. She stated that the Blue Ridge Parkway
completed its environmental assessment last month which allows for
rehabilitation and relocation of some portion of the trail in preparation
for connection of the Roanoke Valley's greenway network to the trails, the
objective of which is to ensure that Blue Ridge Parkway trails are in a
condition to support the use they will receive when greenways are
connected. She noted that Blue Ridge Parkway officials have authorized
the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission to begin work on rehabilitation
332
and maintenance of the trails; and it is hoped that there will be a
connection in the near future from the Mill Mountain Greenway to the
Chestnut Ridge Trail and the Roanoke Valley Greenways Commission will
work with the City's Department of Parks and Recreation and the Mill
Mountain Advisory Committee with regard to how the connection will be
made which will allow the trail to go all the way to Explore Park.
Mr. Robert B. Manetta, 2821 Stephenson Avenue, S. W., advised
that the Blue Ridge Parkway is a major tourist attraction that brings many
thousands of persons to the Roanoke Valley on a regular basis. He stated
that Council's action says that the City of Roanoke is doing its share to
protect the Blue Ridge Parkway viewshed and expressed appreciation to
the City of Roanoke.
Ordinance No. 36512-100603 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
Mr. Cutler offered the following ordinance:
(#36516-100603) AN ORDINANCE providing for the acquisition of
property located contiguous to the Blue Ridge Parkway and Mill Mountain
Park in order to preserve the viewshed of the Blue Ridge Parkway;
authorizing the proper City officials to execute and attest any necessary
documents for this acquisition; and dispensing with the second reading
of this ordinance by title.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 170.)
333
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36516-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
BUDGET-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the City of Roanoke Department of Social
Services and the State Health Department entered into an agreement in
1994 to establish an Eligibility Worker position through the Department
of Social Services to be placed at the Roanoke Health Department to
assure that all citizens have an opportunity to apply for Medicaid; the
agreement remains in effect until modified by mutual consent or
operation of law; and there is no local cost for the position, with
approximately 50 per cent of the cost to be reimbursed from Federal
Medicaid administrative funds and the Health Department will reimburse
the remaining cost.
It was further advised that the Health Department is satisfied with
the results of having the position on location and wishes to continue the
services; whereupon, the City Manager recommended that she be
authorized to continue the services of the Eligibility Worker stationed at
the Health Department, in accordance with the original agreement; and
that Council adopt revenues of $36,369.00 from State and Federal
sources and appropriate expenditures to accounts to be established by
the Director of Finance.
334
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36513-100603) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the
Restricted Eligibility Worker, amending and reordaining certain sections
of the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the
second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 166.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36513-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36514-100603) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to
continue the services of the Eligibility Worker stationed at the Health
Department in accordance with the original Agreement between the
Roanoke City Department of Social Services, the State Health Department
and the Virginia Department of Social Services, upon certain terms and
conditions.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 167.)
335
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36514-100603.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director
of Finance submitted the Financial Report for the month of August 2003.
The Director of Finance advised that the format of the August
Financial Report was streamlined to include a report on the General Fund,
Enterprise Funds and Pension Plan. He stated that additional information,
which has traditionally been provided to the Council and an expanded
review, will be presented at the Council's quarterly Budget and Planning
Committee meetings.
There being no questions or comments, without objection by
Council, the Mayor advised that the Financial Report would be received
and filed.
REPORTS OF COMMI-I-rEES:
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: The City Planning Commission
submitted a written report advising that the Architectural Review Board
(ARB) reviewed and approved amendments to the H-2, Neighborhood
Preservation Overlay District Architectural Design Guidelines pertaining to
336
installation of replacement and substitute siding on buildings in the
historic district; the guidelines are instrumental in guiding the review,
consideration and decisions made by the ARB for requests that are
submitted to the Board; and guidelines, unlike provisions of the City
Code, such as the Zoning Ordinance, provide both the ARB and Council,
upon appeal, with the flexibility to consider any situation or context that
warrants special consideration.
It was further advised that revised sections of the guidelines focus
on replacing the terms "vinyl or aluminum" and "substitute" as they
pertain to siding with the word "synthetic"; the word "synthetic"
encompasses a growing number of replacement materials that are now
available in the marketplace, and also includes various stucco and/or
Exterior Finish and Insulation and System materials; revisions also make
the installation of synthetic siding as a replacement material
'inappropriate' in the Historic District unless the ARB finds that the use of
a synthetic material is necessary to save a building due to the condition
of the structure and its original exterior cladding; a reference to color of
the material has been removed since color is not under the purview of the
ARB in the H-2 District; and the Board has purview over color only in the
H-1 District which covers portions of downtown Roanoke.
It was explained that the Architectural Review Board requests that
Council endorse guideline amendments; endorsement by Council of
overall guidelines in January 2001 demonstrated the support of Council of
the guidelines; therefore, it is appropriate that any amendments to the
same guidelines also receive Council's endorsement; and because
decisions of the ARB may be appealed to Council, it is important that
Council use the guidelines in its decision-making process.
337
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt a
resolution endorsing amendments to Architectural Review Guidelines as
such guidelines pertain to installation of replacement or substitute
siding.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution:
(#36515-100603) A RESOLUTION endorsing an amendment to the
Architectural Design Guidelines for the H-2, Neighborhood Preservation
District.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 169.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36515-
100603. The moti'on was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
The Mayor advised that he would support the proposed
amendment, but expressed concern that the City may be placing too
many restrictions on those persons who wish to make improvements to
their property in the old southwest area, and those same persons may be
discouraged by the proposed guidelines and abandon plans to
rehabilitate homes that are in dire need of repair.
Resolution No. 36515-100603 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and
Mayor Smith .................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ...... ~ ...................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
338
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS: NONE.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL:
COMPLAINTS-CITY MANAGER-CITY EMPLOYEES-PERSONNEL
DEPARTMENT: Council Member Wyatt advised that it was her
understanding that the City's grievance procedure provides that a
grievance filed by a City employee proceeds through the chain of
command to the City Manager and if the grievance is deemed grievable
by the City Manager, it is heard by a grievance panel and the decision of
the panel is binding on both parties. She inquired as to when the panel
was deemed to the advisory in nature, with the City Manager making the
ultimate decision.
The City Manager responded that Ms. Wyatt could be referring to
an instance where it was deemed, in consultation with the legal
department, that the grievance panel had gone beyond the bounds of its
authority in a determination which did not fit within the grievance
procedure decision making authority of the panel. She explained that the
only change that has been made in the grievance procedure, which was
effective July 2, 2003, following proper notification of all City employees,
was to clarify certain language to provide that five days following the
meeting, a decision will be rendered by whatever level of management
that hears the grievance.
339
The City Manager advised there have been two instances in the past
year where the decision rendered by the grievance panel was determined
to go beyond the bounds of the panel's authority and in those two
instances, no change was made following the decision and the grievance
panel was so advised.
Ms. Wyatt advised that City employees believe that there is no need
to go through the grievance panel and prefer to take their grievance
directly to the courts, rather than proceed through the grievance
procedure. She expressed concern when citizens are asked to serve on a
grievance panel, to cite grievance procedures, and to render decisions,
only to have their decisions overturned by the City Manager.
The City Manager agreed with Council Member Wyatt and advised
that an orientation program will be offered to new members of the
grievance panel in a effort to avoid these kinds of situations in the future.
She called attention to only two occasions in the past 12 - 18 months
that the grievance panel has gone beyond the bounds of its authority as it
relates to the total number of decisions rendered by the grievance panel.
The City Manager advised that Council will
communication in response to the issues raised
Wyatt.
be provided with a
by Council Member
COMMITTEES-LIBRARIES: Council Member Bestpitch expressed
appreciation to Michael Ramsey, outgoing Chair, Roanoke Public Library
Board, for his service to the City of Roanoke and for a recent Commentary
which appeared in The Roanoke T/rnes, the purpose of which was to
direct attention to the library process. He encouraged citizens of
Roanoke to participate in a discussion over the next several months on
340
what library services of the future will be like, since the library system is
changing from the concept of a building containing books, to a system
that provides numerous resources in a variety of formats. He called
attention to the need to hear from citizens with regard to those resources
that are the most beneficial and how services can be delivered in the
most efficient manner.
PROCLAMATIONS-NEWSPAPERS-CODE ENFORCEMENT-HOUSING-
WATER RESOURCES: Council Member Cutler referred to a proclamation
that was issued by the Mayor earlier in the meeting proclaiming the
month of October, 2003 as Family History Month. He advised that fellow
members of the Fincastle Chapter, Sons of the American Revolution,
were invited to attend the Council meeting inasmuch as the organization
views the Virginia Room of the Roanoke Public Library as a priceless
resource, and has expressed an interest in the planning process for
improvements to the City's library system, including access to and
support/protection of genealogical and historical collections in the
Virginia Room.
Council Member Cutler commended the City's Department of
Neighborhood Services upon publication of the newsletter, "Around the
Block with Roanoke's Neighborhoods", which includes an article
describing initial appointees to the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates
(RNA) and states that the RNA will accept applications from neighborhood
leaders to serve on its policy body.
Council Member Cutler encouraged Roanoke Valley residents to
attend the Annual Virginia Environmental Assembly to be held in the City
of Roanoke on Saturday, October 26, 2003, 10:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m., at
Center in the Square, Mill Mountain Theater, which will provide an
opportunity to learn about and contribute to discussions on a variety of
environmental issues from water management to transportation.
341
ARMORY/STADIUM-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY-ROANOKE
SYMPHONY ORCHESTRA-SCHOOLS: Council Member Dowe commended
the Roanoke Symphony Orchestra on the success of the Polo Cup activity
which was held in Green Hill Park in the City of Salem on Saturday,
October 4, 2003; and This Valley Works, under the auspices of Total
Action Against Poverty, for hosting the Western Virginia Classic football
game between St. Augustine College and Virginia Union which was also
held on Saturday, October 4, at Victory Stadium. He congratulated both
organizations on their efforts to bring these types of events to the
Roanoke Valley.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised
that Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard; and
matters requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred
immediately for response, recommendation or report to Council.
TRAFFIC-STATE HIGHWAYS-BRIDGES-PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT-
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY: Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E.,
advised that:
In view of State budget cuts, the Virginia Department
of Transportation has eliminated plans for a bridge at
Hollins Road, and inquired as to how the City can allow
this to happen, but still find the necessary funds to
construct a' new stadium/amphitheater at Orange
.Avenue and Williamson Road. He asked that the City
work with VDOT to identify funds for construction of
the bridge at Hollins Road.
342
The City of Roanoke should honor its commitments to
the Gainsboro community; i.e.: sidewalks,
revitalization, improved streets, etc.
The median configuration on Williamson Road
adversely impacts some Williamson Road businesses.
The City should investigate traffic congestion at
Masons Mill Road/Hollins Road.
Council should investigate the hiring practices of the
City of Roanoke.
ARMORY/STADIUM-CITY COUNCIL: Mr. John Kepley, 2909 Morrison
Street, S.E., requested that Council reconsider its vote to demolish
Victory Stadium in view of the wishes of thousands of citizens who signed
petitions that were previously filed with the Council, and that citizens be
given the opportunity to vote on the issue at a public referendum. He
advised that Council Member Wyatt recently stated that she did not
appreciate his attacking her on her decision to support a new
stadium/amphitheater at the Orange Avenue/Williamson Road site;
whereupon, he stated that on numerous occasions he did not appreciate
Ms. Wyatt's voting record on certain issues, and at future City Council
meetings he would present his concerns in more detail. He stated that
the four Members of Council who voted for a new stadium/amphitheater
are stealing a part of his heritage as a Roanoker, the City has been
insensitive to the pleads, requests and direct approaches of its citizens;
and with the exception of Council Member Dowe, those Council Members
who voted to build the new stadium/amphitheater are not native
Roanokers, therefore, Victory Stadium does not hold any special
significance for them.
343
Council Member Wyatt asked that the record reflect that she voted
to construct a new stadium/amphitheater, but at no time has she ever
voted to tear down Victory Stadium.
ARMORY/STADIUM-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: Mr. Robert Gravely,
729 Loudon Avenue, N. W., advised that Victory Stadium should be
creatively marketed in lieu of constructing a new stadium; the average
citizen of the City of Roanoke cannot afford the price of a ticket to an
event at the Roanoke Civic Center; more jobs are needed to attract young
people to the Roanoke Valley; and there is a need for improved
maintenance of the City of Roanoke and its infrastructure.
ARMORY/STADIUM-CITY COUNCIL: Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton
Avenue, N. E., commended those Members of Council who support the
renovation of Victory Stadium, in lieu of construction of a new
stadium/amphitheater; and expressed disappointment in those Council
Members who voted to construct the new stadium/amphitheater on
Orange Avenue and Williamson Road. She also expressed
disappointment in the vote of Council Member Wyatt because heretofore
she has been the voice of the people and has represented the citizens of
Roanoke on numerous occasions, and although Ms. Wyatt's vote was
sometimes in the minority, she continued to speak on behalf of the
citizens of Roanoke.
ARMORY/STADIUM-CITY COUNCIL: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton
Avenue, N. E., referred to proclamations which were issued by the Mayor
earlier in the meeting, one of which pertained to Family History Month,
and was intended to preserve the heritage that has shaped Roanoker's as
a people and to renew the commitment to the concept of home and
family. She advised that over 7000 persons who signed a petition in
support of saving Victory Stadium consider the Stadium to be a part of
their home and a part of their heritage, yet Council saw fit not to honor
their wishes; therefore, what is the purpose of the Mayor's proclamation.
344
She called attention to another proclamation which declared
October 19 - 25, 2003, as Building Character Week and advised that
children are taught that Americans live in a democracy, Americans vote
and the majority vote wins, but in this case the petitions signed by over
7000 citizens were votes that the City chose to ignore. She inquired if
the City of Roanoke is becoming a dictatorship where a few people rule to
the detriment of the majority, and asked that Council seriously consider
what kind of example it is setting for the young people of Roanoke.
CITY MARKET-COMPLAINTS-TAXES: Mr. Robert Craig, 701 12th
Street, S. E., expressed concern with regard to the City's utility tax on
cellular telephone service; an increase in his real property assessment by
33 per cent; wasteful spending of taxpayers' money; and lack of
dissemination of appropriate information by Council and the City
Administration to the citizens of Roanoke. He referred specifically to
certain unknowns regarding the Farmer's Market and the Subway
restaurant and the perception by some persons that the "mom and pop"
operations in the City Market Building will be replaced by national chain
restaurants. He also called attention to poor maintenance of the City
Market building.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: NONE.
The Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for two briefings
and continuation of a closed session on boards and commissions.
The Council immediately reconvened in the Council's Conference
Roo'm for two staff briefings.
345
STATE HIGHWAYS: The City Manager introduced a briefing on the
work of staff and a committee of citizens charged with the responsibility
of reviewing Long Range Transportation recommendations.
Mr. Bestpitch, Vice Chair, Roanoke Metropolitan Planning
Organization, expressed appreciation to City Planning Commission
Members Henry Sholz, Kent Chrisman and Rick Williams who participated
in the study.
Kenneth King, Jr., Manager, Streets and Traffic, reviewed the
following Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organization 2025
Long Range Transportation Plan Recommendations:
"The City of Roanoke is pleased to submit recommendations
for consideration and inclusion in the Roanoke Valley Area
2025 Long-Range Transportation Plan. The City of Roanoke
values and recognizes the planning process as being the
primary building block for effective transportation
improvements. To be effective, plans must be based upon
projections of the transportation system's future conditions,
needs and opportunities, to effectively guide decision making
today and in the future. Through intergovernmental
cooperation, coordination, and public involvement, plans
should shape local, regional and state strategies for
addressing economic growth, safety, congestion, air quality
and public mobility. All parties are encouraged to be
involved in the transportation planning and improvement
process to be proactive in integrating and utilizing all modes
of transportation. The City's recently completed
Comprehensive Plan emphasizes the need for sustainability;
346
therefore, local and regional plans should support compact
urban development, discourage sprawl and emphasize multi-
modal forms of transportation that prioritize facilities for
bicycles, pedestrians, rail and transit as well as accommodate
automobiles.
The City of Roanoke Urban System - Financial Constrained
List (on file in the City Clerk's Office) contains both the
financially constrained and future vision list of urban projects
for the City of Roanoke. One notable project is the 1-581 and
Elm Avenue improvement project. This is one of the most
congested areas within the regional transportation system
and has been a known problem for many years. The urban,
primary, and interstate systems converge in this single
interchange and improvements may require funding from
each of these systems to solve this complex problem.
Traditionally, an interchange project of this type would be
funded solely from interstate funding sources; however,
because of the major importance of this project, the City of
Roanoke is prepared to have $8 million of the City's urban
allocation dedicated for this purpose. The willingness to
have these urban funds dedicated demonstrates the City's
commitment to this improvement. The MPO and VDOT
should likewise make this project a high priority by allocating
the needed funds from all available sources (primary and/or
interstate systems) to support this improvement. Together
with Interstate 81, the 1-581 and Elm Avenue interchange is a
top interstate need that must be addressed in this long
Range Transportation Plan.
347
The transportation system is dynamic in nature and these
plans should be continuously revised and officially updated
every three to five years to provide a comprehensive and
accurate strategy for addressing the ever changing needs of
Virginia's citizens and businesses. The City of Roanoke is
committed to being a proactive leader and partner in these
very important endeavors."
Mr. King advised that the matter will be brought to Council at a
public hearing on Thursday, October 23, 2003; the MPO is currently in a
30 day public comment period and staff will share with Council any
public comments that were received with regard to the Roanoke
community, as well as the region as a whole, and will seek Council's
endorsement and approval to submit the document to the Metropolitan
Planning Organization, which is scheduled to address the matter at its
meeting on November 7, 2003.
POLICE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager introduced a briefing on
certain cooperative efforts between Roanoke City and Roanoke County in
regard to facilities for training police officers of both localities.
Keith L. Sidwell, Lieutenant, Roanoke City Police Academy, advised
that comprehensive, cost effective training for law enforcement personnel
is a necessity that impacts employees and citizens; Roanoke City and
Roanoke County have a history of collaboration for mutual benefit and
the two localities combined resources in August 1998 to build a regional
firearms training range on a 14.9 acre tract of land owned by Roanoke
County; the two localities are currently working together to develop a
regional driver training facility on the same tract of land; the facility
would be under joint direction/supervision of a driver training facility-
348
governing committee; and the localities are working together to
determine cost parameters and development costs would be shared
equally by the localities. He advised that they are also in the discussion
stage with Roanoke County concerning participation in the development
of a new Police Academy to be located within the City of Roanoke.
It was advised that the Roanoke Police Academy is currently housed
at The Jefferson Center, the Academy is certified by the Virginia
Department of Criminal Justice Services as an Independent Criminal
Justice Academy, charged with providing training for 240+ sworn
personnel from the City of Roanoke, 114 from Roanoke County and
Dispatcher personnel; and fee-based training for other
jurisdictions/agencies and co-host regional training with ISS International
is also provided.
He noted that there is limited available space, inability to expand,
and having only two classrooms makes it necessary to .conduct some
classes off campus:
Booker T. Washington Gym - Defensive Tactics for
Basic Training
Roanoke County EOC - Background Investigator
Training
Jefferson Center Training Theater - OSHA/VPCI In-
Service Training
PD Community Room and Patrol Conference Room -
Chemical Suite/Gas Mask Training
Calvary Baptist Church - Reed School for Youth
Investigators and School Personnel
349
Due to limited space, areas within the facility have been converted
to accommodate multiple functions.
Lieutenant Sidwell advised that relocation to more suitable space is
essential for continued success in providing necessary training in a timely
manner; Police Department staff continue to work with Economic
Development to explore alternatives; Roanoke County has expressed
continued interest in participating in the City's program; and an actual
site/funding source will need to be identified.
A possible funding source includes:
Section 9.1-106 of the Code of Virginia (1950) as amended,
which was amended and reenacted on April 2, 2003 (HB
2511, SB 1345) addresses fees for criminal justice training
academies and provides that upon conviction for certain
traffic and criminal charges, certain fees will be assessed as
court costs, effective July 1, 2003, and the State set its
current fee at $1.00.
Section 9.1-106 provides that a locality may charge a similar
in nature fee if the locality does not participate in a regional
criminal justice training academy and the locality was
operating a certified independent criminal justice academy as
of January 1, 2003; stipulates that any and all funds from
such local fee shall support the local criminal justice
academy, and existing funds shall not be reduced as a result
of enacting the fee.
Other localities surveyed indicate that of those qualifying
localities that have enacted a fee, Chesapeake, Chesterfield
County and Richmond enacted a $1.00 fee and Virginia Beach
enacted a $5.00 fee.
350
The Police Department staff will continue to explore available
alternatives for a suitable site; the City Administration will
submit a report/ordinance to Council for review and approval
recommending amendment of the Code of the City of
Roanoke, (1979), as amended, to provide for a court
assessment fee of $3.00, pursuant to Section 9-106 of the
Code of Virginia, effective November 1, 2003, with funds
collected to be used solely to support relocation/additional
operating expenses of the City's Police Academy.
The Clerks of General and Circuit Courts would charge and
collect the assessment as a part of the fees taxed as court
~costs, funds collected would be submitted to the City
Treasurer; funds posted as General Fund revenue and held
would be subject to appropriation by Council; projected
revenue from the $3.00 assessment is estimated at
approximately $54,000.00 annually, and would be used
solely to support the City's criminal justice academy as
mandated and provide for the relocation/additional
operating expenses of the Police Academy.
At 5:00 p.m., the Council reconvened in Closed. Session in the
Council's Conference Room.
At 5:20 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Council
Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, except Vice-
Mayor Harris and Council Member Fitzpatrick, Mayor Smith presiding.
351
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr.
Bestpitch moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of
his or her knowledge that: (1) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom
of Information Act; and (2) only such public business matters as were
identified in any motion by which any Closed Meeting was convened were
heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Wyatt and Mayor
Smith ....................................................... 5.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Vice-Mayor Harris left the meeting during the City Manager's briefing on
police training facilities.)
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD:
The Mayor advised that the term of office of Donald C. Harwood as a
member of the Architectural Review Board expired on October 1, 2003,
and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Cutler placed in nomination the name of Donald C. Harwood.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Harwood was reappointed
as a member of the Architectural Review Board, for a term ending
October 1,2007, by the following vote:
352
FOR MR. HARWOOD: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler,
Dowe, and Mayor Smith ........................................ 5.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Member Fitzpatrick were absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMI'I-fEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: The
Mayor advised that the terms of office of Calvin H. Johnson and
Thomas G. Powers as members of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission
expired on September 30, 2003, and called for nominations to fill the
vacancies.
Mr. Cutler placed in nomination the names of Calvin H. Johnson
and Thomas G. Powers.
There being no further nominations, Messrs. Johnson and Powers
were reappointed as members of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission,
for terms ending September 30, 2006, by the following vote:
FOR MESSRS. JOHNSON AND POWERS: Council Members Wyatt,
Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Smith ......................... 5.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Member Fitzpatrick were absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-INDUSTRIES: The Mayor advised
that the term of office of Lynn D. Avis as a Commissioner of the
Industrial Development Authority will expire on October 20, 2003, and
called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Cutler placed in nomination the name of F. Gordon Hancock.
353
There being no further nominations, Mr. Hancock was appointed as
a Commissioner of the Industrial Development Authority, for a term
ending October 20, 2007, by the following vote:
FOR MR. HANCOCK: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler,
Dowe, and Mayor Smith ................ ~ ....................... 5.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Member Fitzpatrick were absent.)
COUNCIL-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Mr. Cutler moved that Vice-
Mayor C. Nelson Harris and Council Member Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., be
appointed as the Council's representatives to a Joint Council/Housing
Authority Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Role of the Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Dowe and adopted.
At 5:30 p.m., the Council meeting was declared in recess until
Friday, October17, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., at the Roanoke County
Administration Center, fourth floor Conference Room, 5204 Bernard
Drive, S. W., for a joint meeting of City Council and the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors, with regard to formation of a regional water/waste
water authority.
A joint meeting of Roanoke City Council and the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors was called to order on Friday, October 17, 2003, at
9:30 a.m., at the Roanoke County Administration Center, Fourth Floor
Conference Room, 5204 Bernard Drive, Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor
Ralph K. Smith and Chairman Joseph P. McNamara presiding, for the
purpose of discussing issues in connection with the purposed regional
water and waste water authority.
354
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: William D. Bestpitch,
M. Rupert Cutler, C. Nelson Harris (arrived late) Linda F Wyatt (arrived
late) and Mayor Ralph K. Smith .................................. 5.
ABSENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., and Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick ................................................... 2.
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRESENT: Michael W.
Altizer, Joseph B. Church, Richard C. Flora, H. Odell Minnix, and Chair
Joseph P. McNamara ........................................... 5.
ABSENT: None ........................................... O.
STAFF PRESENT:
Representing the City of Roanoke: Darlene L. Burcham, City
Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of
Finance; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk; Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City
Manager for Community Development; George C. Snead,~ Jr., Assistant
City Manager for Operations; and Mike McEvoy, Director of Utilities.
Representing Roanoke County: Elmer C. Hodge, County
Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County Attorney; Diane Hyatt, Director
of Finance; Diane Childers, Clerk to the Board of Supervisors; John M.
Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; and Gary Robertson, Utilities
Director.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by Mr. Chambliss.
355
WATER/AUTHORITY:
Mr. Hodge advised that at the last meeting on Friday, August 22,
2003, it was reported that the Articles of Incorporation would be the
topic of the next joint session of the two governing bodies. He
commended the two staffs for their ongoing efforts on behalf of the
formulation of the proposed regional water and waste water authority
and called upon Mr. Mahoney, County Attorney, for a discussion of the
proposed Articles of Incorporation.
Mr. Mahoney advised that some time ago, City Council and the
Board of Supervisors indicated that they would like to hold a joint work
session to review several issues regarding the Articles of Incorporation;
therefore, the topics of authority board composition, terms of office of
board members, name of the authority and other special provisions have
been identified for discussion. He stated that one of the guiding
principles set forth by the two governing bodies provides for equal
representation which could result in tie votes that could cause an impass
to successful conclusion of public business. He called attention to
discussion with regard to appointing an odd number of members to the
Authority Board to serve as a tie breaker, who would participate in all
deliberations and activities of the authority; and a seven member
authority appears to be the consensus of the two governing bodies.
The Mayor advised that it is the consensus of Roanoke City Council
that total Authority Board membership will consist of seven.
Mr. Mahoney advised that City Council would appoint three
members and the Board of Supervisors would appoint three members to
the Authority Board, and inquired as to the consensus of the two
governing bodies as to how the seventh member would be appointed.
356
The Mayor advised that it is the consensus of Roanoke City Council
that three members will be appointed from each locality, upon
appointment of the six members they will decide on the seventh
member, and at least two Roanoke City members and two Roanoke
County members would recommend the seventh member, who would be
ratified by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors.
Mr. Mahoney inquired, in the event that the six Authority Board
members cannot agree on the seventh member, should the matter then
go to the Circuit Court Judges to appoint the seventh person, or would
the six members make a recommendation to the governing bodies on the
seventh member, with the two governing bodies confirming or ratifying
the seventh member.
There was discussion as to the timeframe for acting on the matter;
whereupon, Mr. Mahoney advised that the attorneys are requesting input
from the two governing bodies in order to prepare the final draft of the
Articles of Incorporation, which will be presented to the two governing
bodies at their meeting on November 19, 2003. He stated that on
November 19, it is requested that the attorneys be authorized to
advertise a legal notice for a public hearing in January 2004, and advised
that another draft of the Articles of Incorporation will be prepared for
review by the two governing bodies prior to the time that the matter is
advertised for public hearing.
At 9:55 a.m., Council Member Wyatt entered the meeting and the
Mayor declared the existence of a quorum of the Roanoke City Council.
357
It was the consensus of the Council and the Board of Supervisors
that three members will be appointed by Roanoke City Council and three
members will be appointed by the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors,
the six members of the Authority Board will select the seventh member
which will require ratification/confirmation by the City Council and the
Board of Supervisors; and if the seventh member is not appointed in a
timely manner, the seventh member will be appointed by the Circuit
Court Judges.
There was discussion in regard to composition of the Authority
Board; whereupon, Mr. Cutler advised that Roanoke City Council has
tentatively agreed to appoint one Member of the Council, one member of
the City's Executive Staff, one citizen with expertise in the subject area,
and the seventh member would be a person well known to both City and
County officials, who has either legal or engineering expertise.
The City Attorney advised that according to the time line previously
presented to the Council and to the Board of Supervisors, it was proposed
that both the Council and the Board of Supervisors would select their
initial representatives by the November 19 meeting and the name of the
seventh person would be submitted with the initial Articles of
Incorporation to the State Corporation Commission on January 15, 2004;
a public hearing will be held to adopt concurrent resolutions creating the
Authority, which must be submitted to the State Corporation
Commission, and within 30 - 60 days the Authority should be chartered
and operational.
At 10:15 a.m., Vice-Mayor Harris entered the meeting.
358
It was the consensus that the City Council and the Board of
Supervisors will share a short list of names of persons to be appointed by
both localities to the Authority Board prior to the November 19, 2003,
joint meeting of the two governing bodies.
Mr. Mahoney advised that once the State Corporation Commission
grants a charter to the Authority in February-March, 2004, the Authority
will be operational, the Authority will meet in April - May to establish
water rates, effective July 1, 2004, and to adopt a budget and by-laws,
etc.
The legal staff advised that by no later than mid to late December,
the six members of the Authority Board should be appointed.
Questions were raised in regard to issues such as how often the
Authority Board will meet, reimbursement to members for Authority-
related expenses, conferences, orientation of members, etc.; whereupon,
Mr. Mahoney advised that many of the issues are not addressed in the
Articles of Incorporation, but are tasks that will occur in the November -
January timeframe, and some of the issues will be addressed when the
Authority Board adopts its by-laws which are required to be ratified,
confirmed or approved by the State Corporation Commission.
Upon question, Mr. Mahoney advised that the initial draft of the
Articles of Incorporation does not specify one elected official, one
appointed person, or one citizen, which are appointment decisions that
must be made by each governing body; and there is no intent to debate
the process of making appointments.
359
There was discussion in regard to terms of office; whereupon, Mr.
Hackworth advised that initial appointments in the proposed by-laws
provide that one representative will be appointed from each locality for a
four year term, one representative for a three year term, and one
representative for a two year term, with the term of office of the seventh
member to be taken into consideration when considering composition and
rotation of members.
It was summarized that the intent of the discussion is to provide
that initial elected officials will serve two year terms of office and will not
be eligible for reappointment; staff persons will serve three year terms of
office and will not be eligible for reappointment; and citizens will serve
four year terms of office and will be eligible for reappointment, with a
limit of two consecutive four year terms of office.
Following discussion and so as not to tie the hands of a future
Board of Supervisors or City Council, Mr. Mahoney suggested that it be the
consensus of the two governing bodies that the above referenced terms of
office will be approved, but such will not be set forth in the Articles of
Incorporation, and that such be recorded in the official minutes of the
meeting.
With regard to the draft Articles of Incorporation, Mr. Mahoney
advised that the super majority vote applies to: (1) adding new
jurisdictions, (2) any kind of contract or agreement for the bulk sale of
surplus water, or the acceptance or treatment of waste water; and (3) a
recommendation by the six initial members of the Authority to appoint a
seventh member. He inquired if there are other issues that would require a
super majority vote.
No additional issues were mentioned.
360
The following names were suggested for the proposed regional
water and waste water authority:
Regional Water Authority
Aqua Source
Western Virginia Water Authority
By consensus of the two governing bodies, Western Virginia Water
Authority was selected as the name of the proposed regional water and
waste water authority.
Mr. Robertson presented copy of the Water and Waste Water
Authority Team Activity Report dated October 17, 2003.
(For full text, see report on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
The City Manager advised that a tremendous amount of work has
been done and continues to be done by not only the management team,
but employees in both the water and sewer operations of the City and the
County who are committed to making the Authority a success. She stated
that a number of issues still need to be addressed and will begin to come
together over the next several months.
Mr. Hodge reported on regional meetings that were held in
Roanoke City and Roanoke County, all of which were well planned, even
though attendance could have been better. He stated that citizens who
attended the meetings were supportive, they asked questions and
listened to the presentations made by financial and engineering staff and
they left the meetings with a better understanding of how the proposed
361
arrangement will make both the City and the County systems stronger.
He advised that additional meetings can be held in the spring of 2004 if
that is the desire of the Council and the Board of Supervisors, and asked
for guidance by the two governing bodies. He stated that additional
information will be presented at the November 19, 2003 meeting on the
rate study and schedule.
It was suggested that another round of public meetings be held
with citizens prior to establishment of water rates.
Mr. Mahoney advised that a draft of the proposed Articles of
Incorporation will be provided to the Council and to the Board of
Supervisors at last two weeks prior to the November 19, 2003 meeting.
It was suggested that prior to adjourning the meeting, there should
be a sense of understanding as to when the two governing bodies will
exchange names of the six initial appointees to the Authority Board.
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting
adjourned at 10:55 a.m.
(The next joint meeting of the Council and the Board of Supervisors will
be held on Wednesday, November 19, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in the
Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke.)
APPROVED
ATTEST
Mary
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
362
SPECIAL SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
October 15, 2003
3:15 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in special session on
Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at 3:15 p.m., in the Roanoke Civic Center
Exhibit Hall, Parlor E, 710 Williamson Road, N. W., City of Roanoke,
Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Section 10,
Meetings of Council, of the Charter of the City of Roanoke.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler,
C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt (arrived late), and Mayor Ralph K.
Smith ....................................................... 5.
ABSENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., and Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick, Jr.- ............................................... 2.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F.
Parker, City Clerk.
The meeting was called pursuant to the following communication
from the City Manager:
"Pursuant to § 10 of the Charter of the City of Roanoke, I am
calling a Special Meeting of Roanoke City Council. The Special
Meeting will be held on Wednesday, October 15, 2003, at the
Roanoke Civic Center in Parlor E. The purpose of the Special
363
Meeting is to convene a closed meeting for the discussion of
an award of a public contract involving the expenditure of
public funds, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711.A.30, Code of
Virginia (1950), as amended."
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council convene in closed session to
discuss award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public
funds, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(30), Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended. The motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Harris, and Mayor
Smith ....................................................... 4.
NAYS: None ............................................. 0.
(Council Members Dowe and Fitzpatrick were absent.)
(Council Member Wyatt entered the meeting during the Closed Session.)
At 3:20 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for one
closed session.
At 4:30 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Roanoke Civic Center
Exhibit Hall, Parlor E, with Mayor Smith presiding and all Members of the
Council in attendance, with the exception of Council Members Dowe and
Fitzpatrick.
(Vice-Mayor Harris left the meeting during the Closed Session.)
364
CITY COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded,
Mr. Bestpitch moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best
of his or her knowledge that: (1) only public business matters lawfully
exempted from open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom
of Information Act; and (2) only such public business matters as were
identified in any motion by which any Closed Meeting was convened were
heard, discussed or considered by City Council. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Wyatt, and Mayor
Smith ....................................................... 4.
NAYS: None ............................................. O.
(Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick and Harris were absent.)
(Vice-Mayor Harris left the meeting during the Closed Session.)
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the special
meeting adjourned at 4:35 p.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION .... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
365
October 23, 2003
2:00 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on
Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the
City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215
Church Avenue, S.W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith
presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council,
Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, Reqular Meetings, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, and pursuant to Resolution No. 36414-070703
adopted by Council on Monday, July 7, 2003.
PRESENT: Council Members Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert
Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, and
Mayor Ralph K. Smith ............................................... 7.
ABSENT: None ................................................ 0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager;
William Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F.
Parker, City Clerk.
The Invocation was delivered by The Reverend Harry M. Miller, Jr., Pastor,
Roanoke Valley Cathedral of Praise.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Mayor Ralph K. Smith.
366
PRESENTATION AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES: The Mayor
presented a $1000.00 check to The History Museum and Historical Society of
Western Virginia, in recognition of the City of Roanoke being selected as a
winner of the 2003 James C. Howland Awards.
PROCLAMATIONS-DISABLED
proclamation declaring the month
Employment Awareness Month.
PERSONS: The Mayor presented a
of October 2003, as National Disability
PROCLAMATIONS-FIRE DEPARTMENT:
proclamation declaring Sunday, October 26,
Change Your Battery Day.
The Mayor presented a
2003, as Change Your Clock,
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by
one motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if
discussion was desired, that item would be removed from the Consent Agenda
and considered separately. He called specific attention to one closed session.
MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Tuesday,
September 2, 2003; and recessed until Friday, September 5, 2003, were before
the body.
Mr. Cutler moved that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and
that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
367
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
COMMITTEES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K.
Smith requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies
on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by
Council, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, was before the body.
Mr. Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
CITY COUNCIL-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: A
report of qualification of Susannah Koerber as a member of the Roanoke Arts
Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2006; and Joseph F. Lynn as a
Commissioner of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, for a
term ending August 31,2007, was before Council.
Mr. Cutler moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
368
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: NONE.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
The City Manager introduced Gareth McAIlister, Facilities Manager.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
BUDGET-CITY INFORMATION SYSTEMS-SCHOOLS-WATER RESOURCES:
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Information
Technology Committee (ITC) has completed review of technology projects and
equipment needs throughout the City of Roanoke and developed a list of
recommendations that were determined to meet the goals of the Information
Technology Strategic Plan, as set forth in an attachment to the communication;
and all items will be purchased in accordance with requirements as set forth in
Chapter 23.1, Procurement, of The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1979, as
amended.
It was further advised that the Department of Technology, an internal
service fund, currently has retained earnings available for appropriation in the
amount of $1,125,000.00 that can be allocated for technology needs; and
funding in the amount of $1,566,635.00 is available from the following
sources:
369
Capital Funding included in the FY04
Technology Budget
Debt Service savings due to bond refunding
Water and Sewer Fund Retained Earnings
(Replacement of utility billing systems server and
fund 50% of Work Management System)
School Fund - Year 1 of 10 (total funding commitment
of
$1.5 million for Financial Application Systems Project)
Help America Vote Act grant funding for voting
machines
Reallocation of Existing Project Tracking
System Funds
Roanoke Valley Libraries (RVL)
Total
The total of all funding sources available
for appropriation is
$ 541,338.00
350,000.00
380,000.00
150,000.00
100,000.00
34,947.00
10,350.00
$1,566,635.00
$2,691,635.00
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance to
appropriate funds to new or existing project accounts to be established by the
Director of Finance in order to support strategic technology needs and
enhancements.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
(#36517-102303) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding to various
technology projects, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-
2004 General, Water, Water Pollution Control, Parking, Technology, and School
Funds Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 171.)
370
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36517-102303. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-FIRE ARMS-GRANTS: The City Manager
submitted a communication advising that various law enforcement agencies
often participate with the ATF in criminal investigations; and property seized in
a criminal investigation, in which other law enforcement agencies participate, is
divided among the ATF and participating agencies.
It was further advised that the City of Roanoke Police Department has
received $100,306.50 from ATF as its share of property seized as a result of a
criminal investigation; revenue received is available for appropriation in
Revenue Account No. 035-640-3335-3346 and must be used for training and
equipment for the department; the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County are
now working together in development of a regional driver training facility; up to
$70,000.00 of ATF revenue will be used to fund a portion of the City's share of
development costs associated with the regional driving range; and the
remainder of funds will be used for equipment related purchases for the
department.
It was stated that action by Council is required to appropriate funds to
the Grant Fund - ATF line item expense accounts and to increase estimate
revenues for same.
The City Manager recommended that Council appropriate funds totalling
$100,306.00 for the ATF One-time Deposit, and establish a revenue estimate in
the same amount in Account No. 035-640-3335-3346 in the Grant Fund:
371
Description Obiect Code Amount
Construction - Other 9065 $ 70,000.00
Equipment 9005 30,306.00
Total $100,306.00
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#36518-102303) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Alcohol,
Tobacco, and Firearms Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections for
the 2003-2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second
reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 174.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36518-102303.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
PARKS AND RECREATION-SCHOOLS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the Parks and Recreation Department opened its
first fitness center in partnership with the Roanoke Public Schools at
Breckinridge Middle School in October 1997, which was followed by fitness
center openings at Woodrow Wilson Middle School in November 1998, Addison
Middle School in December 1999 and Jackson Middle School in February 2001;
and the original agreement for Woodrow Wilson Middle School expired on
October 14, 2003.
372
It was further advised that the Roanoke City Public Schools use the fitness
room and equipment for physical education classes and sports conditioning;
and the Parks and Recreation Department operates the facility as a fitness
center, open to the general public during non-school hours.
It was explained that the current one year agreement with the Roanoke
City School Board, with an option to renew for four additional one-year terms,
expired on October 14, 2003; the current agreement was authorized by
Council pursuant to Ordinance No. 34029-100798; minor revisions have been
made to the current agreement; and it is requested that the revised agreement
be continued for an additional term of one year, with an option to renew for up
to four additional one-year terms, ending October 31,2008.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the
necessary documents, in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to
continue operation of the Woodrow Wilson Middle School Fitness Center.
Mr. Harris offered the following resolution:
(#36519-102303) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to
execute an agreement between the City of Roanoke School Board and the City
of Roanoke, allowing the City to operate a fitness center at the Woodrow Wilson
Middle School for use by the general public, upon certain terms and conditions.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 175.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36519-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
373
BUDGET-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that on September 25, 2003, the U. S. Department of Housing and
Urban Development announced that the City of Roanoke had been awarded a
ST,543,704.00 grant for the Lead Hazard Control Grant Program, the goal of
which is to forge partnerships between local government departments, public
agencies, faith-based groups and community-based non-profit organizations
to educate the community regarding the hazards of lead, and to identify and
control lead-based paint in homes with children less than six years of age; the
program will focus on three key objectives: outreach/education and training,
health screening, and lead hazard control/abatement/reduction; and a Lead-
Safe Advisory Council has been established to help guide implementation of the
program.
It was further advised that the required 20 per cent matching funds level
for the grant was exceeded and is comprised solely of in-kind support provided
by participating departments and agencies; and the grant was authored and
submitted in collaboration with Randall Funding and Development, Inc., the
firm with which Council authorized execution of a contract for grant writing
services.
It was explained that childhood lead poisoning is a serious problem in the
City of Roanoke, especially in the urban core, which is the target of the
program; one in 18 children younger than six years of age who were diagnosed
in Virginia between 1995 and 2001 as having contracted lead poisoning came
from the City of Roanoke; almost all of the housing stock in the inner City's
neighborhoods was built before 1978, the year that lead-containing paint was
banned; housing age and socioeconomic conditions in these areas contribute to
the high level of risk for childhood lead poisoning; and the Lead Hazard Control
374
Grant Program will educate the public about the issue of lead and how to keep
children safe, test at least 1,000 children younger than six for lead poisoning,
provide at least 500 lead-safe cleaning kits to residents, provide grants to
property owners to abate or to neutralize 100 housing units occupied by one
or more children younger than six years of age, and purchase a small, mobile
house, which can be used to demonstrate how to keep clean a home with lead-
based paint.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to accept the
grant award and to execute the grant agreement and other related documents,
to be approved as to form by the City Attorney, and establish revenue and
expenditure estimates of $1,543,704.00 in the Grant Fund in an account to be
established by the Director of Finance entitled, ALead Hazard Control Grant@.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36520-102303) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Lead
Hazard Control Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-
2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by
title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 176.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36520-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., inquired if a program is
available for abatement of lead in its entirety. She advised that as persons travel
throughout the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County, the air they breath is
constantly being polluted.
375
Mr. Cutler advised that the Environmental Protection Agency required the
manufacturers of gasoline to remove tetra ethyl lead from gasoline several
years ago, therefore, there is far less lead emission in the environment.
Ordinance No. 36520-102303 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#36521-102303) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a grant
from the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, in the
amount of $1,543,704.00, for the Lead Hazard Control Grant Program; and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the requisite grant agreements.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 177.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36521-102303.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
376
POLICE DEPARTMENT-CITY CODE: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the Roanoke Police Academy, located at The
Jefferson Center, a Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services (DCJS)
certified independent criminal justice academy, currently operates in limited
space; space confinement forces the Academy to conduct classes off campus,
to use current space for completing multiple functions, and makes it impossible
for the Academy to expand; therefore, relocation of the Academy has become
necessary and essential for continued success in providing mandated training
in a timely manner.
It was further advised that funds need to be identified for expenses
associated with relocation of the Academy; a possible source for such funding
can be found in Section 9.1-106, Code of Virginia, (1950), as amended,
concerning criminal justice training academy fees, which was amended and
reenacted on April 2, 2003, (House Bill 2511, Senate Bill 1345); effective July 1,
2003, Section 9.1-106 Code of Virginia, states that upon conviction of citizens
for certain traffic and criminal charges, certain fees as provided in Sections
16.1-69.48.1, 17.1-275.1, 17.1-275.2, 17.1-275.3, 17.1-275.4, 17.1-275.7,
17.1-275.8, and 17.1-275.9 will be assessed as court cost; and the amount
collected, in whole or in part, for the fixed fee is being apportioned, as
provided by law, with the Regional Criminal Justice Training Academy Fund
receiving a share; and the State's fee is currently set at $1.00.
It was explained that Section 9.1-106 also authorizes localities, including
the City of Roanoke, which do not participate in a regional training academy
and operate a certified independent criminal justice academy as of January 1,
2003, to charge similar in nature fees; however, it mandates that any and all
funds from such local fee shall support the certified independent local criminal
justice academy; other localities were surveyed as to eligibility and to determine
fees charged; and of those localities which qualify and have enacted a fee,
Chesapeake, Chesterfield County, and Richmond charge a fee of $1.00, while
Virginia Beach has enacted a $5.00 fee.
377
It was noted that based on and pursuant to Section 9.1-106 of the Code
of Virginia, the City Attorney has prepared an ordinance, which provides for an
effective date of November 1, 2003, and for the assessment of $3.00 to be
imposed in every case in which costs are assessable; the Clerks of the District
and Circuit Courts will change and collect the assessment as a part of bills
taxed as costs; and after collections by the Clerk of the Court in which the case
is heard, the assessment will be remitted to the City Treasurer and held subject
to appropriation by Council.
It was advised that projected City revenues from the additional
assessment are currently estimated to be approximately $54,000.00 per year
and would be used to help fund expenses associated with relocation of the
academy; Roanoke County Police Department recruits also attend the academy;
and since Roanoke County does not qualify for a new fee, the County has
agreed to share in the expenses of developing a new academy, the cost of
which has yet to be determined.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance
amending The Code of the City of Roanoke, 1979, as amended, to reflect
amendments to Section 9.1-106 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended,
thereby providing for a $3.00 assessment fee to be imposed in every court case
in which costs are assessable, with funds collected to be used solely for
relocation of the Roanoke Training Academy, effective November 1,2003.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
378
(#36522-102303) AN ORDINANCE amending Chapter 1, General
Administration, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by the
addition of a new ' 123, Assessment of court costs to support local criminal
justice academy, providing for assessment by the City of a fee to provide
funding to support the City's criminal justice academy, pursuant to §9.1-106,
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; dispensing with the second reading of
this ordinance and providing for an effective date.
(For full Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 1 78.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36522-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. E. Duane Howard, 508 Walnut Avenue, S. W., expressed concern that
citizens were not advised of the proposed fee increase prior to the matter
appearing on the City Council agenda. He advised that the proposed fee will
represent another tax that the City administration is recommending to be
placed on the citizens of Roanoke, and requested that Council delay action on
the proposed fee to allow time for the matter to be presented to the citizens of
Roanoke.
Ordinance No. 36522-102303 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. O.
379
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
HOUSING/AUTHORITY-CENTURY STATION PARKING GARAGE: The
Director of Finance submitted a written report advising that in 1992, the City of
Roanoke entered into a capital lease with the Roanoke Redevelopment and
Housing Authority (Housing Authority) for the lease of Century Station Parking
Garage; the Housing Authority, in turn, issued taxable revenue bonds to finance
construction of the facility; bonds were due to mature in 2022, bearing interest
of 9.15 per cent; the lease exercised between the City and the Housing
Authority established monthly lease payments from the City which would cover
required payments to bondholders; and the agreement provided the City with
the opportunity to exercise a bargain purchase option at the end of the lease
term to acquire title to the garage.
It was further advised that in July, the City fully paid the outstanding
lease amount to the Housing Authority; the Authority, in turn, used the funding
to redeem outstanding bonds, which was made to eliminate future interest cost
on the bonds; a significant savings was created in light of the relatively high
interest rate on the taxable revenue bonds, redemption of the bonds was
funded by debt service funding which has been accumulated in the City's
General Fund in anticipation of future bond issuance; interest cost avoidance of
$1.9 million is estimated as a result of the redemption of the indebtedness; and
as a result of redemption of the capital lease and associated bonds, the lease
agreement may now be terminated, and the City may take title to the property
in accordance with stipulations as set forth in the lease agreement.
The Director of Finance recommended termination of the lease
agreement dated March 23, 1992, between the City of Roanoke and the
Housing Authority for lease of the Century Station Parking Garage; that the City
Manager be authorized to accept conveyance of the garage to the City with
38O
general warranty to title, subject to all easements and encumbrances of record,
after an acceptable environmental audit is completed, and to execute any
necessary documents to terminate the existing lease of the property from the
Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
(#36523-102303) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the termination of the
Lease Agreement dated March 23, 1992, between the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority and the City of Roanoke, and any
subsequent amendments thereto, for the Century Station Parking Garage;
authorizing acceptance of the conveyance by the City of Roanoke
Redevelopment and Housing Authority of such garage located at 25 Church
Avenue, S. E., bearing Official Tax No. 4015004 to the City; and dispensing with
the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 180.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36523-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. Bestpitch inquired as to the net effect on the City's fiscal year budget;
whereupon, the Director of Finance advised that approximately $1.9 million will
be saved in future debt interest payments, or approximately $360,000.00 per
year.
Ordinance No. 36523-102303 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
381
REPORTS OF COMMI-I-rEES:
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School
Board requesting that Council approve a State Literary Fund loan application, in
the amount of $7.5 million, for improvements to Patrick Henry High School,
which will increase the School Board's debt service expenditure by
$600,000.00, commencing in fiscal year 2005-06, but no debt service liability
will be incurred until funds are drawn against the loan account, was before the
body.
A report of the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in
the request of the School Board, was also before Council.
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36524-102303) A RESOLUTION authorizing the School Board for the
City of Roanoke to make application for a loan from the State Literary Fund
making permanent improvements to Patrick Henry High School.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 181.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36524-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. O.
382
BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School
Board requesting that Council approve the following appropriations and
transfers, was before the body.
$669,581.00 from the 2003-2004 Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Fund to provide monies for instructional technology
equipment.
$499,526.00 to provide funds for the Smaller Learning Community
program at William Fleming High School; the program will provide for
training of staff and establishment of smaller student learning
communities within the high school, to be reimbursed by Federal funds.
$53,644.00 to provide funds for the Blue Ridge Technical Academy; the
program will provide a business and technical education training program
for a diverse population of students through a rigorous and challenging
academic curriculum; and additional Federal charter school funds have
been received for this continuing program.
A report of the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in
the request of the School Board, was also before the body.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
(#36525-102303) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the Capital
Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP) and from two
Federal grants, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004
School Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of
this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 182.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No.
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
383
36525-102303. The
Council Member Cutler inquired about the Smaller Learning Community
Program at William Fleming High School; whereupon, Crystal Cregger, Manager
of Purchasing of Contract Services, Roanoke City Public Schools, advised that
more information will be forwarded.
Ordinance No. 36525-102303 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
RESOLUTIONS:
COMMITTEES-INDUSTRIES: Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution
appointing F. Gordon Hancock as a Director on the Board of Directors of the
Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke:
(#36526-102303) A RESOLUTION appointing a new Director of the
Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, to fill a four (4) year
term on the Board of Directors.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 184.)
384
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36526-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR, VICE-MAYOR AND
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL:
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-CITY COUNCIL-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT:
Council Member Wyatt advised that she participated in a recent tour of the City
of Roanoke with the Assistant City Manager for Community Development, along
with an individual who is interested in constructing a head trauma facility in the
City. She stated that the individual was impressed with the City of Roanoke and
referred to Roanoke as the Abest kept secret on the East Coast.~ She advised
that it is gratifying to hear positive remarks by out of state visitors on the
beauty of the City of Roanoke and what the locality has to offer.
BUDGET-CITY COUNCIL: Vice-Mayor Harris referred to a letter setting
forth proposed budget study dates for fiscal year 2004, and asked that Council
Members advise the City Clerk of any conflicts by October 29, 2003.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-SCHOOLS: Vice-Mayor Harris, Chair, Organizing
Committee, School Safety Task Force, presented a progress report on the work
of the committee to date.
385
The Organizing Committee consists of eight persons: Vice-
Mayor C. Nelson Harris, Chair, Council Member Linda F.
Wyatt, City Manger Darlene Burcham, Police Chief Joe
Gaskins, Roanoke City School Board Chair Gloria Manns,
Roanoke City School Board Trustee Kathy Stockburger,
Superintendent of Schools E. Wayne Harris, and Executive for
Student Services Ann F. Harman
The Organizing Committee was charged with the
responsibility of formulating a task force and developing a
process by which the task force would begin its work.
The Organizing Committee believes that it is important that
it not be the group to select members of the task force;
therefore, various organizations, faculty, Parent-Teacher
Associations, students and other constituency groups were
invited to select their representative(s). (A number of
teachers at all levels, students, parents, and a person
recommended by the Immigration Office will be represented.
Membership will consist of a diverse group of individuals, all
whom have a vested interest, either personally or
professionally, in the operation of the school system.)
Membership of the task force will be finalized within one
week.
The Organizing Committee agreed to engage the services of
a facilitator to keep the task force on track.
386
The Organizing Committee will be present at the initial
meeting of the task force as an indication of support and to
set the tone for the work that is to be done; and the
Organizing Committee will then leave the task force to
complete its assignment.
The Organizing Committee will receive the final report of the
task force and forward recommendations to the Council and
to the School Board.
The task force will be involved in a number of activities in
addition to regular meetings; and the public will be afforded
the opportunity to share ideas and to provide input.
The first meeting of the task force will be held on
November 11,2003, at 7:00 p.m., in the Community Room at
the Higher Education Center.
At the time of formation of the task force, it was indicated
that the task force would complete its assignment by
December 31, 2003; however, given the time that was taken
by the Organizing Committee to address various issues and
to solicit representatives from the various organizations, the
task force will complete its assignment in approximately a 15
week period, with a final report to be submitted in February
2004.
Composition of the task force will be provided to the Council
within one week.
387
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE-CITY MARKET-ACTS OF
ACKNOWLEDGMENT:
Council Member Bestpitch commended and expressed appreciation to City staff
who volunteered their time for the Virginia Municipal League Host City Night
which was held on Monday, October 20, 2003, on the City Market.
PARKS AND RECREATION-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-TREES: Council
Member Bestpitch advised that as a part of the City's Urban Forestry Program,
he was pleased to plant the inaugural tree earlier in the day in Highland Park in
memory of his two grandfathers. He encouraged citizens of Roanoke to plant a
tree on public property in the City of Roanoke to commemorate a special event,
or in memory of a loved one.
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT: Council
Member Cutler recognized the work of City employees in connection with the
Virginia Municipal League Annual Conference, and as authors of well written
articles that were published in the VML Magazine, Virginia Town and City, which
highlighted the City of Roanoke.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-NEWSPAPERS: Council Member Dowe
congratulated The Roanoke Times upon the grand opening of its new print
facility last week.
(Council Member Wyatt left the meeting.)
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA~-I-ERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard, and matters
requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for any
necessary and appropriate response, recommendation or report to Council.
388
COMPLAINANTS-ARMORY/STADIUM-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY: Ms.
Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke with regard to leadership and
character. She advised that citizens have been told that hazardous waste
material is buried on the proposed site of the new stadium/amphitheater on
Orange Avenue and Williamson Road; whenever citizens believe that their lives
and the lives of future generations may be endangered by hazardous waste
materials, it is their responsibility to bring the matter to the Council's attention,
and it is the responsibility of Council to resolve the issue; therefore, the citizens
of Roanoke ask that the site be tested to ensure that it is environmentally safe.
COMPLAINTS-ARMORY/STADIUM-HOUSING-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY:
Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke with regard to the
disappointment of many citizens concerning the individual votes of Council
Members on the proposed new stadium/amphitheater on Orange Avenue and
Williamson Road, and asked that the City ensure that the site is safe through
performance of an environmental impact assessment. She advised that
residents of Lincoln Village/Lincoln Terrace are experiencing serious
maintenance problems and are concerned that storm/screen doors have not
been installed on housing units. She stated that as representatives of the
Lincoln Congress work with Congressman John Warner's Office, it is believed
that the issue will be addressed.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-WATER
RESOURCES: The City Manager expressed appreciation to those City employees
who volunteered their time for a successful Virginia Municipal League Host City
Night on Monday, October 20, 2003, on the City Market. She advised that as a
part of the Annual Conference, a tour was conducted of the City's new water
filtration system and plant at Crystal Spring and the restored pumping station.
389
At 3:20 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for one City
Manager briefing and one Closed Session.
At 3:25 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Council's
Conference Room for one briefing.
ZONING: The City Manager introduced a briefing on the Zoning
Ordinance update as some relates to supplemental regulations.
Nancy Snodgrass, City Planner II, advised that supplemental regulations
are regulations that apply to specific uses, structures or facilities that are
applied in addition to applicable district regulations and general development
standards.
The following uses constitute a need for Supplemental Regulations:
traffic, circulation on site, setbacks, screening, proximity to similar
facilities, density, and impacts on adjacent properties.
Examples of uses subject to supplemental regulations are adult
uses, bed and breakfast, day care facilities, junk yards, mini-
warehouses, towing service, townhouses, wrecker service, drive-
through facilities, telecommunications, home occupations, and
group care facilities.
Drive-through facilities:
Current Code: No supplemental regulations
Draft:
Supplemental regulations applicable to any drive- through facility
(fast food, pharmacy, bank, dry cleaners)
390
Permit by right rather than by special exception subject to
supplemental standards
Purpose of supplemental regulations:
Minimize impact of vehicular traffic
Promote safe, on-site vehicular and pedestrian circulation
Minimize negative impacts on abutting residential properties
Proposed regulations:
Minimum number of stacking spaces (five per window)
Stacking lane design and articulation
Access to parking spaces
Circulation aisles or pedestrian movement
Separation of vehicles
Location of menu boards and speakers relative to residential zoned
properties
Size and screening of menu boards:
Maximum 30 square feet
Maximum six feet in height
Screened from public street and residential zoned properties
Telecommunications Facilities/Broadcasting Towers:
Current Code:
exception
Draft: Supplemental regulations to promote collocation
minimize impacts; permitted by special exception
Includes telecommunications towers and radio/television
broadcasting
towers
Purpose:
Encourage collocation of equipment
Establish buffering and compatibility standards
Protect character of residential districts
Provide for removal of discontinued towers
Proposed regulations:
Towers to accommodate at least three other providers
391
No supplemental regulations; permitted by special
and
392
Maximum height of tower and associated antenna a condition of
special exception, but in no case to exceed 199 feet
Setbacks to conform to underlying zoning district regulations, but
no facility or tower abutting a residential district to be set back
less than 50 feet or 40 per cent of height of tower, whichever is
less
Dismantling/removal of towers:
Within 90 days of not being used
Bond or performance guarantee may be required
Fee for independent analysis
Applicant to provide:
Computerized terrain analysis
Accurate to scale, photographic simulations
Balloon test or other visibility-related test
Home Occupations:
Current Code: Includes supplemental regulations
Only family residents, except personal service
25 per cent of gross floor area
No change in outside appearance
No visible display of goods
Within principal dwelling
No outdoor storage
Draft:
Maintain integrity of surrounding residential uses
Ensure sufficient flexibility for residents with home occupation
permits
Clarify issues existing in current code
Existing Issues:
Employee from outside home
Amount of gross floor area
Principal vs. accessory structure
More definitive standards
Trips to the home
393
394
Proposed regulations:
Home occupations by right
Personal service home occupations by special exception
25 per cent, or 250 square feet, of finished floor area
one entrance
one client at a time
one outside employee
Home occupation (by right)
No more than 20 per cent of finished floor area
No employee from outside
Conducted entirely within principal structure
No signs or change in outside appearance
Group Care Facilities:
Current Code:
Supplemental regulations to ensure compatibility with
neighborhood and to establish quality of service to users of
facilities. Delineates requirements between lower density
residential districts and higher density residential or commercial
districts
395
Draft: Clarify definitions
Protected class
Group care facilities subject to regulations
Groupcare home
Halfway house
Congregate home
Nursing home
Transitional living facility
Proposed regulations:
Maintain 1,500 feet spacing requirement
Maximum occupant ratio by district
Open space per occupant
Buffering of on-site parking and exterior activity areas from
adjoining properties
At 4:20 p.m., the Council convened in Closed Session in the Council's
Conference Room.
396
At 5:20 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with all
Members of the Council in attendance, except Council Member Wyatt, Mayor
Smith presiding.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr.
Bestpitch moved that each Member of Council certify to the best of his or her
knowledge that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open
meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2)
only such public business matters as were identified in any motion by which an
Closed Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by the City
Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the
following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ...................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ................................................. 0.
(Council Member Wyatt was absent.)
COMMITTEES-ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: The Mayor advised that
there is a vacancy on the Architectural Review Board; whereupon, he opened the
floor for nominations.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name ofJon Stephenson.
There being no further nomination, Mr. Stephenson was appointed as a
member of the Architectural Review Board, for a term ending October 1, 2007,
by the following vote:
397
FOR MR. STEPHENSON: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe,
Fitzpatrick, Harris, and Mayor Smith ................................... 6.
(Council Member Wyatt was absent.)
OATHS OF OFFICE-YOUTH-COMMI'I-I'EES: The Mayor advised that the
three year term of office of Krista Blakeney as a member of the Youth Services
Citizen Board expired on May 31, 2003; whereupon, he opened the floor for
nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of Krista Blakeney.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Blakeney was reappointed as a
member of the Youth Services Citizen Board, for a term ending May 31, 2006,
by the following vote:
FOR MS. BLAKENEY: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 6.
(Council Member Wyatt was absent.)
COMMITTEES-CABLE TELEVISION: Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in
the appointment of Laurie Wood, Public Information Specialist, as the City
Manager's designee to the Roanoke Regional Cable Television Committee.
COMMI-I-rEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER-OATHS OF OFFICE: The Mayor
advised that there is a vacancy on the Roanoke Civic Center Commission for a
term ending September 30, 2006; whereupon, he opened the floor for
nominations.
398
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of Debbie Conner.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Conner was appointed as a
member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission for a term ending
September 30, 2006, by the following vote:
FOR MS. CONNER: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, and Mayor Smith ............................................. 6.
(Council Member Wyatt was absent.)
Inasmuch as Ms. Conner is not a resident of the City of Roanoke, Mr.
Harris moved that the City residency requirement be waived. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted.
COMMYI-fEES-ROANOKE VALLEY RESOURCE AUTHORITY-OATHS OF
OFFICE: The Mayor advised that the four year term of office of Bittle W.
Porterfield, III, as a member of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority will
expire on December 31,2003; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations
to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of Bittle W. Porterfield, III.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Porterfield was reappointed as a
member of the Roanoke Valley Resource Authority for a term ending
December 31,2007, by the following vote:
399
FOR MR. PORTERFIELD: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe,
Fitzpatrick, Harris, and Mayor Smith ................................... 6.
(Council Member Wyatt was absent.)
At 5:25 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess until 7:00 p.m.,
in the City Council Chamber.
At 7:00 p.m., on Thursday, October 23, 2003, the Council meeting
reconvened in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor
Ralph K. Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler,
BeverlyT. Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor Ralph K.
Smith ............................................................. 6.
ABSENT: Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.- ...................... 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The meeting was opened with prayer by Mayor Smith.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Mayor Smith.
400
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ZONING: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on
Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for
Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard, on a request of Murray E. and Patricia B. Joiner to amend
proffered conditions presently binding upon a tract of land located at 3034
Brambleton Avenue, S. W., Official Tax No. 1650903, as set forth in Ordinance
No. 35218-030501, adopted by Council on March 5, 2001, the matter was
before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, October 3, and Friday, October 1 O, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that
the subject property, which consists of 1.103 acre, is located near the City
limits and has 159 feet of frontage on Brambleton Avenue; a 1,311-square
foot, one story single-family residential structure is located on the site; the
wood frame, vinyl-sided house was constructed in 1943; as a part of the
conditional C-2 rezoning approved in 2001, the petitioner proposed to permit
the operation of a C-2 commercial use, limited by proffer, in the existing house
on the site; and with the current petition to amend proffers, the petitioner
plans to demolish the residential structure for the purpose of constructing of an
office building as conditioned by the new proffers.
It was further advised that the request to amend proffered conditions is
consistent with Vision 2001-2020 policies of encouraging commercial
development in appropriate areas and utilizing more fully the City's commercial
sites, while protecting the integrity of existing residential neighborhoods; and
the subject property is appropriate for office use as limited by the proffered
conditions, which address development and use of the property in relation to
the adjacent residential neighborhood.
401
The proffered conditions related to square footage and height of the
proposed building are appropriate and comparable in terms of intensity
(size, scale, and floor area ratio) of development that currently exists
along this section of Brambleton Avenue.
Establishment of a vegetative landscape buffer, including the retention of
existing trees within 25-feet deep buffer yards along the eastern
boundary and the rear of the property, minimize any conflict between the
residential neighborhood and proposed office development.
The proffered office uses are consistent with the commercial node and
are compatible with the adjacent residential neighborhoods.
Given the proffered uses, the City Planning Commission
recommended that Council approve the requested amendment of
proffers.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
(#36527-102303) AN ORDINANCE to amend ,, 36.1-3 and 36.1-4, Code
of the City of Roanoke, (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 165, Sectional 1976
Zone Map, City of Roanoke, in order to amend certain conditions presently
binding upon certain property previously conditionally zoned from RS-3,
Single-Family Residential District, to C-2, General Commercial District; and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 185(A).)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36257-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
402
Sean Horn, representing Balzar and Associates, and the petitioner,
appeared before Council in support of the request.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
There being no discussion or comments by Council Members, Ordinance
No. 36527-102303 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ....................................................... 6.
NAYS: None .................................................. O.
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the
Council on Monday, April 6, !981, the City Clerk having advertised a public
hearing for Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
the matter may be heard, on a request of Member One Federal Credit Union to
permanently vacate, discontinue and close a portion of Gilmer Avenue, N. E.,
running in a westerly direction from 4th Street to an existing cul-de-sac, the
matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, October 3, 2003, and Friday, October 10, 2003.
403
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that
the petitioner requests closure of a portion of Gilmer Avenue, N. E., lying
between two of its parcels of land; the petitioner has operated a branch credit
union on Official Tax No. 3015008 since 1987; the petitioner purchased the
adjoining property, Official Tax No. 3014017 on July 15, 2003; asbestos
removal from the hotel building on Official Tax No. 3014017 has been
completed, and demolition of the structure is currently underway.
It was further advised that vacation of the portion of Gilmer Avenue
would allow the petitioner to combine the adjoining parcels into one contiguous
site for further development; the petitioner plans to build an addition to the
existing building which will span part of what is now Gilmer Avenue; and the
concept plan illustrates the following:
Phase 1 (March 2004 - September 2004) - Construction of a four story
parking deck that will provide 200 spaces.
Phase 2 (July 2004 - November 2004) - Construction of a two-story
branch building with a drive through.
Phase 3 (November 2004 - May 2005) - Construction of a four-story
,,connector,, building with an atrium onto its existing building.
Phase 4 (March 2005 - October 2005) - Construction of a two or three-
story addition onto structures built in Phases 1 and 3.
It was explained that the subject portion of Gilmer Avenue was part of the
early street grid of the City, yet is no longer connected to the Gainsboro
neighborhood due to development of Interstate 581 and the Roanoke Civic
Center; thus, it is not fully interconnected in the street system; closure of the
4O4
subject portion of Gilmer Avenue and the proposed development will not result
in any inconvenience or disruption to vehicular circulation; and the cul-de-sac
of Gilmer Avenue does not further the urban street design standards promoted
by the City in Vision 2001 - 2020.
It was noted that while the petitioner's proposal will eliminate several on-
street parking spaces, the addition of a parking garage will minimize the
amount of surface parking on the site; at present, the entire surface area of
Official Tax No. 301401 7 is paved; the petitioner's existing building on Official
Tax No. 3015008 has close to a zero lot line on the western and southern
sides, with parking to the rear, and building an addition onto the existing
building will require most of the surface parking to remain at the rear of the
site; the proposal will further the economic development goals of Vision 2001 -
2020; and prior to Council's consideration of the petition, an agreement will be
developed between the City of Roanoke and the petitioner to ensure
performance of the proposed development activities within specified time
frames.
The City Planning Commission recommended that the portion of Gilmer
Avenue, N. E., requested for closure, be sold for $2.50 per square foot (or
$66,300.00) if no performance agreement is proposed when the matter is
heard by Council.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
(#36528-102303) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing
and closing certain public right-of-way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as
more particularly described hereinafter; and dispensing with the second reading
of this ordinance by title.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 185(B).)
405
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36528-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Mr. C. John Renick, Attorney, representing the petitioner, advised that
since the City Planning Commission's hearing, the hotel that was located
contiguous to Gilmer Avenue has been demolished and his client wishes to
proceed as soon as possible with the total project; and a performance
agreement was drafted by the City Attorney's Office and the letter of credit will
be delivered to the City at the time of execution of the performance agreement.
He further advised that conditions as set forth by the City Planning Commission
have been fulfilled with regard to a conceptual plan and are agreeable to the
City and to Member One; therefore, he requested that Council approve the
request for closure.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to
speak in connection with the public hearing; whereupon, Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel,
35 Patton Avenue, N. E., inquired as to the precise location of the property.
No other persons wishing to be heard, the Mayor declared the public
hearing closed.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Member One
Federal Credit Union located at 202 4th Street and 320 Kimball Avenue, N. E., is
currently planning to expand its corporate operations; as such, Member One
has sought to have a portion of Gilmer Avenue vacated (area of Gilmer Avenue,
N. E., that intersects with 4th Street, situated between Official Tax Nos. 3015008
and 301401 7), inasmuch as vacation of such portion of Gilmer Avenue will
allow Member One to combine adjoining parcels into one contiguous site and
permit development and expansion of Member One's downtown facilities; and if
Council approves the street vacation, Member One plans to build additional
structures on the site, including an addition to its existing building, which will
provide for a span across part of the street vacation area.
406
It was further advised that the street vacation will allow Member One to
make a significant investment in the downtown area and provide for the
retention of job positions at its current location and approximately 75 new job
positions are anticipated to be added; in anticipation of business expansion,
Member One has requested that the City of Roanoke provide for the street
vacation at no charge to Member One, provided that Member One will make an
investment in the project; City staff has negotiated a performance agreement
with Member One which provides that Member One will make a minimum
investment in the actual construction of the project, not including the cost of
real property, of at least $6 million on or before December 1, 2007; Member
One will provide the City with a letter of credit in the amount of $66,300.00,
the value of the proposed vacation portion of Gilmer Avenue, to guarantee
Member One's performance; if such investment is made, the City will return the
letter of credit to Member One; and if the vacation of Gilmer Avenue does not
take place, the performance agreement will be terminated.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the
performance agreement between the City of Roanoke and Member One Federal
Credit Union, to be approved as to form by the City Attorney; and that she be
further authorized to take such additional actions and to execute such
documents as may be necessary to implement and to administer the
performance agreement.
There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance
No. 36528-t02303 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ....................................................... 6.
NAYS: NONE ................................................. 0.
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
4O7
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
(#36529-102303) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the proper City officials to
execute a Performance Agreement between the City of Roanoke (City) and
Member One Federal Credit Union (Member One) that will provide for Member
One to make a certain investment in the development of certain property in the
4th Street, Kimball Avenue, and Gilmer Avenue area; and dispensing with the
second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 185(G).)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36529-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ....................................................... 6.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
ZONING: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on
Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for
Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or soon thereafter as the matter may
be heard, on a request of Malcolm M. Rosenberg to rezone property located at
2719 Colonial Avenue, S. W., Official Tax No. 1260808, and 2735 Colonial
Avenue, S. W., Official Tax No. 1260804, from RS-3, Residential Single-Family
District, to C-1, Office District, subject to certain conditions proffered by the
petitioner, the matter was before the body.
408
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in 7-he Roanolce
Times on Friday, October 3, 2003, and Friday, October 1 O, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that
the rezoning request is for two non-contiguous parcels located in the 2700
block of Colonial Avenue, S. W.; the first subject parcel is an 8,159 square-foot
lot situated at 2719 Colonial Avenue, Official Tax No. 1260808; a 1,334
square-foot, one-story structure currently exists on the parcel; the wood-
framed structure, with brick veneer siding, was built in 1962 and has been used
by a fraternal organization; the second parcel is an approximately 10,568
square-foot lot located at 2735 Colonial Avenue, Official Tax No. 120804; a
924 square-foot structure currently exists on the parcel, and the vacant wood-
frame structure was built in 1956 and is currently listed as a single-family use.
It was further advised that the application of C~1, Office District, to the
subject properties would provide a greater consistency in zoning patterns along
Colonial Avenue; the two parcels, together with three C-1, Office District,
properties sandwiched between the two properties, would solidify the potential
for a viable commercial/office/mixed use center and would allow for more
effective utilization of the five parcels of land for development; in addition, the
permitted uses of the C-1, Office District, which could include residential uses,
would be compatible with existing land uses directly adjacent to, and across
Colonial Avenue, which include small commercial establishments as well as
office uses; and by solidifying the boundary line for commercial, office and
mixed use development in this location, the C-1, Office District, would provide
a transition zone buffer between the C-2, General Commercial District, to the
northeast and the RS-3, Residential Single Family District, to the southwest.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the request to
rezone 2719 Colonial Avenue, $. W., Official Tax No. 1260808; however, a
motion to rezone 2735 Colonial Avenue, Official Tax No. 1260804, failed.
409
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance rezoning 2719 Colonial
Avenue, S. W., Official Tax No. 1260808:
(#36530-102303) AN ORDINANCE to amend , 36.1-3, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 126, Sectional 1976 Zone Map,
City of Roanoke, to rezone certain property within the City; and dispensing with
the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 185(H).)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36530-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Edward A. Natt, Attorney, representing the petitioner, advised that his
client does not request the rezoning of 2735 Colonial Avenue, S. W., and seeks
only to rezone 2719 Colonial Avenue, which request is supported by the City
Planning Commission.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter; whereupon, Mr. Willie A. Carr, 2739
Colonial Avenue, S. W., advised that he resides next door to 2735 Colonial
Avenue and expressed concern with regard to the bank that was constructed in
1978 which blocks the rear view at 2735 Colonial Avenue.
It was clarified that the rezoning of 2735 Colonial Avenue is not before
the Council for consideration.
There being no other persons wishing to be heard, the Mayor declared
the public hearing closed.
410
Mr. Bestpitch advised that the City Planning Commission recommended
approval of the rezoning on a 4-3 vote, which is an indication that there were
serious concerns by at least three of the seven members of the City Planning
Commission. He called attention to the lack of a proposed site plan for
development of the four lots, and suggested that the matter be referred back to
the City Planning Commission and to City staff to work with the petitioner on
development of a proposed site plan. Without proffered conditions, he stated
that he could not support the request for rezoning.
Mr. Townsend deferred to Mr. Natt inasmuch as the City Planning
Commission cannot impose conditions on rezonings and proffers must be
offered voluntarily by the petitioner. He explained that at the time of the City
Planning Commission hearing it was indicated that the petitioner did not have a
specific use or plan for the combination of the properties; therefore, the
proposal went forward. He stated that City Planning staff supported the
rezoning at 2719 Colonial Avenue, given the limited frontage along Colonial
Avenue, the fact that C-2 zoning extends across the street, and property
immediately to the north of the property in question is also zoned C-2.
Mr. Natt acknowledged that it is unusual to apply for a rezoning without
submitting a site plan; however, in this particular case, his client owns three
lots and was presented with the opportunity to acquire a fourth lot in order to
provide for a better site than currently exists; and a user for the site has not
been identified to date. He stated that C-2 use is directly across the street with
no proffers, C-2 uses exist farther down the street with no proffers, his client
can develop his three lots as C-1 which would result in a situation where there
would be one small lot that could potentially contain proffers, although using
today's standards, it would be difficult to construct anything on such a small
lot. He advised that the situation is one of those rare circumstances where one
411
small parcel of land is requested to be combined with three other parcels to
make a larger and better parcel of land, and the petitioner can develop his
currently owned three parcels of land, while the fourth parcel could remain
unused. He added that it is also important to remember that the request is not
for C-2 zoning, which is a more open classification, but for C-1 zoning which
provides for office and institutional uses, and the difference between C-1 and
C-2 zoning offers certain safeguards as to the type of development that will go
on the site.
Ordinance No. 36530-102303 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Harris, and Mayor
Smith ............................................................ 5.
NAYS: Council Member Bestpitch ................................. 1.
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the
Council on Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public
hearing for Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
the matter may be heard, on a request of 22 Luck Avenue, Inc., to permanently
vacate, discontinue and close a certain portion of an alley lying between 16 and
22 Luck Avenue, S. W., and parcels identified as Official Tax Nos. 1012707 and
1012706, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, October 3, 2003, and Friday, October 10, 2003.
412
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that
the petitioner requests closure of a portion of the alley which is the remnant of
a ten-foot wide north-to-south alley that originally extended to Luck Avenue;
in 1994, the petitioner obtained, through vacation, all but this remaining
portion of the alley; Council required the remaining portion of the alley to be
left open for use as a turnaround for solid waste management vehicles serving
the block; and the petitioner owns both adjoining parcels of land.
It was further advised that the adjoining properties are both zoned C-3,
Central Business District, as are all properties in the immediate vicinity; the
petitioner's law offices are located on Official Tax No. 1012706; Official Tax
No. 1012707 is the site of the petitioner's parking lot; and several offices,
parking lots and various other commercial establishments lie in the block of the
subject alley.
It was explained that vacation of the subject alley would allow the
petitioner to align the fencing that currently borders the subject alley with the
alley that it adjoins, which would result in the petitioner gaining one parking
spot within the fenced parking lot; and at present, the alley is used as a parking
space, while not obstructing the east-to-west alley to which it is perpendicular.
The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the
request, subject to certain conditions, and that the petitioner be charged
$2,100.00 for the alley, to which the petitioner has agreed.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
413
(#36531-102303) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing
and closing certain public right-of-way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as
more particularly described hereinafter; and dispensing with the second reading
of this ordinance by title.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 185(I).)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36531-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
Raphael L. Ferris, Attorney, appeared before Council in support of the
request.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance
No. 36531-102303 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ....................................................... 6.
NAYS: None .......... ........................................ O.
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
414
EASEMENTS-PARKS AND RECREATION-ROANOKE GAS COMPANY:
Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a
public hearing for Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard on the proposed conveyance of a ten-
foot easement on property known as Jackson Park, identified as Official Tax No.
4130501, to Roanoke Gas Company, to relocate a high relief valve from the
northern side of Morningside Street, S. E., the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Monday, October 13, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Roanoke Gas
Company has requested a ten-foot by ten-foot easement on City-owned
property located in Jackson Park, in order to relocate an eight-foot high relief
valve from the northern side of Morningside Street; the valve will be set on a
concrete pad to eliminate the need for mowing around the valve, which is
acceptable to the Department of Parks and Recreation; and easement area is
approximately 100 square feet.
The City Manager recommended, following the public hearing, that she
be authorized to execute the appropriate documents granting the requested
easement to Roanoke Gas Company, said document to be approved as to form
by the City Attorney.
· Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
(#36532-102303) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the donation and
conveyance of a ten-foot by ten-foot easement, on City-owned property known
as Jackson Park, identified by Official Tax No. 4130501, to Roanoke Gas
415
Company, to relocate a five foot high relief valve from the northern side of
Morningside Street, upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with the
second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 185(M).)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36532-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance
No. 36532-102303 was adoPted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Harris, and
Mayor Smith .................. ~ ................................... 6.
NAYS: None ................................................. O.
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
LEASES-CITY PROPERTY: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City
Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Thursday, October 23, 2003, at
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on a proposed
lease of 7.05 acres of City-owned property located along Back Creek in
Roanoke County to a County resident for agricultural purposes, for a period of
one year, with a renewal option for four additional one-year periods, and a 60-
day mutual termination provision, the matter was before the body.
416
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
T/rnes on Monday, October 13, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that several
properties along Back Creek in Roanoke County were acquired in the late 1970
to enable future development of a reservoir; there are no longer plans to
develop the reservoir and the property is currently vacant; and an adjacent
property owner to one of the parcels containing 12.17 acres (identified as
Roanoke County Tax No. 089.00-03-36.00-0000) has requested an
agricultural lease for a portion of the parcel containing approximately 7.05
acres to provide pasture for horses.
It was further advised that a portion of the 12.17 acre parcel is being
used by the Department of Parks and Recreation as a tree farm; the 7.05 acres
under consideration is not suitable for future expansion of the tree farm;
leasing this portion of the parcel of land will eliminate the need for City staff to
provide maintenance; the Lessee has agreed to make improvements to an
existing road that is used to access the City's tree farm and will provide the
necessary fencing to secure the pastureland and the tree farm; proposed lease
rate will be $100.00 per year; and in addition to erecting the necessary fencing,
the Lessee will be responsible for maintaining the fencing and removing any
fencing at the City's request, upon termination of the lease, and assume all
liability for damage to and by the Lessee's actions or actions of the Lessee's
livestock, machinery, equipment, employees, and guests, with liability
insurance to be provided by the Lessee.
The City Manager recommended, following the public hearing, that she
be authorized to execute the appropriate documents, to be approved as to form
by the City Attorney, to lease the above described City-owned property for a
one-year term, with four one-year renewal options and a 60-day mutual
termination provision.
417
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#36533-102303) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to enter
into a lease with Sandra Rouse Reedy, for the lease of 7.05 acres of City-owned
property located along Back Creek in Roanoke County, upon certain terms and
conditions; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 185(N).)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36533-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance
No. 36533-102303 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ...................................................... 6.
NAYS: None ................................................. O.
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
ZONING-SIGNS/BILLBOARDS/AWNINGS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523
adopted by the Council on Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having
advertised a public hearing for Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or
418
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to an amendment to
Chapter 36.1, Zoning, Section 36.1-445(c), Additional sign regulations,
subsection (c), Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to address
roof signs in the H-l, Historic District, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, October 3, 2003, and Friday, October 1 O, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that
roof signs are currently prohibited in all zoning districts in the City of Roanoke;
the proposed text amendment would remove the prohibition pertaining to
existing roof signs located in, or located and relocated within, the H-l, Historic
District; and parcels within the H-l, Historic District, are located within the core
of downtown Roanoke.
It was further advised that Downtown Roanoke, Inc., has initiated an
effort to relocate and to rehabilitate the H & C Coffee Sign located on the roof
of a building at 102 Market Street; the sign, which has been in place in
downtown for many decades, is of a unique neon design, material, and
animation; its method of construction is rare by today's modern sign standards;
the sign is currently in a state of disrepair and needs considerable
rehabilitation; its relocation to another site in the H-l, Historic District, is under
consideration so as to ensure long-term visibility and structural integrity and to
return the sign to its original operational status; and because of the current
prohibition regarding roof signs, the H & C Coffee Sign is a nonconforming sign
and could not be rehabilitated and relocated as proposed.
It was explained that staff review of the H-l, Historical District,
identified two other existing roof signs that would become conforming under
the proposed amendment; one is the Dr. Pepper sign at 115 Salem Avenue and
419
the other is a roof outdoor advertising sign located at the rear of 102 Market
Street; if the proposed amendment is approved, the subsequent relocation of
any of these three existing roof signs would be limited to the area within the
H-l, Historic District, and would require the granting of a Certificate of
Appropriateness by the Architectural Review Board.
The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed
amendment, given the effort initiated by Downtown Roanoke, Inc., to
rehabilitate and to relocate a sign of unique design, material, and construction,
and the limited application of the amendment to the H-l, Historic District.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following ordinance:
,'AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining §36.1-445, Additional sign
regulations, Division 3, Sign Regulations, Article IV, Supplementary Regulations,
of Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, by amending subsection (c) to permit roof signs within the H-1
Historic District, under certain conditions; and dispensing with the second
reading by title of this ordinance.,,
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of the above referenced ordinance. The
motion was seconded byMr. Cutler.
R. Townsend, Agent to the City Planning Commission, advised that the
amendment, initiated by the City Planning Commission, is a technical
amendment that would allow for the refurbishment of existing roof signs in the
H-l, Downtown Zoning District; and the matter was initiated at the request of
Downtown Roanoke, Inc., which is undertaking an effort to renovate the H & C
Coffee Sign and wishes to move the sign to another location. He further
420
advised that prior to adoption of this amendment, because roof signs were
prohibited, all roof signs were non-conforming and therefore could not be
moved to another location. He stated that since the proposed amendment
applies only to the H-1 District in downtown Roanoke, the H & C Coffee Sign
and the Dr. Pepper Sign will both become conforming, and the H & C Coffee
Sign can be renovated and relocated within the H-1 District.
David Diaz, President, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., advised that Downtown
Roanoke has engaged Center in the Square, the Art Museum, the Historical
Preservation Foundation and the Roanoke Arts Commission in a project to
restore and relocate the H & C Coffee Sign, inasmuch as the proposed IMAX
Theater and Art Museum will block the sign from view. He stated that
Downtown Roanoke would like to relocate and retain the sign as a part of the
downtown sky line; following adoption of the proposed amendment by Council,
Downtown Roanoke, Inc., will meet with the owner of the sign to determine
where the sign could potentially be relocated; and a private/public funding
raising campaign is proposed. He advised that the goal of Downtown Roanoke,
Inc., is to engage in a long term plan that would allow the sign to be donated to
a non-profit organization that would be responsible for maintaining the sign
over the long term.
Mr. Fitzpatrick inquired as to where the H & C Coffee Sign is proposed to
be relocated; whereupon, Mr. Diaz advised that he was not at liberty to
comment on the proposed location because to do so would be unfair to the
potential non-profit entity that would own the sign, and Downtown Roanoke,
Inc., does not have an agreement with the non-profit entity at this time to
actually accept the sign.
421
Out of fairness to Council and to Downtown Roanoke, Inc., Mr. Fitzpatrick
advised that inasmuch as Council is being requested to address the issue of
roof signs in the Downtown Historic District, Council should be privy to
information on where the H & C Coffee Sign will be relocated, prior to voting on
the proposed amendment. He advised that the H & C Coffee Sign is an icon in
the City of Roanoke and he could not vote to give carte blanc approval.
Mr. Diaz advised that Center in the Square is the non-profit organization
that Downtown Roanoke, Inc., has been working with, but no formal agreement
has been executed to date; and the proposed zoning ordinance amendment will
allow Downtown Roanoke to explore various options in terms of where the sign
will be relocated which will be in a very limited and defined area.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered a substitute motion that the ordinance be tabled
for a period of 30 days, pending more precise information from Downtown
Roanoke, Inc., with regard to actual relocation of the H & C Coffee Sign, and to
identify the non-profit organization that will accept donation of the sign. The
substitute motion was seconded by Mr. Harris.
Mr. Diaz clarified that Center in the Square is the only organization that
has been approached in regard to accepting donation of the H & C Coffee Sign
and the sign would be located on one of the two buildings owned by Center in
the Square in the H-1 District; i.e: the Center in the Square building, or the
former Shenandoah Hotel building.
If the H & C Coffee Sign were to blow over this evening, Council Member
Bestpitch inquired as to what would happen under provisions of the existing
ordinance; whereupon, Mr. Townsend advised that the sign is considered to be
non-conforming at the present time and could not be reinstalled under
provisions of the current ordinance. Mr. Bestpitch responded that there should
be some capability in place to repair the sign in the event that it becomes
necessary to do so.
422
Ms. Wyatt expressed concern with regard to the integrity of the H & C
Coffee Sign, and advised that if the sign becomes a part of the top of Center in
the Square, as opposed being located closer to eye level, the entire impact of
the sign and what it means to the community will be dissipated. She stated
that citizens have a visual image of the H & C Coffee Sign and how it is
displayed in the community, which is a visual image that the community will
expect to retain when the sign is refurbished and relocated. She advised that
she understood the need to move on, but at the same time, it would be
unfortunate to lose site of or control over a sign that has become an icon.
Mr. Diaz advised that Downtown Roanoke, Inc., wishes to preserve the
expectations of the community for the sign, with the understanding that the
sign will be a vibrant part of the Downtown Roanoke skyline; certain risks are
involved in moving the sign, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., is taking a risk in its
efforts to raise $100,000.00, and the owner of the H & C Coffee Sign is taking a
risk in donating the sign. He stated that this is a community effort, the goal of
which is to uphold the expectations of. the community by preserving a
landmark, or icon, in Downtown Roanoke.
The substitute motion lost by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Fitzpatrick and Harris ............... 3.
NAYS: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler and Mayor Smith .......... 3.
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
So as not to have a divided vote on the proposed amendment, Mr. Diaz
requested that Council table the ordinance and he would report to the Council
after an agreement is reached with Center in the Square with regard to the
proposed location of the H & C Coffee Sign.
423
In a discussion of the matter, Mr. Diaz advised that the total cost of
renovating the H & C Coffee Sign is $100,000.00, and an additional $25,000.00
for a maintenance fund which should accrue interest at the rate that
approximately $1500.00 per month could be spent on maintenance; therefore,
a $125,000.00 fund raising campaign is proposed. Upon question, he
indicated that a portion of the funding may be requested from the City of
Roanoke.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council reconsider the motion to table the
ordinance for a period of 30 days. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and
adopted.
The motion to table the ordinance for a period of 30 days was adopted.
TRANSPORTATION SAFETY-FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION-
STATE HIGHWAYS: The City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for
Thursday, October 23, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard, on an endorsement of the draft 20-Year Long Range
Transportation Plan for submission to the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
T/rnes on Friday, October 17, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a written report advising that The Roanoke
Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) is scheduled to adopt a
revised 20-Year Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) at its November 6,
2003 meeting; the LRTP is a financially constrained plan that identifies the
expected resources that will be available for transportation improvements and
424
establishes a list of improvements that are to be implemented over the 20-year
planning period; transportation improvement projects must be included in the
LRTP before they can be added to the Virginia Department of Transportation's
Six Year Plan, and the LRTP is routinely revised and comprehensively updated
every three to five years.
It was further advised that the Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) provided both financial and transportation condition projections for the
20-year planning period; a work group was organized to discuss projections
and to develop recommendations for Council's endorsement and submission to
the MPO; members of the work group included the City Planning Commission's
Transportation, Utilities and Facilities Committee, the City of Roanoke's MPO
representatives, and key staff members (representing all modes of
transportation, environmental quality, economic development, and city-wide
comprehensive planning); and the work group evaluated information in light of
the Comprehensive Plan's guidance and developed priorities and
recommendations that are included in the Plan.
It was explained that the MPO must develop and maintain a LRTP with a
20-year planning horizon; transportation improvement projects must be
included in the LRTP before they can be added to VDOT's Six Year Plan; neither
Council's endorsement, nor the MPO's adoption, of the LRTP will obligate any
LRTP project to be implemented, rather, such projects are made eligible for
further consideration; and the work group has developed recommendations
that are consistent with the guidance provided in the City's Comprehensive Plan
and the MPO will adopt the LRTP during a public hearing (scheduled for
November 6, 2003) at the conclusion of a 30-day public comment period.
425
The City Manager recommended, following the public hearing, that
Council endorse, by resolution, the cover letter, Financially Constrained List,
and Vision List for submission to the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan
Planning Organization for consideration.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution:
(#36534-102303) A RESOLUTION concurring in a list of financially-
constrained projects and recommended improvements for roadways in the City
of Roanoke for further study in connection with the Long-Range Transportation
Plan.
(For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 185(O).)
Mr. 8estpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36534-102303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to be
heard in connection with the matter. There being none, he declared the public
hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Resolution
No. 36534-102303 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Harris, and
Mayor Smith ...................................................... 6.
NAYS: None .................................................. O.
(Council Member Dowe was absent.)
426
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA'I-fERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard, and matters
requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for any
necessary and appropriate response, recommendation or report to Council.
COMPLAINTS-ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Robert Gravely, 729 Loudon
Avenue, N. W., expressed concern with regard to barrels containing hazardous
waste material that were uncovered as a part of the excavation process at the
site of the proposed stadium/amphitheater at Orange Avenue and Williamson
Road.
There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting
adjourned at 8:30 p.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
427
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION .... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
November 3, 2003
9:00 a.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
November 3, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., the regular meeting hour, in the Emergency
Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph
K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council,
Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, Reqular Meetings, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended; and pursuant to Resolution No. 36193-010603
adopted on January 6, 2003, which changed the time of commencement of the
regular meeting of Council to be held on the first Monday in each month from
12:15 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler,
Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Linda F. Wyatt, and Mayor Ralph K.
Smith ............................................................. 6.
ABSENT: Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris .............................. 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Pa~'ker,
City Clerk.
COMMI'I-I'EES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K.
Smith requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies
on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by
Council, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, was before the body.
Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, and
Mayor Smith ...................................................... 6.
NAYS: NONE .................................................. 0.
(Vice-Mayor Harris was absent.)
428
COUNCIL: ITEMS LISTED ON THE 2:00 P.M. COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING
DISCUSSION/CLARIFICATION; AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE 2:00 P.M.
DOCKET.
The City Manager recommended that December 26, 2003 and January 2,
2004, be observed as official holidays for City employees, inasmuch as both
holidays fall on a Thursday.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL: NONE.
REPORTS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS IN THEIR LIAISON COMMI'I-fEE
ASSIGNMENTS:
Council Member Cutler presented a summary of his Council liaison
committee assignments:
Roanoke Arts Commission:
The Commission has met at various venues to which it provides grants,
such as the Virginia Museum of Transportation, Explore Park, Downtown
Music Lab, Center in the Square, Mill Mountain Zoo, etc.
· The Commission is currently working on a Public Art Plan.
Mill Mountain Advisory Committee:
The Committee is working with the City's Department of Parks and
Recreation on a Master Plan for the entire Park, including the additional 55
acres of the land that Council recently authorized for acquisition.
Mill Mountain Zoo Board of Directors:
The Board of Directors is concerned about water pressure and water supply
for the Zoo which is under consideration in the context of its budget.
Virqinia Municipal League - Environmental Quality Committee:
Meetings were held on January 23, 2003, in Richmond, and on October 20-
2:~, 2003, in Roanoke
Served on the Environmental Quality Committee
429
Urban Forestry Task Force:
Task Force met on January 15, 2003
The Urban Forestry Plan was completed and adopted by Council
Soil and Water Conservation District Board of Director~:
At a recent meeting, the City of Roanoke's petition to join the Blue Ridge
Soil and Water Conservation District was accepted.
Dr. Cutler was requested to provide a summary of the meeting with
representatives of the Corps of Engineers and the Fish and Wildlife Service;
whereupon, he advised that approximately 40 persons were in attendance,
including several representatives of the Wilmington District of the Corps of
Engineers, biology staff from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a majority of the
City's Flood Plain Committee, Chairman of the Fish and Wildlife Department at
Virginia Tech, a fish biologist from the Department of Game and Inland Fisheries,
and others. He stated that the focus of the meeting related to concerns of the
Fish and Wildlife Service on the latest generation of the bench cut plan that the
Corps of Engineers has produced; and a concern that if the plan proceeds as the
Corps of Engineers propose, removal of banks along certain sections of the river
in order to increase river capacity in high water stages would be too Iow, and, all
too frequently, water could rise above those levels, wash the soil off benches into
the river cannel, silt up the channel and require dredging of the river, which
would not only reduce the capacity of the river to handle floods but harm fish
and wildlife habitat, particularly the habitat of endangered Roanoke log perch. He
stated that the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed that the benches be at a higher
level so as to be out of the current of the river, except in serious flooding
conditions, at which time they would serve their intended purpose. He noted
that representatives of the City's Flood Plain Committee expressed frustration
that the process has gone on for a number of years without any signs of
construction in the river, and they were anxious for the program to move
forward; the biologist from Virginia Tech and the representative of the
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries were concerned, as was the Fish and
Wildlife Service, over moving ahead with a plan that would be counter productive
in the long term, that would appear to provide some flood relief with bench cuts
but would result in more siltation, reduced capacity of water in the river, and
worsening of the flooding problems, rather than alleviating problems and
harming the fishery.
At the conclusion of the meeting, he stated that the Corps of Engineers,
the Fish and Wildlife Service, and the City's Engineering Department agreed to
meet and come to a better understanding of each other's positions.
430
Dr. Cutler advised that other obvious conclusions are that much of the
flood waters and siltation come from locations other than the City of Roanoke
and Roanoke County, thus, there is a need to look short term at tributaries and
storm water management within the City; and another issue pertains to the role
of the interceptor sewer lines that form dams across the river at iow water
bridges, and the filling in around the piers of highway bridges that slow down
the river, cause silt to drop out of the river and help to fill the river. He ~dded
that it is important for the City to develop a parallel action plan move and lower
sewer crossings, to change Iow water bridges, to take out the fill around bridge
supports in order to remove obstruction, because the only way to keep the river
clear is to keep up the velocity and keep silt in the water moving, which is
another issue that the City's Engineering staff must address and must be
budgeted for over a period of time since it will be costly, but is important if the
City is to complement the work of the Corps of Engineers by removing
obstructions that have been placed in the river, sewer crossings, Iow water
bridges and any other actions that can be taken to cause the water to flow more
easily under highway bridges.
Discussion;
If the plan is satisfactorily revised, there will be minimum siltation and
sedimentation.
Concern was expressed that a large number of established trees will be
lost along the river bank containing root systems that are holding the river
banks in place. New trees can be planted, but it will take a long time for
the trees to become established and to develop the same holding power
over the rocks.
Part of the recommendation of the Fish and Wildlife Service is to minimize
tree cutting and vegetative removal, because vegetative cover on the river
banks will help to stabilize soil and minimize erosion and siltation.
The potential for taking out the Niagra Dam near the Blue Ridge Parkway
should be explored inasmuch as the dam does not provide a large amount
of energy for American Electric Power, the reservoir is full of silt and a
problem will exist if the silt is toxic.
431
Council Member Bestpitch reported on the following liaison committee
assignments:
Roanoke Valle¥-Alleqheny Reqional Commission:
The Long Range Water Supply Study has been completed, with a goal of
looking at how to accommodate water supply needs over the next 50
years;
and policy and technical committees will meet later this month to discuss
ways to begin implementation of some of the elements of the study.
The Regional Commission has initiated a regional citizens planning
academy which is a four session training program that covers a variety of
planning- related topics and is open to any person who is interested in
learning more about regional and community planning.
The Regional Commission issued a regional report card this year %~hich
cites approximately 98 different and multi-jurisdictional cooperative
programs and projects.
Metropolitan Planninq Orqanization (MPO):
The staff of the Regional Commission is working with the MPO on the
Roanoke Valley Long Range Transportation Plan; and it is anticipated that the
MPC) will approve the long range plan in January 2004, following a public
comment period and a public hearing.
Roanoke Neiqhborhood Advocates (RNA):
The RNA is a new organization that will provide advice on neighborhood issues,
as well as education for neighborhood groups; a seven member committee was
appointed by Council and the Committee will identify the remainin~ six
members; an initial draft of the by-laws was completed and the committee is
working on its strategic business plan; each of the seven members was assigned
to a number of neighborhood organizations in a type of liaison role, and
representatives have attended their respective neighborhood organization
meetings to introduce themselves and to conduct a level of needs assessment
within each organization.
432
Explore Park:
The Brugh Tavern no longer operates as a restaurant, but will provide
lunch on weekends when Explore Park is open for business, however,
Brugh Tavern can be reserved for a private function; Explore Park appears
to be moving away from the historical interpretive function that the Park
has provided in the past to more recreational-type opportunities, such as
fishing, canoeing, kayaking, birding, hiking, mountain biking trails, plans
to create a playground and children's historic playhouse area, picnic
shelters; staff has been reduced and much of the operation appears to
have been taken over by Roanoke County; and without an interpretive staff
and the same attention to historic structures, there is some question as to
the kinds of attractions that will be available at Explore Park that will
attract people from other areas.
Explore Park plans to construct a replica of an 18th century fort which will
open on July 3, 2004, and will be part of its tenth birthday celebration.
Virqinia First Cities Coalition:
The Coalition met in May and October and conducted a strategic planning
session that was also attended by the City Manager in Charlottesville,
Virginia; a 2004 Legislative Agenda has been drafted containing three
overarching policies; to increase financial support to First Cities, to
enhance redevelopment opportunities in First Cities through adoption of
an urban policy and smart growth strategies, and to hold older core cities
harmless from any budget balancing actions. Specific legislative
recommendations are to oppose any loss in State aid or in local authority,
to increase funding for education, which is the most important issue for
member localities participating in the Coalition, and to support tax
restructuring in a way that generates new revenues and increases State
revenues to a certain degree.
At a meeting prior to the beginning of the Virginia Municipal League
Annual Conference in October, the First Cities Coalition endorsed
maintaining the Council - Manager form of government in Virginia
localities.
The City Manager advised that the top priority is increased funding for
special education in Virginia; whereupon, she stated that VACO and the
First Cities Coalition agreed to provide Public Service Announcements that
seek to mobilize the interest of citizens around the issue of education;
there are certain groups that would see the issue differently in terms of
433
whether or not there should be an adjustment to the formula that would
give more weight to some of the disadvantaged issues that are
experienced by the older urban cities, but education has clearly fallen
behind in terms of the level of funding that has been provided by the
State.
Many localities have argued that if there were full funding of the mandates,
real estate taxes could be reduced, or other budget adjustments could be
made; and, it is because of that gap that localities have experienced
problems and individual localities have sought to fill the gap through
imposing various fees and other tax changes.
Fair Housinq Board:
No City Council liaison has been assigned to the Fair Housing Board,
however, Mr. Bestpitch stated that he met with the Board regarding to
certain issues. A process began some time ago to update the City's Fair
Housing Ordinance and adraftwas prepared for review by Council; during
the last session of the Virginia General Assembly, the State created the
Virginia Fair Housing Office, effective July l, 2003, which assumed the
responsibility of addressing fair housing issues in a different way;
localities that have not appointed Fair Housing Boards in the past will not
be permitted to create a Fair Housing Board in the future; and since the
City of Roanoke previously appointed a Fair Housing Board, the Board may
continue to function. City staff, in consultation with the City Attorney's
Office, made further revisions to the ordinance, i.e.: to make the
protective class classifications in the City's ordinance consistent with
Federal and State law which has changed over the years, in order to delete
the adjudicatory powers of the Fair Housing Board since it was believed to
be a duplication of the responsibility of the new State Office and because
in approximately 20 years of the Fair Housing Board's existence in the City
of Roanoke, those powers have been exercised on only one occasion,
which will allow for further emphasis on the educational component of the
City's Fair Housing Board. The role of the Fair Housing Board would be to
ensure that citizens understand their rights in regard to fair housing, as
well as to advise Council on any fair housing issues of interest to the City.
The Fair Housing Board objected to deletion of its adjudicatory powers;
he, along with Council Member Cutler, attended a meeting of the Fair
Housing Board on October 7, to hear the Board's concerns; and as a result
of the meeting, Mr. Bestpitch recommended that Council approve the
434
proposed revisions to the Fair Housing Ordinance, with one exception; i.e.:
to leave adjudicatory powers in place, inasmuch as the City should be very
careful about giving up a power that it may not ever be able to regain in
the future due to a new State statute.
Without objection by Council, Mr. Bestpitch recommended that City staff be
instructed to draft the Fair Housing Ordinance including the proposed
changes, with the exception of the adjudicatory powers to be exercised by
the Fair Housing Board.
When revising the ordinance, it should be stated that the Fair Housing
Board will have an advisory role with the Council, and if fair housing issues
arise that the Council should be aware of, the Board will be charged with
the responsibility of bringing those issues to the Council's attention.
Board of Directors-Total Action Aqainst Poverty in Roanoke Valley, Inc.:
Council has committed to supporting additional renovation of the Dumas
Hotel for certain expanded purposes; representatives of the Harrison
Museum for African-American Culture was contacted with regard to
occupying gallery space on the first floor of the existing building; as
discussions developed, TAP decided to attempt to add a wing to the
building and to completely relocate the Harrison Museum from its current
location to the Dumas Hotel building, to enable the facility to become a
part of the Henry Street redevelopment initiative.
There are certain advantages to the City in having the Harrison Museum
more closely connected with other arts and cultural amenities in the
downtown area; there are good reasons to save the old Harrison School
and for the Harrison Museum to be part of the project, but experience
would suggest that the Harrison Museum is too far out of the loop when
taking into consideration the passenger station renovation, the O. Winston
Link exhibit, renovation of the First Street Bridge, the Virginia Museum of
Transportation, the new Arts Museum and Center in the Square. If the
Harrison Museum were to relocate and construct a separate building, the
cost of doing so would be significantly greater than the cost of adding a
wing to the Dumas Hotel; and it would be a reasonable expectation for the
City to participate in construction of such a project, similar to that which
was done for the Grandin Theater and the Arts Museum, therefore, a case
can be made for reevaluating the City's level of participation in the overall
project, and the possibility of an additional funding commitment to the
Dumas project for that purpose.
435
The Mayor advised that the Harrison Museum is not easily accessible by
visitors to the City of Roanoke; Center in the Square has made efforts to
embrace the Harrison Museum as a part of the Center Museum and cultural
hub; the chance of success for the Harrison Museum will be greater if and
when it becomes a part of Center in the Square, or in the middle of the
City Market area; and there are persons who stand ready to invest private
dollars in the effort, should the Harrison Museum choose to relocate.
Dr. Cutler agreed that the Harrison Museum is difficult to locate by
persons not familiar with the City of Roanoke, but the Harrison Museum,
the Dumas Drama Guild and the Downtown Music Lab all fit together in an
expanded Dumas Hotel, and could become a part of the reason for persons
to visit that section of the City, in addition to the Higher Education Center
and Eight Jefferson Place, and the Ebony Club, etc. He added that the
Harrison Museum is part of the African-American community and offers a
unique concentration of features; as a member of the Harrison Board, he
stated that there are two constant themes; i.e.: the need to protect the old
Harrison School as an architectural landmark and a continuing sense of
concern that the Harrison Museum, as a unique entity, might get lost in the
shuffle in the larger complex of Center in the Square activities. He stated
that the Harrison Museum would be better suited in the Dumas Hotel
rather than Center in the Square. Mr. Fitzpatrick expressed concern in
regard to allocation of Community Development Block Grant funds;
separately, for Dumas Hotel improvements when Council has set a policy
to move forward in a different direction; and there should be a
concentrated effort to keep these kinds of activities together so that they
coordinate.
Council Member Dowe advised that the sustainability of the Harrison
Museum is far greater and far more important than many persons realize
as an education synergy is created because Roanoke has the advantage of
an African-American Museum which is a unique venue throughout the
Commonwealth of Virginia; there will be funding challenges in regard to
the Dumas/Harrison project because there are few of minority
professionals in the Roanoke Valley that could be tapped as potential
funding sources; the City's financial-support may not be consistent with
Community Development Block Grant funding policy established by
Council, but it is important for the City to identify a way to help the
Harrison Museum for the greater good of the City of Roanoke.
436
Council Member Wyatt advised that the Dumas Hotel is not the only TAP
project and if funding exceptions are made for TAP, requests of other
organizations should be honored as well.
Council Member Bestpitch advised that Council should continue to abide
by its established policy in regard to dispensing Community Development
Block Grant funds; it is unclear as to the reasoning by TAP for identifying a
funding source; there will be benefits to the downtown area and to the
Henry Street area if the Harrison Museum is relocated from Harrison
Avenue to the Dumas Hotel building, and any investment in downtown
Roanoke will benefit other downtown projects. He stated that he would
take the remarks of Council back to TAP, and advised that TAP has a
history of starting projects and then spinning them off, such as the
Southwest Virginia Food Bank, the water project, CHIP, Project Discovery,
all of which are currently independent from TAP. He mentioned the
possibility of the eventual goal of turning the property over to a
Foundation, the long term goal of which would be to maintain the real
estate for those institutions housed in the facility.
Council Member Wyatt advised that TAP has a history of requesting funds
and not meeting its obligations to the City, which is of concern to her as
one Member of Council. She referred to a previous funding request of TAP
that the City was later requested to forgive; TAP later requested
$500,000.00 over a five year period in $100,000.00 increments per year,
with the understanding that it would meet its financial obligations,
however, a full year has not passed in that process and TAP is again
requesting additional funds. She stated that even through the D!!mas
Hotel is a worthy project, there are other worthy projects in the City to be
considered, and Council has a responsibility to look at both sides of the
issue since taxpayers' dollars are involved, and because the City has been
requested to spend $900,000.00 over the course of less than two years to
fund one project.
Hiqher Education Center:
Mr. Bestpitch referred to a communication from Dr. Thomas McKeon,
President, Roanoke Higher Education Center, in regard to funding for a
capital project. He advised that the Higher Education Center is a state
institution, governed by a Board of Directors, appointed by the General
Assembly, and the City of Roanoke has no input regarding appointments.
He stated that he was not aware of any other localities where state
institutions of higher education are located that provide local funding for
capital projects; however, consideration should be given to the fact that
437
the building is technically owned by a for profit entity which was created
for the purpose of taking advantage of certain historic tax credits; and the
Higher Education Center is not a for profit entity, therefore, the only way
the facility can pay real estate taxes to the City is through operating funds.
He explained that the arrangement with the for profit entity was for a five
year period which will expire in approximately two years, at which time the
property will be deeded over to the State and the City will no longer collect
real estate taxes. He questioned whether the City of Roanoke should
collect real estate taxes on a state operation; the City cannot technically
give the Higher Education Center an exemption from paying real estate
taxes, but the City could provide a grant back to the facility for operation
of the Center in an equivalent amount to what the Higher Education Center
pays in real estate taxes, or approximately $2:~,000.00 per year.
Additionally, he advised that Dr. McKeon referred to certain remodeling
that was done to accommodate the needs of the Blue Ridge Technical
Academy to provide additional classroom space, in which he noted that
because the Higher Education Center did not have actual funding for the
remodeling, rent was collected in advance from the Roanoke City School
System in an amount to cover remodeling costs and no rent was charged
for a certain period of time until the school system caught up. He
suggested that the Higher Education Center and the City's School System
revisit the issue to determine how the Higher Education Center could be
reimbursed for the cost of remodeling the space, and the school system
could request the City to partner with them on a capital project.
Virginia Municipal League:
· , Mr. Bestpitch advised that the Annual Conference of the Virginia Municipal
League will be held in Alexandria in 2004, the 100'h anniversary of the VML
will be held in Richmond in 2005, Virginia Beach in 2006, in James
City/County in 2007 to commemorate the 400th anniversary et the
founding of Jamestown, and in Norfolk in 2008. He requested that Council
support a request for the City of Roanoke to invite the Virginia Municipal
League to return to the City of Roanoke in 2009.
Mr. Bestpitch referred to a communication from R. Michael Amyx,
Executive Director, Virginia Municipal League, commending the City of
Roanoke on a job well done in connection with VML Host City Night which
was held on October 20, 2003, on the Roanoke City Market.
438
Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitor's Bureau:
Council Member Fitzpatrick reported on the Roanoke Valley Convention
and Visitors Bureau and advised that a ribbon cutting ceremony for the
new Visitors Information and Conference Center facility will be held on
November 6 at 10:00 a.m., which represents a milestone for the City of
Roanoke.
Virqinia CARES Board of Directors:
Council Member Wyatt reported on the Virginia CARES Board of Directors
which has experienced a difficult year, funding-wise; and additional funds
were approved by the Governor that enabled Virginia CARES to operate for
at least another six months.
Roanoke Civic Center Commission:
Ms. Wyatt called attention to problems associated with ice that does not
freeze on the Civic Center Coliseum floor prior to Roanoke Express Hockey
games which has become an embarrassment to the City of Roanoke.
· The City Manager advised that she would investigate the matter.
Roanoke Reqional Cable Television Committee:
Council Member Dowe expressed appreciation to Council for adopting the
new franchise with Cox Communications Roanoke.
Personnel Committee:
Council Member Dowe advised that he is the newly appointed Chair of the City
Council's Personnel Committee and also serves on the Roanoke Regional
Chamber of Commerce.
The Hotel Roanoke Conference Center Commission:
Mayor Smith advised that although business is down, The Hotel Roanoke
Conference Center is doing well when compared to other venues across the
state or the country because corporate expenditures have been reduced; room
night occupancy rate for Hotel Roanoke is up and profile events such as the
439
VML Conference increased attendance and usage of the facility. He stated
that the Blacksburg Conference Center and The Hotel Roanoke Conference
Center may be managed by the same management team in the future which
will better Roanoke's ties with Virginia Tech.
The City Manager advised that the following items were discussed by the
Council at its planning retreat on September 5, 2003; however, Council did not
reach a consensus.
· Provide RVTV coverage of informal Council briefings and joint sessions of the
Council with certain Council appointed committees
Brief introduction by the City Manager of items listed under the City
Manager's section of the agenda
Display announcements read by the Mayor at the beginning of the Council
meeting on a screen in the Council Chamber
Televise a summary of the Council meeting on RVTV Channel 3
immediately following each session
Electronic voting by the Mayor and Members of Council as a time saving
measure
Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council that:
Work sessions will not be televised. Meetings to be televised with various
Council appointed committees will be determined in advance, by the
Council, on a case by case basis.
The agenda item number will be read by the Mayor, and the City Clerk will
read the title paragraph of the ordinance or resolution. If the title
paragraph of the measure does not provide an adequate explanation of the
agenda item, the Mayor will provide additional information.
At least 15 minutes prior to each Council meeting a summary of the
Council agenda will be televised on RVTV Channel 3.
Following each Council meeting and prior to the rebroadcast of the
· meeting, a summary of agenda items will be televised by RVTV Channel 3.
(There was no discussion regarding the issue of electronic voting by the Council.)
440
BRIEFINGS:
The City Manager introduced a briefing with regard to traffic calming
activities in the Memorial Avenue/Grandin Road area.
Robert K. Bengtson, Director, Public Works, advised that plans for Grandin
Road improvements (Memorial Avenue to Westover Avenue) have been fully
developed and shared with the Greater Raleigh Court Civic League and the
Grandin Village Merchants, and plans were endorsed by other organizations. In
his presentation, he reviewed plans from various diagrams including widened
sidewalks, curb extensions at corners, new street trees (European Hornbeam and
Crepe Myrtles), stamped crosswalks (colored), and on-street parking.
He further advised that plans for the next phase of Memorial Avenue
(Cambridge Avenue to Grandin Road) have been developed in concept only and
need to be presented to the public; plans were developed to be a continuation of
the Grandin Road improvements, rather than matching the recent changes on
Memorial Avenue (bridge area); the new Memorial Avenue concept includes
widened sidewalks, curb extensions at corners, street trees (Maples), stamped
asphalt crosswalks, gateway features, on street parallel parking, reduction in
entranceways, and coordination with Virginia Heights Elementary School for site
improvements, including retaining wall, fence and school sign; and the new
concept does not include bike lanes.
The City Manager advised that City staff is ready to proceed with the
design, pursuant to approval by Council and availability of funds.
The City Manager introduced a briefing with regard to the Franklin Road
and Elm Avenue interchange.
Mr. Bengtson advised that the Franklin Road and Elm Avenue intersection
was originally designed in anticipation that Franklin Road might one day be
widened south of Elm Avenue, hence, two through travel lanes were built for
southbound traffic approaching the Elm Avenue intersection. He stated that two
options were recently developed that would eliminate one of the through lanes at
this location; of the two, the preferred option widens the existing median area,
thus eliminating the existing left turn lane; the left turn lane can be re-
established in one of the through lanes which leaves one of the existing through
lanes in place to serve through traffic movement; and the median on the south
side of the intersection can likewise be widened and median areas would then be
landscaped. He noted that the other option, which was not selected, was to
eliminate the right turn lane.
441
The City Manager advised that with the concurrence of Council, City staff
will proceed with the modification.
· There being no further business, the Council meeting was declared in
recess to be reconvened at 2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber.
At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, November 3, 2003, the Council meeting
reconvened in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 2].5 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph
K. Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T.
Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt, and Mayor
Ralph K. Smith ...................................................... 7.
ABSENT: None ............................................... O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hack, worth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The meeting was opened with prayer by The Reverend E. T. Burton,
Pastor, Sweet Union Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
PROCLAMATIONS/RECYCLING: The Mayor presented a proclamation
declaring Saturday, November ].5, 2003, as America Recycles Day.
PROCLAMATIONS-LIBRARIES: The Mayor presented a proclamation
declaring Saturday, November ].5, 2003, as Valley Bookrest Day.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by
one motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if
discussion was desired, that item would be removed from the Consent Agenda
and considered separately.
442
MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday,
September 15, 2003, were before the body.
Mr. Harris moved that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and
that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, and
Mayor Smith ........................................................ 6.
NAYS: None .................................................... O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
EASEMENTS-CITY PROPERTY: A communication from the City Manager
advising that pursuant to requirements of the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, Council is required to hold a public hearing on the proposed
conveyance of property rights; whereupon, she requested that Council hold a
public hearing on Monday, November 17, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of Plantation Pipeline
Company for an easement on Official Tax No. 4321020, was before the body.
Mr. Harris moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, and
Mayor Smith ....................................................... 6D
NAYS: None .................................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was notin the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
COMMITTEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: A report of qualification of
Calvin H. Johnson and Thomas G. Powers, Jr., as members of the Roanoke Civic
Center Commission, for terms ending September 30, 2006, was before Council.
443
Mr. Harris moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, and
Mayor Smith ........................................................ 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
COMMI'I-I'EES-HOTEL ROANOKE CONFERENCE CENTER: A report of
qualification of Minnis E. Ridenour as a Commissioner of The Hotel Roanoke
Conference Center Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2005, was before
Council.
Mr. Harris moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, and
Mayor Smith ........................................................ 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
PARKS AND RECREATION-DISABLED PERSONS: John Elliott, President,
Virginia Association of the Blind, Shenandoah Division, addressed Council with
regard to funding for the Therapeutic Division of Roanoke County's Parks and
Recreation V. I. P. Program for the visually impaired. He advised that the City of
Roanoke appropriates $9,800.00 per year for the Roanoke County Therapeutic
Program, $6,600.00 of which is designated for the Visually Impaired Program,
and there appears to be an inequity in funding inasmuch as 40 per cent of
program participants reside in the City of Roanoke.
444
Mr. Chris Smith, a participate of the Visually Impaired Program, advised
that the program is instrumental in arranging for and providing recreational
activities for visually impaired persons which enables them to build, develop and
enlarge their social, physical, and emotional well being. He explained that staff
of the VIP Program organize a monthly luncheon with round trip transportation,
cooking classes, ceramic classes, physical exercise walking classes,
dinner/theater plays, etc.; VIP staff assist participants on a one-on-one basis as
necessary during each class event; the program provides printed materials in an
accessible format, Braille or large print; and staff read programs for various plays
and musicals at theaters and provide a descriptive analysis throughout the event
to increase the content and meaning for visually impaired participants. In
summary, he stated that the Visually Impaired Program is a well balanced and
designed recreational program in the Roanoke area.
Ms. Velma Spangler, 2311 Crystal Spring Avenue, S. W., commended the
work of the staff under the direct supervision of Ms. Betsy Dennis.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the matter would be
referred to the City Manager for report to Council.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPARTMENT OF TECHNOLOGY-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager
introduced John Elie, Director of Technology.
BRIEFINGS: (See pages 21-22)
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
INDUSTRIES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that
Blue Hills Drive, which provides access for industries located in the Roanoke
Center for Industry and Technology (RCIT), has been extended as needed to
serve the various parcels as developed; and an extension to Blue Hills Drive
needs to be completed to allow for industrial access to the remaining parcels in
the RCIT.
It was further advised that Council previously adopted Resolution
No. 36296 050503 requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
provide financing up to $450,000.00, on a matching basis, from the Industrial,
Airport and Rail Access Fund for final extension of Blue Hills Drive; the measure
also authorized the City Manager to execute the necessary documentation to
445
accept funds; the City's request was approved by the Board on September 17,
2003, which approval is of a bonded nature, and means that the City would be
required to pay back any funds received if the required development does not
occur at RCIT; and an account should be established to accept funds received by
the City.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance
appropriating funds to Account No. 008-052-9632-9007 - RCIT Infrastructure
Extension, in the Capital Projects Fund, and establish a revenue estimate in the
same amount.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36535-110303) AN ORDINANCE to establish a revenue estimate and
appropriate funding for the Blue Hills Drive Extension, amending and reordaining
certain sections of the 2003-2004 Capital ProJects Fund Appropriations, and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 185.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36535-110303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .................................................... 0.
LEASES-COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BUILDING: The City Manager
submitted a communication advising that on July 1, 1985, the City began leasing
space in the Commonwealth Building, 210 Church Avenue, S. W., to the
Commonwealth of Virginia, Department of General Services/Division of
Engineering and Buildings; the Department of General Services located several
departments of the Commonwealth on the ground, first, and third floors of the
property; over the years, various departments have moved throughout the
building based on space needed; currently, the Department of Fire Programs is
leasing approximately 4,800 square feet on the first floor and has determined
that current space is more than is needed; and although the current lease will
expire on June 30, 2005, the Department of Fire Programs has expressed a
desire to relocate to a smaller office at a location which is better suited for
accQmmodating large fire safety equipment that is periodically required to park
at the site.
446
It was further advised that the United States General Services
Administration also leases space in the Commonwealth Building for the United
States Bankruptcy Court; The Bankruptcy Court has outgrown its space on the 2nd
floor of the building and desires to expand its operation within the
Commonwealth Building; and The Bankruptcy Court has identified space needs as
being close to the size of the space being vacated by The Department of Fire
Programs.
It was explained that the Department of Fire Programs has requested that
the City amend the current lease agreement, reducing the total footage currently
being leased to the Department of General Services by 4,800 square feet, to
enable the Department of Fire Programs to be relocated to the newly identified
office space; The United States Bankruptcy Court has agreed to begin leasing the
space upon vacation by the Department of Fire Programs and appropriate
renovation of space; and a lease with The Bankruptcy Court will be presented to
Council for approval at a future public hearing.
It was noted that current rent paid by the Department of General Services
for space is $10.51 per square foot per year, for an annual rental amount of
$50,868.40; the General Services Administration's rental rate will be structured
to recover all costs associated with renovation of the space, with a market rate
increase to base rent; based on the loss of The Department of Fire Programs as a
tenant in December 2003, countered by the gain of The Bankruptcy Court as a
tenant in early 2004 with higher rental rates, the net effect on rental revenue is
expected to be neutral for fiscal year 2004, with an increase projected for fiscal
year 2005.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the
Lease Amendment authorizing the Department of General Services to decrease
the amount of space being leased in the Commonwealth Building and permitting
the Department of Fire Programs to vacate the building, effective December 1,
2003.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36536-110303) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the amendment of an
existing lease agreement between the City of Roanoke and the Commonwealth of
Virginia, Department of General Services/Division of Engineering and Buildings,
by reducing the amount of square footage being leased in the Commonwealth
Building located at 210 Church Avenue, S. W.; authorizing the release of the
Lessee from a portion of the leased premises, upon certain terms and conditions,
and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 186.)
447
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36536-110303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-AUDITS-FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of
Finance submitted the Financial Report for the month of September, 2003.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the September
Financial Report would be received and filed.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
NONE.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR, VICE-MAYOR AND
MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL:
CITY COUNCIL-ELECTIONS: Council Member Wyatt called attention to her
campaign for the House of Delegates; whereupon, she expressed appreciation to
her opponents, Gary Bowman and William Fralin, for conducting positive political
campaigns.
CITY COUNCIL-ELECTIONS: Council Member Bestpitch called attention to
the Vaccinate and Vote Campaign through the Community Based Immunization
Project. He advised that on Election Day, November 4, 2004, representatives of
the Vaccinate and Vote Program will be present at 27 of the City's voting
precincts to provide information on the program, and flu vaccinations will be
given from 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., at Preston Park Elementary School.
448
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE: Council Member Bestpitch referred to a
communication from R. Michael Amyx, Executive Director, Virginia Municipal
League, commending the City of Roanoke for its hospitality in hosting the Annual
Conference of the Virginia Municipal League on October 19-2]., 2003. He
advised that pursuant to action of the Council at its 9:00 a.m. work session, the
Virginia Municipal League will be invited to return to the City of Roanoke in 2009.
ARMORY/STADIUM-ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER:
Council Member Bestpitch referred to concerns that have been raised regarding
the land on which the City plans to construct a stadium/amphitheater at Orange
Avenue and Williamson Road. He read an excerpt from a communication from
Faulkner and Flynn, Engineers, stating that, "The scope of the investigative work,
the extent of the City's removal and the quantitative nature of the risk analysis
performed by the City of Roanoke on this site far exceeds the general criteria for
performing an environmental assessment in accordance with industry standards.
The City of Roanoke has demonstrated with a high degree of certainty th~.t the
subject site does not and will not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or
the environment".
Mr. Bestpitch advised that according to scientific evidence, there is no
health risk associated with people who will use the stadium/amphitheater site at
Orange Avenue and Williamson Road, and no health risk to persons who live as
far away as the other side of 1-581. He stated that unless someone can produce
scientific evidence to the contrary, he will rely on the advice of experts who have
spent a considerable amount of time and effort working on the site, involving
more than that which is typically associated with an environmental assessment.
FIRE DEPARTMENT-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Mayor referred to questions
regarding new security alarm permit requirements of the City. He stated that
Council previously authorized a fee relative to false alarms under certain
conditions, but he was not aware of the provision for a $25.00 fee for the first
call and $20.00 annually thereafter.
The City Manager advised that two false alarm ordinances were adopted by
the Council, one with regard to alarms responded to by the Fire Department and
a second for alarms responded to by the Police Department, both of which
contain a registration fee for a business activity, effective January 1, 2004;
therefore, the notification and education period has commenced. She called
attention to provisions for a fee for false alarms following a certain number of
raise"alarms within any given calendar year, and advised that a copy of the report
detailing the proposed revisions will be forwarded to Council.
449
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard, and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for any necessary and
appropriate response, recommendation or report to Council.
ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. John E. Kepley, 2902 Morrison Avenue, S. E.,
inquired as to Council's reasons for voting to construct a new sports complex,
which will ultimately result in the tearing down of the present Victory Stadium;
how much do the plans for the new Bio Tech Research Center play in the
Council's decisions; how much does Carilion Health System play in the equal, ion;
does Carilion want the land on which Victory Stadium now stands; were funds
and other benefits given to certain Council Members during past Councilmanic
elections in order to influence their votes; why did Council Member Fitzpatrick
and Vice-Mayor Harris vote to reconsider the matter; and why did Council
Member Fitzpatrick and Vice-Mayor Harris not fight to save Victory Stadium. He
stated that Council Member Dowe's vote was considered to be the swing vote,
which sealed the decision for the new complex, whereupon, he questioned
whether Mr. Dowe's vote was politically motivated. He advised that if Victory
Stadium is torn down, the City will be destroying the heritage of thousand's of
Roanokers.
Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 929 Loudon Avenue, N. W., presented a document
with regard to a complete investigation for all wrong doings and that actions are
taken on behalf for the citizens and the work force. He would like to be
presented by the City to the Circuit Court and suggested that the document he
submitted to the Circuit Court.
He advised that more taxes are being imposed on the citizens of Roanoke,
people are moving out of the City, Roanoke is becoming less and less ofavibrant
city, the City spent $300,000.00 on a branding design that could have been done
by local high students for $1,000.00 - $5,000.00; and the City's work force is
not adequately compensated for their work.
COMPLAINTS-CITY GOVERNMENT: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 929 Loudon
Avenue, N. W., appeared before Council and submitted the following request:
"On behalf of the Citizens of Roanoke and the City work force, the following have
been requested: For a Spiritual inquisition on Roanoke City Council and
appointed personnel to be present to discuss issues on how the City of Roanoke
is being miss managed and how the City Treasure is being used. A demand has
been requested for a complete investigation for all wrong doings and that actions
are taken on behalf of the citizens and the work force. That a Spiritual
deposition be given to put "Gods" salvation in place".
450
ARMORY/STADIUM: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., referred
to the decision of Council to construct a stadium/amphitheater at the Orange
Avenue and Williamson Road site which will lead to dire economic and health
consequences for future adults and their children, because the $18 million
recreation and entertainment facility will be constructed on an incompletely
tested hazardous waste field. She stated that the proposed
stadium/amphitheater site, in its entirely, has not been tested and may not be
free of all hazardous materials, yet excavation continues by persons who are not
qualified to evaluate contaminated material. She stated that it will not take that
much more time or money on the part of the City to ensure for future
generations of Roanokers that the facility is constructed on a safe and
environmentally tested site.
COUNCIL: The Mayor advised that earlier in the day, Council Members
discussed various suggestions in regard to how Council might communicate
agenda items in a better way to those citizens watching the proceedings on
RVTV, Channel 3 whereupon, he invited citizens to share their suggestions for
improvements.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager recommended that City offices be
closed on December 26, 2003 and January 1, 2004.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution:
(36537-:~10303) A RESOLUTION closing certain City offices on Friday,
December 26, 2003, the day after Christmas, and Friday, January 2,200a, the
day after New Year's; and providing for additional holiday leave for all City
employees.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 188.)
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36537-110303. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
At 3:05 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for one briefing
and one Closed Session.
451
At 3:10 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Council's Conference
Room for a briefing on boundary line adjustments with all Members of the
Council in attendance, Mayor Smith presiding.
BOUNDARY LINE ADJUSTMENTS: The City Manager advised that Roanoke
County has approached the City of Roanoke with a proposed boundary
adjustment for several properties - Vinyard Park and Rockydale Quarries; the
Roanoke County Administrator and the City Manger have discussed adjusting the
boundary line between the County and the City to benefit both jurisdictions;
boundary adjustments consist of the following: (1) moving 57.88 acres of
Vinyard Park from the City to the County, (2) moving 7.02 acres of land owned by
Rockydale Quarries from the County to the City, and (3) moving approximately
38 acres of land associated with the Roanoke Regional Water Pollution Control
Plant from the County to the City.
Vinyard Park - Roanoke County owns two parcels of land located
within City boundaries; the two parcels are in the area that is used
by the County as a public park and soccer field (Vinyard Park); and
adjusting the boundary line for the 57.88 acres places the Vinyard
Park parcels within Roanoke County, thus consolidating the park
land within one municipality.
Rockydale Quarries - The bulk of the Rockydale Quarries facility is located
in the City, 4754 Old Rocky Mount Road; however, as the result of an exchange
transaction with the Parkway several years ago, Rockydale Quarries acquired a
7.2 acre parcel of land which is located within Roanoke County; in this portion of
the Valley, the Parkway serves as the dividing line between the City and the
Cou~y; the boundary adjustment would, in effect, establish the Blue Ridge
Parkway as the dividing buffer between the City and the County, as well as
consolidate Rockydale Quarries Corporation facility property within one
municipality.
Mr. Bestpitch advised that he did not object to the recommendation of the
City Manager; however, he did not understand some of the verbiage in the
communication which could reappear in some form as the process moves
forward. In regard to Rockdale Quarries, he stated that the communication states
that," in this portion of the valley the Parkway serves as a dividing line between
the City and the County% which is confusing because the City's boundary does
not extend all the way down to the Parkway. Therefore, he stated that it would
appear that some clarification is in order.
Mr. Fitzpatrick cautioned that Norfolk Southern should be used on all
documents in lieu of Norfolk and Southern Railroad.
452
The Mayor spoke to the importance of open communication with the
citizens of the above referenced areas.
The Mayor inquired if there were objections by Council to the proposal
presented by the City Manager, to which no Member of Council expressed a
concern or objection.
At 3:30 p.m., the Council convened in Closed Session in the Council's
Conference Room.
At 3:45 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with all
Members of the Council in attendance, Mayor Smith presiding.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded,
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his
or her knowledge that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from
open meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and
(2) only such public business matters as were identified in any motion by which
any Closed Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City
Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt,
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
COMMI~-rEES-LIBRARIES-OATHS OF OFFICE: The Mayor advised that there
is a vacancy on the Roanoke Public Library Board created by the death of Betty B.
Parrott, for a term ending June 30, 2006; whereupon, he opened the floor for
nominations.
Mr. Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Sam G. Oakey, III.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Oakey was appointed as a
member of the Roanoke Public Library Board to fill the unexpired term of Betty B.
Parrott, deceased, ending June 30, 2006, by the following vote:
FOR MR. OAKEY: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, Wyatt, and Mayor Smith ......................................... 7.
COMMITTEES-YOUTH: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the
Youth Services Citizen Board; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations.
453
Mr. Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Juan D. Motley.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Motley was appointed as a
member of the Youth Services Citizen Board, for a term ending May 31, 2006, by
the following vote:
FOR MR. MOTLEY: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,
Harris, Wyatt and Mayor Smith ......................................... 7.
At 3:50 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess until Friday,
November 14, 2003, at 12:00 noon, at the Salem Civic Center, Parlor C,
1001 Boulevard, Salem, Virginia, for the Regional Leadership Summit with
General Assembly Representatives.
The City Council meeting reconvened on Friday, November 14, 2003, at
12:00 noon at the Salem Civic Center, Parlor C, 1001 Boulevard, Salem, Virginia,
for a meeting of representatives of the Regional Leadership Summit.
PRESENT: Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., and Mayor Ralph K.
Smith .............................................................. 2.
ABSENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson Harris and Linda F. Wyatt ...................... 5.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; and Sheila N.
Hartman, Assistant City Clerk.
Also present were: Senator John S. Edwards, Senator-electJ. Brandon Bell,
Delegate H. Morgan Griffith, Delegate Ward L. Armstrong, Delegate-elect William
H. Fralin, Jr.; Wayne G. Strickland, Secretary, Fifth Planning District Regional
Alliance; and members of City Councils/Boards of Supervisors and staff of the
following localities: Alleghany County, Botetourt County, Franklin County,
Roanoke County, City of Covington, City of Roanoke, City of Salem, Town of
Clifton Forge, Town of Rocky Mount and Town of Vinton.
Wayne G. Strickland, Secretary, Fifth Planning District Regional Alliance,
congratulated members-elect to the General Assembly, and referred to the
Regional Legislative Agenda as follows:
454
EDUCATION: Joeseph McNamara, Chairman, Roanoke County Board of
Supervisors, stated that the General Assembly should fully fund the Standards of
Quality (SOQ's), and that the Commonwealth has an obligation to fund the
Standards of Quality on the basis of realistic costs - - reflecting actual
educational practices to include capital, operating and maintenance costs.
TAXING AND FUNDING: Mayor Carl E. "Sonny" Tarpley, Jr., City of Salem,
stated that the General Assembly should eliminate the distinction in taxing
authority of Virginia's cities and counties; counties should possess the same
authority as cities to levy taxes on tobacco products, lodging, meals and
admissions; the Tax Commission has recommended elimination of the distinction
in taxing authority; and the General Assembly should not limit or restrict existing
local revenue sources.
W. Wayne Angell, Chairman, Franklin County Board of Supervisors, stated
that the Commonwealth should to move aggressively to reform its tax system,
inasmuch as two study commissions have been established to examine the
problem of funding state and local governments, without any major movement
toward tax reform. He further stated that a new Tax Code Study Commission
was recently established, the General Assembly should encourage the
Commission to complete its work and act on the Commission's recommendations
to ensure that Virginia's tax system is fair and aligns service delivery
responsibilities with revenue sources at the state and local level. He added that
Franklin County collected real estate and personal property taxes of
approximately $21.5 million, but the amount did not equal their local allocation
for schools of $23,028,000.00. He expressed Franklin County's willingness to be
of assistance in working through the difficult task of tax reform.
Mayor Temple L. Kessinger, Jr., City of Covington, stated that funding for
Virginia's Regional Competitiveness Program (RCP) was eliminated in 2002, and
the General Assembly should to fund this important program. He further stated
that the Commonwealth established the RCP in 1996 and more than 227 regional
projects throughout Virginia have been supported by RCP funds, each dollar
being leveraged with $19 of non-state funds; and that Roanoke Valley-Alleghany
region RCP funds have been used to support regional industrial parks, workforce
development/education, tourism and infrastructure development.
455
LOCAL AUTHORITY: Mayor Kessinger stated that the General Assembly
should not pass legislation that takes away local government authority over land
use issues; for example, legislation may be considered in an upcoming session
that will require manufactured housing to be permitted ~by right" in all
residential zoned districts, and such legislation would directly affect the power of
local councils and boards to control land use in their communities. He further
stated that each locality should make decisions based upon what is best for their
locality and encourage legislators to leave land use decisions to the individual
localities.
TRANSPORTATION: Stephen P. Clinton, Chairman, County of Botetourt,
stated that the General Assembly should require VDOT to identify a funding
mechanism to expedite the widening improvements to 1-81, inasmuch as 1-81 is
the economic lifeblood of Western Virginia and improvements to the highwaywill
enhance safety and promote the economy of this region; communities in Western
Virginia cannot wait 40-50 years for widening of 1-81 to take place since the area
of 1-81 in Botetourt County is considered to be one of the deadliest stretches of
roadway, with 19 lives having been lost in 2001 alone. He stated that North
Carolina intends to widen 1-95 at a cost $3 billion and will use tolls to help offset
the cost, and the project will create a large number of jobs in that area. He
further stated that he was aware that resolutions have been adopted by local
jurisdictions supporting the rails initiative, but economic and technological
benefits have yet to be proven, and requested that legislators not loose sight of
the capacity and safety needs of 1-81. In addition, he stated that the General
Assembly should fund the Smart Road with funds other than those allocated for
the Salem Transportation District, since this highway facility represents an
economic benefit for the entire Commonwealth and the nation and, as such,
should not come solely from this region's highway allocation.
Mayor Ralph K. Smith, City of Roanoke, stated that the Commonwealth
should plan for development of rail freight along 1-81 to complement the
widening of the interstate, with the purpose of moving a large volume of the
long-distance freight traffic from trucks to freight trains on dual high-speed rails
parallel to 1-81; the General Assembly should fund implementation of passenger
rail service in the Roanoke to Bristol corridor; and rail service would provide a
good multi-modal addition to highways and airports currently serving the region.
He stated that localities are in favor of both freight and passenger rail service
in the area, but this initiative should not slow down the improvements to i-81.
He further stated that localities want their fair share of funding from state
government; and tax restructuring could be achieved by all localities agreeing to
456
be revenue neutral and becoming more efficient in the tax system. He
mentioned that AirTran has a website and requests input from citizens as to
where they would like air service next, and requested that interested parties go
to the website and type 'Roanoke' in the 'other' category.
Mayor Donald L. Davis, Town of Vinton, stated that localities need help on
important issues of the region and requested that they be given the authority to
do their jobs and the funds to serve their citizens; and asked that legislators
proceed to get things accomplished and to work together as a team to bring
funds and improvements to the western part of the state.
COMMENTS BY LEGISLATORS:
Senator John S. Edwards stated that the Governor has advised that ~.here
needs to be an additional $525 million added to public education to stay even;
$1 billion of new money is needed in the bi-annual budget to stay even; colleges
need $397+ million to make up for erosion of state funding; the state is not
investing as it should to ensure prosperity; the state is in the worst fiscal crisis
since World War II, and the General Assembly is not responding as it should; 34
jurisdictions agree that improvements need to be made to 1-81, in addition to
rail initiatives; a Bill will be considered creating an authority to study
transportation issues; the cost of freight rail service could be offset by a
surcharge on freight; freight rail service would reduce the number of large trucks
on 1-81 which start in one state and end in another, making Virginia a "bridge
state", and these trucks do nothing for Virginia's economy.
Senator-elect J. Brandon Bell requested that representatives of various
localities provide information to him by December 17, 2003, inasmuch as the
budget must be presented to the General Assembly on December 20, 2003; he
expects to receive considerable information and requests feed back from
representatives as quickly as possible; he will make a reserved judgment in
considering issues brought to the General Assembly that might be beneficial or
detrimental to Southwest Virginia; and he will try to align himself with committee
assignments that are open to him, especially a seat on the Transportation
Committee, so as to maintain the balance that previously existed with
representation throughout the state.
Delegate H. Morgan Griffith referred to the handout setting forth the
calendar for reviewing bills and stated that he supports streamlining the process
for reviewing bills introduced to the General Assembly, and reducing the number
of bills from 3,200 to about 2,800 bills per year. He cautioned that there will be
challenging years ahead; inflation is an issue; the budget has grown in ten years
fromunder $30 billion to about $52 billion; adownturn in the economy changed
funding projections; and he supports re-benchmarking the SOQ's. He stated that
457
he supports a rail component, but not at the abandonment of widening 1-81, as
population growth demands improvements; freight rail service will help address
the problem of freight trucks traveling from Georgia to New York, but Virginia is
also an important distribution state, and local trucking companies cannot be
overlooked. He further stated that there is a watch list and he does not want to
create too many authorities that will not have the full faith and credit of the
Commonwealth behind their bonds, wherein could cause the loss of AAA bond
rating; he is not in immediate agreement concerning passenger rail service in the
Roanoke Valley, but as a realist, he knows that there must exist a society and a
population mass within the corridor being served by the rails to make it feasible
and, for business reasons, he would place the matter on the back burner until it
is shown that there will be enough support to make passenger rail service i~ the
area feasible. He added that another problem is the taxing authority for cities
and counties, rural counties do not operate the same as cities, for example,
VDOT takes care of snow removal for counties, but cities must remove and pay
for their own snow removal. He agreed that taxing authority must be reviewed
as a comprehensive package and suggested that representatives via the Internet,
to watch for bills that may affect their localities, to familiarize themselves with
the bills and to contact him as soon as possible so that amendments may be
submitted as bills are considered and voted upon; and requested that
representatives use the direct telephone line to his office rather than the toll free
number.
(For full text, see Joint Rules Committee Calendar for the balance of 2003 and for
the 2004 General Assembly Session on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
Delegate Ward L. Armstrong stated that the SOQ's are grossly
underfunded; 1-81 improvements will be a tough fight; the Southwestern Virginia
delegation to the General Assembly must begin to think and work regionally
because delegates from the Northern Virginia, Tidewater and Richmond areas
make up 75% of the total number of delegates; the Governor's tax reform plan
will soon be unveiled and some localities will gain and some will loose; $! billion
must be cut from the budget in addition to the $5 billion which was previously
cut, making a total of $6 billion to be cut over a period of three years, with all
cuts coming from non-education areas; and it is not believed that significant
relief will come from the General Assembly; however, with the economy
appearing to be turning around, state revenues may begin to change by January
2005. He further stated that while Virginia is a Iow tax state, the temptation to
raise taxes, as well as to lower taxes, should be resisted; the situation with 1-81
must be addressed inasmuch as it is the most dangerous roadway in the
Commonwealth of Virginia and perhaps the nation; he does not foresee
sufficient funds being made available in the next two years to address the rail
issue; and he looks forward to working with area delegates for the bettermel-~t of
Southwest Virginia.
458
Delegate-elect William H. FralinJr. stated that he is excited about the
opportunity to work with other representatives in the district; area
representatives must stick together on issues, considering the influence of
Northern Virginia; he would like to work in partnership with other legislators for
the benefit of Southwestern Virginia and to address cultural issues affecting the
area; he looks at this area of Virginia as the uSouthwest Virginia Team",
representing and working for the same citizens; and requested that citizens
contact him at his direct telephone number (540) 776-7499.
OTHER BUSINESS/ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Mr. Strickland stated that there will be a Mayors and Chairs meeting in
December, 2003, at a date and location to be announced at a later date.
There
Roanoke City Council adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting of
APPROVED
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Mayor
459
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION--ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
November 17, 2003
2:00 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
November 17, 2003, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the City Council
Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue,
S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to
Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of
Procedure, Rule 1, Regular Meetings, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended.
PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.,
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch,
and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ............................................. 7.
ABSENT: NONE ................................................ 0.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend Charles Calloway,
Pastor, Maple Street Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS:
CITIZEN OF THE YEAR: Mr. Harris offered the following resolution
recognizing AIphonzo L. Holland, Sr., as City of Roanoke 2003 Citizen c;' the
Year:
(#36538-111703) A RESOLUTION naming Alphonzo L. Holland, Sr., as
Roanoke's Citizen of the Year for the year 2003.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 189.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36538-11~703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
46O
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .................................................... 0.
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: On behalf of the Members of Council and citizens
of the City of Roanoke, the Mayor advised that he was pleased to recognize the
Director of Finance and his staff upon receipt of Excellence in Financial Reporting
Awards by the Government Finance Officers Association of the United States and
Canada relative to the City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report and the
Annual Financial Report for the City's Pension Plan for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2002. He stated that the awards represent the highest standards in
governmental accounting and financial reporting.
PROCLAMATIONS: The Mayor presented a proclamation declaring
November, 2003 as Home Care and Hospice Month.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by
one motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda and if discussion
was desired, that item would be removed from the Consent Agenda and
considered separately. He called specific attention to one request for a closed
session to discuss vacancies on boards and commissions.
MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday,
October 6, 2003, and recessed until Friday, October 17, 2003; the special
meeting of Council held on Wednesday, October 15, 2003; and the regular
meeting of Council held on Thursday, October 23, 2003, were before the body.
(For full text, see Minutes on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with
and that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Mr.
Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
461
COMMI~-FEES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor Ralph K. Smith
requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on
certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was
before the body.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. O.
COMMItTEES-BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE: A communication
from S. James Sikkema, Executive Director, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare,
advising that the term of office of John M. Hudgins, Jr., as an at-large member of
the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, will expire on
December 31, 2003, was before Council.
It was further advised that according to §37.1-196, Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, Community Services Board members are eligible to serve
three full three-year terms of office; therefore, it is requested that Council, atify
the reappointment of Mr. Hudgins for a second term of office, commencing
January 1, 2004 and ending December 31, 2006.
It was explained that the by-laws of Blue Ridge Behavioral Hea, lthcare
require that appointments of at large Board members be ratified by all
Community Service Board participating localities.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the reappointment of John M.
Hudgins, Jr., as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
462 -
COMMI~-rEES-SCHOOLS: A communication from Michael F. Urbanski
tendering his resignation as a member of the Virginia Western Community
College Board, was before Council.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council accept the resignation and receive and
file the communication. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
COMMI~I'EES-PARKS AND RECREATION-GREENWAY SYSTEM: A
communication from Brian Shepard tendering his resignation as a member of the
Parks and Recreation Advisory Board and the Roanoke Valley Greenway
Commission, was before Council.
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that Council accept the resignation and receive and
file the communication. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
COMMI~-FEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER-INDUSTRIES-ARCHITECTURAL
REVIEW BOARD: The following reports of qualification were before Council:
Debbie Conner as a member of the Roanoke Civic
Center Commission, for a term ending September 30,
2006;
F. Gordon Hancock as a Director of the Industrial
Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, for a
term ending October 20, 2006; and
Jon Stephenson as a member of the Architectural Review
Board, for a term ending October 1, 2007. --
453
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved that the report of qualification be received and filed.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: Paul Dotson, Realtor, MKB Realtors, and
Glenn Rosendahl, Financial Director, College Lutheran Church, Salem, Virginia,
advised that a lot on Manning Road, N. W., was recently donated to
College Lutheran Church; however, when the Church attempted to sell the lot it
was discovered that no septic system or sewer system currently serves Manning
Road. Under the City's newly established sewer line policy, he stated that City
staff advises that it would cost approximately $50,000.00 to install a sewer
system to serve the lot in question, with the City funding one half of the cost and
the property owner funding the other one half; however, the value of the lot
donated to the Church is $13,500.00, therefore, it would be counter productive
for the Church to invest $25,000.00 for a sewer line to serve the lot. He
requested that Council authorize a special permit to allow construction of a
septic tank on the lot donated to College Lutheran Church on Manning Road.
The City Manager presented a map of the area under discussiop and
advised that the lot which was donated to the Church is located at the end of a
site where it is estimated that it would cost approximately $50,000.00 to
construct a sewer line; the sewer line would pass two undeveloped lots and five
lots that currently have septic tanks, and, pursuant to policy adopted by Council
several months ago, not only would the two vacant lots be required to connect to
the sewer system upon development, but if and when septic tanks currently
serving the five lots fail, owners of the lots will be required to connect to the
public sewer. She stated that the map indicates that approximately 60 acres
could be served by a sewer line in the area and City staff has not determined if
the other lots are developable in other ways. She explained that under current
provisions adopted by Council, the City could participate at the 50 per cent level,
or authorize installation of a septic tank, and given that there are a number of
lots that could be served by a sewer extension, she has been unwilling to
indicate that a septic tank could be installed on the lot. She suggested that the
City Attorney prepare a measure for consideration by Council to provide that the
City of Roanoke will bear the total cost of the sewer line extension and prorate
464
costs against those lots that could be served by the sewer line; since
approximately eight lots are involved, the cost would be in the range of
$6,500.00 per lot which is comparable to the cost of a septic tank installation;
and as other lots come on line, or as septic tanks fail, property owners could be
assessed the appropriate amount for connecting to the sewer line. Given the fact
that the Council has expressed an interest in eliminating septic tanks in the City,
she advised that the above referenced suggestion would be the most favorable
alternative.
There was discussion in regard to the time frame for construction of the
sewer line; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the sewer line could be
constructed within approximately nine months.
Following discussion with regard to the potential benefit to other lots in
the area, in which it was noted that assuming it will cost $50,000.00 to extend
the sewer line approximately 1200 feet, the next 1200 feet would most likely not
amount to another $50,000.00; therefore, it would be to the City's advantage to
look at the potential benefit to other development in the area.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the matter would be
referred to the City Manager for report to Council with regard to including the
entire 60 acre area in the recommended sewer line extension.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
SCHOOLS-EQUIPMENT: The City Manager submitted a communication
advising that in the past, the City has held a semi-annual auction of surplus
property; an average of 85% of proceeds of the sale has been from vehicles and
heavy equipment; in 2002, vehicles/heavy equipment sales totaled $76,525.00
for 46 pieces of equipment; miscellaneous sales, items other than vehicles and
heavy equipment, totaled $13,894.00 in 2002; in mid July 2003, the City began
using an on-line auction (eSurplusAuction.com) to sell vehicles and heavy
equipment; and the City has received $112,000.00 for 43 items, including
vehicles and other pieces of equipment through on-line auction in the first
quarter of sales.
465
It was further advised that with the closure of the warehouse and building
of the new salt barn at the Public Works Service Center, there is no convenient
space for storage and sale of miscellaneous surplus items, such as desks, chairs,
file cabinets, etc; sales of miscellaneous surplus have been less than $14,000.00
annually; and annual cost for surplus sales, excluding the auctioneer's
percentage, is almost $5,000.00, including approximately $2,000.00 for
advertising.
It was explained that the Roanoke City Public Schools (RCPS) also holds
semi-annual auctions of surplus property, and has space for storage of surplus
property; by combining City and Schools miscellaneous surplus, duplicate
advertising costs of approximately $2,000.00 per year would be eliminated,
producing higher net income; and the school system has agreed at an
administrative level to follow the outlined proposal in regard to disposition of
surplus property:
Reallocate to City departments.
Attempt to sell vehicles and other items of significant value on the
internet, or by other appropriate means.
Give usable surplus personal property, not disposed of above, to
Roanoke City Public Schools (RCPS) subject to RCPS accepting the
property. RCPS will have the right to decide whether to accept
individual items of surplus property. The decision ofwhetheror not
the Schools will accept the property will be made before transporting
the property to the RCPS storage facility. RCPS will store the
property and dispose of it as they wish from there, including the sale
of the surplus property.
Any surplus property not disposed of as above described will be
disposed of by sending it to the landfill, or other proper disposal
facility, or the property may be recycled, or given to an entity that
may be able to use it.
~t was noted that disposal of surplus property in some other way than
outlined above may be done only by separate action of Council; i.e.: a gift of
surplus property to another public body, or to a non-profit agency, will require
action by Council.
The City Manager recommended that Council approve the above described
disposition of surplus property policy, provided that Council may dispose of any
City surplus property in a manner other than that which is above set forth and as
may be deemed appropriate by Council.
466 -
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36539-111703) A RESOLUTION setting forth a policy for the disposition
of City Surplus Tangible Personal Property.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 190.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36539-111703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
HARRISON HERITAGE CENTER-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY: The City
Manager submitted a communication advising that Total Action Against Poverty
(TAP) has requested funds from the City to support the renovation and equipping
of the Dumas Center for Artistic Development; in July 2002, the original cost of
the project was $4,098,184.00; since that time, the budget has increased to
$4,861,496.00 as the result of a separate addition for the Harrison Museum; the
Project is to be funded from a variety of sources; initially the City was requested
to provide $500,000.00 in project funding over three fiscal years beginning in
fiscal year 2002-2003, which request was later modified to allow funding to be
phased beginning in fiscal year 2003-2004 over a period of five fiscal years; City
staff recommended that the $500,000.00 request be funded in a similar fashion
to the Grandin Theater project, with $100,000.00 being provided each year over
five years, beginning with fiscal year 2003-2004; and funding would be provided
by agreement as approved by Council, subject to the following provisions:
Certification of the availability of matching funds;
City funds will be used solely for the construction project, and not
for operation of the Dumas Center;
No future operational support for the Dumas Center will be
requested from the City;
The Dumas Center would continue to be operated as a community
arts and cultural center;
TAP will pay the City real estate taxes on the Center, as assessed by
the City;
467
The Dumas Center will not be sold or conveyed to another entity
without the prior written consent of the City; and
If the Dumas Center is sold within the five years of the agreement to
other than a non-profit entity, the City will recover its capital
investment from the proceeds of the sale.
It was further advised that funding will be appropriated annually from the
Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program, which has already
been done for fiscal year 2003-2004, with funding available in Account No. 008-
310-9799-9132.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to enter into an
agreement with Total Action Against Poverty, in a form to be approved by the
City Attorney, to renovate and equip the Dumas Center for Artistic Development.
Mr. Harris offered the following ordinance:
(#36540-111703) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to enter
into an agreement between the City of Roanoke and Total Action Against Poverty
in Roanoke Valley, Inc., to renovate and equip the Dumas Center for Artistic
Development, and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 192.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36540-111703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. £., inquired as to the amount of
funds requested by Total Action Against Poverty, and whether funds will be used
specifically for a separate addition for the Harrison Museum of African-American
Culture.
It was clarified that TAP and the Harrison Museum have requested an
additional $400,000.00 to be specifically dedicated for a new addition to the
older building, or 100 per cent for the Harrison Museum; however, the Ordinance
currently before the Council provides a mechanism to implement Council's
earlier agreement to provide $500,000.00 over five years for renovating and
equipping the Dumas Center for Artistic Development.
468 -
Ordinance No. 36540-111703 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. O.
FLOOD REDUCTION/CONTROL: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that utility relocation is a part of the Roanoke River
Flood Reduction Program, which is being designed by the Corps of Engineers;
and on March 18, 1991, the City entered into a contract with Hayes, Seay,
Mattern and Mattern, Inc., for work, including design of all relocations required
by the Flood Reduction Program.
It was further advised that due to steep river banks near Hamilton Terrace
and Belleview Avenue, S. E., it is necessary to realign a portion of Piedmont Street
near its intersection with Hamilton Terrace and a portion of Hamilton Terrace,
near its intersection with Belleview Avenue, to accommodate the proposed
greenway which is a part of the Flood Reduction Project; part of the proposed
realignment will allow the proposed greenway to connect to the new pedestrian
bridge over the Roanoke River constructed by Carillon; and cost to design
realignments will be $31,212.00.
The City Manager explained that approval by Council is required inasmuch
as the amount of the amendment, combined with two prior amendments, exceed
25 per cent of the contract amount initially allocated for the project; and funding
is available in Capital Projects Fund, Account No. 08-056-9620, Roanoke River
Flood Reduction.
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute
Amendment No. 1A3, in the amount of $31,212.00, to the contract with Hayes,
Seay, Mattern and Mattern, Inc., for the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Utility
Relocation Project.
469
Mr. Harris offered the following resolution:
(#36541-111703) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager's issuance
of Amendment No. 1A3 to the City's contract with Hayes, Seay, Mattern &
Mattern, Inc., for designing realignments for a portion of Piedmont Street near its
intersection with Hamilton Terrace, S. E., and with a portion of Hamilton Terrace,
S. E., near its intersection with Belleview Avenue, S. E., to accommodate the
proposed greenway which is part of the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 193.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36541-111703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: NONE ................................................... 0.
ZONING: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that
currently, the Zoning Ordinance provides for a single definition of a medical
clinic, defining such as "an establishment which officers medical - or health -
related counseling or treatment (including diagnosis), including dental, optical
and psychiatric treatment where treatment is offered by more than two licensed
professional medical practitioners."
It was further advised that as indicated by the definition, this use broadly
covers a wide range of medical specialties and practices; while most medical
facilities and clinics have similar physical, functional, and land use
characteristics, there are other types of facilities that, by nature of their
operational and functional needs or characteristics, could have potential adverse
impacts on adjacent land uses; and certain medical clinics which provide services
for drug and alcohol abuse or treatment of mental illness have the potential to
exhibit operational hours, parking needs, and security measures that are unique
unto themselves and are not shared by other medical clinic facilities as
contemplated by the City's current zoning ordinance definition.
The City Manager explained that to address potential adverse impacts of
some types of medical clinics as currently defined by the Zoning Ordinance, one
alternative would be to maintain the current broad definition of medical clinics,
and to regulate the facilities by Special Exception, as opposed to the manner in
470
which they are regulated today, either by Special Exception, or "by Right"
depending on the applicable zoning district; this option, however, while
sufficiently addressing new locations, would result in allowing any existing
medical clinic location to change its medical specialty or type of practice without
obtaining a Special Exception.
It was advised that in order to better define and to regulate certain types of
medical clinics which tend to exhibit unique functional and operational
characteristics, a new definition is proposed to be added to the Zoning
Ordinance, as follows:
"Outpatient Mental Health and Substance Abuse Clinic: An
establishment which provides outpatient services related to the
treatment of mental health disorders, alcohol, or other drug or
substance abuse disorders including the dispensing and
administering of controlled substances and pharmaceutical products
by licensed professional medical practitioners."
It was explained that the proposed amendments will provide a specific
process or the review and approval of these types of medical facilities, including
general public notice of such proposed use, notification of abutting property
owners, and a public hearing by the Board of Zoning Appeals; and this option
allows for retention of the current definition and regulation of other types of
medical clinics as originally contemplated by the Zoning Ordinance.
The City Manager advised that the City of Roanoke recently became aware
of a plan by a specific company to establish a methadone clinic within the City
limits, and specifically at a location off Hershberger Road, N. W.; when the City
first became aware of the proposal, City staff immediately contacted the
appropriate State department to determine the status of any application; and it
was determined that there is no requirement for the State to advise localities
when an application is made for such purpose. She explained that under the
City's current zoning regulations, there is a requirement for special exception for
certain medical clinics in the C-1 and CN Districts, but no such requirement
applies to the C-2 District where the applicant is currently considering the
location of a methadone clinic. She pointed out that the proposed clinic does not
have a license at this time from the Commonwealth of Virginia; the applicant has
not completed the application process, the City has not issued a Certificate of
Occupancy for the facility; and City staff has attempted to contact representatives
of the methadone clinic, who are in the process of exercising a lease on the
property. In view of the fact that as a community, the City of Roanoke did not
receive notice, or have an opportunity to comment on the type of clinic, which
presents certain challenges in terms of traffic and other issues, she stated that
an amendment to the zoning ordinance is proposed.
471
The City Manager recommended that Council engage in a joint public
hearing with the City Planning Commission on Monday, December 15, 2003, at
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard. She advised that it
is proposed that this type of operation would be permitted only in the C-2,
General Commercial District, upon issuance of a Special Exception by the Board
of Zoning Appeals; the proposed action is appropriate given the concern of the
community, the Members of Council and the City administration regarding the
placement of these types of facilities; and the City in no way wishes to suggest
that those in need of treatment should not have an appropriate facility in which
to be treated, but it is believed that the location of this type of facility should
come under the purview of the zoning ordinance and specifically the Board of
Zoning Appeals.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#36542-111703) A RESOLUTION initiating on behalf of the Council of the
City of Roanoke, an amendment to §36.1-25, Definitions, and §36.1-204,
Special exception uses, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended,
to permit the establishment of outpatient mental health and substance abuse
clinics as a special exception use in only the C-2, General Commercial District, of
the City of Roanoke.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 194.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36542-111703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch.
There was discussion as to whether all possible situations have been
addressed; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the proposed definition
will address a number of treatments, mental health disorders, alcohol, drug or
substance abuse disorders, and includes the dispensing of medications; Cit~ staff
has attempted to include as many issues as possible, but in a rapidly changing
world, there can be no assurance that all activities have been identified. She
added that the item, which was added to the City's 2004 Legislative Program, will
prompt discussion at the State level about the kinds of activities that should be
reported to localities, and at some time in the future, it may be necessary to
further amend the definition, or to add new definitions.
Brenda Hale, President, Roanoke Branch, NAACP, 3595 Parkwood Drive,
S. W., expressed concern regarding the proposed methadone clinic at 3208
Hershberger Road, N.W. She advised that of paramount concern to the
northwest community is the close proximity of the facility to three schools, the
potential endangerment of children, and a potential increase in drugs and
criminal activity. She stated that individuals must also realize that patients are
entitled to medical treatment for their maladies; demographics of opiate
472
addiction affect individuals of all social and economic conditions; haste to judge
and to condemn is not the answer; patients have the right not to be
discriminated against; in January, 2003, the U. S. District Court, District of
Massachusetts, held that a City ordinance which prohibited the operation of
methadone clinics for individuals with opiate addition violated the Americans
with Disabilities Act; the City of Massachusetts had previously enacted a zoning
ordinance against a center that provided methadone treatment for individuals
with drug additions; the ordinance prohibited the methadone treatment center
from operating within two miles of a school, and because every possible location
was within two miles of a school, the center could not operate in the City; in
contrast, the City of Massachusetts allowed other clinics to operate in business
or industrial zones, and the City of Massachusetts was found to be discriminatory
against drug and alcohol rehabilitation programs, the clients of which are
qualified individuals with a disability; and the City of Massachusetts did not show
that the placement of the methadone clinic in a business or industrial zone
posed a significant risk to the safety of the school community. She called
attention to numerous C-2 zoned buildings in certain areas throughout the City
of Roanoke that are not located near schools; under the Code of Virginia, City
Councils have the authority to regulate operations such as massage and tattoo
parlbrs that are held to stricter regulations; and a pending clinic can be regulated
referencing issues such as hours of operation, number of days authorized to be
open, parking regulations, sanitation, and management of bio hazardous waste,
etc. She asked that the City maintain an open book as issues evolve.
Daniel M. Hale, Jr., 4425 Oleva Street, N. W., President, Middle Court
Neighborhood Association, expressed the shock, dismay and outrage of his
neighborhood organization at the proposal of introducing a methadone
treatment center by the Virginia Treatment Center; and residents are shocked
that an application to dispense methadone in Roanoke City has been on file in
Richmond for over a year, yet City officials had no knowledge of the application
until recently. He stated that residents are dismayed that past and present City
Councils and City Managers have continued to allow Roanoke City generally, and
northwest Roanoke specifically, to be repositories of negative impact social
service programs designed to benefit the greater Roanoke Valley at the expense
of Roanoke City neighborhoods. He expressed concern that the City Planning
Department did not alert the City's Department of Housing and Neighborhood
Services so that neighborhood organizations could be immediately notified of the
proposed methadone clinic on Hershberger Road. He advised that historically in
Roanoke, the neighborhoods of Iow income and mixed minority citizens appear
to be the dumping ground for objectionable initiatives borne of questionable
public policy; therefore, the citizens of northwest Roanoke demand the following
actions from Council: an immediate report detailing the current status and time
line for rewriting the zoning ordinance, direct the City Manager to design and
implement a system to provide early warning to citizens of future social invested
programs as to when they are going to be introduced into Roanoke City
473
neighborhoods, direct the City Manager to compile a list of recommendations
that will maintain and enhance the quality of life in the area of the proposed
clinic and mitigate any negative impact that the clinic might have on the
neighborhood's quality of life which should include recommendations on public
safety, housing, transportation, and health department components, and report
to the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates on neighborhood implications as a
result of the proposed clinic. In closing, he advised that Roanoke's
neighborhoods generally believe that the City Manager has done an outstanding
job in helping to improve living conditions.
Resolution No. 36542~111703 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
COMMI'I-I'EES-LEGISLATION: Council Member William D. Bestpitch, Chair,
Legislative Committee, presented a written report of the Committee, transmitting
the City's proposed 2004 Legislative Program. He advised that six primary
initiatives were adopted in keeping with the City's practice to limit the number of
legislative requests to no more than five-six, in order to concentrate efforts on a
smaller number of issues, the goal of which is to reach a level of success with a
limited number of items. He reviewed the following legislative requests:
"1.
Advisory Public Referenda-There are numerous issues that
may qualify for advisory public referenda in various localities
across the State. The General Assembly is urged to study the
mechanisms currently in place that allow for such referenda
and consider providing a uniform opportunity for citizens in
any locality to be allowed to hold advisory referenda if the
local governing body determines it would be useful to hold
such referenda to best serve its citizens."
Mr. Bestpitch advised that the City of Roanoke currently does not have the
ability to schedule advisory referenda on a number of issues without acquiring
specific legislation from the General Assembly, whereas, other localities in
Virginia have that capability; it was discovered that there are different
requirements from locality to locality, therefore, it is difficult to know which
model would be best for the City of Roanoke; and the City's request is that the
General Assembly will conduct a study of the various mechanisms and determine
a greater degree of uniformity across the state for all localities.
474
"2.
Support for Rail Transportation Development Authority-The
City of Roanoke supports the required re-enactment of SB
1279 from the 2003 General Assembly, which would create
the Rail Transportation Development Authority. This Authority
would be established to finance or assist in the financing of
capital improvements to rail lines and associated facilities."
Mr. Bestpitch advised that legislation was introduced last year by
Roanoke's Senator John Edwards, which legislation is required to come before the
General Assembly for reconsideration in 2004; and, as a railroad town, the City
of Roanoke understands the importance of improving rail capability and the
importance of supporting its Senator on this important initiative.
"3.
Vacant Building Registration Fee-The General Assembly should
amend Section 15.2-1127 of the Code of Virginia to increase
the current permitted registration fee of $25 for vacant
buildings to $250 to assist localities in addressing the
additional costs of fire, police and inspection activities related
to vacant properties."
"4.
Urban Deer Management Program-As a public safety measure,
the General Assembly should amend Section 29.1-521 of the
Code of Virginia to permit the use of baiting to attract deer to
be culled under the conditions of the Urban Deer Management
Program permit issued by the Virginia Department of Game
and inland Fisheries."
"5.
Health Department-The City's Health Department needs an
additional appropriation this year of at least $187,598.00 for
furnishings and rent, and $158,990.00 a year thereafter for
rent so that it can consolidate its operations and move into
the new Human Services Building on Williamson Road."
"6.
Absentee Landlord Representation-Section 55.218.1 of the
Code of Virginia requires property owners who own four or
more units in the Commonwealth of Virginia, but who do not
reside in the Commonwealth themselves, to maintain an agent
who is a resident of the State. It is difficult to serve summons
and other notices on property owners who do not live in the
same locality, delaying action to address blight. The General
Assembly is requested to amend this Code section to require
that the property owner's leasing agent or representative
operate in the same locality as the property or in an adjacent
locality."
475
Mr. Bestpitch called attention to two additional items that were received
following the last meeting of the Legislative Committee; i.e.: a recommendation
by the Interim Director of the Department of Social Services in regard to funding
for the Virginia Initiative for Work, or VIEW Program; however, the item will not
be included in the City's formal Legislative Program, but is an issue that
legislators should be aware of. He advised that a second item pertains to the
licensure and zoning for certain substance abuse treatment facilities, and called
attention to wide spread concern by citizens of the City of Roanoke regarding
the possibility of a methadone treatment clinic on Hershberger Road, N. W, He
explained that the City learned in the past two weeks that the State has been
aware of the possibility of the proposed methadone clinic on Hershberger Road
for a number of months, but the City did not receive information until recently.
He reviewed the following language which is recommended by the Legislative
Committee for inclusion in the City's proposed 2004 Legislative Program:
Notice of Applications for Methadone Clinics-Section 37.1-179.1,
Code of Virginia, should be amended to require the Commissioner of
Mental Health, Mental Retardation, and Substance Abuse to notify
localities of pending applications for methadone dispensing
facilities. The following sentence should be added to Section 37.1-
179.1:
"No license shall be issued to any provider unless and until the
commissioner shall have provided notice to the governing body of
the locality in which such provider will be located, and at least thirty
(30) days time allowed for the governing body to submit comments
to the commissioner on the suitability of the proposed location of
the provider and its conformance to the Iocality's comprehensive
plan."
Mr. Cutler moved that the above referenced item be included as Item No. 7
in the City's 2004 Legislative Program. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt
and adopted.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following resolution approving the City's 2004
Legislative Program, as above amended:
(#36543-111703) A RESOLUTION adopting and endorsing a Legislative
Program for the City to be presented to the City's delegation to the 2004 Session
of the General Assembly.
(For fell text of Resolution, See Resolution Book No. 68, Page 195.)
476
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36543-111703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler.
The Mayor advised that he will vote against the City's 2004 Legislative
Program because it will not be approved in its entirety by the General Assembly.
He referred to the item pertaining to advisory public referenda and advised that
the City is requesting the General Assembly to study those mechanisms currently
in place that allow for a referendum, even though numerous cities and towns in
Virginia currently provide for an advisory referenda; sending the request to the
General Assembly for a study in 2004 will ensure that the item will not pass the
General Assembly in 2004 or 2005 inasmuch as the City is asking that the General
Assembly study the issue and not specifically asking for the privilege of holding
an advisory referenda. He added that the citizens of the City of Roanoke have
stated that they want the privilege, under certain circumstances, of having an
advisory referenda, and the recommendation currently before the Council is a
way to eliminate the possibility of an advisory referenda in the coming year by
asking for a study.
Council Member Fitzpatrick advised that the General Assembly is not likely
to grant the City's request for an advisory referenda until it has a much better
understanding of implications, if any, and even though Council supports an
advisory referenda for citizens of the City of Roanoke, the matter is not likely to
be passed by the General Assembly during the 2004 Session.
Mr. Bestpitch concurred in the remarks of Mr. Fitzpatrick and emphasized
that the process differs from city to city; the City of Roanoke does not have staff
capabilities to perform the study as a City project, compared to the resources that
are available to the State through various State agencies, such as JLARC, etc. He
advised that the majority of the C(Juncil has indicated that it supports a study that
will move toward a more uniform process for localities across the Commonwealth
of Virginia, which would be available to the citizens of every Virginia locality on a
consistent basis, regardless of where they live.
Council Member Wyatt spoke in support of an objective study that will be
fair to the citizens by taking politics out of the decision.
Following further discussion, Mr. Fitzpatrick called for the question. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted, Mayor Smith voting no.
477
Resolution No. 36543-111703 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt and
Bestpitch .................................................................................................. -6.
NAYS: Mayor Smith ........................................................................... 1.
SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting approval of the following appropriations and transfers; and a report of
the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request, was
before the body.
$142,174.00 from the 2003-2004 Capital Maintenance and Equipment
Replacement Fund to provide monies for musical instrument
replacement, physical education equipment, health equipment,
instructional technology equipment, administrative technology
equipment, Magnet School technology equipment, facility
maintenance equipment, custodial equipment, site-based furniture,
maintenance vehicle replacement, food service equipment, and food
service vehicle replacement.
$97,429.00 for the Title I School Improvement program at the
Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and Science; funds will aid the
division in its effort to provide strategies to increase student learning
at schools with a high percentage of free lunch students, which
continuing program is 100 percent reimbursed by Federal funds.
Mr. Bestpitch offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36544-111703) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for equipment
from the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP) and
the School Food Service Fund balance, and to appropriate a federal grant,
amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 School and School
Food Service Funds Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by
title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 197.)
478
Mr. Bestpitch moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36544-111703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
LOANS-SCHOOLS: A communication from the Roanoke City School Board
requesting that Council approve a State Literary Fund loan application, in the
amount of $3.1 million, for improvements to Westside Elementary School,
advising that the loan application includes a resolution for architectural
supervision; and debt service on the loan will increase the School Board's debt
service expenditure by $248,000.00, commencing in fiscal year 2005-06, but no
debt service liability will be incurred until funds are drawn against the loan
account, was before Council.
A second communication from the School Board requesting that Council
approve a State Literary Fund loan application, in the amount of $1.6 million for
improvements to Fallon Park Elementary School, advising that the loan
application includes a resolution for architectural supervision; debt service on the
loan will increase the School Board's debt service expenditure by $128,000.00,
commencing in fiscal year 2005-06, but no debt service liability will be incurred
until funds are drawn against the loan account, was also before the body.
A report of the Director of Finance advising that included in the adopted
Capital improvement Program for fiscal years 2004 - 2008 is funding of $5.0
million for improvements to Fallon Park and West Side Elementary Schools;
funding for improvements are to be provided by the Schools using the most
financially advantageous combination of general obligation public improvement
bonds, Virginia Public School Authority Bonds and Literary Fund loans; and
Literary Fund loans are advantageous due to the Iow three per cent interest rate
which may be obtained, was before Council.
The Director of Finance recommended approval of the loan applications by
Council.
479
Ms. Wyatt offered the following resolution:
(#36545-111703) A RESOLUTION authorizing the School Board for the City
of Roanoke to make application for a loan from the State Literary Fund for adding
to and modernizing Westside Elementary School.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 199.)
Ms. Wyatt moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36545-111703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was out of the Council Chamber when the vot, was
recorded.)
Mr. Harris offered the following resolution:
(#36546-111703) A RESOLUTION authorizing the School Board for the City
of Roanoke to expend funds for improving the present school building at
Westside Elementary School and declaring the City's intent to borrow to fund or
reimburse such expenditures.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 200.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36546-111703. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None .................................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
480 -
Ms. Wyatt offered the following resolution:
(#36547-111703) A RESOLUTION authorizing the School Board for the City
of Roanoke to make application for a loan from the State Literary fund for
modernizing Fallon Park Elementary School.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 201.)
Ms. Wyatt moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36547-111703.
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
The
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was out of Council Chamber when vote was
recorded.)
Mr. Harris offered the following resolution:
(#36548-111703) A RESOLUTION authorizing the School Board for the City
of Roanoke to expend funds for improving the present school building at Fallon
Park Elementary School and declaring the City's intent to borrow to fund or
reimburse such expenditures.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, Page 202.)
Mr. Harris moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36548-111703. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
NONE.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
481
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
CITY COUNCIL: Assistant City Manager for Community Development,
Rolanda Russell's husband, having recently sustained a serious eye injury,
Council Member Dowe requested that he be remembered in prayer.
CELEBRATIONS-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Council Member Dowe
congratulated and publicly welcomed back to the City of Roanoke former
Assistant City Manager, Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., who will assume the position of
Depbty Executive Director, City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing
Authority, effective December 15, 2003.
' CITY CODE-ZONING-SIGNS/BILLBOARDS/AWNINGS: Council at its meeting
on Monday, October 23, 2003, having tabled an ordinance amending Section
36.1-455, of the Code of the City of Roanoke, (1079), as amended, to permit the
relocation of existing roof signs within the H-l, Historic District, Mr. Fitzpatrick
moved that the ordinance be removed from the table. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Harris and unanimously adopted.
Mr. Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance:
(#36549-111703) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining §36.1-445,
Additional siqn requlations, Division 3, Siqn Requlations, Article IV,
Supplementary Requlations, of Chapter 36.1, Zoning, of the Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, by amending subsection (c) to permit roof signs
within the H-1 Historic District, under certain conditions; and dispensing with
the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 203.)
Mr. Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36549-111703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe.
David Diaz, President, Downtown Roanoke, Inc., referred to a letter of
agreement among those parties that are working to restore the H & C Coffee Sign
and to relocate the sign to the top of the Shenandoah Hotel building as a first
preference.
(The letter of agreement was not filed with the City Clerk.)
482
There being no discussion, Ordinance No. 36549-111703 was adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Council Member Wyatt referred to recent repairs to
the sidewalk at 14th Street, S. E., and installation of ground cover which was
recently destroyed by vandals. She requested that the City make the necessary
repairs.
TRAFFIC: Council Member Wyatt requested that appropriate signage be
installed to inform motorists that Campbell Avenue is a two way street, in order
to remove a portion of the traffic from Campbell Avenue to Salem Avenue, S. W.
TRAFFIC: Council Member Wyatt requested confirmation by the City
Manager that Williamson Road will include two lanes of traffic in each direction;
whereupon, the City Manger confirmed that there will be a minimum of two lanes
of traffic in each direction, with some left turn lanes to facilitate traffic.
LIBRARIES: Vice-Mayor Harris commended staff of the Roanoke Public
Library on the Bookfest which was held on November 14 - 15, 2003, and
expressed appreciation to the Roanoke Public Library Foundation for sponsoring
the event.
AIRPORT: The Mayor called attention to a September, 2003 article in
Womans 14lot/d, a national magazine, which alluded to the convenience of
Roanoke's airport. He referred to a web site entry by Air Tran inviting
subscribers to vote on those locations that they would like to be served by Air
Tran, and encouraged citizens of the Roanoke Valley to respond to the web site
address at www.airtran.com/Atlanta and cast their vote for Roanoke, because the
more votes that are received from the Roanoke area, the greater the chance of
attracting a discount air carrier to the Roanoke Valley.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS; The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard; and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for respnnse,
recommendation or report to Council.
483
POLICE DEPARTMENT-ARMORY/STADIUM-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. John E.
Kepley, 2909 Morrison Street, S. E., referred to an article in the November 13,
2003 edition of 7'he Roanoke 7-ime$ entitled, "Bids Exceed Allocated Budget for
Stadium". He stated that in this article, as well as other newspaper articles, the
City Manager has guaranteed that the stadium/amphitheater project will be
completed for $18 million or less; bids which were recently opened exceeded the
budgeted amount by $2 million, and major construction such as the pedestrian
walkway to be constructed over Orange Avenue and the football stadium turf
were left out of the bids, as well as other important items. He referred to the
Nautilus Waterfront Science Museum in the City of Norfolk which was constructed
during the time that Roanoke's City Manager served as Assistant City Manager
and opened in 1994; the City Council of Norfolk budgeted $30 million for the
project; the Museum went over budget by $22 million, for a total of $52 million;
the $52 million Museum was intended to support itself through operating income
which did not occur due to lack of attendance, therefore, admissions fees were
slashed four times over a five year period from 1994 to 1999, or a 44 per cent
reduction. He added that the Norfolk City Council borrowed money to continue
the City's support of the project, along with other projects that exceeded the
budget; and Norfolk's bond rating went down from a AAA to a AA to an A1
because of the City's slow growth rate and its rising debt. He noted that the City
Council of Norfolk, in order to finance a range of projects, was forced to
withdraw its application for Federal loan guarantees and to borrow money from
private banks; in order to borrow money, the City of Norfolk was forced to put up
certain buildings as collateral (Scope Chrysler Hall and the Waterside Convention
Center); and in May 1995, in a effort to help with spiraling debt, higher taxes,
fees and fines were imposed. He called attention to increased fees and fine; that
have been imposed on the citizens of the City of Roanoke over the past four
years, and within the last five years real estate taxes have risen 21.3 per cent.
He inquired if the citizens of the City of Roanoke are to share in the same fate as
the City of Norfolk, i.e.: a growing debt load.
Mr. E. Dwayne Howard, 508 Walnut Avenue, S. W., called attention to recent
newspaper articles in connection with a City survey that reveals Iow morale
among Roanoke City Police Officers relative to poor pay and leadership. He
stated that Iow morale is equally pervasive not only among City residents, but
with persons throughout the Roanoke Valley, as it relates to the City Manager,
the Chief of Police and City Council. He referred to a situation where a Police
Officer was promoted to Sergeant with no salary increase, and the wasteful
spending of over $2200.00 of taxpayers' money on a banner at Victory Stadium
which should be placed at the Orange Avenue/Williamson Road site of the
proposed new stadium/amphitheater.
484
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., commended an adjacent
locality for allowing its voters the right to decide a very controversial issue which
represented the democratic way and set a good example for building character.
She referred to proclamations recently issued by the Mayor in connectionwith
Building Character and National Historic Preservation Week, which stated that
historic preservation is an effective tool for maintaining community character and
is important in preserving the tangible aspects of heritage that all residents of
the City of Roanoke share. She inquired as to why the Council has taken actions
contrary to both the Building Character and Historic Preservation proclamations
by continuing with plans to construct an unwise, unwanted, expensive and
unsafe stadium, a stadium without seats or a scoreboard, and with a playing
field that may be contaminated, and a stadium where there will be limited
parking spaces because the pedestrian bridge is no longer in the plans. She
asked if the City is exposing present and future generations of Roanokers to an
astronomical and unwanted debt in a toxic environment. She advised that
decisions are revokable and knowing when to cut losses is a key factor to
effective management.
Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridge Crest Road, Hardy, Virginia, addressed Council
with regard to renovating Victory Stadium. He referred to the days when vMi and
VPI played their annual Thanksgiving Day Football Games at Victory Stadium, and
the vitality of the stadium and the City of Roanoke overall due to the level of
attendance, all of which generated additional tax dollars for the City of Roanoke.
He advised that the present Victory Stadium could be renovated in order to
attract football games by major colleges and universities which would again
generate major tax dollars for the City's coffers. He commended the City on
painting and paving the roadway surface around Victory Stadium, and advised
that there is sufficient parking in the area of Victory Stadium and the Carillon
parking facility, along with on street parking, to accommodate as many as
20,000 vehicles. He stated that people will use Victory Stadium if the facility is
marketed properly. He again suggested that a United States Flag be flown at
Victory Stadium to honor the memory of World War II veterans.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
LIBRARIES: The City Manager commended staff of the Roanoke Public
Library on the success of the Bookfest which was held on November 14 - 15,
2003. She referred specifically to the young writers group that was recognized
during the event.
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager
acknowledged Chuck Grant, an employee in the City's Department of Planning,
Building and Development, who was recognized by the Regional Home Builders
Association as 2003 Public Employee of the Year.
485
ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGMENT-COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT: The City
Manager advised that for three consecutive years, the City of Roanoke has been
recognized by the Center for Digital Government as the top digital city for cities
in Roanoke's population category. She further advised that the City of Roanoke
is the only city in the nation to receive this recognition for three consecutive
years.
ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: At the request of a Member of Council, the City
Manager presented an oral report on the status of plans for the pedestrian
walkway from the proposed new stadium on Orange Avenue/Williamson Road to
the Roanoke Civic Center parking lot and other aspects of the total stadium
project that were not included in the recent bidding process.
The City Manager advised that within the $18 million budget, seats, turf
and a pedestrian bridge have been accounted for; however, some are specialty
items that do not require the skills of a general contractor. She stated that
approximately $3 million of the total budget for various items has been set aside
within an individual budget for each item, with bids to be received at the
appropriate time, as the item becomes a part of the construction process;
therefore, the City will, in effect, serve as its own general contractor and will
avoid the mark up on subcontractors that are typically employed by the general
contractor which could amount to as much as ten per cent, or approximately
$300,000.00.
At 4:15 p.m. the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for one Closed
Session.
At 5:15 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with Mayor
Smith presiding and all Members of the Council in attendance, with the exception
of Council Member Fitzpatrick.
COUNCIL: Mr. Bestpitch moved that Council convene in Closed Session to
discuss a personnel matter with regard to the position of City Treasurer,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
486 '
At 5:20 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess.
At 6:30 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber,
with Mayor Smith presiding, and all Members of the Council in attendance, with
exception of Council Member Fitzpatrick.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Session just concluded, Mr. Bestpitch
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her
knowledge that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open
meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2)
only such public business matters as were identified in any motion bywhich any
Closed Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City
Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMI'I-FEES-INDUSTRIES: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on
the Industrial Development Authority, and called for nominations to fill the
vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of Linda Frith.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Frith was appointed as a
Commissioner of the Industrial Development Authority, for a term ending
October 20, 2007, by the following vote:
FOR MS. FRITH: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
487
COMMI'I-FEES-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: The Mayor advised that there is a
vacancy on the Advisory Board of Human Services, and called for nominations to
fill the vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of Louis O. Brown.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Brown was appointed as a
member of the Advisory Board of Human Services, for a term ending November
30, 2007, by the following vote:
FOR MR. BROWN: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
Inasmuch as Mr. Brown is not a resident of the City of Roanoke, Mr. Harris
moved that Council waive the City residency requirement in this instance. The
motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted.
COMMI'I-FEES-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: The Mayor advised that there is a
vacancy on the Human Services Committee, and called for nominations to fill the
vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of H. Clarke (Duke) Curtis.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Curtis was appointed as a member
of the Human Services Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2004, by the
following vote:
FOR MR. CURTIS: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
488 -
COMMI~I'EES-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION: The Mayor advised that there
is a vacancy on the Roanoke Arts Commission to fill the unexpired of Michael
Brennan, ending June 30, 2004, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of Terri R. Jones.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Jones was appointed as a member
of the Roanoke Arts Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2004, by the
following vote:
FOR MS. JONES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 6.
(Couficil Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
Inasmuch as Ms. Jones is not a City resident, Mr. Harris moved that the City
residency requirement be waived. The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and
adopted.
COMMI'I-rEES-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION: The Mayor advised that there
is another vacancy on the Roanoke Arts Commission, and called for nominations
to fill the vacancy.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of Sandra Brunk.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Brunkwas appointed as a member
of the Roanoke Arts Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2006, by the
following vote:
FOR MS. BRUNK: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMI'I-FEES-SCHOOLS: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the
Virginia Western Community College Board of Directors, created by the
resignation of Michael F. Urbanski, and called for nominations to fill the vacancy.
489
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the name of William M. Hackworth.
There being no further nominations, Mr. Hackworth was appointed as a
member of the Virginia Western Community College, Board of Directors, for a
term ending June 30, 2007, by the following vote:
FOR MR. HACKWORTH: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Harris, Wyatt,
Bestpitch and Mayor Smith ......................................................................... -6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMITTEES-ZONING: The Mayor advised that the three year terms of
office of Joel M. Richert and Philip H. Lemon as members of the Board of Zoning
Appeals will expire on December 31, 2003; whereupon, he opened the floor for
nominations.
Mr. Harris placed in nomination the names of Joel M. Richert and Philip H.
Lemon.
There being no further nominations, Ms. Richert and Mr. Lemon were
reappointed as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, for terms ending
December 31, 2006, by the following vote:
FOR MS. RICHERT AND MR. LEMON: Council Members Cutler, Dowe,
Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch and Mayor Smith ..................................................... -6.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
At 6:30 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess until 7:00
p.m., in the City Council Chamber.
At 7:00 p.m., on Monday, November 17, 2003, the Council meeting
reconvened in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph
K. Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., William
D. Bestpitch, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda F. Wyatt, and
Mayor Ralph K. Smith .................................................................................. 7.
ABSENT: NONE ............................................................................... ~.
490
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The invocation was delivered by Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Boy Scout Troop No. 210, South Roanoke United Methodist Church.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
ZONING: In view of the fact that numerous persons were in the audience in
connection with the proposed methadone clinic to be located in the Hershberger
Road, N. W. area, the Mayor called upon the City Manager to review the action
taken by Council at its 2:00 p.m. session. (See pages 469 - 473)
The City Attorney advised that he has been unable to identify provisions
that would require the State to notify a locality of a pending application for a
clinic of this type. He stated that localities should receive notice and an
opportunity to comment on the appropriateness of a proposed clinic and to make
a determination as to whether or not the location is in conformance with the
Iocality's Comprehensive Plan; therefore, Council will request the City's
delegation to the 2004 General Assembly to introduce legislation to include this
requirement in the State Code. He encouraged all interested persons to contact
their local Delegates and Senators prior to the filing deadline of December 8,
2003, for introducing bills before the General Assembly. He also encouraged
interested persons to share their concerns with Council and the City Planning
Commission at a joint public hearing to be held on Monday, December 15, 2003,
at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber. He advised that City staff will continue
to research the issue and follow up on other avenues that appear to be promising
as the issue unfolds.
STREETS AND ALLEYS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by
Council on Monday, April 6, 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public
hearing for Monday, November 17, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, on the request of Robert E. Zimmerman that Rorer Avenue,
S. W., between 9th and 10th Streets, and two alleys running in a northerly direction
from Rorer Avenue, located between parcels bearing Official Tax Nos. 1112102,
1112103, 1112104, 1112107, 1112108, 1112109 and 1112110, be permanently
vacated, discontinued and closed, the matter was before the body.
491
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
T/rne$ on Friday, October 31, 2003, and Friday, November 7, 2003.
A report of the City Planning Commission advising that the petitioner
owns all of the parcels of land that adjoin the subject portion of Rorer Avenue;
the petitioner also owns all but one of the parcels of land on the southern side of
the 900 block of Salem Avenue where his establishment, Roanoke Electric Zupply,
is located; the petitioner does not own Official Tax No. 1112110 and one of the
alleys requested for closure is adjoined by this parcel of land.
It was further advised that the paved portion of the 900 block of Rorer
Avenue is a dead end that terminates approximately 19 feet east of the edqe of
the sidewalk on 10th Street, and the dead end was created on Rorer Avenue after
the widening of 10'h Street by the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDO-r).
It was noted that the City Planning Commission does not recommend
approval of the request which is in direct conflict with the general goals of Vision
2001-2020 and the specific recommendation of the Hurt Park/Mountain
View/West End neighborhood plan to re-establish the connection between Rorer
Avenue and 10th Street; in addition, the petitioner has not proposed any specific
development plan that would require vacation of the right-of-way and alleys, or
result in a use of the property that is consistent with the policies and
recommendations of the neighborhood plan. It was further noted that if Council
approves the request of the petitioner, the City Planning Commission
recommends that the petitioner be charged the full amount of $26,600.00, and
that closure be subject to certain conditions as more fully described in the
report.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
"AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing a certain
public right-of-way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as more particularly
described hereinafter; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance."
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of the ordinance. The motion was seconded
by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak
in connection with the public hearing.
492 -
Roy V. Creasy, Attorney, representing the petitioner, advised that his client
wishes to close a portion of Rorer Avenue and certain adjacent paper alleys in
order to further develop his property. He referred to the topography of the land
which is composed of steep terrain and used for undesirable activities such as
alcohol, drugs, and prostitution, etc. He reviewed the following points in regard
to the rationale of the City Planning Commission in recommending denial of the
request; i.e.
Parking - There is considerable parking in the area, therefore,
parking should not be an issue.
Restoring access to Tenth Street from Rorer Avenue - In view
of a steep grade on both sides of Tenth Street, such action
would not be feasible, would require approval by the Virginia
Department of Transportation and necessitate another traffic
signal due to the location of ingress and egress.
No specific proposal was submitted by the petitioner - Not
knowing whether the street and alleys would be closed and
not knowing if a cost would be assessed by the City, Mr.
Zimmerman has been limited in his ability to develop the land,
although it is envisioned that the land could be used for
commercial development. He advised that the City Planning
Commission is recommending that his client pay $26,600.00
for closing approximately 21,575 square feet; his client
invested approximately $19,000.00 to obtain 25 lots in the
area over the past 18 years, and if one considers what his
client paid for the 103,612 square feet that he currently owns,
that amounts to approximately $18.00 per square foot, or
$4,000.00. Notwithstanding the Vision 2001-2020
Comprehensive Plan, he stated that if the property cannot be
developed by his client, it is not likely to be used for
residential purposes and the land will remain vacant.
Ms. Norma Smith, 11 14'h Street, S.W., advised that funds were previously
appropriated by the City of Roanoke to clean up the Rorer Avenue area from Fifth
Street to 24'h Street, and inquired as to the status of the funds.
493
This being the second occasion that a reference was made to funds having
been' appropriated by the City for the Rorer Avenue area, the City Manager was
requested to respond to any specific allocation of funds; whereupon, the City
Manager advised that she was not aware of any specific allocation of monies for
the Rorer Avenue area; however, she would research the question and advise
Council accordingly.
There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public hearing
closed.
In clarification of the rationale of the City Planning Commission in its
recommendation to deny the request of Mr. Zimmerman, the Agent for the City
Planning Commission quoted from the Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan
regarding neighborhood streets; i.e.: "Where possible neighborhood streets
should connect with existing neighboring streets to complete the street grid
pattern of the surrounding area." He explained that this is one area of Roanoke
where there is an intact street grid; and the entire West End and Hurt Park area
has a complete street grid because topography of the land is relatively flat for
Roanoke. He added that when the Mountain View, Hurt Park and West End
Neighborhood Plan was adopted in June 2003, one of the policies contained in
the Plan was to restore or maintain access to Tenth Street at both Norfolk and
Rorer Avenues. He advised that the connection at Tenth Street is difficult from
an engineering point of view; a majority of the members of the City Planning
Commission believed that retaining the right-of-way is important so that if
development occurs in the area, there would be an opportunity to reconnect
Tenth Street to Rorer Avenue at that location, and inasmuch as the City Planning
Commission did not have a specific development proposal from the applicant,
the Planning Commission had nothing to weigh the benefit of what was being
proposed versus those policies contained in the neighborhood plan. He
explained that the area currently owned by the petitioner contains split zoning;
Rorer Avenue is the differentiating line between industrial property on the north
side of Rorer Avenue; the south side of Rorer Avenue is zoned RM-2, Residential
Multi-Family, so by closing the street, the zoning issue will not be addressed and
there is the case of a potentially combined parcel of land of almost 2.9 acres
spanning a block and one half that contains split zoning without a definitive
development plan.
Following discussion in which concern was expressed that no development
plan was submitted by the petitioner; and unfavorable conditions in the area
associated with prostitution, drug and alcohol use, without objection by Council,
the Mayor requested that the City Manager assist the petitioner in securing his
property in a more healthy neighborhood environment.
494
There being no further discussion, the ordinance was defeated by the
following vote:
AYES: Mayor Smith ............................................. 1.
NAYS: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt and
Bestpitch ........................................................... 6.
COMMUNITY PLANNING-ROANOKE VISION, COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT
PLAN: Pursuant to instructions by Council, the City Clerk having advertised a
public hearing for Monday, November 17, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of the City Planning
Commission with regard to a proposed amendment to Vision 2001-2020, the
City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Harrison-Washington Park
Neighborhood Plan, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, October 31, 2003, and Friday, November 7, 2003, and in The
Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, November 6, 2003.
The City Planning Commission submitted a written report recommending
approval of the Harrison/Washington Park Neighborhood Plan, advising that the
Plan identifies four high priority initiatives:
Encouraging a balance of housing choices in all price ranges and housing
options that promote social and economic diversity;
Promoting general physical enhancement through continued code
enforcement efforts;
Adopting the Neighborhood Design District to encourage compatible infill
housing, and
Improving the appearance and function of major streets.
The Plan also includes a future land use map to guide development and
zoning patterns in the neighborhoods.
495
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36550-1:~1703) AN ORDINANCE approving the Harrison-Washington
Park Neighborhood Plan, and amending Vision 200! - 2020, the City's
Comprehensive Plan, to include the Harrison-Washington Park Neighborhood
Plan; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 204.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36550-:~11703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
· The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak
in connection with the public hearing.
There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
Council Member Cutler raised the following questions/points:
Vacant lots in the Washington Park area have become infested
with rodents, and residents have complained that rodents are
a problem along Tenth Street and behind Lincoln Terrace
School. What is the City doing to address the rodent problem?
Housing Conditions - "Lack of maintenance of homes and
weed overgrowth in the area have contributed to blight." Can
the City spend more time and energy on weed control?
Lick Run Greenway - checking sewer lines for storm water
infiltration - He requested that the Utility Lines Department
address leaking sewer lines in the Shadeland Avenue area,
which basically involves treating northwest Roanoke like the
rest of the City is treated.
"Establish a spur from Lick Run Greenway to Lincoln Terrace
Elementary School." A spur should be constructed to Addison
Middle School, as well as to the greenway, so that children
attending both schools can ride their bicycles or walk to
school.
496
Actions to Invite Beautification. There is a need for outdoor
art and public art in northwest Roanoke, i.e. Harrison and
Washington Parks as well as other parts of the City.
A map on page 28 shows the Brown Robertson Park as being
separated by certain non public land and Washington Park.
What is located between the two parcels of land and can there
be a kind of connectivity to provide for a major park?
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance
No. 36550-111703 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch,
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
EASEMENTS-CITY PROPERTY: Pursuant to instructions by Council, the City
Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, November 17, 2003, at
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of
the City of Roanoke with regard to the proposed conveyance of a 30-foot
easement on City-owned property located near Tinker Creek, S. E., Official Tax
No. 4321020, to Plantation Pipeline Company, to relocate an existing valve onto
City property, the matter was before the body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
Times on Friday, November 11, 2003.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Plantation Pipe
Line Company has requested a permanent 30-foot easement containing
approximately 0.21 acre on City-owned property located near Tinker Creek, S. E.;
the easement will allow relocation of an existing valve onto City property since
the current valve location is under water part of the year; and since the estimated
assessed value of the easement is Iow, $275.00, City staff recommends that the
easement be granted at no charge.
The City Manager recommended, following the public hearing, that she be
authorized to execute the appropriate documents granting a permanent
easement as above described to Plantation Pipe Line Company, such document to
be approved as to form by the City Attorney.
497
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36551-111703) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the donation and
conveyance of a thirty foot wide easement containing approximately O.21 acre,
on City-owned property located near Tinker Creek, S. E., identified by Official
Tax No. 4321020, to Plantation Pipeline Company, to relocate an existing valve
onto City property because the current valve location is under water part of the
year, upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, Page 205.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36551-111703. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick.
The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak
in connection with the public hearing.
There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
There being no discussion or questions by Council Members, Ordinance
No. 36551-111703 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch,
and Mayor Smith .................................................... 7.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA'I-FERS:
The Mayor advised that Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to
be heard; and matters requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred
immediately for response, recommendation or report to Council.
CITY COUNCIL-HOUSING/AUTHORITY-COMPLAINTS-TRAFFiC: Mr. Chris
Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., addressed the following matters:
Requested that the handicapped ramp in the Council's Parking Lot
not be blocked.
498
Requested that a "No U-turn" sign be installed at Williamson Road
and Orange Avenue, in the vicinity of Sheetz.
Requested that the City address traffic congestion at Masons Mill
Road and Hollins Road, N. E.
Requested more signage alerting motorists to narrow lanes on
Orange Avenue where the road changes from three to two lanes.
Requested that storm doors be installed on housing units at Lincoln
Terrace.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-ARMORY/STADIUM-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: Mr.
Kevin Booze, 1606 Peters Creek Road, N. W., advised that public funds should be
spent on programs that benefit the youth of Roanoke and for pay increases for
Police Officers, rather than on improvements to Victory Stadium, or construction
of a new stadium/amphitheater. He also spoke with regard to the dangers
associated with the shooting of deer in the City of Roanoke, and encouraged the
City to discontinue the sharp shooting program.
TAXES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER-SPORTS COMPLEX-DEBT POLICY-
SCHOOLS: Mr. John E. Kepley, 2909 Morrison Street, S. E., spoke with regard to
the issue of an advisory referenda, the definition of which is: the principle or
practice of submitting to popular vote a measure passed upon or proposed by a
legislative body. He advised that over the next five years, the City of Roanoke
will borrow $344 million for capital projects; however, it should be noted when
the current City Manager assumed her position in January 2000 the City's debt,
per person, was $600.00 and has now risen to almost $2,000.00 per person. He
stated that since 1999 to the present, an additional $119 million has been
borrowed in debt which involves taking money out of the pockets of taxpayers to
fund projects such as the new sports complex, and the tearing down of Patrick
Henry and William Fleming High Schools, only to rebuild the schools in the
amount of $87 million. He stated that taxpayers deserve the opportunity to vote
on how their tax dollars are spent by the City of Roanoke.
POLICE DEPARTMENT-ZONING-HUMAN RESOURCES-CITY EMPLOYEES-
WATER RESOURCES: Mr. Robert Gravely, 729 Loudon Avenue, N. W., spoke
against the proposed methadone clinic in northwest Roanoke. He called
attention to the need for more jobs for young people to get them off the streets
and to decrease crime. He spoke in support of increased wages for the City's
work force so that the average worker can afford to purchase a home. He
499
referred to the 2.3 per cent pay increase that was afforded to City employees in
fiscal year 2003, yet real estate tax assessments continue to increase, police
officers do not receive sufficient wages, a five per cent increase in dental
insurance premiums, a 9.1 per cent increase in insurance, and a 35 per cent
increase in water rates.
ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridge Crest Road, Hardy, Virginia,
spoke in support of the renovation of Victory Stadium, and referred to deed
restrictions on the Victory Stadium property which have not been honored by the
City. He advised that Council Members should be mindful of the wishes of the
citizens of the City of Roanoke in regard to Victory Stadium, the Armory, safety in
Roanoke's schools, and other issues of concern because the citizens of Roanoke
will speak on election day.
ZONING-DRUGS/SUBSTANCE ABUSE: The following persons addressed
Council in opposition to the location of a methadone clinic at 3208 Hershberger
Road, N. W.:
. Ms. Joylette Stokes, 1523 Main Street, S. W., representing Dr. Chadrack
Brown, Jr., and the congregation of Garden of Prayer No. 7 Church, advised that
the proposed methadone clinic invades the future growth of the Church, which
has recently embarked upon a building program for an educational facility to
provide day activities for seniors and youth, and the Church facility will observe
the same hours of operation as the methadone clinic. She stated that the
proposed site of the methadone clinic is adjacent to Church property, presence
of the clinic will not be conducive to a safe and friendly environment for parents
and children using Church facilities; and the neighborhood is more concerned
about drug dealers that might be attracted to the area than to patients who need
help with their addiction. She advised that the Church is not opposed to those
persons needing help, but members are opposed to the proposed location of the
facility.
Ms. Peggy Sue Tolliver, 1460 Fresno Street, N. W., advised that she lives
approximately two and one-half blocks from the proposed site for the
methadone clinic. She called attention to the number of schools and churches in
the area and efforts by residents of northwest Roanoke to improve their
neighborhood. She stated that it has been reported that the methadone clinic
will open on December 15, 2003, yet Council and the City Planning Commission
are scheduled to hold a joint public hearing on December 15, which is too late to
help the neighborhood. She asked that the City of Roanoke intervene and do
whatever it can to prevent the methadone clinic from opening.
5OO
Ms. Sonya Smith, Westwind Apartments, spoke against the location of the
methadone clinic in an area of the City that is heavily populated by schools and
churches. She also called attention to reports that the methadone clinic is
scheduled to open on December 15, therefore, the joint public hearing by
Council and the City Planning Commission will be too late to help the
neighborhood. She asked that the facility be located in an area where families,
churches and children will not be affected.
Ms. Arlene Small, 532! Deer Park Drive, N. E., spoke on behalf of Garden
of Prayer No. 7 Church and the surrounding community in opposition to the
methadone clinic on Hershberger Road. She stated that she did not oppose the
clinic itself because there is a need to help people who are addicted to drugs,
however, her opposition rests with the location of the proposed clinic. She called
attention to the number of schools in the area, the building program of the
Church, and existing traffic congestion on Hershberger Road. She requested that
the City find another location for the proposed methadone clinic.
Ms. Anita Price, 310! Willow Road, N. W., representing the Roanoke
Education Association, advised that the facility will have a great impact on the
community and the children who attend schools in the area. She strongly --
encouraged Council to continue to do whatever needs to be done to stop the
methadone clinic, and that concerned citizens either lobby and/or write to their
representatives to the General Assembly in support of legislation proposed in the
City's 2004 Legislative Program.
Ms. Della Millner, 3084 Swarthmore Avenue, N. W., advised that she lives in
close proximity to the proposed clinic. She called attention to existing traffic
conditions, incidents of shooting in the neighborhood and burglaries, all of
which will be compounded with the proposed methadone clinic.
Ms. Lin Johnson, 5904 Wayburn Drive, N. W., representing Garden of Prayer
No. 7 Church, advised that children are the City's most precious commodity;
therefore, she urged that the City continue to seek legislation to ensure that the
proposed methadone clinic is not allowed to open on Hershberger Road.
Ms. Glendora Goode, 3724 Troutland Avenue, N. W., spoke on behalf of
Garden of Prayer No. 7 Church, and advised that the methadone clinic is needed
for persons with drug addiction, but the facility should be located in another area
of the City away from schools and churches. She expressed concern that the
clinic will attract drug dealers who will pose a threat to surrounding
neighborhoods.
501
Ms. Minnie Stamps, 4223 Holmes Street, N. W., spoke on behalf of Garden
of Prayer No. 7 Church, and called attention to the number of children in the
area, and drug dealers that could be attracted to the area because o? the
proposed methadone clinic. She suggested that the methadone clinic be located
at the Veteran's Hospital or in the surrounding area.
Ms. Pernella Wilson, 3045 Willow Road, N. W., advised that the northwest
community stands ready to fight against the location of the proposed methadone
clinic in their neighborhood. She referred to three potential locations for the
proposed clinic which are located across the street from the Police Department
on Campbell Avenue where activities can be monitored by the Police Department.
Ms. Gloria Dowe, 3702 High Acres Road, N. W., advised that the
Hershberger Road area consists of office buildings, single family dwellings,
apartment buildings, seven school districts, churches, etc. Therefore, she asked
that the neighborhood be protected against adverse conditions as a result of the
proposed methadone clinic
At 8:25 p.m., the Council meeting was declared in recess until Wednesday,
November 19, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in the Emergency Operations Center
Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church
Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke for a joint meeting of Roanoke City Council and
the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, to continue discussions regarding the
proposed Western Virginia Water Authority.
The meeting of Roanoke City Council reconvened on Wednesday,
November 19, 2003, at 9:30 a.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, for ajoint meeting
of Roanoke City Council and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, with
Mayor Ralph K. Smith and Chair Pro 'l'em Michael W. Altizer presiding.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler,
Linda F. Wyatt and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ................................. 4.
COUNCIL MEMBERS ABSENT: Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.,
and C. Nelson Harris ................................................. 3.
ROANOKE COUN'I-Y BOARD OF SUPERVISORS PRESENT: Joseph B.
"Butch"Church, H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix, and Chair Pro Tern Michael W. Altizer-3.
ROANOKE COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ABSENT: Richard C. Flora and
Chairman Joseph P. McNamara ....................................... 2.
502 -
OTHERS PRESENT: Representing Roanoke City: Darlene L. Burcham, City
Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney;Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance;
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk; and Michael T. McEvoy, Director of Utilities.
Representing Roanoke County: Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator;
John M. Chambliss, Assistant County Administrator; Paul M. Mahoney, County
Attorney; Diane S. Childers, Clerk to the Board; and Gary L. Robertson, Director
of Utilities.
The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum of Roanoke City Council
Members.
The invocation was delivered by Council Member William D. Bestpitch.
On behalf of the City and the County, Mayor Smith and Chair Pro Tem
Altizer welcomed all persons to the meeting.
The Mayor called attention to an item on the agenda with regard to
appointment of Roanoke City and Roanoke County designees to the Western
Virginia Water Authority; i.e.: three representatives from Roanoke City and three
representatives from Roanoke County. He stated that City Manager
Darlene L. Burcham and Council Member M. Rupert Cutler will serve as the City's
representatives; however, Council is not prepared to appoint the citizen
representative at this time.
COMMENTS ON JOINT EFFORTS:
The City Manager advised that the work of the two staffs continues to go
well; staffs remain committed to an inclusive process in terms of including
employees of both localities on the various committees and both staffs remain
committed to the principals that were set forth at the beginning of the process
which are to submit the best recommendations in regard to the proposed
Western Virginia Water Authority, i.e.: the best way to address water and waste
water on behalf of Roanoke Valley residents in the future.
Mr. Hodge concurred in the remarks of Ms. Burcham in regard to the
outstanding work of both City and County staffs. He advised that the Board of
Directors of the Western Virginia Water Authority will discover that staff of the
Authority is way ahead in the process with reports, alternatives and
recommendations.
503
UPDATE ON ASSET REVIEW AND UTILITY RATES:
Mr. Robertson advised that the asset valuation and rate study, which
addresses a ten year period, has been received from Black and Veatch,
Consultants, and ongoing communication will take place with the consultants to
address necessary revisions, which are anticipated to be finalized within
approximately 30 days.
Mr. McEvoy commended Black and Veatch for the quality of their work that
involved review of a large volume of financial data.
The City Manager advised that staff intended to brief the Council and the
Board of Supervisors on the asset and valuation study at this meeting; however,
they are currently engaged in a review of the two documents with the consultant;
therefore, the Council and the Board will be requested to schedule another joint
session in December.
In a discussion with regard to issues to be included in the asset and
valuation rate study, Mr. Hodge advised that Roanoke County is currently
undergoing a change in its water rate structure. He explained that Roanoke
County's water rate structure is similar to few in the Commonwealth of Virginia
because it is an outdated method which uses a step process and conversion will
involve extra work for County staff.
A question having been raised earlier in the meeting with regard to
provision of incentives to promote water conservation, Mr. Hodge stated that the
issue will require guidance from the two governing bodies.
OTHER REPORTS:
The City Attorney advised that in December, the two governing bodies will
be requested to schedule a public hearing at which time the Council and the
Board of Supervisors will act on a resolution adopting Water Authority Board by-
laws, and, following the public hearing, the by-laws will be forwarded to the
State Corporation Commission. He stated that it is proposed to submit an
operating agreement in mid January, 2004; however, much work remains to be
done prior to submittal.
Upon question with regard to the types of issues to be addressed in the
operating agreement, the City Attorney referred to the following partial list of
items: assets to be contributed by localities to the Authority, real and personal
property, accounts receivable, a method to address outstanding bills owed to the
504
localities, water and sewer debts of localities, to what extent will be the liability
of the system to be passed on to the Authority, how will pending claims be
resolved, which fiscal year will be used, how the Authority will be structured as
an entity, personnel/employee benefits, vehicular fleet issues, meter reading,
etc.
Question was raised as to whether all current water payment options will
be retained; whereupon, Mr. Hall advised that the intent is to make payments as
convenient as possible via mail, bank drafts, in person, or through collection
boxes, etc.
Once the Board of Directors is appointed, an inquiry was made as to the
method of transitioning from a City/County operation to an Authority operation;
whereupon, Mr. Mahoney advised that the goal is to work toward a July 1, 2004
switch over, at which time the new Authority will be operational. He further
advised that during the first four to five months a dual-hybrid operating system
will exist; in January 2004, both governing bodies will hold a public hearing to
consider concurrent resolutions adopting the Articles of Incorporation, including
individual names of the initial Board of Directors, which will be forwarded to the
State Corporation Commission; it is anticipated that State Corporation
Commission approval will take approximately two weeks; and a charter will be
received from the State Corporation Commission at which time the Authoritywill
become a legally operating entity, effective July 1, 2004. He stated that the
Board of Directors will then prepare a budget, following State Code provisions
regarding notices and public hearings, in regard to establishing initial water
rates, adopt policies, procedures, and by laws and make decisions as to key
officials, all of which will enable the Authority to be operational on July 1, 2004.
Mr. Hodge advised that initial appointees to the Authority Board of
Directors will meet briefly following this meeting to discuss future meeting dates
and duties and responsibilities. He spoke to the importance of involving and
communicating with citizens of both Roanoke City and Roanoke County to ensure
that citizen suggestions are considered and/or incorporated into procedures.
There was discussion in regard to public involvement in which it was
pointed out that the series of meetings that were held in the City and the County
did not generate a large amount of citizen participation, and rather than
schedule stand alone meetings, there might be an advantage for staff to attend
neighborhood meetings in the City and the County, etc. Other options
discussed were to apprize neighborhood organizations that presentations will be
made by City/County staff, upon request by the organization, or presentations
could be made to the City's Presidents Council which meets on a monthly basis
5O5
(the Presidents Council is composed of representatives of City of Roanoke
neighborhood associations) and representatives to the Presidents Council could
make reports to their individual neighborhood organizations.
The City Manager advised that when answers are in place in regard to
questions that have been raised by citizens, there will be more citizen interest
and better participation in meetings; and as the process moves forward, Council
and the Board of Supervisors will be requested to provide guidance to staff with
regard to dissemination of information and/or public meetings.
The Director of Finance advised that Finance staff of both localities have
provided financial information to the consultant, and both staffs have reviewed
the draft report of Black and Veatch to ensure that financial data was accurately
interpreted. He further advised that the City and the County have closed on
Virginia Resource Authority loans relative to the Waste Water Treatment Plant
upgrade in the context of the current contractual arrangement which will
eventually become a part of the debt of the Authority; and He stated that earlier
in the year, the City refinanced part of its outstanding waste water treatment
bonds because the rate environment was conducive to a lower interest rate,
which will become a part of the debt of the Authority; and the City's debt for
water and waste water general obligation debt is not in revenue bonds, therefore,
the City can transfer assets to the Authority without a restrictive rate and revenue
debt. He advised that staff continues to be diligent in its task and does not
under estimate the amount of work yet to be done prior to July 1, 2004.
DESIGNATION OF CITY/COUNTY MEMBERS TO THE WESTERN VIRGINIA
WATER AUTHORITY:
Representing Roanoke County, Mr. Church moved that the following
persons be appointed to the Western Virginia Water Authority Board of Directors:
H. Odell "Fuzzy" Minnix - Four Year Term
Elmer C. Hodge, County Administrator - Three Year Term
Michael W. Altizer - Member, Roanoke County Board of Supervisors -
Two Year Term
The motion was adopted.
Representing the City of Roanoke, Mr. Bestpitch moved that the following
persons be appointed to the Western Virginia Water Authority Board of Directors:
506
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager - Three Year Term
M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member - Two Year Term
The citizen designee will be appointed at a later date.
The motion was seconded by Ms. Wyatt and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Cutler, Bestpitch, Wyatt and Mayor Smith ....... 4.
NAYS: None .................................................... 0.
(Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick and Vice-Mayor Harris were absent.)
OTHER COMMENTS: Mr. Church commended the spirit of cooperation that
has existed between Roanoke City and Roanoke County, and advised that today
the two localities are on the threshold of one of the most important issues that
has faced the Roanoke Valley in many years. He expressed appreciation to his
colleagues on the Board of Supervisors, the Members of Roanoke City Council
and the staffs of the two localities for all of the work that has been done to serve
the citizens of the Roanoke Valley for many years to come.
Mr. Bestpitch also commended City and County staffs and advised that he
was proud to be a part of a Council that has worked with the Roanoke County
Board of Supervisors to reach a point that others in the past have only talked
about. He stated that much of the credit is due to the citizens of the Roanoke
Valley who have supported the concept and were ready to work together in a
cooperative manner. He advised that it is hoped that creation of the water
authority will be an indication of the kind of future cooperation and support of a
broad array of services; i.e.: fire and emergency medical services ultimately
leading to one department to serve the entire Roanoke Valley. He referred to a
combined library system, parks and recreation department and a number of
other services that will lead to greater efficiencies in government for both
localities.
Ms. Wyatt suggested that letters of appreciation be forwarded to the
various committees commending staff for the work that has already been done
and for their continuing efforts to make the water authority a success.
Mr. Altizer advised that much work remains to be done, time lines are
vitally important and many additional hours of work will be involved to bring the
Water Authority to fruition in July 2004. He echoed his respect for both staffs and
stated that Roanoke City and Roanoke County have set the example of what other
localities can do, and the example that the City and the County have set will pave
507
the path to future boundaries of regional cooperation with the localities of
Botetourt, Montgomery and Christiansburg, because those areas are looking
closely at accomplishments by local officials of the Roanoke Valley. He advised
that the responsibility lies with Roanoke County, Roanoke City, the City of Salem
and the Town of Vinton to come together on as many issues as possible and once
the barriers of the past are removed, the goal of regional cooperation for the
good of the entire Roanoke Valley will be achieved. He stated that the action
taken by Roanoke County and Roanoke City in regard to the water authority is
government at its highest and best.
The Mayor called attention to the importance of open communication with
the citizens of the Roanoke Valley, and any changes should be communicated to
the citizens as soon as possible which will be the key to a successful beginning
for the Western Virginia Water Authority on July 1,2004.
There being no further business, at 10:45 a.m., the Mayor declared the
meeting of Roanoke City Council in recess until Friday, November 21, 2003, at
8:30 a.m., at the Roanoke Higher Education Center, 108 N. Jefferson Street, for
the Roanoke City Council/Roanoke City School Board Retreat.
The meeting of Roanoke City Council reconvened on Friday, November 21,
2003, at 8:30 a.m., at the Roanoke Higher Education Center, 108 N. Jefferson
Street, Room 501, City of Roanoke, Virginia, for a joint meeting of Council and
the Roanoke City School Board, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith and Chairperson Gloria
P. Manns presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler (left the
meeting at 2:30 p.m.) Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. (left the meeting at 12:00 noon),
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. (left the meeting at 12:00 noon) C. Nelson Harris, Linda
F. Wyatt, (arrived at 9:30 a.m.), and Mayor Ralph K. Smith (left the meeting at
1:30 p.m.) ........................................................ 7.
ABSENT: None ............................................... O.
SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: Kathy G. Stockburger, David B. Trinkle, Robert
J. Sparrow, Ruth C. Willson, William H. Lindsey, MelindaJ. Payne (arrived at 8:15
a.m.), and Gloria P. Manns, Chair ...................................... 7.
SCHOOL TRUSTEES ABSENT: None ................................. O.
508
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk; Elizabeth K. Dillon, Assistant
City Attorney; Dr. E. Wayne Harris, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools;
and Cindy H. Lee, Clerk to the Roanoke City School Board.
The meeting was facilitated by Lyle Sumek, Lyle Sumek Associates.
The Mayor advised that at a joint meeting of Council and the Roanoke
County Board of Supervisors on Wednesday, November 19, 2003, Council
Member M. Rupert Cutler and City Manager Darlene L. Burcham were appointed
as the City's representatives to the Western Virginia Water Authority; whereupon,
he opened the floor for nominations for the citizen appointee representing the
City of Roanoke.
Mr. Cutler moved that Robert C. Lawson be appointed as the City of
Roanoke citizen representative for a term of four years. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Fitzpatrick and adopted, Council Member Wyatt had not arrived
at the meeting.
· COUNCIL-SCHOOLS: Mr. Sumek advised that the Council and the School
Board have experienced an interesting and challenging year. He reviewed some
of the issues that were discussed at the Council/School Board retreat in February
2003; i.e.: revisiting joint meetings of Council and the School Board, joint work
teams, identification of issues and action steps, joint marketing and branding,
work force development, a joint facilities use study, stadium and facilities,
funding issues, high schools renovation/construction, joint lobbying strategy,
define responsibilities for joint cooperation, health care for employees, and
citizen involvement.
He suggested a frank discussion between Council and the School Board
looking at first the product that both entities are trying to produce and thinking
about some of the outcomes that Council and the School Board would like to see
as a result of the discussion. He called attention to the need to market a product
in the community; i.e.: how safe are Roanoke's schools which is a product that
has value to citizens.
Ms. Payne entered the meeting at 8:55 a.m.
Mr. Sumek requested that Council and the School Board break out into
three groups to discuss the following question: What is the product you see
coming out of Roanoke's school system?
5O9
Following the break out session, the groups reported as follows:
Group No 1:
Ability to think critically
Creation of an environment where individual potential can be achieved
Students become life long learners - continue to open our doors to people
Prepare and develop the workforce
Good citizens
Group No. 2:
Literate, civic minded contributions to the larger community
Positive and enthusiastic attitude toward identifying life long learning
Motivate "self-sufficient" graduates with career goals in mind
Prepare to adapt to the ever changing technological society
Group No. 3:
Good citizenship, responsible citizens who know about the community,
understand laws, vote and participate in the process
Economically productive individual skills with job work ethics- individuals
to reach their goal or potential/work with others
Prepared to parent - basic skills - responsible parenting
Life learning adults, relevant to each useful valued experience in school -
ambassador for the schools/city
The facilitator then asked that the Members of Council and the Members of
the School Board meet in separate rooms for approximately 30 minutes to focus
on the following questions:
What are the challenges you see to produce the product?
What is the message you have for the other body?
Following completion of the exercise, Council and the School P..oard
reconvened in open session with the facilitator. Staff was asked to leave the
room; however, according to Members of Council who remained in the session, it
was the consensus of the Council that Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris would report
for the Council. A portion of the report stated that a majority of the Council has
510
lost confidence in the School Superintendent's ability to lead the school system
and Council Members believe that the School Board has reacted lethargically to
important business issues.
Following lunch, the meeting reconvened in Room 501 of the Roanoke
Higher Education Center.
Mr. Sumek advised that the remainder of the session would be devoted to a
discussion of future expectations and ways by which the Council and the School
Board can work together more effectively; i.e.: What are critical issues short term
and what are the Council's expectations in order to enhance the relationship with
the School Board and the community.
The following is a summary, as stated by the facilitator, with regard to
expectations by Council of the School Board:
· To set overall policy and direction for the schools in the City of
Roanoke;
To govern the school system taking responsibility for the product
(engage in critical thinking and question issues and
recommendations);
To compile a real and workable budget with an eye on today and
future needs;
To set the standards and give guidance to the Superintendent from
the schools' vision to specific expectations;
To be public advocates by marketing public education and the
schools to the community - a Usales team";
To be sensitive to the job market, training opportunities, and special
training needs;
To seek feedback from the community on performance and issues
visible in the community in dealing with the community to anticipate
and identify issues and needs prior to the issues and needs
becoming a crisis;
511
To identify services, scopes beyond the School Board's normal range
community service needs;
· Schools respond to questions/mistakes and clarification.
During a discussion, the following suggestions were offered by individual
Council Members to the School Board:
If the School Board is working on an issue that needs clarification
throughout the community, a member of the School Board could
draft an op ed piece for publication in The Roanoke Times. Council
has taken this approach on several occasions in regard to the water
authority, the City's annual accomplishments, etc. Information was
shared with Council Members prior to forwarding the article to the
newspaper which allowed Council Members an opportunity to
provide input, thus, the article was representative of the Council.
There may be other occasions when an individual School Board
Member might wish to articulate an individual opinion which would
not necessarily speak on behalf of the entire School Board and it
should be stated in the letter that it was the opinion of one School
Board member.
Concern has been expressed with regard to lack of attendance by
parents at meetings. The City of Roanoke has established
approximately 35 neighborhood organizations, some of ~'hich
represent a large area of the City, therefore, any information that the
School Board would like to take to the community could be
addressed through the various neighborhood organizations.
The City Manager advised that many times the written word is accepted as
the final word; letters to The Editor in The Roanoke Times could be answered
when clarification is in order; and many times City staff will contact a person who
has written a Letter to the Editor to provide the necessary clarification. She
stated that police officers attend neighborhood meetings on a monthly basis and
it might be advantageous for representatives of the school system to also attend
neighborhood meetings to report on activities in the schools that serve specific
neighborhoods, which could also bring the community closer to the schools.
512
Parent-Teacher Association meetings, activities and school events
could be reported to the applicable neighborhood association so
that the community that the school serves is aware of the positive
things that are happening in the school.
If there are misperceptions in the community, the Chair, or Vice-
Chair, or a Member of the School Board could schedule a five to ten
minute briefing at a Council meeting to address the specific issue or
topic.
O~uarterly meetings of Council and the School Board should be held
to address critical issues.
Following a discussion, it was the consensus of the Council and the School
Board that the "buddy system" is working and should be continued.
At 1:30 p.m., the Mayor left the meeting.
The facilitator led the Council and the School Board in an exercise listing
critical issues that need to be addressed in the next two to three months where
dialogue and/or closure is needed in terms of process.
The following is a summary:
1. To address safety issues in order to rebuild confidence in the school
system:
The School Safety Task Force will report in late February/early
March 2004 (Schools to act)
Rebuild confidence in the school system:
Successes/achievements
Marketing schools
Tours for the community (schools to do)
Invite School Board representative to BizBreak (Breakfast meetings
with representatives of various businesses to discuss issues of
concern.)
Communicate a sense of support for teachers and staff (schools to
do)
51L3
Stadium-related issues:
Turf
Leases
Fees/priority of use
Maintenance
5. Accreditation for Schools (schools to do)
School funding resources
Joint lobbying efforts (December meeting with legislators)
Creation of a Public Schools Foundation (schools to do)
Being proactive about the accomplishments of the schools
8. Schools/traffic calming (agreed to remove from list)
School Superintendent expectations/performance/direction (schools
to act on)
10.
School - City communications (This will be addressed if
Council/School Board follow through on some of the above listed
items.)
With regard to taking the above listed items to action, the following
suggestions were offered:
Council and the School Board should meet quarterly on the first
Monday of the month.
There was discussion with regard to bids submitted for the turf at the
proposed new stadium on Orange Avenue/Williamson Road; whereupon, the City
Manager advised that the City is negotiating with the Iow bidder on the basis of
natural turf, unless she is told otherwise; and if, at a later point in the process,
the school system is willing to pay the difference of approximately $200,000.00
for artificial turf, the contract can be amended. Discussion also took place in
regard to maintenance/operation costs for the stadium.
It was the consensus of Council and the School Board to meet on Monday,
January 5, 2004, at 12:00 noon, to discuss stadium related issues; i.e.: turf,
leases, fees/priority of use and maintenance.
514
It would appropriate for Council and the School Board to hold a
joint-meeting to receive the report of the School Safety Task Force.
It would be beneficial for the School Board to send a representative
to the City's monthly BizBreak breakfast meetings, which are held
with representatives of local businesses in the Roanoke Valley.
There being no further business to come before the Council, at 3:00 p.m.,
the Vice-Mayor declared the Roanoke City Council meeting in recess until
Monday, November 24, 2003, at 3:30 p.m. to discuss a vacancy in a
Constitutional Office.
(The meeting was later rescheduled to be held as a special meeting of the
Council on Tuesday, November 25, 2003, at 3:30 p.m., in the Council's
Conference Room.)
Mary F Parker
City Clerk
APPROVED
Ralph K. Smith
Mayor
515
SPECIAL SESSION .... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
November 25, 2003
3:30 p.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in special session on Tuesday,
November 25, 2003, at 3:30 p.m., in the City Council's Conference Room, fourth
floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of
Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Section lO,
Meetings of Council Generally, Charter of the City of Roanoke, with Mayor
Ralph K. Smith presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T.
Dowe, Jr. (arrived late), Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. (arrived late), C. Nelson Harris,
Linda F. Wyatt, and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ................................ 7.
ABSENT: None ................................................. O.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
The special meeting was called pursuant to the following communication
from Vice-Mayor Harris:
"November 24, 2003
The Honorable Mayor and
Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Smith and Members of Council:
Pursuant to Section 10, Meetings of Council Generally, Chapter l0 of the
City Charter, I am calling a special meeting of Council for Tuesday, November 25,
2003, at 3:30 p.m., in the Council's Conference Room, fourth floor, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke. The
purpose of the meeting will be to discuss appointment of a Constitutional
Officer.
516 -
Sincerely,
S/C. Nelson Harris
C. Nelson Harris
Vice-Mayor
pc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk"
Mr. Cutler moved that Council convene in a Closed Session to discuss a
personnel matter, being the appointment of a Constitutional Officer, pursuant to
Section 2.2-3711(a)(1), Code of Virginia (1950) as amended. The motion was
seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Harris, Wyatt and Mayor Smith-5.
NAYS: None .................................................... 0.
(Council Members Dowe and Fitzpatrick were not present when the vote was
recorded.)
At 3:35 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for one closed
session.
(Council Members Dowe and Fitzpatrick entered the meeting during the Closed
Session.)
At 7:35 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council's Conference Room,
with all Members of the Council in attendance, except Mayor Smith, and
Vice-Mayor Harris presiding.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Bestpitch
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her
knowledge that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempt from open
meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2)
only such public business matters as were identified in any motion bywhich any
Closed Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City
Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following
vote:
517
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Wyatt, and
Vice- Mayor Harris ................................................... 6.
NAYS: None .................................................... 0.
(Mayor Smith was absent.)
COUNCIL-CITY TREASURER: Ms. Wyatt moved that the City Attorney be
instructed to prepare the proper measure appointing Evelyn W. Powers as City
Treasurer, effective January 1, 2004. The motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Bestpitch, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Wyatt and
Vice-Mayor Harris ................................................... 6.
NAYS: None .................................................... 0.
(Mayor Smith was absent.)
There being no further business, the Vice-Mayor declared the special
meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m.
APPROVED
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Mayor
518 -
REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION ..... ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
December 1, 2003
9:00 a.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday,
December 1, 2003, at 9:00 a.m., the regular meeting hour, in the Emergency
Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor
Ralph K. Smith presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City
Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, Reqular Meetinqs, Code of the
City of Roanoke (1979), as amended; and pursuant to Resolution No. 36193-
010603 adopted on January 6, 2003, which changed the time of commencement
of the regular meeting of Council to be held on the first Monday in each month
from 12:15 p.m. to 9:00 a.m.
PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., William D. Bestpitch,
M. Rupert Cutler, and Mayor Ralph K. Smith .............................. 4.
ABSENT: Vice-Mayor C. Nelson Harris and Council Members Beverly T.
Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Linda F. Wyatt ...................................... 3.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.,
Chair, City Council Personnel Committee, requesting that Council convene in a
Closed Meeting to discuss the mid-year performance of two Council-Appointed
Officers, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, was before the body.
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the request to convene in a Closed
Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Bestpitch, Cutler and Mayor Smith ...... 4.
NAYS: None ................................................... O,
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Members Fitzpatrick and Wyatt were absent.)
519
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A
communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in a
Closed Meeting to discuss disposition of publicly-owned property, where
discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position, or
negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3),
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body.
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Restpitch, Cutler and Mayor Smith ....... 4.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Members Fitzpatrick and Wyatt were absent.)
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A
communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in a
Closed Meeting to discuss disposition of publicly-owned property, where
discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position, or
negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3),
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body.
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Bestpitch, Cutler and Mayor Smith ....... 4.
NAYS: None .................................................... 0.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Members Fitzpatrick and Wyatt were absent.)
PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A
communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in a
Closed Meeting to discuss acquisition of real property for public purpose, where
discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position, or
negotiating strategy of the public body, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3),
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body.
520
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to
convene in a Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by
Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Bestpitch, Cutler and Mayor Smith ....... 4.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
(Vice-Mayor Harris and Council Members Fitzpatrick and Wyatt were absent.)
ITEMS LISTED ON THE 2:00 P.M. COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING
DISCUSSION/CLARIFICATION; AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE 2:00 P.M.
DOCKET: NONE.
TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE LEGISLATIVE DAY REGIONAL DINNER: The City
Manager advised that Virginia Municipal League Legislative Day will be held on
February 12, 2004, in Richmond, Virginia, and inquired as to whether Council
would like to participate in a Regional Legislative Day Dinner on the evening of
February 12. She explained that the first regional dinner was organized by the
City of Roanoke in 2002 and by Roanoke County in 2003.
Discussion:
The majority of Council expressed an interest in participating in a regional
dinner which would include localities extending into the New River Valley,
and would be beneficial toward increasing Roanoke's ties and cooperation
with local governments in the New River Valley area.
· The upper Roanoke River watershed geography could be used as a basis
for the invitation list.
Representatives of jurisdictions represented by the Roanoke Valley-
Allegheny Regional Commission and the New River Valley Regional
Commission should be invited.
Council Member Bestpitch, acting as the chief elected officer of the
Roanoke Valley AIleghany Regional Commission, and the chief elected
official of the New River Valley Regional Commission could co-chair the
meeting, which would be limited to those jurisdictions represented in the
two regions.
521
There was discussion in regard to topics of discussion that will be of
common interest to all participants; whereupon, the City Manager advised that
light passenger rail is a subject of interest to both the Roanoke and the New
River Valley Regional Planning Districts; other suggestions include rail passenger,
rail freight, a Iow fare airline, bus service, all of which represent transportation
issues that the localities share a common interest.
Council Member Bestpitch advised that the Roanoke Valley's delegation to
the General Assembly and Senators should be called upon to provide input in
regard to topics of discussion of interest to all of the participating localities, and
he would talk with Senator Edwards and Senator-Elect Bell to obtain their
suggestions. He stated that in conjunction with the Executive Director of the
Roanoke Valley Allegheny Regional Commission, he would also contact his
counter part at the New River Valley Regional Commission to determine the level
of interest in participating in the regional dinner on February 12.
(Council Member Wyatt entered the meeting.)
Council/School Board Ioint Session:
The City Manager advised that at the Council and School Board retreat on
Friday, November 21, 2003, Council requested a more detailed discussion with
regard to the stadium turf issue and it was agreed that Council and the School
Board would meet jointly on Monday, January 5, 2004, to discuss the matter.
The City Manager referred to a letter addressed to the Superintendent of
Schools in which it was noted that when the budget was established for Victory
Stadium, natural turf was being considered; since the budget was adopted,
significant improvements have taken place in artificial turf; and representatives
of the schools athletic organizations and City staff visited nine different locations
that are currently using an artificial playing field and heard positive reviews by
officials from some facilities that have been in use for as long as seven years.
She stated that based upon the support of athletic directors toward artificial turf
and given the fact that there is approximately a $200,000.00 difference, she
suggested to the Superintendent of Schools that the school system consider
funding the additional $200,000.00 for artificial turf. She further pointed out
that if the schools are interested in funding the additional $200,000.00, she
would suggest to Council that the funds be repaid to the City over a period of
time. She noted that the Superintendent of Schools responded that the School
Board would reconsider the matter in January 2004, the School Board has
questions, not just about artificial turf, but in regard to the scheduling events for
the schools, whether or not the schools would be "bumped" if there was a major
entertainment event at the stadium, stadium rental issues, and whether or not
the playing field would be available for training activities as well as game
activities.
522
There was discussion in regard to the merits of artificial versus natural
turf; the practice of charging the school system for use of the stadium, in which
one Member of Council stated that he was not aware of a high school sports
program anywhere in the United States that does not cost the school system any
money; the true cost of Roanoke's education system; using a different (local)
facilitator for future Council/School Board retreats; and that there be more open
and spontaneous dialogue among Council and the School Board, as opposed to
an overly structured agenda format.
The City Manager advised that while the schools may not have a formal
contract for use of the stadium, the City has a moral contract with the school
system, and would not "bump" a school event from the stadium.
The City Manager further advised that the City could move forward with
natural turf, with the understanding that a change order could be considered for
"x" period of time with the contractor; and the City has budgeted strictly for
natural turf at this point, assuming that negotiations are successful within the
budget that has been prepared for this element of the project. She added that
the two items that were selected for alternates beyond the base bid for the
stadium project include the irrigation system and turf, and all other elements
that were bid as alternates have been excluded at this point.
In addition to the stadium turf issue, the City Manager inquired if there are
other items that Council would like to discuss at the joint meeting with the
School Board on January 4; whereupon, Dr. Cutler suggested consolidating joint
operations such as purchasing, human resources, and medical insurance;
whereupon, the City Manager advised that if Council and the School Board direct
the City and School administrations to work on the issues, some progress could
and would be made.
Dr. Cutler inquired if the Members of Council share his interest, in which
several Council Members concurred.
Council Member Wyatt suggested that the two administrations start with a
topic such as joint purchasing and then move on to other areas of joint
cooperation; whereupon, the Director of Finance advised that the City's Finance
Department currently provides accounting and payroll operations for the schools
at no annual charge.
523
The City Manager advised that she contacted the School Superintendent to
determine if the School Board preferred a different facilitator for the
Council/School Board retreat on Friday, November 21, and after polling School
Board members, Dr. Harris advised that the School Board was comfortable with
using the facilitator who was engaged; it is not an easy task to find local
facilitators and staff is not adverse to taking a different approach and suggest
that the School Board select the facilitator for the next Council/School Board
retreat.
Schedulinq of future meetings with the School Board:
It was the consensus of Council to meet with the School Board on the first
Monday of each quarter for a joint work session, in addition to the meetings
which are held in May with regard to the upcoming fiscal year budget and in
December to discuss the proposed City/Schools Legislative Program. It was
suggested that the Council/School Board engage in a discussion at the January 5
joint meeting with regard topics of discussion at future work sessions and to
prioritize agenda items; and that an equal number of meetings will be held at
sites to be selected by the School Board.
The Mayor advised that in the year 2007, the Tidewater area will celebrate
the 400'h anniversary of Jamestown; inasmuch as the City of Roanoke will
celebrate its 125'h anniversary in 2007, there have been discussions in regard to
local celebrations, such as a 1607 greenway, or a 1607 art project; and State
and/or Federal funds may be available for various projects. The Mayor asked
that the City be mindful of potential opportunities.
It was pointed out that there might be a way to involve EventZone and
Local Colors, etc., in the celebration to plan an activity that recognizes the multi-
cultural nature of the indigenous peoples and the early explorers; the possibility
of working with the local Hispanic community to plan a activity focusing on the
Spanish exploration, or the Monacan Indians at Big Island in Amherst County, or
the Indian Interpretation Program at Explore Park, etc.
It was suggested that a local resident, Gary Foutz, a Native American
Indian, could provide a wealth of information.
BRIEFINGS:
The City Manager advised that prior to adjournment of the Council
meeting, she would like to include a third briefing in regard to the First Street
Bridge.
524
Nancy C. Snodgrass, City Planner, presented a briefing on the Zoning
Ordinance; i.e.: New Zoning Districts.
She advised that the policy basis for new districts, as contained in Vision
2001-2020, is to ensure compatibility of uses within residential areas, to
encourage airport-related uses on properties adjacent to the airport, to
maximize use of commercial sites, and to protect the river corridor and open
space; and there are four base zoning districts: Institutional, Airport
Development, Commercial Large Site, Recreation and Open Space, and One
Overlay District (River and Creek Corridors).
She explained that the Institutional (IN) District is necessary to recognize
the unique needs of institutional uses, to ensure cohesive development of a site,
and to minimize adverse impacts of institutional uses on neighboring residential
uses; and the Institutional District is applied to sites of less than five acres, with
one permitted use, with permitted uses including day care centers, schools,
places of worship and libraries.
The Airport Development District is necessary to address the unique
purpose of a specific area to complement the Airport Navigation Overlay District,
and the Roanoke Regional Airport Master Plan approved by the Federal Aviation
Administration; and the Airport Development District is applied to all properties
owned by the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission as delineated by the Master
Plan, and to properties adjacent to the airport designated for airport supportive
and airport-related uses.
The Commercial Large Site District (CLS) is necessary to provide for
regulation different from commercial corridor single-lot development,
encourages cohesive development of a site and improved controls to minimize
impact on surrounding uses and to lessen environmental impacts; and it is
applied to large-scale, auto-dependent uses, accommodates multiple buildings,
typically one lot or combination of lots with multiple tenants sharing common
parking curb cuts, and access to and from public streets, and uses include
shopping centers and large motor vehicle sales and service establishments.
The Recreation and Open Space District (ROS) is necessary to provide
added protection for existing open space and parks, to prevent encroachment of
incompatible land uses and to provide for limited development within open
space; there is no minimum lot size, and permitted uses include active and
passive parks, recreational facilities, golf courses and cemeteries.
525
River and Creek Corridors (RCC) Overlay District is necessary to provide
additional protection to the waters of the Roanoke River, to preserve natural
vegetation, features and quality of properties along the waterways, and to
implement additional environmental best management practices; and the district
will supplement base district zoning regulations, designate properties that abut
the shorelines to be determined by the adopted zoning map and serves as a
riparian buffer requirement.
Ms. Wyatt suggested that development of property around the Roanoke
Regional Airport be a topic of discussion at a future joint meeting of Council and
the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors. She cautioned that regulations not be
so restrictive as to prevent the conduct of business in the area.
Ms. Snodgrass advised that the draft ordinance will be reviewed by the
Zoning Ordinance Steering Committee on December 16, 2003; public comment
will be invited for approximately three months, the Steering Committee will then
work with City Planning staff based on public comments, and it could be late
Spring before the document is submitted to Council for consideration.
The Mayor inquired if portions of the proposed new zoning ordir, ance
could be submitted to Council for action sooner than the Spring of 2004;
whereupon, staff advised that the proposed regulations work together as a
complete package and, if certain portions are acted on separately by the Council,
the new ordinance may not be as effective; and much depends on the public
comment phase of the process, which could lead to further study by the Steering
Committee and staff; and the next meeting of the Steering Committee is critical
in terms of determining whether the document is ready for public comment, or if
more work remains to be done.
The City Manager introduced a briefing on traffic calming in the Jamison
Avenue/Bullitt Avenue area.
Mark Jamison, Traffic Engineer, advised that the Jamison Avenue/Bullitt
Avenue corridor is one of the numerous projects included in the Southeast by
Design project, which is an effort to revitalize the neighborhood. He stated that
Jamison/Bullitt Avenues have developed over the course of years as arterial
roadways and carry approximately 29,000 vehicles per day; historically, they are
residential neighborhoods, and the proximity of the houses to the street is very
much a residential character, but the roadways function as arterial. He added
that the stated goal of the project is to slow down the speed of vehicles traveling
through the area; the single largest problem identified in the corridor is that it is
straight, flat and very easy to drive well over the speed limit; and when the
project is complete and speeds have been dropped back, the area will be a much
more livable neighborhood. He stated that landscaping is proposed to improve
the character of the neighborhood; various measures proposed to slow down the
526
speed are: a splitter which is a landscaped island located essentially in the
middle of the roadway that requires the two lanes of traffic to move out and
literally drive around the divider; a splitter has been proposed coming in on
Bullitt Avenue at Sixth Street and another splitter is proposed coming in from
Vinton at Thirteenth Street; and splitters are proposed on either side of Ninth
Street to pick up traffic coming up on Ninth Street and into the corridor. He
stated that those measures are the signature feature and will introduce the
driver to the feeling that they are approaching something new and different; and
by virtue of diverting the travel out of a straight traffic path, with the addition of
heavily landscaped medians, both a physical and a mental obstruction is
provided and tends to force drivers to slow down.
He advised that the second method is a chicane which is an arterial shift;
i.e.: the driver would be driving for example on the right side of the roadway
where there is parking on the left, as they go though the chicane, they would
then transfer over and drive to the left side of the roadway with parking on the
right; there are a number of parking bays which allow parking on one side
whereby motorists will drive in more narrow travel lanes than currently exist; and
the pavement is approximately 30 feet wide and will shift down to about an 11
foot driveway, into a 7 - 8 foot parking lane, which should encourage some of
the residents to once again park on the street. He stated that another method to
slow down traffic is a choker, which is a feature that would be installed primarily
at intersections that narrows the travel lane; there would be some landscaping
ancO.trees in the area; the choker narrows the width of the roadway for
pedestrians, which decreases the amount of time that a pedestrian is actually in
the street while crossing, it allows the driver on the side street to pull farther
onto the pavement, which improves visibility down the section of roadway and
should improve safety as drivers turn onto the corridor. He stated that the key to
making these types of features work is the frequency of the feature; and there
are certain features on almost every block to allow for a 300 - 500 foot spacing
that will force drivers to make the decision to slow down.
Mr. Jamison presented a conceptual plan which was reviewed at a public
involvement meeting by the Southeast by Design Steering Committee and the
City Planning Commission. He stated that staff would like to get a general
consensus from the Council that it is headed in the right direction, at which time
the matter will be turned over to a consultant for completion of final design
documents in approximately December 2004, advertise for bids in
February/March 2004, and award a construction contract in March/April 2004,
with completion anticipated in the summer of 2004.
Question was raised as to whether traffic exiting 1-581 across Elm Avenue
traveling in the direction of the Town of Vinton has been studied; whereupon,
Mr. Jamison advised that the proposal is not intended to impede the flow of
traffic, but to slow down traffic; the Elm Avenue Interchange is included in the
527
City's local long range transportation plan and the State's long range
transportation plan; and a meeting will be scheduled with the Virginia
Department of Transportation to establish the scope of the study.
The City Manager advised that the bigger issue is the Elm Avenue area and
the interchange; Council previously authorized funding to study the area, and
City staff has been working with VDOT officials on the study. She advised that
the proposed traffic calming measures are intended to encourage persons to live
in this section of the City, and the proposed measures will make the area more
livable, although there continues to be a need to address the Elm Avenue area.
Mr. King called attention to discussions with VDOT officials as a part of the
pre allocation hearing in regard to the area where speed builds up from
Thirteenth Street to the Vinton boundary line at the point where pedestrians
cross the road at Fallon Park up to the Arby's Restaurant; and advised that a
traffic signal has been recommended for Dale Avenue and Vernon Street, which
will help to break up the flow of traffic; and a median will be installed as a part of
the Urban Forestry effort, with landscaping. He added that although the
Bullitt/Jamison project does not extend to the Thirteenth Street/Vinton line,
improvements could be made through urban forestry efforts and other more
direct efforts.
In response to various questions, Mr. Jamison advised that the streets will
continue to have the character of two lanes in each direction, adjacent streets are
very narrow with parking on both sides, and diverting traffic to other streets
does not appear to be a problem.
Concern was also expressed that trees included in the landscaping design
could obscure the visibility of motorists in making turns at corners; whereupon,
Mr. J~mison advised that a meeting is scheduled with the consultant and the
City's Urban Forester to discuss types of landscaping and types of trees to be
planted to ensure that trees grow up rather than out and do not block visibility.
The Mayor expressed concern in regard to diverting traffic into other
neighborhoods; and the need for an arterial highway to the east and at some
point in time it will be necessary to address an arterial highway alternative to
Orange Avenue. He stated that the proposal before Council would make the
Bullitt/Jamison Corridor area a little safer, but what will be the cost in terms of
safety to other alternative roads.
528
Mr. Jamison advised that nothing is being proposed to be done that will
reduce the capacity of the roadway; and once traffic calming measures are
installed and constructed, motorists will recognize that there is very little, if any,
reduction in travel time. He called attention to the long range plan that includes
a list of projects known as "Thirteenth Street projects" which provide for
improvements on Tazewell Avenue and Thirteenth Street across the railroad
tracks, Campbell and Wise Avenues and measures that are proposed to alleviate
some of the problems in those areas; and the long range plan also recognizes
the need for another roadway to access the City.
At 11:30 a.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess and the Council
moved to the Council's Conference Room, Room 451, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, for a Closed Session on the mid year performance of a Council
Appointed Officer.
At 12:15 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Emergency
Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, for ajoint meeting of Council and the Roanoke City School Board, with
Mayor Smith and School Board Chair Gloria Manns presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda F.
Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ....... 6.
ABSENT: Council Member BeverlyT. Fitzpatrick,Jr.- ................. 1.
SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: William H. Lindsey, Robert Sparrow, Kathy G.
Stockburger, David B. Trinkle, Ruth C. Willson and Chair Gloria P. Manns ......6.
ABSENT: School Trustee MelindaJ. Payne ........................... 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Representing the City of Roanoke: Darlene L.
Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth , City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall,
Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Representing the Roanoke City Public Schools: Richard A. Kelley, Assistant
Superintendent; and Cindy L. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board.
OTHERS PRESENT: Senator John S. Edwards, Delegate-Elect william Fralin,
Delegate-Elect Onzlee Ware; and Thomas Dick, Legislative Liaison for the City of
Roanoke.
The Mayor advised that the purpose of the meeting was to meet with the
City's delegation to the Virginia General Assembly to discuss the City's 2004
Legislative Program. He then turned the meeting over to Council Member
William D. Bestpitch, Chair, Legislative Committee.
529
Council Member Bestpitch welcomed Senator Edwards and Delegates-Elect
Fralin and Ware to the meeting. He expressed appreciation to the City Attorney
and to the City's Legislative Liaison for their work on the City's 2004 Legislative
Program.
Thomas Dick, Legislative Liaison, presented an overview of the City's 2004
Legislative Program.
(For full text, see 2004 Legislative Program on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
William Lindsey, School Trustee and a School Board representative to the
Legislative Committee, presented the Roanoke City Public School's Legislative
Program. He advised that the biggest problem facing public education is the lack
of financial support; State funding issues consist primarily of three major areas:
the JLARC study of 2001 which indicates that $535 million is required to meet
prevailing practices, $324 million is needed to meet State Board of Education
changes in the Standards of Quality, and rebenchmarking $525 million for
increased costs related to the Standards of Quality.
Mr. Kelley reviewed the following from the Schools 2004-2006 Legislative
Program:
Priority ! - Rebenchmark SOQ: Increase in SOQ costs resulting from:
teacher and employee salary raises, inflation in operating costs (supplies,
utilities, insurance)and growth in student enrollment. An increase of $1.5
million in State funds.
· Priority 2 - SOQ Recommendations: State Board's SOQ recommendations
include full time elementary principals, assistant principals (400 students),
three periods weekly of art, music, physical education instruction and two
technology positions per 1,000 students, planning period for secondary
teachers, additional hour of prevention and remediation for identified
students. Increase of $2.3 million in State funds.
Priority 3 - School Construction. State to fund 55 per cent of school
construction costs and the State now funds 20 per cent of school
construction costs ($1.1 million). An Increase of $3.3 million in State
funds.
Legislative Outcomes - Accomplish top three school goals as judged by
parents and non-parents: i.e.: provide children with tools to succeed in
life, master basic skills, and create well rounded children.
530
Senator Edwards advised that the Governor has announced a plan to enhance
revenue in the range of $1.2 - $:~.4 billion, which is a slight improvement over
current funding and provides additional automatic funding for Medicaid, etc.. He
stated that the plan does not address critical needs of transportation, higher
education, and numerous other issues and it may be difficult to get the plan
through the House of Delegates. He added that the Commonwealth of Virginia is
facing a serious fiscal crisis for the third year in a row, and is the worst fiscal
crisis that the State has faced since World War II, having cut $3.8 billion in 2002,
another $2 billion in 2003, or approximately $6 billion in the last two years, and
the State is looking at cutting another approximately $1.5 billion unless
something is done to enhance revenues. He stated that the Governor's plan may
not be the perfect plan, but it is a good plan and encouraged local officials to
support the plan, or another plan that will enhance revenues, otherwise
education funding will be cut. He emphasized that education is, without a doubt,
the most important priority in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and Senator
Chichester, Republican Chair of the Senate Finance Committee, may propose a
plan that is even more aggressive than the Governor's plan. He spoke in support
of and advised that he will continue to work on a plan to dedicate lottery money
to a trust fund for school construction needs. He advised that he has enjoyed
representing the City of Roanoke in the Senate and looks forward to a continuing
good relationship with local officials.
Delegate-Elect Ware advised that he looks forward to the upcoming session
of the General Assembly. He stated that in order for the area to be successful,
legislative representatives will have to join together to champion those issues
that are specific to the Roanoke Valley.
Delegate-Elect Fralin advised that he is excited about the upcoming
session of the General Assembly and looks forward to working with Senator
Edwards, Delegate Griffith, Senator-Elect Bell and Delegate Elect-Ware. He
advised that he and Senator-Elect Bell are currently preparing a bill for the 2004
General Assembly Session that will prohibit the establishment of drug treatment
facilities that distribute narcotic medications within one-half mile of a school,
which should address the situation in Roanoke County and in Roanoke City; and
he also supports the 30 day notification by the State to an affected locality. With
regard to the advisory referendum included in the City's Legislative Program, he
advised that another study, or another commission, may not be the answer and
an advisory referendum is probably an option that should be offered to citizens.
He pledged his support to work for the good of the Roanoke Valley and its
citizens.
531
In regard to the proposed methadone clinic on Hershberger Road, the City
Manager called attention to numerous inquiries by citizens as to the appropriate
person or entity to correspond with; whereupon, it was suggested by Senator
Edwards and Delegate-Elect Fralin that citizens should write to the Department
of Mental Health, Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse Services, and to
representatives of the House of Delegates Education and Health Committee.
There being no further business, at 1:25 p.m., the Mayor declared the
meeting in recess, and Council Members reconvened in Closed Session in the
Council's Conference Room, Room 451, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, to
continue the mid year performance evaluation of a Council Appointed Officer.
At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, December 1, 2003, the Council meeting
reconvened in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor Smith
presiding.
PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., C. Nelson Harris, Linda F.
Wyatt, William D. Bestpitch, M. Rupert Cutler, and Mayor Ralph K. Smith ....... 6.
ABSENT: Council Member Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, J r.- .................. 1.
OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M.
Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker,
City Clerk.
The meeting was opened with a prayer by The Reverend Paul E. Johnson,
Pastor, Williams Memorial Baptist Church.
The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was
led by Mayor Smith.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: NONE.
CONSENT AGENDA
The Mayor advised that all matters listed under the Consent Agenda were
considered to be routine by the Members of Council and would be enacted by
one motion in the form, or forms, listed on the Consent Agenda, and if
discussion was desired, the item would be removed from the Consent Agenda
and considered separately.
532
CITY PROPERTY-LEASES: A communication from the City Manager
recommending that Council schedule a public hearing for Monday, December 15,
2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with
regard to leasing City-owned property located at 1302 Municipal Road, N. W.,
was before the body.
It was advised that The Hertz Corporation currently leases approximately
87,120 square feet of City-owned land commonly known as 1302 Municipal
Road, N. W., for the purpose of operating an automobile rental establishment;
the current lease agreement expired on November 30, 2003; The Hertz
Corporation wishes to extend the lease for an additional five year period,
beginning December 1, 2003 through November 30, 2008; and the proposed
agreement would establish an_annual rate of $26,600.04, with an increase of two
per cent each year thereafter.
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYES: None .................................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
CITY COUNCIL-EASEMENTS-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS: A communication
from the City Manager recommending that Council schedule a public hearing for
Monday, December 15, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard, with regard to vacation and dedication of sewer and drainage
easements across property located on Wildwood Road, S. W., Official Tax
No. 1070605, was before the body.
It was advised that pursuant to provisions of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as
amended, the City is required to hold a public hearing on the proposed vacation
and dedication of sewer and drainage easements.
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager.
The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith ............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
533
BUDGET: A communication from the City Manager recommending that the
following Calendar of Events for Budget Preparation Activities for Fiscal Year
2004-2005 be adopted:
· April 12-16, 2004
City Manager briefs City Council on recommended
budget.
· April 15, 2004
Recommended budget document delivered to City
Council Members.
· April 19, 2004
Recommended budget presented to City Council at
regularly scheduled meeting.
· April 20, 2004
Advertisements of public hearing on recommended
budget and tax rates appear in newspapers.
· April 29, 2004
Public hearings on recommended budget and tax
rates.
**Requires special meeting of City Council
· May 7, 10, 11, 2004 Budget Study
· May 11, 2004 Optional
· May 13, 2004
City Council adopts General Fund, School Fund,
Proprietary Fund budgets and an Update to the
HUD Consolidated Plan and approves an annual
appropriation ordinance.
· **Requires special meeting of City Council
Mr. Dowe moved that Council concur in the recommendation of the City
Manager. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
534
COMMI'I-FEES-ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: A communication from
Kyle G. Ray tendering his resignation as a member of the Architectural Review
Board, effective November :14, 2003, was before Council.
Mr. Dowe moved that the resignation be accepted and that the
communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None .................................................. O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMll-FEES-SCHOOLS: A communication from MelindaJ. Payne tendering
her resignation as a Trustee of the Roanoke City School Board, effective
December 31, 2003, was before the Council.
Mr. Dowe moved that the resignation be accepted and that the
communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler
and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
COMMITTEES-LIBRARIES: A report of qualification of Sam G. Oakey, III, as a
member of the Roanoke Public Library Board, to fill the unexpired term of Brooke
Parrott, deceased, ending June 30, 2006, was before the Council.
Mr. Dowe moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
535
REGULAR AGENDA:
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
COMPLAINTS-SCHOOLS: The Reverend William L. Lee addressed Council
with regard to issues facing the Roanoke City Public Schools. He advised that the
past several months have caused many citizens a great deal of pain because they
cannot understand how Roanoke's school system, which has been under the
leadership of Dr. E. Wayne Harris for the past ten years, has become to some the
worst in the region; and after searching the archives of The Roanoke T/rnesfor
the past ten plus years with regard to articles dealing with Roanoke's schools and
its Superintendent, there have been few articles that hinted at anything negative
concerning Roanoke's schools or its Superintendent; however, in the past six
months, hardly a day passes without the school system and the Superintendent
being maligned.
He stated that he would not downplay the concern of parents and citizens
over violence in the schools, but some have challenged Council to the point that
it has acted as if Roanoke has a crisis, and the usual behavior in crisis is to place
the blame on one person or entity; and while it is understood that citizens have
concerns, the Roanoke City School system is not in crisis, and concerns can be
addressed through a collaborative effort by Council, the School Board and the
Superintendent of Schools.
Reverend Lee reviewed the following accomplishments of the Roanok~ City
School system under the leadership of Superintendent Harris:
626 graduates earned over $2 million in scholarship funds;
72 per cent of Roanoke's students are now reading on grade level by
third grade;
15 of 19 elementary schools improved reading scores during 2002-
O3;
International Baccalaureate Program (96 lB Certificates and five lB
Diplomas);
Highly qualified staff (19 National Board Certified Teachers and over
50 per cent of administrators and educators hold advanced degrees);
536 -
Roanoke City School teachers and staff narrowed the achievement
gap by six per cent from 1998 to 2003 based on comparisons of the
number of Standards of Learning tests passed by black students in
relation to white students;
Standards of Learning Accreditation of the following schools:
William Fleming High School, Highland Park Elementary School,
Raleigh Court Elementary School, Patrick Henry High School, Crystal
Spring Elementary School, Grandin Court Elementary School, Fair
View Elementary School, Roanoke Academy of Mathematics and
Science, Wasena Elementary School, Woodrow Wilson Middle School,
Fishburn Park Elementary School, Breckinridge Middle School,
Monterey Elementary School, and Virginia Heights Elementary School.
He stated that early in his tenure, Dr. Harris promised "not to leave any
child behind" and advised that working with the School Board, he has kept his
promise, and under his leadership academic achievement has been raised and
the dropout rate has been lowered.
In closing, Reverend Lee requested that Council publicly state that it acted
too hastily when a recent vote of no confidence in Dr. Harris was expressed.
(For full text, see statement on file in the City Clerk's Office.)
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
BUDGET-GRANTS-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that the City of Roanoke is the grant recipient for
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) funding, thus, Council must appropriate funding
for all grants and other monies received in order for the Western Virginia
Workforce Development Board to administer WIA programs; the Western Virginia
Workforce Development Board administers the Federally funded Workforce
Investment Act (WIA) for Area 3, which encompasses the Counties of Alleghany,
Botetourt, Craig, Franklin and Roanoke, and the Cities of Covington, Roanoke,
and Salem; and the following WIA funding is intended for four primary client
populations:
537
Dislocated workers who have been laid off from employment through
no fault of their own;
Economically disadvantaged individuals as determined by household
income guidelines defined by the U. S. Department of Labor;
Youth who are economically disadvantaged, or have other barriers to
becoming successfully employed adults; and
· Businesses in need of employment and job training services.
It was further advised that the Western Virginia Workforce Development
Board has received a Notice of Obligation (NOO) from the Virginia Employment
Commission allocating $406,258.00 for the Adult Program, which serves
economically disadvantaged persons; and $365,200.00 for the Dislocated Worker
Program, which serves persons laid off from employment through no fault of
their own in Program Year 2003 (July :1, 2003-June 30, 2004);
The City Manager recommended that Council accept Western Virginia
Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act funding of $77:1,458.00
and appropriate funds to accounts to be established in the Grant Fund by the
Director of Finance.
Mr. Dowe offered the following budget ordinance.
(#36552-120103) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Workforce
Investment Act Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-
2004 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title
of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 207.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36552-:120:103. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
538
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36553-120103) A RESOLUTION accepting the Western Virginia Workforce
Development Board Workforce Investment Act funding of $771,458.00 and
authorizing the City Manager to execute the requisite documents necessary to
accept the funding.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 208.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36553-120103. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, 8estpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... O,
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
FEE COMPENDIUM-OUTDOOR DINING: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that on April 1, 2002, Council adopted Ordinance
No. 35792-040102 providing for an outdoor dining permit program and
amending the Fee Compendium; annual fees per square foot of area approved
for outdoor dining were $6.50 per square foot for the year 2000, $7.00 per
square foot for 2003, and $8.00 per square foot for 2004; concerns regarding
the fee structure limited the interest of applicants in applying for an outdoor
dining permit and were addressed when Council reduced the fees to $3.25 per
square foot in Ordinance No. 35943-061702 on June 17, 2002, for calendar year
2002 and the fee was again reduced to $3.25 by Council for calendar year 2003,
pursuant to Ordinance No. 38237-021803; total program revenues for 2003 are
$3,171.00, and, in an effort to again provide an incentive for restaurants to
apply for outdoor dining permits, the City administration recommends that the
reduced fee of $3.25 per square foot be continued for calendar year 2004.
The City Manager recommended that Council amend the Fee Compendium
so that the fee of $8.00 per square foot originally proposed for calendar year
2004 is reduced to $3.25 per square foot for calendar year 2004, with a
minimum three-month commitment from the applicant.
539
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36554-120103) AN ORDINANCE directing amendment of the Fee
Compendium to establish the fee for outdoor dining permits for calendar year
2004; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 209.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36554-120103. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
YOUTH-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising
that the Aggression Replacement Training and Education Program (ARTEP) is an
anger control program operated by Sanctuary Crisis Intervention staff; the ~jrant
program is designed to increase public safety and to provide accountability
among assaultive youth; and the pilot for the program had a 94% success rate
and continues to be a valuable addition to the continuum of services available in
the treatment of juvenile offenders.
It was further advised that ARTEP provides a less costly alternative than
incarceration of juvenile offenders; and the program increases the options
available to Juvenile Court Judges by providing intensive supervision, education
and rehabilitative treatment services for juvenile offenders who appear before
the court on violent offenses.
It was stated that this is the last year in a five-year funding cycle, which
has required increasing local responsibility for funding to the current 75%;
revenues from IIDP have decreased to 25% of the project total in the fifth year to
allow for local assumption of costs; grant funds for the final year will fund a
portion of the Relief Counselor(s) salary and fringe benefits and administrative
supplies; funding awarded by the State for the current year is $17,571.50; and
this years local match is $52,714.00 and is provided from funding currently
budgeted in the Crisis Intervention Center budget.
540
The City Manager recommended that Council approve the following
actions: adopt a resolution accepting $17,571.50 in Federal funds from the
Department of Criminal Justice Services, Grant #03-D32561102, for Sanctuary's
Aggression Replacement Training and Education Program; authorize to the City
Manager to execute the required grant acceptance, Request for Funds and any
other forms required by the Department of Criminal Justice Services; appropriate
funding in the amount of $17,572.00 to expenditure accounts to be established
by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund; and establish a revenue estimate of
$17,572.00 in funds to be received from the State.
Mr. Cutler offered the following budget ordinance:
(#36555-120:[03) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the FY04
Sanctuary's Aggression Replacement Training and Education Program Grant,
amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2003-2004 Grant Fund
Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68. page 210.)
Mr. Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36555-120103. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#36556-120103) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention Title II Grant from the Department of
Criminal Justice Services for the City's Crisis Intervention Center (Sanctuary)
Aggression Replacement Training and Education Program; and authorizing the
execution of the necessary documents.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page
541
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36556-120103. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote: ~
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Restpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
CITY CODE-ANIMALS/INSECTS: The City Manager submitted a
communication advising that in fiscal year 2002-2003, Police Department Animal
Control Officers responded to 14 calls for service in which dogs were declared to
be "dangerous dogs"; the Code of Virginia has been amended to allow a locality
to require greater liability insurance coverage for dangerous dogs; the Code of
Virginia, Section 3.1-796.93:1.(D).(2), previously required only $50,000.00
insurance coverage; however, it now states: "All certificates or renewals thereof
required to be obtained under this section shall only be issued to persons who
present satisfactory evidence that the owner, (of an animal found to be a
dangerous dog), has liability insurance coverage, to the value of at least
$100,000.00, that covers animal bites"; and the Code of Virginia, Section §3.1-
796.93:1.(B). revises definitions of"dangerous" and "vicious" dogs.
It was further advised that amending the Code of the City of Roanoke to
increase the required liability insurance coverage from $50,000.00 to
$100,000.00 and amending the definitions of "dangerous" and "vicious" dogs will
increase the level of protection for citizens and is expected to reduce the number
of dangerous dogs.
The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance amending
Sections 6-22 and 6-52 (d) of the Code of the City of Roanoke, 1979, as
amended, pertaining to dangerous and vicious dogs, revise the definitions of
"dangerous dog and "vicious dog" and increase the liability insurance coverage
requirement from $50,000.00 to $100,000.00 for owners of an animal found to
be a dangerous dog.
Mr. Dowe offered the following ordinance:
(#36557-120103) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Article II,
Division I, Section 6-22, Definitions, and Division 3, Section 6-52, Keeping of
dangerous dogs; conditions of, Chapter 6, Animals and Fowl, of the Code of the
City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to revise the definitions of "dangerous dog"
and "vicious dog" and to increase the minimum amount of liability insurance
procured and maintained by the owner of any dangerous dog to not less than
$100,000.00; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
542 -
(For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 68, page 212.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 36557-120103. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of
Finance submitted the Financial Report for the month of October, 2003°
Council Member Cutler advised that Civic Center revenues appear to be
down; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the agreement with Arena
Ventures, which is the umbrella organization through which a contract was
rendered for the National Basketball Development League, as well as
entertainment provided by Clear Channel Communications, called for the two
entities to provide 28 and 26 events, respectively; a penalty clause is included in
the contract to provide that if Clear Channel does not provide the required
number of events; and the City will receive payment for loss of revenue from
those events, the check has yet to be received for the current year, therefore, it is
not reflected in the numbers. She stated that detailed information will be needed
to provide specifics on the shortfall in the number of Civic Center events;
occasionally timing differences occur between the report that is provided to the
Roanoke Civic Center Commission and the financial report prepared by the
Director of Finance and staff is working to bring the reports more in line with
each other in a more timely way.
There was discussion in regard to the reason for the failure of Clear
Channel Communications to provide less than half of the number of events that
were proposed to be held; whereupon, the City Manager advised that generally,
events are down nationally; Clear Channel is a major promoter on a national and
international basis, and the City has been told that Clear Channel has delivered
more entertainment events at Roanoke's facility than any of the other five
communities in which Arena Ventures has a contract.
543
The Assistant City Manager for Operations advised that in 2002, the Arena
Ventures contract produced 13 events out of a required 28, therefore, a
substantial penalty was paid to the City based on total attendance; during the
first year of the contract, Arena Ventures paid the City a $105,000.00 penalty
and the City is due a $117,000.00 penalty for the current year.
There being no further discussion, without objection by Council, the Mayor
advised that the Financial Report would be received and filed.
REPORTS OF COMMI~-I'EES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS:
COMMI~-rEES-INDUSTRIES: Mr. Dowe offered the following resolution
appointing Linda D. Frith as a Director of the Industrial Development Authority of
the City of Roanoke, to fill a four year term on the Board of Directors:
(#36558-120103) A RESOLUTION appointing a new Director of the
Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, to fill a four year term
on the Board of Directors.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 214.)
Mr. Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36558-120~.03. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Cutler and adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 6.
NAYS: None ................................................... O.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
CITY TREASURER: Ms. Wyatt offered the following resolution appointing
Evelyn W. Powers as City Treasurer for a term commencing upon her qualification
and expiring on December 31, 2005:
(#36559-120103) A RESOLUTION appointing Evelyn W. Powers as City
Treasurer for a term commencing upon her qualification and expiring on
December 31, 2005.
(For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 68, page 215.)
544
Ms. Wyatt moved the adoption of Resolution No. 36559-120103. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Bestpitch.
The Mayor advised that Ms. Powers has served the City of Roanoke well for
approximately 22 years, having worked in the Municipal Auditor's Office where
she performed her duties in an outstanding manner. He stated that the duties of
the Treasurer are somewhat different and deal with management issues,
therefore, it would be wise to fill the position with a person who has extensive
management experience. He further stated that an individual, whom he referred
to as Candidate No. 3, possessed management experience but was not selected
by the Council. He advised that he wishes Ms. Powers much success in her new
position, but he was elected to vote in the best interests of all citizens,
regardless of how popular or unpopular his vote may be, and for that reason he
will vote for Candidate No. 3.
Resolution No. 36559-120103 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Wyatt, Bestpitch, Cutler and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 5.
NAYS: None ....................................................... 0.
(Mayor Smith voted for Candidate No. 3.)
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL:
SCHOOLS-CITY COUNCIL: Council Member Dowe expressed appreciation to
The Reverend William L. Lee, other area ministers, members of Loudon Avenue
Christian Church, and other persons from the community who took the time from
their busy schedules to support not only Reverend Lee, but Dr. E. Wayne Harris,
Superintendent of Roanoke City Public Schools. He strongly encouraged Council
to prayerfully consider Reverend Lee's request.
(See pages 17 -:~9.)
545
COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: In view of an upcoming vacancy on the Roanoke
City School Board on December 31, 2003, due to the resignation of MelindaJ.
Payne, Mr. Bestpitch moved that applications be received until Friday,
December 12, 2003, at 5:00 p.m., in the City Clerk's Office; and that the City
Clerk be instructed to advertise the vacancy and to schedule a public hearing for
Monday, December :~5, 2003, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be heard in the Council Chamber to receive the views of citizens. The
motion was seconded by Mr. Harris and unanimously adopted.
WATER RESOURCES: Council Member Cutler commended City Staff on a
complimentary article which was published in a recent issue of Virginia Town and
CityMa~.Tazine with regard to the City's Crystal Spring Water Plant.
LIBRARIES: Council Member Cutler called attention to a Letter to the Editor
which appeared in the November 28, 2003 edition of The Roanoke Times
entitled, "Spruce Up Library Plaza", and encouraged the City to pay more
attention to the condition of the Main Library which is an important resource for
the City of Roanoke.
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA3-1'ERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard and matters requiring
referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for response,
recommendation or report to Council.
COMPLAINTS-CITY COUNCIL: Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E.,
expressed concern that from time to time Council appears to deviate from the
printed agenda by acting on reports of the City Manager that are not included on
the formal agenda. She stated that this practice prevents the public from being
informed and having the opportunity to address the issues; therefore, she asked
that the City Manager be instructed to refrain from making changes to the formal
agenda.
COMPLAINTS: Ms. Ethel D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that for
several Council meetings, she has addressed the issue of character building. She
further advised that history was make when Ms. Brenda Hamilton, a young black
woman of tremendous courage and knowledge, was elected as Clerk of the
Circuit Court, and Roanokers should pause and give recognition to this historic
event. She added that many citizens throughout the Roanoke Valley have stated
that when Council issued a vote of no confidence in Dr. E. Wayne Harris,
Superintendent of Roanoke City Public Schools, it was an attempt by Council to
deflect the City's state of affairs from the City Manager. She advised that at the
last Council meeting, the City Manager responded to several issues concerning
the proposed stadium, but she failed to respond to the issue of toxic waste and
hazardous materials upon which a playing or sitting field will be constructed.
She inquired if the City administration is being "penny wise and pound foolish"
546
with the example of the possibility of saving $300,000.00 on a $3 million
project, when $300,000.00 has already been spent on a new logo for the City;
therefore, where is the overall savings. She stated that citizens want to know the
total cost of the proposed stadium/amphitheater complex. She asked that
Council Members give thought to what type of character Council is building and
what type of character is being portrayed to Roanoke's children. She further
asked that Council give consideration to the effectiveness of Roanoke's School
Board under the administration of Dr. Harris.
COMPLAINTS: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 729 Loudon Avenue, N. W., spoke with
regard to unhonored commitments by the City in northwest Roanoke; i.e.: to
housing and installation of sewer lines. He stated that Council Members were
elected to represent all of the people and not a chosen few, all citizens should be
treated equally, measures should be taken to decrease the crime rate in the City
of Roanoke, and wages should be sufficient so that the average City worker can
afford to purchase a house.
CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
CITY COUNCIL-DRUGS/SUBSTANCE ABUSE-HEALTH DEPARTMENT-ZONING:
The City Manager advised that Council met earlier in the day with the City's
representatives to the General Assembly to discuss the City's proposed 2004
Legislative Program, and an item of priority in the legislative program is a
request to modify the State Code to provide for future notification of localities
when any type of substance abuse or methadone clinic is to be considered in a
locality. She stated that the City will provide information on the membership of a
health committee representing the House of Delegates and the Senate for the
benefit of those persons who would like to express a concern or write letters of
support for the amendment; and letters should also be forwarded to the State
Department of Mental Health Mental Retardation and Substance Abuse, which is
the permitting organization for such facilities.
At 3:15 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess and advised that
the Council meeting would immediately reconvene in the Council's Conference
Room for a briefing in the First Street Bridge.
BRIDGES: The City Manager introduced a briefing on the First Street
Bridge. She advised that after reviewing certain e-mail correspondence last week,
there appeared to be a need to bring the First Street Bridge design back to the
Council to determine if there has been a change in direction on the bridge itself.
She stated that at the time of the naming of the bridge, which was an action by
Council, it was suggested that a committee be appointed to look at how to
incorporate within the bridge some type of tribute, or tributes, to Dr. Martin
Luther King, Jr., therefore, the Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge Committee was
named. She presented a list containing the names of committee members which
547
includes original committee members and certain stakeholders in the immediate
area of the bridge, neighborhood representatives and representatives of the
Roanoke Arts Commission. She referred to a discussion by Council on February
3, 2003, at which time it was the consensus of Council that the First Street Bridge
would be both a pedestrian and a one-way bridge traveling south into the
downtown, which was a different approach than had previously been discussed,
and called for the structure to be a strictly pedestrian bridge. She added that
recent e-mails prompted her to bring the matter to the Council's attention once
again because there may be either a miscommunication, or a need to clarify
communication on what is intended to be the format for br!dge
repair/replacement. She called upon the City Engineer to review elements of the
previous presentation and advised that staff would be pleased to receive
additional direction from the Council.
The City Engineer advised that virtually all elements of the First Street
Bridge will be replaced; and both of the approach spans will be replaced on
either end of the bridge as well as the center span, for the reason that the bridge
is over :~00 years old and has deteriorated significantly. He stated that the
bridge is currently being inspected every six months and has been closed to
traffic since 2000; bridge inspections continue to classify the structure in poor
condition, with deterioration due to rust and corrosion; the bridge is classified
as a fractured critical structure, and the entire bridge could collapse if a single
member or rivot were to fail, which creates structural concerns and caused that
the bridge to be closed to traffic. He advised that it is the opinion of City staff
and the design consultants that it will be more cost effective to replace the
center span, construct a new span using conventional girder spacing in the
middle and place decorative truss elements on either side which would resemble
the old bridge by using the same type of new and modern material. He stated
that the question is: What will happen to the old bridge? He advised that the City
has been operating under the assumption that the bridge would become the
property of the contractor who would be responsible for demolition and another
option would be to make the bridge available to an interested party for
refurbishment and use; it is unlikely that the bridge could be dismantled
because it would have to be cut into three pieces; and staff is open to other
options, however, funds have not been budgeted to demolish the structure.
The Mayor advised that if the First Street Bridge could be relied on as a
light duty bridge, he would favor leaving it intact and that the structure not be
demolished without first attempting to save the bridge because it is the last
remaining iron bridge from an era approximately 100 years ago.
The City Manager advised that the bridge is budgeted at $2.2 million which
includes $275,000.00 for removal of the railroad signals; Norfolk Southern has
advised that it has no problem with the City replacing or repairing the bridge, but
the cost of removing the signals will be a City expense; and an unknown at this
548
point is the fact that Congressman Goodlatte has submitted legislation
requesting $500,000.00 for the First Street Bridge, but there is no indication as
to whether the legislation will be successful. She stated that the minutes of the
February 3, 2003 briefing to Council indicate that staff spoke to a new bridge
that would closely resemble the existing bridge, but would be of new materials.
She referred to a communication which is proposed to be forwarded to Alison
Blanton, representing the Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation; which
triggered the present discussion that the bridge structure could be made
available to the Preservation Foundation; or to any other interested group. She
advised that the City of Roanoke could not be responsible for the expense of
removal and relocating the bridge; whereupon, she requested guidance from
Council on how to respond to Ms. Blanton's letter. She stated that City staff has
no real preference and wishes to do the bidding of Council; the First Street
Bridge is a piece of unfinished business in Roanoke's downtown and there is a
need to go about the business of fixing the bridge in whatever manner the
Council deems appropriate; and following discussion by Council and the Martin
Luther King, Jr. Bridge Committee, City staff is prepared to move forward with
bidding on either repair, or replacement, of the First Street Bridge.
Council Member Cutler inquired about costs in connection with using the
decorative elements of the bridge, rather than fabricating new elements;
whereupon, the City Engineer advised that he would provide Council with a cost
estimate.
Council Member Wyatt again stated her preference that the First Street
Bridge be used solely as a pedestrian bridge; however, such does not appear to
be the desire of the majority of the Council. Therefore, she asked that Council
not take the position that the bridge should look exactly like the old bridge and
suggested that the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge Committee be given the
latitude to recommend a design that may be more viable or pleasing to the
community, but is within the realm of $2.2 million.
The Mayor advised that the First Street Bridge has been out of proportion
since it was elevated approximately ten years ago; if the original bridge cannot
be saved at its present location, he asked to review the budget before the
structure is advertised for bids; and if $500,000.00 is to be included for
ornamentation, the City might be better served by spending the one-half million
dollars elsewhere. He added that if the bridge cannot remain in its present state
and if metal members cannot be used, every effort should be made for the
Preservation Society, or any other interested party, to use the structure.
The City Manager called attention to a similar project that was completed
by the State last year and, using that project as a guide, it may be possible to
determine the difference in cost to take the structure down, clean, repair and
reconstruct the bridge.
549
She advised that there is no plan to bid the project until after there has
been an opportunity for the Martin Luther King,Jr. Naming Committee to address
the matter, with the understanding that there may be something in the design
itself, whether it be a gateway, or some other feature, that might bear the name
of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., which could be included in bid documents. She
explained that staff is clearly at a point that once the committee has completed
its deliberations, the design can be finalized and the project can move forward.
She stated that the additional cost estimate will be provided to Council no later
than the first meeting in January 2004. She referred to a drawing that was used
during the presentation, and asked if the drawing, with deletion of the word
"rehabilitation", would be appropriate to present to the Dr. Martin Luther King,Jr.
Naming Committee at its meeting on December 2, with the understanding that
the current plan is to replace the First Street Bridge and that the new structure
will have a similar look, in order to receive the reaction of the naming committee.
No questions or concerns were expressed by Council Members in regard to
the summary of the briefing as above stated by the City Manager.
Following the briefings, the Council reconvened in Closed Session in the
Council's Conference Room.
At 4:50 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber,
with all Members of the Council in attendance, except Council Member
Fitzpatrick, Mayor Smith presiding.
COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Mr. Bestpitch
moved that each Member of City Council certify to the best of his or her
knowledge that: (1) only public business matters lawfully exempted from open
meeting requirements under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act; and (2)
only such public business matters as were identified in any motion by which any
Closed Meeting was convened were heard, discussed or considered by City
Council. The motion was seconded by Mr. Dowe and adopted by the following
vote:
AYES: Council Members Dowe, Harris, Bestpitch, Cutler, and Mayor
Smith .............................................................. 5.
NAYS: None ........................................................ 0.
(Council Member Fitzpatrick was absent.)
(Council Member Wyatt was not in the Council Chamber when the vote was
recorded.)
549(A) .-
There being no further business, the
adjourned at 4:55 p.m.
APPROVED
ATTEST:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
Mayor declared the meeting
~~ ~ ~. Smit~
Mayor