Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMins 08/01/05 - 12/19/05 1 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL August 1, 2005 9:00 a.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, August 1, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, Regular Meetings, Code ofthe City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and pursuant to Resolution No. 37109-070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday,July 5,2005. PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., (arrived late), Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wi s h n eff and Mayo r C. Ne Ison Harri s-------------------------------------------------------------------7. ABSENT: None--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 C. Nelson Harris 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)(l), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Council Member Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the folloWing vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayor Harris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I). NAYS: None------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0. (Council Member Dowe was not present when the vote was recorded.) 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- 3 711(A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. 2 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayo r H arri s ______________________________m_______________________------------------------------------------------1). NAYS: None------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0. (Council Member Dowe was not present when the vote was recorded.) 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. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayor Harris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I). NAYS: None------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0. (Council Member Dowe was not present when the vote was recorded.) 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. Council Member Cutler moved that Council concur in the request ofthe City Manager to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the folloWing vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayor Harris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I). NAYS: None------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0. (Council Member Dowe was not present when the vote was recorded.) 3 ITEMS LISTED ON THE 2:00 P. M., COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING DISCUSSION/CLARIFICATION, AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE 2:00 P. M., AGENDA: Council Member Cutler referred to item l).a.2. on the printed agenda with regard to acceptance ofthe Urban and Community Forestry Grant. He pointed out that this is the last year the City of Roanoke will receive the grant; whereupon, he inquired if there were plans to continue an urban forestry program in the absence of State funds in fiscal year 2007. The City Manager responded that the need for the position will be prioritized along with other requests for funding during the upcoming budget process. Council Member Cutler also referred to item I).a. 7. with regard to the 2005- 2001) CDBG Subgrant Agreement with C2C Home and inquired as to how the $100,000.00 grant would be used; whereupon, the City Manager stated that the allotment will be directed exclusively toward acquisition of property and construction of homes; a number of properties have been identified for purchase and construction of new homes; and the first $100,000.00 would be spent primarily on administrative activities to accomplish design competition. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: Mayor Harris advised that at the last meeting of Council on Monday,July 18, 2005, Council adopted Resolution No.3 7129-071805 which authorized execution of the Workforce Investment Act Agreement with the Virginia Employment Commission for Program Year 2001); however, at the 2:00 p.m. Council Session, it will be necessary for the Council to adopt a revised resolution changing the reference to Program Year 2005 in order to appropriate funds on a fiscal year basis. Council Member Dowe entered the meeting. Mayor Harris announced that Council is scheduled to hold a joint meeting with the Roanoke City School Board on Monday, August 15, 2005, at 12:00 p.m., in the Cafetorium of the Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and Science, 11)11) 19th Street, N. W., and any agenda items should be submitted to the City Clerk. Council Member Cutler asked that an item be included on the agenda with regard to school capital construction plans for the next two years. Council Member Wishneff requested a report on the status of school safety. The City Manager advised that a van would be available to transport the Members of Council and staff to the meeting location. 4 R. Brian Townsend, Acting Director of Economic Development, introduced L. Elizabeth McCoury, Administrator for the Department of Economic Development, who assumed her position on August 1,2005. He advised that Ms. McCoury previously served as Downtown Development Director for the City of Suffolk for the past seven years, and she previously held Economic Development positions in the City of Portsmouth. BRIEFINGS: CITY MARKET: The City Manager advised that a consultant was selected to study the City Market area, including the City Market Building, in connection with further development/redevelopment of the downtown area. Mr. Townsend introduced Tom Low, a consultant with the firm of Duany Plater-Zyberk and Company (DPZ), Architects and Town Planners, a national firm of urban design and urban planning. He stated that Mr. Low is a native of Roanoke who works out of the Charlotte office, and will work with the local firm of SFCS, Inc. Mr. Low presented the following introductory briefing: · The team consists of SFCS of Roanoke and DPZ, which has offices in Atlanta, Charlotte and Washington, D. c., as well as an international division. · DPZ is especially known for the revival of traditional towns and traditional neighborhoods as a model for creating community. · The market area has always been the heart and soul of Roanoke. He referred to a photograph showing the original market square, Campbell Avenue, Jefferson Street and the old train station. · As the City grew with housing and mixed uses, things began to change, but the idea that the Market area was the center ofthe City and the region has remained evident, and the idea of a town square resonates with everyone. · John Nolan, an early 20'h century planner, prepared two comprehensive plans for Roanoke in 1907 and 1928, and a review of the diagrams, charts, comprehensive plans and master plan drawings depict some interesting things that bring Roanoke forward as a functional and beautiful City; I.e.: a chart of schools and parks that are focused around ten minute walking bubbles, and although it was an era that the motor vehicle was being accommodated, the car was not the number one driving force on how people lived. 5 · Today, people have embraced suburban living, but are discovering that it is not perfect, and a lot of people have refocused on more traditional neighborhoods. · Some interesting statistics that may have a strong impact on Roanoke are that the baby boomers are starting to retire; statistics in 2008 indicate that somewhere between 57-1)8 million baby boomers will start retiring across the country; a national USA Today survey asked where they wanted to retire, and the response was that they did not want to retire in isolated, restricted retirement communities, but in walkable, compact, convenient neighborhoods in town; and the other large group of people between 25-55 years of age, sometimes referred to as the creative class, which represent the future want to avoid those areas that are considered "uncool" and boring such as the suburbs, and instead focus on lively, active places where things are happening; and downtown Roanoke and the surrounding neighborhoods bring that type of character. · The merger of those two large groups over the next five to ten years will cause a lot of energy to be focused on the center part of the City of Roanoke. · Roanoke's neighborhoods are compact and walkable, with schools, neighborhood shopping, businesses, civic uses, churches, and other imbedded institutions; streets are connected and easy to move around, and there is a range of choices and housing lifestyles from urban to more private. · Many of Roanoke's neighborhoods have been rediscovered, people are building on neighborhood traditions; the most important and exciting opportunity is to look at downtown Roanoke as a neighborhood, one where people can live, work, shop and play; and as the City moves forward, it must keep all those things in mind because the sum of those activities is greater than anyone component. · An aerial view photograph from the 1928 report prepared by John Nolan shows the concentration of buildings and all useable space was filled in with buildings, businesses and residences. 6 · In the 1950's, the area was still thriving, but in the 1970's, things started to decline when people started to embrace the automobile, buildings started to come down, open parking lots became the norm, the concept of a "city square" started to erode; people began to frequent shopping malls and missed out on what many generations of Roanokers believed to be a wonderful downtown experience. · Design '79 workshops and master plan work was an effort to bring back that type of experience; the images Timm Jamieson developed at that time were amazing, and he utilized the services of Charles Moore, a brilliant and creative architect and planner, who knew instinctively that there was a need to resuscitate the area in a way that actually filled in the private spaces and reactivated the public spaces, and parking lots became urban housing which accommodated the car but did not allow it to dominate the way people lived. · Over 50 small components that were a part of the Design '79 plan were implemented. · Shopper trends change about every five to ten years, and many of the things that were popular in the 1970's and 1980's now need to be updated. · Ideas like reviving Elmwood Park with outdoor concerts and Festival in the Park, old empty lots turned into beautiful pocket parks, old buildings that have been restored for urban shopping, Center in the Square, parking garages, farming vendors, competing with suburban malls with a food court, good restaurants, bringing in nationally known tenants to mix with the locals, and celebrations associated with downtown, will be focused on as a part of the study. Council Member Dowe inquired about the integration of nationally known tenants with local tenants and whether, from a historical perspective, that type of mixing had formed some type of bond in other localities. Mr. Low advised that his firm brings expertise in terms of understanding how other places have been successful; and the Roanoke area is unique because it has three key urban elements from a physical point of view --a Market Building, a Market Square, and a Market Street, with indoor rooms, outdoor rooms and other connections. Council Member Cutler stated that larger franchises tend to swallow up the "mom and pop" operations; whereupon, Mr. Low stated that Roanoke has a legacy of home grown shops which reinforce the local concept. He further stated that the consultant would study three main issues: the City Market Building, infrastructure for the entire Market area, and the Century Station Parking Deck, which was originally planned to accommodate additional development on top and 7 the ground floor is programmed as a shell for shopping, retail or commercial, or a similar type of use. He advised that the study would be performed within the framework of reinforcing the idea of the Market being the center of downtown, but also a lively neighborhood, creating places for parks, reinforcing people places such as dining and meeting facilities, and the cultural arts, etc. He explained that his firm is well known for using a process known as "charrette"; the Design '79 workshop was a charrette which is an on-site hands-on interactive design workshop; and the first charrette is scheduled to be held on October 3-7, at a central location. He presented a copy of the draft charrette schedule and noted that activities will be held where designers and creative people will draw concepts based on input from attendees, a series offocus group meetings will be held with key players, including one-on-one meetings as needed; three public pin-up sessions will be held on a Monday, a Wednesday and a Friday, after which it is hoped to gain a good understanding of where the process is headed, and after all ideas have been gathered through the course ofthe week, the information will be compiled and the consultant would return to Roanoke a few weeks later for another workshop prior to finalizing the report. He stated that key people to be interviewed include Market Building tenants, downtown retailers, Farmers Market vendors, downtown property owners, both commercial and residential, as well as public works/public safety representatives, including police, fire and transportation; and it is hoped that the opening session will include the Members of City Council, Architectural Review Board, City Planning Commission, Industrial Development Authority, etc. He presented Council with an outline of the study process which will be adjusted over the next several weeks as necessary. The City Manager advised that the schedule would need some adjustment to accommodate evening sessions and a Saturday session that would afford the opportunity to participate by those persons who might not otherwise be able to fit the activity into their work schedule. She requested input by Council on the best time of day to hold the first meeting on October 3, and stressed the importance of soliciting input early in the process from elected officials and certain of the City's representatives to boards and commissions. Council Member Cutler stated that any renovation(s) to the City Market area should be both wheelchair and stroller friendly. Council Member Dowe stated that he would be particularly interested in knowing how the study could: (1) gage a balance between making the Market Square pedestrian friendly, while allowing automobiles and emergency service vehicles; and (2) gage the needs of future generations of Market customers such as internet cafés as opposed to areas in which to purchase fresh produce. Using the City of Charlottesville as an example, he advised that cobblestones were discovered underneath the pavement. Mr. Low stated that old rail lines currently exist under the pavement on the City Market. He added that cobblestones, etc., are a valuable commodity and priorities will be defined regarding these types of issues. 8 Council Member Wishneff stated that pavement was removed in downtown Orlando, Florida, to expose solid brick, and agreed that the City of Roanoke should determine what materials, if any, exist under current paved areas on the City Market. He suggested that the City hold more outside activities on the Market Square similar to the Host City Night that the City of Roanoke has sponsored on several occasions when the Virginia Municipal League holds its Annual Conference; and something should be done to improve City Market stalls and to offer incentives that attract more farmers to the City Market area. He referred to previous discussions regarding the feasibility of establishing a cultural district with appropriate signage and inquired as to how the cultural district could be incorporated into the Market study. He asked that the consultant provide recommendation(s) on various options for the City Market Building that mayor may not fund themselves, and suggested that the issue of one way traffic on Campbell Avenue be reviewed to determine if the traffic pattern has been of benefit to the Market area. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick encouraged the Members of Council to engage in one-on-one discussions with the consultant regarding the dynamics of Design '79 and to provide insight with regard to numerous issues that have taken place as a result of Design '79. Council Member Cutler expressed the following interests: (1) the possibility of extending the study area north of the railroad tracks to encompass the O. Winston Link Museum, The Hotel Roanoke, the Roanoke Higher Education Center, and the Dumas Hotel and (2) the source ofthe Market's fresh produce. He called attention to a personal interest in agriculture and the preservation of farm land, and in much the same way that the City and now the Western Virginia Water Authority are working with farmers and other land owners along the watersheds of water supply creeks to encourage them to donate conservation easements to protect the water quality along the streams, the same kind of approach could be used with farmers within short distances ofthe Roanoke area to offer incentives to stay in farming; I.e.: working with the land trusts of state and federal agencies to provide economic incentives and conservation easements to perpetuate farm land and orchards. He stated that this might be an opportunity for some type of regional cooperation with adjoining more rural counties and should remain on the City's radar screen. He stated that at a recent public hearing on the City's new Zoning Ordinance, a number of persons expressed an interest in offering vacant lots and private spaces in the City for the purpose of growing vegetables and suggested that the City support the concept. Council Member McDaniel inquired if the consultant could offer an opportunity for input from those persons who have an interest in the City Market, but do not routinely visit the area; whereupon, Mr. Low stated that the consulting team would conduct a walking tour of the Market area at the beginning of the charrette that could include those persons. 9 The Mayor expressed appreciation to Mr. Low for meeting with the Council. He advised that Council Members would welcome the opportunity to either individually, or in pairs, meet with the consultants to discuss development of a plan of action, or a vision, that could be taken to the private sector in an effort to generate public/private cooperation that could lead to re-energizing the Jefferson Street and City Market areas. The City Manager advised that she was recently approached by several key property owners in downtown Roanoke who expressed an interest in discussing a greater vision for the area, and she recently met with two representatives of national development firms that recognize the characteristics that were previously discussed - the younger creative generation and the older population who are looking for livable, walkable places to reside. She stated that the study was occurring at the right time, and she looked forward to working with the consulting team. Viroinia First Cities Update: The City Manager called on Neal Barber, Executive Director, Virginia First Cities, for an update on important issues that will be a part of the gubernatorial campaign and the 2001) Session ofthe Virginia General Assembly. She stated that the information could be used as part of the foundation for development of the City's legislative program Mr. Barber stated that he would discuss two primary issues: (1) the recent Supreme Court decision of Keto v. Citv of New London and the impact the decision will have on the General Assembly; and (2) real property tax relief, the impact on local government and alternatives that may exist. · Eminent Domain - Economic Development as a public use: He stated that on June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Keto v. New London, Connecticut, No. 04-108, and determined that economic development was a valid public purpose with regard to interpreting "public use" in eminent domain cases. He noted that the U. S. Constitution and State Constitution use the term "public use", and the Supreme Court gave deference to the State of Connecticut in its legislative determination and definition of "public purpose" and relied on the precedent that "embraced the broader and more natural interpretation of public use as 'public purpose'''; and the Majority Opinion of the Supreme Court relied heavily upon two previous court decisions: Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 41)7 U. S. 229 (1984), and Berman v. Parker, 348 U. S. 21) (1954), in determining that economic development is a legitimate public purpose and thus could come under the purview of public use as it relates to condemnation. He stated that the Supreme Court also determined that the local government should not and could not take private property from one private 10 entity for the sole use of another private entity, which is consistent with the Virginia Constitution in judicial finding; and, in addition, property that exists in a blighted area, even though the property itself is not blighted, can be a subject of condemnation as a part of relieving blight in an entire neighborhood. He called attention to the Dissenting Opinion of Justices O'Connor, Scalia and Thomas that the ruling of the majority extended the right of condemnation beyond what was considered in the two opinions and identified three primary public purposes for condemnation: (1) typical public use, (2) utilities such as power and rail, etc., and (3) takings where the extraordinary, precondemnation use ofthe targeted property inflicted affirmative harm on society. It was also noted that the private benefit should be incidental or secondary to the primary public purpose, states may adopt stricter standards than those of the Federal government, and there should be additional review or scrutiny for economic development purposes. Mr. Barber stated that Virginia Constitutional provisions are similar to Federal Constitutional provisions; Article I, Section 11, has added provisions to provide that public use shall be defined by the General Assembly, by enacting Section 15.2-1900, Code of Virginia, which basically states that any legitimate public purpose shall be considered to be publiC use as related to constitutional provisions; Virginia court provisions, or Virginia case law, states that the determination of public purpose is related to public use subject to judicial review; and Virginia case law has supported that economic development is a valid public purpose. He noted that Charlottesville v. DeHaan, 228 Va. 578, 323 S.E.2d 131, (1984), was not related to a condemnation case, but provided that economic development was a valid publiC purpose; and primary takings have served reciprocal public purposes. Mr. Barber stated that The Virginia Association of Housing and Redevelopment Officials surveyed all 30 housing authorities across the Commonwealth of Virginia for the years of 2002, 2003 and 2004; all of the housing authorities acquired 400 properties, of which 19 were acquired through condemnation; of the 19 properties, only five properties were contested condemnations. He stated that his point was intended to show that condemnation is rarely used by local governments; and a rigorous process must be used to exercise the power of condemnation. Mr. Barber noted that there will be significant legislation making modifications to condemnation statutes since there is considerable interest among legislators to redefine or to narrow the definition; there will be a bi- partisan effort to introduce new bills; the Virginia Housing Commission has stated that it would prefer to be proactive and draft a consensus piece of legislation; and Virginia First Cities is working with the Virginia Association of Counties, the Virginia Municipal League, and the Virginia Association of Housing and Community Development to prepare legislation that would codify current statutes and case law into a legislative enactment that would represent the current status of Virginia's condemnation laws. 1 1 Mr. Barber stated that Virginia First Cities does not support taking property from one individual and giving it to another individual without some underlying public purpose; however, First Cities does support promoting the health, safety and welfare of Virginia cities and the viable economic health of communities. In particular, he advised that the Virginia First Cities would like to preserve the ability to remove blight and reclaim vacant properties. · Tax Reform: Mr. Barber presented copy of a draft preliminary Policy Statement from Virginia First Cities on tax reform, which may be available for consideration at the next meeting of the Executive Committee. He referred to the two Virginia gubernatorial candidates and stated that Candidate Timothy M. Kaine has suggested that there be a 20 per cent "homestead exemption" for home owners which would be a local option up to a 20 per cent limit, and would not require a Constitutional amendment and, if enacted, would take effect in 2009; and Candidate Jerry W. Kilgore has suggested lowering property taxes, with a five per cent cap on tax assessment increases annually until the property is sold or renovated which would not require a Constitutional amendment. As background, he noted that nationally, real property assessments have increased by approximately 15 per cent which varies across the Commonwealth of Virginia, real property revenue growth has increased by about six per cent; however, in localities represented by Virginia First Cities, growth has been about four per cent per year on average, or about two per cent less than the statewide average annual growth. He noted that over the last few years, coming out of the recession, there has been a robust real estate market, but a leveling down is anticipated over a period of years. He further noted that under the Kaine proposal, using a worst case scenario, local governments statewide would take about a 20 per cent residential real estate hit which would result in about $1 billion of lost revenue; for Virginia First Cities localities, it would represent about a $134 million loss, and for the City of Roanoke, it would represent about a $10.5 million loss. Under the Kilgore proposal, he stated that statewide, it would represent an $80 million loss; for Virginia First Cities localities, it would represent a $8.1) million loss; and for the City of Roanoke, it would represent a $1)40,000.00 loss, assuming a one per cent hold on revenue. He stated that the result would be the loss ofthe tax base for generating revenue, and options include an increase in the tax rate, a shift to other types of taxes or user fees and charges, or a shift to greater reliance on the State for local revenue. Mr. Barber called attention to inequities in both proposals, I.e.: the Kaine proposal would reduce the real estate assessment on homeowners, which would shift the burden to commercial and rental properties, and owners with higher value properties would receive the greatest benefit; and the Kilgore proposal would benefit the home owner who has lived on the property longer than the home owner who recently purchased the property. He advised that an alternative to the Kaine proposal would be to cap the amount of exemption for an individual home; and an alternative to the Kilgore proposal would be to allow all classes of real property to receive the tax exemptions, rather than residential property only. 12 He stated that the preferred alternative is called the "circuit breaker approach", which provides an opportunity to give real property tax reliefthrough a refundable income tax credit, which can be targeted to those persons who are the most in need, and limit the impact on the State budget which can be done without going through the Constitutional amendment process. He advised that State tax reform that would provide other revenue opportunities that could reduce local government's reliance on the real estate tax would be preferred by Virginia First Cities. Mr. Barber called for questions/comments by Council Members: Council Member Cutler inquired as to whether Mr. Barber would be the legislative agent to make a presentation to the General Assembly; whereupon, he advised that he would represent localities at the Virginia General Assembly, along with a lobbyist who is a governmental relations consultant. The City Manager stated that the first position of Virginia First Cities is that the State should not interfere with local taxation, which is also the position that the Council has consistently taken, and if the State wishes to dictate policy, it should not be a local policy for local taxation. Mr. Barber stated that the distinction between tax sources dates back to 1921) when an agreement was made that income tax would be reserved for State support and real estate property taxes would be reserved for localities, therefore, the proposal violates a long-standing agreement. The Director of Finance stated that he serves on the Virginia Municipal League Finance Policy Committee, and advised that the Virginia First Cities recommendation would also be the VML and VACO policy on the issue and would be lobbied by representatives of both organizations. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation to Mr. Barber for his insight on the issue and suggested alternatives. He stated that the City of Roanoke continues to receive benefits from its involvement with Virginia First Cities. The City Manager advised that in the last gubernatorial race, representatives of Virginia First Cities asked candidates to state their position on development of an urban policy for the Commonwealth of Virginia, because urban areas like Roanoke are significantly disadvantaged in many ways byfunding formulas, as well as the challenges that face disadvantaged communities; and the current Governor expressed a willingness to develop an urban policy and subsequently, approximately two years into his administration, created an Urban Policy Task Force to encourage the Governor to administratively enact those measures that were included in a series of recommendations by the Task Force. She further stated that the way in which candidates react to pertinent issues should be important to all voters; and Virginia First Cities should not actually endorse a candidate, but the Coalition could and should make it known which candidates are willing to position themselves to help. 1 3 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick called attention to a third gubernatorial candidate, Russell Potts, who has suggested an urban policy and expressed opposition to current tax proposals. He stated that Mr. Potts has made other policy statements that are consistent with some of the City's interests. Council Member Wishneff stated that the Virginia General Assembly would address the Federal land issue policy; the Commonwealth of Virginia is unique with independent cities; pursuant to a vote of Council, the City of Charlotte, North Carolina, annexed property next door, the City of Norfolk's boundaries have been established since 191)4 and the City of Roanoke's boundaries have been in place for 30 years, and there does not appear to be a rush to change anything, but someone needs to speak up. He added that if the General Assembly would like to give back to the City of Roanoke its powers of annexation, the City would be most happy to comply. He noted that some Virginia cities contain over 300 square miles, the City of Roanoke has only 42 square miles, therefore, State legislators should be mindful of Virginia's major cities. Mr. Barber noted that the future is in the redevelopment of cities. Upon question, Mr. Barber explained that the Kaine proposal would be a local option, and the Kilgore proposal would not be a local option, with a cap statewide. The City Manager stated that the matter was larger than the gubernatorial issue because for the last several years members of the General Assembly have tried unsuccessfully to be involved in local real estate taxation; and there was a discussion at the last meeting of the Executive Committee of Virginia First Cities regarding long term implications, and the need for cities to educate the citizenry in order to appreciate and understand the implications. She stated that it is unfortunate that the issues are not state wide issues that gubernatorial candidates could campaign on, but they demand responsibility and accountability for members of the General Assembly. Youth Commission Uodate: Marion Vaughn-Howard, Superintendent, Youth Services, introduced Kellie Reynolds, a second year Youth Services worker, who read a prepared statement regarding why she thinks the City of Roanoke is one of the best places to raise children. Members of the Youth Group participated in a power point presentation regarding the Youth Services Division, Past, Present and Future, and invited the Members of Council to join them on August 30, 2005, at 5:30 p.m. to celebrate the grand opening of the Preston Center. Council Member Dowe expressed appreciation to Ms. Vaughn-Howard and members of the Youth Commission for their work, and advised that he looked forward to receiving the Youth Comprehensive Plan. 14 Council Member Lea commended the Youth Commission on its contributions to the Summer Food Service Program and the Youth Academy. Council Member Cutler expressed appreciation to the Youth Group and requested that Ms. Vaughn-Howard describe the goal ofthe Youth Comprehensive Plan; whereupon, she advised that it is hoped that the Youth Comprehensive Plan will become a part of the City's overall Comprehensive Plan; and the Youth Comprehensive Plan will provide a snapshot of what the community could do to continue to embrace the needs of youth, and to implement and fund one part of the recommendation(s) each year, with measurable outcomes. Parkina Uodate: Deborah j. Moses, Parking Coordinator, presented the following parking overview: Parking Garage & Surface Parking Facilities, August 1, 2005 Economic Development Parking is the glue that holds a downtown together (offices, retail, entertainment, housing and higher education) City Parking Map 3,837 off-street parking spaces in six decks and six surface lots 1)70 free downtown on-street parking spaces 80 free downtown loading zones Garage and Surface Lot Occupancy Report No. Location Actual Daily Monthly Monthly Percentage Spaces Spaces Total Parkers Occupancy Spaces 002 Church Avenue Parkina Garaae Total 857 1)1 973 973 120.70% 003 Century Station Parkinc Garaae Total 41)8 27 452 419 95.30% 004 Gainsboro Parking Garace Total 358 20 372 240 72.1)0% 005 Market Square Parkinc Garaae Total 203 25 195 170 91).1 0% 001) Tower Parking Garace Total 1)91 101) 1)70 571) 98.70% 1 5 007 Williamson Road Parking Garage Total 1)71) 0 750 729 107.80% 008 Gainsboro Surface Lot Total 101 30 78 40 1)9.30% 009 Salem Avenue Surface Lot Total 35 0 35 35 100.00% 010 Viaduct Surface Lot Total 103 50 58 29 71).70% 11 Williamson Road Surface Lot Total 123 0 135 132 107.30% 12 Nickel Surface Lot Total 50 0 50 50 100.00% 1 3 Bullitt Avenue Surface Lot Total 172 0 189 11)9 98.30% GRAN D TOTALS 3,837 319 3,957 3,51)2 101.10% Parking Rates Garage Pricing: Reserved Monthly Parking - $85.00 Non-Reserved Monthly Parking - $1)5.00 and $35.00 Daily Parking - $0.75 per one-half hour Daily Maximum - $5.00 and $4.00 Surface Lot Pricing: Monthly Parking - $55.00 Daily Parking - $0.50 - $0.75 per one-half hour Daily Maximum - $5.00 and $4.00 Discount Parking Programs: Lunch Time Special - $1.00 Discounted Merchant Validations - 10 per cent Monthly Parking Discounts for many employers FREE - Evening, Weekend and Residential Parking 16 City Discount Parking Total Discounted Parkers 11)58 $339,051).40 Resident Parkers 123 $1)4,1)20.00 City Guest Validations $20,1)21.25 GRAND TOTAL $424,297.1)5 Operational Discussion Management Structure - National Parking manages and operates facilities Customer Service - Strong customer service Maintenance and Cleanliness - Preventative maintenance and repair Equipment and Technology - Online accounts receivable, customer base Accomplishments - Customer service improvements, training of personnel, improved signage and better location of signage City of Roanoke Parking - Different from Local Competition Locations: City has 30 per cent of the off-street locations in downtown and provides 78 per cent of the off-street spaces City provides 1 00 per cent of all on-street spaces Rates - Comparable locations: Daily rates are less than major competitors per one-half hour Monthly rates are less than major competitors Customer Base: 2,920 monthly parkers (82 per cent) - 111 Business Accounts 57 per cent of all Business Accounts receive discounted rates 18 per cent Individual monthly parkers 19 per cent of Individual monthly parkers receive free residential parking FREE Evening, Weekend and Daily Parking FREE Event and Shuttle Parking 1 7 Parking Fund Budget Parking Fund is an Enterprise Fund Revenues are generated from parking fees, rental space/ground space leases, special event rentals Budget provides for all operating costs and debt service Any retained earnings remain in the Fund Parking Fund FYOI) Budget Revenues $ 2,720,000.00 Expenses Operating $ 1,41)5,1)1)5.00 Principal and Interest Expense $ 947,958.00 Reserve for Future Debt Service $ 301),377.00 $ 2,720,000.00 Parking Fund - Current and Future Capital Needs: Five Year Capital Improvement Plan - Existing Parking Facilities $800,000.00 Capital Projects in current facilities deferred in previous years due to lack of funds. Funding must be identified within Parking Fund, I.e.: retained earnings, operational budgets, and reserve for future debt service. Expansion of the Parking System Two new Parking Decks to support Campbell Avenue and West Church Avenue Development - $7.2 Million FY04 $2 Million bond sold - debt service budgeted in FY05 FYOI) $2.1) Million bond to be sold debt service will be budgeted in FY07 FY08 $2.1) Million bond to be sold - debt service will be budgeted in FY09 Weekends and Evening rates are anticipated to be the revenue source for new decks. 18 The City Manager advised that it was recognized several years ago that the current rate structure would not support debt service for the two new parking garages; therefore, the City had two choices: raise the daily or monthly rate for all decks, or establish a general rate increase. For future consideration, she referred to feasibility of imposing a flat rate for parking during evening hours and on weekends. Council Member McDaniel noted that free parking during evening hours and on weekends has helped to support downtown businesses. Council Member Cutler stated that it is hoped that the area near the Jefferson Center would become more active and generate the need for more parking in the future. Council Member Wishneff advised that downtown merchants previously requested that a portion of the revenue derived from increasing the meals tax would be used to reduce parking rates, and inquired if parking rates are a disincentive for businesses when considering locating in Roanoke County or the suburbs versus in the downtown area. The City Manager responded that she knew of only one situation in the past two years where a small company in a neighboring locality stated that it was interested in receiving some kind of incentive or subsidy with regard to parking, and the City suggested a technology incentive which could be channeled and used by the company to write down the cost of parking, however, the company chose not to take advantage of the offer. Beyond that, she stated that the real issue tends to be the location of parking, and called attention to two studies with regard to downtown parking which determined that the City of Roanoke has sufficient public and private downtown parking, but that parking may not be physically located as close to businesses as would be desired. She asked that City staff be made aware of any instances in the past, or in the future, when parking is a disincentive. Through economic development efforts, Council MemberWishneff spoke in support ofthe City more aggressively recruiting businesses to the downtown area that are currently located in the region, with an appropriate package of information. The City Manager suggested that regional businesses be contacted to determine ifthere is an interest in locating an additional business in downtown Roanoke. Council Member Wishneff inquired if the City administration was looking at expansion of parking garages in the heart of the downtown district; whereupon, the City Manager stated that expansion would be suggested when there is a demand for more parking, and discounted parking fees are offered in order to increase usage ofthe Gainsboro Parking Garage. Council Member Wishneff stated that the City should be willing to consider expansion of parking facilities in order to attract major business to the downtown area. 19 Council Member Wishneff suggested that the City consider implementing valet parking in downtown Roanoke as an incentive; whereupon, the City Manager stated that some restaurants have offered evening valet parking in the past, downtown parking garages could be used for this purpose, and she has encouraged the owners of restaurants to market the feature as an incentive to draw more people downtown. Council Member Dowe stated that the advantage of being able to walk to a restaurant, as opposed to driving, should be emphasized by the City as an incentive to businesses to locate in downtown Roanoke; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the walking feature is offered as an incentive when the City receives an inquiry from a potential business. Council Member Dowe called attention to certain concerns expressed by the public with regard to the safety of parking garages; whereupon, the City Manager stated that recent citizen surveys asked specific questions with regard to parking and it appears that safety, in general, in the downtown area has improved; downtown Roanoke businesses pay for an ambassador service through any additional tax rate; and off duty police officers patrol the lower parking decks from 9:00 p.m. until 2:00 a.m. on weekends and uniformed employees are stationed at the front of the parking garages to welcome pedestrians and motorists. Council Member Cutler inquired if the Art Museum had assumed any responsibility for parking; whereupon, the City Manager advised that unlike suburban areas, there is no requirement for any business or activity to provide its own parking in downtown Roanoke, and the parking arrangement is generally absorbed in the public and private sectors through service parking lots and parking garages. She stated that the City has begun to make accommodations for those persons parking vehicles on a regular basis on the surface parking lot so that those parkers will be properly transitioned as the site moves to construction of the new Art Museum. Economic Develooment Incentive Policv: In response to a recent request from a Council Member, the City Manager presented a draft Economic Development Incentive Policy. She advised that the policy formalizes and organizes many of the same considerations and processes that the City has used in the development of previous economic development grants over the past five or six years, as well as for recent projects such as FreightCar Roanoke and the Ivy Market. She noted that the proposed policy identifies eligible activities and areas of assistance for economic development grants to be considered by Council and establishes a review and evaluation process by staff, an approval process by Council, and an implementation procedure in conjunction with the Industrial Development Authority. 20 R. Brian Townsend, Acting Director, Economic Development, presented the following overview of the proposed policy: The City of Roanoke establishes this Economic Development Partnership Policy to further the goals and policies of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2001- 2020, to create and retain jobs, and to encourage new investment in the City. This policy establishes a framework within which the City Council and City Administration may consider the equitable and appropriate evaluation of economic development proposals. I. Eligible Activities/Areas of Assistance The following activities and types of assistance may be eligible for consideration as part of any request for economic development grants made under this policy. Note: All grants would be made through the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (IDA). a. Reduction of the sale price of City-owned land for the purpose of development b. Grants for investment in machinery and equipment subject to local taxation c. Grants for investment in site infrastructure of an 'extraordinary' nature necessary to support proposed development as opposed to typical development practices observed in the City (For example, developing land with extreme drainage issues or including infrastructure to mitigate flooding downstream.) d. Grants for investment in public infrastructure built by the developer or business, such as streets, traffic signals, drainage improvements, etc., serving a public purpose over and above support of the proposed development itself, which are dedicated back to the City and meet state and local standards e. Grants for investment in extension of public utilities f. Grants for training for new jobs filled by City residents or re- training of City residents in existing jobs 2. Procedure and Process a. Applicants for assistance must submit to the Director of Economic Development, in writing, a description of the proposed project, including: 21 a. Type of business b. Legal name of entity c. Description of project d. Entity's financial ability to do project e. Experience of entity in similar projects f. Partners in the project g. Amount of investment I. Real Estate iL Machinery & Tools iiL Personal Property h. Number of new jobs/jobs retained I. Salary range iL Benefits I. Project time frame j. Specific grant req uest k. Justification/need for assistance I. Benefits to the City m. Other applicable grants received n. Such other information and documents as requested by the City b. Applicants should also provide a spreadsheet of estimated direct revenue produced by year. 3. Review and Consideration of Grant Requests The Director of Economic Development, in consultation with the City Attorney, Director of Finance, and other appropriate City departments, shall review and evaluate each request using the general guidelines below, allowing flexibility to determine the needs for each specific request. Guidelines may be individually considered or combined, depending on the nature of the project: a. Business or developer should have been in existence at least three years with good financial standing at time of request. b. Investment in new construction or renovations to existing facilities, and/or equipment investment should be at least $5 million, unless the business currently has operations in the City valued/assessed at that amount or more. c. Number of jobs created or jobs earmarked for retention/retraining should be at least 100 permanent/full-time positions. 22 d. Proposed average salaries should be at or above the median wage level for the region. (Note: Currently $12.I)I)/hr) e. Estimation of tax revenue generated based on projected bUilding/land assessment, equipment value, business personal property, business license tax, and sales tax, as applicable, should cover the value ofthe requested grant within a three to ten year time frame. f. The submitted grant request should clearly indicate the existing/requesting business or proposed new development is considering a location in another state or adjacent locality, and/or the physical conditions of a specifically proposed site within the City would not reasonably support the proposed development without grant assistance. g. The grant request would result in underutilized, blighted or obsolete land uses being eliminated and/or additional sites for future development being created as a result of the proposed grant request. h. The grant request would mitigate 'extraordinary' development costs. I. Any public improvements subject to the grant request and undertaken as part ofthe proposed development would benefit the public generally and the surrounding neighborhood. j. The proposed development would not result in any significant environmental pollution. k. Whether the business is participating in other incentive programs offered by the City, State or Federal levels of government to which the project is entitled. The City must determine if other sources of funds available to the existing/requesting business might preclude the City's further participation in the development. (City incentives are summarized in Appendix A of this policy.) I. Such other items or matters relevant to determining the City's participation. 23 The Director of Economic Development shall report the findings, evaluation, and analysis related to the grant request to the City Manager to formulate a recommendation on any grant request. This recommendation shall be made to the City Council, based on the general parameters of this policy. 4. Approval of Grants by City Council a. A written Performance Agreement in a form approved by the City Attorney and reviewed by the Director of Finance for fiscal/financial impact, specifying the terms, conditions, and obligations of the parties must be agreed to and signed by the existing/requesting business before approval by City Council and the IDA, and be fully executed prior to the disbursement of grant funds. b. The IDA, upon approval as outlined above, will administer the payment of grant funds to each grant recipient in a manner as outlined in the executed performance agreement. c. The grant recipient shall provide written reports and documentation to the City and IDA, showing its compliance with the Performance Agreement. Other documents or verifications may be requested by either the City or IDA. d. Grant payments should be reimbursements made once milestones, conditions, and obligations of the grant recipient, outlined in the Performance Agreement, are met and verified, not before, unless a Governor's Opportunity Fund (GOF) grant has been secured. In GOF cases, GOF incentives are usually provided at the initiation of the development, or as the state may otherwise require. The City Manager advised that training funds have been targeted for residents of the City of Roanoke and not for residents of the region; while it is good for the region and the City for a business to locate within the community, the City of Roanoke is an "importer" of people into the community for jobs, therefore, growing the income of people who live in the City of Roanoke will sustain the community over the long term. She added that if the City of Roanoke were to retain a business and retraining was required, training incentive funds that would be recommended to the Council would be on behalf of the City's core residents. 24 Council Member Wishneff referred to item 3, Review and Consideration of Grant Requests, and inquired if they were "and/or" items; whereupon, Mr. Townsend stated that they would be considered as optional. He further inquired if the policy captured "either high per acre development cost or extraordinary cost"; whereupon, Mr. Townsend responded that the policy related to general total investment, and the City could include a certain amount per acre investment, such as that which was used for the sale of property at the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology. Council Member Wishneff suggested that the City administration consider changing the time frame as set forth in item 3.e. from "three to seven years" to "three to ten years", in order to provide more flexibility. Council Member Lea stated that item 1 J. with regard to training sends a positive message to Roanoke City residents. Council Member Cutler made the following comments/suggestions on certain components of the draft policy: 1.c. He questioned whether downstream flooding would ever be eliminated. He suggested adding "iv. Infrastructure". He suggested that "coordination of grants" be added for leverage, in order to combine any other grants that businesses may be eligible for. He suggested changing the word "request" to "requested". He suggested removal of "beyond industry standards" because industries should not be invited that would provide significant environmental pollution. He inquired whether IDA approval was required; whereupon, the City Manager stated that the IDA must be a signatory because it is the entity that actually transmits the funds. 2.a.g. 2.a.m. 3.g. 3.1. 4.a. With regard to item 1).2., Council Member Cutler suggesting the addition of a parallel tax exemption for using Leadership and Energy Environment Design Standards (LEEDS); whereupon, the City Manager stated that the Dillon Rule affected what the State would allow the City to do, but the City could encourage a future General Assembly to make such a provision through the legislative process. Council Member McDaniel inquired as to what the City could do to be on the cutting edge to increase opportunities to attract new businesses; whereupon, Mr. Townsend stated that a number of localities do not have a written Economic Development Incentive Policy, but follow the standard process and procedure established by the Commonwealth of Virginia. 25 The City Manager inquired if Council would like to officially adopt the proposed Economic Development Incentive Policy, or have an understanding that the document would be the City's policy by which Economic Development staff would guide deliberations. It was the consensus of Council to not limit the flexibility of Economic Development staff, it would not be necessary to formally adopt the Policy, and the Policy would be an administrative guideline. The City Manager advised that in addition to creating training incentives for City residents, Economic Development staffwill work closely with Human Services staff to identify those citizens who are either unemployed or under-employed and to work with businesses to develop skill sets which will enable citizens to become competitive in the employment process. She stated that the Department of Human Services has Federal training funds that can be used for this purpose and the City will target two small businesses that plan to expand in the future in an effort to provide employment opportunities. At 1 :00 p.m., the Council met in Closed Session in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. At 1 :50 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess until 2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, August 1,2005, 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 C. Nelson Harris presiding. PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff and Mayor C. Nelson fiélrris------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ei. ABSENT: Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr ---------- -----------------------------------1 . (Council Member Dowe left the meeting at 12:00 p.m.) The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ofthe United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. 26 PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: POLICE DEPARTMENT-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The Mayor presented a proclamation declaring August 2, 2005, as National Night Out to Joseph Gaskins, Chief of Police The City Manager advised that she attended the recent reaccredidation process for the Police Department, and Commissioners participating in the valuation were complimentary of the City of Roanoke which is the 11 'h best ranked City in the country, and one of the 10 smallest best cities in the United States. She stated that congratulations are in order for Roanoke's Police Department in recognition of their reaccredidation. 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. CITY PROPERTY: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council schedule a public hearing for Monday, August 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to conveyance of City- owned property located on Salem Avenue, S. W., described as Official Tax No. 1010107, to the Times World Corporation, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request ofthe City Manager. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and M¡¡)lClr fi¡¡rris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I). Nt\'(S: NClI1E!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) TAXES: t\ communication from the City Manager requesting that Council schedule a public hearing for Monday, August 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to the request of Star City Gospel Café, Inc., for tax exemption from local real estate taxation with regard to property located at 921) Indiana Avenue, N. E., was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: 27 AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and MêI)lClr Hêlrris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15. Nt\'(S: NClIlE!--------------------------------------------------______________________________________________(). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) ZONING-ANNUAL REPORTS: A communication from the Board of Zoning Appeals transmitting the 2005 Annual Report, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the Annual Report be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayo r H arri s --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). Nt\,(5i: NClIlE!-------------------------------------------------------_________________________________________(). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) PARKS AND RECREATION-COMMITTEES-HOUSING/ AUTHORITY-PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION-LIBRARIES-PENSIONS: The following reports of qualification were before Council: Frank J. Eastburn as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2008; Ben J. Fink as a Commissioner of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, for a term ending August 31, 2009; Sloan H. Hoopes as a member of the War Memorial Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2008; Curtis E. Mills as a member of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2008; George F. Taylor as a member of the Board of Trustees, City of Roanoke Pension Plan, for a term ending June 30, 2009; and Eddie Wallace, Jr., as a member of the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2008. Vice-Ma)lor Fitzpatrick moved that the reports of qualification be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: 28 AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mél1{<>r Hélrris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------E>. Nt\'(S: ~<>I1E!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) REGULAR AGE~DA PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: NONE. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: NO~E. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Police Department employs a full time crime analyst whose role is vital in the successful application of the principles of community poliCing; and sophisticated analytical and mapping software packages are a necessary component of any professional crime analysis unit. It was further advised that the Police Department was awarded $28,715.00 in grant funds through the Byrne Memorial Grant Program; funds must be used toward purchase of updated GIS mapping software and analytical computer programs, which will enhance the City's ability to track crime trends, as well as investigate on-going criminal enterprises; a required non-federal cash match of $9,572.00 is available through the State Asset Forfeiture Program; and the grant award and cash match combine to make the effort a $38,287.00 project. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the Crime Analysis Grant award, in the amount of $28,715.00, from the Department of Criminal Justice Services and the Byrne Memorial Grant Program agreement and any other related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; that Council appropriate funds totaling $38,287.00 to the Publications and Subscriptions account and establish a revenue estimate of $28,715.00 in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund, and transfer $9,572.00 from State Asset Forfeiture, Account No. 035-1)40-3302-9015, to cover the required local cash match. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: 29 (#37130-080105) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Byrne Memorial Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of Ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 512.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37130-080105. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayo r H arri s--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). NJ\,(5i: NClrlE!--------------------------------------------------______________________________________________(). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the follOWing resolution: (#37131-080105) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a Crime Analysis Grant from the Department of Criminaljustice Services, and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 513.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37131- 080105. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mël\lClr Hëlrris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------E). NJ\'(S: NClrlE!-----------------------------------------------------___________________________________________(). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) BUDGET-GRANTS-TREES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on June 7, 2005, the City of Roanoke was notified by the Virginia Department of Forestry that a $13,500.00 grant would be awarded to the City upon completion of a Memorandum of Agreement to fund a part-time Urban Forestry Planner to work with the City's Urban Forester on "Development J\lternatives and Guidelines for Tree Protection"; the grant is from the same program that funded the part-time Urban Forestry Planner for the past three years; and this is the last year that the grant program can be used to fund an Urban Forestry Planner. 30 It was further advised that the $13,500.00 Urban and Community Forestry Grant is a Federal grant sponsored by the National Forest Service and administered by the Virginia Department of Forestry; funds are awarded on a reimbursement basis after verification ofthe local match; the majority ofthe City's required local match will consist of 558 hours of staff time provided by the Urban Forester, an employee in the Parks and Recreation Department; the local cash match will be an additional $1,059.00 in salary and $3,235.00, representing the City's share of FICA and the pro-rata share of long-term disability, hospitalization and dental insurance; and funds will be used for the following purposes: · Develop guidelines for planting trees along riparian buffers (to coordinate with implementation of the revised zoning ordinance). · Make corresponding revisions to the public tree ordinance so that City property meets higher standards. · Use CITYgreen software to analyze individual forested sites, and make such analyses available as a key tool in evaluating proposed developments and land disturbances in the City. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to accept the Urban and Community Forestry Grant, in the amount of $13,500.00, and that she be further authorized to execute an agreement with the Virginia Department of Forestry and any other forms necessary to accept the grant, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; that Council appropriate $13,500.00 in Federal funding and establish a corresponding revenue estimate in an account to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund; and transfer $4,294.00 from Parks and Recreation Temporary Wage, Account No. 001-1)20-4340-1004, to the above referenced Grant Fund account, with expenditures to be appropriated as follows: Account Regular Employee Salaries FICA Long-Term Disability Hospitalization Insurance Dental Insurance TOTAL Account No. 035-1)20-4341)-1002 035-1)20-4341)-1120 035-1)20-4341)-1131 035-1)20-4341)-1125 035-1)20-4341)-1121) AmoLnt $ 14,559.00 $ 1 ,2%.00 $ 52.00 $ 1,770.00 $ 117.00 $17.794.00 Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: (#37132-080105) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Urban and Community Forestry Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) 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. 1)9, Page 513.) 31 Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37132- 080105. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. Council Member Cutler advised that on July 28, 2005, the City of Roanoke was acknowledged in U. S. A. Today for its outstanding Urban Forestry Program. He commended employees of the City's Parks and Recreation Department. There being no further questions/comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37132-080105 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayo r H arri s --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). NJ\'(S: NClI1E!------------------------------------------------------__________________________________________(). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution: (#37133-080105) A RESOLUTION accepting the Urban and Community Forestry Grant from the Virginia Department of Forestry, and authorizing the execution of the necessary documents. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 514.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37133- 080105. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayo r H arri s --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). NJ\'(S: NClI1E!--------------------------------------------------______________________________________________(). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) BUDGET-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Virginia Department of Social Services grants funds to Virginia Commonwealth University (VCU) for operation of five Virginia Institute for Social Service Training Activities (VISSTA) Area Training Centers throughout the Commonwealth of Virginia; and the City of Roanoke Department of Social Services has received an annual subaward for local supervision and operation of the Piedmont Area Training Center since 1998. 32 It was further advised that Council adopted a budget of $373,357.00 for the 2001) Fiscal Year Program; the actual subaward amount is $258,505.00 for the first half of the fiscal year; a new subaward for the second half of the fiscal year will be issued in the fall; the City expects the total amount of the subaward to exceed the adopted budget; and the subaward is issued on a cost reimbursable basis. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37134-080105) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a subaward in the amount of $258,505.00 from Virginia Commonwealth University and authorizing the City Manager to execute a subaward agreement with Virginia Commonwealth University for such funds for local supervision and operation of the Virginia Institute for Social Service Training Activities ("VISSTA") Piedmont Area Training Center, upon certain terms and conditions. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 515.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37134- 080105. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mél\lClr Hélrris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15. Nt\'(S: NClI1E!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) HOUSING/AUTHORITY-COMMUNITY PLANNING-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that for more than 25 years, Community Housing Partners Corporation (CHPC) has successfully constructed and renovated housing in several localities across the Commonwealth of Virginia; pursuant to Resolution No. 31)71)4-0701)04, Council authorized execution of CHPC's first contract to produce housing using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds provided by the City; and since that time, CHPC has acquired and rehabilitated eight properties in the City's Hurt Park, Mountain View and West End neighborhoods. It was advised that at a special meeting held on May 10, 2005, Council approved the City's 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan, including activities designated to receive CDBG and HOME funding during the fiscal year 2005-2001) period; designated activities was to continue CHPC's housing efforts in the neighborhoods; new 2005-2001) CDBG and HOME funding provided for CHPC's activities, totaling $215,000.00, will allow CHPC to rehabilitate eight additional houses, or a total of 11) to be completed by June 30, 2001); and funds will also provide for homebuyer education, which is conducted by Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation through a cooperative agreement with CHPc. 33 It was explained that Section 2-124 of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, limits the City Manager's direct authority to a maximum of $25,000.00 with respect to amending Federally assisted subgrant agreements; therefore, authorization by Council is required in order to implement actions called for by the amendment; extending the 2004-2005 CHPC agreement and adding the necessary funding under a single amendment is more efficient than creating a new agreement; and all of the necessary funds have previously been appropriated into the required accounts, which is detailed in the draft amendment as set forth in the City Manager's letter dated August 1, 2005. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute Amendment No.1 to the 2004-2005 CDBG/HOME Agreem~nt with CHPC, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37135-080105) A RESOLUTION authorizing the appropriate City officials to execute an Amendment No.1 to the 2004-2005 Agreement with Community Housing Partners Corporation, Inc. ("CHPC") to conduct housing activities using Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") and HOME Investment Partnerships Program ("HOME") funds, upon certain terms and conditions. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 511).) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37135- 080105. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the folloWing vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mél)lClr fiélrris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------E). NA,(5i: NClIlE!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) HOUSING/AUTHORITY-COMMUNITY PLANNING-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that at a special meeting held on May 10, 2005, Council approved the City's 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan, including activities designated to receive Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships (HOME) funding during the fiscal year 2005-2001) period; activities provided for continuing BRHDC's housing efforts in the Gainsboro neighborhood under Project GOLD ("Gainsboro Opportunities Leveraging Development"), the City's most recent effort to concentrate CDBG and HOME resources, as well as funding for BRHDC to acquire and assist housing in a distressed section of Hanover Avenue, N. W., and to repair several single-room 34 occupancy (SRO) facilities operated by BRHDC; new 2005-2001) CDBG and HOME funding provided for the activities totals $787,822.00; in addition, $40,000.00 in CDBG funds was previously approved and set aside by Council for Hanover Avenue activities on February 22, 2005; an increase of $10,000.00 in CDBG funding is needed for BRHDC's Demolition Fund activities to provide sufficient funds to remove two houses in the 1000 block of Gilmer Avenue that are too deteriorated for rehabilitation; and amendment to the BRHDC agreement addresses all project activities. It was further advised that Section 2-124 ofthe Code ofthe City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, limits the City Manager's direct authority to a maximum of $25,000.00 with respect to amending Federally assisted subgrant agreements; therefore, authorization by Council is required in order to implement actions required by the amendment; extending the 2004-2005 BRHDC agreement, incorporating the two new activities and adding the necessary funding under a single amendment is more efficient and allows more effective administration of multiple activities to be undertaken by BRHDC; and all necessary funds have previously been appropriated into the required accounts, as more fully described in an attachment to the draft amendment. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute Amendment No.1 to the 2004-2005 CDBG/HOME Agreement with the BRHDC, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37131)-080105) A RESOLUTION authorizing the appropriate City officials to execute an Amendment No. 1 to the 2004-2005 Agreement with Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation ("BRHDC") to conduct housing activities using Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") and HOME Investment Partnerships Program ("HOME") funds, upon certain terms and conditions. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 511).) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37131)- 080105. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayo r H arri s ______m___________________________________________________--------------------------------------------1). Nt\'(S: N()I1E!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) 35 HOUSING/AUTHORITY-COMMUNITY PLANNING-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that each year, the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) conducts a variety of housing programs using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funds provided by the City; at a special meeting held on May 10, 2005, Council approved the City's 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan, including activities designated to receive CDBG and HOME funding during the fiscal year 2005-2001) period; among designated activities was continuing the RRHA's housing efforts in the Gainsboro neighborhood as part of Project GOLD ("Gainsboro Opportunities Leveraging Development"), the City's most recent effort to concentrate CDBG and HOME resources; and new 2005-2001) CDBG and HOME funding provided for the RRHA's Project GOLD activities totals $1,295,1)99.00 which will allow the Housing Authority to continue substantial and limited owner- and tenant-occupied housing assistance, including emergency repairs and serving special needs populations, while adding to the ability to acquire property for housing development. It was further advised that the contract amendment also provides an additional $394,541).00 in CDBG funds to the RRHA for activities to reduce derelict structures in the City; in coordination with appropriate City departments, the RRHA will acquire, rehabilitate and sell such properties to homebuyers and/or offer subsidies to third parties for such purposes; and a component ofthe activity will use the "slums and blight" latitude provided under CDBG funds to rehabilitate housing for sale to homebuyers above the low- and moderate-income level, thus promoting income diversity in the City. It was explained Section 2-124 of the Code ofthe City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, limits the City Manager's direct authority to a maximum of $2 5,000.00 with respect to amending Federally assisted subgrant agreements; therefore, authorization by Council is required in order to implement those actions required by the amendment; extending the 2004-2005 RRHA agreement, incorporating new activities and adding the necessary funding under a single amendment is more efficient and allows more effective administration of multiple activities undertaken by the RRHA; and all necessary funds have been previously appropriated to required accounts, as set forth in the draft amendment, which is included with a letter from the City Manager dated August 1, 2005. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute Amendment No.1 to the 2004-2005 CDBG/HOME Agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: 36 (#37137-080105) A RESOLUTION authorizing the appropriate City officials to execute an Amendment No.1 to the 2004-2005 Agreement with the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority ("RRHA") to conduct housing activities using Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") and HOME Investment Partnerships Program ("HOME") funds, upon certain terms and conditions. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 517.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37137- 080105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayo r H arri s--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). Nt\'(S: NClI1E!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-HOUSING/AUTHORITY-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that during the past year, SmithLewis Architecture, under contract to the Council of Community Services (CCS), undertook the "Cradle to Cradle (C2C) Home Design Competition"; promoting Roanoke as a leader in the field of quality, sustainable and affordable housing design; the international competition attracted over 1)25 designs and participants from 41 countries worldwide; and the City provided $30,000.00 in local funds and an additional $100,000.00 in 2004-2005 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the initial phase of the project. It was further advised that prior to the January 2005 selection of winning designs, SmithLewis and CCS began preparing for the implementation phase of the project; and a number of for-profit and nonprofit builders, such as Fralin and Waldron, Inc., Building Specialists, Inc., Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority have partnered to develop housing using designs and concepts that were brought forth by the competition. It was explained that at a special meeting held on May 10, 2005, Council approved the City's 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan, including activities designated to receive CDBG funding during the fiscal year 2005-2001) period; and among designated uses was the second $100,000.00 in CDBG funds for the C2C Home development phase. 37 It was further explained that the impetus for a design competition originated with the CCS, which served as the recipient of both local and CDBG funds previously provided by the City; however, given that the CCS is not a development entity, it is desirous of a more appropriate entity assuming responsibility for the building phase of the project; in February 2005, C2C Home, LLC, was formed as a subsidiary of the Cabell Brand Center for Poverty & Resources Studies and duly organized under rules of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as certified by the State Corporation Commission; C2C Home, LLC, will succeed the CCS as the entity responsible for the next phase of the project; in addition to confirming the successor entity and its legal status, the City required that, as a prerequisite to executing a contract for the $100,000.00 in CDBG funds, that the entity raise at least $75,000.00 from sources other than the City for construction management, which is not reimbursable with CDBG funds; a total of $200,000.00, including a commitment of $50,000.00 a year for three years from one source has been raised, satisfying the City's second stipulation; and CDBG funds are available in Account No. 35-GOI)-01)20-5421) and will be used for property acquisition, site preparation, other preconstruction costs and planni ng/admi n istration. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize execution of the 2005-2001) CDBG Subgrant Agreement with C2C Home, LLC, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution: (#37138-080105) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to enter into the 2005-2001) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Subgrant Agreement with the C2C Home, LLC, upon certain terms and conditions. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 518.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37138- 080105. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. Greg Lewis, representing C2C Home, LLC, expressed appreciation for the City's support of the Cradle to Cradle project which is nearing the construction phase on a number of houses, and opportunities to expand on the work that has been accomplished to this point is under review. He advised that a project on Harrison Avenue, under the direction of the Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation, is about to move forward; a land transfer has occurred, or is about to occur, between the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and Blue Ridge Housing Development Corporation; Fralin and Waldron, Inc., and E. J. Miller Construction Company are moving forward with a house to be constructed on Hackley Avenue; and Community Housing Partners is working on a design for a third project on Day Avenue. 38 There being no questions/comments by Council, Ordinance No. 37138- 080105 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mél\lClr Hélrris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------E). ~t\'(S: NClI1E!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) COMMUNITY PLANNING-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that since 191)5, Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) has developed and executed programs that promote adequate housing, employment, health and nutrition, and education for the citizens of Roanoke and surrounding areas; for the past three years, TAP'S Helping Elderly Live Pleasantly (HELP) program, now known as the Emergency Home Repair Program, has performed emergency home repairs for approximately 84 needy citizens of Roanoke; Council authorized TAP to conduct housing activities in the community, pursuant to Resolution No. 37051-051005, which approved the City's 2005-2001) Action Plan Consolidated Plan for submission to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD); Council accepted 2005-2001) CDBG funds onJune 20, 2005, pursuant to Ordinance ~o. 37081)-01)2005 and Resolution ~o. 37087-01)2005; and pursuant to letter dated July 15, 2005, HUD approved the City's new five-year Consolidated Plan and the first year action plan. It was further advised that in order for TAP to conduct approved 2005-2001) housing activities, authorization by Council is needed to execute a Subgrant Agreement; the necessary CDBG funding is available in an account listed in the draft Agreement; and a total of $100,000.00 will be allocated to TAP to provide limited and emergency repairs to 21 homes city-wide, with the exception of the Gainsboro and Gilmer neighborhoods which are assisted through an agreement with the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the 2005-2001) CDBG Subgrant Agreement with Total Action Against Poverty, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37139-080105) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to enter into the 2005-2001) Community Development Block Grant ("CDBG") Subgrant Agreement with Total Action Against Poverty ("TAP"), upon certain terms and conditions. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 518.) 39 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37139- 080105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayo r H arri s --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). NA'(S: NClI1E!-------------------------------------------------_----------------------------------------------Cl. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the 1998 General Assembly passed HB428 which amended and reenacted sections of the Code of Virginia relating to local roles and responsibilities for mental health, mental retardation, and substance abuse services; Section 37.1-194, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, requires every locality to establish a community service board to oversee delivery of mental heath, mental retardation and substance abuse services, and it is further required that the local governing body of a locality approve the Performance Contract; the City of Roanoke has already established Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, pursuant to the statutory provision, as the Community Services Board; and the adopted budget for fiscal year 2005-2001) includes an appropriation of $434,481.00 for the organization. It was further advised that in accordance with Title 37.1, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare has submitted a Fiscal Year 2001) Community Services Performance Contract to ensure delivery of publicly funded services and support to citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia with mental illness, mental retardation, or substance abuse; services are to be provided directly, or by contract, through the operating board of the Community Services Board; and Section 37.1-198B, Code of Virginia, requires all governing bodies for localities served by the Community Services Board to approve the Community Services Performance Contract. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute any required documents to enter into a Performance Contract with Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors; and that Council adopt a resolution approving execution of the Fiscal Year 2001) Performance Contract. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37140-080105) A RESOLUTION approving and authorizing the execution of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare FY 2001) Performance Contract, upon certain terms and conditions. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 519.) 40 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37140- 080105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayo r H arri s--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). Nt\'(S: NClI1E!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) CITY ATTORNEY: TRAFFIC-CITY CODE-CODE ENFORCEMENT: The City Attorney submitted a written report advising that during the last two sessions, the General Assembly amended § 15.2-905, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, which is enabling legislation for Article VI, Keeoino-of Inooerable Motor Vehicles, of Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the City's inoperable motor vehicle ordinance; amendments to § 15.2-905 include a new definition of the term "shielded or screened from view"; the new definition is more narrow than the definition for the same term currently used in §20-12 5 of the City's inoperable motor vehicle ordinance; and, in addition, the legislature amended §15.2-905, Code of Virginia, to allow an owner of an inoperable motor vehicle to keep outdoors the inoperable motor vehicle and one additional inoperable motor vehicle that is shielded or screened from view, if the owner can demonstrate that he or she is actively restoring or repairing one ofthe inoperable motor vehicles. The City Attorney recommended that Council adopt an ordinance which amends §20-125 and §20-121) of the City Code to bring the City's inoperable motor vehicle ordinance into compliance with State enabling legislation. Council Member Cutler offered the following ordinance: (#37141-080105) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining §20-125, Definitions, and §20-121), Restriction on keeoino of inooerable motor vehicles, of Article VI, Keeoino of Inooerable Motor Vehicles, of Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, in order to conform with state law, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 520.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37141- 080105. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. 41 There being no questions/comments by Council, Ordinance NO.3 7141- 080105 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mél1{Clr Hélrris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15. N)\'(S: NClIlE!--------------------------------------------------______________________________________________(). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: CITY COUNCIL: Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution changing the place of commencement ofthe regular meeting of Council to be held on Monday, August 15, 2005, to the Cafetorium at the Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and Science, 11) 11) 19th Street, N. W.: (#37142-080105) A RESOLUTION changing the place of commencement of the regular meeting of City Council scheduled to be held at 12:00 Noon, on August 15, 2005. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 522.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37142- 080105. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the folloWing vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayo r H arri s --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). N)\'(S: NClIlE!--------------------------------------------------______________________________________________(). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-GRANTS: The Mayor advised that Resolution No. 37129-071805 adopted by the Council on Monday, July 18, 2005, authorized execution of a Grant Agreement with the Virginia Employment Commission for program year 2001) in order for the City of Roanoke to continue as the grant recipient of funding for the Workforce Investment Act for Area 3; however, the measure should have referenced Program Year 2005, therefore, a revised resolution was before the Council. 42 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37143-080105) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute the Grant Agreement with the Virginia Employment Commission for Program Year 2005 in order for the City to continue as the grant recipient of funding for the Workforce Investment Act for Area 3; and repealing Resolution No. 37129-071805, adopted July 18, 2005. (For full text of Resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 523.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37143- 080105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayo r H arri s ---------------------------------------------------------_________m___________________________________I). Nt\,(5i: N()I1E!------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: POLICE DEPARTMENT-CITY CODE-ANIMALS/INSECTS-COMPLAINTS-CITY COUNCIL: Council Member Lea called attention to complaints by a number of citizens in the community with regard to unleashed and/or vicious dogs that are allowed to roam throughout some of the City's neighborhoods. He referred specifically to pit bull dogs and inquired if the City has enacted ordinances that address vicious dogs. The City Manager advised that City Code provisions require that any dog that is off ofthe owner's premises must be leashed and whenever citizens observe a dog running loose, they are encouraged to immediately report the incident to the City's Animal Control division. She stated that Animal Control has the authority to issue a summons to the owner of a dog if, in the opinion of the officer, the owner has been negligent, and she would report back to Council with regard to the issue of regulation of vicious dogs. ARMORY/STADIUM-SPORTS ACTIVITIES-SCHOOLS: Council Member Lea advised that the kick-off for the I)th Annual Western Virginia Education Classic was held on Friday, July 29, 2005, on the City Market, and the football game will be played on Saturday, October 29, 2005 at 2:00 p.m., at Victory Stadium by Saint Paul's College from Lawrenceville, Virginia, and Shaw University from Raleigh, North Carolina. 43 OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-L1BRARIES: The Mayor advised that the three-year term of office of Anna Wentworth as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission expired June 30, 2005; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Council Member Cutler placed in nomination the name of Susan Egbert. There being no further nominations, Ms. Egbert was appointed as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission for a term ending June 30, 2008, by the following vote: FOR MS. EGBERT: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wi s h n eff an d Mayo r H arri s -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) Council Member Cutler moved that the Roanoke City residency requirement be waived in this instance. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and 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 response, recommendation or report to Council. CITY COUNCIL-DISABLED PERSONS: Mr. E. Duane Howard, 1135 Wasena Avenue, S. W., referred to a Roanoke Times editorial in the Monday, August 1, 2005 edition titled "Disabled Americans Still Face Obstacles". He requested that the Mayor's Committee for People with Disabilities be brought up to 21" century standards. He stated that July 21) marked the 1 5'h anniversary of the Americans With Disabilities Act, yet the City of Roanoke is still 15 years behind times. He advised that The Roanoke Times commentary was correct in that the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) was meant to be far more than wheelchair ramps, closed caption television, and wider toilet stalls; the ADA envisioned making reasonable changes to the physical structure of buildings, public transportation, and the heart and soul of ADA was to outlaw discriminatory practices that relegate the disabled to inferior status. He stated that prior to renovation of the City Council Chamber, he requested that all persons be seated while addressing City Council which would have eliminated the stigma of inferior status for all speakers; however, his request was not honored by City officials/City staff and the Mayor's Committee for People With Disabilities. He suggested that the words "Mayor's Committee" be deleted and that the Committee be established as an official City of Roanoke committee. He suggested that the City of Roanoke consider those standards adopted by the City of Alexandria, Virginia, when addressing the needs of Roanoke's disabled population. 44 HOUSING/ AUTHORITY-HOUSING/NEIGHBORHOOD CODE ENFORCEMENT- COMPLAINTS: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 729 29th Street, N. W., spoke with regard to the overall condition ofthe City of Roanoke, I.e.: the need for home ownership for more persons, the overall cleanliness of the City, proper marketing of the Roanoke area, and the need to remove some of the City's tree canopy so as not to obstruct public rights-of-way. CITY MARKET-TAXES: Mr. Robert E. Craig, 701 12th Street, S. W., expressed appreciation to the Director of Real Estate Valuation for meeting with him to discuss the City's practices with regard to real estate assessment. He referred to the condition of food tables in the City Market Building that were covered with plastiC tops which are misaligned and screws that are not properly driven into the surface of the tables that could create a potential safety hazard and a liability to the City of Roanoke. He stated that the condition of the table tops is indicative of poor job performance without adequate supervision. He advised that it was reported by City staff that the City Market Building is losing $9,000.00 a month, if the $158,000.00 of uncollected rent, which was the responsibility of the City or the City's management agent to collect, were multiplied 9 times by 12 equaling $108,000.00, and if the $108,000.00 is subtracted from $158,000.00 of uncollected rent, there would be a $50,000.00 profit for the City Market Building. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: The City Manager presented the Mayor with a Certificate of Appreciation which was issued to the City of Roanoke by Old Southwest, Inc., in recognition of outstanding job performance by the City's workforce. She advised that the follOWing employees received individual recognition for their work in code enforcement efforts: Susan Grogan representing the Solid Waste Division, Police Officer Barak Plogger, and Anne Stuart Beckett, staff to the Architectural Review Board. NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: The City Manager called attention to activities that will be held in various City of Roanoke neighborhoods on Tuesday, August 2 and Thursday, August 4, 2005, in conjunction with National Night Out. At 2:55 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess and Council reconvened in Closed Session in the Council's Conference Room, Room 451, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. At 3:25 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the Council Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, with the exception of Council Member Dowe, Mayor Harris presiding. 45 COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Council Member 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 Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayo r H arri s--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). ~A'(S: ~()IlE!------------------------------------------------------------------------________________________{). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 3:27 p.m. APPROVED ?\~/.~ Mary F. Parker City Clerk 2.~#~ C. Nelson Harris Mayor 46 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL August 15, 2005 12:00 p.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, August 15, 2005, at 12:00 p.m., in the Cafetorium at the Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and Science Elementary School (RAMS), 11) 11) 19th Street, N. W., City of Roanoke, with Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., and School Board Chair Kathy C. Stockburger 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 pursuant to Resolution No. 37109- 070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005, and Resolution No. 37142-080185 adopted by the Council on August 1, 2005. PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff and Vice-Mayor Beverly T. F itz pat ri c k, Jr. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). ABSENT: Mayor C. Nelson Harris--------u------------------------------------------------------l . The Vice-Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. He advised that the purpose of the meeting was to conduct a joint meeting of Council and the Roanoke City School Board. SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: David B. Carson, William H. Lindsey, Gloria P. Manns, Alvin L. Nash, Courtney A. Penn and Kathy G. Stockburger, Chair-------------I). ABSENT: School Trustee David B. Trinkle-----------m--------------------------------------l . 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: Representing the City of Roanoke: Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; and James Grigsby, Acting Assistant City Manager for Operations; and representing Roanoke City Public Schools: Marvin T. Thompson, Superintendent; Cindy H. Lee, Clerk to the School Board; Bernie Godek, Associate Superintendent for Management; August Bullock, Associate Superintendent for Instruction; Dr. Sharon Richardson, Executive Director for Student Services; Dr. Vella Wright, Executive Director for Human Resources; Vickie McCormick, Director for Communications; and Timothy R. Spencer, Assistant City Attorney and Legal Counsel to the School Board. Chair Stockburger extended a welcome to the Vice-Mayor and Members of Council and the City Administration. She encouraged all persons in attendance to tour the new RAMS facility. 47 On behalf of the Council, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet with the School Board. The Superintendent of Schools introduced August Bullock, Associate Superintendent for Instruction; Vickie McCormick, Director of Communications; and Dr. Vella Wright, Human Resources Director. Mr. Thompson presented the following overview of the "No Child Left Behind" concept assessment: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) A Federal law enacted "to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind..." Required a sinqle statewide accountability system to ensure that all schools and divisions meet NCLB requirements. Since 1998, the Commonwealth of Virginia used Standards of Learning (or SOLs) to assess student achievement. After NCLB became law in 2002, the SOLS became Virginia's benchmark to measure accountability. NCLB Performance Goals · All students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in English and math by 2013-2014. · All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in English and math. · By 2005-2001), all students will be. taught by highly qualified teachers. · All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free and conducive to learning. · By 2013-2014, all students will graduate from high school. Understandinq Adequate Yearlv Proqress Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): · AYP represents the minimum level of improvement that schools and school divisions must achieve each year, as determined by NCLB. AYP is the "federal yardstick." 48 Annual Measurable Objective (AMO): . AMOs are the minimum required percentages of students determined to be proficient in each content area. Virainia's AYP Taraets Annual Measurable Objectives for Reading and Language Arts 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Starting Int. Int. Point Goal Goal 60.7 61.0 61.0 65.0 69.0 73.0 77.0 81.0 85.0 89.0 93.0 97.0 This table shows Virginia's AMOs for English. For a school or school division to make a AYP during 2004-2005, at least 65% of students overall and in each subgroup must have demonstrated proficiency on their English SOL tests. 2014 GOAL 100 Annual Measurable Objectives for Mathematics 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Starting Int. Int. Point Goal Goal GOAL 58.4 59.0 59.0 63.0 67.0 71.0 75.0 79.0 83.0 87.0 91.0 95.0 100 This table shows Virginia AMOs for Math. For a school or school division to make AYP during 2004·2005, at least 63% of students overall and in each subgroup must have demonstrated proficiency on their Math SOL tests. Annual Measurable Objectives for Reading and Language Arts 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Starting Int. Int. Int. Point Goal Goal Goal 60.7 61.0 61.0 65.0 69.0 73.0 77.0 81.0 85.0 89.0 93.0 97.0 This table shows Virginia AMOs for Math. For a school or school division to make AYP during 2004-2005. at least 65%of students overall and in each subgroup must have demonstrated proficiency on their Math SOL tests. 2014 GOAL 100 Annual Measurable Objectives for Mathematics 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Starting Int. Int. Int. Point Goal Goal Goal GOAL 58.4 S9.0 59.0 63.0 67.0 71.0 75.0 79.0 83.0 87.0 91.0 95.0 100 ThiS table shows Virginia AMOs for Math. For a school or school division to make AYP during 2004-2005, at least 63% of students overall and in each subgroup must have demonstrated proficiency on their Math SOL tests. AMOs must be met by all students, as well as the following subgroups of students: · Major racial/ethnic groups, which in Roanoke City includes white, black and Hispanic · Economically disadvantaged students · Limited English proficient students 49 · Students with disabilities 'AMOs are the same for all subgroups, schools and divisions. A school or division "makes" AYP according to: · Participation - 95% ofthe students in each subgroup must take the SOL tests. · Performance - Measured one of two ways: · The % of students passing English and math SOLs - by school and by subgroup - meets or exceeds the annual AMO targets, or .... · The failure rate of each subgroup that did not meet the AMO targets is reduced by at least 10% in a year and the subgroup makes progress on other AYP indicators. (Termed "Safe Harbor"). · Other AYP Indicators · Elementary and middle schools - Either attendance or science. · High schools - Graduation rates. "If participation overall or in one or more subgroups drops below 95%, a school or school division is not considered to have met AYP, regardless of the percentage of students who pass the SOLs." RCPS AYP Trend Data 2003-2004.1 Did not make AYP 2004-2005 Did not make A YP · There are gaps between the sub-groups division-wide · Gaps impact AYP performance and state accreditation for individual schools and the division School Improvement OPtions YEAR 1: School Choice YEAR 2: School Choice and Supplemental Services YEAR 3: Corrective Action Options may include: . Replace school staff · Implement new curriculum · Decrease management authority at school level · Extend the school day or year · Appoint outside expert · Reorganize the school internally 50 YEAR 4: Restructuring Options may include: · Reopen as a charter school · Replace principal and school staff · Contract for private management company · State takeover · Any other major restructuring of school governance YEAR 5: Implementation of Restructuring Requires: Implementation of alternative governance plan RCPS Plan of Action The Virginia Department of Education states that school divisions with high school achievement have: · Aligned curriculum practices · Consistent instructional models · Common pacing and benchmark assessments · The ability to monitor instruction beyond classroom observations · Data knowledge within the school division that is shared at administrator and teacher levels · SpeCific site-based management practices · Aligned school improvement planning and a uniform method for developing school plans Priorities for the 2005-2001) School Year: · Implement the 8-Step Instructional Cycle to improve achievement for all students · Implement strategic planning · Conduct a curriculum and management audit · Align fiscal planning practices · Develop an aligned school planning process · Develop an aligned site-based management program · Improve career and technical education programs · Develop criteria for "Five Star Schools" · Create an Office of Accountability, Accreditation and Assessment · Create an Office of Curriculum and Staff Development · Institute a Leadership Academy · Establish professional work environments 51 8-Step Instructional Cvcle A research-based instructional system that is designed to help schools increase student performance and close the achievement gap. Schools and divisions across the country that use the 8-Step process experience increased student achievement. A quality, effective school.... · Believes they can teach -ª'l students · Maintains a vision · Sets high expectations · Focuses the entire organization on their purpose · Utilizes an aligned, strategic instructional plan · Follows "PDSA" - Plan, Do, Study, Act · Disaggregate Data · Instructional Timeline · Instructional Focus · Frequent Assessment · Tutorials · Enrichment · Maintenance · Monitor RCPS Plan of Action Vision Statement: Roanoke City Public Schools will become a system of world-class schools where students acquire the knowledge and skills to be successful as they continue their education at the post-secondary level and/or enter the 21" century workforce. Mission Statement: Roanoke City Public Schools will pursue excellence in academic knowledge, skills, and behavior for each student, resulting in measured improvement against local, national, and world-class standards. Five Goals for the 2005-2001) School Year: · Improve achievement for all students · Provide safe and effective teaching environments · Enhance the school system's management and effiCiency · Implement programs and procedures to train, promote and retain highly qualified staff 52 . Promote strong home, school, and community relations 'Everything we do in the upcoming year will focus on these five goals! This year, we must continually ask ourselves one question.... "Is the action I am about to undertake designed to improve student achievement?" Following questions and comments by Members of Council and the School Board, the presentation of Superintendent Thompson was received and filed. The Chair referred to numerous questions and/or misunderstandings with regard to the ownership of school properties; whereupon, she called upon the Assistant City Attorney for clarification. Mr. Spencer advised that Section 51) of the City Charter states that the City of Roanoke owns all school property in fee simple, and the school system is responsible for maintaining actual structures. The Chair highlighted the following update on current School Board issues: Continued focus on clarifying the role of the School Board and how it can work most effectively with the Superintendent of Schools to reach mutually agreed-upon goals, specifically student achievement. · School Board Planning Retreat scheduled for August 25, 2005 · Continued post-meeting evaluations · Continued workshop meetings (monthly) and committee/task group meetings · Alignment with the district's strategies for achievement Community engagement · Planning will take place for School Board members to hold informal community conversations · Alignment with district communications · RCPS Educational Foundation to intersect with business and other community stakeholders, providing a way to invest in RCPS Board development · Attendance at NSBA, VSBA, CUBE learning events · Shared reading and updated information about school achievement and benchmarking Partnering with Council · Continued monthly meetings including Mayor Harris, City Manager Burcham, Chair, Superintendent, and Mr. Godek 53 · Meetings between one-two Council Members with the Board Chair and Superintendent, eventually meeting with all Council Members by late winter · Continuing open and productive dialogue over the most important issues facing RCPS and the City of Roanoke · Council-Board retreat · Joint meeting The update was received and filed. The Acting Assistant City Manager for Operations presented the following update on the preparation of Victory Stadium for the 2005 high school football season: Victorv Stadium Preoarations Council approved a conceptual plan and cost estimates that would allow Victory Stadium to be reopened for the high school football season; and City staff, along with representatives from the school system, have made significant progress. · Concrete Wall Openings o Four additional openings have been cut into the walls on both sides of the stadium. · Seating Risers and Step Treads o Repairs have been made to the first nine rows on each side to eliminate tripping hazards. . Fencing o Fencing has been installed on both sides ofthe stadium to safely guide ingress and egress. Fencing will enclose the lower nine rows on both sides. · Protective Barriers o The schools will provide plastic barrels as protective barriers between the sidelines and the tra<k which will be used by spectators. Entrances o Only the southwest entrance will be open for patron entry; this entrance is adjacent to the parking lot, contains a ticket booth, and is closest to the pedestrian bridge that crosses the river; directional signage will be posted around the stadium; and handicap signage will be relocated closer to the southwest entrance. 54 · Parking Lot and Spectator Entrance at Southwest Gate · Parking Lot o The parking lot is fully accessible; potholes continue to be repaired; and the lot will be striped to guide parking usage. · Playing Field o The turf has been over-seeded, fertilized, aerated, weeded, and top dressed; and Civic Center staff continues to irrigate and maintain the field. · Portable Toilets o Portable toilets and wash stations have been ordered and will be supplied based on anticipated attendance. · Concessions o William Fleming High School will use the services of an outside vendor (ex. pizza), and the Booster Club will sell soda, chips, etc.; final decisions are pending; and information from Patrick Henry High School is not yet available. · Press Box o Design of the press box has been approved and construction is complete, including attached camera platforms; electrical service is due to be installed during the week of August 15 and will include cables patched from the existing press box to permit use of the scoreboard, play clocks, and public address system. · National Guard Armory o Home and visiting teams will use the National Guard Armory for dressing, showering and meetings with coaches; buses will park in reserved spaces in front of the Armory on Reserve Avenue; should the Armory not be available due to emergency reasons, teams will use a nearby school to change and shower and meet with coaches on the field. · Emergency Services and Police Vehicles o Location for EMS and police will be inside the stadium, next to the National Guard Armory. 55 · Equipment o All equipment provided by the City has been checked and is in good working order, including stadium and parking lot lighting; and the school system will furnish the same equipment that has been provided in the past. The briefing was received and filed. School Capital Construction Plans Update The Assistant Superintendent for Management presented the following update on major school projects: Patrick Henrv Hiqh School · The project is progressing on schedule and under budget · Turnkey operations around November 1, 2005 · Moving operations to begin in mid-December 2005 · Students will enter the new building following the winter break · No recorded injuries have been reported on the project site Fallon Park Elementarv School · HVAC system replacements · Parking relocation of the two main student entrances · Replacement of the damaged carpet · New fire alarm system and exterior fire doors will be replaced · New ceilings and beam light replacement in the front parking lot · Installation of new carpet in the kindergarten wings · Painting of the exterior of the building Wests ide Elementarv School · HVAC system replacement · Window replacements · Lighting upgrades · New ceilings and tile flooring · Electrical and communications upgrade · Resurfaced and repainted several classrooms, replaced sinks in classrooms and bathroom fixtures, which were not included in the original scope of work · Classroom additions will be complete by mid-October Mr. Godek added that renovations will begin at Raleigh Court and Monterey Elementary Schools in the summer of 2001). The briefing was received and filed. 56 Dr. Richardson presented the following progress report on school safety: Superintendent's Goal: Establish and maintain school climates and facilities that are orderly and support effective teaching and learning. Human Resources (TF) · Training in data recording · De-escalation training · Youth Court · Safety Audits - all complete Leadership Policv and Operations (TF) No school is labeled "Persistently Dangerous" in RCPS · Dress code · Uniforms · DARE and SRO Programs · Surveillance cameras o Buses o Schools Student Proorams (TF) · Conflict/peer mediation · New Start Program · Adolescent Uplift · Beyond Anger Management · New Beginnings · Boys' and Girls' Club Staffino (TF) · Two counselors in each middle school · Discipline Coordinator for Transportation · Security Officers - trained and certified Communication (TF) · School Board Safety Advisory Committee · Sub-committee include Crisis Plan Review and Discipline Review Team · On-going dialogue with school-based administrators on building a culture of high expectations for all stakeholders The report was received and filed. 57 The Chair presented the following update on the RCPS Education Foundation. She advised that the Education Foundation met on May 10 and August 9, 2005: Members are: Edwin Feinour, President (3-year term) William White, Vice-President (1-year term) Carolyn Coles, Secretary/Treasurer (1-year term) Arnold Masinter (1-year term) Nancy Ruth Patterson (2-year term) Hugh Thornhill (2-year term) George Steadman (2-year term) Duke Curtis (3-year term) Mary Ellen Goodlatte (3-year term) Marvin Thompson (Superintendent of Schools is a standing member) Kathy Stockburger (School Board Chair is a standing member) Actions to Date: · Approval of Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws · Appointment of Directors and terms · Initial organizational meeting conducted, election of President and Secretary/Treasurer) · Overview of the role of a public school foundation · Research into banking and financial issues · Approval of inviting the Executive Director ofthe Chesterfield County Public Schools Foundation (a successful organization) to meet with the Board for training and consultation Next Steps: · Schedule workshop session with Barbara Wells, Executive Director of the CCPSF (This will be determined at the next Board meeting) · Formulate Vision/Mission statements, strategic goals · Formulate case statement stressing the district, rather than individual schools or programs · Develop an emphasis to keep gifts unrestricted as far as possible Best practices for Foundation development efforts include: Before asking someone for a gift, one should be able to answer the following questions: · How much do you want? · What are you going to do with it? . What benefit does the donor receive? · Why are you asking this person for this specific amount of money? 58 These are all components of what is called in school foundation language the "case statement." The case is the expression of the cause, or all the reasons why the school's community should desire to give to that cause. A well developed case statement will help school foundation/fundraising personnel develop: · Brochure(s) · Grant writing proposals · Appealletters · News releases · Web site · Speeches to the public · Face to face "asks' The update was received and filed. The Chair announced the resignation of School Trustee Gloria P. Manns, effective at the conclusion of the Council/School Boardjoint meeting. She advised that Ms. Manns submitted her resignation due to professional and personal reasons, and expressed appreciation for her service to Roanoke's school system. Ms. Manns read her formal letter of resignation and expressed appreciation to the Members of Council for giving her the opportunity to be of service to the City of Roanoke. On behalf of the Mayor and Members of Council, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation to Ms. Manns for her service and advised that her resignation is a great loss to not only the School system, but to the City of Roanoke. Council Member Cutler suggested that City and School staff continue to explore ways to combine services, such as health insurance and purchasing large bulk items, etc. He inquired about projects/programs on which the City and School Administrations have worked jointly. It was noted that actions have been taken to merge financial services and applications of the City and the School system, and as the School system moves toward performance base standards and sets additional accountability measures, opportunities will be sought to work in conjunction with City staff. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick pointed out that the two gubernatorial candidates have discussed changing the structure of taxes in local government, which could affect the City of Roanoke's ability to adequately fund the School system since a majority of funds derived from the real estate tax is used to fund the School system. He concurred in the remarks of Council Member Cutler with regard to joint cooperation by City and School administrations to consolidating various City/School functions in order to save taxpayers' money. 59 At 1:35 p.m., the Vice-Mayor declared the meeting in recess to be reconvened at 2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, Room 450, 215 Church Avenue, S. W. At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, August 15,2005, 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 Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., presiding. PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wish neff, M. Rupert Cutler and Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fi tz patri c k, Jr. -------.------------------------------------------------__________________________________________m__I). ABSENT: Mayor C. Nelson Harris----m---------------------mm------------------------------l . The Vice-Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 Council Member Sherman P. Lea. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ofthe United States of America was led by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: PROCLAMATIONS: The Vice-Mayor presented a proclamation to Brian V. Wilson, Board Member, and Pat Green, Committee Chair, Roanoke Valley Hokie Club, declaring Friday, August 21), 2005, as Hokie Pride Day. CONSENT AGENDA The Vice-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 Session. MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday, June 20, 2005, and Tuesday, July 5, 2005, were before the body. Council Member Dowe moved that the reading ofthe minutes be dispensed with and that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: 60 AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F i tz pat ri ck ---------------------------------------------------------------______________m_________________I). Nt\'(S: NClIlE!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) COMMITTEES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., requesting that Council convene in Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(l), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Council Member Dowe moved that Council convene in Closed Session as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itzpatric k __________________m________________m________________________---------------------------------1). Nt\'(S: NClIlE!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in 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 City, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Council Member Dowe moved that Council concur in the request ofthe City Manager to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz patri c k -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). N)\,(5;: NClIlE!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in 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 ofthe City, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. 61 Council Member Dowe moved that Council concur in the request ofthe City Manager to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F i tz pat rick -----------------------------------------------------------_______________________m____________I). Nt\'(S: ~()IlE!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in Closed Meeting to discuss the award of a public contract involving expenditure of public funds and discussion ofthe terms or scope of such contract, where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the City, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Council Member Dowe moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayor Fitz patrick _____________________________________________m________-----------------------------------------1). Nt\,(5i: N()IlE!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) COMMITTEES-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION: A communication from the City Clerk advising of the resignation of Mark C. McConnel as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission, was before Council. Council Member Dowe moved that the resignation be accepted and that the communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the folloWing vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F i tz patri c k ---------------------_____________________m____________m____---------------------------------1). NA'(S: N()IlE!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) ANNUAL REPORTS-PENSIONS: An Annual Report of the Board of Trustees, City of Roanoke Pension Plan, for the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, was before Council. 62 Council Member Dowe moved that the Annual Report be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz pat ri ck ________m_______________________________________________---------------------------------------1). Nt\\{S: NClI1E!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Mayor Harris was absent.) PARKS AND RECREATION-COMMITTEES-PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT-YOUTH- LIBRARIES-ROANOKE NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP-TOWING ADVISORY BOARD: The following report of qualification was before Council: Anne E. Caldwell to fill the unexpired term of Samuel G. Oakey, III, ending June 30, 2001), and Susan Koch for a term ending June 30, 2008, as members of the Roanoke Public Library Board; Martha P. Franklin as a member of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2008; Steven Higgs as a member of the Mill Mountain Advisory Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2008; Robin Murphy-Kelso as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates, for a term ending June 30, 2008; Thomas W. Ruff as a member of the Towing Advisory Board, for a term ending June 30, 2001); and Abbi Fitzpatrick and James H. Smith as members of the Youth Services Citizen Board, for terms ending May 31, 2008. Council Member Dowe moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the follOWing vote: t\YES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz pat ri ck ______________________m____________________________________------------------------------------1). NA\{5i: NClI1E!----------------------------------------------------------------------------------~------------Cl. (Mayor Harris was absent.) 63 PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in 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 City, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Council Member Dowe moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F i tz pat ri c k _______________________________________________mm_____________-------------------------------1). NA'(S: NClI1E!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Mayor Harris was absent.) REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: NONE. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: HOUSING/AUTHORITY-NEWSPAPERS: Nancy Canova, Chair, presented the 2004-2005 Annual Report of the Fair Housing Board. Ms. Canova advised that: "Fair Housing and Fair Lending Laws are in place to provide the protected classes with equal access to rental property, home ownership, mortgage loans and insurance policies. The Fair Housing Board is dedicated to safeguarding the options and choices ofthese protected classes who live in, or want to live in the City of Roanoke. City Council has charged the Fair Housing Board with the responsibility of educating the general public and the housing industry about Fair Housing Laws. To accomplish this effectively, the Board required a more detailed picture of equal housing opportunity in the City. Since the City had no record of receipt of housing complaints, the Board proposed to collect complaints through community agencies and groups whose natural constituencies were among the protected classes. The Board provided training in Fair 64 Housing laws to 19 community agencies and groups who agreed to report to the Board any incidents of housing discrimination that affected their clientele. From July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005, 31) incidents of alleged housing discrimination were reported. The protected classes affected were race (11)), handicap (11)), familial status (3), and religion (1). Most of the incidents reported affected either race or handicap. Those incidents of race discrimination involved African-Americans in rental situations mostly in the northwest section of the City. Two of the incidents were in southeast Roanoke. Three incidents involving African-Americans in the southwest section of the City were referred by HUD to the U. S. Department of Justice. At least two of the race discrimination cases involved whites who wished to purchase a home in the City, but were being steered to the County. Racial steering restricts choices and is against HUD regulations. The Fair Housing Board has monitored housing industry advertisements for display ofthe Fair Housing or Fair Lending logos. While display of the logo does not guarantee non-discrimination, their conspicuous presence in housing advertisements will certainly suggest the advertiser's recognition of the Federal and of the Virginia Fair Housing laws, and one's desire to be in compliance with same. There is inconsistency within the housing industry on the use of logos in advertising and signs. The Fair Housing Board commends the Roanoke Valley Apartment Association for actively supporting fair housing through its advertising policy. In the publications associated with the RVAA, Guide to Apartment and Retirement Communities and The Apartment Finder, all real estate advertisements display the Fair Housing logo. On the other hand, Homes Plus, published by The Roanoke Times, in cooperation with the Roanoke Valley Association of Realtors, is more laissez faire in its approach to advertising. The RVAR's leadership has declined to require or encourage realtors to include the Fair Housing logo in all ads, regardless ofthe Publisher's notice, although they asked that an article be included in the next available newsletter reminding members of the proper usage of Fair Housing logos in all advertisements. The Roanoke Times, the only daily newspaper in the Roanoke Valley, continues to accept advertisements from the housing industry that do not display the Equal Housing Opportunity or Equal Lending Opportunity logos. This year, the Fair Housing Board became a visible part of the City's web site in an effort to raise awareness of Fair Housing Law. Located under Neighborhood Services, Fair Housing Board information is easy to access. The site includes the Board's activities, publications, complaint form and connections to the State Fair Housing Office web site. 65 First printed in April 2004, the Fair Housing Board distributed 2000 copies of its booklet, Fair HousinQ: What You Need to Know, through libraries, community agencies and groups, workshops, and housing and neighborhood events. A revised edition was published in April 2005 to include Housing Provider Certification requirements for those in the business of selling or renting dwellings, except those individuals who hold a valid license issued by the Virginia Real Estate Board. The Fair Housing Board especially wanted to provide information to lobby landlords or lobby real estate investors, who receive their livelihood from other sources and who, because they do not identify with the industry or belong to the trade associations, may not be aware of the Fair Housing law. In celebration of Fair Housing Month in April, the Fair Housing Board sponsored a Housing Fair at Valley View Mall to provide information to the general public. There were 18 participants from the housing industry, including realtors, lenders, insurance agents, non-profit developers, and community agencies and groups which provided many diverse networking opportunities. The Fair Housing Board's booth displayed two HUD video spots on discrimination. Realtor trainers in attendance have asked for a copy of the videos for use in their training sessions. The Fair Housing Board sponsored three workshops this year. Susan Scovill with Housing Opportunities Made Equal, Inc. (HOME), of Richmond presented the workshop on "Predatory Lending" which addressed the impact of these practices upon the community. The Board is grateful to Wachovia Bank for its support of the workshop. Susan Scovill of HOME, Inc., also presented a workshop on Fair Housing law to community agencies and groups. A follow-up workshop to an expanded number of community agencies was presented with the support of TAP. The Fair Housing Board was pleased to support Total Action Against Poverty's application for a HUD grant to work with the Fair Housing Board to reach out into the community. Their application cited special interest in providing Spanish-speaking capability to the Board. Being able to reach a broader audience will help the Board begin to meet the needs of Roanoke's multicultural population. Although the Fair Housing Board sees that housing discrimination exists in the City of Roanoke, it is hopeful about being able to address the issues through education and the relationships that it is developing with housing and community agencies." 66 Question was raised with regard to a statement that The Roanoke Times continues to accept advertisements from the housing industry that do not display Equal Housing Opportunity or Equal Lending Opportunity logos; whereupon, the Vice-Mayor suggested that the Fair Housing Board meet with the President and Publisher of The Roanoke Times to determine the policy of the newspaper, with a follow up report to the Council. Council Member Dowe requested that Council be informed of responses by local radio/television stations with regard to broadcasting/televising Fair Housing Public Service Announcements. The City Manager/City Attorney were requested to provide Council with a status report on Fair Housing cases that are currently pending in the Federal court system. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: BUDGET-CIRCUIT COURT-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication concurring in the following request of the Clerk of the Circuit Court. The Clerk of Circuit Court advised that the Clerk is responsible, by statute, for the recordation of legal instruments which include: Land Records, Marriage Licenses, Financing Statements, Assumed Names, Wills, and other Probate Records, and Law, Chancery and Criminal Orders; and such records must be maintained and available to the public. She further advised that the Circuit Court Clerk's Office plans to implement a project involving the scanning of certain older legal records maintained by the Clerk of Circuit Court and incorporation of the records into the existing optical imaging scanning and retrieval system will be done by a temporary employee. She explained that presently, documents are tri-folded and stored in metal file cabinets in the Clerk's vault; due to the nature of the documents and their relevance to title searches, they are physically handled and inspected daily; and excessive and continued manual inspections have led to damage ofthe originals, misfiling, unavailability and loss of information, thereby necessitating a safer, easier and more efficient approach to availability and storage of records. It was noted that completion of the project will take a minimum of six months at a cost of $17,224.00; funding is available from the Commonwealth of Virginia Compensation Board Technology Fund; in using a temporary employee, the Compensation Board requires the local jurisdiction to manage funding and the Department of Management and Budget will manage funding in the amount of $17,224.00; and approval of the project is imperative to enable the Circuit Court Clerk's Office to provide both immediate public access for inspection of documents and to maintain the physical integrity and security of original documents as mandated. 67 The Clerk of Circuit Court recommended that Council adopt an ordinance establishing a revenue estimate, in the amount of $17,224.00, in the Grant Fund; and appropriate funds in the same amount to expenditure accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in Grant Funds, as follows: Temporary Wages FICA 035-410-91)20-1004 035-410-91)20-1120 $11),000.00 $ 1 ,224.00 Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance: (#37144-081505) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the Scanning Project for the Clerk of the Circuit Court, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 524.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37144- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the folloWing vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz patri c k m______m______________m____________m_______________________________________________m___I). NA'(S: N()I1E!-----------------------------------------------________________________________________________(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) BUDGET-COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication concurring in the following request of the Commonwealth's Attorney. The Commonwealth's Attorney advised that Federal funding was made available to the Commonwealth of Virginia to be used for development of several Multi-Jurisdictional Special Drug Prosecutors statewide; positions were developed to coordinate prosecutorial efforts among independent jurisdictions, to reduce fractional and duplicate prosecutions, to enhance the recovery of criminal assets, to utilize Federal, State and local resources to assure maximum prosecutorial effectiveness and to provide specialized prosecutorial resources to the regional drug enforcement effort; on October 9, 1987, the Commonwealth's Attorneys of the Counties of Craig, Franklin and Roanoke, and the Cities of Roanoke and Salem applied to the Commonwealth's Attorneys' Services Council, the State agency responsible for administration of 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 funds is required. 68 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 $91,494.00 on June 22, 2005, with funding to continue throughJune 30, 2001); local match is $27,900.00, for a total of $119,394.00; and funding for the local share is available in the General Fund - Transfer to Grant Fund, Account No. 001-250-9310-9535. The Commonwealth's Attorney recommended that Council accept funds from the Compensation Board, in the amount of $91,494.00, with the City providing local match funding in the amount of $27,900.00; that the City Manager be authorized to execute the requisite documents to obtain funding from the Compensation Board, with all documents to be subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; that Council appropriate $91,494.00 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 $27,900.00 from the General Fund Transfer to the Grant Fund, Account No. 001-250-9310-9535, to the Grant Fund account above referenced and appropriate funds as follows: Program Accounts 1002 1105 1115 1120 1125 1121) 1130 1131 2020 2030 2042 2160 2044 3075 Regular Employee Salaries ICMA - Retirement ICMA - Match FICA Medical Insurance Dental Insurance Life Insurance Disability Insurance Telephone Administrative Supplies Dues & Membership Postage Training & Development Other Rental TOTAL $ 78,251.00 $ 10,031.00 $ 1 ,300.00 $ 1),081).00 $ 7,080.00 $ 41)9.00 $ 0.00 $ 20.00 $ 2,000.00 $ 3,257.00 $ 400.00 $ 500.00 $ 1 ,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $ 119,394.00 Council Member Dowe offered the follOWing budget ordinance: (#37145-081505) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the Regional Drug Prosecutor Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005- 2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 524.) 69 Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37145- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel. Council Member Lea inquired if the prosecution of drug cases in the City of Roanoke has increased since acceptance ofthe initial grant in April 1998. The City Manager advised that the item was placed on the agenda at the request of the Commonwealth's Attorney and she would refer Mr. Lea's question to the Commonwealth's Attorney for response. There being no further questions/discussion by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37145-081505 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz pat rick ______n_n______n________m________________________________________m________________________I). ~A1(S: NClrlE!------------------------------------------------__---------------------------------------------Cl. (Mayor Harris was absent.) Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37141)-081 505) 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. 1)9, Page 521).) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37141)- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r Fitzpatri c k -----------n-_____n____________________n_____________n___________________n__________________I). ~t\1(S: NClrlE!----------------------------------------------____---------------------------------------------Cl. (Mayor Harris was absent.) BUDGET-EMERGENCY SERVICES-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Virginia Department of Emergency Management has announced allocation of the 2005 U. S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), State Homeland Security Program Grant which is designed to provide equipment, training, planning and exercises for first responders to develop better preparedness to prevent, respond and recover from potential acts of terrorism. 70 It was further advised that the City of Roanoke has been allocated a total of $97,1)1)7.00 under the grant based upon a formula that provided $1 5,000.00 plus $0.87 per capita; and funds will be made available upon review of the budget detail listing and approval by the Virginia Department of Emergency Management. It was explained that the funds, which require no local match, must be used according to requirements specified by the Department of Homeland Security; the 2004 grant allows the expenditure of grant funds in four areas of need: equipment acquisition, training, planning, and exercise; and equipment purchases must conform to the Office of Domestic Preparedness Authorized Equipment List. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the necessary documentation to accept the grant and to furnish such additional information and to take such additional action as may be required to implement and administer grant funds and agreements, such documents to be subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; that Council appropriate funds in the amount of $97,1)1)7.00 to an account in the Grant Fund to be established by the Director of Finance; and authorize the Director of Finance to establish a revenue estimate in the same amount in the Grant Fund. Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: (#37147-081505) AN ORDINANCE to establish the State Homeland Security Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title ofthis ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 527.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37147- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. Council Member Cutler inquired if Homeland Security Grants are available to the Western Virginia Water Authority, or would the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County consider sharing first responder grants with the Water Authority, or invite personnel of the Water Authority to participate in training which is funded by Homeland Security Grants. The City Manager advised that Homeland Security Grant monies are specifically directed toward public safety agencies or organizations, therefore, funds would be required to come directly to the City of Roanoke for a public safety activity; training for personnel of the Western Virginia Water Authority could be incorporated with training activities; and immediately after the events of September 11,2001, the City received specific direction from the State to protect water supplies, therefore, additional security measures were invoked at both 71 Roanoke City and Roanoke County water reservoirs. Insofar as the WVWA participating in the receipt of Homeland Security Grant funds, she stated that such would have to be worked out through appropriations to be received by the City and the County which could be addressed at the next meeting of the Water Authority. There being no further questions/comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37147-081505 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz patri c k --------_m_______n_n_____________n_____n_______________n_____n___________m_____________I). NJ\'(S: NClIlE!--------------------------------------------------_____________________________________________{). (Mayor Harris was absent.) Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution: (#37148-081505) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of the 2005 U. S. Department of Homeland Security Grant from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management to obtain Federal funds under the State Homeland Security Grant Program administered by the Office of Domestic Preparedness and authorizing the execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 527.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37148- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the folloWing vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz pat ri c k -----___nn________m__n_____________________n______________n______________n__________m__I). NJ\'(S: NClIlE!------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________{). (Mayor Harris was absent.) BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on August 11,2000, the Virginia Fire Services Board (VFSB) adopted a policy of providing grants known as "Mini-Grants", from interest earned by the Fire Programs Fund; the VFSB Committee on Fire Prevention and Control was charged with the responsibility of administering such programs in cooperation with the Virginia Department of Fire Programs (VDFP); a provision was adopted to restrict grant activities -projects and programs which positively impact and/or further fire service training within the Commonwealth of Virginia; maximum award for any mini-grant is $10,000.00; and in fiscal year 2001, the mini-grant's first award cycle, the Virginia Fire Services Board awarded 27 awards, totaling over $100,000.00. 72 It was further advised that the Virginia Department of Fire Programs recently announced that the City of Roanoke Fire-EMS Department was awarded a $5,772.00 Department of Fire Prevention (DFP) "Mini-Grant" which requires no local match; the award of funds will be used for support of computer services at the Roanoke Valley Regional Training Center, which will enable the Training Center to have wireless internet access across the entire training complex; and such access will provide more effective and enhanced instruction and training. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to accept the grant award of $5,772.00 and to execute the required grant agreement and any other related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, and that Council establish appropriate revenue and expenditure estimates in the Grant Fund in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance. Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance: (#37149-081505) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the DFP Computer Service Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005- 2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 528.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37149- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz patrick ------------------------------------------------------------________________n___________________I). NA'(S: ~()I1E!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37150-081505) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a DFP C()mputer Services Grant from the Virginia Department of Fire Programs, and authorizing execution of any required d()cumentation on behalf of the City. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 529.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37150- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: 73 AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r Fi tz patri c k ---n--_________________________________________________n_______________n______________________I). Nt\'{S: N()I1E!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Mayor Harris was absent.) CITY CODE-SEWERS AND STORM DRAINS-WATER RESOURCES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke operates under a VPDES permit for the City's municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4); the City's permit requires numerous actions and activities that are set forth in the registration statement submitted to the Virginia Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) in 2003; one of the City's VPDES permit requirements is development and adoption of a stormwater illicit discharge ordinance; and the goal of the ordinance is to regulate stormwater discharges to the City's storm sewer system and to prohibit the illicit connection and discharge of non- stormwater to the City's storm sewer system. It was further advised that as mandated by the VPDES program, the City is required to control the contribution of pollutants to the storm sewer system, to prohibit illicit discharges and connections to the storm sewer system, and to provide for inspection, monitoring and enforcement of prohibitions of illicit discharges and connections to the City's storm sewer system; and elimination of illicit discharges and pollutants in the storm sewer system will have a positive impact on the water quality of waterways. The City Manager explained that in order to maintain compliance with the City's VPDES Stormwater Permit, adoption of a stormwater discharge requirements ordinance is required which will involve amendment of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, in order to adopt stormwater discharge requirements. The City Manager recommended that Council amend the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by the addition of a new Chapter 11.3, Stormwater Discharge Requirements, effective on and after September 1, 2005. Council Member Cutler offered the following ordinance: (#37151-081505) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by adding a new Chapter 11.3, Stormwater Discharae Reauirements, providing requirements for the discharge of stormwater to the City of Roanoke's storm sewer system, prohibiting the discharge of non-stormwater to the City's storm sewer system, with certain exceptions, prohibiting the connection of any sanitary sewer line to the City's storm sewer system, and providing penalties for violation of this chapter; providing for an effective date; and dispensing with the second reading by title ofthis ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 530.) 74 Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37151- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. Council Member Cutler advised that the proposed ordinance, which is required by the Federal Water Act through the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Department of Environmental Quality, requires that citizens refrain from connecting roof downspouts and basement sump pumps to the sewer system; roof drains and basement sump pump drains should be connected to the storm drainage system instead of the sewer system, and the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County, in cooperation with the Western Virginia Water Authority, will work with citizens throughout the Roanoke Valley to disconnect illegal roof and basement drain connections. There being no further questions/comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37151-081505 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r Fitz pat rick -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). NA'(S: N()IlE!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) CITY ATTORNEY: STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Attorney submitted a written report advising that the City of Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) is in the process of taking over from the NorthwE!st Neighborhood Environmental Organization ("NNEO") the development of the Fifth Street Gateway project in the 500 block of Loudon Avenue, N. W; on February 3, 2003, at the request of NNEO, Council adopted Ordinance No. 31)221)-020303, closing two alleys in the area of the project; in accordance with the City's usual practice, the ordinance required that within one year from the date of adoption, NNEO would prepare and record a subdivision plat combining the closed alleys with the adjoining lots; and because the subdivision plat was never prepared and recorded, the ordinance by its terms becomes void. It was further advised that in order to allow the Housing Authority to close the alleys, the RRHA has requested that Council amend and reordain Ordinance No. 31)221)-020303, thereby allowing the RRHA additional time to prepare and record an appropriate subdivision plat. The City Attorney recommended that Council adopt a measure amending and reordaining Ordinance No. 31)221)-020303, to allow a plat of subdivision to be prepared and recorded within 31) months after FE!bruary 3, 2003, which is the date of adoption of the original ordinance. 75 Council Member Dowe offered the following ordinance: (#37152-081505) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining Ordinance No. 31)221)-020303; and dispensing with the second reading by title ofthis ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 539.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37152- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel. Council Member Lea inquired about the status of the Northwest Neighborhood Environmental Organization (NNEO). The City Manager responded that the status ofthe NNEO continues to be in a state of transition; the ordinance referenced in the City Attorney's report relats to the closing of a street that was needed to plat a subdivision for development of what was known as the Fifth Street Gateway Project; a number of problems occurred that caused the NNEO to withdraw a request for tax credits; the NNEO later asked the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to assure its role in the development of the area; and the RRHA was successful in securing tax credits, effective July 1, 2005, and is now in the process of refining and developing a proposal for the land which generated the request before the Council for an extension of time in order to prepare the necessary documents. She stated that the project that will be developed by the Housing Authority is, in large measure, similar to the project that was originally conceived for the area by the NNEO, with certain minor changes and the street closure is still necessary. Council Member Wishneff referred to complaints regarding maintenance at McCray Court; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the NNEO continues to manage McCray Court and she would confer with the City's Code Enforcement Division to determine if any complaints have been filed. Council Member Wishneff suggested that the assistance of the RRHA be solicited to provide management assistance, etc.; whereupon, the City Manager advised that she would bring the suggestion to the attention of the Executive Director of the RRHA, and specific complaints with regard to individual housing and/or maintenance of housing units would fall under the City's Code Enforcement Division for investigation. Council Member Lea requested a clarification on the entity responsible for maintenance of McCray Court. There being no further questions/comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37152-081505 was adopted by the following vote: 76 AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r Fitzpatrick ___________________________________________m____________---------------------------------------1). NA'(S: NClI1E!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Mayor Harris was absent.) DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: CITY CODE-CITY TREASURER-TAXES: The Director of Finance submitted a written report advising that since 1978, Section 2-238 of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, has provided authority for the Director of Finance to accept interest or penalty payments at a rate less than prescribed and to waive interest and penalty in certain circumstances, such as for delinquent taxes, fees, assessments, and weed, trash, demolition and boarding up liens; on occasion, such authority is beneficial to the City in order to achieve collection results; authorization is used infrequently, and when it is used, the reason for waiving penalty and interest is documented for internal control and audit purposes; and occasionally the City Treasurer encounters circumstances whereby, in order to treat customers equitably, interest and penalty may need to be waived, however, the City Code does not currently provide this authority. It was further advised that the Director of Finance and the City Treasurer concur that authorization to reduce or waive interest and penalty should be extended to the City Treasurer; and it is anticipated that such authorization will be used infrequently and will be well documented. The Director of Finance recommended that Council approve an amendment to the City Code providing authorization for the City Treasurer to reduce or to waive interest and penalty payments. Council Member Cutler offered the following ordinance: (#37153-081505) AN ORDINANCE amending Article IX, City Treasurer, of Chapter 2, Administration, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by the addition of a new §2-20I), Authoritv to reduce or waive interest and oenaltv oavments, in order to grant to the Treasurer of the City of Roanoke the power to waive certain penalties and interest when, in the Treasurer's discretion it is just and proper; and dispensing with the seCClnd reading by title paragraph of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 541 .) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37153- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: 77 AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayor Fitzpatrick -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). Nt\'(S: NClIlE!--------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: BONDS/BOND ISSUES-SCHOOLS: A report ofthe Roanoke City School Board advising of the adoption of resolutions to participate in the 2005 Interest Rate Subsidy Program Bond Sale - VPSA School Financing Bonds, Series 2005D, was before Council. It was further advised that proceeds of the bond issue will be used in lieu of Literary Fund loans approved by the State for Fallon Park Elementary School and Westside Elementary School projects; and the School Board will pay the debt service on the VPSA Interest Rate Subsidy Bond Issue. The School Board requested that Council adopt resolutions indicating that the City of Roanoke wishes to participate in the VPSA bond issue for Fallon Park and Westside Elementary Schools, and that a public hearing will be held on Monday, September 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the City Council Chamber. Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37154-081505) 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 $1,200,000.00 to finance certain capital improvements to Fallon Park Elementary School, previously approved pursuant to Resolutions No. 31)547-111703 and No. 31)548-111703, adopted by the Council at its November 17, 2003, meeting. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 542.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37154- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r Fitz patrick --------------------__________________n_________________________________------------------------1). Nt\,(5i: NClIlE!-----------------------------------------------________________________________________________(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) 78 Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37155-081505) 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 $3,850,000.00 to finance certain capital improvements to Westside Elementary School, previously approved pursuant to Resolutions No. 31)922-122004 and No. 31)923-122004, adopted by the Council at its December 20, 2004, meeting. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 543.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37155- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r Fitz patri c k ________________________n___________________________________________n___-----------------------1). NJ\'(S: NClI1E!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Mayor Harris was absent.) BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A report of the Roanoke City School Board requesting appropriation of the following funds: · $2,143.00 for the Title I Winter Program to provide remedial reading, language arts, and mathematics instruction for students in targeted schools, said program to be 100 per cent reimbursed by Federal funds. · $1 5,000.00 for the Regional Education Specialist Program to provide ancillary and support services for the Adult Literacy and Basic Education Program in the planning district, said program to be 100 per cent reimbursed by State funds. · $9,000.00 for the Thurman Foundation Homeless Child Mentoring Project to provide mentoring services to 43 children in grades 1)- 12, targeting the adolescent stage of life; and a donation for the program in its entirety has been received. A report of the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request of the School Board was also before the body. Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: 79 (#37151)-081505) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the 2004-05 Title I Winter Program, Regional Adult Education Specialist 2005-01), and Thurman Foundation Homeless Child Mentoring Project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) School Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 545.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37151)- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r Fi tz patri c k -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). Nt\'(S: N()I1E!---------------------------------------------------____________________________________________(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: NONE. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BYTHE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: Council Member Dowe commented on the level of excitement and encouragement that prevailed at ajoint meeting of Council and the School Board at 12:00 noon. He commended the new Superintendent of Schools, Marvin Thompson, who has assumed his responsibilities with a renewed vigor and a refined focus as he relates to the School administration. Council Member Dowe called attention to the resignation of Dr. Gloria P. Manns as a Trustee of the Roanoke City School Board, effective at the close ofthe August 15, 2005, joint meeting of Council and the School Board, and expressed appreciation to Dr. Manns for her years of service to the City of Roanoke and the School System. CITY EMPLOYEES: Council Member Cutler advised that the City of Roanoke's multicultural initiative is making progress and commended City employees who volunteered to serve in language resource capacities in order to meet the needs of the City's growing multicultural population. 80 CITY COUNCIL-SCHOOLS: Council Member Wishneff concurred in the remarks of Council Member Dowe with regard to the tone of the joint meeting of Council and the School Board which was held earlier in the day and commended the zeal and focus of the new Superintendent of Schools with regard to school achievement. He encouraged those parents who have taken their children out of Roanoke City Public Schools to reconsider Roanoke's school system. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Vice-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. PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-CITY COUNCIL-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Mr. Les Stennett, 3531 Peters Creek Road, N. W., addressed the growing problem of government assisted housing, public housing and low income housing. He expressed concern that approximately 27 government assisted housing communities currently exist within the boundaries ofthe City of Roanoke and it is proposed to construct additional low income housing in northwest Roanoke City on the Countryside Golf Course property. Mr. Stennett advised that millions of dollars of taxpayers' money will be spent on the new art museum in downtown Roanoke, and suggested that funds would be more wisely spent to train citizens for better paying jobs, thereby decreasing their dependency on subsidized housing. The Vice-Mayor clarified that the City of Roanoke does not intend to construct additional low income housing on the Countryside Golf Course property, and although a precise use of the property has not been determined, the Members of Council have unanimously stated that the property will not be used for low income housing. POLICE DEPARTMENT-PAY PLAN-COMPLAINTS-FIRE DEPARTMENT: Ms. Zoe Stennett, 3531 Peters Creek Road, N. W., spoke in support ofthe services provided to Roanoke's citizens by the Fire/EMS and Police Departments, and the need for an adequate pay scale for public safety employees. She called attention to low morale in the Fire Department, with promotions that are based on the "buddy system" and not on the basis of qualifications, and unfair treatment of employees by supervisory staff. She stated that the Chief of Police should be placed on administrative leave until an alleged domestic violence incident has been resolved through the legal system. FIRE DEPARTMENT: Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that closing or razing fire stations is a serious and potentially dangerous matter; therefore, many citizens do not have faith in the proposed Fire/Emergency Medical Services Plan advocated by the City Manager and the Fire Chief. She presented 81 copy of a communication from Adam K. Thiel, Executive Director, Virginia Department of Fire Programs, with regard to the proposed closure of five Roanoke fire stations. She requested a written definition of Roanoke's Central Business District and its boundaries. (See above referenced communication on file in the City Clerk's Office.) PAY PLAN-CITY PROPERTY-PUBLIC WORKS-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., expressed concern with regard to the pay scale for the average City employee which is below the poverty level. He stated that wages should be increased so that the average City employee can afford to purchase a home. He advised that in addition to publiC safety employees, other City employees work under certain unsafe and undesirable conditions in order to maintain City property. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: CITY COUNCIL-CITY GOVERNMENT-CITY EMPLOYEES-STATE OF THE CITY REPORTS: The City Manager advised that many public service employees work in undesirable situations, and the City of Roanoke has a dedicated group of employees whose lives are sometimes at risk while fulfilling their responsibilities. The City Manager encouraged the citizens of Roanoke to attend the Mayor's State of the City Address which will be held on Thursday, August 25, 2005, at 7:30 a.m., in the Cafetorium at the Roanoke Academy for Mathematics and Science Elementary School, 11) 11) 9th Street, N. W. The City Manager commended the Members of Council on their efforts to address housing disparities in the City of Roanoke. She advised that the City of Roanoke is ranked as one of the most segregated communities in the Commonwealth of Virginia and the City is constantly looking for ways to decrease segregation, to deconcentrate poverty, to increase home ownership, and to increase the amount of market rate housing. She stated that the Countryside Golf Course property offers an unique opportunity to construct additional housing choices; and even though it is not known at this time what will be constructed on the site, the City has no plans to construct additional low income housing, whether it be at the Countryside location or any other location. She stated that the City of Roanoke has more than an adequate supply of low income housing and bears a disproportionate share of low income housing when compared to other jurisdictions in the Roanoke Valley. At 3:20 p.m., the Vice-Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for five Closed Sessions. At 5: 1 0 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, except Mayor Harris and Council Member Lea, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick presiding. 82 COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Council Member Dowe 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 Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, and Vice-Mayor F itz pat rick _________n_____n___.____________________________________________n____________n______n_________________ 5 . Nt\'(S: ~()IlE!·----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Mayor Harris was absent.) (Council Member Lea left the meeting at the conclusion of the Closed Session.) OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMiTTEES-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE: The Vice-Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Human Services Advisory Board created by the resignation of H. Clarke Curtis; whereupon, he opened the floor for nÐminations to fill the vacancy. Council Member Dowe placed in nomination the name of Angela Holland. There being no further nominations, Ms. Holland was appointed as a member of the Human Services Advisory Board, to fill the unexpired term of H. Clarke Curtis, resigned, ending November 30, 2007, by the following vote: FOR MS. HOLLA~D: Council Members Dowe, McDaniel, Wish neff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz pat ri ck ____________m_________n___________n___n_____________________________________________ 5 . (Mayor Harris and Council Member Lea were absent.) OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION: The Vice- Mayor advised that the term of office of Anna Wentworth as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission expired on June 30, 2005; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Council Member McDaniel placed in nomination the name ofWyona Lynch- McWhite. There being no further nominations, Ms. Lynch-McWhite was appointed as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2008, by the following vote: 83 FOR MS. LYNCH-MCWHITE: Council Members Dowe, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle r and Vice-Mayo r Fitzpatrick -----n_____m_______n_______n____m_n_____________________________ 5. (Mayor Harris and Council Member Lea were absent.) Council Member McDaniel moved that the City residency requirement be waived in this instance. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted. At 5:15 p.m., the Vice-Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess to be reconvened at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. At 7:00 p.m., on Monday, August 15,2005, 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 Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., presiding. PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, M. Rupert Cutler and Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitz pat ri c k, Jr. __n_n_n_m__n_ ----n-n----nn-___n_n_nn_n____n_____n_n_n__n_n____n_______n_------I). ABSENT: Mayor C. Nelson Harrism------n----nm---------------_________n_______n___m_nl . 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 Fitzpatrick. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ofthe United States of America was led by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. BID OPENINGS: CITY PROPERTY-COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BUILDING: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids for lease of space in the Virginia Commonwealth Building, said bids to be received by the City Clerk until 12:00 p.m., on Monday, August 15, 2005, and to be held, unopened, until 7:00 p.m., on that date, the Vice-Mayor inquired if anyone had any questions with regard to the opening ofthe bids. No representative present raising any question, the Vice-Mayor instructed the City Clerk to proceed with the opening of the bids. The City Clerk advised that one bid was submitted at 1 :48 p.m., however, the deadline for receipt of bids was 12:00 p.m., in the City Clerk's Office. 84 The City Attorney advised that the bid was not a legitimate bid inasmuch as it was received after the 12:00 p.m. deadline; whereupon, the City Clerk was instructed to return the bid, unopened, to the bidder. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CITY PROPERTY-COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BUILDING: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a publiC hearing for Monday, August 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the City Council Chamber, on the lease of certain City-owned property located in the Commonwealth Building to be used for office space for a term of up to ten years, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, July 29 and Friday, August 5, 2005. Inasmuch as one bid was submitted after the 12:00 p.m., August 14, 2005 deadline for receipt of bids, the Vice-Mayor advised that the matter would be readvertised for bids and publiC hearing at a later date. ZONING: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday, April I), 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 15,2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of Roanoke Investments Associated, Inc., that proffered conditions presently binding upon a 2.1)15-acre parcel of land located at 331)1 Melrose Avenue, N. W., be amended, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, July 29, 2005 and Friday, August 5, 2005. The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the petition requests that the following proffer be reoealed: The property shall be used only for one or more of the following purposes: Manufacturing establishments primarily engaged in the assembly of electrical appliances and telephonic, electronic or small mechanical equipment, instruments or devices; the manufacture of parts of use in any such appliances, equipment, instruments, or devices; or the assembly and/or packaging of textile materials. No outside storage will be permitted on the property in connection with any use. 85 It was further advised that the petition requests that the following proffers be adopted: 1. The following uses shall not be permitted on the property: a. Outdoor advertising; b. Tractor trailer depots and repair facilities; c. General service establishments engaged in the repair or maintenance of motor vehicles or trailers; d. New commercial vehicle sales and service establishments; e. Towing services; f. Mobile home sales; g. Motor vehicle or trailer painting and body repair establishments; h. Wrecker services; I. Used commercial motor vehicle sales and service. 2. There shall be no outdoor storage permitted on the property. 3. Landscaping shall be installed and maintained in accordance with a landscape plan prepared by Country Charm Landscape and dated July 21, 2005. It was explained that the petitioner indicates that the proposed use of the property will be for "production and storage of marketing materials, and as software design, production and maintenance"; the concept plan indicates use of the existing building; and the proposed use and concept plan are not being proffered. The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the second amended petition to amend proffered conditions which will allow flexible, adaptive reuse of the building, and is consistent with the economic development policies of Vision 2001-2020 and the Villa Heights/Fair/and Neighborhood Plan. Council Member McDaniel offered the following ordinance: (#37157-081505) AN ORDINANCE to amend §§31).1-3 and 31).1-4, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 21)1), Sectional 1971) Zone Map, City of Roanoke, by amending certain conditions presently binding upon certain property previously conditionally zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 541).) Council Member McDaniel moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37157- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Wishneff. Eugene M. Elliott, Jr., Attorney, appeared before Council in support of the request of his client. 86 The Vice-Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the request to amend proffered conditions. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37157-081505 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz patri c k __n___________________________________________________________----------------------------------1). ~A'(S: NClI1E!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Mayor Harris was absent.) ZONING: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday, April I), 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 15,2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of Boone Homes, Inc., of Roanoke that proffered conditions presently binding upon a 10.224 acre tract of land located on Franklin Road, S. W., identified as Official Tax No. 1290175, be repealed and replaced with nE!W proffered conditions, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, July 29, 2005, and Friday, August 5, 2005. The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the petition requests that the following proffers be reoealed: 1. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan entitled, "Development Concept for Section ~o. 3, Southwood, Prepared for Boone, Boone and Loeb, Inc." prepared by Lumsden and Associates, dated August 31 , 2000, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit 3 [reference to former petition], subject to any changes required by the City during site plan review. 2. No parallel on-street parking will be permitted on streets less than 30 feet in width serving residential units. 3. That portion of the 23.571-acrE! parcel not being developed with the erection of structures or sidewalks as shown on the site plan identified in Paragraph 1 shall be retained as open space. 4. The residences constructed on the property shall not exceed I- 1/2 stories, but in no case be higher than 31 feet from top of the floor of the first floor. Exposed basement and sub-footing heights would not be included in the 31-foot height limitation. 87 5. The grading of the property shall substantially conform with the approximate limits shown on the grading plan entitled "Proposed Grading Plan for Section No.3, Southwood," prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.c. under date of October 13, 2000, submitted as Exhibit 5 [reference to former petition]. I). Landscaping shall be in accordance with the plan submitted as Exhibit 4 [reference to former petition] and shall include street trees, evergreen trees and hedges. In addition, any existing tree cover on the permanent open space which is disturbed during development of the property shall be replanted with one-half white pines and one-half deciduous trees which, at the time of planting, shall be a minimum of three to four feet in height and planted on a maximum of 30-foot on center. Replanted material shall be maintained by the property owner. 7. On-site signage will be limited to identification signage at the main entrance and identification and direction signage within the development. 8. The exterior of the residences shall be predominantly brick on all facades. 9. Driveways shall be blacktopped. 10. Sidewalks shall be installed as shown on Exhibit 4 [reference to former petition]. 11. A homeowner's association shall be established to maintain the exterior of constructed residences and the grounds. Documentation of the establishment ofthe Association shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. It was further advised that the petition requests that the following proffers be adopted: 1. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the site plan entitled, "Development Concept for Section No.3, Southwood, Prepared for Boone, Boone and Loeb, Inc." prepared by Lumsden and Associates, dated August 31, 2000, subject to any changes required by the City during site plan review. 88 2. That portion of the 23.571-acre parcel not being developed with the erection of structures or sidewalks as shown on the site plan identified in Paragraph 1 shall be retained as open space. 3. The residences constructed on the property shall not exceed I- 1/2 stories, but in no case be higher than 31 feet from top of the floor of the first floor; and exposed basement and sub- footing heights would not be included in the 31-foot height limitation. 4. The grading of the property shall substantially conform with the limits shown on the grading plan entitled, "Southwood Amended Grading Limits, Section No.5, The Coach Homes of Southwood," prepared by Lumsden Associates, P.c. under date of May 5, 2005. 5. Landscaping shall be in accordance with the plan submitted as Exhibit 4 enacted as part of Ordinance No.3 51 52-1 20400, and shall include street trees, evergreen trees and hedges; in addition, any existing tree cover on the permanent open space which is disturbed during development ofthe property shall be replanted with one-half white pines which, at the time of planting, shall be a minimum of three to four feet in height, and one-half deciduous trees which, at the time of planting, shall be two and one-half inches in caliper; all trees shall be planted so as not to exceed a spacing of 30 feet on center; and replanted material shall be maintained by the property owner. I). On-site signage will be limited to identification signage at the main entrance and identification and direction signage within the development. 7. The exterior of the residences shall be 90 per cent brick excluding siding on dormers and siding on rear gables. 8. Driveways shall be blacktopped. 9. Sidewalks shall be installed as shown on the original submittal. 10. A homeowner's association shall be established to maintain the exterior of constructed residences and the grounds. Documentation ofthe establishment ofthe Association shall be provided to the City prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 89 It was explained that the proposed revIsion to the plan substantially increases the area to be graded in the reserved open space; the area is a wooded, steep hillside that ranges in grade from 28-35 per cent slope; the revised grading plan extends the area to be graded an average of 28 feet farther down the hillside than shown in the original plan; the hillside abuts the Roy Webber Expressway; proposed mitigation is through reforestation by planting a 50/50 mixture of deciduous and coniferous trees on 30-foot centers; and the Zoning Administrator will require that the reforestation take place prior to issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy for this section of the development. It was noted that the original grading plan resulted in less disturbed area, but required an artificial structure to retain the hillside; notes on the plan indicate that the reason for the request is to avoid the need to construct a retaining wall which would range from five to ten feet in height; the proposed amendment extends the graded area, but will eventually result in natural contours; and with both proposals, there is an effort toward mitigation through reforestation. The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the amendment of proffered conditions as set forth in the petition; the revised grading plan, while it removes more forested area, will result in natural topography over the long term; and removal of the prohibition with regard to on- street parking, designating a minimum caliper for deciduous trees, and designating a minimum amount of brick exterior are appropriate. Council Member Cutler offered the following ordinance: (#37158-081505) AN ORDINANCE to amend §§31).1-3 and 31).1-4, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 129, Sectional 1971) Zone Map, City of Roanoke, by amending certain conditions presently binding upon certain property previously conditionally rezoned RPUD, Residential Planned Unit Development District; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 547.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37158- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. Edward A. Natt, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before Council in support of the request of his client. The Vice-Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the amendment of proffered conditions. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. 90 Mr. Lloyd Sawyer, 3331) Summer Croft Court, S. W., advised that property owners on the south side of Summer Croft Court were not notified of the proposed amendments; whereupon, R. Brian Townsend, Agent to the City Planning Commission, advised that pursuant to State law, the City is required to notify only those property owners whose property immediately abuts subject property properties to be rezoned. Mr. Sawyer called attention to a rumor that Boone and Company previously offered a portion of the property to the City of Roanoke, however, the City does not wish to accept the property and plans to donate it to adjoining land owners who will be required to pay taxes and will be held liable for flooding that could occur as a result of property development. He stated that he does not wish to pay taxes or to be held liable for property that he does not plan to use. Mr. Bob Bohon, 3341 Summer Croft Court, S. W., inquired if the land is signed over to the homeowners association will be subject to taxation. He expressed concern with regard to liability issues that could be incurred by the homeowners association due to any flooding that might occur as a result of property development. Ms. Karen Lits, 3329 Summer Croft Court, S. W., expressed concern with regard to liability issues as a result of flooding ifthe land is donated by Boone and Company to the homeowners association. She stated that proffered conditions have been revised to eliminate the need for construction of a retaining wall and to increase grading and forestry, and property owners should be provided with more information in order to address their concerns, or Council should postpone a vote on the request for amendment of proffers until the homeowners association is more knowledgeable about the terms and conditions of the donation. Mr. Natt advised that the property was originally zoned in its entirety in 1995; proffered conditions were placed on the property in December 2000, one of which addressed a grading plan for the rear of the property between the houses going down the hill toward 1-581 that included construction of a retaining wall; the developers are now requesting that the grading plan be revised to eliminate the retaining wall which will allow grading to be done 28 feet farther down the hill than was included in the 2000 plan, and to require the establishment of a minimum caliper of 2 Y2 inches for deciduous trees on the property, as well as other factors including a 50-50 mix of deciduous and coniferous trees on 30 foot centers to establish reforestation ofthe property; and to ensure that reforestation takes place, before the issuance of any Certificates of Occupancy, the reforestation portion must be complete, and maintenance will be required for a period of time by the developer. With reference to comments made by previous speakers, Mr. Natt advised that the area was common area in the year 2000 plan, and will continue to be common area which means that at some point during development, the developer will convey that portion of the property to the homeowners association. With regard to the payment of taxes, he stated that the incorporated homeowners 91 association will be taxed depending on the value of the land; the 2005 plan eliminates the requirement for construction of a retaining wall and provides that the area will be reforested and ensured by the developer for a period of time, therefore, the liability issue would be reduced. There was discussion with regard to the requirement for notifying affected property owners of rezonings/amendments of proffered conditions; whereupon, Mr. Townsend advised that the Code of Virginia does not require notification of property owners whose circumstances are affected. He explained that property owners could state that their circumstances are affected by a rezoning that could be as much as one-half mile to three miles away from the area in question and absent any other legislative direction, City staff would be placed in a difficult position in terms of estimating the area of influence, which could be different on each side depending on the nature of the development or the context of the request. He stated that the appropriate neighborhood is notified and public hearings by the City Planning Commission and City Council are advertised in local newspapers in accordance with provisions of the State Code. Council Member Cutler inquired as to how much fill material will be used in lieu of a retaining wall and what types of vegetation will be planted to keep the fill material in place. He also inquired about how a structural retaining wall can be substituted with a soil and vegetative alternative that is just as good or better than a retaining wall. Mr. Natt referred to a site plan prepared by Lumsden Associates showing amended grading limits/elevations and a proffer that provides that any existing tree cover on permanent open space that is disturbed during development will be replanted in one half white pines and one half deciduous trees, and trees shall be planted apart in order to mix the trees as much as possible and to return the area to natural vegetation, with the idea in mind that the hardwood trees would eventually take over. He stated that the proffer also provides that replanted material shall be maintained by the property owner, and the property owner will not be issued any Certificates of Occupancy for units that are constructed in the development until such time as the reforestation project is complete. In response to a question as to whether the City Planning Commission agreed that fill material would be a preferable alternative to a retaining wall, Mr. Townsend advised that the Planning Commission was of the opinion that a retaining wall would not be the best alternative in terms of screening 1-581 because vegetation below the wall would never grow to the point of covering it, thus there would be a barren area of retaining wall with vegetation below and on top; and from an aesthetic and ecological standpoint, the alternative plan involving fill material would be preferable. He added that assuming the retaining wall held up structurally, it would need a certain amount of maintenance over a period of time. 92 Question was raised as to how a potential homeowner will be apprised of the proposed homeowners association; whereupon, Mr. Townsend advised that when potential homeowners execute deeds for their property, it is acknowledged that they are entering into a homeowners association. Mr. Natt also advised that potential homeowners will be provided with a disclosure package which includes a declaration of all of the issues that are addressed by the homeowners association and a prospective purchaser has a certain period of time in which to void the contract if they are dissatisfied with the declaration. The City Manager called attention to a number of existing homeowners associations that are active in the City of Roanoke that currently hold title to properties that are not registered with the City for the purpose of any type of interaction such as that which occurs with neighborhood organizations/associations. She stated that homeowners associations might be a topic for discussion at a future Council work session. There being no further speakers, the Vice-Mayor declared the public hearing closed. There being no further questions/comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37158-081505 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayor Fitzpatrick __________________________m________________________________________________________________m_l). Nt\'(S: NClI1E!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) ZONING: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday, April I), 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of Faison-Southern Lane, LLC, and Save-X-2, LLC, to amend and substitute proffered conditions presently binding on ten tracts ofland, described as Official Tax Nos. 5470115, 5470113, 5470114, 5470112, 5470111, 5470108,5470109,5470110,5480701 and 5480704, located on Southern Lane, Southern Hills Drive, and Griffin Road, S. W, and apply proffered conditions to five tracts of land located on Franklin Road, identified as Official Tax Nos. 5470103, 5470102, 5480717, 5480718 and 5470104, the matter was befClre the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Tuesday, August 2, 20()5 and Tuesday, August 9, 2005. The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the petition requests that existing proffers on Official Tax Nos. 5470115, 5470113, 5470114, 5470112, 5470111, 5470108, 5470109, 5470110, 5480701, and 5480704 be repealed: 93 1. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the Development Plan prepared by Lumsden Associates, dated June 17, 1997, and revised August 7,1997, a copy of which is attached to the Petition for Rezoning as Exhibit I), subject to any changes required by the City as part of Comprehensive Development Plan review. 2. The exterior treatment of all buildings on the property shall be architecturally finished and shall be consistent in the use of architectural details and materials on all sides of the building. 3. All lighting on the property shall consist of fixtures designed with shields that direct illumination away from the adjoining residential neighborhood along the easterly side of Griffin Road. 4. All dumpsters, loading docks and heating/air conditioning handling units shall be screened from view by landscaping, masonry or metal screen walk. 5. There shall be no building wall signs facing the residentially zoned neighborhoods along the easterly side of Griffin Road. I). Outdoor advertising, as defined in the Roanoke City Code, shall not be permitted. 7. The combined surface area of all signs on the commercial lots, including signs erected in a required yard, shall not exceed 2.5 square feet for each foot of lot frontage for the first 100 feet of lot frontage, an additional 1.0 square feet for each foot of lot frontage remaining; and all freestanding sign structures shall be limited to one per lot with a signage area no greater than 100 square feet. 8. Tract E shall not be used as a restaurant; any restaurants located on Tracts D, G & F shall not be fast food restaurants; and, any restaurants constructed on Tracts D, C & F shall contain odor abatement equipment to abate the disbursement of cooking odors to the outdoors. 9. Any structure constructed on Tract E, including a motel or hotel, will be no more than three stories high or a maximum of 45 feet measured from ground level. 94 10. A sidewalk shall be included along the northern side of the relocated Southern Hills Drive, and continue along the eastern side of Southern Lane, such sidewalk shall run the length ofthe relocated Southern Hills Drive on the site and that portion of Southern Lane shown on the Development Plan. 11. The following C-2 uses as designated in the Code ofthe City of Roanoke shall not be permitted on Tracts D, E, F or G: 31).1-201)(11) Police stations. 31).1-201)(14) Military reserve and National Guard centers. 31).1-201)(15) Training facilities related to police, fire, rescue and ambulance uses. 31).1-201)(19) Coliseums, stadiums, exhibition halls, and similar facilities. 31).1-201)(21) Parks and playgrounds. 31).1-201)(22) Drive-in movie theaters. 31).1-201)(34) Neighborhood and highway convenience stores. 31).1-201)(35) Outdoor advertising subject to the requirements of Section 31).1-440 et seq. 31).1-201)(31)) Gas stations. 31).1-201)(39) Automobile cleaning facilities. 31).1-201)(40) Automobile repair establishments except painting and body shops. 31).1-201)(42) Public parking structures. 31).1-201)(44) Bus terminals for the loading and unloading of passengers. 31).1-201)(45) Veterinary clinics with no outside corrals or pens. 31).1-201)(41)) Kennels with no outside pens or "runs". 31).1-201)(47) Plant nurseries and greenhouses including those with retail sales. (Ord. No. 281) 11, §2, 4-27-87; Ord. No. 29932, 2-20-90; Ord. No. 301)48A, 8-21)-91). 31).1-207(1) Group care facilities subject to the requirements of Section 31).1-51)0 et seq. 31).1-207(4) Establishments primarily engaged in the sale or rental of automobiles, trucks and construction equipment including the incidental repair and maintenance of vehicles where the lot area is less than 20,000 square feet. 31).1-207(5) Automobile painting and body shops provided that there shall be no outdoor storage of damaged automobiles, equipment, auto parts or other materials. 31).1-207(9) Utility substations, transmission lines and towers, booster stations, relay stations and transformers, and similar uses provided that light, fumes, noise, unsightliness, or other associated activities or emissions are adequately screened from the surrounding neighborhood. 31).1-207(10) Medical laboratories. 95 Additionally, open air markets selling second hand merchandise and other miscellaneous items shall not be permitted on Tracts D, E, For G. 12. Signage approved by the petitioner and the City of Roanoke, and identifying the Southern Hills Neighborhood shall be placed on both sides of Southern Hills Drive at its intersection with Griffin Road. 13. Petitioner's landscape buffering/screening along Griffin Road shall be designed so that a row of evergreen trees still face the residential neighborhood located on the easterly side of Griffin Road, followed by a second and interior row of deciduous trees, subject to any changes required by the City as part of Comprehensive Development Plan review. It was further advised that the third amended petition requests that the following proffers be adopted for all 15 parcels: 1. The property will be developed in substantial conformity with the "Concept Site Plan, The Home Depot, Franklin Road and Valley Avenue, City of Roanoke, Virginia," prepared by Mattern & Craig, dated July 8, 2005, subject to any changes required by the Virginia Department of Transportation or the City as part of Comprehensive Development Plan review. 2. The 105,000 ±s.f. commercial bUilding shall be architecturally finished in substantial conformity with the July 25, 2005, rendering of The Home Depot, City of Roanoke, Franklin Road & Valley Avenue, by Architectural Group International. 3. Any outdoor light fixture shall be a full cutoff fixture or a decorative fixture with full cutoff optics; a "full cutoff fixture" shall mean an outdoor light fixture shielded in such a manner that all light emitted by the fixture, either directly from the lamp or indirectly from the fixture, is projected below the horizontal plane; and a "decorative fixture with full cutoff optics" shall mean an outdoor light fixture with manufacturer- provided or manufacturer-installed full cut-off optics. 4. The spillover of lighting from any parking area on the subject property onto public rights-of-way or abutting property in residentially zoned districts shall not exceed one-half foot candle at the property line. 96 5. Any outdoor lighting in parking areas shall not exceed 40 feet in height; and maximum height shall apply to the height ofthe poles or other standards to which the fixtures are attached or the top most point of the fixture itself, whichever is higher. I). Outdoor lighting information for the subject property shall be submitted during comprehensive development plan review. Such information shall include the folloWing: a. Location of all outdoor lighting fixtures including the manufacturer's specifications ofthe area to be lighted with such fixtures; b. Plans indicating the location on the property, and the type, of illuminating devices, fixtures, lamps, supports, reflectors and other devices; c. Description of the illuminating devices, fixtures, lamps, supports, reflectors and other devices; d. Photometric data, such as that furnished by manufacturers, showing the angle of cut off of light emissions; and e. Other information as may be deemed necessary by the Zoning Administrator to determine compliance with the lighting proffers. 7. All dumpsters, loading docks, heating/air conditioning handling units and ground mounted electrical transformer boxes shall be screened from view from public rights-of-way adjacent to the subject property by landscaping, masonry or metal screen walls. 8. There shall be no building wall signs facing the residentially zoned property along the easterly side of Griffin Road. 9. Signage provided by the petitioner and approved by the City of Roanoke, and identifying the Southern Hills Neighborhood shall be placed on the side of Griffin Road near its intersection with Roy Drive. 10. Landscaping shall be as shown on the Concept Landscape Plan, The Home Depot, Franklin Road and Valley Avenue, City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated July 8, 2005, prepared by Mattern & Craig, subject to any changes required by the City as part of Comprehensive Development Plan Review. 11. The follOWing C-2 uses as designated in the Code ofthe City of Roanoke shall be permitted on the subject properties: 36.1-206(1) Dwellings located above ground floor nonresidential uses. 36.1-206(3) Trade, business and art schools of a nonindustrial nature. 36.1-206(4) Trade and vocational schools of an industrial nature. 36.1-206(6) Day care centers with unlimited capacity subject to the requirements of Section 31).1-510 et seq. 36.1-206(7) Churches, synagogues and other places of worship including accessory columbariums. 36.1-206(8) Libraries, museums, art galleries and art studios and other similar uses including associated educational and instructional activities. 36.1-206(16) Post offices. 36.1-206(17) Indoor recreational uses including bowling alleys, indoor tennis courts, squash courts, fitness centers and other similar uses. 36.1-206 (18) Theaters with unlimited seating capacity. 36.1-206 (20) Outdoor recreational facilities including swimming clubs, tennis courts, athletic facilities and other similar uses. 36.1-206(23) General and professional offices including financial institutions. 36.1-206(24) Medical clinics. 36.1-206(25) Medical offices. 36.1-206(26) General service establishments, except for repair or maintenance of motor vehicles or trailers, provided that all repair or maintenance activities shall occur in a wholly enclosed building. 36.1-206(27) Funeral homes. 36.1-206(28) Restaurants. 36.1-206(29) Hotels, motels, and inns. 36.1-206(30) Bed and breakfast establishments subject to the requirements of Section 31).1-520 et seq. 36.1-201)(31) General retail establishments primarily engaged in the retail sale or rental of merchandise, goods, or products except automobiles, trucks, or construction equipment; and including the incidental repair and assembly of merchandise, goods or products to be sold on the premises. 36.1-206(32) Open air markets selling farm produce, crafts, plants, secondhand merchandise and other miscellaneous items. 36.1-206(33) Food stores with unlimited gross floor area. 36.1-206(34) Neighborhood and highway convenience stores, provided that no motor vehicle service station canopy over a gas pump island shall be allowed, unless: a. Such canopy shall have a maximum clear, unobstructed height to its underside not to exceed 14 feet I) inches and a maximum overall height not to exceed 11) feet I) inches; 97 98 b. There shall be no illumination of any portion of the fascia of the canopy; c. Any lighting fixtures or sources of light that are a part of the underside of the canopy shall be recessed into the underside of the canopy so as not to protrude below the canopy ceiling; and all such lighting associated with the canopy shall be directed downward toward the pump islands and shall not be directed outward or away from the site; d. The vertical dimension of the fascia of such canopy shall be no more than two feet; and e. Signs attached to or on such canopy shall not be illuminated and shall not extend beyond the ends or extremities of the fascia of the canopy to which or on which they are attached. 36.1-206(37) New motor vehicle sales and service establishments, provided the lot area for this use is no less than 40,000 square feet. 36.1-206(38) Auto accessory sales with related installation. 36.1-206(43) Storage and warehouse activities which are accessory to a retail use where all storage activities are wholly enclosed in a building which is located on the same lot as the retail use and where the gross floor area of buildings used for storage activities does not exceed 50 per cent of the gross floor area of the retail use. 36.1-206(47) Plant nurseries and greenhouses including those with retail sales. 36.1-206(48) Commercial printing establishments which print newspapers, publications, and other materials. 36.1-206(49) Personal service establishments. 36.1-206(50) Business service establishments. 12. The following C-2 uses as designated in the Code of the City of Roanoke shall be permitted on the subject properties by Special Exception granted by the Board of Zoning Appeals: 36.1-207(2) Fast food restaurants. 36.1-207(3) Establishments engaged in the retail sale of building supplies where all or a portion of related storage and display activities are not wholly enclosed in a building provided the outdoor storage or display area is accessory to a building and has a maximum area no greater than ten per cent of the gross floor area of the building. 99 36.1-207(7) Establishments primarily engaged in the wholesale distribution of goods where all related activities are wholly enclosed in a building provided that: a. The total gross floor area of buildings on a lot shall not exceed 12,000 square feet. b. The use is located on a major arterial road or highway. 36.1-207(8) Manufacturing, assembly, mixing, processing or other processes which are accessory to a retail use, where all such activities are wholly enclosed in the same building as the retail use and where no more than five people are involved in such processes on the premises. 13. As any development on Tracts Band C, as identified on the Concept Site Plan, will be visible from public roads from multiple directions, the architectural treatment and palette of exterior materials utilized for any structure built on either of these tracts shall be applied to all facades of such structure in a consistent and uniform manner. 14. The seasonal sales area designated on the Concept Site Plan will be used solely for the seasonal sale of plants, shrubs, trees and assorted potted nursery products together with associated bag products such as mulch, top soil and potting soil; the seasonal sales area will be in use, intermittently, for approximately six months per year for the sale of plants and plant related items appropriate to the time of the year, such as spring and summer live plants and Christmas trees and related greenery; and no buildings, sheds, trailers, lawn mowers, gas grills, tractors or similar items will be displayed, stored or sold in the seasonal sales area. 15. If requested by the City as part of the Comprehensive Development Plan review, a natural non-handicapped accessible pedestrian access will be located between the Home Depot parking lot and Griffin Road near its intersection with Southern Hills Drive. 11). The finished grade of Griffin Road between its intersection with Southern Lane and its intersection with Southern Hills Drive as shown on the Concept Site Plan will not exceed 12 1/2 per cent. 17. There will be no outdoor storage of goods, materials or merchandise other than as proffered for the seasonal sales area designated on the Concept Site Plan and the areas surrounded by ornamental fence shown on the Concept Site Plan and the Rendering of the Home Depot building. 100 It was noted that the proposed change in conditions will permit new development of the site with a Home Depot store in conjunction with the development of a new street between the intersection of Griffin Road and Southern Hills Drive to the existing traffic signal at Franklin Road; the amended conditions will also permit development of two parcels of land (Tracts B and C) to the north ofthe new street with unspecified commercial uses which will be limited to those uses being proffered; and no site development plan for the two parcels of land is being proffered with the site plan. It was also noted that the proffered amendment is requested in conjunction with the vacation of portions of Southern Hills Drive and Southern Lane and the simultaneous dedication of a new street. The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the third amended petition; and proposed uses of the property are consistent with Vision 2001-2020 and the Southern Hills Neighborhood Plan. Council Member Cutler offered the following ordinance: (#37159-081505) AN ORDINANCE to amend §§31).1-3 and 31).1-4, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet Nos. 547 and 548, Sectional 1971) Zone Map, City of Roanoke, by amending certain conditions presently binding upon certain property previously conditionally zoned C-2, General Commercial District, by Ordinance No. 33759-0401)98, and placing such proffers on certain other property zoned 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. 1)9, Page 548.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37159- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel. James F. Douthat, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before Council in support of the request of his client. The Vice-Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the request to amend proffered conditions. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. Council Member Dowe inquired if the increased grade of the roadway is intended to deter communication; whereupon, Mr. Douthat advised that a major thoroughfare is not desired for the area, a 50 foot right-of-way will be provided and a 24 foot pavement will be installed with sidewalk and planted trees so that the area will be residential in character. Council Member Cutler inquired as to how criteria contained in the City's Urban Forestry Plan will be met and how will storm water issues be addressed. 101 Mr. Douthat advised that the landscape plan provides for street yard trees to be planted along the length of the new street and storm water storage will be addressed by underground pipes. Mr. Townsend advised that tree canopy coverage ofthe area on site is about ten percent of the parking lot area. Question was raised with regard to input by residents ofthe Southern Hills neighborhood; whereupon, Mr. Douthat advised that property owners were engaged in the project, and meetings were held with neighborhood representatives. Question was raised with regard to the number of jobs that will be generated as a result of the project; whereupon, Mr. Douthat advised that approximately 175 jobs will be created, not all of which will be full time positions, with a payroll in excess of $3 million, plus fringe benefits. There being no further questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37159-081505 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz pat rick n______________________________________n________nn____________________n_____________________I). NJ\'(S: N()IlE!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) STREETS AND ALLEYS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday, April I), 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 15,2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of Faison-Southern Lane, LLC, and Save-X-2, LLC, that a portion of Southern Lane and Southern Hills Drive, S. 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 Tuesday, August 2, 2005, and Tuesday, August 9, 2005. The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the petition is in conjunction with a petition to amend proffers on Official Tax Nos. 5470115,5470113,5470114,5470112,5470111,5470108,5470109,5470110, 5480701, and 5480704, and proffer the same conditions on Official Tax Nos. 5470103,5470102,5480717, 5480718,and 5470104. It was further advised that the petitioner plans to develop Official Tax Nos. 5470115, 5470113, 5470114, 5470112, 5470111, 5470108, 5470109, and a portion of 5480704 with a Home Depot store. 102 The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve vacation of the portions of rights-of-way and the portion of drainage easement at no charge to the petitioner; and the portions of rights-of-way to be vacated are approximately equivalent to the right-of-way to be dedicated. Council Member Dowe offered the folloWing ordinance: (#3711)0-081505) AN ORDINANCE permanently vacating, discontinuing and closing certain public rights-of-way in the City of Roanoke, Virginia, as more particularly described hereinafter; and dispensing with the second reading ofthis ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 551 .) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3711)0- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler. James F. Douthat, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before Council in support of the request of his client. The Vice-Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the request for closure of streets. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 3711)0-081505 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz pat rick _____________________________________________n______________n___-------------------------------1). Nt\'(Si: NCll1e-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) TAXES: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 15, 200Si, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of Star City Gospel Café, Inc., for exemption from local real estate taxation of real property located at 921) Indiana t\venue, N. E., the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, August 5, 2005. The City Manager submitted a written report advising that Star City Gospel Café, Inc., owns property described as Official Tax No. 301)0505, located at 921) Indiana Avenue, N. E.; the primary purpose of the Star City Gospel Café is to encourage and support local gospel artists, musicians, and singers by providing free gospel services to the public, including free food and drink; the Star City Gospel Café acts as a meeting and clearing house for gospel groups to practice 103 their craft, and find new members, players or singers; the Star City Gospel Café also hosts a radio show on WKBA on Saturdays; and proposed annual taxes due for fiscal year 2005-2001) on the above referenced parcel of land are $71)1.08 on an assessed value of $1)2,900.00. It was further advised that on May 19, 2003, Council adopted a revised policy and procedure in connection with requests from non-profit organizations for tax exemption of certain property in the City, pursuant to Resolution No. 31)331-051903, adopting the revised Process for Determination of Property Tax Exemption dated May 19, 2003, effective January 1, 2003; the Star City Gospel Café has provided the required information as a result of adjustments made to the City's revised local policy prior to the deadline of October 15, 2005, which is the deadline for applications for exemptions that would take effect on January 1, 2001). It was explained that according to the Commissioner of the Revenue's Office, the loss of revenue to the City will be $1)08.88 after a 20 per cent service charge is levied by the City in lieu of real estate taxes; the service charge will be $152.20; the Commissioner ofthe Revenue has determined that the organization is currently not exempt from paying real estate taxes on the property known as Official Tax No. 301)0505 by classification or designation under the Code of Virginia; and the IRS recognizes Star City Gospel Café as a 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt organization. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize the Star City Gospel Café, Inc., exemption from real estate property taxation, pursuant to Article X, Section l)(a)1) ofthe Constitution of Virginia, effective January 1, 2001), for property known as Official Tax No. 301)0505, located at 921) Indiana Avenue, N. E., if the Star City Gospel Café, Inc., agrees to pay the subject service charge by that date. Council Member Dowe offered the following ordinance: (#3711) 1-081505) AN ORDINANCE exempting from real estate and personal property taxation certain property located in the City of Roanoke of the Star City Gospel Café, Inc., an organization devoted exclusively to charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis; providing for an effective date; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 554.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3711)1- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea. Thomas C. Driver, President, Star City Gospel Café, Inc., appeared before Council in support of the request. 104 The Vice-Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the request for tax exemption. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. Question was raised with regard to whether any person would be denied use of the facilities; whereupon, Mr. Driver advised that Star City Gospel Café has operated for approximately six years, first at 501 Melrose Avenue, N. W., prior to moving to the current location, an open mike is offered for gospel music, as well as an open food table, and all services are open to the public. There being no further questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 3711) 1-081505 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz pat rick _______n__________________________________n___n______n_____________________nn______________I). Nt\'(S: NClI1E!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) STREETS AND ALLEYS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday, April I), 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of the City of Roanoke that a portion of Salem Avenue, S. W., adjacent to Official Tax No. 1010101), 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, July 29, 2005, and Friday, August 5, 2005. The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the petitioner has a pending agreement with the owner of Official Tax No.1 01 0829 to exchange that parcel of land for Official Tax No.1 01 0101) and a portion of Official Tax No.1 01 01 07; and the petitioner plans to construct a parking garage on Official Tax No.1 01 0829. The City Planning Commission recommended vacation ofthe right-of-way at no charge to the petitioner, subject to certain conditions as more fully described in the report. Council Member Dowe offered the following ordinance: (#3711)2-081505) 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. 1)9, Page 551).) 105 Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3711)2- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel. The Vice-Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the request to close a portion of Salem Avenue. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 3711)2-081505 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayor Fitzpatrick -----m___________________________________________m______-------------------------------------1). NA'(S: NClIlE!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-PARKING FACILITIES: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 15,2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the proposed conveyance of certain City-owned property located on Salem Avenue, S. W., to the Times World Corporation, in exchange for certain property owned by the Times World Corporation located on Campbell Avenue, S. W., in connection with future development of a downtown parking garage, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, August 5, 2005. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City owns property located on Salem Avenue, S. W., which is currently used for parking of official vehicles; the City wishes to convey a portion of the parcel of land to The Roanoke Times in exchange for a parcel of land located on Campbell Avenue, S. W., containing approximately 0.422 acre, identified as Official Tax No.1 01 0829; the parcel of land will be used for future development of a downtown parking garage; to create a comparable parcel of land, the City of Roanoke property has been subdivided into two parcels designated as Parcel I-A and Parcell-B as shown on a plat prepared by ACS Design; and the City of Roanoke wishes to convey Parcel I-A, containing approximately 0.449 acre to The Roanoke Times and to retain Parcel I-B. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a deed of exchange to convey property designated as Parcel I-A to The Roanoke Times, in exchange for a parcel of land identified as Official Tax No.1 01 0829, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. 106 Council Member Dowe offered the following ordinance: (#3711)3-081505) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents providing for the conveyance of a 0.449 acre parcel of City-owned property known as Parcel I-A, bearing Official Tax No. 1010107, located on Salem Avenue, S. W. to the Times World Corporation in exchange for a 0.422 acre parcel bearing Official Tax No.1 01 0829, located on Campbell Avenue, S. W., for development of a downtown parking garage, upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 559.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3711)3- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler. The Vice-Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the request for conveyance of land. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 3711)3-081505 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F itz patri c k -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1). NA'(S: N()IlE!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). (Mayor Harris was absent.) CITY PROPERTY-HOSPITALS-CARILlON BIOMEDICAL INSTITUTE: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on a proposed lease of City-owned property located at 111 -117 Church Avenue, S. W., to Carilion Biomedical Institute for office space for a period of one year, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday August 5, 2005. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Ordinance No. 35041-090500 adopted by Council on September 5, 2000, authorized Carilion Biomedical Institute (CBI) to lease 1),800 square feet of office space in the Church Avenue Garage located at 111 to 117 Church Avenue, S. W.; and CBI has leased the location since September 2000 and the current lease agreement will expire on August 31, 2005. 107 It was further advised that CBI has requested a new lease agreement with similar terms and conditions; the previous lease contained a one year term with an option for four annual renewals at an annual lease rate of $1.00; the proposed lease agreement is for a one year period, beginning September 1, 2005 through August 31, 2001), at $7.50 per square foot; parking permits for CBI employees will be at $29.00 per permit per month for up to 30 permits, provided that vacancies are available; there are no renewal options for the lease; and it is anticipated that at the end of the one-year term, CBI will be in a position to move to its new location in the first phase of the Riverside Center for Research and Technology to the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a lease agreement with Carilion Biomedical Institute (CBI) for approximately 1),800 square feet of space in the Church Avenue Parking Garage located at 111 to 117 Church Avenue, S. W., for a period of one year, beginning September 1, 2005, and expiring August 31, 2001), subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Council Member Dowe offered the following ordinance: (#3711)4-081505) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to enter into an agreement with Carilion Biomedical Institute for the lease of approximately 6,800 square feet of office space located at the Church Avenue Parking Garage, 111-117 Church Avenue, for a period of one year, beginning September 1, 2005, through August 31 , 2001), upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 51)0.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3711)4- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel. The Vice-Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the proposed lease. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 3711)4-081505 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r Fi tz pat ri ck ________________m__m______________________n___________--------------------------------------1). Nt\'(S: ~()IlE!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Mayor Harris was absent.) 108 EASEMENTS-APPALACHIAN POWER COMPANY: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, August 15, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on a proposal to convey an easement across City-owned property located adjacent to Riverland Road, S. E., to Appalachian Power Company for relocation of an existing overhead power line and related facilities, in connection with the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, August 5, 2005. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Appalachian Power Company has requested a 40' x 310' easement across City owned property identified as Official Tax Nos. 42501 02R and 42501 05R, which are located along the Roanoke River near the intersection of Bennington Street and Riverland Road, S. E.; and the easement is needed to relocate an existing overhead power line and related facilities in connection with the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the appropriate documents granting an above-ground utility easement to Appalachian Power Company, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Council Member Cutler offered the following ordinance: (#3711)5-081505) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the granting of an above- ground forty-foot (40') wide by three hundred ten foot (310') long easement on City-owned property, identified by Official Tax Nos. 42501 02R and 42501 05R, to Appalachian Power Company d/b/a American Electric Power ("AEP"), for the purpose of relocating existing overhead power lines and related facilities in connection with the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project, upon certain terms and conditions; and dispensing with the second reading by title ofthis ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 51) 1.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3711)5- 081505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. The Vice-Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the easement request. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 3711)5-081505 was adopted by the follOWing vote: 109 AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Vice- Mayo r F i tz patri c k _____________________________m_______________________________m_m---------------------------1). Nt\'(S: NClI1E!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Mayor Harris was absent.) HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS: The Vice-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-PUBLIC WORKS: Mr. Obediah Overstreet, 3203 King Street, N. E., expressed concern with regard to lack of maintenance by the City of Roanoke of a bridge/guard rail located in the vicinity of his home. He stated that he was advised by the City that it is the responsibility of the property owner to maintain property to the curb line. He referred to the deteriorating condition of pine trees that were planted by Virginia Transformer, 220 Glade View Drive, N. E., as a part of the site plan for rezoning that have not been replaced. The Vice-Mayor advised that Mr. Overstreet's concerns would be referred to the City Manager for response. There being no further business, the Vice-Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8: 15 p.m. APPROVED Mary F. Parker City Clerk ~ðf J Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. Vice-Mayor t11~ J~ 110 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL September I), 2005 9:00 a.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Tuesday, September I), 2005, at 9:00 a.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris 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 pursuant to Resolution No. 37109-070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005. PRESENT: Council Members Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea (arrived late), Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. (arrived late), and Mayor C. Nelson Harris-----------------------7. ABSENT: None------------------------------------------------O. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 C. Nelson Harris requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, and to interview an applicant for a vacancy on the Industrial Development Authority, pursuant to §2.2-3711 (A)(l), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Mayor Harris------------------------------------------------------------5. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------0: (Council Members Lea and Dowe were not present when the vote was recorded.) 111 CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting for consultation with legal counsel on a matter of actual litigation, where such consultation in open meeting would adversely affect the litigating posture of Council, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Council Member McDaniel moved that Council concur in the request to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Mayor Harri s------------------------------_______________________-_ 5. NAYS: None--------------------------________________________O. (Council Members Lea and Dowe were not present when the vote was recorded.) 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 §2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Mayor Harris---------------------------_____________________------------5. NAYS: None--------------------------________________________O. (Council Members Lea and Dowe were not present when the vote was recorded.) 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 §2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. 11 2 Council Member Cutler moved that Council concur in the request to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Mayor Harri s------ ---------------------- -------------------------------- 5. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Members Lea and Dowe were not present when the vote was recorded.) (Council Member Dowe entered the meeting.) 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 §2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request to ccmvene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the follOWing vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harri s -------------------------------------------------------I). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Lea was not present when the vote was recorded.) ITEMS LISTED ON THE 2:00 P. M. COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING DISCUSSION/CLARIFICATION, AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE 2:00 P. M. AGENDA: NONE. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: VICTORY STADIUM-CITY MARKET: Mayor Harris called attention to a proposed addition to the contract with Heery International with regard to performing feasibility study for Victory Stadium. He stated that the addition to the contract would not delay completion of the consultants report. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick stated he, along with Council Member Wish neff, served on the Victory Stadium Selection Committee, the matter was discussed and it was agreed that the feasibility study would be beneficial to the Council in making an ultimate decision regarding Victory Stadium. 11 3 Upon question as to action, if any, that should be taken by the Council to initiate the feasibility study, the City Attorney advised that a motion of direction to the City Manager would be appropriate inasmuch as the City Manager has the authority to amend the consultant's contract through a change order. He stated that it would also be necessary to ensure that funds are appropriated. The City Manager stated that the Heery International contract was funded from the original capital account and the additional $34,000.00 would be taken from the same account. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the City Manager be instructed to amend the contract with Heery International to provide for a market feasibility study as a part of the ongoing study of Victory Stadium. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted, Council Member Lea was not present when the vote was recorded. COUNCIL-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Mayor Harris called attention to a joint meeting of Council and the Board of Commissions of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to be held on Monday, October 3, 2005, an. requested that Council Members provide the City Clerk with proposed agenda items. BRIEFINGS: LEGISLATION: Thomas A. Dick, Legislative Liaison, presented the following briefing: 2005 General Assemblv: · Mass Transit Taxation-An annual savings of approximately $ 50,000.00 was realized for the bus system · Health Department funding appropriation of $187,000.00 enabled the department to move into a new facility · A Constitutional amendment was passed through two sessions of the General Assembly which will allow a locality to provide tax relief for new construction in conservation and redevelopment areas · The car tax had no funds appropriated to address the problems encountered by spring billers, however, some language was included that will help localities 114 2001) General Assemblv: Budget Proposals-The Governor will consider amendments to the existing current year budget and propose his out-going budget for 2001) and 2008 · Allocation of surplus · Identified Needs Budget Surplus-FY 2005 Revenue Surplus of $544 million is tied up in a number of items, I.e.: a Constitutional requirement for about $402 million for the Revenue Stabilization Fund (bringing the Rainy Day Fund within the $1.1 billion maximum amount); $51) million in upgrades to Waste Water Treatment Facilities impacting the Chesapeake Bay; $9 million to public schools for SOQ's; S21) million to the Transportation Trust Fund (reimbursement of funds previously used elsewhere); and $25 million to offset BRAC Impact (Military base realignment and closure process) FY 2001)-08 Budaet Needs: · $1.2 billion for re-benchmarking of SOQ's without any consideration of additional monies for new standards of the State Board of Education Institute · $500 million for Medicaid, assuming there will be no Federal budget cuts or other policy changes · $415 million for the car tax; there is a need for additional money because of timing when the funds are remitted to localities and when the budget cycle actually occurs-the car tax cap will be $950 million in the State budget which is not additional money · $250 million for increased capital project costs that include projects currently under way at the State level, due, in part, to increased costs for steel and concrete Council Member Cutler inquired if the car tax issue was resolved to the point that the City will be held harmless; whereupon, Mr. Dick stated that the issue was not resolved, the Governor's office indicated a need for additional money, $270 million would be required to hold harmless all spring billers, and at this point funds are not proposed. He stated that the VML liaison, advises that no new money will be provided, therefore, the $415 million will raise the car tax relief to the $950 million cap, and the impact to the City of Roanoke would be approximately $7 million a year. 11 5 The Director of Finance stated that there would be an impact on the City's cash flow, the City accrues funds in the succeeding year, and the City would loose a small amount of interest earnings had it received the reimbursement from the State two or three months earlier, and not the $7 million above referenced. He further stated that the City stands to loose a small amount of funds due to reimbursement for delinquent taxes, and in the near future Council will receive a briefing on the various changes to the process by the City Treasurer and the Director of Finance. FY 2001)-08 Budaet Needs: · $200 million for increased VRS retirement system costs due to higher cost for health insurance and contribution rates · $125 million for debt service for bonds that have already been authorized, but have not been issued · $90 million for two new prisons and two expanded prisons (no mention was made for additional money for higher education, but usually $200 million is earmarked) Mr. Dick called attention to several informative links on the Virginia Municipal League website that provide detailed explanations and analysis of the impact of the real estate tax and its importance to localities, and Council Member Cutler wrote a good op-ed piece explaining that 25 per cent of local revenue in the City of Roanoke is derived from the real estate tax. He noted that numerous things depend on which candidate is elected Governor; Senator Russell Potts has not embraced either proposal, the General Assembly would have to embrace a proposal, the Senate would be less likely to go along with the kinds of approaches that were taken in the past, Attorney General Jerry Kilgore has mentioned enactment of a five per cent cap on assessment increases, and the impact of a one per cent reduction in the assessment according to fiscal analytics amounts to an $80 million state-wide impact in the next two years, beginning in 2009. He added that Lieutenant Governor Tim Kaine has talked about a local option of a 20 per cent exemption from the assessed value, which will amount to about $1 billion; redistribution of the tax burden between various citizens depending on the length of time they have resided at their current residence and improvements made is extensive; anytime the ability of a locality to raise revenue is affected could have a potential impact on the locality's bond rating; and if government curtails a locality with regard to what it can do in terms of local revenue, a greater dependence on State funding is created. 116 Taxation: Real Estate Tax Prooosals Kilgore 5 per cent cap Kaine 20 per cent exemption, local option Prooosallmoacts Inequities Redistribution of Tax Burden Bond Rating Impact Greater Dependence on State Funding Distorts Economic Development . Real Estate - With regard to economic development, if property taxes are less of a revenue, evidence suggests that retail projects generating sales tax would be the avenue for economic development. Fiscal Analytics, a consulting firm, suggested a refundable income tax credit that would require the burden to go back on the State and not the local client. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick inquired if the VML, VACo and Virginia First Cities Coalition plan to take that position; whereupon, Mr. Dick stated that the matter would be discussed at length, a briefing would be held in the near future on some of the issues, the Legislative Committee of the VML would discuss the matter at its upcoming meeting, and, in the past, the VML has not advocated for these types of tax relief. Telecommunication Taxes Telecommunications Tax Restructuring 5 per cent Communications Sales Tax Tax Department Collection and Distribution Revenue Neutral . There are 250 different localities that have different tax rates which have been burdensome for some industries to administer; for the past several years, there has been an effort to simplify the tax process; a bill was introduced last year that was endorsed by several industries and local government which suggested a five per cent communications and sales tax; however, the cable television industry, which is not affected by the tax did not take a position, therefore, the legislation did not dvance. In addition, the tax would have required the State Tax Department to collectand distribute revenue; the goal of local government is to ensure that it is revenue neutral; revenues collected from land lines under the current tax structure are diminishing because of the use of cell phones, and 117 Fairfax lost about $2 million in revenue due to the reduction in land lines over the past few years. Machinerv and Tool Tax Manufacturing Needs Study Tax Burden/Simplification Variations in Assessment and Administration · A study was conducted during the last two years regarding ways in which to assist manufacturing in Virginia; an exodus of jobs in the manufacturing industry in the United States has caused concern and some persons have stated that the cost of labor is an issue; to some extent the focus has been the tax burden and ways to simplify the tax burden and the State may intervene in an effort to standardize the matter between all localities; there may be efforts to tweak the language as problems occur and local governments were not encouraged by any evidence that the administration might move toward providing an appropriation to address lost interest income, or any other loses to localities. TransDortation Fundino: Senate Study (STARn House Study (Public-Private Partnerships, Allocation Formula) Baliles Proposal (Tolls) The Senate created the Transportation Analysis and Recommendations Task Force (STARn, which is a 25 member board consisting of state-wide legislators and citizens, to study and address transportation needs of the State; the Senate's posture on the issue has been that revenue needs would have to be addressed with revenue from non-general fund sources (which historically has been from the gasoline tax rather than general fund money) that would compete against education and several other core services. The House Transportation Committee has appointed a subcommittee to study the matter and has expressed an interest in public/private partnerships, briefings have been provided by the Joint Legislative Audit Revenue Commission OLARC) regarding studies on allocation formulas for funding highways, and JLARC has suggested that localities tweak the formula to address various concerns. The House would be more inclined to take money from the general fund or any surplus and move funds toward transportation issues. Former Governor Gerald Baliles proposed imposing tolls on the interstate highway system, which would require Congressional approval; however, legislators may want to review any progress at the Federal level before addressing the matter at the State level. 118 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick, Chair, Legislative Committee, advised that former Governor Baliles's proposal was quite unique in that it would affect every interstate, and has clearly delineated 1-81 as one of the major issues facing the Commonwealth of Virginia; and his proposed level of tolls is far less than some of the Star Solutions proposals. He stated that the City of Roanoke, which is dependant upon transportation synergy, should consider the advantages of joining other colleagues to take a stand on the matter because it is a significant issue facing the Commonwealth - for instance, if 1-81 continues to be blocked once or twice every two weeks, jobs will be affected with inbound and outbound inventory. He added that the City of Roanoke will look to its legislative liaison for insight and guidance to address the matter at the 2001) Session of the General Assembly. Eminent Domain: Kelo v. Citv of New London. Connecticutt State's Rights Decision Constitutional Amendment Proposed Legislation to "Strengthen" Existing Law The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. Citv of New London. Connecticut, would allow the exercise of eminent domain in a very broad definition as it relates to economic development; the response nation wide reflected that it was an unfavorable decision and that the states would protect property rights. Virginia First Cities issued a briefing paper on the matter which pointed out that the Supreme Court advises that it is up to the states to determine what they would want to do because it is a state's rights decision and is not preemptive. Some legislators have suggested that a Constitutional Amendment is needed to address the issue, further legislation would be needed to strengthen existing law, there may be additional language to redefine "public use", and it is believed that legislators will ensure that there is enough balance to protect what localities are currently doing and afford opportunities for discussion. The Virginia First Cities Coalition reviewed recent state wide activities of Virginia Housing Authorities and found that 400 properties were acquired to provide for better utilized, of the 400 properties, 19 were acquired by condemnation, of the 19 properties, five were contested and there was not a clear title to the property, therefore, the number 14 instances reflects that it has not been a big issue. Mr. Dick stated his perspective is that acquisitions were more angled toward the Virginia Department of Transportation for highway projects, as well as electric utility transmission lines or gas lines, and more contentious acquisitions would involve other areas of local government. 11 9 Cable Television Franchises: Verizon Providing Cable Television 2005 Legislation Competition Continuation of Services ánd Revenues Mr. Dowe advised that the number one issue for Verizon (a telephone company) is that Verizon also wishes to provide cable television; legislation was introduced in the short session of the General Assembly in early 2005 and was strongly contested by cable television providers; localities would welcome the competition in order to lower cable costs, but have found that franchise entities such as fuel companies are in opposition, current law would require Verizon to have the same franchise, and cable television providers would bring a lawsuit against any locality that tried to negotiate a deal with Verizon. He noted that Verizon's point of view is that when cable companies provided telephone service, they were not required to provide the service everywhere, and if cable television service is to be provided, it would not be economical to provide cable service everywhere; and the interest from a local government's perspective is to ensure that whatever happens will be· a continuation of services, and that local access to channels and revenue streams will not be adversely impacted. He noted that Verizon is trying to address the problem at the Federal level and across many states. Danoerous Doos: Response to March 8 attack Proposed Legislation: Apply definition of manslaughter Require statewide control Create Virginia dangerous dogs register' Impact Animal Control Officers An 82 year old woman and her dog were attacked and killed by a pit bull, and legislators from Fredricksburg and Spotsylvania raised issues before the Crime Commission with regard to strengthening the law. Legislation may be introduced to apply the definition of manslaughter in an instance where an individual had a known dangerous dog that had attacked and killed a person, greater statewide involvement would be required, along with creation of a dangerous dog register, and additional animal control officers. 120 The City Manager stated that the City should encourage legislation that would apply to adults who allow juveniles to have access to weapons. She stated that in discussing the matter with the Chief of Police, she was advised that nothing can be done to a parent who knowingly keeps a weapon in an area where a child could have access and then commit a crime, therefore, it would appear that the parent should be held liable for the actions of the child in the same way that a dog owner would be held liable for the actions of the dog. Towinc and Recoverv Industrv: Legislative Study Regulation of Towing Companies Prevent and Eliminate Price Gouging Require Local Advisory Boards Impacts Reimbursement The issue was studied in the past year due to concerns regarding price gouging because towing employees could issue a $100.00 towing bill; in addition, when the owner claimed their vehicle, there would also be a storage tcst; and, if hazardous material was found inside the vehicle, a $700.00 - $1000.00 fee could be imposed prior to claiming the vehicle. Some northern Virginia towers towed vehicles into Washington, D. c., which meant that the owners had to travel out of state to retrieve their vehicle. To address the problem, one proposal requires the towing company to store the vehicle in state and to make the vehicle available for retrieval one hour after towing; establishment of an advisory board is under consideration; five bills were previously introduced and a comprehensive bill may be introduced in the 2001) Session of the General Assembly to address the various issues. Familv Courts Svstem: Juvenile & Domestic Relations Courts to become Family Courts Court System to be operating in 2007 Fiscal Impact of Court Facilities The Juvenile and Domestic Relations Courts will become Family Courts in 2007; however, no funds have been appropriated to date, and there is some concern from a local government perspective with regard to costs that could be incurred. 121 Mr. Dick stated that there were a number of other issues to be addressed, but in the interest of time, his presentation dealt with local issues; and at the September 8, 2005, meeting of the VML, the situation in New Orleans as a result of hurricane Katrina and the response by the Federal Emergency Management Association (FEMA) will be discussed and most likely there will be an effort in Virginia to ensure that the same situation does not occur in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Council Member Wishneff referred to a newspaper article regarding geothermal energy and the movement of water through water lines that could be used to generate power, and inquired about how the City of Roanoke could address the matter. Council Member Cutler stated that it would require placing turbines within water lines. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation to Mr. Dick for his work in representing the City of Roanoke at the General Assembly level. Council Member Cutler stated that he represented the City of Roanoke at a Water Security Workshop for elected officials in Chicago, Illinois, where presentations were made on the following: the 2003 northeastern blackout in which 500,000 citizens were without electricity for two days; the Wisconsin water supply system bacterial outbreak that caused the deaths of about 50 people and necessitated the cleaning of the entire water supply system; and the explosion of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, all of which were examples of potential emergencies that localities should be prepared to address. He stated that he had previously requested the City Manager to brief the Council on the degree to which the City of Roanoke and its neighboring jurisdictions are prepared to handle such emergencies; whereupon, he asked the City Manager to comment on the matter. The City Manager advised that a briefing is tentatively scheduled for the Council's November meeting schedule, she stated that Room 159 in the Municipal Building has been designated as the Emergency Operations Center. Council Member Cutler inquired whether it would be advantageous to invite representatives from surrounding jurisdictions, to attend the briefing in anticipation of a regional plan of assistance. The City Manager called attention to regular meetings of the Roanoke Valley's Emergency Coordinators, and advised that several Emergency Coordinators have discussed ways that the Roanoke Valley as a region could either provide resources, or serve as a receiving point for refugees from those areas that were impacted by Hurricane Katrina. In response to the question of whether representatives of other localities should be participants in the proposed briefing, she asked that Council discuss the matter in further detail prior to the presentation. 122 Council Member Wishneff spoke in support of instructing the City Manager to conduct a comprehensive and independent study of the City's emergency response operations; I.e.: fire, emergency medical services, police and water safety. The City Attorney advised that his office has solicited and compiled suggestions offered by City staff with regard to legislation that the Council might wish to propose at the 2001) Session of the General Assembly which will help the City perform various local functions. He requested that Members of Council submit their proposals as soon as possible and prior to preparation of the City's 2001) Legislative Program. On behalf of the Council and City staff, the Mayor expressed appreciation to Mr. Dick for his presentation. Dav Avenue Proiect Briefina: The City Manager called attention to a previous discussion with the Members of Council with regard to funding for the purchase of 17 private pr.perties located in the 400 block of Day Avenue, S. W.; whereupon, she called upÐn Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Deputy Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, for the following presentation with regard to the "Day on the Hill" project: "In January of this year, Mr. Dana Walker, representing Christian Housing Fellowship (CHF), took several members of the RRHA management team on a tour of the properties in the 400 block of Day Avenue. We learned that CHF owned 17 of the 20 structures that make up the 400 block of Day Avenue and that the 17 structures contained 70 low-income rental units. Mr. Walker expressed the desire that the RRHA take ownership of the properties. Our Executive Director, John Baker, after having discussion with the City Manager, conveyed to Mr. Walker our desire to assume ownership of the properties for the express purpose to: 1. Create a unique living environment by converting the 17 structures back to single family use; 2. Foster additional middle-to-upper income home ownership opportunities within the City; and 3. Preserve and restore the historic character of the 17 structures. 123 On May 11), 2005, Mr. Walker signed a letter of agreement to convey the properties to the RRHA for the amount owed on the existing mortgage, $344,900.00. On September 1, 2005, the property was transferred to the RRHA. We acknowledge appreciation to First Citizens Bank for providing the mortgage financing to the RRHA under a 90-day, interest only note. Anticipating that the acquisition of the properties would occur, a project planning team was put together several months ago to begin the process of figuring out how to tackle this unprecedented task. The team consists of: 1. City of Roanoke, Brian Townsend (City Incentives) 2. RRHA (Owner/Developer) 3. FNB Salem Bank and Trust, Greg Feldmann and Steve Lyons 4. MKB Realtors, Kit Hale (Sales and Marketing) 5. Breakell Construction, Stan Breakell Construction (Construction) I). Hill Studio, PC, Don Harwood and Alison Blanton (Design, Preservation Compliance) After numerous meetings and the development of a number of different financing scenarios, we believe (at this time), that for the project to be completed without additional public subsidy, a price point of no more than $21)5,000.00 per completed structure must be maintained. This pricing is contingent upon the fpllowing: 1. Maintain a project schedule of no more than 18 months in order to limit interest financing; 2. Obtain approvals from the Virginia Department of Historic Resources (DHR) for interior demolition to accommodate modern conveniences and convince them to award Historic Tax Credits for the entire project as opposed to requiring house-by-house approvals (meeting scheduled for September 15 in Richmond); 3. Convince the Virginia Housing· Development Authority (VHDA) to offer a special program to provide low interest permanent financing to home buyers with incomes up to 150% of median or higher (meeting scheduled for September 12 in Roanoke); and. 124 4. Undertake significant public improvements including, underground electrical, period street lighting, sidewalk reconstruction, and alley cleanup and paving. Assuming that we can get DHR approval as noted in sub-item 2 above, we plan to move forward with the reconstruction of 433 Day Avenue as a "test" house to verify costs and give the project visibility. Our goal is to complete or substantially complete the house by the second week in December so that it can be made a part of the Old Southwest Parlor Tour. Don Harwood has spoken with the President of Old Southwest who confirmed that the structure could be included on the tour if it is ready. We will also be seeking to get several local interior designers to dress a room in the house so that potential home buyers can actually see what a finished and furnished Day On The Hill home might look like. In January 2001) our plan is to begin the reconstruction of the houses in groups of three to create "critical mass" and take advantage of the savings that can be gained by having several projects going in close proximity to one another. By starting a new group of "three" . every 90 days, it is our hope to be substantially completed with all 17 structures within the 18 month timeframe mentioned earlier, which should be approximately March, 2007. Obviously, there are more unknowns than knowns at this point; however, we remain hopeful that our plan can be executed successfully with the help of our many partners. DHR and VHDA support is critical. We will do everything possible to get them on board and will keep you informed as new information becomes available." Council Member Wishneff inquired as to the amount of square footage per house; whereupon, Mr. Reynolds responded that the houses would be in the range of approximately 21)00 to 3400 square feet. Council Member Dowe inquired if the price point of no more than $21)5,000.00 per completed structure must be maintained; whereupon, Mr. Reynolds responded in the affirmative. . Council Member Cutler called attention to the need to prune streetscape trees and suggested that the City's Urban Forester and Public Works staff be included in the project inasmuch as there may be gaps in tree coverage that would require tree plantings in the sidewalk/street/curb area. 125 Council Member Wishneff questioned the $21)5,000.00 figure per house and inquired if the bar might be set too high insofar as public subsidies. He also asked if the $21)5,000.00 included 100 per cent of all costs. Mr. Reynolds responded that the $21)5,000.00 figure per completed structure was derived after considerable research of historical sales in the area and after discussions with a number of real estate agents that conduct business in the Old Southwest community. He stated that it is believed that the houses should not sell above the price point of $21)5,000.00 which is the upper limit of the selling price. The City Manager called attention to the tax abatement program which affords 15 years of tax abatement for this type of structure in the historic area based upon a reduction in the number of units within the home; a component of the analysis that established the "price point" has to do with the fact that a homeowner will have a mortgage with a significant tax abatement for the first 15 years of ownership of the property, and, in addition, the homeowner would seek a low interest rate through the Virginia Housing Development Corporation in the three per cent range, which would significantly buy down the amount of the monthly mortgage cost; the $21)5,000.00 figure relates only to reconstruction/renovation of the house; and items outside of that cost would include sidewalk repair and alley ways, etc. She noted that Council would be requested to act on the CMERP budget at its next meeting; $370,000.00 is the City's requested contribution toward the project for acquisition of all the properties, and the balance of approximately $21),000.00 is intended for initial start-up costs. She stated that the difference between what is proposed today and what may have been initially in the minds of several Council Members is that the homes would be individually purchased and renovated, as opposed to being "redeveloped" by the Housing Authority; an inquiry has been received from at least one individual who has expressed an interest in purchasing and renovating one of the homes which may be possible through some flexibility, but much depends upon of approvals by the VHDA and the Department of Historic Resources as to how tax credits would be addressed; and certain covenants and requirements could be placed upon an individual to construct/reconstruct/redevelop to certain standards with approval as to design within the 18-month timeframe. She added that it is the desire of the Housing Authority to complete the project as quickly as possible so that first buyers will have the expectation that the balance of the block will be turned over in a relatively short period of time. At 10:00 a.m., Council Member Lea entered the meeting. 126 Council Member McDaniel inquired if there would be an opportunity to research paint colors to restore the houses to their original color, or would the same color of paint be used on all of the houses; whereupon, it was explained that the new owners may not want every house to be painted the same color. She also inquired about efforts to market the houses; whereupon, Mr. Reynolds stated that Kit Hale is handling the marketing aspect of the project and the test house could serve as "Day on the Hill" headquarters for marketing purposes; and a complete marketing plan has not been drafted to date, but copies will be provided to the City upon completion. Council Member Dowe advised that he was aware of the need to "kick start" the project and to give some parts of the City a face lift, but inquired about those persons currently residing in the homes who might not be financially able to afford the $21)5,000.00 cost, even with leveraging opportunities through the tax abatement program, etc. The City Manager responded that the Housing Authority has expressed a willingness to help current occupants find other places to live within their price range, inasmuch as it is not anticipated that those persons who currently reside in the houses will become future owners given their limited income. The City Manager further stated that the City has committed to Mr. Walker that it will identify replacement units for the lost low income units over the next five to seven years, which will happen as the Housing Authority continues to perform its day-to-day activities; as a community, the City of Roanoke has demonstrated that there is sufficient housing stock for low and moderate income persons in the community, however, much of the low and moderate income housing is concentrated only in certain parts of the City, therefore, there is a need to de-concentrate the location,as well as to rid the City of substandard low income housing, and a portion of Community Development Block Grant funds this year will be dedicated for that purpose. She added that the City' has every intention to help those persons who currently live in the 400 block of Day Avenue to relocate to units that are affordable and within their income limits; through discussions with Council and the Housing Authority, the Day Avenue area has been designated an area where the City needs to create market rate and upper income housing in order to sustain what is happening in the Old Southwest section of the City; construction of the Jefferson Center and the new YMCA will also help in the transition of the area; and the western portion of the downtown area was chosen by the City to concentrate different types of resources in order to further the growth and development of the area. 127 Council Member Cutler spoke with regard to planning efforts by the City that would lead to an increase in the value of homes in the more disadvantaged sections of the City which could be addressed over time through improved public infrastructure, street paving, installation of sidewalks and street lights, street trees and parks, all of which add to the value of homes in the neighborhoods and act as an incentive to homeowners to improve their property. The City Manager concurred in Mr. Cutler's remarks. With regard to constructing new homes on vacant lots in various neighborhoods, she advised that the goal would be to construct new homes at a minimum of 10 - 15 per cent higher than currently existing houses in the neighborhood which could encourage improvement in the value of the homes as well as encourage property owners to make improvements to their homes to increase property values; there are strategies that are specifically related to various income groups, as well as those that are designed to reduce the concentration of poverty within the City, and to reduce existing segregation. She stated that an ambitious housing initiative has been created throughout the City; the Day Avenue project was specifically directed toward upper income housing, which is the reason for the price point of $21)5,000.00; and 75 per cent of the City's housing stock is valued at $100,000.00 or less, therefore, the "Day on the Hill" project is another initiative to bring a different mix of housing into the City. Council Member Wishneff inquired about the value of houses in the 400 block of Day Avenue; whereupon, R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Economic Development, advised that houses in the 400 block of Day Avenue w.ere assessed for less than $100,000.00 in their existing condition. The City Manager stated that the Day on the Hill project is intended to stabilize a portion of the City that has the likelihood, without some type of intervention; of going in the wrong direction, and as the strategic housing plan . moves forward, in addition to new construction, the City hopes to address new housing needs through both the Colonial Green and the Countryside Golf Course projects. She stressed the importance of taking appropriate action to cause the values of existing housing to appreciate and to keep neighborhoods that are currently on a downward trend from continuing to move in that· direction, and the 400 block of Day Avenue is designated for that strategy. Council Member Dowe cautioned that as the City goes forward with its strategic housing initiative, and taking into consideration that the biggest gap relates to upper income housing, it should be recognized that there will be a certain segment of the population who will be unable to afford upper end housing which will affect that speCific demographic. 128 The City Manager clarified that the City intends to find alternative living arrangements for all of those persons currently living in the 17 properties as soon as the individuals are ready to move, rather than in the next five to seven years; the City previously committed to construct a number of what will be, in effect, replacement units over the next five to seven years; however, that does not mean that those individuals must wait for that period of time and some persons will choose to move without the City's assistance. On behalf of the Council, the Mayor expressed appreciation to Mr. Reynolds for an informative briefing. New Fire Station at Franklin Road: FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager advised that discussion with regard to the proposed new fire station would focus on the planned construction of the new Fire/EMS Headquarters Station at the corner of Elm Avenue and Franklin Road, S. W. She added that the briefing would not include a recommendation regarding the future of Fire Station No.1, no decision has been made on future use of Fire Station No.1, Fire Station No. 1 will continue to be used for fire activity purposes, and any proposed changes will be discussed with the Members of Council at a later time. The City Manager stated that staff is prepared to present an update on the receipt of bids for construction of a new Fire/EMS Headquarters and Fire Station, and a request for appropriation of additional funds for construction is included on the 2:00 p.m. Council agenda. James M. Grigsby, Fire Chief, called attention to a previous Council briefing on the Fire Department's Strategic Business Plan; whereupon, he highlighted the following: FIRE-EMS BUSINESS PLAN - PHASE I Fire-EMS Headauarters Mission Statement This department exists to protect and preserve the lives and property of residents and visitors of the City of Roanoke from damage or loss due to fire, medical emergencies, environmental hazards and traumatic accidents. 129 A news article published in The Roanoke Times on December 11, 191)3, noted the Fire Department's inadequacies. The article states that five of the City's nine fire houses are more than 50 years old, and all but one were constructed before 1930. (This does not include the Garden City station now being built.) It also notes that often stations are not centrally located within their districts, requiring long runs in some directions. The article states that "One station properly located is therefore more economical and can be more adequate than several poorly located stations". History · Strategic Business Plan o Adopted by City Council on December 17, 2001 · Consolidation of Stations 1 and 3 and 'Fire-EMS Administration · Consolidation of Stations 5 and 9 · Build a new Fire-EMS Station 10 · Published department's Resource Allocation and Response Model o Fire-EMS Response Times · Fire = 90%/4minutes · EMS/ALS = 90%/8 minutes · EMS/BLS - 90%/12 minutes o Station Consolidation · Distance between Fire Stations 1 and 3 is 0.71 mile · Distance between Fire Station 1 and new station is 0.39 mile · Distance between Fire Station 3 and new station is 0.50 mile · Three-phase construction and consolidation of Fire-EMS Stations o Phase I (2005/2001)): Construct a new Fire-EMS Headquarters-Consolidate the present No.1 (Church Avenue) and No. 3 (I)th Street) stations, as well as Fire-EMS Administration Oefferson Center). o Phase II: Construct a new Station - Consolidate the present No.5 (12th Street and Loudon Avenue) and No.9 (24'h Street and Melrose) stations into the new facility, with community center concept. o Phase III: Construct a new Station No. 10 - Relocate the residential component currently assigned to the Airport station to the new facility. 130 New Fire-EMS Headquarters - Franklin and Elm · New station benefits: o A single station properly located can serve this area within required four minute response time 9096 o Brings an engine, ladder and ambulance into single station o Enhanced engine and ambulance response time to downtown area o Addresses employee concerns of station . conditions and livability in two stations - 2000 employee poll o Size and ability to accommodate modern equipment o Facility for Fire-EMS Administration o Gender Accommodation · Acquired site in August 2003 · Site Specifics o Correctly located for response to all areas of the City o City owned adjacent property o Land cost was lower than budget, though it was recognized that the additional funds would be required for site work o Enhanced ladder response to 220 (Southern Hills) old southwest and night coverage life safety o Odd shape requiring substantial site work/retaining walls o After drilling, some construction issues for foundation (karst seams between thin rock shelves) o Removal of contaminated top soil and old fuel tanks · Soil Contamination - continuous monitoring of soil disturbed on site and removal of any contaminated soil · Installation of vapor barrier underneath foundation slab · Seal all joint slab areas · Exceeds all state and federal requirements · Due to shape of lot, unique building design which required additional circulation space Current Status · Employee/community group input on station design · Basic design completed in August 2004 · Final documents were ready in late spring 2005 and put out for bid · Bids received June 30, 2005 1 31 · Bids Received · Breakell, Inc. · Acorn Construction · Price Construction · Avis Construction · Branch and Associates $4,800,000.00 $5,008,000.00 $ 5 ,072 ,000.00 $5,230,000.00 $5,390,000.00 Project Reductions · Deletion of one apparatus bay and storage areas · Deletion of one stairwell to 3'· floor administration · Reduction of square footage in Fire-EMS administration (office space) · Changes to floor covering (VCT vs carpet) Phase I - Total Budget · Approved Budget: · Actual Project Cost: · Funding Shortfall: · Funding Sources: o EMS User Fees: . Re-Pay Flood Reduction Project over two years o Capital Project Contingency $5,531,580.00 $1),204,231.00 $ 1)72,1)51.00 $ 589,235.00 $ 83,411).00 Reasons for Cost Increase · Project cost developed in year 2000 dollars. Building Cost Index has increased 24.5% since 2000. · Steel prices have doubled since March of 2004. Concrete prices have increased by over 10%. · Technology (fiber optic) requirements were not available when business plan was adopted. ($144,000.00) Site Plan First Floor - Fire-EMS Station Operation Second Floor - Sleeping Quarters Third Floor - Fire-EMS Administration Exterior View 132 Apparatus Purchased - Fire 1995 Engine 9 1997 Engine 5 1998 Ladder 7 and 13 2000 Engine 14 2001 Engine 4 2003 Engine 10 2004 Ladder 2 2005 Engine 11 $ 233,390.00 $ 21)0,509.00 $ 891),105.00 $ 388,770.00 $ 388,770.00 $ 429,71)7.00 $ 799,850.00 $ 309.288.00 Total Funding: $3.317.409.00 Apparatus - Ambulances . From 1995 to Present o 13 ambulances purchased o $859,009.00 in total cost Chief Grigsby compared current fire stations to modern stations with modern equipment. He noted that Fire Stations Nos. 1, 3, 5 and 9 will not accommodate model fire apparatus due to the size of the buildings, therefore, fire stations must be constructed so as to house modern equipment. He added that every ladder truck purchased since 1995 has a water pump and hose equipment. Discussion: With regard to current response times, Chief Grigsby advised that the City's response time is 92 per cent, which is approximately three minutes and 42 seconds for a fire call; the response time at the underserved location in the north Williamson Road area should increase to about 92.5 - 93 per cent upon relocation; during the mid-1970's, the department responded to 250 - 21)0 working fires per year, and because of the Strategic Business Plan, actual working fire responses have decreased to 87. He emphasized that the department's greatest challenge pertains to ambulance response time which is eight minutes, 90 per cent of the time; however, ambulances and ALS vehicles are usually on the scene within five and one-half minutes. In response to an inquiry from Council Member Wishneff with regard to preparation for a natural disaster, Chief Grigsby advised that the new fire station will be equipped with back up generators for emergency purposes, which are not available at the present 13 fire stations. The City Manager added that new fire stations and future public facilities will be designed with space for public use. 133 Council Member Dowe inquired about the number of working fires during the past year; whereupon, Chief Grigsby responded that there were approximately 87 working fires during 2004. He defined that a working fire as the first piece of apparatus on the scene as well as an ambulance and an additional engine, and about 18 - 20 people are dispatched to a residential structure fire. Council Member Dowe also inquired about year to date working fires; whereupon, Chief Grigsby agreed to forward the information to the Members of Council. Because of the perception that the downtown area would not be safe without a fire station, question was raised as to what would happen if a new fire station is constructed and Fire Station No. 1 continues to operate as a fire station; whereupon, Chief Grigsby responded that other than logistical and gender issues, ADA compliance would have been addressed. He indicated that from an operational standpoint, the City must provide engine service, ladder service, and man structure that is transparent to the community so that there are no issues regarding public safety. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick pointed out that no pump engine has been housed at Fire Station NO.1 since 1991, and called attention to the fact that if Ladder One from Fire Station No.1 responded to a fire at Center in the Square, it could not pump water since the pumper brings the water to the ladder trucks and the hoses. He added that the City will literally be locating a pumper closer to downtown Roanoke from the new headquarters fire station than is currently available at Fire Station No.3; and overall, the ladder truck at Fire Station No.1 is used for search and rescue during forcible entry. Mayor Harris referred to a survey of Fire Station No.1, which was provided by the City Manager prior to the 9:00 a.m. work session, and inquired as to any disadvantages of responding to emergencies from the proposed new location; whereupon, Chief Grigsby advised that Station No. I) is located in the southeast section of the City and is the primary responder crossing Tazewell Avenue to the Jamestown public housing complex; and from Church Avenue, vehicles must travel in the southwest direction initially because of the one-way street, thereafter vehicles may turn around and travel in a southeasterly direction. Chief Grigsby added that from the proposed site on Elm Avenue and Franklin Road, fire and rescue vehicles could travel southeast without difficulty. He noted that although there are no good intersections in the vicinity, the City has a pre-emptive traffic control system which allows Fire/EMS control over the flow of traffic; and Station No. I) was equipped with an ambulance because of the response time. 134 Mayor Harris commented on the future use and intent of Fire Station No.1, which is an historic structure that is considered to be part of the culture and fabric of the downtown area, particularly the City Market area, and the building is a source of pride within the Fire/EMS department because of the age of the structure. He reiterated that at the beginning of the work session, the City Manager stated that she did not intend to make a recommendation with regard to the future of Fire Station No.1, and several Members of the Council have advocated that the building should remain a City building with a City purpose, or a public safety facility, etc. The Mayor requested a clarification by the City Manager with regard to the recommendation for appropriation of funds which is included on the 2:00 p.m. Council docket. The City Manager advised that the recommendation for appropriation of additional funds will allow the City to continue with construction of the new facility at Elm Avenue and Franklin Road and establish a headquarters location; a minimum of 12 - 14 months will be required for construction of the facility which will provide approximately one year to discuss and finalize any future use of Fire Station No.1, and if there continues to be an interest on the part of Council and the public, a number of fire-related activities could be housed in Fire Station No. 1. At the 2:00 p.m. Council session, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick suggested that it should be stated that any discussion with regard to the future use of Fire Station No.1 has been taken from the table. Council Member Cutler suggested that the City Market study also include recommendations with regard to future uses for Fire Station No.1; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the consultant has been instructed to include Fire Station NO.1 in the study. Following discussion, Council Member Wishneff requested that the City Manager be instructed to submit a recommendation with regard to a comprehensive and independent study of the City's emergency operations; I.e.: fire, emergency medical services, police and water safety, etc. BUDGET: The Director of Finance recognized Ann H. Shawver, Deputy Director of Finance, for a presentation with regard to the City's 2005 Year-end Financial Report. 135 Ms. Shawver reviewed the following comparisons: FY 2005 FY 2004 Actual FY 2005 % Budget Actual (Unaudited) $ Variance % Variance Budget Collected General Prooertv Tax $75,346,292 $80,983,210 5,636918 7.48% $79 623,211 101.71% Other Local 2.96% Tax 62,681,631 64,538,427 1,856,796 63,017,000 102.41% Permits, Fees and Licenses 1,026,606 I 275,026 248,420 24.20% 1,112,000 114.66% Fines and 10.79%) Forfeitures 1,365,502 1,354,775 110,727) 1,321,000 102.56% Investment and Rental Income 682,798 796,688 113,890 16.68% 735,000 ]08.39% Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth 54,319,259 57,707,112 3,387,853 6.24% 58,973,375 97.85% Grants-in-Aid 174.17%) Federal ]50,]16 38,770 (111,346) 34,000 114.03% Charges for (6.14%) Services 9,303,046 8,732,058 (570,988) 8,404,380 103.90% Miscellaneous 409,829 593,786 183,957 44.89% 494,445 120.09% Transfers from Other Funds - 15,501,876 ]5,501,876 100.00% 15,501 876 100.00% Internal Services 2,241,909 2,381,971 140,062 6.25% 2,694,000 88.42% Total $207,526,988 $233,903,699 $26,376,7] ] 12.71% $231,910,287 100.86% General Fund Revenues 136 Fy 2005 FY2004 Actual FY 2005 % Budget Actual (Unaudited) $ Variance % Variance Budget Collected Real Estate Tax 54,676,806 59,367,476 4,690,670 8.58% 58,768,000 101.02% Personal" Prooertv Tax 22465810 24,542,280 2,076,470 9.24% 23,017,000 106.63% Public Service Tax 4,463,696 3,868419 (595,277) (13.34%) 4,209 000 91.91% Sales Tax 19,225,559 19,663,577 438018 2.28% 18,892,000 104.08% Utility Tax 13321,752 13,349.039 27,287 0.20"10 13,241000 100.82% Business License Tax 11,330,195 11,843 734 513,539 4.53% 11 553,000 ] 02.52% Prepared Food Tax 7,690,950 7,995,551 304,601 3.96% 7,741,000 103.29% Franchise and Bank Stock Tax 2,540,910 2,6]6,491 75,581 2.97% 2,544,000 102.85% Transient Room Tax 2,232,754 2,250,249 17,495 0.78% 2,252,000 99.92% Cil>arette Tax 1,895,533 1,889,4]9 (61]4) (0.32%) 1,900,000 99.44% All Other Local Taxes 5.873,489 6,461,223 587,734 ]0.01% 6391,000 10 1.1 0% Total 145,717,454 153,847,458 8,130 004 5.58% 150,508,000 102.22% General Fund Local Tax Revenues 'Personal property tax as shown above includes both local and state tax relief portions. 137 General Fund Exoenditures and Encumbrances FY2004 FY 2005 FY 2005 % Budget Actual Actual $ Variance % Variance Budget Obligated (Unaudited\ General Government $11 ,898 598 $11 505,505 1393,093\ (3.30%\ $11,609,]] I 99.11% Judicial Administration 6,211,622 6,551,413 339,791 5.47% 6,587,8]9 99.45% Public Safety 49 650,213 52,770,117 3,119,904 6.28% 53,065 581 99.44% Public Works 22,720 140 23,127,092 406,952 1.79% 23,332,060 99.12% Health and Welfare 29,551,504 32,374,103 2,822,599 9.55% 33,201,327 97.51% Parks and Recreation 8,356,185 8561,826 205,641 2.46% 8,649,906 98.98% Community (331 062\ (5.65%\ Develonment 5,860,5] 6 5,529,454 5,570,156 99.27% Transfer to Debt Service Fund ] 5,270,488 15509,083 238,595 1.56% 15 510,670 99.99% Transfer to School Fund 49,520,072 52,676,279 3,156,207 6.37% 52,676,279 100.00% Transfer to School Capital I] ,025,630\ 1100.00%) Proiects Fund 1,025,630 - - 0.00% Nondepart- (483 868\ (4.37%\ Mental 11,071,528 10,587,660 10,705,383 98.90"10 Total $211,136,496 $219,192,532 $8,056,036 3.82% $220,908,292 99.22% 138 General Fund Balance · Budget Stabilization Reserve - $15.7 million o Maintained as a funding source for emergencies or unforeseen declines in revenues. o Supported by the Budget Stabilization Reserve policy adopted in April 2005 o Reserve required to be maintained at a level between 5% and 8% of the adopted expenditure budget for the current fiscal year. · Reserve for Uninsured Claims - $11)1),730 o Transferred to the Risk Management Fund in the subsequent year. o City Code provides for an annual allocation of up to $250,000 o Reserve target is 3% of the General Fund budget · Reserve for Encumbrances - $1.5 million o Necessary to cover purchase orders from June 30'h that will be paid in the upcoming fiscal year. · Undesignated Fund Balance - $3.4 million o Remaining fund balance after other components o Shared with the Schools using the same formula through which local tax revenues are shared (approximately 31)% of local taxes in excess of estimates.) . City share $2.0 million, School share $1.4 million o Available for appropriation by City Council. Traditionally used to fund capital equipment and maintenance needs. School Fund Balance · Reserve for Uninsured Claims - $300,000 · Reserve for Encumbrances - $1.2 million o Necessary to cover purchase orders from June 30'h that will be paid in the upcoming fiscal year. 139 · Undesignated Fund Balance - $420,191 o Remaining fund balance after other components o Similar to the City, it is available for appropriation by City Council and is traditionally used for capital equipment. Civic Facilities Fund · Civic Center and Victory Stadium operations · Annual budget of $5.8 million · FY05 operating loss $1.7 million · Transfers of $1.4 million from the General Fund in FY05 o $250,000 for Victory Stadium o $1.2 million for the Civic Center · FY05 adversely impacted by loss of hockey and a decline in number and profitability of events Parking Fund · Operates six garages and numerous surface lots. · Annual budget of $2.7 million. · Operating income of $921,000 in FY05. Net income of $1)73,000 after debt service. · Net income of the fund is generating working capital to cash,..fund maintenance and facility improvements. · Revenues in excess of expenses will be allocated to debt service on bonds issued to finance additional parking garages. . Market Building Fund · Separate fund created in FY03 to monitor results of operations. · Annual budget of $312,000. · FY05 operating loss of $205,000. o Adjusted for facility repair expenses, the loss from operations was $80,000. · General Fund subsidy of $151,000 was made to subsidize this loss and a loss from FY04. · Funds also transferred during FY05 to enable a roof repair project planned for FYOI). Ms. Shawver advised that General Fund revenues for 2005 were impacted by a single large transfer late in the year to move a portion of the fund balance from the Debt Service Fund to the G~neral Fund; and in order to help analyze data, it was appropriate to show the true growth adjustment. She stated that growth in General Fund revenues as a whole is approximately five per cent, and the transfer was for the purpose of establishing the Budget Stabilization Reserve. 140 Ms. Shawver further stated that all capital revenues exceeded the budget with two exceptions -- Grants-in-Aid Commonwealth and Internal Service charges which were impacted by services that the City thought would be contracted with the Western Virginia Water Authority; however, the Water Authority contracted services with Roanoke County or provided services from within. She called attention to growth of approximately $3.4 million, or six per cent in Commonwealth revenues, social services, funding of constitutional offices, additional street maintenance and· additional funding for law enforcement through House Bill 599. The Director of Finance noted that Grants in the Commonwealth category fell below the City's budget, and there is a possibility of receipt of additional funds totaling $400,000.00 in State reimbursement which will affect the City's overall fund balance. Ms. Shawver advised that as a whole, the City's General Fund revenue is over budget by .81) per cent which contributes to the Fund balances in the amount of about $1.9 million. She pointed out that the local taxes format is similar to the General Fund chart, particularly since personal property tax relief dollars are considered Commonwealth funds; and the real estate tax is the City's largest local tax, with a total growth of approximately 8.5 per cent this year which is inclusive of both the current portion and the collection of delinquent taxes. She noted that the real estate reassessment amount for fiscal year 2005 was about six per cent, new construction contributed to about two per cent of the growth, the City had strong growth in 2004 and based upon the .assessment of real estate, and there is a possibility of positive growth for fiscal year 2001). She explained that the personal property tax has increased to 9.3 per cent since 2001; and public service taxes which represent taxes on real estate and personal property owned by public service entities such as utility corporations have declined. She indicated that the publiC service tax was impacted by payment of 2004 refunds during fiscal year 2005. The Deputy Director of Finance highlighted the following: Sales Tax: The third largest local tax. A growth of about 2.3 per cent in 2005 which is a fair positive growth considering regional competition in surrounding communities, such as the Counties of Botetourt and Franklin. 141 Utility Tax: Fair, stable and consistent, with a growth of .2 per cent. A strong growth in the telephone tax, which is due to the continued migration of cell phones: (however, there was a decline in the telephone taxes because of the discontinued use of land lines by consumers.) Business License Tax (BPOL): The largest tax, with a greater growth at 4.5 per cent since 2001. A positive indicator for the City due to trends in the economy and a strong growth in the local sales tax. Prepared Food and Beverage Tax: Growth of 4 per cent due to an increase in dining out which has been consistent over the past several years. Overall tax growth between 5 - I) per cent. Strong growth led by real estate and personal property taxes as a category is over budget at 2.25 per cent. Other local taxes that were not detailed had a growth of ten per cent which was impacted by an increase in tax rates, such as recordation and E-91l. The City experienced its first full year at the $2.00 per line rate. With regard to the transient room tax, the Director of Finance noted that there have been no changes in recent years; the City went through three years with a minor decline in the personal property tax, and by comparison, the total amount of revenue that the City realized from growth in taxes was $8 million. He expressed appreciation to the Commissioner of the Revenue for ensuring that vehicles are registered with the Department of Motor Vehicles and assessed locally. Ms. Shawver reviewed the expenditure category of the budget and advised that City expenditures increased approximately four per cent compared to FY04, and the FY05 pay raise under the City's pay for performance program ranged from three to 3.5 percent. She added that the City did not spend all of the funds that were budgeted, and. 78 per cent, or approximately $1. 7 million remained unobligated at the end of the fiscal year. 142 The Deputy Director of Finance advised that: Public Safety: A labor intensive area experienced a three per cent increase, and an additional increase in compensation at mid-year caused a slight increase. Health and Welfare: Increased expenditures driven by increased social services programs, such as the Comprehensive Services Act (CSA), which has traditionally increased in cost. The City has more recipients and expensive and different facilities to care for children. Transfer to the Annual School Fund increased, which is a significant component at approximately $53 million of the City's total expenditures predicated on local taxes. The City shares approximately 31) per cent with Roanoke City Public Schools, which growth goes hand in hand with growth in the City's local taxes, along with funding to the schools for capital improvements and other projects. In connection with a question by Council Member Cutler regarding the Budget Stabilization Reserve, Ms. Shawver advised that the Reserve has a balance of approximately $15.7 million, and has increased due to interest earnings since establishment of the Reserve in April, 2005. She added that the Stabilization Reserve is a shift of fund balance from the Debt Service Fund into the General Fund; a reserve for uninsured claims provision is included in the City Code, and the City is self insured for workers compensation. She further advised that the City has a significant amount of self insurance, with a deductible for auto and general liability; and during 2005, the City achieved its target at the level of budget for uninsured claims. In connection with the School Fund, Ms. Shawver stated that the school system will receive a total of approximately $1.8 million. Council Member Dowe inquired about an e-mail from the City Manager concerning the rising cost of fuel; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the supplier has assured the City that it will receive adequate fuel deliveries; however, the question becomes, can the City afford the rising price of fuel. She stated that City departments have been reminded of the policy regarding the idling of vehicles; and staff is working on a plan of action in the event that it becomes necessary to curtail the use of fuel from a price standpoint. 143 The Deputy Director of Finance reviewed the following enterprise funds: Civic Facilities Fund: The facility typically experiences an operating loss and the General Fund subsidizes the Civic Facilities Fund. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick inquired about ways to track the amount of tax revenue generated; whereupon, Ms. Shawver noted that civic facilities generate local taxes such as meals tax, transient lodging tax, sales tax, etc.; and admissions taxes generated from the facilities total approximately $450,000.00 annually. The City Manager added that numerous non-profit organizations use facilities and must to be subsidized in some manner. Council Member Cutler inquired about the use of anticipated additional revenue once the new Exhibit Hall is open for operation; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the expectation was that any additional revenue from use of the Exhibit Hall would fund debt service on the addition that is currently under construction, and part of the original debt service was based on the assumption that there would be some additional revenue from Victory Stadium which is no longer the situation. She also noted that the new Exhibit Hall is anticipated to be completed by early 2007. Ms. Shawver explained that the Civic Facilities Fund completed the year with a total net income of approximately $5,000.00, inclusive of both operating results and transfers and certain other items such as interest revenue and insurance proceeds from flood damages, etc. Parking Fund The Fund has shown a fairly positive performance over the past few years, operating income in FY05 was lower than the prior year; the City issued about $2 million of bonds last fall on parking garages, the Çity ·hasplanned additional debt issuance in the amount of approximately $5 million in two years, and final income at the end of the year was $1)73,000.00. Market Building Fund Net income for the year totaled approximately $119,000.00. 144 The Mayor expressed appreciation to the Director of Finance and the Deputy Director of Finance for an informative briefing on financial issues. The Mayor left the meeting at 12:30 p.m., and the Vice-Mayor presided over the following briefing: Police Cadet/Ranger Partnership POLICE DEPARTMENT: Captain Timothy Jones advised that the Police Department and the Parks and Recreation Department recognized a need to present a higher representation of public safety in City park areas; therefore, in fiscal year 2004-2005, both departments presented budgets that included funds for a Park Ranger or Police Cadet Program. Captain Jones reviewed the following: Background of the Partnership · Separate supplemental budget requests from Parks and Recreation and the Police Department were submitted in fiscal year 2004-2005. o Due to the need for enhanced patrols in the parks o In order to increase recruiting among young people and supplement current staffing levels · Developing the two programs in a partnership arrangement suited the needs of both departments; and approval was granted · Total amount budgeted: $81),237.00 · Partnership developed in August 2004 Parameters of the Program · College students, 18 - 22 years old o Interested in law enforcement or park ranger careers o 5 to 7 current, actively enrolled college students · Hiring process similar to that of a police officer o Background check, polygraph, interviews · Duties include inspections/patrol of parks and police related responsibilities Program Goals Parks and Recreation -Deter illegal activity -Enhance positive public image -Enhance greater perception of safety -Identify and respond to areas with immediate needs -Identify vandalism and repairs needed immediately -Protect assets -Provide safer parks due to increased patrol Cadet/Ranger Vehicles and Uniform · Uniforms unique to their missions · Police vehicles modified 145 Police Department -Perform duties that do not require a certified officer -Allow sworn officers sufficient time to handle more serious incidents -Enhance positive public image -Increase patrol visibility throughout the City of Roanoke -Increase positive citizen interaction with members of the Police Department Cadet/Ranger Duties · Patrol City parks and recreational facilities · Provide support services for operations · Division of the Police Department · Provide information and directions to the pub,lic · Traffic control and direction · Funeral escorts · Other duties as assigned Parks and Recreation Events · Events requiring cadet assistance are listed on a monthly calendar Cadets/Rangers on the Job · Cadets interact with employees · Enhances safety presence in the City parks Cadets/Rangers at Special Events , · Cadets participated in this year's Eggstravagariza Event at Wasena Park · Bike Virginia · Cadets were assigned to monitor camp sites at Madison Middle School and Virginia Western Community College · Provided directions and information to participants and visitors · Relay for Life · Cadets participated in the Roanoke Valley Relay for Life held on June 17,2005, at the Roanoke Civic Center · Cadets staffed water stations, cheered on participants, and directed traffic for incoming vehicles 146 Cadet/Ranger Stats at a Glance · Since inception of the partnership: o Over 1,400 park inspections performed o 121 dispatched calls received o 114 traffic control incidents o 101) assist motorist incidents o 1)3 property checks o 51 warrants/papers/code 8 duties performed o 41 public service incidents o 33 accidents reported o 27 respond issues handled o 15 crossing guard duties o 24 special events attended o 23 funeral escorts o 19 police vehicles transported o 17 police service calls o 8 abandoned vehicles Criminal Apprehensions by Cadets/Rangers · 1 grand larceny apprehension · 1 DUI called in and subsequently apprehended · 1 hit and run crash witnessed · 4 intoxicated pedestrians called in and subsequently apprehended Looking toward the Future · As summer comes to a close, both the Police Department and the Parks and Recreation Department are seeing the benefits of the program · Both departments are looking forward to increasing the impact of the program and to continued positive relationships · Parks and Recreation and the Police Department would like to thank Council for supporting and appropriating funds for the partnership Council Member Dowe inquired about the work schedule for college· students; whereupon, Captain Jones advised that the City facilitates student work schedules around the student's available time. Mr. Dowe also inquired as to whether there are plans to include students at Virginia Western Community College and Virginia Tech in the program; whereupon, Captain Jones called attention to tentative discussions with representatives of Virginia Western, Virginia Tech and Radford University regarding the program, and noted that three of the last eight candidates heard about the program through their respective college or university. 147 Council Member Dowe inquired about the City's liability, if any, under the Cadet Program; whereupon, the City Manager responded that duties are not the same as a sworn police officer and cadets are considered to be regular employees. As the Youth Commission prepares the Youth Comprehensive Plan as an addendum to the City's overall Comprehensive Plan, Mr. Dowe suggested that participants of the Cadet Program be invited to provide input. The City Manager advised that the goal of the Cadet Program is to encourage young people to consider law enforcement as a profession. Council Member Cutler suggested that the City explore the feasibility of expanding the program beyond the criminal justice curriculum to include recreation, and inquired if cadets could be used to patrol the Carvins Cove area; whereupon, Captain Jones advised that cadets are familiar with the Carvins Cove property. Council Member Lea inquired as to the number of minorities enrolled in the program; whereupon, Captain Jones responded that three minorities were initially enrolled in the program, but due to various circumstances the number has dropped to zero. Council Member Wishneff suggested that the Cadet Program be featured on RVTV Channel 3 to enhance public awareness. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation to the Police Department and to the Parks and Recreation Department for their efforts to involve young people in local government and community affairs, and commended Captain James for an informative briefing. At 12:45 p.m., the Vice-Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess to be immediately reconvened in closed session in the Council's Conference Room, Room 451, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. At 1:30 p.m., the Council reconvened in open session in the Council's Conference Room, Room 451, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, for the following briefing, with Mayor Harris presiding and all Members of the Council in attendance. .. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Bridge and Park: BRIDGES: Working from schematic drawings, Harold Platt, representing Hayes, Seay, Mattern and Mattern, presented a plan for the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Bridge and Park. He stated that the updated plan changed the position of the proposed statue of Dr. King at the north entrance to a center site because a decision was made to maintain a pedestrian bridge. 148 Mr. Platt also presented schematic drawings with regard to the south entrance which included a brick pier with a bronze relief and decorative steel trellis. Bishop Heath Light, 2524 Wycliffe Avenue, S. W., inquired about stairs and an elevator. The Reverend Edward Mitchell, 1570 11)lh Street, N. W., spoke in support of the proposed changes. The Assistant City Manager for Community Development advised that the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Memorial Bridge Committee will meet on Wednesday, September 7, 2005, to review proposed changes. On behalf of the Members of Council, the Mayor expressed appreciation to Mr. Platt for his presentation. At 1:50 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess until 2:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber. At 2:00 p.m., on Tuesday, September I), 2005, 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 C. Nelson Harris presiding. PRESENT: Council Members Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff (arrived late), M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., and Mayor C. Nelson Harris----------------------------------7. ABSENT: None------------------------------------------------O. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 Mayor C. Nelson Harris. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. 149 PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: The Mayor announced that Council will accept applications until 5:00 p.m., on Friday, September 11), 2005, for a vacancy on the Roanoke City School Board, to fill the unexpired term of Gloria P. Manns, resigned, ending June 30, 2001); and a public hearing to receive the views of citizens on School Board applicants will be held on Monday, September 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the City Council Chamber. ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: The Mayor advised that the City of Roanoke was awarded Certificates of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its comprehensive annual financial report and for its financial report in connection with the Pension Plan. He explained that the award, which is presented by the Government Finance Officers Association, represents the highest form of recognition in the area of governmental accounting and financial reporting and attainment of the award is a significant accomplishment by a government and its management. He stated that the City of Roanoke has ,received the award for its, annual financial reports for the past 32 years, the City is one of the top five localities in the United States for consecutive receipt of the award, and the top locality in Virginia, and the City has received an award for its pension financial report for the past 18 years. On behalf of the Members of Council, the Mayor presented Certificates of Achievement to Dawn Hope, Manager of Accounting Services, and to Harold Harless, Jr., Retirement Accountant, and commended the Finance Department, under the leadership of Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance, for outstanding accomplishments in financial reporting. 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. MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meetings of Council held on Monday, July 18, 2005, and Monday, August 1, 2005, were before the body. 150 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved. that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harri s ---------------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. CITY COUNCIL-CMERP: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council schedule a public hearing for Monday, September 19, 200S, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP), was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harris----------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None------------~-------------------------------------O. CITY COUNCIL-LEASES-AIR RIGHTS: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council schedule a public hearing for Monday, September 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to the lease of air rights at 301 Jefferson Street, S. W., in order to install balconies along Kirk Avenue, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the follOWing vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harris----------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: A communication from Gloria P. Manns tendering her resignation as a Trustee of the Roanoke City School Board, effective Monday, August 15, 2005, at the conclusion of the joint meeting of Council and the School Board, was before Council. 1 51 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the resignation be accepted and that the communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harris----------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None------------------------------------------------__O. ANNUAL REPORTS-COMMITTEES-INDUSTRIES: A communication from the Industrial Development Authority transmitting its Fifth Annual Report for the period July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005, was before Council. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the Annual Report be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harris---------------------------------------------_7. NAYS: None-----~--------------------------------------______O. OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMiTTEES-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION: A report of qualification of Susan M. Egbert as a member of ,the Roanoke Arts Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2008, was before Council. . Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. . The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harris-~-------------------------------------_______7. NAYS: None-----------------------------------_______________O. REGULAR AGENDA BID OPENINGS: CITY PROPERTY-LEASES-COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BUILDING: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids for lease of space in the Virginia Commonwealth Building, said bids to be received in the City Clerk's Office until 12:00 p.m., on Tuesday, September I), 2005, and to be held, unopened, until 2:00 p.m., on that date, the Mayor inquired if anyone had any questions with regard to the opening of the bids. No person raising any question, the Mayor instructed the City Clerk to proceed with the opening of the bids. 152 The City Clerk advised that one bid was submitted from the United States of America, General Services Administration, at an annual lease rate of $254,280.00 for the first five years and $224,289.00 for the second five years, beginning April 1, 2005 through March 31, 2015. Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the bid would be referred to the City Manager for report and recommendation to Council. PUBLIC HEARINGS: CITY PROPERTY-LEASES-COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BUILDING: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Tuesday, September I), 2005, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the City Council Chamber on the lease of certain City-owned property located in the Commonwealth Building to be used for office space for a term of up to ten years, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, August 19, 2005 and Friday, August 21), 2005. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Ordinance No. 27529 adopted by the Council on May I), 1985, authorized the United States of America General Services Administration (GSA) lease in the Commonwealth Building located at 220 Church Avenue; the GSA has leased the location since February 1981), and the current lease agreement expired on March 31,2005. It was further advised that the GSA has requested a new lease agreement with similar terms and conditions; the previous lease contained a one year term at an annual lease rate of $131,290.20; the proposed lease agreement is for an additional ten year period, beginning April 1, 2005 through March 31, 2015, at an annual lease rate of $254,280.00 for the first five years and $224,289.00 for the second five years; the higher rental rate for the first five year term will reimburse the City for the cost of space renovations; during the second five years of-the lease, either party may terminate the lease with a two-year notice period; and there are no renewal options for the lease. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a lease agreement with the successful bidder for 17,253 ANSI/BOMA usable square feet, and 19,841 rentable square feet in the Commonwealth Building for a period of up to ten years, beginning April 1, 2005 and expiring on March 31, 2015, said document to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. 153 Council Member Cutler offered the following ordinance: (#3711)1)-0901)05) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the lease of 17,253 usable (19,841 rentable) square feet of office and related space located within City- owned property known as the Commonwealth Building for a term of up to ten years subject to a provision whereby either party may terminate the lease after five years, without cause, upon two years written notice; authorizing the appropriate City officials to execute a Lease Agreement therefor; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 51)2.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3711)1)- 0901)05. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the proposed lease of property: There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37166-0901)05 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Harris---------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------~-----------------------------O. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CITY COUNCIL: The Mayor presented a communication advising that keeping in mind the number of Keys to the City that are presented annually by the Members of Council, and due to the escalating cost and significance of the Key to the City, the City of Roanoke has reached a point where an established criteria for awarding Keys should be considered and adopted by the Council; therefore, he proposed the following: The Key to the City of Roanoke will be awarded only in the following instances: · Persons who have achieved national recognition and/or serve as presidents of national organizations/institutions, etc. · Retiring elected officials · Retiring top City officials · Citizen of the Year 154 It was further advised that on behalf of the Council, the City Clerk's Office maintains an inventory of various types of gifts that may be awarded in lieu of the Key to the City; some of the gifts include the City's new branding logo or the City Seal; and the City Clerk has been requested to develop a Distinguished Service Medallion that could be awarded by the Members of Council to deserving citizens and/or guests to the City in lieu of the Key to the City. Council Member Cutler moved that Council concur in the recommended criteria for awarding Keys to the City. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and unanimously adopted. SCHOOLS: Susan R. McMinnis, Job Placement Officer, Virginia Western Community College, advised that the Hall Career Center is a testing, counseling and resource center that provides career-related services to students and alumni at no charge; and the Center coordinates with regional industry and business employees to provide information on full time and part time job openings. She stated that Virginia Western is proud to partner with Hall Associates to make these important career services available to the Roanoke community and invited the Members of Council to a grand opening celebration on Thursday, September 8 from 4:00 to 1):00 p.m., in the Student Center on the main VWCC campus. She presented the following summary of services that will be provided to students: · Assistance with developing résumés and a review of interview techniques; résumés will be posted on the VWCC website. · Students will be provided with weekly updates on job openings. · A weekly profile of a local business. · Students will have access to the job kiosk provided by The Roanoke Times. · Soft skill workshops will be offered throughout the school year. She advised that businesses will receive the following services: · Job openings will be posted · Student résumés may be reviewed online · Free workshops and job training will be offered Upon question, Ms. McMinnis advised that services are also available to prospective students of Virginia Western Community College, to high school students and to citizens of the region free of charge. Council Member Cutler suggested that Ms. McMinnis contact the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce to combine offerings by VWCC with the needs of Chamber of Commerce Members. 155 REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: NONE. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: VICTIM/WITNESS/JUROR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-GRANTS-BUDGET- COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY: The City Manager submitted a communication concurring in a recommendation of the Commonwealth's Attorney with regard to acceptance of the Roanoke City Victim Witness Grant, in the total amount of $140,788.00. The Commonwealth's Attorney submitted a written report advising that the Victim/Witness Assistance Program was awarded a 12-month grant, in the amount of $115,117.00, for July 2005 through June 2001) 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; the Victim/Witness Program continues to operate with a full-time coordinator for the Circuit Court, as well as one full- time assistant for the Juvenile and Domestic- Relations Court and one full-time assistant for the General District Court; and a summary of fiscal years 2001- 2002, 2002-2003, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005 contracts document services provided by the program. It was further advised that the Victim/Witness Program is coordinated by the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney; cost to the City for Grant No. 01)- L8554VW05 would be $25,1)71.00 as a local cash match, for a total grant budget of $140,788.00; the local cash match is equal to that of fiscal year 2004-2005; and the local cash match is included in the General Fund fiscal year 2005-2001) adopted budget in the Transfer to Grant Fund Account. The Commonwealth's Attorney recommended that Council take the following actions: · Accept Victim/Witness Grant No. 01)-L8554VW05, in the amount of $115,117.00, with the City of Roanoke providing $25,1)71.00 as a local cash match from monies provided in the Transfer to Grant Fund Account in the Fiscal Year 2005-2001) budget, for a total grant of $140,788.00. 156 · Authorize the City Manager to execute all appropriate documents to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. · Appropriate $140,788.00 and increase the corresponding revenue estimates in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund. · Transfer $25,1)71.00 from the General Fund Transfer to Grant Fund, Account No. 001-250-9310-9535, to the above-established Grant Fund account. Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance: (#31)11)7-0901)05) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the Victim Witness Program Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance'. . (Fer full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 51)4.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3711)7- 0901)05. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. Council Member Dowe advised that he serves on the Board of Directors, Department of Criminal Justice, which is a volunteer position; he receives no remuneration in return for his services, and inquired if he would have a conflict of interest in voting on the ordinance. The City Attorney responded that inasmuch as Mr. Dowe serves in a volunteer position, there would be no conflict of interest and he could, therefore, cast his vote on the ordinance. Ordinance No. 3711)7-0901)05 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Harris ---------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#3711)8-0901)05) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a Victim/Witness Assistance Program grant from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Criminal Justice Services and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 51)5.) 157 Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 3711)8- 0901)05. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Harris---------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. POLICE DEPARTMENT -BUDGET -GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Roanoke Police Department's community based bicycle patrol program has been funded over the past several years by a Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program; and the funding source has been severely reduced to the extent that continued operation of the program is in jeopardy. It was further advised that a new program, the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant UAG) program, was established to allow for community policing programs similar to the current bicycle patrol initiative; the Police Department was awarded $111,010.00 under the JAG funding formula for cC>ntinuation of the bicycle patrol program; funding will provide equipment and allow for bicycle patrols in neighborhoods experiencing unpleasant conditions which reduce the quality of life; and operation of the program will be sustained at the high level that the community has come to expect. The City Manager recommended that Council take the following actions: · Accept the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant of $111,010.00 from the U. S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs; and authorize execution of the grant agreement and any related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. · Appropriate funding of $111,010.00 and establish corresponding revenue estimates in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund as follows: Overtime FICA Expendable Equipment Fees for Professional Services Total $ 92,894.00 $ 7,101).00 $ 9,91)0.00 $ 1.050.00 j111.010.00 158 Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance: (#3711)9-0901)05) AN ORDINANCE to establish the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. ú9, Page 51)1).) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3711)9- 0901)05. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Harris ---------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37170-0901)05) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant OAG) from the U. S. Department of Justice, and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 51)7.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37170- 0901)05. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Harris -----------------------:..---------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. BUDGET-EMERGENCY SERVICES-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that in October 2004, the Department of Homeland Security instituted the Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) to aid localities in the phYSical protection of critical infrastructures and key resources; the purpose of the infrastructure protection funding program is to reduce vulnerabilities of key resource sites by extending the protected area around a site into the surrounding community and to support the prevention and preparedness levels of first responders. 159 It was further advised that the Police Department was awarded $100,000.00 in BZPP funding to purchase advanced technological and tactical response equipment which will greatly enhance the department's ability to effectively respond to large scale incidents located in or near governmental facilities or key commercial assets. The City Manager recommended that Council accept the Buffer Zone Protection Program Grant award of $100,000.00 from the Department of Homeland Security's Office of Domestic Preparedness; and authorize the City Manager to execute the grant agreement and any.related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and appropriate $100,000.00 and establish corresponding revenue estimates in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund as follows: Expendable Equipment Furniture and Equipment Total $ 72,152.00 $ 27.848.00 $100.000.00 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37171-0901)05) AN ORDINANCE to establish the Buffer Zone Protection Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 51)8.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37171- 0901)05. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel. Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., inquired if the Buffer Zone Protection Grant is site specific. She called attention to rumors that a large buffer zone would be needed should the Social Security building be constructed on Henry Street. On behalf of the majority of Gainsboro residents, she requested that the Social Security building be constructed elsewhere. She advised that residents and friends of the Gainsboro community have worked diligently to develop the Henry Street corridor; the area should be an education, historical and cultural complex; part of the vision of Gainsboro has been completed with the Roanoke Higher Education Center, rehabilitation of the Ebony Club, the culinary school, and expansion of the Dumas Artistic Center. She added that the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Memorial Bridge and Park will be 160 located less than a block from the proposed site of the Social Security building, which would be devastating to the area and to historic Henry Street. She advised that if the Social Security building is constructed on Henry Street, it is rumored that several streets would be closed, and closure of the streets would prevent total and complete access to the Henry Street area of education, historical and cultural complexes. She further advised that the Social Security Office serves claimants throughout southwest Virginia, and 80 per cent of claimants reside in areas outside of the Roanoke Valley, therefore, she asked that Council give serious consideration to locating the Social Security Building at another location. In response to Ms. Bethel's remarks, the City Manager advised that the grant would be used to purchase certain technical and tactical equipment that would allow the Police Department to better respond and to better protect commercial assets, as well as governmental assets in the City of Roanoke if they were in any way threatened. There being no further discussions, Ordinance No. 37171-0901)05 was adflpted by the follOWing vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wish neff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Harris ---------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37172-0901)05) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a Buffer Zone Protection Program Grant from the Department of Homeland Security, and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 51)9.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37172- 0901)05. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Harris ---------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. 161 BUDGET-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke opened bids for the new Fire/EMS Administration Facility to be located at Elm Avenue and Franklin Road on June 30, 2005; five bids were received from local contractors, with the low bid having been submitted by Breakell, Inc., in the base bid amount of $4,800,000; and additional funds totaling $1)72,1)51.00 needs to be appropriated to complete the project. It was further advised that funding for debt service on Fire/EMS facility improvements is being provided by increased EMS fees; EMS fees increase annually through fiscal year 2007 in accordance with Federally-allowed levels; although debt has been issued for the first Fire/EMS station replacement, there are excess Fire/EMS revenues each year until all planned debt is issued for the projects; until fiscal year 2009 when EMS fees are needed entirely for debt service, the fees can be used to cash-fund some elements of facility projects; based on the expected EMS revenues as compared to the timing of planned debt issuance, funds in the amount of $589,235,00 may be transferred from other capital projects to be replenished during fiscal year 2007 and fiscal year 2008 from such excess Fire/EMS revenues; and remaining funds of $83,411).00 are available from contingency funding in the Capital Projects Fund. The City Manager recommended that additional funds; in the amount of $589,235.00, be transferred from Roanoke River Flood Reduction, Account No. 008-051)-9620-9003, and $83,411).00 from Capital Projects Contingency Fund, Account No. 008-530-9575-9220, to the Fire/EMS Administration Facility Improvement Program, Account No. 008-530-91)78-9003. Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance: (#37173-0901)05) AN ORDINANCE to transfer funding from the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project and from the Capital Improvement Reserve to the Fire/EMS Administration Facility Improvement Project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 51)9.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37173- 0901)05. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. 162 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that Council devoted a significant amount of time in a discussion of the matter at its 9:00 a.m. work session, and it was the consensus of Council that construction of a new headquarters Fire/EMS station at Elm Avenue and Franklin Road, S. W., would be disengaged from Fire Station No.1; and Fire Station No.1 will continue to remain open and be used for fire activity purposes. Former Mayor David A. Bowers, 1)01 Camilla Avenue, S. E., advised that many citizens believe that Fire Station No. 1 should be saved, it should be functional and continue to be as the Number 1 Fire Station in the City of Roanoke. He asked that Council honor its pledge to save Fire Station No.1 by a formal vote of the Council. He stated that some time ago, the City spent thousands of dollars to renovate and to remodel the Fire House on Church Avenue, the station continues to operate in good stead, and the City continues to have a good fire rating for insurance purposes. He stated that Fire/EMS facilities should not be constructed outside of downtown Roanoke; the City has spent a million dollars on property at the corner of Elm Avenue and Franklin Road; some of Roanoke's business people have spent millions of dollars on the same corner and they expect the area to remain a professional or commercial corner. He asked that the City stop the practice of constructing the Social . Security Administration Office on the outskirts of the City, stop the practice of sending the Department of Social Services to Williamson Road, and stop the practice of sending Municipal offices to ~he outskirts of the City when they should be located in downtown Roanoke where they will add to the economy of the downtown area. Mr. Les Stennett, 3531 Peters Creek Road, N. W., spoke in support of continued operation of Fire Station No.1 at its current location. He stated that if fire stations are combined, personnel will be eliminated; and part of the Fire Chief's plan is to eliminate an engine and purchase a new updated ladder truck which will also serve as a pump. He further stated that a new ladder truck cannot rescue people from a dwelling that is on fire, therefore, he asked that Council keep in mind that the City's number one responsibility is to keep the citizens of Roanoke safe and all other things become secondary. . Ms. Zoe Stennett, 3531 Peters Creek Road, N. W., spoke in support of continued operation of Fire Station No. L She also spoke with regard to consolidating fire stations and stated that every fire station should have a ladder truck, an engine that carries water, and an ambulance. She expressed concern with regard to the condition of the City's fire houses and inquired as to why the City has allowed the condition of fire stations to deteriorate to their present state. 163 Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke in support of continued operation of Fire Station No. 1 because the structure is 100 years old, is the oldest fire station in southwest Virginia and has historic significance. She stated that very little information has been provided with regard to proposed Fire Department changes and the closure of fire stations; and the closing of existing fire stations in northwest Roanoke will result in a nearly two mile radius that will be without fire apparatus. She added that an independent audit by the State will show that the proposal of the City Manager and the Fire Chief is unfair and unsafe for the northwest corridor of the City because residents in northwest Roanoke will lose a fire station. She asked that Council review the plan proposed by the City Manager and the Fire Chief with an eye toward critical thinking and that Fire Station No.1 remain open. Mr. Larry Earl, 430 Washington Avenue, S. W., a retired United States Marine with a career in motor transport, acquisitions and hazardous waste materials and a volunteer fireman, expressed concern with regard to the closing of Fire Station No.1; however, he stated that his main concern involved the City's plans to construct a multi-million dollar fire station on a site that could not be used for residential or commercial purposes due to toxic levels, and although the toxic levels are currently below today's standards of acceptable levels, what will be the impact 20 years from now should it be determined that foresight in 2005 was inaccurate. He stated that every time firefighters don their turnout gear and respond to a call, they are subject to contaminants that can and will build up in their bodies over time; and now it appears that the City is willing to allow them to spend a quiet shift in a fire station on top of a low, but contaminated site. In addition, he advised that the City plans to build the fire station at a major intersection which is congested both in the morning and in the evening rush hour; fire apparatus, which are large trucks, require a large turning radius, they are extremely heavy, they do not accelerate rapidly and they will be required to make a U-turn on Franklin Road; and, added to that, hazardous conditions may prevail when the volume of rush hour traffic is backed up at the Elm Avenue/Franklin Road intersection or when there are inclement weather conditions. Mr. Rodney Jordon, 2801) Franklin Road, S. W., advised that he appeared before Council to exercise his First Amendment rights as an employee of the City of Roanoke and of the United States of America. He stated that he stood before the Council knowing that when the meeting is over, every firefighter in the room, as well as every firefighter who stands up and speaks, will fear some form of retaliation for their stance on the issue, because retaliation is rampant 164 in the Fire Department and throughout City government. He added that personal threats have been made against him; it is time for this type of treatment to stop because he has the right to speak and to express his opinion; no one wants to take the time to listen to what a firefighter or other City employee has to say and they should not be limited to three minutes when addressing Council. He advised that the mission statement of the Fire Department is to protect and to preserve life and property; the core value statement of the City says that the City's employees are it's greatest asset; whereupon, he challenged the Fire Administration and the Council to act accordingly. He stated that firefighters are subject to inherent risks in their job every day; they are exposed to all kinds of unknowns; and they are now subject to being placed on a contaminated site that only adds to the risk of the profession; and the City proposes to construct a state of the art faCility on the corner of Elm Avenue and Franklin Road that has an inadequate exhaust system to remove diesel soot from the station. He added that every fire station in the City has the same problem; therefore, the Fire Administration and Council should make a commitment to Fire/EMS employees that every fire station will be equipped with an adequate diesel exhaust system to protect firefighters against harmful contaminants that they breath every day before consideration is given to breaking ground on any fire station in the City of Roanoke. Ms. Josephine Hutcheson, 1111 Loudon Avenue, N. W., expressed concern with regard to inadequate information that was provided to the publiC in connection with the proposed closing of fire stations. She stated that a City- wide public hearing, with appropriate notification through the local news media, was not held which would have afforded the opportunity for citizens to ask questions and express concerns. Mr. Mark McConnel, 532 Linden Street, S. E., stated that Fire Station No.1 and the construction of a new fire station are completely and inextricably linked to one another;·to accept the new fire station at Elm Avenue and Franklin Road is to accept the consolidation plan, which means that Fire Station No.1 and Fire Station NO.3 will be combined; and it is fiscally irresponsible to construct a $6 million Fire Station No.3 on a valuable commercial lot if Fire Station No. 1 continues to operate at its current location. He stated that he was not advocating that the City should not spend $1) million on Fire/EMS services, but the equipment used by firefighters and the salary structure should be reviewed and an independent location study should be commissioned. He expressed a concern over the lack of input from Roanoke's firefighting community; and advised that from an architectural standpoint, of entities such as the Association for the Preservation of Virginia Antiquities and the National Trust for Historic Preservation have spoken in favor of keeping fire service in fire 165 stations, particularly in the historic districts where buildings are constructed from highly combustible materials. He stated that firefighters like Fire Station No. 1 because it is a good and workable station that can accommodate the necessary fire apparatus. He added that Chief Grigsby stated that the consolidation plan would achieve a 90 per cent success rate in reaching any call for service within four minutes or less; currently, the success rate is 92 per cent, therefore, this would be the beginning of a lowered standard. He stated that because more people are living in downtown Roanoke, and because downtown is such a densely populated area during day and evening hours, a ladder truck and a fire. engine should be available at Fire Station No. 1. He . questioned the efficiency of placing an ambulance at the new fire station at Elm Avenue and franklin Road when Roanoke Emergency Medical Service No.1, is located just two blocks away at Fourth Street and Day Avenue. He urged Council to table action on the recommendation of the City Manager and that the business plan proposed by the Fire Chief be reconsidered in its entirety. Mr. Mike Hanks, 455 Hidden Country Lane, Hardy, Virginia, a retired firefighter with 30 years of service to Roanoke's citizens, spoke to the statement made by Fire Chief Grigsby that modern stations are needed to house modern equipment. He stated that Chief Grigsby argues that modern equipment does not fit in current fire stations; therefore, the City should investigate why an outdated fire engine was recently purchased and Engine 11 will fit in any.fire station in the City. He advised that the Fire Chief has stated a preference for a straight ladder truck as opposed to a tiller ladder truck and asked if the Chief's rationale could be that efforts to eliminate a position on the truck have failed with Council on more than one occasion, and this could be a way to circumvent the wishes of Council; a tiller ladder truck is more maneuverable in tight spaces in downtown, and an additional firefighter is needed to meet fire suppression and rescue demands given the size of buildings and the concentration of people in downtown Roanoke. He stated that the Chief's second point is that Fire Station NO.3 is in poor condition and needs to be repl.aced; however, the question is, why was the building allowed to deteriorate to its present condition when repeated requests for repairs were not addressed by Fire Administration and the building eventually succumbed to neglect. He further stated that a possible solution would be to house Engine No.3 at the current No.1 Fire Station. He added that his purpose in addressing the Council was not to make recommendations on how or where companies or stations should be locat~d in the City, which should be addressed in a study that takes advantage of modern methods. He stated that the funds that are re€luired to construct a new fire station would be better spent to purchase newer and more modern equipment for the safety of firefighters such as diesel smoke removal equipment, and the addition of manpower in the Fire Department. 166 Mr. John Wildig, 1502 Riverland Road, S. E., advised that before a new fire station at Elm Avenue and Franklin Road is constructed, he would implore the Council to request a proper station location study by an independent source not connected with the City administration which would remove all questions as to whether the Elm Avenue/Franklin Road site is the right location for an actual fire suppression station that will house firefighting equipment and personnel. He added that since the last study was performed in 1994, the cost for such a study has drastically decreased. He stated that Fire Station Nos. 3 and 9 are in poor condition and roofs have not been repaired or replaced on the premise that certain fire stations will be closed. He advised that morale in the Fire Department is low, and there is a lack of respect and support for employees. Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., expressed concern that some City employees may lose their job because they have exercised their Constitutional right to freedom of speech and requested that Council investigate the above referenced allegations. She stated that at the 9:00 a.m. work session, she heard the Fire Chief state that Roanoke now has a 92 per cent ratio or percentage in responding to fires, but with the proposed relocation, response time would drop to 90 per cent which is unacceptable to RÐanoke's citizens. She asked that Council not support a proposal where response time will be greater. She stated that more people are choosing to live in downtown Roanoke, the City is in the process of developing upscale housing and, at the same time, the City is advocating a reduction in fire stations. She spoke in support of continued operation of Fire Station No.1 which is a useful and historic building that is over 100 years old. Ms. Bridgett Meagher, 31)12 Medmont Circle, S. W., advised that she is a long time downtown business owner. She spoke in support of keeping Fire Station No. 1 open and requested that the citizens of Roanoke receive written confirmation that Fire Station No.1 will remain open, fully staffed and equipped as a fire station. She also asked that serious consideration be given to reinstatement of a fire engine at Fire Station No. 1. She referred to a 1983 commitment by a previous City Manager to keep Fire Station No.1 open. She requested that the City postpone any decision to fund the new Fire Administration building at Elm Avenue and Franklin Road until an overall comprehensive study of fire safety can be conducted. She expressed concern that crucial public safety supervisors and chiefs are housed in disparate locations throughout the City when they should be operating out of the same location; fire chiefs, police chiefs, City Managers and other important emergency personnel should be housed in the same location, because when disaster occurs they should be located in the same building in order to properly communicate with one another. She stated fire stations in neighborhoods provide a stabilizing influence in vulnerable locations which was learned recently with hurricane Katrina. 167 Joyce Waugh, Vice-President, Public Policy and Strategic Issues, Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, read a letter from Dr. Edward Murphy, Chairman of the Board, expressing support for efforts of Roanoke City Council to contain costs while improving the effectiveness and efficiency of Fire/EMS services. The letter noted that while the Chamber of Commerce has not independently evaluated the cost benefit analysis provided by the City of Roanoke, it supports in principle the strategic plan that includes relocation of Fire Stations No. 1 and No. 3 to a modern new facility at Elm Avenue and Franklin Road; improvements always require change and that is what is required for Council to provide the kind of services that businesses and residents expect; there can be little argument that state of the art Fire/EMS services are critical in today's world; and creating efficiencies in those services is a bonus and upgrading facilities by consolidating Stations 1 and 3 and Fire/EMS administration serves both efficiency and effectiveness. It was noted that Fire Station No.1 is an historic gem of a building on the City Market and will not go away if and when fire operations move; and this is an opportunity to capitalize on the charm. Mr. Murphy advised that the Roanoke Higher Education Center and 8 Jefferson Place demonstrate that the City's best architecture can be put to new uses that contribute to the community; change has its enemies; therefore, Roanoke should not become its own worst enemy by blocking progress when there is a sound business case in its favor. Mr. Bill Tanger, 129 Thurston Avenue, N. E., representing the Roanoke Business Group, advised that a fire station need not be constructed on a prime commercial business site, and the plan to locate a fire station where a business should be located indicates a lack of business sense. He stated that Roanoke is not known as a business friendly city, although it is understood that comments made by the Mayor that Roanoke is open for business are sincere and well intentioned; therefore, on behalf of the Roanoke Business Group he asked that Franklin Road and Elm Avenue be used for business purposes. He asked that a vote on the new fire station be tabled pending a comprehensive study and until the public understands what Council is voting on. Council Member Dowe requested the Fire Chief to review the briefing that was presented at the 9:00 a.m. work session. Chief Grigsby addressed the issue of site contamination which was mentioned as a point of concern by fire fighters and other persons in the community, and advised that a dry cleaning establishment previously existed on the site, the material that was identified on the site is included on the Department of Environmental Quality's list of contaminants at a standard of 100,000 times below the residential level of concern; therefore, the site is not 168 contaminated and will not be contaminated. He stated that interactive systems currently exist within fire stations to address diesel fume removal (a door goes up and a firefighter turns on a fan to remove diesel fumes) which have not proven to be effective. He referred to a system that would cost in the range of $14,000.00 per apparatus that could be used to remove diesel fumes, however, firefighters report that the exhaust apparatus would not be widely used because of the time involved to attach the equipment to the fire truck. He stated that fire stations that have some of the most egregious fumes are those stations that are proposed to be replaced with new construction and they are also the stations that have bay areas on top of sleeping quarters. He further stated that solutions have been proposed to address the issue of diesel fumes and a cleaner environment, gender diversification, restroom facilities, drive through stations versus back in stations, and firefighter safety versus some of the situations that currently exist. Chief Grigsby called attention to a misunderstanding with regard to his remarks in connection with response times in that at least three of the previous 13 speakers indicated that he had proposed a plan that would reduce the current response time allocation when, in fact, his actual statement was that the four minutes 90 per cent of the time resource allocation response model had bien adopted and the department currently beats the response model by about two per cent; and when fire stations are totally built out and the new fire station on Williamson Road is operational, it is expected that the response model will go up to approximately 93 per cent, therefore, the proposal provides a higher standard in fire response. He explained that ambulance responses are on a different schedule; Le.: eight minutes 90 per cent of the time; working fires have decreased from approximately 21)0 per year to 87 in 2004; fires to date in 2005 total 51); a fire engine has not been located at Fire Station No. 1 for the past 14 years; the new plan provides for locating the fire administration office in the headquarters station and addresses gender diversification, smoke in fire stations, and the size of fire stations will accommodate modern fire apparatus. He advised that the site under consideration was acquired in August 2003, the site is correctly located for the response areas to be covered; the City owns adjoining property which added to the attractiveness of the site; land cost was lower, but actual funds are due to site work, size and elevation of the site, all of which were compounding factors to the cost. He stated that the most favorable site was located across the street; however, cost was a prohibiting factor, and the site would have enhanced ladder response time to certain parts of the City. He noted that the site under consideration requires deeper digging to enable the foundation of the structure to support the type of new fire apparatus that weight between 32,000 and 38,000 pounds; there is some soil contamination, 169 however, the site will not exceed State and Federal requirements. He advised that the South Roanoke stations previously referenced by former Mayor David Bowers are well located stations for the four minute response time and are not recommended for closure; an employee/community group met on the design of the fire stations, the design was approved in August 2004, final documents were bid in June 2005, Breakell, Inc. General Contractors, submitted the low bid in the amount of $4.8 million which exceeded allocated funds; through due diligence, the cost was pared down, however, there remains a shortfall of $1)72,1)51.00, with $589,000.00 to be taken from Emergency Medical Services fees and approximately $83,400.00 will be on loan. He noted that increased costs are due to construction cost, fiber optic expenses, the HVAC system will contain smoke ejectors that are intended to move smoke from the bay areas that include living quarters, and a redesign of the roof. Slides of Fire Stations No. 9 and No. 5 were shown to indicate that previous fire stations were not constructed in a manner so as to house the kind of modern fire apparatus that is needed in today's world such as the telesquirt and the aerial ladder. Chief Grigsby advised that Fire/EMS equipment that addresses the needs of the Roanoke community is needed and he could not, in good conscience, place emotion over public safety. With regard to traffic issues, Chief Grigsby advised that the flow of traffic at the intersection of Elm Avenue and Franklin Road can be controlled through the City's Opticom traffic system. The City Manager was requested to comment on the City's rationale to build a fire station on what is perceived to bea developable commercial lot; whereupon, she advised that the City initially looked at approximately 11 sites that met distance and time factors and those 11 sites were narrowed down to 3; often times as the City becomes the developer, it should take the more challenging sites to develop, because those sites have additional expenses associated with them; and just about any building constructed on the site would have certain additional costs, given the topography and curvature of the parcel of land. She stated that at least two other sites within about a block and deeper into the downtoWn area would have met the definition, but had the sites been selected, they would have taken certain easily developable sites off of the land inventory; and as a municipality, the City of Roanoke should be concerned that good sites are left for development by the private sector. She stated that when the site was selected, Council was advised that there would be higher development costs, but lower land cost; staff worked for over a year to secure, 170 without the use of eminent domain, a more attractive and flatter site immediately across the street which could not be accomplished; after a protracted amount of time and negotiation, the site under consideration was selected and the fact that the City owns adjacent land brought the costs down. Chief Grigsby addressed certain remarks that were made earlier in the mèeting by Mr. Rodney Jordan regarding rumors that there would be retaliation against him for exercising his right to freedom of speech, and advised that the person who was supposedly one of the parties to the rumor was instructed to talk with Mr. Jordan, and state that any type of retaliation by the City administration would be unethical. In response to another remark by a previous speaker that the Fire Chief had personally directed that fire station roofs not be repaired, Chief Grigsby advised that the comments were unfounded because to allow fire stations to fall into a state of disrepair would be incompetent on his part as Roanoke's Fire Chief. Council Member Wishneff advised that it would be appropriate for the City to engage in a comprehensive and independent study of the City's emergency response operations; i.e.: fire, emergency medical services, police and water safety, etc.; whereupon, the City Manager was requested to report to CCluncil accordingly. The Mayor spoke in support of a comprehensive and independent study of the City's emergency response operations and advised that Council had previously referred the matter to the City Manager for report at its 9:00 a. m. work session. Secondly, he spoke to the diesel exhaust problem within the fire stations which is an issue that should be addressed. He referred to remarks by the Fire Chief that a $14,000.00 apparatus could be attached to the fire engine that would alleviate the problem and if the equipment has not been provided by the City, it then becomes a problem that is owned by City government, inasmuch as government has not provided the means to mediate the problem. He stated that if the City provides the apparatus and firefighters choose not to use the equipment, it becomes the problem of the firefighters and the Fire Administration should not be held accountable at that point, therefore, the City should embark on a solution to remedy the problem. As one Member of Council, the Mayor asked that the matter be addressed and resolved by the City Manager. Thirdly, he expressed concern with regard to previous remarks made by speakers regarding employee retaliation as a result of exercising their right to freedom of speech and advised that Council supports an atmosphere and a City government where City employees feel free to address the Council in an atmosphere of respect, without concern for retribution or retaliation for their 1 71 comments. He expressed appreciation to Chief Grigsby for his response to the matter and advised that he would take the Chief's word that such behavior would not be tolerated. Lastly, the Mayor inquired, based on Council's previous discussion regarding Fire Station No. 1 at the 9:00 a. m. work session, if it continues to be the City Administration's recommendation to proceed with the existing design for the new fire station, given the Council's position to keep Fire Station No.1 operational. The City Manager advised that the new fire station facility and every other facility that has been designed and constructed in recent years has become more and more expensive; and it would not be any less expensive to construct a fire station, particularly following redesign, therefore, it would be to the City's advantage to build the fire station accordingly to the existing design inasmuch as the design allows for equipment and personnel in a way that could not be accommodated at a similar cost in the future. She stated that the City would be well served by an independent study, not only as to the location of fire stations but staffing levels, and the complement of equipment that would be required in the future; the lion's share of the cost received by the City in Fire/EMS service is derived from emergency medical calls; there has been a reduction in the number of working fires over the past several years which is the combination of numerous things coming together, including considerable training and fire education within the department. She added that the site is still a desirable location; and a significant expense has already been incurred by the City to secure the site and to design the building. The Mayor advised that the present Council cannot speak for future Councils, and the present Council supports a new fire facility that is a combination Station No. 3/Fire/EMS administration office/headquarters; and Fire Station No.1 in downtown Roanoke will remain in operation. The City Manager advised that a previous speaker referred to "inadequate fire protection"; whereupon, she noted that she would like to go on record as stating that all of the recommendations the Fire Department's Strategic Business Plan pertained to maintaining and enhancing fire protection and emergency medical service for the citizens of Roanoke. . She stated that following the events of September 11, 2001, the City of Roanoke conducted a massive review of emergency response activities, some shoring up was done as a result of the review, and since· the recent hurricane events, City representatives have been meeting with other localities in the region to review preparedness response issues. She stated that if there were an emergency toflay, the City Manager, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief, and the emergency preparedness staff person would be located in one single building and function from that building to manage any emergency situation on behalf of the City. 172 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick called for the question. Ordinance No. 37173-0901)05 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harris----------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. ART ACQUISITION: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that correspondence from Herb Detweiler dated August 19, 2005, requested a 12-month extension of the Agreement dated September 17, 2004, with regard to the Unity sculpture; pursuant to terms of the Agreement, the deadline for completion and acceptance of the sculpture is September 17, 2005, however, the Agreement provided that with the approval of Council, the deadline could be extended by no more than an additional 12-month period. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize an extension of the time of performance of the Agreement with JDR Art, Inc., by 12 months, or until September 17, 2001). Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37174-0901)05) A RESOLUTION approving the extension of an agreement between JDR ART, Inc. and the City of Roanoke for acceptance and donation of a work of sculpture to be known as the Unity sculpture, for a period of twelve (12) months. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 570.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37174- 0901)05. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harris----------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of Finance submitted the Fiscal Year 2005 Unaudited Financial Report. (For full text, see Financial Report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) 173 The Director of Finance advised that the Budget Stabilization Reserve at June 30, 2005 is $15,1)50,125.00; the Reserve was established to serve as a funding source for emergencies or unforeseen declines in revenues; the Reserve is supported by the Budget Stabilization Reserve Policy which was adopted by Council in April 2005; the Reserve is currently seven per cent of the adopted General Fund Budget for FYOI), a slight decline from the level at which it was established; and the policy states that the Reserve minimum will be five per cent with a target of eight per cent. He further advised that the allocation to the Reserve for Uninsured Claims was $11)1),730.00; the City Code provides that an annual allocation of up to $250,000.00 will be made to develop a reserve for Uninsured Claims equal to three per cent of the General Fund Budget; the current year allocation fully· funds the Reserve; the City is self-insured for workers' compensation and establishes a loss retention in conjunction with auto and general liability insurance based on claims history. It was noted that the year end Undesignated Fund Balance is $3,392,317.00; at the end of each fiscal year, any undesignated fund balance is shared with the School Board using the same formula through which local tax revenues are shared; based on the formula, the Undesignated Fund Balance will be allocated $2,033,742.00 to the City and $1,358,575.00 to the Schools; the City's Undesignated Fund Balance will be recommended primarily for funding of capital equipment requested through the City's Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (UCMERpU) at a future meeting of Council; and while reliance upon year end fund balance for capital items has declined due to additional funding of the items in the operating budget, the Undesignated Year End Fund Balance will continue to be recommended for' use in addressing additional capital needs and non-recurring items. It was further noted that a' Reserve for Encumbrances that totals $1,478,141).00 is required in order to provide funds to cover purchase orders from June 30th which will be paid during the upcoming fiscal year; a Reserve for Uninsured Claims is maintained by the School Board in the amount of $300,000.00; the Undesignated Fund Balance is $420,191.00 and will be allocated by the School Board for capital equipment funding during the upcoming fiscal year; and along with this balance in the School Fund, the Schools will receive $1,358,575.00 from the City's General Fund as above- described. 174 The Director of Finance explained that a Reserve for Encumbrances of $1,150,1)87.00 is required in order to provide funds to cover purchase orders from June 30th which will be paid during the upcoming fiscal year. He reiterated that the General and School Fund amounts discussed within the report are Unaudited, subject to change during the course of the City's external audit; and a report of all funds of the City will be included in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report which is currently being prepared. There being no questions or comments, without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the Fiscal Year 2005 Unaudited Financial Report would be received and filed. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: VIRGINIA MUNICIPAL LEAGUE-CITY COUNCIL: Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution designating Vice-Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., as Voting Delegate, and Council Member Sherman P. Lea as Alternate Voting Delegate, and Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager, as Staff Assistant at the 2005 Annual Conference of the Virginia Municipal League: (#37175-0901)05) 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 Staff Assistant for any meetings of the Urban Section. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 571.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37175- 0901)05. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harri s------- -------------- ----------------------------------1). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Wishneff was not present when the vote was recorded.) 175 CITY COUNCIL-NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES: Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution designating Council Member Sherman P. Lea as Voting Delegate and Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., as Alternate Voting Delegate for the 2005 Annual Business Meeting of the National League of Cities: (#37171)-0901)05) 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. 1)9, Page 572.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37171)- 0901)05. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wish neff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harris----------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None-----------------------------------------------___O. CITY COUNCIL: Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution changing the time of commencement of the regular meeting of Council scheduled to be held at 12:00 noon on Monday, September 19, 2005, to 2:00 p.m. (#37177-0901)05) A RESOLUTION changing the time of commencement of the regular meeting of City Council scheduled to be held at 12:00 Noon on Monday, September 19, 2005. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 573.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37177- 0901)05. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harris----------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None---------------------------------------------_____O. 176 MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: CELEBRATIONS-HENRY STREET REVIVAL COMMITTEE: Council Member Lea called attention to the Henry Street Heritage Festival which will be held on Saturday, September 24 from 10:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m., and on Sunday, September 25 from 12:00 p.m. - 1):00 p.m., in Elmwood Park. CITY EMPLOYEES- TREES-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick commended the efforts of City staff to remove a fallen tree on Carolina Avenue, S. W. COMMITTEES-ROANOKE NEIGHBORHOOD PARTNERSHIP-OATHS OF OFFICE: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates created by expiration of the term of office of Carl D. Cooper; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Council Member Lea placed in nomination the name of Martha Williams. There being no further nominations, Ms. Williams was appointed as a member of the Roanoke Neighborhood Advocates, for a term ending June 30, 2008, by the following vote: FORMS. WILLIAMS: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harris----------------------------------------7. OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: The Mayor advised that the three year terms of office of Alison S. Blanton and James Schleuter as members of the Architectural Review Board will expire on October 1, 2005; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancies. Council Member Lea placed in nomination the names of Alison S. Blanton and James Schleuter. There being no further nominations, Ms. Blanton and Mr. Schleuter were reappointed as members of the Architectural Review Board, for terms commencing October 2, 2005 and ending October 1, 2009, by the following vote: FOR MS. BLANTON AND MR. SCHLEUTER: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harris-------------------7. 177 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 the Council. HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Mr. Robert N. Richert, 415 Allison Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the Day Avenue project and commended the Members of Council, the City administration, and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for doing the right thing. He stated that the renovation of houses in the 400 block of Day Avenue represents one of the high points of a 30 year ground laying process that has been carried out by many individuals in the Old Southwest neighborhood. CITY COUNCIL-DOWNTOWN ROANOKE; INCORPORATED: Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., requested a written definition of the Central Business District and its boundaries, the date of establishment of the Central Business District, and the date(s) and description of any boundary changes. She expressed concern that staff briefings are not held in the City Council Chamber and televised on RVTV Channel 3. COMPLAINTS-CITY GOVERNMENT: Mr. Robert E. Gravely 727 29'" Street, N. W., spoke with regard to the overall condition of the City of Roanoke. He expressed concern with regard to a pay scale that does not provide sufficient funds for the average City employee to purchase a house in the City of Roanoke, the lack of adequate equipment in fire stations to remove diesel exhaust fumes, and a citizenry that is uninformed about City affairs. He stated that there should be more concern forthe wishes of the citizens of Roanoke. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: NONE. At 4:45 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for one Closed Session in the Council's Conference Room. At 5:25 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, except Council Member Lea, Mayor Harris presiding. 178 COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Council Member McDaniel 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 Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harri s ----------- ------------------------------- ---------1). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Lea was not present when the vote was recorded.) There being no further business, the Mayor declared the Council meeting adjourned at 5:30 p.m. APPROVED ATTEST: ~k:~ City Clerk ef~~~ C. Nelson Harris Mayor 179 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL September 19, 200S 2:00 p.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, September 19, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the Roanoke City Council Chamber, fourth floor, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, Reaular Meetinas, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and pursuant to Resolution No. 37109-070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005. PRESENT: Council Members Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Mayor C. Nelson Harris---------------------------------------------------------------1). ABSENT: Council Member Alfred T. Dowe,Jr. -------------------------1. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 Council Member Sherman P. Lea. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: PROCLAMATIONS: The Mayor introduced and commended Joseph L. Salmon who was selected as Teacher of the Year at the Roanoke Academy of Mathematics and Science, Teacher of the Year for Roanoke City Public Schools, and Region VI Teacher of the Year in the Commonwealth of Virginia. He advised that Mr. Salmon was honored by the Virginia General Assembly and the Virginia Commonwealth School Board. 180 In recognition of his outstanding example and contributions to the youth of the community, the Mayor presented Mr. Salmon with a proclamation declaring Monday, September 19, 2005, as Joseph L. Salmon Day in thè City of Roanoke. PROCLAMATIONS: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Gary Hegner, Superintendent, Parks and Facilities, declaring Saturday, October 1, 2005, as Fall Waterways Cleanup 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. He called specific attention to two requests for Closed Session. MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday, August 15, 2005, were before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s--------------------------------------------_________----I). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------______--0. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) COMMITTEES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris requesting that Council convene in 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. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council convene in Closed Session as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the folloWing vote: 181 AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s---------------------------------------------------------I). NAYS: None----------------------------------------------------0. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in Closed Meeting to discuss the award of a public contract involving the expenditure of public funds, where discussion in open meeting would adversely affect the bargaining position or negotiating strategy of the City, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council convene in Closed Session as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the folloWing vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wish neff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s---------------------------------------------------------I). NAYS: None----------------------------------------------------0. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT -ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE-SCHOOLS: The folloWing report of qualification was before Council: David B. Carson and William H. Lindsey as Trustees of the Roanoke City School Board, for terms ending June 30, 2008; Angela Holland as a member of the Human Services Advisory Board, for a term ending November 30, 2007; and Letitia A. Smith as a member of the Personnel and Employment Practices Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2008. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: 182 AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris-------------------------------_________________---------1). NAYS: None------------------------------____________________--0. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: ANIMALS/INSECTS: Dr. Stan Eichelberger, presented a written report transmitting recommendations of the Feral Cat Task Committee. Dr. Eichelberger advised that since formation in the summer of 2004, the Feral Cat Task Committee met on 11 occasions as well as conducted a public opinion survey and a public meeting; the Committee studied a wide variety of information relating to cats and examined the experience of several other localities; as revealed in the progress report dated April 12, 2005, the Committee found that complex sub-issues are involved in Virtually every aspect of the topic; and concerns presented to Council, which led to formation of the Committee included issues of property damage, risk of disease transmission, and destruction of wild birds. He noted that during the first six months of 2005, City Animal Control Officers responded to 1)40 cat-related calls for service and 933 cats from the City of Roanoke were impounded at the Regional Center; the Regional Center for Animal Control and Protection reports that 1,227 cats were impounded from the region for the same period; and the Committee encountered well-reasoned and passionate perspectives on both sides of many of the issues and bases its recommendations on a shared perspective that cats that are cared for are healthier and pose fewer problems for the community. Dr. Eichelberger reviewed the follOWing recommendations: · Adopt an ordinance requiring the licensing of cats over four months of age; authorize positive identification of licensed cats by means in addition to a collar and tag (such as by an implanted microchip) and provide space on any registration form for identification information; proof of vaccination should be required prior to license issue; the ordinance should also provide for reduced licensing fees for those cats which have been spayed or neutered, upon presentation of veterinary documentation of the procedure; and persons found in violation of the ordinance should be subject to fine. 183 . Adopt an ordinance(s) to prohibit cats from running at large and authorize the City's Animal Control and Protection Unit to impound cats found at large; "at large" would refer to any cat not on the property of its owner or under the immediate control of the owner or confined in an enclosure; procedures for disposition of impounded cats should be specified and only licensed and vaccinated cats should be released; the ordinance could be parallel in style with current sections regulating dogs at large, with increased fines for owners who repeatedly allow their animal to be at large; and Roanoke County has had ordinances requiring licensing of cats and defining cats at large as nuisance cats subject to impound since 1994. . Development of a regional sanctuary for feral cats or cat colonies; although there are currently no such facilities in the area, such a sanctuary would provide for feral cats without their having to be impounded with little hope of adoption; managed sanctuaries for feral cats are seen by the Committee as part of an effective and humane overall solution, and some members of the Committee are willing to further investigate the option; and the City of Roanoke could participate with other localities in the form of financial support, tax considerations, and/or the assistance and expertise of employees in a joint venture. Dr. Eichelberger advised that the Committee recognizes that implementation of the first two recommendations will require a public information campaign after actual ordinances have been drafted; and the proposals are in keeping with recommendations of The Humane Society ofthe United States, which should be of assistance in promoting a public information campaign. He stated that it is acknowledged that the ordinances will place an additional strain on the Police Department's Animal Control and Protection Unit, as well as on the Office of the City Treasurer and other offices involved in licensing and enforcement; therefore, he requested that Council consider staffing or technology requests that may arise from the changes. Mr. Neil MacRae, III, 1110 21)'h Street, S. W., advised that it is understood that the City of Roanoke has a large number of cats per capita; and as the owner of a cat, he is of the opinion that a significant amount of the cat owner population is against any ordinance that would restrict outside activity. He stated that the City could control the feral cat population by picking up cats that do not wear a collar with the owner's name attached. 184 There being no discussion and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the recommendations of the Feral Cat Task Committee would be referred to the City Manager for report and recommendation to Council. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: PARKS AND RECREATION-WATER RESOURCES: Gary Hegner, Superintendent, Parks and Facilities, advised that 250-300 persons are expected to participate in efforts to clean up City property along the banks of the Roanoke River on Saturday, October 1, 2005; participants include the Clean Valley Council, Upper Roanoke River Roundtable, Department of Environmental Quality, Save Our Streams, the Western Virginia Water Authority, Roanoke Valley Greenways Commission, representatives of various City departments, local businesses, the National Foods Co-op, Q99, Tidy Services, and others. He called attention to water quality testing through testing kits that have been distributed in the schools, and other educational opportunities that will be offered. Council Member Cutler inquired if there would be an opportunity for a regional or watershed-wide event in future years inasmuch as the Roanoke River begins in Montgomery County and runs through Roanoke County, the City of Salem and the Town of Vinton; and with their citizen groups, service clubs, rotary clubs, Kiwanis Clubs, school groups, etc., other Valley-wide jurisdictions could initiate an Upper Roanoke River event. The City Manager advised that at least two such events will be held on an annual basis and the City has considered a program that would allow individual families, civic clubs and organizations to adopt an area of the Roanoke River for maintenance or stewardship on a regular basis. She stated that it is hoped that activities on October 1 will mark the beginning of a partnership involving not only public property, but private property along the Roanoke River. EMERGENCY SERVICES: Joseph Coyle, Emergency Services Coordinator, and Larry Brown, Public Information Officer, explained the various components of two enhancements to the City's emergency warning public information capabilities; I.e.: Reverse 911 and Roanoke Alert. Mr. Coyle advised that Reverse 911 is a computer based system that can be used in an emergency to dial out to citizens and businesses; and the system will use a computer which is housed in the City's 185 secure computer room and dedicated phone lines in the Municipal Building to enhance the City's emergency warning public information capabilities. He explained that some potential uses for Reverse 911 would be notification of a terrorist event, flooding, severe weather conditions, or any large emergency that would require notification to citizens; and the system will not be used for non- emergency or routine events. He stated that a meeting has been scheduled with representatives of City departments, the Western Virginia Water Authority, and the School system to discuss uses and to develop a training program. He explained that the City has an eight telephone line system, using about a 30 second message, 91)0 telephone calls could be made per hour; for example: if there is a hazardous materials release at a certain intersection, a certain arch around the location can be plotted out and the system will dial those telephone numbers; and in the unlikely event of a mass notification of the entire City, the City could dial into the provider's databank, or contact the provider via internet, in order for notification to be made via the provider's nationwide bank of phones; and in approximately ten minutes every phone in the City of Roanoke would ring. He reviewed two methods by which telephone calls could be handled; I.e.: a compilation of predefined lists through a data bank identifying all persons who live on a specific street or in a flood prone area, input a message and activate the system; or the visual portion of the program could interface with the City's GIS system which provides the capability of selecting a specific street address or configuration and the system would access the database of telephone numbers and dial out based on a geo zone. He stated that another enhancement to the system is the "bulletin board" that can be created during an emergency which allows for the posting of a telephone number on the City's website where emergency information may be obtained. He added that one ofthe inherent issues with the database that was purchased by the City is that it only has the capability to call land line telephones; therefore, there will be a need to address issues where persons use cellular phones as their primary telephone, in which case it would be necessary to register the phone to that location so that they could be contacted in an emergency; registration could be handled via the City's website, or by telephoning or written communication to the Office of Environmental and Emergency Management. Mr. Brown advised that in the event of a small scale emergency, the City will transform the current website, roanokeva.gov into roanokealert.com, which will provide the latest information to visitors to the website and allow faster access to important information such as emergency telephone numbers, or links that the person may need to get in touch with other emergency agencies, and the latest updates of road closures or emergency precautions and preparedness. He stated 186 that currently the website is hidden and in an ideal world the City may not have to use the emergency website; however, the website does have the capability to go live in the event of an emergency when an administration or the City's web master advises that the information needs to be delivered. He further stated that the website will be hosted outside of the Commonwealth of Virginia so that in the event of a power outage or some other drastic happening, there will be no concern about the site going down. Mr. Brown explained that Reverse 911 provides the capability to disseminate information to as many people as possible both inside and outside the area and to update information on a regular basis. Council Member Lea inquired as to how information would be disseminated to persons who do not have access to a computer; whereupon, the City Manager advised that in a true emergency there is an overload of resources in responding to telephone calls and requests for information; while the website would only be available to certain people who have access to computers and to the internet, if those persons can be siphoned off ofthe telephone system to receive information from other sources, more resources would become available for persons using telephone lines; and there is also the option of going into affected areas with law enforcement and fire personnel with horns to communicate a need to evacuate the area. She advised that the two activities have been in the planning stages for over a year; the programs demonstrate that the City is planning for the emergency that it hopes will never happen; and planning has been ongoing since September 11, 2001, to ensure that the City of Roanoke has every tool in place to help its citizens in time of emergency. In response to a question by Council Member McDaniel ifthere are plans for live testing of the programs, it was advised that workability of the Reverse 911 program continues to be reviewed. Council Member Cutler advised that many people use cellular telephones as opposed to landlines, and inquired if cellular telephone companies would include information with monthly bills urging customers to register their cell phone with the City. Mr. Coyle advised that the suggestion could be presented to the cellular telephone companies, and some cell phone vendors are currently evaluating the systems and looking nationwide for ways to capture the database. 187 ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: HEALTH DEPARTMENT -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 located at the Roanoke Health Department to ensure that all citizens have an opportunity to apply for Medicaid; and the Agreement remains in effect until modified by mutual consent or operation of law. It was further advised that total cost of the position is $40,358.00; approximately 50 per cent of the cost is reimbursed from Federal Medicaid administrative funds, with the Health Department reimbursing the remaining cost; and the City of Roanoke Health Department is satisfied with the results of having the position on location and wishes to continue the services of the Eligibility Worker at the Health Department. 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; that Council appropriate funds as above described in accounts to be established in the Grant Fund by the Director of Finance; and establish a revenue estimate of $40,358.00 from State and Federal sources as above described. · Salary · City Retirement · ICMA Match · FICA · Health Ins. · Dental Ins. · Disability Ins. $29,742.00 3,833.00 1)50.00 2,280.00 3,540.00 235.00 78.00 $40,358.00 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37180-091905) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the Medicaid Eligibility Worker position, amending and reordaining certain sections ofthe 2005- 2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 69, Page 577.) 188 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37180- 091905. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris----------------------------____________________---------1). NAYS: None-----------------------------------_______________--0. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37181-091905) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Managerto 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. 1)9, Page 578.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37181- 091905. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the follOWing vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris--------------------------------------__________---------1). NAYS: None----------------------------------------__________--0. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) BUDGET-EMERGENCY SERVICES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Roanoke Fire-EMS Department provides Hazardous Materials Emergency assistance on a regional level to surrounding localities during hazardous material accidents and incidents; increased revenues were received from the Commonwealth of Virginia for Hazardous Materials Emergency Responses; and revenues were intended to be used for reimbursement of certain expenses incurred during Hazardous Materials Emergency Responses for fiscal years 2004 and 2005; and for fiscal year 2004, additional revenues of $8,199.08 were received and for fiscal year 2005, additional revenues of $1,390.40 were received. 189 It was advised that the Commonwealth of Virginia appropriates funds to the Roanoke Fire-EMS Department for Hazardous Materials Emergency Responses; the Director of Finance estimates the revenue for Hazardous Materials Emergency Responses; and in Fiscal Years 2004 and 2005, the Commonwealth increased revenues and reimbursement of funds. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a budget ordinance to increase revenue estimates, in the amount of $8,199.00, in Account No. 035-520- 3221)-3221) and $1,390.00 in Account No. 035-520-3227-3227; appropriate additional funding in the same amounts appropriate increased revenues and authorize the Director of Finance to establish increased revenue estimates. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37182-091905) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate additional funding for the Hazardous Materials Response Grants, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 579.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37182- 091905. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s ---------------- ---------------------------------------1). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) BUDGET-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT -GRANTS-FDETC: 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 WIA funding is intended to be used for four primary client populations: 190 · 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 $192,078.00 for the Youth Program which serves economically disadvantaged youth, $74,831).00 for the Adult Program which serves economically disadvantaged adults, and $120,443.00 for the Dislocated Worker Program which serves workers laid off from employment through no fault of their own for Program Year 2005 Ouly 1, 2005 - June 30, 2007); and ten per cent of the above referenced totals are intended to be allocated to the administrative function of the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize appropriation of Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act funds of $387,357.00 for Program Year 2005, and establish corresponding revenue estimates in accounts to be established in the Grant Fund by the Director of Finance. Council Member McDaniel offered the following budget ordinance: (#37183-091905) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the FYOI) Workforce Investment Act Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections ofthe 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 580.) Council Member McDaniel moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37183- 091905. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. 191 Council Member Lea referred to previous discussion by the Council on Monday, July 18, 2005 with regard to composition of the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board and requested that the City Manager provide a status report. The City Manager advised that at the next meeting ofthe Chief Local Elected Officials group (CLEO) following Council's discussion on July 18 the issue of representation on the Workforce Development Board was discussed, and all members of the CLEO expressed a genuine interest and concern in the issue of representation. She stated that two members ofthe African-American community, the Deputy Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, and a minority representative from Franklin County were recommended to the CLEO; consideration was given to increasing the size of the Board, and a decision was made to keep the current number of 15 which allows for a majority or eight of the appointments to be representatives of the private sector, and the remaining seven would be appointed from the public sector. She added that there is a vacancy on the Board, and Alleghany County, which does not currently have representation, has been requested to recommend a nominee; other members of the Board have encouraged private individuals within their respective communities to serve; and at an upcoming meeting of the CLEO Board, it is anticipated that at least one appointment will be made. The City Manager gave her assurance that the issue has raised itself to a proper level of attention with all members ofthe CLEO, there will not be a lack of diverse representation on the Workforce Development Board in the future, and the Chief Local Elected Officials group is committed to rectifying the situation. There being no further questions/comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37183-091905 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayo r Harri s -------------------------------------------------------I). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) CITY CODE-BUDGET -WATER RESOURCES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Resolution No. 31)207-012103 adopted by Council on January 21, 2003, authorized the City Manager to apply for an "80/20" reimbursable grant through the Virginia Recreational Trail Fund Program; and in July 2003, the Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation notified the City of Roanoke of a grant award, in the amount of $53,1)00.00, in support of the Carvins Cove Natural Resource Multi-Use Trail Project. 192 It was further advised that State and Federal funding sources will be utilized as matching funds to the recent appropriation of $40,335.00 to the Department of Parks and Recreation through the Western Virginia Water Authority Carvins Cove trail user fees for trail improvements within the Reserve. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize the Director of Finance to increase the revenue estimate in Account No. 008-1)20-9825-9813, Carvins Cove Planning and Development, in the amount of $53,1)00.00, and appropriate funds of the same amount to the Carvins Cove Planning and Development Project, Account No. 008-1)20-9825. Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: (#37184-091905) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the Carvins Cove Planning and Development Project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 582.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37184- 091905. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. Council Member Cutler advised entrance fees paid by visitors to Carvins Cove are used for recreational facility improvements at Carvins Cove. He stated that he looked forward to completion of the master plan for management of the Carvins Cove Natural Reserve, and consideration of a conservation easement to protect most of the natural area from development. On behalf of the Roanoke Appalachian Trail Club and other hikers in the region, he stated that he supported multiple use trails, but some trails should be devoted to hikers only so that there is no conflict between horses, bicycles, and hikers. Ordinance No. 37184-091905 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wish neff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris---------------------------------------_________-------1). NAYS: None-------------------------------------_____________o. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) 193 POLICE DEPARTMENT-COMMUNICATIONS DEPARTMENT-CITY INFORMATION SYSTEMS-EQUIPMENT: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that an Intergovernmental Agreement dated December 17,1997, between the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke established ajoint Public Safety Radio System ("System"); since creation of the partnership, the City and the County have operated their E-911 public radio systems effectively as ajoint, unified system for the protection and benefit of the citizens of both localities; and the original Intergovernmental Agreement was amended on one occasion by an amendment dated October 1, 2001, for the purpose of providing further details governing operation of the joint system and the relationship between the City and the County. It was further advised that a proposed second amendment provides legal authority for the County and the City to act jointly through the Roanoke County Purchasing Department to obtain a qualified consultant to provide expertise and guidance in the planning of the "rebanding" or migration of frequencies per a Federal Communications Commission (FCC) mandate; rebanding has been ordered by the FCC on a nationwide basis due to frequent problems with interference from commercial wireless communications providers and public safety agencies that operate on the 800M Hz spectrum; the FCC has imposed upon Nextel the financial obligation to pay for all direct and indirect costs associated with the "rebanding" frequency reconfiguration; and Nextel has committed $2.5 billion to pay for the 800 MHz rebanding process nationally and established an independent agency, the Transition Administrator (TA), to oversee the massive undertaking. The City Manager explained that by proceeding jointly, the County and the City are moving forward with the procurement process to hire a consultant to advise on the numerous technical and legal issues involved in negotiations with Nextel to cover the costs of reprogramming frequencies on all public safety radios; in order to avoid any cost from this Federally mandated process, Roanoke County and Roanoke City, acting jointly, must enter into an agreement with Nextel for reimbursement of all expenses related to the rebanding process before incurring any expenses; and the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors acted on the matter at its meeting on September 13, 2005. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to approve and execute Amendment No. Two to the Intergovernmental Agreement between the City of Roanoke and the County of Roanoke. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: 194 (#37185-091905) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment Two to an Intergovernmental Agreement, dated December 17, 1997, with Roanoke County concerning the Regional 800 MHz Trunking Radio System, upon certain terms and conditions, and dispensing with the second reading ofthis ordinance by title. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 583.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37185- 091905. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler. Council Member McDaniel inquired in the event of a valley wide emergency, would the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County and the City of Salem have the capability to talk with each other regardless of what radio band or frequency they operate on; whereupon, the City Manager responded in the affirmative and advised that under the Interoperability grant that was received last week, localities from Roanoke, all the way up to and including the Lynchburg region, will have the capability to communicate, and the ability to talk with other communities and their public safety resources is vitally important. The City Manager advised that the agreement presently before the Council between the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County calls for moving forward with a procurement process that would identify a consultant to help ensure that the localities are adequately represented as they go through negotiations with Nextel and to identify all costs associated with the move. There being no further questions/comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37185-091905 was adopted by the follOWing vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s-------------------------------------------__________--I). NAYS: None-------------------------------------_____________O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on September 6, 2005, Council was briefed on the Day Avenue Project which consists of acquisition by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) of 17 parcels of land on Day Avenue; and the parcels are in various stages of disrepair, continuing to deteriorate and are detrimental to the safety, health, morals and welfare ofthe residents of the housing units, as well as to the surrounding residential neighborhoods. 195 It was further advised that the RRHA has acquired the 17 parcels of land for rehabilitation and conversion to market rate residential housing units; the City of Roanoke wishes to make available to RRHA the necessary funds to reimburse the Housing Authority for the property from the Christian Housing Fellowship, LLC; total amount of funds to be transferred to the RRHA by the City is $370,400.00; and funds are included in the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP). It was explained that in order for the RRHA to proceed with rehabilitation of the 17 parcels of land, authorization by Council is needed to execute an agreement between the City of Roanoke and the RRHA for funding of property acquisition and pre-rehabilitation and maintenance costs associated with the 17 parcels of property. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a cooperation agreement with the RRHA, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37181)-091905) A RESOLUTION authorizing execution ofthe Day Avenue Cooperation Agreement between the City of Roanoke ("City") and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority ("RRHA"), providing for the advancement of $370,400.00 in funding to provide for the cost of acquisition, pre-rehabilitation, and maintenance of seventeen parcels of property located in the 400 block of Day Avenue, S. W. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 584.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37181)- 091905. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler. Mr. Robert Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., expressed various concerns with regard to the Day Avenue project. He advised that it could cost as much as $317,000.00 to renovate the houses while the sale price is $21)5,000.00 per house; and the houses were previously assessed at approximately $38,000.00- $45,000.00 and are now assessed at $100,000.00. He added that a home buyer who can afford a $21)5,000.00 house will not choose to purchase a house on Day Avenue; no consideration was given to less fortunate persons who currently live in the area who cannot afford more expensive housing, and additionally, no consideration was given to the high crime rate in the area. He referred to $85,000.00 vacant houses in the 1200 block of Gilmer Avenue that are currently deteriorating because no one is interested in purchasing the property. 196 The Mayor requested that the City Manager respond to Mr. Gravely's remarks regarding the Day Avenue Project; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the City will make funds available to the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority to purchase 17 properties on Day Avenue for the balance due on the mortgages. She stated that the Housing Authority does not intend to market the homes when rebuilt to low and moderate income individuals, but to persons in the middle and upper income brackets who can afford to pay the $21)5,000.00 which is estimated to be the rehab value. She noted that a market study was prepared and upon the advice of realtors it is believed that homes can be sold for the $21)5,000.00; the City and the RRHA have committed to assist those individuals who currently reside in the properties to find alternate housing within the City, and at rates equal to or in some instances less that what they are currently paying at their Day Avenue address; it is not anticipated that any low income individual would be displaced as a result of the project and the City has made a commitment over the next seven years to construct additional low income units to compensate for the loss of Day Avenue housing as a part of the City's housing strategy. There being no further questions/comments by Council Members, Resolution No. 37181)-091905 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s----------------------------------___________________--I). NAYS: None-------~------------------------__________________-0. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of Finance submitted the Financial Report for the month of July 2005. (For full text, see Financial Report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) There being no questions or comments and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the Financial Report for the month of July would be received and filed. CITY ATTORNEY: 197 Y.M.C.A.: The City Attorney submitted a written report advising that Subparagraph A of Paragraph No. 12 ofthe Agreement dated December 24,2002, between the City of Roanoke and the YMCA of Roanoke Valley, Inc., requires the YMCA to transfer a portion of the property on which the old YMCA facility is located to the City by April 29, 2005 (the original date was March 1,2005, which was extended by Amendment No.1); however, the Agreement requires the YMCA to remove all hazardous substances from the old YMCA faCility before the YMCA transfers the facility to the City. It was further advised that due to complications related to removal of asbestos and other hazardous substances from the facility, the YMCA has not completed the removal, and has not transferred the property to the City; and accordingly, the YMCA has requested that the City agree to extend the deadline by which the YMCA must transfer the property to the City until December 30,2005. The City Attorney recommended that Council adopt an ordinance authorizing the City Manager to execute the appropriate amendment to the agreement with the YMCA as above described. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37187-091905) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No.2 to the Agreement dated December 24,2002, between the City of Roanoke and the YMCA of Roanoke Valley, Inc. ("YMCA"), to extend the date by which the YMCA must transfer to the City of Roanoke a portion of the property on which the former YMCA faCility is located to December 30,2005; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 585.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37187- 091905. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s-------------------------------------------------------I). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A report of the Roanoke City School Board requesting that Council appropriate the following, was before the body: 198 · $23,529.00 for the Title I Even Start Family Literacy Grant to provide staff and funding for parental and preschool workshops for family literacy efforts at the preschool and adult education levels. · $11)8,700.00 for the Title I School Improvement program to aid the division in efforts to provide strategies to increase student learning at seven low-performing schools; the program will help to fund the opportunity for students to choose a higher- . performing school as an alternative, said program to be 100 per cent reimbursed by Federal funds. · $33,108.00 for the Title I D At-Risk Juvenile Detention Center Reading program to employ a part-time reading teacher at the Center, said program to be 100 per cent reimbursed by Federal funds. · $1)5,208.00 for the 2005-2001) Governor's School program to provide instruction in science and math to high school students, with the continuing program to be supported by State funds and tuition collected from participating school districts. · $48,000.00 for the Patrick Henry Youth Court program to provide for supervision and materials necessary to continue the school-based youth court at Patrick Henry High School; and the continuing program will provide instruction in the legal process and allow for alternative diSCiplinary actions. The Director of Finance submitted a written report recommending that Council concur in the requests of the School Board, was also before the body. Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: (#37188-091905) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the 2005-01) Title I Even Start Family Literacy Grant, 2005-01) Title I School Improvement Program, 2001) Title I D At-Risk Juvenile Detention Center Reading Program, 2005-01) Governor's School Program, and 2005-06 Patrick Henry Youth Court, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 School Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 581).) 199 Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37188- 091905. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor H arri s------------------- ------------------------------------1). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Dowe 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: POLICE DEPARTMENT-CITY COUNCIL: Council Member Lea addressed the issue of domestic violence in the City of Roanoke. He advised that at least 90 per cent of homicides in Roanoke this year were related to domestic violence; many of the victims were women who had taken out restraint orders and the perpetrators ended up back in the household or back on the street; therefore, the issue needs to be addressed above and beyond what the Police Department is doing. He called attention to the need to look more closely at domestic violence not only in terms of the Police Department, but the court system and the Magistrate's Office. Therefore, he suggested that the City Manager appoint a task force to study the matter and to research actions that have been taken by other localities. Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that Mr. Lea's suggestion would be referred to the City Manager for report to Council. CITY COUNCIL-HOUSING/NEIGHBORHOOD CODE ENFORCEMENT: Council Member Lea inquired as to the availability of City programs to assist senior citizens in connection with home maintenance. The City Manager suggested that citizens call the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Services with regard to specific requests for assistance. Council Member Cutler advised that the League of Older Americans offers a wide array of assistance programs. 200 Council Member McDaniel advised that small projects such as painting the porch or mowing the grass for senior citizens could be undertaken by neighborhood organizations through a neighbor to neighbor program. CITY COUNCIL-COURTS FACILITY: Council Member Wishneff inquired about plans to expand and/or renovate the current Courthouse building. The City Manager advised that a request for proposals for a planning and/or architectural engineering firm to prepare programming and conceptual design phase services will be advertised in the near future, and the actual study will commence in early December, with completion approximately four months thereafter. DONATIONS/CONTRIBUTIONS: On behalf of the City of Roanoke, the Mayor advised that the City Manager has taken $10,000.00 from the City Manager's Contingency Account to be donated to the American Red Cross to help hurricane victims along the Gulf Coast as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Council Member Cutler moved that Council concur in the action taken by the City Manager to donate $10,000.00 to the American Red Cross to assist hurricane victims along the Gulf Coast as a result of Hurricane Katrina. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted. The Mayor advised that plans will be announced in the near future with regard to establishment of a Sister City relationship with a community along the Gulf Coast that sustained substantial damage as a result of Hurricane Katrina. 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. ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, spoke with regard to the renovation of Victory Stadium and the agreement between the City of Roanoke and Norfolk and Western Railway Company which stipulated that the land on which Victory Stadium is constructed would be used for stadium/armory purposes and that the land would be properly maintained by the City. He questioned why the City cannot renovate Victory Stadium in a manner similar to Lane Stadium in Blacksburg. 201 COMPLAINTS/CITY COUNCIL: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., quoted Bible scripture. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: NONE. At 4:05 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for two Closed Sessions. At 5:25 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, with the exception of Council Member Dowe, Mayor Harris presiding. COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Vice-Mayor 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 Council Member Cutler and adopted by the follOWing Velte: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s------------------- ------------------------------------1). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-INDUSTRIES: The Mayor advised that the four year terms of office of S. Deborah Oyler and Stuart H. Revercomb as Directors of the Industrial Development Authority will expire on October 20, 2005; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancies. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the names of S. Deborah Oyler and Stuart H. Revercomb. There being no further nominations, Ms. Oyler and Mr. Revercomb were reappointed as Directors ofthe Industrial Development Authority, for terms ending October 20, 2009, by the following vote: FOR MS. OYLER AND MR. REVERCOMB: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris------------------------------I). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) 202 OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: The Mayor advised that the three year term of office of Paul P. Anderson as a member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission will expire September 30,2005; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Paul P. Anderson. There being no further nominations, Mr. Anderson was reappointed as a member ofthe Roanoke Civic Center Commission, for a term of three years ending September 30, 2008, by the following vote: FOR MR. ANDERSON: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris-------------------------------------_______I). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) OATHS OF OFFICE-BUILDINGS/BUILDING DEPARTMENT-COMMITTEES: The Mayor advised that the five year term of office of Reginald P. Church as a member of the Local Board of Building Code Appeals will expire on September 30, 2005; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Reginald P. Church. There being no further nominations, Mr. Church was reappointed as a member of the Local Board of Building Code Appeals, for a term of five years ending September 30, 2010, by the following vote: FOR MR. CHURCH: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris--------------------------------____________I). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) At 5:30 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess to be reconvened at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke. At 7:00 p.m., on Monday, September 19, 2005, the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding. 203 PRESENT: Council Members Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Mayor C. Nelson Harris---------------------------------------------------------------1). ABSENT: Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. ------------------------1. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 Fitzpatrick. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution memorializing the late Corinne B. Gatt: (#37178-091905) A RESOLUTION memorializing the late Corinne Beasley Gott, a former City Social Worker and Superintendent of Roanoke's Department of Social Services for 30 years. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 574.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37178- 091905. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s-------------------------------------------------------I). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) The Mayor presented a ceremonial copy of the resolution to Ms. Gott's daughters, Nancy Baugh of Richmond, Virginia; Lou Ann Gott and Jayne Harmon of Roanoke, Virginia, and called for a moment of silence in memory of Ms. Gott. 204 ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-EMERGENCY SERVICES: Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution memorializing the late Warren E. Trent: (#37179-091905) A RESOLUTION memorializing the late Warren E. Trent, former Coordinator of Emergency Services for the City of Roanoke. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 571).) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37179- 091905. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s------ ---------------- ---------------------------------1). NAYS: None--------------------------------------____________O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) The Mayor advised that a ceremonial copy of the resolution would be mailed to Mrs. Trent and called for a moment of silence in memory of Mr. Trent. ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The Mayor presented an Honorary Citizen Certificate and a Star paper weight to Dr. Ömer Genckaya, Roanoke College 2005 Fulbright Scholar. He advised that Dr. Genckaya is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Bilkent University in Ankara, Turkey. BID OPENINGS: LEASES-AIR RIGHTS: Pursuant to notice of advertisement for bids for lease of air space for balconies over a portion of Kirk Avenue, S. W., for a term of 1)0 years, said bids to be received by the City Clerk until 12:00 p.m., on Monday, September 19, 2005, and to be held, unopened, until 7:00 p.m., on that date, the Mayor inquired if anyone had any questions with regard to the opening of the bids. No person raising any question, the Mayor instructed the City Clerk to proceed with the opening of the bids. The City Clerk advised that one bid was submitted by Musslewhite Holdings, L.L.c., for a one-time rental payment in the total amount of $2,000.00. Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the bid would be referred to the City Manager for report and recommendation to Council. 205 PUBLIC HEARINGS: LEASES-AIR RIGHTS: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, September 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the City Council Chamber, with regard to the lease of air space for balconies over a portion of Kirk Avenue, S. W., for a term of 1)0 years, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Wednesday, September 7, 2005 and Wednesday, September 14, 2005. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Musselwhite Holdings, L.L.c., has requested an air rights lease for space located at 301 Jefferson Street, S. W., Official Tax No. 1011805, to install balconies of approximately 198 square feet along the Kirk Avenue side of the property, for a term of 1)0 years beginning October 18, 2005 through October 17, 201)5, at a one- time lease rate of $2,000.00; the rental rate is based on a percentage of the per square foot assessed value of the existing property; the lease may be renewed at expiration of the initial term upon mutual agreement; the Lessee is responsible for maintaining the balconies in a structurally safe condition; and if at any point the balconies become unsafe or fail to meet building and safety codes, the Lessee agrees to demolish and remove the structure in the lease Air Space for Balconies solely at its expense. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a Lease Agreement with Musselwhite Holdings, L.L.c., for a period of 1)0 years, beginning October 18, 2005 and expiring October 17, 201)5, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Council Member Cutler offered the following ordinance: (#37189-091905) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the execution of a lease agreement between the City of Roanoke and Musselwhite Holdings, L.L.c., for the lease of certain air space over a portion of Kirk Avenue, S. W., to provide sufficient area and space for the construction of balconies over property located at the intersection of Jefferson Street and Kirk Avenue, for a term of sixty (1)0) years; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 588.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37189- 091905. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. 206 The Mayor inquired ifthere 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. 37189-091905 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s- ------------------------------------------------------I). NAYS: None---------------------------------------___________O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) SCHOOLS: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, September 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to receive citizen comments with regard to the appointment of a Trustee to the Roanoke City School Board to fill the unexpired term of Gloria P. Manns, resigned, ending June 30, 2001), the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Sunday, September 11, 2005; and in the Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, September 15, 2005. The Mayor advised that the following persons submitted applications for appointment prior to the deadline on Friday, September 11), 2005, at 5:00 p.m.: Kenneth G. Andres (withdrew application on September 20, 2005) Mark S. Lucas (withdrew application on September 21, 2005) Jason E. Bingham John W. Elliott, Jr. Randy L. Leftwich Carla L. Terry Elias A. Zani The Mayor inquired ifthere were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the matter; whereupon, the following persons addressed the Council: 207 Carol Brash, 2259 Westover Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the appointment of Carla Terry. She advised that: · Ms. Terry is a graduate of Roanoke City public schools. · She is the mother of two children who are enrolled in Roanoke City public schools. · She has been an active PTA member and served as President at Addison Middle School. · She is a school, church and community volunteer and has been successful in working with people from all walks of life. · She believes in parental involvement and its importance in the schools and would partner with the schools and the community to encourage parental involvement in Roanoke's school system. · She is honest, straight forward, hard working, and speaks her mind in a way that allows her to work with other people. · She would bring more sexual diversity to the School Board. Mr. Randy Leftwich, 515 Mountain Avenue, S. W., an applicant for appointment to the School Board, advised that: · He is a 1989 graduate of William Fleming High School. · He serves as a Key Club advisor through the Kiwanis Club at William Fleming High School. · He has a vision for Roanoke City Public Schools. · School safety and teachers have been criticized. · There is a need for more parental involvement. He stated that in applying for a position on the School Board, it was not his intent to take the place of Ms. Manns, but to continue her vision to make Roanoke City Public Schools the best possible school division. Mr. Jonathan Pait, 3937 Vermont Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the application of Carla Terry. He advised that: · Under Ms. Terry's leadership as President of the Addison Middle School PTA, membership has increased. · She has exhibited a passion for children which is a fundamental characteristic for any person serving on the School Board. · She would be an ideal candidate for appointment to the School Board because of her character, her ability to communicate and relate to people and her leadership abilities. 208 There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, the Mayor advised that the above referenced comments would be received and filed. STREETS AND ALLEYS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday, April I), 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, September 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of Carilion Medical Center that a portion of Whitmore Avenue, S. W., west of Jefferson Street, 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, September 2,2005, and Friday, September 9,2005. The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the petitioner requests the vacation of an approximately 1).721) square foot portion of Whitmore Avenue, S. W.; the petitioner owns both adjoining properties; and the subject portion of Whitmore Avenue is located within the South Jefferson Redevelopment Area where the petitioner intends to develop. The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the request to vacate, discontinue and close the subject portion of Whitmore Avenue, subject to certain conditions; and further recommended that the petitioner not be charged for the property due to provisions of the South Jefferson Redevelopment Plan in which all property acquisition was to be carried out by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37190-091905) 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 by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 590.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37190- 091905. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler. Robert B. Manetta, Attorney, representing the petitioner, appeared before Council in support of the request of his client. 209 The Mayor inquired ifthere were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the request for street closure. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37190-091905 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s-------------- ----- ------------------------------------1). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) BONDS/BOND ISSUES-SCHOOLS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 37154 and Resolution No. 37155 adopted by the Council on Monday, August 15, 2005, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, September 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the approval of issuance of general obligation bonds, in an amount not to exceed $1,200,000.00 for financing capital improvements for Fallon Park Elementary School, and S 3 ,850,000.00 for financing capital improvements for Wests ide Elementary School, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Monday, August 22, 2005, and Monday, August 29, 2005. A communication from GeorgeJ. A. Clemo, Attorney, advising that the VPSA application was filed on August 22, 2005, and was approved by the VPSA on September 8, 2005; and resolutions before the Council approve details of the bond, including an estimated debt service schedule and related documents, and authorizes and directs the Mayor or the Vice Mayor and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk of the City to execute and deliver the bond to the Virginia Public School Authority; and following adoption of the resolutions, financings are expected to be finalized and proceeds available to the City on or about November 10, 2005. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37191-091905) A Resolution authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $1,200,000.00 General Obligation School Bonds of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, Series 2005-A, to be sold to the Virginia Public School Authority and providing the form and details thereof. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 1)9, Page 592.) 210 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37191- 091905. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler. The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the issuance of general obligation bonds. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Resolution No. 37191-091905 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s-------------------------------- -----------------------1). NAYS: None-----------------------------------------_________O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution: (#37192-091905) A Resolution authorizing the issuance of not to exceed $3,850,000.00 General Obligation School Bonds of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, Series 2005-B, 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. 1)9, Page 1)03.) Resolution No. 37192-091905 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris------ ----------------------------------------------'---1). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) EASEMENTS-ROANOKE GAS COMPANY: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, September 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the proposed conveyance of an easement across City-owned property located near the intersection of Bennington Street and Mount Pleasant Boulevard, S. E., to Roanoke Gas Company to serve a new subdivision, the matter was before the body. 211 Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, September 9, 2005. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Roanoke Gas Company has requested an approximate 10' X 1)00' easement across City-owned property, identified as Official Tax No. 4250203, which is the site of Fire Station No. 11 near the intersection of Bennington Street and Mount Pleasant Boulevard; the easement is needed to connect a new main to a high pressure main on Bennington Street and will extend along Mount Pleasant Boulevard to serve a new subdivision in the City; and inasmuch as the easement will support new development in the City it will be donated. ' The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the appropriate documents granting a utility easement as above described to Roanoke Gas Compi'lny, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37193-091905) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the donation and conveyance of a ten foot by six hundred foot easement on City-owned property identified by Official Tax No. 4250203, the site of Fire Station No. 11 near the intersection of Bennington Street and Mt. Pleasant Boulevard to Roanoke Gas Company, to connect a new main to a high pressure main on Bennington 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. 1)9, Page 1)13.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37193- 091905. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel. 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. 37193-091905 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s------------------------ -------------------------------1). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) 212 BUDGET -CMERP: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, September 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on a proposed adjustment to the aggregate amount of the City's fiscal year 2005-2001) annual 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 Times on Friday, September 9, 2005. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Council was briefed on Fiscal Year 2004-2005 financial performance and the undesignated fund balance on September I), 2005; the year end undesignated General Fund balance is targeted for the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP) and totals $2,033,742.00; in addition, $1,403,018.00 of Capital Project Contingency funds designated for prioritization as a part of CMERP is available for appropriation; and funds, in the amount of $11)7,595.00, from the reallocation of prior year unobligated CMERP funds is also available. It was further advised that onJuly 18, 2005, Council authorized the transfer of $125,000.00 from the Capital Project Contingency for capital improvements to Mill Mountain Theater; and on September I), 2005, Council authorized transfer of $83,411).00 from the Capital Project Contingency for the new Fire/EMS Administration Facility; and the net total of all funding sources available for appropriation is $3,395,939.00. It was explained that Section 2-188.1, Reserve for self-insured liabilities, Code ofthe City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, stipulates that atthe conclusion of each fiscal year, $250,000.00 to the extent available from any undesignated General Fund balance at the end of such fiscal year, shall be reserved for self- insured liabilities of the City; the maximum balance ofthe reserve is three per cent of the total General Fund appropriations for the General Fund for self-insured liabilities; and a list of CMERP funding recommendations addresses the following categories: · Contributions · Carryover Funds · Furniture and Equipment · Capital Improvements · Technology · Fleet Management $1,197,925.00 21,801).00 843,208.00 580,000.00 400,000.00 353,000.00 $3,395,939.00 Total 213 It was stated that CMERP funding requests totaled approximately $9.1) million, excluding technology and vehicular related items; requests for technology related items/initiatives totaled an additional $3.5 million; and technology requests are reviewed and prioritized by the Information Technology Committee 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 concur in CMERP funding recommendations and appropriate funding to the proper accounts as set forth in an attachment to the report; appropriate $125,000.00 from Civic Facilities Fund Retained Earnings to the Civic Center Improvements Project, Account No. 005- 550-81)24, for repair of stage rigging equipment; appropriate $11)1),730.00 reserved in the General Fund for self-insured liabilities to be transferred to the Risk Management Fund; establish a revenue estimate of the same amount in the Risk Management Fund representing the transfer; and reallocate prior year CMERP funding from the following accounts: 008-620-9759-9132 (Greenway Signage) 008-620-9750-9132 (Mt. View Rec Center Improvements) 008-530-9782-9132 (Downtown Roanoke Drainage Contract Labor) 008-530-9778-9132 (Engineering Suite Renovations) $ 14,744.00 $ 3,718.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 49,133.00 Council Member Cutler offered the follOWing ordinance: (#37194-091905) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program (CMERP) and to make other funding appropriations and transfers, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) General, Civic Facilities, Capital Projects, Department of Technology, Fleet Management and Risk Management Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 1)9, Page 1)14.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37193- 091905. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel. 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. 214 Prior to voting on the ordinance, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick disclosed that $7,000.00 is included for appropriation to the Commonwealth Coach and Trolley Museum of which he serves as President. He stated that the funds will be used to purchase two antique buses that were originally used in the City of Roanoke fleet by either Roanoke Railway and Electric Company or Safety Motor Transit, and certain one time equipment maintenance purchases. He noted that Commonwealth Coach and Trolley Museum employs no personnel and he receives no remuneration for his services. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37194-091905 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wish neff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harri s----------------------- ----- ---------------------------1). NAYS: None----------------------------------________________O. (Council Member Dowe 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 response, recommendation or report to Council. SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION: The following persons addressed Council with regard to location of the Social Security Administration Office in the Gainsboro community: Ms. Beth Wellington, P. O. Box 131)1, advised that the Comprehensive Plan for 2001-2020 continues the 1985 Roanoke Vision plan which referred to Roanoke as a City of neighborhoods; neighborhood plans were intended to be official documents adopted by the City that would become apart of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and one of neighborhood plans included the Gainsboro community. She stated that the Gainsboro plan acknowledged the ravages of urban renewal, and promised to ensure neighborhood participation in future development, i.e.: "Like many inner City neighborhoods in America, the Gainsboro community continues to deal with the consequences of urban renewal of the 1960's and 70's that displaced many families and businesses. The general sentiment today in America and in Gainsboro is that urban renewal was something done to the community instead of with the community. One ofthe main purposes of this plan is to ensure that the community is involved in determining its own future, and that the community's goals and interests are reflected in future developments, ultimately leading to a better and more vibrant Gainsboro". She explained that the neighborhood plan for Gainsboro included a village center, similar to the village center in the Grandin Road area, with a focal point for the 215 neighborhood; the village center would include uses that served the surrounding neighborhood, as well as those that would appeal to broader markets; first floors of buildings would be dedicated to higher intensity commercial uses, and Henry Street would include a central square as a community gathering place, etc. She added that Council reiterated the Gainsboro plan by adopting and submitting of the 2005-2010 Consolidated Plan to the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which has awarded the City $3 million annually; and Gainsboro was designated for special attention in the area of revitalization, and the Plan acknowledged the Gainsboro Steering Committee as the overseer of revitalization. She expressed concern that the proposed Social Security Administration Office building appears to have caused Roanoke to jettison its plans and the hopes ofthe Gainsboro neighborhood. She indicated that the City acquired the land through condemnation during urban renewal and asked if the City will abide by the adopted neighborhood plan for Gainsboro and support actions that will be in compliance with the Gainsboro Neighborhood Plan. Ms. Alice Roberts, 411 Gilmer Avenue, N. E., a life long resident of the Cainsboro area, advised that Henry Street has a significant place in the history of the City of Roanoke, and the City should honor its past with a vision for the future. She called attention to major concerns with regard to the proposed Social Security Building on Henry Street; for years the development of Henry Street has been quiet; however, it is now becoming a district of education, history and culture with construction of the Roanoke Higher Education Center, the Culinary School, the multi-purpose Ebony and Strand Building, and the Dumas Center for the Performing Arts which includes the Roanoke Opera. She stated that the Social Security Building will require a 50 foot clearance on each side, adjacent parking, the closing of streets will limit access to the buildings serving the community and limit access to day and evening activities for youth and adults; and the closing of streets assures a slow death to the educational and cultural institutions and their much needed programs. She further stated that the location of the proposed Social Security Building with various restrictive requirements would preclude any future development on Henry Street; and the concept of a Social Security Building on Henry Street is demoralizing. She added that the Henry Street Bridge and a garden as a memorial to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., was approved; however, it is ironic and insulting that as visitors walk from the bridge they would come face to face with the Social Security Building. She stated that the Social Security Building would be out of character and inconsistent with the theme ofthe new Henry Street; therefore, she requested that Council consider an alternate location for the Social Security Building and honor the wishes of those citizens who are concerned with improving quality of life and making Henry Street available for development in keeping with the theme and character of the area. 216 Mr. Marshall McMillan Zapf, 2109 Memorial Avenue, S. W., advised that components that make Grandin Village successful are scale and a variety of interests and businesses, etc., and Henry Street provides a physical location for a village center to blossom in the Gainsboro neighborhood. He asked that Henry Street not be closed and that the block be used to celebrate the African-American community of Gainsboro. He requested that Council take into consideration that the area provides an entrance to the City which would be better served by a vibrant village center than a large and mostly vacant building occupied by the Federal government. Ms. Brenda Allen, 12 Gilmer Avenue, N. E., spoke in support of art, education, history and culture in the development of Henry Street. She called attention to the importance of acknowledging the contributions of all citizens of the Roanoke Valley; a key factor considered by businesses in making a decision to locate in a certain area is diversity and diversity will be retained if the Henry Street area continues to be a cultural district. She added that the proximity of The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center will help to stimulate tourism; however, and as guests from The Hotel Roanoke walk through historic Gainsboro, nothing is on display that explains the history of the area or the many contributions of the citizens of Gainsboro. She encouraged the City of Roanoke to embrace diversity by prvviding a venue for this type of cultural district that will encourage young people to return to the Roanoke Valley following graduation from college. Ms. Annie Krochalis, 9428 Patterson Drive, Bent Mountain, Virginia, Co- Chair, Roanoke Sierra Club Committee on Smart Growth, spoke in support of the remarks made by previous speakers that other sites should be explored for the Social Security Administration office building. She stated that certain Federal Homeland Security demands on the building will include a 50 foot berm and limited public access, which will dramatically alter the historic character of neighborhood revitalization efforts causing a commercial and institutional style to the gateway area of the neighborhood. She further stated that neighborhoods in America, such as the Gainsboro community, continue to deal with the consequences of urban renewal, etc.; and the main purpose ofthe new Gainsboro Neighborhood Plan is to ensure that the community is involved in determining its future and that community goals and interests are reflected in future development. She advised that smart growth redirects investment to existing City neighborhoods thereby enhancing a vital urban core; and downtown areas are the calling cards of cities, thus, they require shared space and space that offers cultural statements. She stated that people are attracted to livable communities, to lively downtown areas, to streets that are designed for pedestrians as much as automobiles, and to 217 a scale and pattern of development that allows cities to meet every day needs by walking, all of which are key factors to ensure that cities provide a high quality of life. She indicated that the Gainsboro neighborhood currently includes an historic district, the Roanoke Higher Education Center, and The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center; and the proposed change to downtown zoning would not reflect community input in land use planning and would not encourage continued development of the neighborhood as a cultural and educational destination. Mr. Thomas Schwendeman, 1098 St. Clair Lane, Vinton, Virginia, advised that a vision was born for the Henry Street area that has brought the community together through culture and performing arts, education, and history; however, the proposed Social Security Administration Office building could change the vision of Gainsboro because it is an inappropriate use for the area. He stated that the building would be better suited in the downtown proper and not on the fringes of downtown; the building under consideration has been located on the fringes of downtown Roanoke for 12 years and has not created any economic development on Henry Street or led to the creation of businesses in the Gainsboro area. He noted that one of the reasons to not construct the Social Security building on a site near the airport was to create a synergy of bringing 200 employees to the heart of the City, and as much as 80 per cent of those persons who transact business at the Social Security office; and any road block that l)1ight have prevented locating the facility in downtown Roanoke has been removed and there is now an opportunity to look at downtown proper as a location which will allow Henry Street to become an area for culture, education, history, and the performing arts. Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., asked that Council look to the future of Henry Street as a place of learning and engaging in the arts which will attract people of all races, religious background and ethnicity. She referred to the Henry Street of old where people socialized, people gathered, women were respected, men were respectful of women and children, and an area of the City traveled by many people on their way to and from work. She stated that this is the type of vision that is now contemplated for Henry Street that would include culture, education, and history through the Roanoke Higher Education Center, the Dumas Center for the Performing Arts, and the Culinary School all of which will be a legacy for Roanoke's children to be proud of. Dr. Gerald Roller, 1135 C1earfield Road, S. W., expressed opposition to the proposed location ofthe Social Security Administration office building in the Henry Street area. He expressed concern that the public was not aware of proposed plans to relocate the Social Security Building, other than what was recently reported in the newspaper. He stated that the Social Security building has no relationship to any type of history in Gainsboro and should not be located in an area that has been recognized for its historic significance by the Commonwealth of Virginia and possible inclusion on the international register of historic places. He questioned the relationship of the Social Security building to the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. memorial and park, and added that there are other locations in the City of 218 Roanoke for a Social Security building that would produce more revenue for the City. He referred to the medical history ofthe Gainsboro area which was the home of physicians, dentists, and attorneys prior to desegregation. He advised that he serves as a member of the Medical History Foundation which has a goal of establishing a referral center and a medical artifacts museum on Henry Street; however, if the Social Security building is located on Henry Street, plans may change. He stated that closing the northern end of Henry Street will decrease traffic through the area, therefore, consideration should be given to present bUildings such as the Dumas Building, the Culinary School, and the Higher Education Center, etc., which could experience an adverse effect as a result of locating the Social Security building at the site under consideration. He stated that there are other locations in the City of Roanoke where the Social Security Administration office building could be constructed. ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, spoke with regard to the renovation of Victory Stadium and the agreement between the City of Roanoke and the Norfolk and Western Railway Company which stipulated that the land would be used for stadium/armory purposes. There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. APPROVED ~T~ ;.~ Mary F. Parker City Clerk l?J'-\~~6IAb c. Nelson Harris Mayor 219 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL October 3, 2005 9:00 a.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, October 3, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal BUilding, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris 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 pursuant to Resolution No. 37109-070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005. PRESENT: Council Members Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea and Mayor C. Nelson Harris-----------------------------------_____________------------1). ABSENT: Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. ----------------------1. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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-SCHOOLS: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, and to interview applicants for a vacancy on the Roanoke City School Board, pursuant to §2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s------------------------------------_________________--I). NAYS: None --------------------------------------------------0. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) 220 CITY COUNCIL-CITIZEN OF THE YEAR: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss nominations for Citizen of the Year, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(10), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene in Closed Meeting as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s------------------- ____________________________________1). NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) ITEMS LISTED ON THE 2:00 P. M., COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING DISCUSSION/CLARIFICATION, AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE 2:00 P. M., AGENDA: NONE. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: NONE. BRIEFINGS: ART MASTER PLAN: The Mayor advised that following the briefing on the Art Master Plan, the Plan would be referred to the City Planning Commission as a part of the process to consolidate the Arts Master Plan in the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the Art Masters Plan would be brought back to the Council for formal adoption. Kathleen Lunsford, Chair, Roanoke Arts Commission, stated that the Public Art Plan is an economic development tool that will attract visitors to the area to review the City's public art collection and to generate revenue for the City. She expressed appreciation to Council Member Cutler for guiding the Arts Commission from the early stages of the Plan, and to Mayor Harris for his support of the arts in general, and for the attendance by Mayor Harris and Council Member Cutler at the various workshops. 221 Ms. Lunsford presented the following draft of the Public Art Plan: Public Art Plan: History · 2002: Percentage for Arts Funding Enacted 1% of public construction dollars earmarked for Art · 2003: Council Approved Plan Development Roanoke Arts Commission asked to spearhead bid process · 2004: Consultants Chosen: Barney & Worth of Portland, Oregon Firms were interviewed from Virginia and the United States Public Art Plan: The Process · Public Art Steering Committee was chosen consisting of: Arts Commission members Community, business leaders Artists, urban planners Tourism industry representatives City staff and elected officials · Consultants conducted in-depth Web surveys Hundreds of responses were received · Interviews with Stakeholders More than 1)0 key stakeholder one-on-one interviews with public officials, community leaders, interested citizens · Public Workshops Held Community workshops were held in March, April, and May which were attended by a large cross-section of citizens Student workshop was held at William Fleming High School The Results: Community Vision · Roanoke can become known as an arts community. Unique opportunity: Opening of the Art Museum · Public art can contribute to quality of life. 222 · Public art must be inclusive. · Public art should reflect what's unique about Roanoke. · Public art can bring the community together. · Selecting public art should be a team process. · Leverage percent-for-art into additional funding. · A well-run program will need professional support staff. Plan Priorities · Incorporate public art into community life · Recruit professional staff to direct the program · Establish a protocol for maintenance 1)0 pieces of artwork are currently in the system · Commission prominent artwork early on Market Square, other highly visible locations What is Public Art? Public Art is more than paintings and statues · Examples: "Dancing on Broadway" (A commissioned artist placed throughout the city pairs of different dance steps in the sidewalks.) "Rose City Labyrinth" (Portland, Oregon) (An artist placed terrazzo tiles in a design in reference to a painting.) "Manhole Cover" (Portland, Ore.) (An artist painted the manhole covers. (Benches and manhole covers could be painted as a reflection of the creative elements within the City.) 223 How Do We Pav for It? Public Art Funding · Utilize Percent-for-Art funds Three years accumulation available: $573,000.00 · Support administrative staffing cost during start-up, utilize expertise of Arts Council Five-year, renewable commitment recommended · Encourage private development and funding from other sources Fund administration - place money with the Foundation of Roanoke Valley so that control is maintained over spending · Grants from private foundations because of non-profit designation; State, Federal resources Where Do We Go From Here? Action Plan gives a three-tiered approach Immediate · Adopt Public Art policy · Assign professional staff (utilize Arts Council of the Blue Ridge) · Establish a Public Art Trust Fund to steward public monies · Implement an art selection/procurement process Selection process includes community input, citizen panels All final decisions still rest with Council · Commission first key pieces in conjunction with opening of Art Museum · Attend to maintenance/curatorial needs (old and new artwork) · Build public support for the program 224 · Develop interpretive signage · Complete inventory of existing art Three Years · Install major commissions to coincide with Art Museum opening · Seek opportunities to place art in upcoming projects · Enact additional funding sources · Conduct public education campaign Four Years or more · Broaden placement, expand opportunities around City · Organize community events and festivals around public art · Forge links with nearby communities to pursue collaborations; create a "public art trail" Public Art Plan: Goals · Enhance Quality of Life for Citizens Create a visual, accessible art chosen with community input · Create Heightened Sense of Community Choose art that's distinctive and unique to Roanoke · Enliven Visual Quality of Public Space Over time, distribute art to all parts of the City · Stimulate Roanoke's Vitality and Economy Expand tourism draw of Link Museum and Art Museum 225 Council Member Cutler expressed appreciation to all persons who were responsible for preparation of the Art Master Plan. He stated that the City has a duty to inventory and care for its extensive art collection; however, the City currently has no in-house staff or expertise, therefore, the most efficient solution, as suggested in the report, would be to contract with the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge to serve as the City's art staff until a Public Art Director is employed, with a clear delegation of authority and sufficient funds to administer the program. He stated that in referring the draft Public Art Plan to the City Planning Commission, the Planning Commission might encourage Council to direct City staff to develop a response to the recommendations, including a draft contract with the Arts Council of the Blue Ridge as the agency to administer the City's Public Art program as recommended in the study. Council Member McDaniel inquired if there are plans to inventory other forms of public art, such as the Dalhouse Panel, the H & C Coffee Sign, and the Airport sculpture; whereupon, Susan Jennings, Executive Director, Arts Council of the Blue Ridge, stated that the above referenced items are City-owned pieces of art, and the Art Council has prepared a larger inventory which includes regional pieces. Council Member McDaniel inquired if it was realistic to expect the City to make a decision regarding commissioned art to be completed prior to the opening of the Art Museum; whereupon, Ms. Lunsford stated that a major piece of art could be commissioned and completed by the opening date, but a massive collection could not be compiled by that time. She called attention to the results of electronic polling at one of the workshop sessions which revealed that a significant piece of art should be in place in the City Market area near the entrance to the Art Museum. She stated that it may be possible to accomplish certain small things and/or one major piece, but it would be necessary to act quickly if it is to be accomplished prior to the opening by the Art Museum. She added that public art is extremely controversial and it would be necessary to take into consideration that there will not be a 100 per cent approval rating on a particular piece of art. Ms. Jennings stated that every neighborhood has a distinct personality and could have a voice in the decision making process as to the type of art that is selected, with the understanding that they do not have to like all things about the selection. 226 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation for efforts by the Arts Council and the Roanoke Arts Commission. He stated that he supported the desire to prepare a Public Arts Plan that will expand and broaden the minds of the City's citizens and visitors through the display of public art; however, he expressed concern that there are not enough water features in the proposed Arts Plan. He added that water could be combined in various creative ways, and referred to the symbolism of the northwest rivers in Portland, Oregon. He suggested that it should not be forgotten that the real heritage in Roanoke was transportation, a particular emphasis should be placed on transportation as the City looks to the future, Roanoke's citizens should be proud to live in a railroad town and part of that pride could be created in retrospect to public art. He noted that public and private art projects should include places that can be carved out for sculpture, or other kinds of art, particularly in those instances when a person is constructing a building to make a profit; and the City of Roanoke wishes to create a growth corridor between downtown Roanoke and the Carilion Bio-Medical Center and there are numerous places within the corridor for this type of art. Council Member Wishneff inquired if there is an involvement or connection with downtown planning. He stated that it would be an ideal opportunity to locate municipal art near the Art Museum; and since the City is interested in creating and designating a cultural district in the downtown area, the matter could be discussed at future meetings of the Roanoke Arts Commission and/or the Arts Council. Mayor Harris commended efforts to establish a Public Art Plan, and stated that funding for the Percentage for the Arts Program has been supported by current and previous City Councils, and it is hoped that more public art initiatives will be launched that will be an outgrowth of the Public Art Plan. He presented the following suggestions which would be helpful as the Public Art Plan proceeds through formal steps toward adoption: . Some of the words "will" contained in the Public Art Plan should be converted to "should" in conformity with other types of master plans adopted by Council, inasmuch as they are adopted on a conceptual basis to help guide Council's thinking, planning and decision making process, and would help to avoid future confrontations. 227 · There should be a follow up with the consultant regarding citizen input and diversity, resulting in an appendix to the report because there were interesting questions about representational art vs. abstract art, paintings vs. sculpture, downtown vs. neighborhoods. When one serves on a decision making body that ultimately makes the decision on pieces of public art, the information would be helpful as an indicator of the community's interest and perspective on existing public art and the future direction of the City. · There should be a review of the art inventory process so that Council will be the beneficiary of additional information on the mix of art, what makes a well balanced and comprehensive public art program, and whether or not there are any deficiencies that need to be addressed initially in order to achieve a better balance. · The City Market area needs a piece of public art. The Mayor advised that he planned to visit certain entranceways/gateways to the City and the various neighborhoods with members of the Roanoke Arts Commission to determine which would be a natural complement to a piece of art. LIBRARY STUDY UPDATE: Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development, recognized Bill Hidell of Hidell and Associates Architects, Laura Katz of Katz-McConnel Architects, and Florence Mason of F. Mason and Associates, for presentation of the Library study. Ms. Mason, a librarian and independent library consultant from Dallas, Texas, presented the following information: Kev Recommendations which stem from conclusions of the findinQs: Collections . Needs improvement · Funding has declined - there is an inability to buy collections that are typically found in peer libraries that provide quality services · State aid to localities has been cut by over one-third in the past three years 228 Facilities · Facilities are not meeting the needs of residents, design configuration was appropriate for the 191)0's and 1970's, but are not the kind of facilities found in contemporary, branch and main libraries across the United States · Small in dimension - largest branch is 1),700 square feet compared to today's contemporary branch which is in the 12,000 square foot range · Lack of adequate seating - books compete for seats and seats compete for computer technology · Lack of adequate lighting inside and outside which affects security and the overall experience of using the facility · Parking is not sufficient at a number of the branch libraries Programs · Core model for contemporary libraries is to provide a variety of programs for different age groups, I.e., allowing young children to sit on the laps of their mothers; consumer issues for adults; book clubs, etc.; and programs that are provided during the day and into the evening · Not enough space for staff to develop programs · Contemporary libraries provide program space that accommodates adult patrons who want to sit down and have a cup of coffee, children who want to listen to audible stories, and teenagers who want to interact with their peers, or work on a group project that may be related to their school work; allow for crafts associated with a story hour; afford an opportunity for the display of art; and provide meeting and conference space Service Delivery and Customer Service · Population that would most benefit from improvement to library facilities, services, staff, collection and programs would be to those who are historically and economically disadvantaged 229 Comoarative Data from four different sets of libraries: · State of Virginia annual reports were used to provide consistency in data reviewed for performance indicators or pinch points; starting in 1999, data showed that over time, output measures (service transactions) have gone down, which indicates that facilities and the capability of delivery space of the libraries has become a significant pinch point to be able to accommodate the kinds of demands that are routinely made on a contemporary library · Check out data, program attendance data, budgeting for purchasing materials, and the number of questions that are answered in the library are below the level of other peer libraries in terms of the number of service transactions and show a decline over the years · Neighborhoods are loyal to community libraries which are social icons and are incorporated into the community for long periods of time · Community loyalty needs to be recognized and honored in any planning and decision making as the City moves forward with regard to expansion, renewal and revitalization of the library system · Library staff is a valued asset - they work hard, are dedicated and have skills to bear; at times the staff is overworked and stressed when trying to maintain the level of service that customers would like to receive; there is currently less than one-half staff person per 1,000 population · The Virginia Room staff, services and collection represent something unique and is recognized as an important asset by those inside and outside the community · The customer base for the City's library system is shifting away because the library does not provide the kinds of things that customers are interested in - customers prefer to go to bookstores where they can shop, interact and enjoy coffee, etc., others visit the County library and/or other library services · It is important to win back the hearts and minds of the library customer by providing library services that people want 230 Recommendations: · Coordinate or consolidate selected library operations · Design and construct new library facilities to include neighborhood libraries, full service libraries and resource or regional libraries · Integrate technology in the operation and delivery of all library services · Increase staffing to provide a more comprehensive public service · Improve upon the existing collection in all formats, book and media · Develop a comprehensive customer service model · Integrate non-traditional library services and programs with core library services · Market the libraries through developing partnerships - possibilities exist with the Art Museum, Higher Education Center, City schools, and a number of other institutions in the City of Roanoke · Continue to monitor user trends and advertise library services · Build on a three-tier library system · Develop full service branches · Name a central facility for housing central staff and administrative services · Improve and expand current holdings in various forms, create multi- media and electronic collections which would involve an investment in terms of adding to the current collection of materials budget · Implement technology into library environments which would cause them to be more user friendly · Provide citizen users with expectations that will have access to laptops and wireless access 231 · Provide self-checkout and a Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) material handling system · Bring staffing level up from .45 equivalent staff positions (FTE) per 1,000 population to .75 equivalent staff positions (FTE) per 1,000 population · Critical staff needs include three to four Children's Librarians, two - three Young Adult Librarians, an Adult Program Manager, a full time Development Department, an Assistant Director, and a Facilities Manager Brief overview of imolementation of strateoic olan or schedule: · Build a full service branch somewhere inside the service area, with investment in state-of-the-art technical service · Invest in the improvement and expansion of collections · Invest in service delivery systems by adding staff and technology · Revitalize all of the libraries across the library system by accommodation of kiosks, retail lease space, and renovation and addition of existing branches, full service branches, and revitalization and replacement of the Main Library as a regional resource library Costs - Four Librarv Facilities of various models that would be imolemented over time: · Three full service branches · One regional resource library (a/k/a Main Library) Phase I: · Construction of a super branch (demonstration branch) which will prove that the contemporary library will be a magnet within the community · Radio Frequency Identification (RFID) technology · Self-check with supportive technology 232 Phase II: · Renovation/enlargement of a branch to become a full service branch with the attendant technology enhancements Phase III: · Regional resource (Main Library) ($19,000,000.00) Phase IV: · Super branch with technology Phase V: · Renovation and expansion of neighborhood branch models Total Capital Cost Estimates (Pre-Katrina): Facilities and Technology $ 41.5 million Phased In Facilities Operational Costs $ 1 to $.9 million Council Member Cutler stated that the Library report was harsh, but accurate; Roanoke has neglected its library system, and public libraries deserve the same high level of attention and support as sports venues and art museums. He stated that the process of review and recommendation to Council and the steps for implementation of recommendations should be taken seriously; budgetary considerations should be included in the budget study process; and there are opportunities for partnerships with the Jefferson College of Health Sciences, Virginia Western Community College, and the Roanoke City Public School System. Council Member Lea referred to the statement that there is a 1)1 per cent citizen non-use of the library system, and inquired if the reason is because the City's libraries do not offer the services or technology that citizens want; whereupon, Ms. Mason advised that the figure was derived by making random telephone calls to people, which revealed that a large percentage of citizens do not use Roanoke City libraries, some use Roanoke County libraries because the materials they need can be found at the County libraries; some persons noted that some of the books in the County libraries were actually City books that were there as a result of the shared systems; and Roanoke County libraries offer a wide variety of programs and services that are found in a contemporary public library. 233 Council Member Lea stated that Roanoke County has indicated that it is not interested in a regional library concept; whereupon, Mayor Harris stated that several months ago, Roanoke County agreed to participate in a comprehensive review of both the City and the County library systems, and much of the data is captured in the consultant's report; certain initial findings were presented at a joint meeting with the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors; and the Chair of the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors and the County Administrator recently advised that it is the preliminary opinion of the Board of Supervisors that Roanoke County is not interested in proceeding with a merger of the two library operations, which information was later communicated to the Council. He added that Roanoke County's position was a disappointment to the City of Roanoke, especially when the main conclusion of the comprehensive valley wide Library Study was to merge operationally the two systems. He noted that telephone surveys conducted by the consultant revealed that the perception of library customers in the Roanoke Valley is that there is one library system, because the ability to check out and return books through either library system lends itself to that perception rather than two library operations. He noted that the consultants pointed out that merger benefits are obvious, I.e.: economy of scale, flexibility to meet changing customer demands, and alleviation of staffing needs by merger of certain operational functions allowing more customer service oriented activity; and many of the City and County branch libraries have overlapping service areas, and merging certain functions, staff and operations would economize library service delivery. He stated that he did not want to give up on the concept of merging the two library systems and would pursue the matter in a friendly and amicable way with Roanoke County. The City Manager advised that the Library Plan would ultimately be referred to the City Planning Commission, but the document would first go back to the Library Steering Committee and the Roanoke Public Library Board for review, prioritization and recommendation, with the understanding that certain issues may need to be reviewed prior to referral to the Planning Commission and there will be more opportunities for community review. She added that it is hoped that the Library Plan will become a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Wishneff inquired as to the size of the main library as envisioned by the consultant; whereupon, Ms. Mason stated that the number quoted in the consultant's report is in the 1)0,000 to 75,000 square foot range, the City's current main library contains 58,000 square feet, and a new main or regional resource library would be located in a new super branch. She stated that the public service area would be larger than space now occupied at the current main library. 234 Mr. McConnel stated that the Law Library and the Virginia Room would be given greater prominence in the central location. He further stated that the notion that there is one main library and the branches are subservient should be avoided because in the super branch mentality, the "library" is the primary location and only for specialized reasons would one need to go to another library. He noted that information taken from the interviews during the study revealed that most people are not satisfied with the library because there are two separate halves which are difficult to maintain and have low staffing levels; design for a regional branch does not fit the building and it remains to be seen if the building could be modified. He stated that the Library Study should be considered rather than the Outlook Downtown Roanoke Plan which was the Vision 2020 Plan, and the current main library facility is ill-suited for delivering expected services. Council Member Wishneff inquired if the School Administration envisions any cooperative sharing of facilities and staffing; whereupon, Ms. Mason stated that there was support for the evolution of the school library system with the larger library facilities because it is understood that public libraries support school age children, but no facilities in specific areas were discussed. The City Manager called attention to experience in certain other localities that use joint facilities, some of which were successful and some were not; and the City of Roanoke conducted a pilot test using the Williamson Road Branch Library, which is located in front of a middle school, with the idea of expanding library services, however, the program was not successful. Council Member Wishneff inquired if naming rights to the library facilities could be sold to help offset the cost of renovation and improvements; whereupon, Mr. McConnel responded in the affirmative. Council Member McDaniel stated that the Library Study reveals that the City's library system is inadequate and the community is ready for quality library facilities; therefore, she encouraged the Library Board and the Library Foundation to establish priorities and to focus on budgetary requirements. She inquired about the possibility of merging the City and County library systems; whereupon, the City Manager stated that the administration was waiting for completion of the Library Study as a point at which to begin recruitment of a Library Director on a permanent basis because the Library Director should be involved with implementation of the Library plan. She stated that she supports the Mayor's comments that the City of Roanoke has not given up on the concept of a more regional library system. 235 Council Member McDaniel requested that grammatical and spelling errors contained in the consultant's report be corrected before the presentation is made public. With regard to interaction with the leadership of Roanoke County, Mayor Harris added that the County indicated that if both communities look at additional branch libraries or relocation of certain libraries, Roanoke County would coordinate efforts to ensure that the location of the libraries and service areas do not overlap, and there would be some ongoing cooperation in the area of technical services. He stated that while the County's initial response was somewhat disappointing, he was confident that the City would continue to pursue the matter, because the main thrust of the concluding section of the consultant's report was to reach an optimum level of service delivery as a library system in the Roanoke Valley, which would involve a merged library system. He further stated that it would be helpful to have research data from other communities that would show, through demonstrated data driven evidence, that investing in new or expanded library facilities, upgrading collections and increasing staff, would create a return on the investment by virtue of increased use of the library system by the populations within those communities. He added that such specific data would be advantageous to the Council's budget setting policy and in articulating to the community that increased funding to the library system in a variety of ways would benefit the community. Mr. McConnel called attention to an addition to the Hollins Branch Library and advised that library usage increased by almost 50 per cent over night. He stated that supportive data of that nature would be provided to the Council. Mayor Harris advised that a similar presentation would be made at a City of Roanoke Public Library System Community Meeting to be held on Monday, October 3, 2005 at 1):00 p.m., in Fitzpatrick Hall at the Jefferson Center. COLONIAL AVENUE/WONJU STREET UPDATE: The City Manager recognized Kenneth King, Jr., Manager of Transportation, for an overview regarding traffic congestion on Colonial Avenue and Wonju Street, S. W.: Mr. King advised that: · There is a desire is to improve traffic operations/transportation system in the area of Colonial Avenue, Wonju Street, and Brandon Avenue, S. W. · An early Alternate to the problem was an extension of Wonju Street to tie in with Brandon Avenue 236 · A strategy was developed from discussions during the 1-73 and U. S. Route 220 project study · There is a desire to improve current conditions rather than a complete overhaul of a given area or construction of a new highway · There is a possibility of utilizing existing 23'· Street by making improvements to intersections and traffic signal timings, which would relieve backup traffic congestion on U. S. Route 220, and should be an early implementation phase of any of the three Alternate scenarios that might be selected · Over $800,000.00 was received in local partnership with State funds to add to the Transportation Program, which enabled the shifting of $800,000.00 in Federal funds to another project · The timetable for implementation of early improvements and encumbrance of funds is September 2001) · The ultimate Alternate will be selected through a public process, which will include traffic simulations so that the public will more easily see the benefits of each scenario Rob Peery, Assistant District Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation, presented the following overview of the Wonju Street Project: · The project was added to the Six Year Plan in 1999 with the original intent of extending Wonju Street · Scenarios: Alternate 1 - Extend Wonju Street straight through from U. S. Route 220 to Brandon Avenue (Cost - Approximately $21 million); Alternate 2 - Extend Wonju Street straight through with a curve and flow directly into Brandon Avenue (Cost - Approximately $18 million); Alternate 3 - ''T'' into Brandon Avenue (Cost - Approximately $1 to $2 million) · Initially, traffic modeling was not complete, but the process enabled development of an initial phase which would afford improvements along Colonial Avenue through intersection improvements, coordinating traffic signals, adding turn lanes, and restricting some movement to make traffic flow better, which became known as Alternate 3 237 · Alternate 3 has merit in that it could become a long range solution by widening the ramp coming off U. S. Route 220 (1-581) to provide dual left turns going out Colonial Avenue toward Virginia Western Community College and beyond, and restricting access into the first entrance to Towers Shopping Mall by right-in, right-out access only · During the process, if public feed back indicates a considerable amount of interest in proceeding with one of the other larger Alternates which would involve more time due to considerable right-of-way acquisition, there could be a quick solution for traffic improvement during the interim by linking signals and some relatively small improvements to the roadway · VDOT's concern is to relieve backed-up traffic on U. S. Route 220 · Currently about 23,000 vehicles per day travel Colonial Avenue; Alternates 1 and 2 would increase traffic to about 28,000 per day; and Alternate 3 would increase traffic to about 25,000 vehicles per day Council Member Wishneff inquired as to what, if any, impact that restriction of a left-turn from Colonial Avenue onto 23'· Street would have on traffic in Alternate 3; whereupon, Mr. Peery stated that Colonial Avenue traffic would travel down to Brandon Avenue, with dual left-turn lanes, and without that restriction, there would not be an acceptable level of service in the area. In further discussion, Mr. Peery advised that Alternates 1 and 2 would require acquisition of residential and commercial property, while Alternate 3 would not require acquisition of any property. Mr. King stated that Alternate 3 is focused primarily on traffic operational improvements, which is an early stage improvement, and may provide an ultimate solution to vehicular traffic needs; and what Alternate 3 does not cover may become a potential subsequent project which would involve the improvement of Colonial Avenue from Overland Road to Brandon Avenue because the scenario did not fully address streetscaping, bike lane considerations, curb, gutter, sidewalk and street trees, etc. Council Member Wishneff stated that there should be an alternate plan for the restriction of a left-turn onto 23'· Street because there may be a considerable amount of opposition to the restriction. 238 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick stated that he has seen numerous opportunities to improve Colonial Avenue and Brandon Avenue over the years, but he does not share Mr. Wishneff's concerns regarding the restriction of a left-turn onto 23'· Street, there is a precedent that traffic movement must come before personal preferences, otherwise the system will break down, and motorists will appreciate the ability to travel through a difficult intersection. He stated that the majority of traffic at the interchange is connected to Virginia Western Community College, therefore, it would be helpful to review future traffic projections at that location. He called attention to an existing problem of going from two lane traffic to one lane traffic toward Virginia Western, the original proposal for a crossing at Overland Road with a full interchange would have been the solution to the problem, and encouraged future review of the proposal. Council Member Cutler stated that if Alternate 3 is selected, motorists would have to be educated to go from downtown Roanoke to Towers Shopping Mall and take the McClannahan Exit instead of the Wonju Exit. He added that traffic using 23'· Street is subjected to speed bumps turning traffic into and out of Towers Mall, and inquired as to how many lanes are proposed for 23'· Street under Alternate 3; whereupon, Mr. Peery stated that Alternate 3 would not address anything along 23'· Street, except turn lanes at the signal light intersection with Brandon Avenue and entrance adjustments that would be necessary along Colonial Avenue. Council Member McDaniel stated that Alternate 3 should be tried before spending millions of dollars on Alternates 1 and 2. Gary Rappaport, owner of Towers Shopping Mall, stated that the shopping center plans to remain in the area for another 20 years and expressed his commitment to Alternate 3. He advised that there may be certain concerns about traffic patterns along 23'· Street, but removing backed-up traffic from U. S. Route 220 (1-581) is important, Alternate 3 would solve the problem, and he would work with VDOT with regard to the necessary right-of-way dedication. He added that opening of the Fresh Market was an example of the long term commitment by Towers Shopping Mall to the City of Roanoke, and it is hoped that the Fresh Market will draw more tenants to existing vacant space at Towers Mall. 239 Mayor Harris stated that a resolution to traffic congestion on the off ramp from U. S. Route 220 is desperately needed; and the signal light at 23'" Street and Brandon Avenue is significant. He added that a formal recommendation will be made to Council on Monday, October 17, 2005, and every effort has been made to disseminate information to various organizations and private and commercial sectors for review and input prior to the time that Council will make a decision. The City Manager stated that during her six-year tenure with the City of Roanoke, several major projects have taken place and the working relationship with VDOT has significantly improved. She expressed appreciation for the sensitivity that VDOT has shown to this major commercial area of the City which is an economic development generator. TAXES: The Director of Finance advised that in 1998, the General Assembly enacted the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA or the Act), which provided relief from personal property taxes otherwise payable on the first $20,000.00 of value for qualifying vehicles; the relief was provided for vehicles owned by individuals and utilized for personal use; additionally, vehicles with an assessed value of $1,000.00, or less, receive 100 per cent relief; relief is provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia through payments to localities of amounts which would otherwise be taxed to citizens; the original intent of the Act was to phase-in tax relief such that the Commonwealth would ultimately cover the full cost of personal property tax of the eligible vehicles; the Commonwealth's plan of implementing the tax was dependent upon growth in State revenues sufficient to cover the increasing annual cost; currently the Commonwealth of Virginia provides 70 per cent relief on qualifying vehicles and the amount of relief provided by the Commonwealth has been at this level for several years. Ann Shawver, Deputy Director of Finance, advised that in 2004 and 2005, additional legislation was passed to amend the original Act; the legislation capped PPTRA at $950 million for all Virginia localities for tax years 2001) and beyond; PPTRA funds will be allocated to individual localities based on each government's pro rata share of tax year 2004 payments from the Commonwealth; and funding for delinquencies of current and past years will continue until September 2001), or until the funding for such is exhausted. She explained that the legislation also altered the timing of payments from the Commonwealth to localities; the impact is dependent on the due date observed by the locality; and for spring billers like Roanoke, the impact is the delay of approximately two months in receipt of the majority of funding provided by the Commonwealth. 240 It was noted that localities have certain options on how to administer the amended PPTRA, which include the method of apportioning relief to individual taxpayers, flexibility in determining the distribution of relief, and an option to "balance bill" delinquent taxpayers at the end of the current program; to determine the best course of action for the City of Roanoke, a Study Team was formed consisting of representatives from the Offices of the Commissioner of the Revenue, Treasurer, City Attorney and the Department of Finance; and through the course of work on PPTRA revisions, the Study Team consulted with representatives from other localities throughout the State, most notably those from neighboring jurisdictions. It was explained that two relief methods are available regarding distribution of tax relief - the reduced rate method and the specific relief method; the reduced rate method would involve major changes to administration of the tax including the use of multiple tax rates, one of which would require an annual modification by Council, would bring about more significant changes to citizens and would be more costly to implement than the specific relief method. It was further explained that the specific relief method, which the Study Team recommends, calls for a percentage of relief to be applied to qualifying vehicles, similar to the method currently used; while the percentage of relief will decline annually assuming growth in the assessed value of personal property, the taxpayer will receive a personal property bill which is more consistent with the type of bill currently utilized; and the specific relief method is fairly efficient and effective to implement since it uses a tax method most consistent with the method currently used. The Director of Finance advised that localities also have an option as to how they choose to distribute the tax relief once the new program is in place; relief must be provided for owners of qualifying vehicles of $20,000.00 and less, but changes can be made in how relief is provided for values up to $20,000.00; in order to maintain consistency with the current PPTRA, the Study Team recommends that relief continue to be applied in a manner similar to the present method which provides that vehicles valued at $1,000.00 and less continue to remain fully exempt and that relief for vehicles with assessed values ranging from $1,001.00 to $20,000.00 continue to be taxed by applying a single common percentage to determine the amount to be paid by the taxpayer. He explained that the final option for localities concerns the ability to balance- bill delinquent taxpayers in full for personal property taxes not remitted by the 241 September 2001) deadline, or exhaustion of State funding for the current program; this option is available to ensure the opportunity for localities to receive funds from citizens that may have otherwise been paid by the Commonwealth to maximize collections of the tax; and the Study Team is recommending that the City balance-bill any citizens with unpaid taxes once funding from the Commonwealth is exhausted. In summary, the Director of Finance advised that the recommendations of the Study Team maintain the provisions of the PPTRA most closely with those originally implemented by the Commonwealth, are the most equitable for Roanoke's citizens, are the most efficient and cost-effective for the City to implement, and are consistent with those planned by the majority of other localities in the Commonwealth of Virginia. The Director of Finance advised that the City of Salem and Roanoke County will recommend similar actions to their respective Council/Board of Supervisors for adoption. Council Member Lea inquired if the recommendation is the best method for the citizens of Roanoke; whereupon, the Director of Finance stated that the recommendation poses the least hardship on the taxpayer. The Commissioner of the Revenue added that the State allowed only two options - the reduced rate method and the specific relief method. Evelyn Powers, City Treasurer, advised that information will be provided all to taxpayers advising of changes to the PPTRA legislation. There being no further discussion and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the recommendation of the Director of Finance would be referred to the City Attorney for preparation of the proper measure for consideration by Council at a future Council meeting. At 12:00 p.m., the Mayor declared the meeting in recess for a joint session of Council and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. At 12:00 p.m., on Monday, October 3, 2005, the Council meeting reconvened in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., the City of Roanoke, for a joint meeting of Council and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, with Mayor Harris and Chairman Fink presiding. 242 PRESENT: Council Members Brenda L. McDaniel, M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brian J. Wishneff and Mayor C. Nelson Harris------------------------------------------------------------1). ABSENT: Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. ----------------------1. ROANOKE REDEVELOPMENT AND HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: James A. Allen, Gregory M. Cupka, Anita M. Powell, Christie L. Wills and Chairman Ben J. Fink ____________________________________________5. ABSENT: Commissioner Gregory W. Feldmann ---------------------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 Redevelopment and Housing Authority: John P. Baker, Executive Director; Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Deputy Executive Director; and Sue Marie Worline, Secretary. COUNCIL-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The Mayor welcomed Commissioners and staff of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Following lunch, Chairman Fink advised that: . City Council and the City Administration have placed an unprecedented emphasis on housing and neighborhoods in Roanoke; City Council established a public policy to focus Community Development Block Grants in targeted neighborhoods and the City Administration has established priority neighborhoods in which funds have been focused; and the City Administration has also made clear the desire to have more upscale housing in the City, and has developed a Strategic Housing Plan that will establish a housing and neighborhood road map to guide the City, other agencies, non-profits, and private developers. . City Council established the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority (RRHA) to be its agent to implement housing and community development programs; in order to get the greatest benefit from implementing public/private partnerships to create new housing and to revitalize existing neighborhoods, it is essential that the City and RRHA have the strongest possible partnership, and it is also in the best interests of the citizens of Roanoke. 243 · The RRHA is a public entity and shares the same vision as the City of Roanoke to improve or develop housing in the City, to strengthen City neighborhoods and to provide the greatest diversity in housing; the General Assembly has assigned certain powers to the RRHA to implement housing and community development programs; and City Council appoints members of the Board, and no other housing entity has a Board appointed by City Councilor the legislative authority to collaborate with the private sector to enhance the marketability and value of residential, commercial and industrial properties. · The RRHA has more experience in developing and operating housing in the City than any other entity routinely receiving money for housing from the City; in the past several years, the Executive Director and Housing Authority staff have developed a reputation as a successful, strong, efficient, creative organization that collaborates well with others, and have been successful with difficult projects that were important to the City. · The RRHA has been a strong partner in assisting the City in recycling blighted and underutilized land in the City for economic development, especially the Riverside Centre, and the RRHA understands what it takes to help make the City stronger. · The RRHA has a better understanding of housing issues than any other entity within the City of Roanoke; by being an owner and on-site manager of housing for low-income families as well as a developer, the Housing Authority understands both the social and the business side of housing. · The RRHA has developed progressive policies for housing to increase the wealth of low-income families and to improve services to help families become self-sufficient; through collaboration of the Executive Director and staff, a Self- Sufficiency Consortium has brought together major service delivery agencies to better coordinate services. 244 · The RRHA has a strong desire to be the leading partner with the City to implement the City's vision for housing and neighborhoods and the Comprehensive Plan. · The RRHA has an outstanding staff that has a tremendous amount of experience in all aspects of housing, services, financing, construction, rehabilitation, management, property assembly, implementation planning, collaboration and an understanding of the City's vision. · The RRHA has demonstrated a commitment to the City by developing a range of housing, including quality public housing, private low-income housing tax credit (L1HTC) projects, homes for sale, market-rate rental housing in downtown and rehabilitation financing for existing property owners; the RRHA has partnered with the City to take on the Day Avenue Project, a substantial rehabilitation task that has tremendous significance to the downtown area. · The RRHA has been successful in putting together public/private financing for development and rehabilitation and is respected by banks and tax equity firms for its successful record. · The Board of Commissioners has been working with City Council and City staff over an extended period of time to improve relations with the City. · In order to improve and strengthen the partnership with the City, the Board of Commissioners has in place a Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the RRHA, to which it is committed. · Additionally, the Board of Commissioners has made a commitment to relocate the RRHA's offices to downtown Roanoke to better coordinate with City staff, in particular Planning, Economic Development and Neighborhoods to provide better dialogue and to be more effective as a total organization; and the City Manager and RRHA's Executive Director have worked to develop a plan that will come to fruition in the near future. 245 · To effect better communications and interactions, City staff and RRHA need to develop a joint operational plan for community development and housing ("Joint Plan"); in particular, with the recent hiring of the City's new Director of Neighborhoods and Housing, combining the Planning Department and Economic Development, and the retirement of the Housing Authority Executive Director in 2001), this takes on even greater importance to be done sooner rather than later. · As part of the move downtown, it is imperative that the RRHA "Team" stay together; the Executive Director and staff have worked long and hard to break down the "silos" that existed within the RRHA prior to the hiring of Mr. Baker; and there is a need to ensure that none of the hard work is undone by the move to downtown. · There is a need to ensure that the RRHA maintains a separate identity within the community; comments have been expressed from the community that the RRHA will become "just another department within the City". The Mayor emphasized the abovereferenced suggestions by Chairman Fink; i.e.: Joint Operational Plan and the need by the Housing Authority to maintain its identity upon relocation to the Municipal Complex. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that Council has tried to create a better relationship between the RRHA and the City of Roanoke; and the Operational Agreement is long overdue. He stated that the City can receive assistance as a result of the Housing Authority's expertise in housing; and as an example, he called attention to the Villages at Lincoln project which contains 145 less low- income housing units due to revitalization and construction of new homes in the area. Secondly, he called attention to the identity issue and a question as to the best way to address the matter in a building that has security issues, I.e.: ADA concerns in terms of creating a separate entrance. He stated that he supported having the right kind of identity so that citizens in need of services will have easy access to the Housing Authority's office, and suggested that Council and City staff respond to the suggestions offered by Chairman Fink on behalf of the RRHA. 246 Council Member Cutler expressed appreciation to the RRHA for the quality of work in southeast Roanoke, the Hope VI Project, the South Jefferson Redevelopment project, and the Eight North Jefferson Place project. With respect to the issue of a separate identity, he stated that some type of creative signage could be installed in the Lobby of Municipal South. He inquired if the entire RRHA management team would be housed in Municipal North; whereupon, it was stated that the RRHA plans to include all staff in the relocation. Council Member Lea expressed appreciation to Mr. Baker for his service and called attention to the importance of a partnership between the City of Roanoke and the Housing Authority as both entities focus on housing. As a former Commissioner of the Redevelopment and Housing Authority in Danville, Virginia, Council Member Lea stressed the importance of maintaining the identity of the RRHA, and suggested that Council work toward ensuring that the Housing Authority's identity is maintained, especially for the benefit of Roanoke's citizens. There being no further discussion and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the question of a joint operational plan for the City and the RRHA would be referred to the City Manager and to the Executive Director for report to the Council and to the RRHA in 1)0 - 90 days, and that the identity issue would be addressed as a part of the joint operational plan. HOUSING/AUTHORITY-PLANNING: The City Manager advised that the final report with regard to the City's Strategic Housing Plan was received on Friday, September 30, 2005; and both the Housing Authority and City Administration are well versed in their respective roles and responsibilities. She stated that the City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing on October 20, 2005, to approve the Housing Strategic Plan and forward the document to Council for consideration on Monday, December 19, 2005. Chairman Fink stated that the Board of Commissioners would like for the Strategic Housing Plan to be included as a part of the joint operational plan of the City and the RRHA. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick suggested that a copy of the Housing Strategic Plan be forwarded to the Board of Commissioners of the Housing Authority. 247 Council Member Cutler inquired about the Virginia Railroad Station and the stables located between Jefferson Street and Williamson Road; whereupon, the Executive Director advised that the Housing Authority continues to work with various organizations to preserve the former railroad station, however, funds received to date are insufficient to address major renovations; and although the Housing Authority does not own the stables, it has taken appropriate actions to ensure that the building remains intact. Council Member Wishneff inquired about the availability of housing for displaced families affected by the recent hurricanes; whereupon, it was advised that HUD has contacted housing authority agencies throughout the country to inquire about vacancies in public housing complexes, and the RRHA has a policy that it will assist any person who resided in public housing in the New Orleans area who was displaced as a result of the two recent hurricanes. The City Manager added that local non-profit organizations are making arrangements for displaced families and individuals to relocate to the City of Roanoke, and upon arrival, the non-profit organizations have committed to a six-month period of assistance. Mr. Allen called attention to Section I of the Memorandum of Understanding between the Board of Commissioners of the RRHA and the Council of the City of Roanoke: A strong partnership between the City and the Housing Authority is essential to the success of the overall mission of both. The unique powers and roles, when combined in a working partnership, provide the greatest opportunity for addressing the challenging issues facing Roanoke today." He stated that it is hoped that the Council and the RRHA will work together to improve the relationship with the citizens of Roanoke. On behalf of the Council, the Mayor expressed appreciation to the Board of Commissioners of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for their service to the citizens of the City of Roanoke. At 12:55 p.m., the Mayor declared the City Council meeting in recess until 2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber and Chairman Fink declared the meeting of the RRHA in recess. Council reconvened at 1:35 p.m., in the Council's Conference Room, Room 451, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, with all Members of the Council in attendance, except Council Member Dowe, Mayor Harris presiding, for the following staff briefing. 248 HERSHBERGER ROAD/ORANGE AVENUE/I-581 CORRIDOR LANDSCAPE INITIATIVES: Robert K. Bengtson, Director of Public Works, called upon Dwayne D'Ardenne, Landscape Supervisor, Department of Parks and Recreation, for a briefing on landscape initiatives for the Orange Avenue/I-581 intersection and the Hershberger Road corridor. Mr. D'Ardenne advised that: Oranoe Avenue/l-81 Interchanoe Conceotual Landscaoe Master Plan The conceptual Landscape Master Plan for Orange Avenue/I-581 Interchange from Gainsboro Road east to Williamson Road includes three focuses: improved gateway aesthetics, a layered plant design that provides four seasons of color and interest while remaining maintenance friendly, and an opportunity for corporate and/or private partnership or investment. Improved Gateway Aesthetics: The City's Vision Comprehensive Plan specifically speaks to "beautifying our important gateway corridors" and the Orange Avenue/I-S81 Interchange is a significant gateway to the City. Whether one is headed to an event at the Roanoke Civic Center, or headed east on Route 41)0 to Williamson Road, or the Roanoke Centre for Industry and Technology, or west to the City's School Administration Building, or Washington Park, the interchange could be characterized as the City's gateway to local culture, education and commerce. Layered Plant Design: The layered plant design concept ensures multi-season interest to any landscape whether it be a residential backyard or a municipal transportation corridor. Natural areas, be they woodlands or rainforests, inherently possess many layers and the City's design follows nature's lead. The Master Plan builds upon the established "Gray Infrastructure" base layer of asphalt and concrete. The City's Landscape Design's "Green Infrastructure" begins with turfgrass as the canvas upon which to then "paint" with layers of perennials and bulbs, small and large flowing shrubs, small flowering trees and large deciduous and evergreen trees. 249 In contrast to Hershberger Road, traffic patterns and already visually cluttered scale of the Orange Avenue/I-581 Interchange lends itself to the more compact layers of flowering trees, shrubs, perennials/bulbs and turfgrass. Opportunity for corporate and/or private partnership or investment: With Governor Warner's expected signature, State Senate Bill 121)0 will officially allow signage on State-owned right-of-way recognizing corporate/private donors. The bill effectively formalizes a process by which the State would give local governments permission to follow what the Cities of Danville and Lynchburg have already accomplished using the public/private partnership approach to beautifying their gateway corridors. Orange Avenue/I-581 Master Plan Project concepts: 1. Six-layered landscape slopes: Each sloped area within each of the four cloverleaves are planted to best take advantage of traffic sightlines and mowing challenges Plant layers begin with turfgrass canvas perennials/bulbs, small flowering shrubs, large shrubs, small flowering trees and finally large trees to provide winter structure and add flowering evergreen 2. Civic Center and School Administration properties: Both Civic Center and School Administration slopes receive landscaping to improve facades and first impressions as visitors exit 1-581 VDOT's limited access fencelines along both of these properties will also be replaced or revamped at these locations, as well as the First Baptist Church Cemetery location adjacent to the northeast cloverleaf 3. Opportunities for private and/or commercial partnership and investment: Any or all of the layered planting areas in this design are potential opportunities of private and/or commercial partnerships 250 Round figure estimates of the Orange Avenue/I-581 Interchange Landscape Master Plan as currently conceptualized: 251) trees (one fourth of Hershberger Road) 3000 shrubs (same as Hershberger Road) 1)0,000 perennials/bulbs (1.5 X Hershberger Road) Six acres of turfgrass renovation/re-establishment Construction Costs - $500,000.00 (excluding finalized designs, bid/construction documents or contract administration) Annual contracted maintenance costs - $30,000.00 - $40,000.00 per year Project Details: Hershberger Road maintenance estimated total - $9,000.00 $11,000.00 X 8.5 months = $77,000.00 - $94,000.00 Plantings - three man crew X three days two X per month = $ 5 ,000.00 - $1),000.00 per month Mowing - currently pay $785.00 - (No VDOT ROW) = $4,000.00 - $5,000.00 per month Orange Avenue/I-581 Maintenance - Total $29,000.00 to $34,000.00 per year Plantings - three man crew X 1.5 days X $2,000.00 per month = $2,500.00 - $3,000.00 per month X 8.5 months = $21,250.00 - $25,500.00 Mowing - Estimated four man hours X four hours X $25.00 per man hour = $500.00 every two weeks = $8,500.00 Hershberaer Road N. W. Conceotual Landscaoe Master Plan The Conceptual Landscape Master Plan for Hershberger Road, N. W., from Cove Road east to Williamson Road includes three focuses: improved gateway aesthetics, layered plant design that provides four seasons of color and interest while remaining maintenance friendly, and opportunity for corporate and/or private partnership or investment. 251 Improved Gateway Aesthetics: The City's Vision Comprehensive Plan specifically speaks to "beautifying our important gateway corridors" and Hershberger Road is arguably one of, if not the most, important gate of the City. Whether it be prospective business travelers arriving at the airport for the first time or shoppers to any of the significant commercial/retail destinations of Valley View Mall, Crossroads Mall, Towne Square/Sam's Club, Lowe's/Home Depot complexes, or further on to Williamson or Peters Creek Roads, Hershberger Road is a very important first impression of the City, the Roanoke Valley and the greater New Virginia region. Layered Plant Design: The layered· plant design concept ensures multi-season interest to any landscape, whether it be a residential backyard or a municipal transportation corridor. Natural areas, be they woodlands or rainforests, inherently possess many layers and the design follows nature's lead. The Master Plan builds upon the established "Gray Infrastructure" base layer of asphalt and concrete. The City's Landscape Design's "Green Infrastructure" begins with turfgrass as the canvas upon which to then "paint" with layers of perennials and bulbs, small and large flowering shrubs, small flowering trees and finally, large deciduous and evergreen trees. The wide-open scale of the Hershberger Road corridor begs for bold landscape design and large scale trees, but should not eliminate the "Valley View" of spectacular sunsets every evening as the sun sets behind the mountain range peaks visible to the west. Opportunity for corporate and/or private partnership or investment: With Governor Warner's expected signature, State Senate Bill 121)0 will officially allow signage on State owned right-of-way recognizing corporate/private donors. This bill effectively formalizes a process by which the State would give local governments permission to follow what the Cities of Danville and Lynchburg have already accomplished using the public/private partnership approach to beautifying their gateway corridors. 252 Hershberger Road, N. W. Landscape Master Plan Project concepts: 1. Four layered landscape islands in medians. 13 median islands from Ordway Drive east to Grandview Avenue Each island will be 125' long, having 175' of turfgrass canvas between the islands Island plant layers will begin with turfgrass and add perennials and bulbs, flowering shrubs and Crape Myrtles 2. Allée of trees focus and define the corridor: Trees planted Allée style between street light poles which help focus one's eye into the center median islands while still allowing street light penetration to the pavement and allowing views to the west of spectacular "Valley View' sunsets. Additional trees are proposed along private property continuing the Allée theme where existing right-of-way is insufficient to allow planting on City property 3. Hershberger Road/I-581 cloverleaves: Focus on reforestation will provide more than 500 large shade trees Renovate difficult to maintain slopes with Hard Fescue and/or remove invasives from existing Crown Vetch 4. Opportunities for private/or commercial partnership and investment More than a dozen locations have been identified and designed as opportunity areas for private and/or commercial partnership and investment Locations incorporate four to six plant layers (depending on location and terrain) and vary in size and visibility. Six layer islands would include the following - turfgrass canvas, bulbs/perennials, small flowering shrubs, late flowering shrubs, small flowering trees, and large deciduous/evergreen trees 253 Round figure estimates for the Hershberger Road Landscape Master Plan as currently conceptualized: 1000 trees 3000 shrubs 40,000 perennials/bulbs 20+ acres of turfgrass renovation/reestablishment Construction costs - $1 million (excluding finalized designs, bid/construction documents or contract administration) Annual contracted maintenance costs - $75,000.00 - $95,000.00 per year Council Member Cutler inquired if the concept will be consistent with new State laws and/or VDOT regulations; whereupon, Mr. D'Ardenne responded in the affirmative. He advised that regulations will take effect on December 1, 2005, and inasmuch as the City of Roanoke was chosen as one of two pilot locations in the Commonwealth of Virginia, plans may proceed prior to December 1. Council Member Cutler inquired about the definition of "pilot" and whether or not serving as a "pilot project" gives the locality the authority to proceed. He also inquired as to the availability of State funding. Mr. D'Ardenne advised that no State funds are available and estimated that the cost of the project, excluding administrative or design fees, will be approximately $500,000.00. Mr. Bengtson advised that minimal requirements of the proposed regulations would be an added barricade interchange, participants would be required to contribute at least $20,000.00, and there is an opportunity for two participants per quadrant. Council Member Cutler inquired about the cost of maintenance; whereupon, Mr. Bengtson advised that due to the current workload of City crews, maintenance responsibility for upkeep of both plans would have to be outsourced. Inasmuch as the projects will become community assets, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick suggested that an annual maintenance cost for upkeep be included when soliciting funds from private sources. The City Manager explained that the two landscape designs represent initial steps to identify partners for the projects and it was the desire of staff to brief the Council on landscape initiatives at the early stages of development. 254 Council Member McDaniel inquired if signs identifying participants in landscape design projects will be uniform; whereupon, Mr. D'Ardenne advised that VDOT guidelines impose certain regulations with regard to signage. Mr. Bengtson advised that a briefing with regard to the City's long range plan initiative will be presented at the Council's November 7 work session. The City Manager added that as a part of the Council briefing, staff will recommend specific actions for use of VDOT funds to enhance interchanges and to prioritize funds received from VDOT, rather than wait for funds to be received from private sources. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that unless the General Assembly makes a dramatic change in highway transportation dollars, the City of Roanoke will receive no funds for new projects after the year 2010. He added that this may be the appropriate time for the City to use funds received from VDOT toward a beautification project on Hershberger Road at 1-581. He requested that the City contact the appropriate State office to inquire if the fence located off 1-581 near the intersection of Wells Avenue and Williamson Road could be relocated parallel to the interstate and that the property be donated to the City for landscaping purposes. He noted that the City's logo, or the Star, could be engraved in the landscape to create a vision that could be seen by motorists traveling to The Hotel Roanoke or from the downtown area and the cost could be covered through donations. Council Member Cutler called attention to the intersection at Williamson Road and Wells Avenue at the new bridge which includes the Lick Run Greenway, and requested that the area be cleaned up for the benefit of those persons using the Lick Run Greenway. At 1:55 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess until 2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber. At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, October 3, 2005, the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding. PRESENT: Council Members Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. (arrived late), Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea and Mayor C. Nelson Harris ----------------------------7. ABSENT: None -----------------------------------------------0. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 255 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 Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: CITY EMPLOYEES-SCHOOLS: The Mayor advised that in conjunction with the Roanoke City Public Schools Adult and Continuing Education Office, the City of Roanoke participated in the Governor's "Race to GED" program; an information session was held during the latter part of April, and as a result of the meeting, eight City employees expressed an interest in pursuing their GED; and all costs associated with the Program were provided through grant funds from the State of Virginia Department of Education. The Mayor recognized Elliot Doyle, Maintenance Mechanic, Transportation Department, Streets and Traffic Division, an 18 year employee of the City; and Lawrence Taylor, Maintenance Supervisor, Fleet Management Department, a 33 year City employee, for successfully completing the requirements of the GED Program. He presented each with City sponsored gift cards from Wal-Mart, in the amount of $ 50.00 and engraved plaques. The Mayor advised that Roanoke City Public Schools will continue to offer the GED review and English as a Second Language classes through continuing education at Breckenridge, Jackson and Woodrow Wilson Middle Schools. PROCLAMATIONS-HEALTH DEPARTMENT: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Charles Wohlford, President, National Alliance for the Mentally III, Roanoke Valley, declaring Sunday, October 2, 2005, as Mental Illness Awareness Week. PROCLAMATIONS-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Acting Fire/EMS Chief David Hoback declaring October 9 - 15, 2005, as Fire Prevention Week. 256 PROCLAMATIONS-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Police Chief Atlas L. "Joe" Gaskins declaring October 2005, as Crime Prevention Month. PROCLAMATIONS-POLICE DEPARTMENT: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Police Chief Atlas L. "Joe" Gaskins declaring October 2005, as Domestic Violence Awareness Month. Council Member Lea advised that at the Council meeting on Monday, September 19, 2005, the City Manager was encouraged to appoint a Task Force to review the issue of domestic violence prevention in the City of Roanoke. He reported that a planning meeting was held last week which was attended by the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager for Community Development, the Chief of Police and other persons from the community; and the group discussed the fact that currently there are numerous services and programs available for the victims of domestic violence, but there is a tremendous need to disseminate information to and within the community, to appoint a Task Force, and to close existing gaps with regard to domestic violence. He further stated that another meeting has been scheduled and will be attended by representatives of the Family Violence Coordinating Council, and it is anticipated that a progress report will be submitted to the Council in the near future. He expressed appreciation to the Members of Council for their support of the appointment of a Task Force on Domestic Violence. PROCLAMATIONS-DISABLED PERSONS: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Ken Rush, Employment Subcommittee Chair, Mayor's Committee for People with Disabilities, declaring October 2005, as National Disability Employment Awareness Month. Council Member Dowe entered the meeting. 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. 257 OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE-LIBRARIES: A report of qualification of the following persons, was before Council: Wyona M. Lynch-McWhite as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2008; Gail Burruss as a member of the Human Services Advisory Board, for a term ending November 30, 2008; Stanley G. Breakell and Pamela S. White as members of the Roanoke Public Library Board, for terms ending June 30, 2008; and Harold H. Worrell, Sr., as a member of the War Memorial Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2007. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris---------------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: CITY PROPERTY-PARKING FACILITIES: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, October 3, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the conveyance of certain City-owned property located on Salem Avenue and Norfolk Avenue, S. W., to the Times World Corporation, in exchange for certain property owned by the Times World Corporation located on Campbell Avenue, S. W., in connection with future development of a downtown parking garage, the matter was before body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, September 23, 2005. 258 The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City owns property located on Salem Avenue, S. W., which is currently used for parking of official vehicles; the City wishes to convey the property to The Roanoke Times in exchange for a parcel of land located on Campbell Avenue, S. W., containing approximately 0.422 acre, identified as Official Tax No. 1010829, which is owned by the Times World Corporation; the parcel of land will be used for future development of a downtown parking garage; and property to be conveyed by the City of Roanoke is identified as a new Tax Map No. 1010101), containing approximately 0.41)7 acre, defined as Lot 5A. It was further advised that on August 15, 2005, Council adopted Ordinance No. 3711)3-081505, which authorized conveyance of a 0.449 acre parcel known as Parcel I-A, bearing Official Tax No. 1010107; the plat was subsequently revised changing the name of the parcel of land to be conveyed to Parcel 5A; and a new Tax Map No. 1010101) has been assigned to Lot 5A. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a deed of exchange to convey the property designated as Parcel 5A, Tax Map No. 1010101), containing approximately 0.41)7 acre as shown on the Plat of Street Vacation, Subdivision and Combination made for City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated August 21), 2005, to The Roanoke Times, in exchange for a parcel of land identified as Official Tax No. 1010829 and that Council repeal Ordinance No. 3711)3-081505, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37195-100305) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents providing for the conveyance of a 0.41)7 acre parcel of City-owned property known as Parcel 5A, identified as new Official Tax No. 1010101), located on Salem Avenue, S. W., to the Times-World Corporation in exchange for a 0.422 acre parcel bearing Official Tax No. 1010829, located on Campbell Avenue, S. W., for development of a downtown parking garage, upon certain terms and conditions; and repealing Ordinance No. 37173-081505, in order to provide for a revised description of the property being conveyed to the Times-World Corporation; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 1.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37195- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. 259 The Mayor inquired if there were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the matter; whereupon, Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29'h Street, N. W., spoke with regard to the misuse of land in the City of Roanoke. He referred to the previous expansion of The Roanoke Times for the purpose of accommodating a new state-of-the-art printing press and promises by The Roanoke Times of the creation of more jobs when, in fact, the Circulation Department was downsized. He expressed concern that citizens were not aware of the exchange of land between the City and The Roanoke Times and stated that issues involving the use of taxpayers' money should be discussed in public. There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37195-100305 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris---------------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: ARMORY/STADIUM-HOTEL ROANOKE CONFERENCE CENTER-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: Council Member Wishneff presented a statement with regard to economic development opportunities in the City of Roanoke, ranging from The Hotel Roanoke to Victory Stadium. He advised that: · Council will receive the results of the Victory Stadium study in the next 45 days; at that time, Council will receive cost estimates for renovating Victory Stadium and cost estimates for building various size new stadiums; and equally important, Council will receive information about the type and level of usage that stadium options might generate. · Public discussion during the past several months has been solely about high school football needs and while high school football is a key factor, it is not the only factor. 260 · There is a belief that with the right type and size stadium, it can also be an important economic development opportunity for the City of Roanoke. · Since the year 2005 is the tenth anniversary of the reopening of The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center, it would be helpful to look back at the project and see if there are lessons to be learned for Council's future stadium decision. · In the early 1990's, he was selected by the City Manager to lead an effort to prepare a financing plan that would allow for complete renovation of The Hotel Roanoke which was a very emotional issue; the public wanted the Hotel saved and renovated; people had vivid, personal memories of The Hotel Roanoke and their emotional feelings was a significant factor for the City administration and City Council in its decisions about how much money the City was willing to contribute to the project. · For the City administration and for City Council, it was also about numbers and where and how the Hotel's renovation might fit into the overall strategy for improving the financial health of the City. · Big picture factors that drove the decision-making in the mid-1990's: o Virginia is the only state in the country with an independent city system of government; unlike Roanoke's neighbors in North Carolina, cities in Virginia only receive the local tax revenues they collect and there is no automatic sharing of expenses; annexation for cities like Roanoke was eliminated in 1978, so boundaries became frozen; this meant that cities in Virginia wanted to continue to be equal, regional partners in industrial development and recruitment, and given the fixed, limited boundaries, cities had to look elsewhere for additional strategic investments that would bring new tax revenue. 261 o The number one economic goal in the mid-1990's was to work on projects that had the potential to significantly increase the City's tax collections. o Within a one hour drive and a 1)0 mile radius, there are 1)50,000 people. o In the mid-1990's, the City of Roanoke was the 15th largest City or County in Virginia; and the other 14 larger communities are located in what is referred to as the "Golden Crescent" along the eastern part of the State. o Despite Roanoke's relatively small size and the fact that Roanoke is not located in the more affluent "Golden Crescent", the City of Roanoke was number one in the entire State of Virginia in per capita sales tax collections. o Despite Roanoke's relatively small size and location outside the "Golden Crescent, the City of Roanoke was in the top five in the State for per capita restaurant sales and continued to be a regional draw for people to eat-out. o In 1991), the City of Roanoke benefited from its role as a regional shopping hub; and because of this, the three fastest growing sources of taxes in the City were meals tax, hotel rooms tax and sales tax. o Therefore, coming to the conclusion that the re- opening of a renovated Hotel Roanoke should be the City's number one economic development project was easy; and accomplishing the renovation and reopening of a first-class hotel in downtown Roanoke at that time was anything but easy. o The City hired independent consultants to study the financial feasibility of renovating The Hotel Roanoke and the consultants concluded that it was not financially feasible. 262 o The consultants advised the City that it needed to create a set of circumstances that would generate more over night business if The Hotel Roanoke were to reopen and the only realistic option available to the City at that time to increase room nights was to increase business from the meetings market, which would be a significant challenge. o The meetings market was full of competitors, some of which were located in communities with large airports with a great amount of air service and some were located on a beach and/or golf course. o The City's consultants advised that if Roanoke was to attract a significant amount of new meetings business, it could not downsize The Hotel Roanoke in any significant way; with a full-service hotel with at least 300-400 rooms, meeting planners representing larger groups, such as statewide associations, would come to Roanoke; when The Hotel Roanoke was closed, the next biggest hotel in the Roanoke Valley was the 200- plus room Marriott which is now the Wyndham; and if The Hotel Roanoke were going to be a competitive location for large group meetings business, it had to have at least 300-rooms. . Therefore, the City had to create or invent a business model that was not obvious to the City at that time and the following was identified for Roanoke: o As the largest City in the western part of the state, Roanoke traditionally functioned as the location for statewide associations as they rotated their meetings to different regions of the state; at that time, Roanoke not only lacked a headquarters hotel, but quality and large meeting rooms; therefore, if part of Roanoke's business model was to attract its share of statewide association business, it had to have a quality meeting facility with multiple, large meeting rooms. 263 o About that time, information surfaced that the Town of Blacksburg and Virginia Tech were in early discussions about building a larger hotel and meeting space complex to replace the Donaldson Brown Center and the proposed location was near downtown Blacksburg; therefore, the City of Roanoke approached Virginia Tech about participating in an off-campus hotel and conference center project in downtown Roanoke, which would involve reusing The Hotel Roanoke. o Virginia Tech was in between Presidents at that time and early in the spring, Virginia Tech announced that Dr. James McComas, then President of the University of Toledo, would be the next President of Virginia Tech; that summer, a small delegation led by Mayor Noel C. Taylor visited the University of Toledo to explain the City's concept, at which time Dr. McComas advised that the University of Toledo was recently involved in a public-private partnership between the City of Toledo, the University, and a hotel developer in a project that involved a combination hotel, meeting space and continuing education located 20 miles from campus in downtown Toledo. o Virginia Tech became a major partner with the City of Roanoke in the pursuit of The Hotel Roanoke project. . The City's consultants studied the impact of bringing Virginia Tech business to the City's business model and concluded that it would add an additional 20 per cent in meetings, business and overnight hotel-room business to Roanoke's model; however, that meant that the City would have to build the type of spaces with a level of technology that would attract users from Virginia Tech. . In the early 1990's, a typical full-service 332 room hotel like The Hotel Roanoke would have built meeting or conference space as a part of their project of about 10,000 square feet; in order to accommodate the different components of the 264 meetings market business, the City needed to generate enough new room nights to make renovation of The Hotel Roanoke feasible, therefore, the City proposed building a meeting or hotel and conference facility with over 1)0,000 square feet of meeting space, which was approximately six times larger than the typical 332 room headquarters hotel could justify. · The Roanoke Ballroom is the largest of the ballrooms in The Hotel Roanoke and is the largest ballroom west of Richmond in the Commonwealth of Virginia. · It was necessary for Roanoke to have unmatched, quality spaces with the latest technology if Roanoke was to attract the Virginia Tech component of business; another major partner and potential user at the time was Carillon Health System and rooms that included dual rear-screen projectors was a requirement for health care presenters. · It was also necessary to have a kind of physical separation for serious users and for those less than serious, rowdier conventioneers, thus was borne the idea of placing the small meeting rooms on the lower level of the Conference Center completely out of sight of the ballrooms that were located upstairs. · Providing the right facilities was only part of the battle; the landscape around the country was littered with failed hotels operated by the private sector which were attached to failed publicly-owned conference centers operated by a public entity; it was know from the negative experience of other places that Roanoke needed a seamless operation between the publicly owned conference center and the privately owned hotel; therefore, the same private sector management group was needed to manage both facilities. · With all of the effort and significant financial involvement by the City came high expectations; Council asked that a business model be designed that on paper paid for itself; the City was financially responsible for half of the operating deficit in the Conference Center and all of the annual debt service for building the Conference Center; therefore, The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center would have to generate enough local taxes from within the four walls of the facility to pay the City's annual debt service on the Conference Center and any operating loses. 265 . Looking back after ten years of history, The Hotel Roanoke has met expectations and projections; Virginia Tech has accounted for 20 per cent of The Hotel's business as projected; the Conference Center is one of the only publicly owned meeting facilities in the country that operates in the black and The Hotel Roanoke enjoys its rightful position as the favorite location for meeting planners booking statewide association business; in addition, direct revenues from the facilities exceed the operating and annual debt service costs and the City collects almost $2 million in direct City taxes from the complex. . The question becomes, does Roanoke's experience with The Hotel Roanoke have anything to do with how the stadium question is assessed, and the answer is yes. · The first lesson is that since Roanoke is not a fast growth area like the Golden Crescents, the City of Roanoke has to work harder and smarter if it wants bigger and higher quality projects like The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center by studying potential business markets before pursuing economic development projects involving the expenditure of significant City money. · Another lesson is that when possible, partners should be recruited to help share the risks and rewards, and identify/structure only those projects that play to Roanoke's geographic, natural and man made strengths and assets. · The more important lesson for the stadium decision that can be learned from The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center project relates to the Conference Center; in order to make The Hotel financially feasible, Roanoke had to attract a large amount of new over night business related to different segments of the meetings business; and in order to accomplish that, the City had to build a conference center six times bigger than The Hotel Roanoke, by itself, could justify; the City was able to do so and still have one of the only publicly owned conference centers that operates in the black. · Size will matter when it comes to the success of a stadium project in the City of Roanoke. 266 · He served as lead consultant for the Carilion Biomedical Institute (CBI) project; there was no serious consideration of a site near Roanoke Memorial Hospital and CBI was moving toward a new Hollins campus located on Interstate-81, midway between Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia. · Research revealed that biomedical parks that were removed from the hub of healthcare activity and away from key decision makers performed poorly; those near or adjacent to existing university campuses and/or hospital campuses were more successful; and staff persons who were sent to these off-site removed campuses believed that they were missing out on the action and actually resisted moving. · Population-wise, in 2004, Roanoke City went from the 12th largest to the 18th largest. · 2004 sales per capita shows that Roanoke continues to be number one in the state among large localities for annual sales tax collected per capita. · The City of Roanoke has leaped over two large northern Virginia counties to third place in 2004 restaurant sales per capita. · The City of Roanoke slipped one spot in 2004 hotel sales per capita, falling from ninth to tenth. · Like ten years ago, Roanoke's hotel, restaurant and retail store base has remained a major tax revenue asset and one that Roanoke must continue to find ways to enhance. · Enhancing the City of Roanoke's tax base will require different approaches than ten years ago; all 12 of the hotels built in the Roanoke Valley over the past ten years are what are referred to in the hotel industry as limited-service hotels which do little to improve Roanoke's attractiveness to meetings planners to use The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center. 267 . While these 1,113 limited service new hotel rooms are not overly attractive for the meetings business, they are the type of hotel facilities that parents of traveling soccer teams or AAU basketball teams or alumni of teams playing in the Stagg Bowl football game like to stay; therefore, Roanoke has a tremendous existing capacity within its hotel, restaurant and retail base to attract events that are sports-related. · Given the above factors, it is reasonable to conclude that as a part of any strategic efforts to increase tax collections in sales, hotels and meals taxes, the City of Roanoke should pursue sports-related events and games. . Many other regions around the country also have seen the same opportunity and are developing strategies to proceed; therefore, Roanoke needs to craft plans that provide facilities that differentiate Roanoke from the competition; as with meeting facilities at The Hotel Roanoke, Roanoke needs to work to attract partners and to find ways to provide a better level of customer service than the competition. · Americans are holding sporting events at all skill levels and ages in unprecedented numbers; if Roanoke is smart in its decision making, it can add facilities that do not duplicate what is already in the Roanoke Valley; for example, there will be some events that are better suited to Salem's 8,000 seat stadium and if Roanoke chooses to renovate Victory Stadium, there will be some events that are better suited to a 20,000 plus seat stadium. · Roanoke has 19 colleges and universities within a 1)0 mile radius and not many regions the size of Roanoke can make that boast. · Slides were presented of neutral stadiums east of the Mississippi River that have stadiums as large or larger than Victory Stadium; Greensboro expanded its basketball arena in large part so that it could have a neutral basketball court large enough to periodically host the Men's ACC basketball tournament. 268 · An ACC official in charge of selecting locations to host league tournaments for sports, other than football and basketball, advised that current ACC league poliCY for sports such as soccer and lacrosse is to select neutral stadiums for championship tournaments; and there is a shortage of good neutral stadiums to host championship events. · When City leaders built Victory Stadium in 1941 and decided to make the faCility a 24,000 seat venue, they built the stadium, for more than high school football; in 1941, it was most likely one of the largest stadiums in Virginia and according to newspaper accounts, it was built that large for economic development reasons; Roanoke hosted a football game between VMI and the Citadel and later between the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech; the City of Lynchburg was building a new stadium and Roanoke City leaders built Victory Stadium at 24,000 seats to keep Lynchburg from stealing those games; and an economic opportunity vision drove community leaders 1)4 years ago to build a 24,000 seat facility. · Roanoke already has the beginning of an outdoor sports campus with the River's Edge Sports complex and Victory Stadium. · Roanoke's sports complex would be in close proximity to the largest hospital in Virginia west of Charlottesville and across the street from the biomedical park and there could be an opportunity to partner with Carilion Biomedical Institute on a unique set of facilities and activities related to sports medicine. · The City of Roanoke has additional economic development opportunities and assets to build upon; Le.: o The need to identify development to take advantage of the uniqueness of having a mountain located within City boundaries o The need to craft a master plan that both honors and takes advantage of the many famous people who have lived and/or worked in historic Gainsboro 269 o The need to rècognize that Roanoke already has a location for a first-class, outdoor amphitheater with ample existing parking in the evenings and on weekends and its location can be another activity that helps drive businesses into the downtown o The need to develop a plan to build upon the success of The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center through construction of more exhibit and meeting space at The Hotel, in an effort to leverage meeting space and additional parking spaces to recruit a developer that would add at least 100 additional hotel rooms on site In closing, Council Member Wishneff advised that there are some voices in the community that say a 20,000 plus seat stadium is too large for Roanoke, but those voices represent a short-sighted, conservative and myopic view, they belittle the City's capability to successfully develop and market a larger stadium, and the same voices say things like the days of VMI and the Citadel playing football in Victory Stadium and marching up Jefferson Street are over. He further advised that had those same voices been around in the mid 1990's when the City of Roanoke was contemplating whether to renovate The Hotel Roanoke, they most likely would have said Roanoke cannot support such a large hotel and conference center because the days of hotel guests arriving by train are over and Norfolk Southern has moved its annual meetings out of Roanoke; however, fortunately such shortsighted thinking was nowhere to be found ten years ago. Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., commended Council Member Wishneff on his point of view; however, he stated that the City must market better entertainment in order to generate more business to the area; and with regard to sporting events, the City of Roanoke should start small in order to grow big in its efforts to attract more people to the Roanoke Valley. He called attention to the need to improve air service and other modes of transportation in and out of the Roanoke Valley; and the City needs to do a better job of marketing itself to the citizens who cannot afford to attend City sponsored entertainment events. He added that wages for the average person living in the City should be increased so that the citizenry can afford to attend entertainment activities. He encouraged Council to include the wishes of the citizens of Roanoke in all of the Council's decisions. 270 COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY: Donald M. Caldwell, Commonwealth's Attorney, advised that the cost collection unit of the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office is responsible for collection of unpaid costs and fees in the criminal court system, which provides a stream of revenue for the City of Roanoke. He stated that if a private source had collected the funds, the City would have received $73,000.00 as opposed to $113,000.00; whereupon, he commended Rita Mason, Cost Collector, for her efforts in connection with administering the program. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: NONE. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: POLICE DEPARTMENT -BUDGET -GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Act of 2000 is an unique U. S. Department of Justice initiative designed to provide a critical resource to state and local law enforcement; the grant program is managed by the Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Assistance; and the program provides reimbursement funding on the purchase of approved bulletproof vests. It was further advised that on August 24, 2005, the City of Roanoke was awarded $10,983.00 for reimbursement on the purchase of 1)0 bulletproof vests; and vests eventually acquired through the program will be divided between the Police Department and the Sheriff's Department. It was explained that the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEG) Program requires that all grant funds be placed in an interest bearing account; and based on interest earned during fiscal year 2003-05 and 2004-01) of LLEBG funding, additional interest earnings have been realized, or are anticipated for the grants, in the amounts of $400.00 and $1,500.00 respectively. The City Manager recommended that Council accept the Bulletproof Vest Partnership reimbursement of $10,983.00 from the Bureau of Justice Programs; that she be authorized to execute the grant agreement and any related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and that 271 Council appropriate $10,983.00 and establish a corresponding revenue estimate in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund: Wearing Apparel $10.983.00 Total 110.983.00 Appropriate funding of $1,900.00 per the following and increase corresponding revenue estimates in accounts established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund: Revenue LLEBG - FY 2003-05 LLEBG - FY 2004-01) 035-1)40-3550-3552 035-1)40-3552-3551) $400.00 $1,500.00 Exoenditure LLEBG - FY 2003-05 LLEBG - FY 2004-01) 035-1)40-3550-1003 035-1)40-3552-1003 035-1)40-3552-1120 $400.00 $ 1,393.00 $ 107.00 Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: (#37191)-100305) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005- 2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 2.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37191)- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s --- ------------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------________________________O. FLOOD REDUCTION/CONTROL-PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-BUDGET- GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke was awarded a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); the purpose of the grant was to remove a building located at 1428 10th Street, N. W., which was subject to repetitive flooding; and the building was removed and the project is complete. 272 It was further advised that the total project cost estimate was $11)1,400.000, which included property purchase, relocation and demolition; the HMGP award covered $153,330.00 of the proposed cost and remaining funds totaling $8,070.00 were provided by the Capital Projects Fund, Lick Run Greenway account. It was explained that project expenses totaled $11)4,943.00 and additional revenue was received from VDEM, in the amount of $3,543.00, for reimbursement of certain expenses incurred during the project for fiscal year 2004. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a budget ordinance appropriating $3,543.00 to Account No. 035-1)20-3510-9007 and increase the corresponding revenue estimate by the same amount in Account No. 035-1)20- 3510-3511. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37197-100305) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate additional funding for the Hazard Mitigation Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 3.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37197- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris---------------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. FLOOD REDUCTION/CONTROL-PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-BUDGET- GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke was awarded a grant from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); and the purpose of the grant is to remove a residence located at 3303 Garst Mill Road, S. W., identified as Official Tax No. 5030214, which is subject to repetitive flooding and major property damage. 273 It was further advised that the HMGP program is entirely voluntary; Jeffrey Rogers, property owner, was notified of the program and with his concurrence, the City pursued the grant for the property; and after acquisition is complete, the structure will be demolished and the land will be dedicated to the City as permanent greenspace. It was explained that the total project cost estimate is $87,087.00 which includes property purchase and demolition; the HMPG award will cover $82,733.00 of the proposed cost; remaining funds totaling $4,354.00 are available in Account No. 008-530-9734, Miscellaneous Storm Drains Pt 2 account; and authorization is needed to move forward with procurement of title work, document preparation and acquisition of necessary property rights and eventual demolition of the structure. . The City Manager recommended the following: · Authorize the City Manager to execute the necessary documents, in a form approved by the City Attorney, to purchase real property owned by Jeffrey Rogers, 3303 Garst Mill Road, S. W., Official Tax No. 5030214; · Authorize demolition of the structure and close the 3303 Garst Mill Road Hazard Mitigation Grant Program grant, in accordance with requirements of FEMA; · Adopt a budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the Capital Projects Fund, in the amount of $1)5,315.00, from FEMA and $17,418.00 from VDEM, transfer $4,354.00 from Account No. 008- 530-9734-9003 (Miscellaneous Storm Drains Pt 2), and appropriate funds in the same amount to an account to be established by the Director of Finance in the Capital Projects Fund, entitled Hazard Mitigation 3303 Garst Mill Road. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37198-100305) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding received from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program for the property on 3303 Garst Mill Road, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispenSing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 4.) 274 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37198- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris---------------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37199-100305) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the acquisition and demolition of certain property located at 3303 Garst Mill Road, S. W., which is subjective to repetitive flooding, under the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Emergency Management's (VDEM) through its Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, upon certain terms and conditions; authorizing the closing of the Garst Mill Road Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 5.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37199- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris---------------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. STATE HIGHWAYS-BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Commonwealth Transportation Board recently awarded a total of $744,920.00 to the City of Roanoke as part of the State's Revenue Sharing Program; and the award consists of the folloWing projects: - Sidewalk Maintenance City-wide $242,099.00 $335,214.00 $11)7,1)07.00 - Walnut Ave. Bridge Improvements - Aviation Dr. & Towne Square Blvd. Improvement 275 It was further advised that the City of Roanoke sought a total of $1,000,000.00 for the projects; however, project requests received by VDOT statewide exceeded available funding, therefore, VDOT awarded a reduced amount to each project (74.5 per cent of the original request); it is recommended that funding be appropriated to the project accounts and that preliminary engineering proceed, with the goal of developing a strategy to obtain the remaining funds that are necessary to implement the projects; and the amount of sidewalk maintenance work will be planned to coincide with available funding. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to enter into the necessary agreements with the Virginia Department of Transportation to locally administer and implement the above referenced projects; and that Council adopt a budget ordinance establishing revenue estimates in the Capital Projects Fund in the above referenced amounts and appropriate funds to the following project accounts: - Walnut Ave. Bridge Improvements (008-530-9511) $242,099.00 - Aviation Dr. & Towne Square (008-530-9830) $335,214.00 - Sidewalk Maintenance City-wide (008-530-9793) $11)7,1)07.00 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37200-100305) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding awarded by the Virginia Department of Transportation Commonwealth Transportation Board for the Walnut Avenue Bridge Improvements, Aviation Drive & Towne Square Boulevard Improvements and Sidewalk Maintenance City-Wide Projects, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page I).) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37200- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris----------------------------____________________---7. NAYS: None---------------------------------_________________O. 276 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37201-100305) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (Commission) providing for the Commission's participation in the process of designing a realignment of the intersection area of Aviation Drive and Towne Square Boulevard in return for a contribution by the Commission to the City for a portion of the costs of that process; and authorizing the City Manager to take such further action and execute such additional documents as may be necessary to implement and administer such Agreement. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 7.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37201- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris---------------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. AIRPORT-BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Council previously appropriated $250,000.00 toward development of a project to improve the intersection of Aviation Drive and Towne Square Boulevard; since that time, the City has obtained additional funding, in the amount of $335,214.00, from the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) Revenue Sharing Program; in an effort to use preliminary engineering expenses as part of the City's required matching funds for the Revenue Sharing Program, the selection of a consultant and corresponding design work was scheduled to occur after VDOT's award was finalized; and now that the VDOT award is complete, staff plans to proceed with selection of a consultant and to advance project plans to 1)5 per cent in the hopes that the added level of detail will help to secure additional funding from both the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission and the private sector. It was further advised that the redesigned intersection is expected to result in realignment of the Airport's main entrance; therefore, Airport staff has been involved in preliminary developments and will need to be closely involved with overall project development; recognizing the need to participate in 277 development of the project, the Airport has stated a willingness to fund one-third of the design costs not to exceed $30,000.00; while Airport staff will participate on the project team, selection of the consultant and final design decisions will be made by the City of Roanoke; and a letter agreement from the Airport Commission setting forth more details was attached to the City Manager's communication. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to enter into an agreement with the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission in substantial conformance with the above referenced letter agreement; such agreement to be approved as to form by the City Attorney; and that Council adopt a budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the Capital Projects Fund in the amount of $30,000.00, and appropriate the funds to Aviation & Towne Square Boulevard, Account No. 008-530-9830. Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: (#37202-100305) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate additional funding for the Aviation Drive and Towne Square Boulevard Improvement Project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 8.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37202- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s---------------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None-------------------------------___________________O. Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37203-100305) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to enter into an Agreement with the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (Commission) providing for the Commission's participation in the process of designing a realignment of the intersection area of Aviation Drive and Towne Square Boulevard in return for a contribution by the Commission to the City for a portion of the costs of that process; and authorizing the City Manager to take such further action and execute such additional documents as may be necessary to implement and administer such Agreement. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 9.) 278 Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37203- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s--- ----- --------- ----------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. Council Member Dowe requested a time table for commencement of the Towne Square Aviation Drive project; whereupon, the City Manager advised that she could not answer the question specifically and would forward a response to Council following the meeting after conferring with City staff. BUDGET-ARTS MUSEUM OF WESTERN VA: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on June 20, 2005, Council authorized issuance of $3.7 million in General Obligation Bonds for the new Art Museum of Western Virginia; the City of Roanoke pledged $4 million for the project; the first payment of $300,000.00 was appropriated in October 2000; the second payment of $2.5 million is to be appropriated upon certification that funding to commence the construction has been secured; and the third payment of $1.2 million will occur upon certification that the project is 50 per cent complete. It was further advised that on June 11), 2003, Council authorized issuance of $14.3 million in General Obligation Bonds for the Civic Center Expansion/Renovation project; and during fiscal year 2004-2005, $7,895,000.00 of the $14.3 million in General Obligation Bonds was issued, with the balance of $1),405,000.00 to be issued during fiscal year 2005-2001). It was noted that funding needs to be appropriated in advance of bond issuance to facilitate the second payment to the Art Museum of Western Virginia and to encumber funds for the balance of the construction contract for the Civic Center Expansion/Renovation project. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a budget ordinance appropriating $2,500,000.00 for the Art Museum of Western Virginia to an account to be established in the Capital Projects Fund by the Director of Finance and appropriating $1),405,000.00 for Civic Facilities Expansion & Renovation, Account No. 005-550-81)11). 279 Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance; (#37204-100305) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding to be provided by the Series 2005 Bonds to various capital projects, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Civic Facilities and Capital Projects Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 10.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37204- 100305. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris--------------------------------------__________---7. NAYS: None-------------------------~-----------_____________O. BUDGET-CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the following miscellaneous funds have been received by the City of Roanoke and need to be applied to the appropriate project accounts: · The City of Roanoke had Lumsden Associates, P.c. perform a boundary line adjustment survey between the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County; total project cost was $11),1)00,00 which was divided between Roanoke County ($7,700.00) for the Vinyard Park II portion, the City of Roanoke ($5,400.00) for the Wastewater Treatment Plant portion, and Rockydale Quarries Corporation ($3,500.00) for the Route 220 and Draper Road portion; revenue was received on October 21), 2004, from Roanoke County in the amount of $ 7, 700.00 and revenue was received from Rockydale Quarries in the amount of $3,500.00. · The City of Roanoke had a report prepared by Spectrum Design, P.c. entitled "Center in the Square Chiller Plant Study" in conjunction with the City Market Building HVAC Study to evaluate the possibility of developing a central chiller plant for Center in the Square and the City Market Building; Center in the Square agreed to share the cost of the study with the City of Roanoke; the cost of the study totaled $9,000.00 and revenue was received from Center in the Square on May 28, 2004, in the amount of $4,500. 280 · The City of Roanoke initially paid for an abandoned fuel tank to be removed from the Fire Station & Fire Administration site located at Elm Avenue and Franklin Road; the Department of Environmental Quality reimbursed the City of Roanoke for a portion of the cost of removal of the tank; and revenue was received from the Department of Environmental Quality on February 2, 2005, in the amount of $2,097.00. · Lamar Advertising Company damaged a portion of an embankment that had already been graded and permanently seeded on the proposed stadium-amphitheater site while performing work on certain billboards; a quotation in the amount of $988.90 was obtained from the contractor, Branch Highways, Inc., to make the necessary repairs and was given to Lamar Advertising Company; and revenue was received from Lamar Advertising Company on October 21), 2004, in the amount of $988.00. · The Roanoke Times requested a copy of the Victory Stadium Condition Assessment and Evaluation report that was prepared by Sutton-Kennerly & Associates, Inc., at a cost of $100.00; and revenue was received from The Roanoke Times on April 14, 2005, in the amount of $100.00. It was further advised that funding needs to be appropriated and revenue estimates need to be increased as follows: Appropriate This Amount To This Account Number Increase Revenue Estimate for Same Amount in this Account Number $11.200.00 008-530-9818-9003 008-530-9818-9810 $ 4.500.00 008-530-971)7-9003 008-530-971)7-9805 $ 2.097.00 008-530-91)78-9003 008-530-91)78-9802 $ 988.00 008-530-9758-9003 008-008-1234-1293 $ 100.00 008-530-9758-9003 008-530-9758-9812 The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a budget ordinance appropriating the above referenced funds and increasing corresponding revenue estimates for the same amounts as set forth in the above referenced accounts. 281 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37205-100305) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for various capital projects, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 11.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37205- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the folloWing vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris--------------------------------------__________---7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------____________O. COMMUNITY PLANNING-CITY EMPLOYEES-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The City Manager introduced Ford P. Weber, Director of Housing and Neighborhood Services, effective October 3, 2005. DONATIONS/CONTRIBUTIONS-FLOOD REDUCTION /CONTROL -FI RE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager called attention to a resolution that Council is requested to adopt that will allow the City of Roanoke to donate surplus vehicles to the Chambers of Commerce of localities that were affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. The City Manager announced that after several weeks of attempting to connect the City of Roanoke with a city in one of the states affected by the hurricanes, a cooperation arrangement was developed with the City of Gulfport, Mississippi, and with adoption of the above referenced resolution, up to 20 vehicles will be donated to the Gulfport Chamber of Commerce which will ensure that the City of Gulfport is the recipient of the vehicles. She stated that while Roanoke City officials have spoken at length with officials of Gulfport, all details regarding the needs of the community are not known, although it has been indicated that vehicles and building inspections are top priorities. She advised that City employees have been anxiously awaiting the opportunity to be of assistance, but it was necessary to ensure that all of the proper protocols 282 were observed through the Commonwealth of Virginia and the State of Mississippi and to also ensure that FEMA endorses and approves any actions that were taken. She stated that through the efforts of the City's Service Excellence Committee, a bake sale was held last week that netted $1,500.00 that will go to hurricane victims, and it is hoped that the funds will go directly to the residents of the City of Gulfport; earlier in the day, six members of the City's Department of Fire/EMS were deployed to Lake Charles, Louisiana, for 15 days and their primary mission will be planning and rescuing at high level, and following the first 15 days, they will be replaced by six additional members of the Fire/EMS Department for another period of 15 days. She added that the first group to be deployed this morning consisted of Battalion Chief Jeff Beckner, who will lead the group and is trained in incident management, heavy tactical rescue training; Captain Warner VanDame who is trained in hazardous materials; Captain Todd Stone who is trained in water rescue and medical heavy technical rescue; Captain Kent McElwaine, who is a paramedic trained in pre hospital medical care; First Lieutenant Phillip Dillon, who is trained in search, rescue and training; and Lieutenant Chad Whittle berry, who is a paramedic trained in heavy tactical rescue. She advised that with Council's adoption of the above referenced resolution, the City will begin to make arrangements for surplus vehicles, which include vehicles that were to be auctioned later during the fiscal year, to be delivered to the City of Gulfport; and later in the week, she will advise of the deployment of additional non public safety resources to the Gulfport, Mississippi, area. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick inquired if some of the funds that are raised in the Roanoke Valley could be directed speCifically to the City of Gulfport in an effort to establish a more long term relationship. The City Manager responded that by Wednesday, October 5, the City should have in hand a full list of needs that will be shared with the community to enable Roanoke's citizens to more speCifically direct their resources, whether they are monetary or other identified needs, to assist in the delivery of assistance to the Gulfport community. She stated that it is hoped that the entire Roanoke community and perhaps the Roanoke Valley would rally around those communities that are being matched up with cities like Roanoke to ensure that the resources are effectively deployed to the various communities. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick suggested that the Mayor or the City Manager contact other localities in the Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area to encourage their support of efforts to assist localities affected by the recent hurricanes. 283 Council Member Cutler suggested that Roanoke area service groups and organizations such as the Kiwanis Club or the Rotary Club be encouraged to determine how they may contribute and to consider the adoption of "sister" groups in those areas affected by the recent hurricanes. Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution: (#37201)-100305) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to donate up to twenty (20) surplus vehicles to the chambers of commerce for localities affected by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 12.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37201)- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s -- ---------------------------------- ---------------7. NAYS: None---------------------------------------___________O. CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council convene in Closed Session to discuss a matter with regard to acquisition of real property, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(3), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Manager to convene in Closed Session as above described. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s--- ------------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None------------------------------------______________O. At 4:30 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for one Closed Session to interview two applicants for a vacancy on the Roanoke City School Board. At 5:50 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, Mayor Harris presiding. 284 DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of Finance submitted the Financial Report for the month of August 2005. (For full text, see financial report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) The Director of Finance advised that the City is two months into the fiscal year which is included in the August financial report; and just under six per cent growth is anticipated in revenues and expenditures for this budget year. He stated that staff will closely monitor local business taxes due to the spike in fuel prices that will eat into consumer discretionary spending, which generates sales tax, meals tax, admissions tax, room tax, etc. There being no further discussion and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the Financial Report for the month of August would be received and filed. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMiTTEES-INDUSTRIES: Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution reappointing S. Deborah Oyler as a Director of the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, for a term of four years, commencing October 21,2005: (#37207-100305) A RESOLUTION reappointing a 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. 70, Page 13.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37207- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s--- ________________________________________________7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------------O. 285 OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTESS-INDUSTRIES: Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution reappointing Stuart H. Revercomb, as a Director of the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, for a term of four years, commencing October 21,2005: (#37208-100305) A RESOLUTION reappointing a 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. 70, Page 14.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37208- 100305. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s------ ------------ ---------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------------______O. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: NONE. 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. ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER-DISABLED PERSONS: Ms. Debra Caldwell- Shelton, 2817 Lyndhurst Street, N. W., expressed concern that there are no wheelchair ramps around the Roanoke Civic Center. The City Manager advised that a ramp located at the front of the Civic Center leads up to the plaza and provides access to the Coliseum and to the Performing Arts Theatre, an elevator is available in the Performing Arts Theater, and two lifts are available in the Coliseum to take occupants of wheelchairs to the Coliseum floor. The City Manager advised that a member of the City staff would contact Ms. Shelton to discuss her specific concerns and/or any unusual circumstances. 286 Ms. Shelton advised that it was stated at a City Council meeting that all streets and sidewalks in the City of Roanoke are wheelchair accessible; however, she noted that this is not a true statement. The Mayor advised that no claim has been made by the City Councilor the City Manager that all City streets and all sidewalks are handicapped accessible. HOUSING/AUTHORITY: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., spoke with regard to the cost of housing in the City of Roanoke. He referred specifically to houses on Day Avenue, S. W., that are proposed to be renovated by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority and will be sold in the price range of $250,000.00 - $300,000.00. He also referred to vacant houses on Madison Avenue and at the corner of 5th Street, N. W., that sell for $100,000.00 - $124,000.00, and a vacant house on Gilmer Avenue that sells for $85,000.00 which is deteriorating due to vandalism and lack of occupancy. He stated that any person who can afford to purchase a house valued at $100,000.00 - $300,000.00 will not choose to buy a house in those areas of the City. He expressed concern that the average City employee cannot afford to purchase a house in the City of Roanoke because the average City worker earns less than a mother with four children on public assistance. PROCLAMATIONS-POLICE DEPARTMENT: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., complimented the Chief of Police and espeCially Officer S. S. Camp on the manner in which a potentially dangerous situation involving an elderly relative was resolved. She stated that the quick response by Officer Camp prevented what could have been a dangerous incident for an elderly citizen. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: CITY MARKET -CELEBRATIONS-DISABLED PERSONS: The City Manager advised that beginning on October 3, 2005, parking tickets will be issued by downtown parking ticket enforcement officers using handheld computers that print easy to read tickets on water proof paper. The City Manager called attention to the following activities: . Fall Waterways Cleanup and Celebration which was held on Saturday, October 1, 2005, from 8:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m., along the banks of the Roanoke River. 287 · 2005 Business Festival on Saturday, October 1, 2005, which was held at the Goodwill Industries parking lot on Melrose Avenue from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. · Kickoff for the City Market Study which was held on Saturday, October 1, 2005, at 11:00 a.m. · Fall Festival which was held on the City Market on Saturday, October 1, 2005, from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. · Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project ground breaking to be held on Tuesday, October 4, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., at the Roanoke River next to the 9'h Street Bridge. · Presentation of a report by the consultant on the Roanoke Public Library on October 3, 2005, at 1):00 p.m., at the Jefferson Center. · Juvenile Diabetes Research Foundation Walk on Sunday, September 25, 2005, from 2:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m. At I): 10 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for one Closed Session in the Council's Conference Room. At 7:05 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, Mayor Harris presiding. COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Session just concluded, Council Member 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 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s--- ------------------------------------------------7. NAYS: None--------------------------------------____________O. (Council Member Dowe left the meeting during the Closed Session.) 288 OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Roanoke City School Board created by the resignation of Gloria P. Manns, for a term ending June 30, 2001); whereupon, he advised that the following persons applied for the vacancy: Jason E. Bingham Randy L. Leftwich Elias A. Zaney John W. Elliott, Jr. Carla L. Terry The Mayor requested that Council Members cast their vote for one person to fill the vacancy. FOR MR. BINGHAM: Council Members McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Vice- Mayor Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris------------------------------------5. FOR MS. TERRY: Council Member Lea-----------------------------l. FOR MR. LEFTWICH: NONE--------------------------------------O. FOR MR. ELLIOTT: NONE ---------------------------------------0. FOR MR. ZANEY: NONE-----------------------------------------O. (Council Member Dowe was absent.) The Mayor announced that Jason E. Bingham was appointed to fill the unexpired term of Gloria P. Manns, resigned, ending June 30, 2001), as a Trustee of the Roanoke City School Board. OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, created by expiration of the term of office of Mark E. Feldmann; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Brownie Polly. There being no further nominations, Mr. Polly was appointed as a member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, for a term ending September 30, 2008, by the following vote: 289 FOR MR. POLLY: Council Members McDaniel, Wish neff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris -------------------------------------1). (Council Member Dowe was absent.) There being no further business, the Mayor declared the Council meeting adjourned at 7: 10 p.m. APPROVED ATTEST: A '"'õ l. f{ L..~ Mary F. Parker City Clerk c.'4~, ~~ ~ C. Nelson Harris Mayor 290 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL October 17, 2005 2:00 p.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, October 17, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the Roanoke City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, ReC!lular Meetinas, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and pursuant to Resolution No.3 7109-070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005. PRESENT: Council Members Brian J. Wishneff, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick,Jr., Sherman P. Lea and Mayor C. Nelson Harris ------------------5. ABSENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler and Brenda L McDaniel-----2. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: PROCLAMATIONS: The Mayor presented a proclamation to Mary Pinkerton, Program Manager, Lead Safe Roanoke, declaring October 23 - 29, 2005, as Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention Week. 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. He called specific attention to three requests for Closed Session. 291 MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Tuesday, September I), 2005, were before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the reading ofthe minutes be dispensed with and that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris-----------------------------------_____________--------------- 5. NAYS: None ----------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris 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)(l), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council convene in Closed Session as abovedescribed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor HarMs--------------------------------_________________-----------5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) COMMITTEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: A communication from Monica S. Jones tendering her resignation as a member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, effective immediately, was before Council. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the resignation be accepted and that the communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s -------------------- ----- ---------------------------- ------- 5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 292 COMMITTEES-HOUSING/ AUTHORITY: A communication from Rich McGimsey tendering his resignation as a member of the Fair Housing Board, effective immediately, was before Council. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the resignation be accepted and that the communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris------------------------------------------------------------5. NAYS: None _________________________________________________0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) TAXES-REAL ESTATE VALUATION: A communication from the Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge, Twenty-third Judicial Circuit Court of Virginia, transmitting the 2005 Annual Report of the Board of Equalization for the taxable year July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2001), was before Council. Judge Weckstein advised that members of the Board of Equalization rendered signal service, hearing and deciding 107 appeals (75 residential and 32 commercial and industrial), for an increase of almost 73 per cent from the 1)2 appeals that were considered last year. He further advised that under City Code §32-39, Board of Equalization members "receive such per diem compensation for the time actually engaged in the duties of the board as may be fixed by city council"; the current per diem amount is $100.00, which is the amount that Council established more than two decades ago; therefore, on behalf of the Board of Equalization, Judge Weckstein suggested that Council consider a substantial increase in the per diem amount. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the communication and report be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris------------------------------------------------------------5. NAYS: None-------------------------------------------------O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 293 CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Attorney requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to consult with legal counsel regarding actual litigation where such consultation in open session would adversely affect the City's negotiating or litigation posture, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(7) , Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council convene in Closed Session as abovedescribed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris------------------------------------____________------------5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) OATHS OF OFFICE-PARKS AND RECREATION-COMMITTEES-COURT COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS BOARD-ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD: The following report of qualification was before Council: Alison S. Blanton as a member of the Architectural Review Board, for a term ending October 1, 2009; Talfourd H. Kemper, Jr., as a member of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, for a term ending June 30, 2007; and Julian H. Raney, Jr., as a member ofthe Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board, for a term ending June 30, 2008. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s----------------------------------___________________------- 5 . NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 294 CITY COUNCIL-CITIZEN OF THE YEAR: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss nominations for 2005 Citizen of the Year, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(10), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council convene in Closed Session as abovedescribed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris------------------------------------------------------------5. NAYS: None _________________________________________________0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: POLICE DEPARTMENT -BUDGET -DRUGS/SUBSTANCE ABUSE: The City Manager submitted a communication concurring in the following request of the Commonwealth's Attorney. The Commonwealth's Attorney advised that in an effort to better fund law enforcement efforts to fight crime, particularly drug crime, in 1981), 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; immediately, assets seized as evidence are ordered forfeited by the local courts to the police or to the Office of 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 funds must be placed in an interest bearing account and interest earned must be used in accordance with program guidelines; revenues collected through June 30, 2005, total $211,254.00 and interest on the account collected through June 30, 2005, is $18,899.00; funds received in excess of revenue estimate totals $24,910.00; and funds must be appropriated before they can be expended for law enforcement purposes. 295 The Commonwealth's Attorney recommended that Council adopt an ordinance to increase the 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 $22,999.00 and $1,911.00 respectively, and appropriate funds to Forfeited Criminal Assets, Account No. 035-150-5140 in the Grant Fund. Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance: (#37210-101705) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Forfeited Criminal Assets Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005- 2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 17.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37210- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris---------------------------------------_________------------5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) BONDS/BOND ISSUES-HOSPITALS: A communication from Harwell M. Darby, Jr., Attorney, representing the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, advising that the Authority has undertaken a large bond issue for Carilion Health System, in the amount of $329,050,000.00, although the figure could vary between now and November 9, 2005, which is the scheduled closing date due to fluctuations in the financial markets, was before Council. It was further advised that the purpose of the financing is to fund ongoing expansions at Community and Roanoke Memorial Hospitals, as well as to reconfigure and/or extend maturities on other outstanding indebtedness, some of which was used for hospitals located in the City of Bedford and the Counties of Montgomery, Giles and Franklin. 296 Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37211-101705) A RESOLUTION ofthe City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia authorizing, among other things, the issuance of not to exceed $450,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia Hospital Revenue Bonds (Carilion Health System Obligated Group) to the extent required by Section 147 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1981), as amended. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 18.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37211- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s------------------------------------------------------------ 5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: None ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services awards grants for services in three-year cycles; the City of Roanoke has been selected as a grantee for the first year of a three-year funding cycle for the Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY) program under provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act, in the amount of $134,381.00; for the project period beginning September 30,2005 through September 29,2008; funds will be used to cover salary and fringe benefits of a Youth Counselor III, 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. 297 It was further advised that the focus of the program is to alleviate the problems of runaways and homeless youth and their families, to strengthen family relationships and to encourage stable living conditions; early intervention of Sanctuary Outreach staff in a combination of shelter-based and home-based services offers runaway and homeless youth and their families 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 Council adopt a resolution accepting $134,381.00 in funding from the U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, Grant No. 03CY0459/1, for Sanctuary's Runaway and Homeless Youth Outreach program; that the City Manager be authorized to execute any other forms required by the Department of Health and Human Services in order to accept funds; and that Council adopt an ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the amount of $134,381.00 in the Grant Fund and appropriate funds in the same amount to expenditure accounts to be established by the Director of Finance. Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance: (#37212-101705) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 21.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37212- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris-------------------------------------___________------------5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 298 Council Member Wishneff offered the following resolution: (#37213-101705) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a 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 Sanctuary Outreach Program; and authorizing the execution of the necessary documents. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 22.) Council Member Wishneff moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37213- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s------------------------------------------------------------ 5. NAYS: None-------------------------------------------------O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) GRANTS-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS-FIFTH PLANNING DISTRICT COMMISSION: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that local governments, as a condition of receiving Federal disaster mitigation funds, have in effect a mitigation plan that describes the process for identifying hazards, risks and vulnerabilities, identifies and prioritizes mitigation actions, encourages development of local mitigation and provides technical support for such efforts; the Roanoke Valley - Alleghany Regional Commission received a grant from the Virginia Department of Emergency Management (VDEM) to develop a regional predisaster mitigation plan that would meet requirements; in collaboration with staff from the localities, a final draft plan was completed which has been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and VDEM; and each locality is requested to adopt the global portions of the plan, as well as the locality's specific section of the plan. It was further advised that adoption of the plan does not require appropriation of City funds at this time, nor does it commit the City to completion of any specifiC projects; and the plan indicates that all goals are dependant on the availability of non local funding; however, should a specific project be undertaken requiring a local match to State or Federal funds, funding would be addressed at that time. 299 The City Manager recommended that Council adopt the Regional Predisaster Mitigation Plan as above referenced and that she be authorized to take such actions as may be needed to implement and administer the Plan. Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37214-101705) A RESOLUTION adopting a Regional Predisaster Mitigation Plan for communities that are members of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission; and authorizing the City Manager to take such action as may be needed to implement and administer such Plan. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 23.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37214- 10 1705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris-------------------------------------___________------------5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) BUDGET-CULTURAL SERVICES COMMITTEE-HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that after several months of discussion with both public and private organizations that are responsible for funding non-profit agencies on a regular basis, the following criteria have been developed for recommended adoption by Council as prerequisites for those organizations receiving funds from the City of Roanoke in future budget cycles: 1. Organizations must develop a business plan that includes evidence of community involvement and outlines long-term plans for financial sustainability. 2. Boards of organizations must demonstrate commitment to their organization by certifying that 100 per cent of their board members have made a financial commitment to the organization and that each board member has an annual average meeting attendance rate of at least 75 per cent. 300 3. Organizations must agree to an annual joint site visit by the City and Carilion Foundation, Roanoke County (Roanoke County was inadvertently included in the communication) and the Funders Circle if the organization receives funds from them, and must agree to file a semi-annual report with the City of results achieved through funds received. 4. Organizations in existence for two years or more with an annual budget of $50,000.00 or more must perform an annual audit and provide a copy of same to the City. 5. Organizations adhering to these expectations and requirements will benefit through the use of a simplified application and reporting process, and a consolidated site visit. It was further advised that the City of Roanoke will be joined in this approach by Carilion Foundation and the Funders Circle; other private foundations are also considering the use of the abovedescribed criteria in their funding process; and all past recipients of City funds will be informed of the new requirements upon adoption by Council. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a resolution approving the abovedescribed criteria and that the City Manager be authorized to disseminate information regarding the policy to non-profit providers of health and human services, as well as to arts and cultural organizations that have or are likely to apply to the City for funds. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37215-101705) A RESOLUTION adopting a policy pertaining to funding for non-profit organizations in future budget cycles, and authorizing the City Manager to disseminate information about such policy. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 24.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37215- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. Charles Harlow, Chair, Board of Directors, Blue Ridge Independent Living Center, advised that non-profit agencies should have received notice prior to adopting the proposed policy. He asked that action be deferred until the affected non-profit agencies have had an opportunity to review details of the proposed policy. 301 Joe Cobb, Executive Director, Inner Faith Hospitality Network, advised that the Inner Faith Hospitality Network receives emergency shelter grant funding which is administered through the City and funded by the City's Human Services Committee, the organization is monitored by both sources which has included an annual site visit; therefore, he inquired if the proposed new policy would apply to all non-profit organizations and whether the City would be willing to provide assistance to non-profit agencies with regard to preparation of a business plan. Lastly, he stated that the Inner Faith Hospitality Network has received funding in the past from the Carilion Foundation, the organization does not receive funds from Roanoke County or the Funders Circle; whereupon, he inquired to the level of involvement by Roanoke County and the Funders Circle. In clarification, the City Manager advised that the Carilion Foundation, the City of Roanoke, and the Funders Circle, have agreed to support implementation of the proposed criteria and Roanoke County was inadvertently listed in the communication. She stated that the intent of the criteria is two fold: to create greater accountability for those organizations seeking funds from the City and to assist organizations in devoting more time to thinking about current and future activities. She added that City staff would be available to train organizations with regard to creating business plans; and representatives of the City's Department of Management and Budget are currently assisting in a consortium effort to prepare a business plan for a particular program in the City that would transcend several organizations. She stated that the criteria requiring an audit is reasonable as it relates to an annual budget of $50,000.00 or more, and several audit firms have previously indicated that $ 50,000.00 or more is an appropriate threshold at which an audit should occur. She noted that criteria such as an annual audit, an annual site visit, ensuring that members of boards of organizations not only attend board meetings regularly, but also participate financially to the agency is an important demonstration of financial and physical commitment to the organization. She explained that it is anticipated that the criteria would be used for funds provided by the City whether they be general funds or funds such as the Community Development Block Grant program as previously referenced by the Inner Faith Hospitality Network, and a single site visit or review or a single central audit function or review would be conducted. The City Manager advised that an advantage of the criteria to non-profit organizations will be a Simplified application and reporting process. She stated that the policy is not onerous and is proposed for adoption at this time so that agencies will have sufficient time to prepare for the City's next budget cycle. 302 The Mayor concurred in the remarks of the City Manager that the proposed policy is not onerous, organizations will be given time to become familiar with or to make the necessary adjustments, and if a worthy organization needs to engage in dialogue with the City in order to meet certain of the criteria, the City will be flexible. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that many organizations seeking funds from the City do not have an established business plan, or a service model that would enable the City to learn more about the organization prior to investing taxpayers' dollars. He stated that it is important to establish a policy that is fair to everyone and to assist those organizations that need help in connection with preparing their business plan. He called attention to agencies that duplicate services and the proposed policy will lead to a better understanding of current services, who is being served, how well they are being served, and how non-profit agencies can do a better job across the board. Council Member Lea inquired if non-profit agencies were advised of the proposed policy; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the criteria was not shared with the non-profit agencies, the proposed criteria is within the purvue of either the City administration or the City Council; some time ago, the Mayor shared the proposed criteria with the Council prior to approaching the Funders Circle and the Carilion Foundation; and the proposed policy is no different than establishing a new policy with regard to how much or what percent of Community Development Block Grant program funding would be devoted to housing versus another activity. She stated that the proposed policy is a kind of prerequisite for agencies to apply for funding and as long as there is evidence that agencies are making an effort to comply, City staff will work with them; however, if an organization chose not to abide by the criteria, the Council should be advised accordingly. In summary, she advised that no effort was made to seek review of the criteria by non-profit organizations prior to submitting the item to Council for approval. The City Manager explained that voting on the issue today gives non-profit agencies the maximum amount of time to begin preparing for the City's next budget cycle, and the proposed criteria does not affect funding previously authorized by the Council for the current fiscal year. Council Member Wishneff inquired as to whether a copy of the proposed policy could be forwarded to all non-profit organizations that were funded by the City during the past fiscal year prior to adoption of the resolution. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that if the majority of Council is in favor of the proposed policy, the enabling resolution should be adopted with the understanding that City staff will meet with those non-profit agencies that need assistance in connection with preparation oftheir business plan and the policy will continue to be reviewed by City staff for any necessary revisions. 303 Council Member Dowe commended the proposed policy which is not intended to penalize any organization, but to help existing organizations. He stated that those organizations that are currently in compliance will not experience any problems with regard to the proposed new policy. Council Member Wishneff offered a substitute motion that action on the resolution be tabled until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, November 7, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., and that a copy of the proposed policy be forwarded to all non-profit agencies funded by the City of Roanoke during fiscal year 2005-2001). The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea. The substitute motion to table the resolution was lost by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff and Lea ---------------------------2. NAYS: Council Member Dowe, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris-----------------------------------_____________--------------3. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) The Mayor advised that inasmuch as the motion to table the resolution failed, the resolution was before the Council. The City Manager advised that it would be necessary to amend the resolution to remove any references to Roanoke County. Following discussion, it was the consensus of Council to remove all references to Roanoke County from the resolution. vote: Resolution No. 37215-101705, as amended, was adopted by the following AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris----------------------------------______________---------------5. NAYS: None ----------------------------~-----~----------------O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 304 CITY CODE-VETERANS AFFAIRS-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the General Assembly amended Virginia Code Section 15.2-1509 with regard to preferences that local governments must give to veterans when making hiring or promotion decisions; changes to the State Code section broaden the preference that a local government must give a veteran when making personnel decisions; in response to the change in State law, Section 2-70, Veteran's Preference, Code of the City of Roanoke 1979, as amended, requires updating; it is the current practice of the City of Roanoke to extend preference to qualified veterans during the selection process for new hires as well as promotions; the proposed changes to Section 2-70 better conform to amendments made to the State Code, while preserving the City's current practice; and currently, veteran's preference applies only for jobs in which a test is given, while the proposal provides preference regardless of whether a test is given. The City Manager recommended that Council approve amendment of the Code of the City of Roanoke 1979, as amended, to provide for the practice of veteran's preference in compliance with State law. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37211)-101705) AN ORDINANCE amending Section 2-70, Veteran's Preference, Article IV, Personnel Management and Practices, of Chapter 2, Administration, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to conform with Section 2.2-2903 ofthe Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 25.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37211)- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the folloWing vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s ------------------------------------------------------------ 5. NAYS: None _________________________________________________0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 305 TRAFFIC-STATE HIGHWAYS-TRANSPORTATION SAFETY-STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that an extension of Wonju Street between Colonial Avenue and Brandon Avenue was added to VDOT's Six-Year Improvement Plan in 1999; two conceptual alternatives have been considered since project initiation, but as right-of-way impacts and cost estimates for the alternatives increased over time, a third alternative, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, was suggested; and on October 3,2005, VDOT held a Citizen Information Meeting on the proposed project to share alternatives and cost estimates with the public. It was further advised that estimated costs for Alternatives 1 and 2 vary from $18 - 21 million; alternatives would require significant right-of-way acquisition costs, representing approximately 70 per cent ofthe total project cost, and would likely take four to five years to implement; estimated costs for Alternative 3, the TSM Alternative, are expected to be between $1 and $2 million, will minimize right-of-way acquisition, and could be implemented within the next two years; the City's required two per cent match would apply to any of the three alternatives; and funding will be identified at a future time upon acceptance by VDOT of the project request. It was explained that at the Citizen Information Meeting, 43 comment sheets were submitted; of the 43 comments, 21 preferred the TSM Alternative, eight preferred Alternative 1, six preferred Alternative 2, and remaining comments indicated either a preference for combinations of alternatives or did not indicate a preference. It was stated that City staff supports Alternative 3, the TSM Alternative, for the follOWing reasons: · maximizes use of existing capacity on Brandon and Colonial Avenues, · is projected to satisfy the traffic demand through the design year of 2030, · requires minimal acquisition of right-of-way (right-of-way that, based upon preliminary conversations with the affected property owner, will be donated rather than purchased), · minimizes construction cost, · provides an immediate safety improvement through reducing the queue of vehicles on southbound Route 220, · is expected to be advertised for construction in approximately 12 months, · precludes consideration of a build alternative in the future should it become necessary, and · enables unused funds to be programmed for Colonial Avenue improvements and other City needs as directed by Council. 306 The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a resolution in support of Alternative 3, the Transportation System Management alternative, and request that VDOT advance the project to the construction phase. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37217-101705) A RESOLUTION expressing the support ofthe Council of the City of Roanoke to the Virginia Department of Transportation ("V DOT") of Alternative 3, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, for the extension of Wonju Street between Colonial Avenue and Brandon Avenue. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 21).) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37217- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. Mr. Sherman Banford, 2423 Winthrop Avenue, S. W., advised that he is generally in favor of Alternative No.3 which solves a serious traffic problem on Wonju Street, Colonial Avenue and 23'd Street, and offers the least disturbance to businesses, residences, churches, and neighborhoods in the surrounding areas. He expressed concern with regard to the potential for motorists to use 21)'h Street and Winthrop Avenue as a shortcut if the left turn to 23'd is blocked, which is currently happening to some degree with the existing traffic configuration. He expressed further concern that a much larger volume of traffic will flow down 21)'h Street and Winthrop Avenue and traffic will flow at higher speeds, which will defeat the purpose of the proposed traffic system management alternative, because motorists will bypass the no left turn. He called attention to a concern regarding an existing steep grade on 21)'h Street up to Colonial Avenue and there is an existing traffic hazard when exiting on 21)'h Street onto Colonial Avenue. He referred to a large apartment complex located behind Towers Shopping Mall and inquired if the proposed changes would lead to increased traffic on Winthrop Avenue. He stated that the City and VDOT should have a clear understanding of what will happen with regard to the overall project and streets adjacent to the roads where changes are proposed to occur. He advised that the first public meeting with regard to the Central Roanoke Mobility Study will be held on October 17, 2005, and inquired if the Wonju Street and Colonial Avenue alternative is an interim proposal that will be followed by further traffic changes. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that when two lanes turn left from what is essentially Route 220 onto Colonial Avenue, two straight lanes go through the Wonju Street intersection and suddenly merge back to one lane, therefore, there is a need to address two lanes, southbound, to Overland Road, which could mean that there may not be any bike lanes. He stated that the meeting on October 17 will focus on the study regarding the 1-581/Route 220 corridor/ Elm Avenue and is not specific to Wonju Street/Colonial Avenue. 307 Council Member Wishneff requested a clarification that Alternative 3, would eliminate the left turn onto 23'· Street. The City Manager affirmed that Alternative 3 eliminates the left turn onto 23'· Street. She stated that the last official day for public comment on the alternatives was Friday, October 13, 2005; a total of 53 comments were received of which 21) preferred TSM or Alternate No.3, eight preferred Alternate No.1, six preferred Alternate No.2, and 13 indicated either a preference for a combination of the alternatives or did not indicate a preference, therefore, approximately one- half ofthose persons who commented stated a preference for Alternate No.3. She added that not only is Alternate No.3 less expensive and can be implemented more quickly, but should Alternate No.3 not be successful, improvements would not have been made that cannot be used in conjunction with a subsequent alternative choice. The City Manager commended Mr. Banford for a thoughtful and well prepared e-mail which was forwarded to the City's Traffic Engineering Department. She assured Mr. Banford and others that the City of Roanoke takes their comments with regard to other potential impacts for the laneing of Colonial Avenue and the possible traffic impact on Winthrop Avenue seriously and will review the suggestions regardless of which alternative the Council endorses. Council Member Wishneff advised that he could not support eliminating the left turn onto 23'· Street, primarily because he did not have sufficient information on which to base his decision. The City Manager responded that the reason for the dual left turn lanes at Colonial and Brandon Avenues is to expedite additional traffic movement onto Brandon Avenue. She stated that there would be no point in making the dual left turn change if the left turn onto 23'· Street were not eliminated. Upon question, the City Manager explained that Alternatives Nos. 1 and 2 would cost $18-$21 million and Alternate No.3 would cost between $1-$2 million and could be implemented within the next 12 months; Alternatives Nos. 1 and 2 would require a number of years to accumulate sufficient funds, involve considerable right-of-way acquisition, and a loss of some properties that are currently a part of the City's tax base; and Alternate No.3 does not eliminate the opportunity, if necessary, to revert to Alternate Nos. 1 or 2, because improvements are such that they could remain in place. 308 The Mayor advised that the owner of Towers Shopping Mall and Mall tenants were engaged in the process, and the City Manager advised that the owner of Towers Shopping Mall has offered a right-of-way free of charge, if necessary, to accommodate Alternative NO.3. There being no further discussion, Resolution No. 37217-101705 was adopted by the following vote; AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris --------4. NAYS: Council MemberWishneff ----------------------------------1. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that in May 2005, Council authorized purchase of the approximately 140 acre Countryside Golf Course for $4.1 million and an option to purchase the property was entered into, with a deposit in the amount of $125,000.00 which provided time for further staff analysis to determine whether the property should be acquired by the City for further development; in the event that the property was purchased, the option amount would apply to the purchase price; in June 2005, Council authorized issuance of general obligation public improvement bonds in the amount of $3,975,000.00 to fund a portion of the project, and the bonds will be issued in late calendar year 2005 ifthe City elects to proceed with purchase of the property. It was further advised that since receiving authorization, staff has conducted the required due diligence, including completion of a survey and environmental studies, and has negotiated a management agreement with Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., for continued operation of the facility as a golf course for one year after purchase. It was explained that the management agreement provides for the Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., to be responsible for operation and maintenance of the facility in a manner consistent with current operation; all expenses for operating the golf course will be the responsibility of the operator, and the operator will collect all income generated from use of the facility by the general public; and the operator will pay a management fee of $35,000.00 to the City for the one year term of the operating agreement. 309 It was advised that the option agreement which was previously authorized by Council requires notification to the seller by October 28, 2005, with closing to occur no later than November 30,2005; in order to proceed with the notification and closing process, action is required by Council to appropriate the balance of funds necessary for purchase of the property; funds totaling $4,001),000.00 are needed for property acquisition and other costs associated with closing, with $3,975,000.00 to be provided from the sale ofthe 2005 general obligation public improvement bonds; and funding of $31,000.00 is available in the existing project account for remaining expenses. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the Operating Agreement with Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., on behalf of the City of Roanoke in a form to be approved by the City Attorney; and that Council appropriate $3,975,000.00 in advance of issuance ofthe 2005 general obligation bonds to Account No. 008-310-9840, Countryside Golf Course acquisition. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37218-101705) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding to be provided by the Series 2005 Bonds to purchase Countryside Golf Course, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title ofthis ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 27.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37218- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 729 27th Street, N. W., expressed concern with regard to the renovation of houses on Day Avenue, S. W., by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority which are appraised at $38,000.00-$50,000.00 and the RRHA plans to sell the houses for $21)5,000.00. He also referred to vacant houses on Madison Avenue, N. W., that sell for $124,000.00, while the average home in the neighborhood sells for $40,000.00-$50,000.00. He stated that any person who can afford to purchase a house in the price range of $125,000.00- $21)5,000.00 will not choose to live in the Day Avenue and Madison Avenue areas of the City. There being no further discussion, Ordinance No. 37218-101705 was adopted by the folloWing vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris---------------------------------_______________------------5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) 310 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37219-101705) AN ORDINANCE authorizing execution of an Operating Agreement for Countryside Golf Course ("Operating Agreement"), between the City of Roanoke and Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., upon certain terms and conditions, as contemplated in the Operating Agreement; and dispensing with the second reading by title paragraph of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 28.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37219- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s---------------- --- ----------------------------------------- 5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) CITY ATTORNEY: ZONING: The City Attorney submitted a written report advising that on June 1, 2005, Roanoke Investments Associated, Inc., represented by Eugene M. Elliott, Jr., Attorney, filed a petition to change conditional proffers attaching to Official Tax No. 21)1)0519; at the time of filing, the property was zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain proffered conditions; on July 21, 2005, the City Planning Commission recommended, by a 7-0 vote, that the revised proffers proposed by the applicant be approved; and a Second Amended Petition setting forth the revised proffers made by the applicant, was filed on July 27, 2005. It was further advised that at a public hearing on August 15, 2005, Council adopted Ordinance No. 37157-081505 by a vote of 1)-0, which approved the petition as requested by the applicant and as recommended by the Planning Commission; there was no opposition to the matter either at the public hearing before the Planning Commission, or at the public hearing before Council; however, the ordinance prepared by the City Attorney's Office did not reference the correct date of filing of the Second Amended Petition; therefore, an ordinance has been prepared, which, if adopted by Council, repeals Ordinance No. 37157-081505, and references the correct date of filing of the Second Amended Petition and adopts the proffers filed which were on that date requested. 311 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37220-101705) AN ORDINANCE to amend §31).1-3 and 31).1-4, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and Sheet No. 21)1), Sectional 1971) Zone Map, City of Roanoke, by amending the conditions presently binding upon certain property previously conditionally zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District; repealing Ordinance No. 37157-081505; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 29.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37220- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris-------------------------------~----------------------------5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: TAXES: The Director of Finance submitted a written report advising that in 1998, the General Assembly enacted the Personal Property Tax Relief Act (PPTRA or the Act), which provided relief from personal property taxes otherwise payable on the first $20,000.00 of value for qualifying vehicles; the relief was provided for vehicles owned by individuals and utilized for personal use; additionally, vehicles with an assessed value of $1,000.00, or less, receive 100 percent relief; relief is provided by the Commonwealth of Virginia through payments to localities of amounts which would otherwise be taxed to citizens; the original intent of the Act was to phase-in tax relief such that the Commonwealth would ultimately cover the full cost of personal property tax ofthe eligible vehicles; the Commonwealth's plan of implementing the tax was dependent upon growth in State revenues sufficient to cover the increasing annual cost; currently, the Commonwealth provides 70 per cent relief on qualifying vehicles; and the amount of relief provided by the Commonwealth has been at this level for several years. 312 It was further advised that in 2004 and 2005, additional legislation was passed to amend the original Act; such legislation capped PPTRA at $950 million for all Virginia localities for tax years 2001) and beyond; PPTRA funds will be allocated to individual localities based on each government's pro rata share oftax year 2004 payments from the Commonwealth of Virginia; funding for delinquencies of current and past years will continue until September 2001), or until the funding for such is exhausted; legislation also altered the timing of payments from the Commonwealth of Virginia to localities, the impact of which is dependent on the due date observed by the locality; and for spring billers like Roanoke, the impact is the delay of approximately two months in receipt of the majority of funding provided by the Commonwealth. The Director of Finance explained that localities have certain options on how to administer amended PPTRA; options include the method for apportioning relief to individual taxpayers, flexibility in determining the distribution of relief, and an option to "balance bill" delinquent taxpayers at the end ofthe current program; to determine the best course of action for the City of Roanoke, a Study Team was formed consisting of representatives from the Offices of the Commissioner of the Revenue, Treasurer, City Attorney, and the Department of Finance; and through the course of its work on the PPTRA revisions, the Study Team consulted with representatives from other localities throughout the State, most notably those from neighboring jurisdictions. It was stated that two relief methods are available regarding distribution of tax relief; I.e.: the reduced rate method and the specific relief method; the reduced rate method would entail major changes to administration of the tax including the use of multiple tax rates, one of which would require an annual modification by Council; this method would bring about more significant changes to citizens and would be more costly to implement than the specific relief method; the speCific relief method, which the Study Team recommends calls for a percentage of relief to be applied to qualifying vehicles, similar to the method currently used; while the percentage of relief will decline annually assuming growth in the assessed value of personal property, the tax payer will receive a personal property bill which is most consistent with the type of bill currently utilized; and the specific relief method is fairly efficient and effective to implement since it uses a tax method most consistent with the method currently in place. It was explained that localities also have an option as to how they choose to distribute tax relief once the new program is in place; relief must be provided for owners of qualifying vehicles of $20,000.00 and less, but changes can be made on how relief is provided for values up to $20,000.00; in order to maintain consistency with the current PPTRA, the Study Team recommends that relief continue to be applied in a similar manner to the present method; I.e.: vehicles valued at $1,000.00 and less will continue to remain fully exempt and relief for vehicles with assessed values ranging from $1,001.00 to $20,000.00 will continue to be taxed by applying a single common percentage to determine the amount to be paid by the taxpayer. 313 It was advised that the final option for localities concerns the ability to balance-bill delinquent taxpayers in full for personal property taxes not remitted by the September 2001) deadline or the exhaustion of State funding for the current program; this option is available to ensure the opportunity for localities to receive funds from citizens that may have otherwise been paid by the Commonwealth of Virginia; and to maximize collection of the tax, the Study Team recommends that the City of Roanoke balance-bill any citizens with unpaid taxes once funding from the Commonwealth is exhausted. The Director of Finance pointed out that recommendations provided by the Study Team and outlined above maintain provisions ofthe PPTRA most closely with those originally implemented by the Commonwealth of Virginia, are the most equitable for Roanoke's citizens, are the most efficient and cost-effective for the City to implement, and are consistent with those planned by the majority of other localities in Virginia. The Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt an ordinance to provide for implementation of 2004-2005 changes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act as recommended, including adoption ofthe specific dollar amount relief method, allocating 100 per cent relief to vehicles with an assessed value of $1,000.00 and less, and balance billing of delinquencies upon completion of the current PPTRA program. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37221-101705) AN ORDINANCE to provide for the implementation ofthe 2004-2005 changes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 31.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37221- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. The Director of Finance further elaborated that the recommendations included in the report do not change the City's tax rate for personal property or the City's vehicle decal rate. He stated that even though the State allows localities a fair amount of latitude on how to implement changes, the City's work group elected to recommend that Council leave the program intact, to the extent possible, as currently administered by the State which is believed to be the most equitable method for Roanoke's citizens and provides the greatest amount of relief to lower value vehicles. 314 Ordinance No. 37221-101705 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris------------------------------------------------------------5. NAYS: None-------------------------------------------------O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A report of the Roanoke City School Board requesting that Council appropriate the following funds, was before the body. · $89,125.00 for the Supplementary Technology Grant to help school divisions implement the statewide Standards of Learning assessment system and to purchase assistive technologies for the classroom; funds can be used to purchase new scientific and graphing calculators, repair non-functioning calculators, or to purchase calculator batteries; and the new program is 100 per cent reimbursed by Federal funds. · $412,1)31).00 for the Westside renovation project; the additional monies from 1999 Capital Bond Funds and Capital Reserve Funds will provide funds for change orders for the project. · $1,300,000.00 from the 2005-2001) Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Fund to fund textbooks, instructional technology requests, replacement of school bus and maintenance vehicles, replacement of district-wide facility maintenance equipment, and roof repairs. A report ofthe Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request of the School Board was also before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37222-101705) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the 2005 Supplementary Technology Grant, 2005-01) Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program, and Westside Renovation Project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) General, School, and School Capital Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 33.) 315 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37222- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote; AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s----- --- -------- ~---- ---------- ----- ------------------------ 5 . NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel 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: POLICE DEPARTMENT: Council Member Lea congratulated Council Member Wishneff on the marriage of his son on Saturday, October 15, 2005, in Washington, D. C. Council Member Lea advised that the first meeting of the domestic violence discussion group was held on September 30, 2005, and included attendance by representatives of City Council, the City Manager's Office, the City Manager, the Assistant City Manager for Community Development, the Police Department, and other professionals who work in the domestic violence field. He stated that the group has been meeting on a weekly basis and is currently planning a community forum on domestic violence to be held on November 29, 2005, from 1):00 p.m.- 8:00 p.m., at the Roanoke Civic Center; the community forum will begin with a panel discussion, including representatives of law enforcement, victims advocacy groups, the Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, and medical services for victims; and the panel discussion will be followed by a round table discussion encouraging persons to speak out about issues they face or see in the community regarding domestic violence. He explained that the community forum is designed to educate citizens on services that are currently available to address domestic violence and to further enhance an understanding of the issues facing victims of domestic violence; and following the community forum, a task force will be appointed to address issues brought forth by victims, friends and families affected by domestic violence. 316 POLICE DEPARTMENT -SEGREGATION/INTEGRATION-NEWSPAPERS: Council Member Wishneff called attention to national news coverage with regard to riots that erupted in Toledo, Ohio, over a planned march by a white supremacist group whose spokesperson was identified as William White, a resident of Roanoke, Virginia. He stated that he is of Jewish descent and has lived in the Roanoke Valley for over 20 years and would like for the public to know that the behavior exhibited by the group is not representative of the citizens of the Roanoke area. He volunteered to participate in a discussion group to review actions, if any, that could be taken by the City to address the issue. The Mayor advised that over the past several weeks he has received telephone calls by news media from outside of the Roanoke area to respond to actions, attitudes, and website material prepared by Mr. William White, and he has assured the news media that the contents on the website and the kind of attitude that is promoted are repugnant and appalling and are not reflective of the City of Roanoke. He stated that he shared the sentiment expressed by Council Member Wishneff; however, the Council can only respond legally to incidents, etc., that occur within the City of Roanoke. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation to Council Member Wishneff for his remarks and advised that few citizens have suffered in the same ways as the African-American and Jewish populations. He expressed concern that the name of the Roanoke community was used in a repugnant manner and suggested that a communication under the signature of the Mayor of the City of Roanoke be forwarded to the Mayor of the City of Toledo, Ohio, advising the citizens of Toledo that Mr. William White does not represent the City of Roanoke. Council Member Dowe concurred in the remarks of Mr. Wishneff and Mayor Harris. He stated that for the safety of citizens who attend City Council meetings, City staff and Members of Council, he would be in favor of providing security in the City Council Chamber, beginning as early as the 7:00 p.m., Council session this evening. ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY: Council Member Dowe advised that the Discovery Shop, which benefits the American Cancer Society by selling gently used clothing, celebrated its 10th Anniversary on Wednesday, October 12, 2005; and Total Action Against Poverty celebrated its 40th anniversary at a luncheon which was held earlier in the day. He congratulated both organizations on the occasion of their anniversary celebrations. 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. 317 RNDC-HENRY STREET REVIVAL COMMITTEE: Daniel Hale, President, Roanoke Chapter, N.A.A.C.P., advised that upon recommendation of the Executive Committee, the Roanoke Branch N.A.A.C.P. unanimously voted to support the Henry Street Development Project proposed by the Roanoke Neighborhood Development Corporation (RNDC). He stated that the RNDC presented a proposal to the Roanoke Branch, N.A.A.C.P., for development of First Street/Henry Street that would include a business office to house the Social Security Administration Office; and the proposal was also endorsed by the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. He further stated that anticipated results of the Plan would provide an infusion of funds to complete the entire Henry Street project; and the other viable option is a proposed office building to serve the community as a monument to the history of medicine in the Roanoke Valley. He advised that Henry Street is a project that is long past due insofar as its completion; after considering all information presented, the Roanoke Branch of the N.A.A.C.P. is of the opinion that the opportunity to have ownership in the project is too important to neglect and it is hoped that the entire City of Roanoke will support the proposed by the RNDc. , POLICE DEPARTMENT-COMPLAINTS: Mr. Shaheed Omar, 1219 Loudon Avenue, N. W., expressed concern with regard to the amount of news coverage that the incident in Toledo, Ohio, received by local television stations and the local newspaper, and advised that the level of attention by the news media gave validation to the incident (See page 311)). Mr. Omar spoke with regard to the citizen complaint process administered by the Police Department. He referred specifically to a form that must be completed by a citizen when filing a complaint that is available only at the Police Department, and suggested that the form should also be available in other City departments. He expressed concern with regard to composition of the Citizen Review Board; and the fact that the Chief of Police has the authority to make the final decision after a complaint has been investigated which places a lot of power in one individual. He asked that his concerns be included on a City Council agenda for public comment. Council Member Lea requested information with regard to composition of the Citizen Review Board. CITY COUNCIL: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke with regard to actions that are taken behind closed doors which are administered unfairly and without respect or compassion for City employees and/or the citizens of Roanoke. She asked that Council serve as an example of how collective individual traits of strong moral character, exhibited by responsibility, respect, caring, trustworthiness, fairness and citizenship can be applied to a municipality. She advised that especially during these times local, national and world crisis, Council is challenged to display strong morale character by not saying one thing to Roanoke's citizens and follOWing through with the opposite. 318 ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, concurred in the remarks of Ms. Bethel. He spoke in support of the renovation of Victory Stadium and advised that in accordance with the agreement between the City of Roanoke and Norfolk and Western Railway, the City is responsible for the maintenance of Victory Stadium. He stated that restroom facilities need to be repaired and another gate should be opened, and Victory Stadium should be protected and preserved as a monument to those persons from the Roanoke Valley who served their country during World War II. He added that if the stadium were properly promoted it could generate tax revenues for the City of Roanoke. COMPLAINTS- TAXES-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., advised that wages paid to City employees have not kept up with wages paid to State employees; and with current wages, the average City employee cannot afford to purchase a home. He expressed concern that taxpayers' dollars are spent to support businesses and/or projects that are of little value to the average citizen. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: FIRE DEPARTMENT: The City Manager advised that the City of Roanoke rendered assistance to Johnson's Bayou, Louisiana, as a result of Hurricane Rita through deployment of six firefighters. In addition to providing strategic planning and over sight at a fire station, Roanoke's firefighters received a call that a truck was on fire and when arriving at the scene of the fire, it was discovered that the truck was owned by a Roanoke electrical company that had gone to Louisiana to help restore electricity. She stated that Roanoke firefighters responding to a fire call involving a Roanoke truck in Johnson's Bayou, Louisiana, indicates that it is indeed a small world. ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CITY MANAGER: On behalf of the City of Roanoke, the City Manager advised that she accepted an award at a recent conference of the International City Management Association for populations of 50,000 and over under the category of Innovations in Local Government Management, in recognition of Roanoke's program on "Managing the Rising Cost of Health Care". She stated that the City of Roanoke competed with cities such as San Antonio, Texas, Clark County, Nevada, Aurora, Colorado, Sarasota County, Florida, Reno, Nevada, Montgomery County, Maryland, and Sunnyvale, California, all of which are considerably larger than Roanoke. 319 PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The City Manager advised that October 17, 2005, was a "red letter" day for the City of Roanoke. She called attention to the ground breaking for the Colonial Green project which will include 230 housing units and represents the first time that City land has been made available in order to facilitate more housing in the community. Additionally, she pointed out that Council previously approved purchase ofthe Countryside Golf Course property which is another example of the City's efforts to look long term to the future and the need to continue to find ways to enhance, grow and sustain the community. At 4:15 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for three Closed Sessions. At 5:35 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all Members ofthe Council in attendance, except Council Members Cutler and McDaniel, Mayor Harris presiding. COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Vice-Mayor 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 Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s--------------------------- ------------------------- -------- 5 . NAYS: None-------------------------------------------------O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) INDUSTRIES-VIRGINIA'S FIRST REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY AUTHORITY: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority, created by the resignation of Elizabeth Neu; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Economic Development. There being no further nominations, Mr. Townsend was appointed as a City representative to Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority, to fill the unexpired term of Elizabeth Neu, ending June 30, 2001), by the following vote: 320 FOR MR. TOWNSEND: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s --------------------------------------------------------- 5. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) RAILSIDE LINEAR WALK: Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37223-101705) A RESOLUTION renaming the O. Winston Link Railwalk as the David R. and Susan S. Goode Railwalk. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 35.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37223- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Wishneff and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris------------------------------------------------------------5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) At 5:40 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess to be reconvened at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. At 7:00 p.m., on Monday, October 17, 2005, the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding. PRESENT: Council Members BrianJ. Wishneff, Alfred T. Dowe,Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick,Jr., Sherman P. Lea and Mayor C. Nelson Harris ------------------5. ABSENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler and Brenda L. McDaniel-----2. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. 321 The invocation was delivered by Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution memorializing the late F. Wiley Hubbell, a long-time resident of the City of Roanoke and 1991) Citizen of the Year: (#37209-101705) A RESOLUTION memorializing the late F. Wiley Hubbell, a long-time resident of the City of Roanoke and Citizen of the Year in 1991). (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 15.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37209- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris-------~-----------------------------___________------------5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) The Mayor presented a ceremonial copy of Resolution No.3 7209-101705 to Stuart Hubbell and Christopher Hubbell, sons, and called for a moment of silence· in memory of Mr. Hubbell. PUBLIC HEARINGS: ROANOKE VISION, COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, October 17, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on a proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, October 7, 2005. 322 The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan identifies three high priority initiatives: · Housing Development & Conservation: Promote rehabilitation, maintenance, well-designed infill development, and increased resident ownership; zoning patterns should protect and maintain established residential areas. · Capacity Building: Peters Creek South residents are willing participants in determining the future of their neighborhood; neighborhood-based organizations will be crucial to initiating and sustaining revitalization efforts; the many groups and individuals working toward Peters Creek South revitalization should collaborate to ensure open communication and awareness of development projects. · Infrastructure: Peters Creek South should have safe, well-designed streets and other infrastructure; traffic management and street design must be evaluated and improved to ensure compatibility with the neighborhood setting. It was further advised that the Neighborhood Plan also includes a future land use map to guide development and zoning patterns in the neighborhood. The City Planning Commission recommended that Council adopt the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan as a component of the Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan. Council Member Dowe offered the following ordinance: (#37224-101705) AN ORDINANCE approving the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan, and amending Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 31).) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37224- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. The Mayor inquired ifthere were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. 323 There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37224-101705 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris-----------------------------------------------_------------5. NAYS: None -------------------------------------------------0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) ROANOKE GAS COMPANY-EASEMENTS: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, October 17, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the conveyance of an easement across City-owned property identified as Official Tax No. 1012103, located on Luck Avenue, S. W., the site of the Commonwealth Building, to Roanoke Gas Company for installation of a new regulator station, the mátter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, October 7, 2005. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Roanoke Gas Company has requested an approximate 10'x 80' easement across City-owned property identified as Official Tax No. 1012103, on the Luck Avenue side of the Commonwealth Building; the easement is needed to install a new regulator station to replace an existing vault that is often flooded with runoff; Roanoke Gas Company has agreed to enclose the regulators in a utility cabinet to improve the appearance; and a temporary 40' X 80' easement is also needed for construction, which will expire upon completion of the work. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the appropriate documents granting a utility easement as above described to Roanoke Gas Company, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37225-101705)· AN ORDINANCE authorizing the donation and conveyance of a ten foot by eighty foot easement and a forty foot by eighty foot temporary easement on City-owned property identified by Official Tax No. 1012103, on the Luck Avenue side of the Commonwealth Building, to Roanoke Gas Company, to install a new regulator station to replace an existing vault that is often flooded with runoff, 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. 70, Page 37.) 324 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37225- 101705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. The Mayor inquired ifthere were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the request for easement. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37225-101705 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s--------------- ----- ---------- -------- ---------------------- 5. NAYS: None-------------------------------------------------O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) TEA-21 PROJECTS-GREENWAYS-STATE HIGHWAYS: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, October 17, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on consideration of previously received applications for Federal funds made available through the Department of Transportation for transportation enhancement projects in fiscal year 2005-2001), the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Monday, October 10, 2005. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Transportation Enhancement Program is intended to promote mobility, protection of the human and natural environment, community preservation, sustainability, and livability; traditionally, the program has been funded through a requirement that state departments of transportation set aside ten per cent of their Surface Transportation Program (STP) allocation each year for transportation enhancement activities; activities include such projects as facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists (such as greenways) and rehabilitation of historic transportation buildings; and the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) advertised and held an applicant workshop on the TEA-21 enhancement program in Bedford, Virginia, on August 23,2005, at which time citizens and public officials were invited to ask questions and learn more about the program. 325 It was further advised that any group or individual may initiate enhancement projects; however, Council and the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) must endorse the applications prior to submittal to VDOT by the applicant by November 1, 2005; two enhancement project applications were received and require Council and MPO actions; in addition, two applicants have requested additional funds for existing projects which include Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) for the Dumas Center for Artistic and Cultural Development and the Roanoke Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society for the Virginian Railway Passenger Railway Station; Council and the MPO previously adopted resolutions on the two applications and no further action is required; according to VDOT, Council resolutions endorsing project applications also require that the City of Roanoke agree to be held liable for a minimum of 20 per cent of total cost for planning and design, right-of-way and construction of the project, and if the City subsequently elects to cancel a project, the City agrees to reimburse VDOT for the total amount of costs expended by VDOT through the date of cancellation of the project; and an agreement to be executed between the City of Roanoke and a project applicant requires the applicant to be fully responsible for matching funds and, if the project is canceled, the agreement also requires the applicant to reimburse the City for all amounts due to VDOT. The City Manager recommended that Council endorse, by separate resolution, project applications and agree to pay respective percentages of the total cost for each project and, if the City elects to cancel the project, the City would reimburse VDOT for the total amount of costs associated with any work completed on the project through the date of cancellation notice; that the City Manager be authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, City/State Agreements for project administration, subject to approval of project applications by VDOT, and that the City Manager be further authorized to execute, on behalf of the City, a legally binding agreement with project applicants, subject to approval of the application by VDOT, requiring applicants to be fully responsible for matching funds, as well as all other obligations undertaken by the City by virtue of the City/State Agreement. Council Member Dowe offered the folloWing resolution: (#37221)-101705) A RESOLUTION requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board establish an enhancement project for a greenway connection from the Lick Run Greenway to the Roanoke Civic Center, via Walker Avenue. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 38.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37221)- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. 326 The Mayor inquired ifthere 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, Resolution No. 37221)-101705 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harri s------,------------------ -------- --------- ------------------- 5. NAYS: None-------------------------------------------------O. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were absent.) Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37227-101705) A RESOLUTION requesting that the Commonwealth Transportation Board establish an enhancement project for completion of an open storage system for the O. Winston Link Museum, the newest operating division of the Historical Society of Western Virginia. Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37227- 101705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Wishneff, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea and Mayor Harris------------------------------------------------------------5. NAYS: None _________________________________________________0. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel were 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 response, recommendation or report to Council. SCHOOLS-ARMORY/STADIUM: The following persons addressed Council with regard to stadia at William Fleming and Patrick Henry High Schools: Mr. Ivan Moore, 2219 Carter Road, S. W., addressed the issue from the standpoint of Roanoke's youth who would prefer to play outdoor sports on a field located at their high school; plans have been included in the design of Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools to accommodate sports facilities; and stadiums at the two high schools would instill school pride. He asked that Council reconsider the issue of stadia at both high schools. 327 Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., spoke with regard to the real estate tax freeze for Roanoke's elderly and disabled population. He stated that the City's income limits should be raised in order to be more in line with Roanoke County. He advised that funds expended by the City to display the new branding logo could have been better spent on providing more school classrooms, renovation of Victory Stadium, teacher pay raises, and Courthouse renovations. He stated that renovation of Victory Stadium would be preferred as opposed to constructing stadia at the two high schools. He spoke in support of the reelection of George McMillan as City Sheriff, and also spoke in support of adoption of new sign regulations as a part of the City's new Zoning Ordinance. Ms. Trisha Edwards, 3045 Poplar Lane, S. W., President, Patrick Henry Parent Teacher Student Association, advised that last year a majority of City Council Members declined to consider a request of the PTSA Board to construct stadia at both Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools. Therefore, on behalf of the PTSA Board of William Fleming High School, she requested the support of Council to construct stadiums on the campuses of Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools. She called attention to petitions that were supported by principles, athletic directors, coaches, students, and PTSAs at both high schools; the PTSA Boards understand the concerns that some nearby residents of the high schools have expressed, however, the location for Patrick Henry's stadium has changed; the number of parking spaces at Patrick Henry is ample; and there is overwhelming support by students and parents. She stated that the Parent Teacher Student Associations of William Fleming and Patrick Henry High Schools do not need to express to Council the numerous benefits of school stadiums and how much the children deserve what most schools already have and enjoy; therefore, Council's support of full stadiums at both Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools can be a symbolic gesture of how much City Council cares for Roanoke's students. Ms. Barbara Colonna, 2318 Laburnum Avenue, S. W., representing the Patrick Henry Parent Teacher Student Association, the Patrick Henry Athletic Boosters Club and the Woodrow Wilson Middle School PTA Board, advised that she has traveled with school sports teams and the Patrick Henry Patriot Band to numerous other high schools around the state that have on campus stadiums; and the benefits of these facilities include a safer environment, decreased transportation costs and travel time, flexibility in scheduling, opportunities to support school programs, ability to host events such as sports clinics, tournaments, and band competition, and increased participation and school spirit. She stated that the students of Roanoke City Public Schools deserve the sense of pride and ownership that school stadiums would provide; and the construction of on campus stadiums is in the best interests of the students of Roanoke City Public Schools who represent the future of the City of Roanoke. 328 Ms. Mary Ellen Langan, 2515 Belford Street, S. W., President, Woodrow Wilson Middle School PTA, advised that the Woodrow Wilson Middle School PTA supports the construction of football stadiums at both high schools. Ms. Brenda Foster, 3721) Heatherton Road, S. W., First Vice-President,James Madison Middle School PTA, and a member of the PTA Board at Crystal Spring Elementary School, spoke in support of stadiums at each of the two high schools which are important elements to address the athletic needs at Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools. Mr.John Phelps, 1915 Canterberry Road, S. W., President, Patrick Henry High School Athletic Boosters Club, advised that stadiums at each of the high schools are important to Roanoke's students to build community spirit and togetherness. He added that a state-of-the-art facility is under construction at Patrick Henry, therefore, this is a perfect time to construct a state of the art athletic facility; athletics are a part of the student's total experience to build pride and respect for their school and community and good character; and student safety would be improved with on campus stadiums. From an economic standpoint, he advised that if a student has the total high school experience, with pride and love of their school, they are much more inclined to return to Roanoke after graduating from college. Mr. Jay Foster, 3721) H~atherton Road, S. W., spoke as a business owner in the City of Roanoke, a real estate investor, and as the parent oftwo children enrolled in the Roanoke City Public Schools. He stated that in his travels across the United States, he has had the opportunity to visit many different communities with vibrant economies that are progressing in terms of economic growth and job opportunities, especially for young people, and offer the kind of cultural amenities that will attract and retain young people. He further stated that the Roanoke Valley is one of the best places to live in the United States, with a good quality of life and all of the right ingredients to become one of the most outstanding economic hubs in the country; however, he asked the question, what will it take to get there. He advised that there is a need in the Roanoke Valley for the kind of leadership that will have a crystal clear vision of where the City of Roanoke is headed, what is important, where does the City need to invest its time and energy, and to represent the often quiet majority at the expense of an often vocal minority. He challenged the Council to resolve that it will move forward by leaving Victory Stadium in the past and to invest time and energy in the future of Roanoke's children by constructing a world-class stadia at each of the two high schools. 329 CULTURAL SERVICES COMMITTEE-HUMAN SERVICES COMMITTEE: William D. Bestpitch, Executive Director, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, spoke with regard to the proposed criteria for funding non-profit organizations (See pages 299 - 303). He stated that the majority of the agencies affected by the policy were not aware that the matter was to be discussed by the Council. He expressed concern with regard to the 75% attendance requirement for Board members and advised that non-profit agencies have been instructed to stop counting outputs and start measuring outcomes, therefore, the 75% attendance requirement amounts to counting an output; I.e.: how many meetings a member attends; there are certain Board members who attend meetings, but do not participate in discussions, or come to committee meetings or volunteer for fund raising events outside of Board meetings, while at the same time, there are Board members who may frequently be unable to attend Board meetings, but show their commitment and involvement to the organization in other ways, so simply counting Board attendance does not measure the outcome in terms of commitment by Board members to the various organizations. In a more general sense, he expressed concern about the continued increase in administrative requirements placed on agencies; and while agencies are told that the money they receive should be spent directly on programs and not for administrative purposes, where is the funding to meet all requirements supposed to come from. He stated that when serving on Council, he was involved in the process of changing the policy for CDBG funds to restrict the funds more toward capital projects and expansion or improvement of programs that would be short term, with no more than three years of funding; and at every opportunity during the discussions, he made the point that if CDBG funds were to be targeted in that manner, the City would need to find additional funding to provide ongoing operating support for those agencies. He advised that a number of other agencies are concerned about the proposed criteria and would like to work with the Council and the City administration to address their concerns. ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, advised that the City of Roanoke is responsible for the upkeep of Victory Stadium, pursuant to the agreement between the City and Norfolk and Western Railway; and the agreement stipulates that if the City does not maintain the property for stadium/armory and/or recreational purposes, the land will revert to the railroad who could, in turn, donate the property to Carilion Health System. He stated that Victory Stadium was constructed as a memorial to World War II veterans from the Roanoke Valley; and it does not make sense to tear down a 25,000 seat facility to construct a smaller stadium. He advised that the two high schools deserve to have their own athletic fields and Victory Stadium should be renovated and preserved in memory of those persons from Roanoke who fought for their country in World War II. 330 There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 7:45 p.m. APPROVED A~~ !J ~ Mary F. Parker City Clerk c~~~ C. Nelson Harris Mayor 331 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL November 1, 2005 4:00 p.m. A special meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke was called to order on Tuesday, November 1, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding. PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff and Mayor C. Nelson Harris----nn---m-----n-----m-----------__m__nn____mmm_________m7. A BS E NT: Non e_oo__.__n__n____oo____nn__n_·___n_n_n________nnnnn______nnnn----oo--O. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. At 4:05 p.m., the Mayor declared the special meeting in recess to be immediately reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke. At 4: 10 p.m., the special meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all members of the Council in attendance, Mayor Harris presiding. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. The invocation was delivered by Council Member Sherman P. Lea. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. The Mayor read the following letter calling the special meeting of Council: "Pursuant to Section 10, Meetings of Council Generally, Charter of the City of Roanoke, this is to advise you that I am calling a special meeting of the Council on Tuesday, November 1, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke. The purpose of the special meeting is to receive the report of HEERY International Corporation with regard to Victory Stadium." 332 Mayor Harris advised that the Council would be briefed on the Stadium Study Report prepared by Heery International, Inc., and the Victory Stadium Market and Financial Analysis report prepared by Conventions, Sports & Leisure International ("CSL"), copies of which would be available for review by the public at the Main Library and all branch libraries, and personal copies could be obtained for approximately $35.00. . Mayor Harris stated that representatives of Heery International, Inc., and CSL International would present their report without interruption, followed by a brief recess and Council Members would then make comments and ask questions of the consultants. He further stated that the meeting was not considered to be a public hearing and the Council would not entertain public comments. The City Manager advised that Charles Anderson, Architect, representing the Engineering Division of the City's Department of Public Works, served as lead staff person on the project, which included issuance of the original Request for Proposals (RFP), review of responses to the RFP, and he served with two City Council Members on a committee to select consultants. Mr. Anderson introduced Michael Holleman, Vice-President, Heery International; Brian Parker, representing Conventions, Sports & Leisure International ("CSL International"); and John Garland, representing Spectrum Design, and specializing in Historic Tax Credits. Mr. Holleman stated that the purpose of the Victory Stadium Study was to: · Evaluate existing conditions of Victory Stadium · Develop five options requested by Council · Review the project on the Victory Stadium site · Prepare a comparative analysis. He further stated that the consultant would not make a recommendation, but would provide Council with the facts on which to make a decision. He stated that the agenda would cover the following main issues: · The floodplain · An assessment of the existing stadium · Historic Tax Credits · Five specific options · Discussion with regard to revenue potential and market analysis · Financial discussion 333 Mr. Holleman advised that the floodplain is a major and costly issue and called attention to pictures of the floodwater up to the vomitory height of the stadium; and floodplain issues have been discussed with URS, a consulting firm from Norfolk, Virginia, and with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers. He stated that a levy system is being constructed, but there is no guarantee that the system will be completed, and funding has been allocated for the first section. . Levels and elevation of Stadium Press Box , , , i West Stands , , , , vomitory i , Storage , , i i i i i i i ElfMltlon926.38 ! Third Level Seoond level Grsde level .'. ..~ :i: ..~ :i: ~: .",.. .'¡:> s.v.öon 824 '" I i 40 20 10 o! I I I ì He advised that: · The above diagram contains lines which show the floodplain areas that go from the two year, three year, 30-year, all the way up to the 1 OO-year floodplain. · The good news about the levy is that the area of the site will be protected through the ten year floodplain, and beyond that the site will continue to flood. · Some of the wall is built for the 30-year floodplain, but water comes in from the back side and will flood the site when it reaches above the ten year floodplain. · There is a crown when looking at midfield and back through the stadium, the elevation at 924 is below the floodplain and at 927 there is a lower level underneath the stadium where locker rooms are currently located which is in the flood zone. · The stadium was constructed to accommodate the addition of other floors in the future, reinforcing bars protrude from the beams and the stadium is capable of handling another floor in the future, which would be on two levels: the lower level and a smaller upper level. 334 . Looking at floodplain numbers, the 1 OO-year floodplain is about three feet below the level of the future floor, which would provide an opportunity to move things up to that level in the event of flooding. . The ten year floodplain is at the lower concourse, so if facilities were provided under the stadium, which may flood on occasion after the 10, 50, 100 year floods, they could be floodproofed through a kind of "hose down" construction, which would have both negative and positive aspects. Flood Plan Elevations and ExistinQ Stadium Elevations 2-.....-F_-<I!'>- ..__..IE_toon- ---........ '00-__7.2 60-__.8 :SO-_ _.0 ::r..__.....2,0 20-_ 031.' '6·_"-." '0._' "2l!I.' ..__'8:».2 ,"__:_.5 z_v..., lI:n." 1._:'118." E__a.....'.....E..v........ c.-,otF"'" _.lIe s_ -":l* 0_ ~_, c...,.,....... - 821' ........._~r_~o ..~O:=:= ~::::::::::: dc-- - -. ..~-. ,0 \' ,n i , . This section shows the second level, which would be above the 100 year floodplain, with enough space that flood proofing could be done for a level below. . The section also shows the front row of the stadium removed; the first bay of the stadium, or about nine rows, would be removed and replaced with a wheelchair seating area for the handicapped. Flood Plan Elevations - Proposed Second Level Renovations and Field Elevations: __n_. ......--... '=== :a,.U ____.0 === ~~ ;::~:~ ::::~ ::=- :u 2__ N'.", --~_.. ;~---------. " _ :i.1i..,.._~ '== :::::::::::~",'~~,:= ...:-: __ -_'--'-,:~ '-."... ::-t.:~-.-"'___:._AD~. -:::::: :< ~m' _.~ !"ff .", "......__lurnl!_~~.._._ 0-......._ _._ O'o;:':~~ ==~ ï ï r i ï 335 · Previous reports and analysis include the following issues concerning the existing stadium: loose brick on the stadium, rusted ties that hold the brick to the structure which can be a potential long-term problem, an extremely small seating area, lack of restroom and concession amenities, and track and field condition. · Numerous code issues exist. · Victory Stadium was constructed and complied with the Life Safety Code; any renovations must comply with current codes, which include ADA, Life Safety Code, plumbing code, etc. Positive considerations are: · The existing stadium is structurally sound and is constructed on deep foundations, but the soil contains a considerable amount of silt because it is located in a floodplain, and it would be necessary to dig down some distance in order to hit good bedrock; · The structure is not sinking, but slab on grade areas in the lower level have sunk causing some cracking; · Sufficient capacity seating exists for anything that the City wishes to do; · The stadium has a good history and memories of great events; · The stadium is located on an existing site that is currently owned by the City. Mr. Holleman advised that in order to be eligible for the Historic Tax Credits, the stadium would have to be registered as a historic landmark; preliminary meetings have been held with representatives of the State Office of Historic Preservation who have indicated that Victory Stadium is a facility that could be placed on the historic landmarks list; and everything within the footprint of the stadium itself which includes the east stands to the west stands, as well as the playing field, could be eligible for up to 20% Federal and 25% State funds, and the savings would come back to the City, or to the organization representing the City that would take the tax credits that may be in the neighborhood of 35%. For example, he stated that if the eligible cost is $10 million, proceeds to the City would be $3.5 million. 336 Mr. Holleman explained that the five options that Heery was instructed to consider are: Option 1 - Existing stadium from a tax credit point of view; Option 2 - Existing stadium from a non-tax credit point of view; Option 3 - New stadium on the same site with 5,000 seats; Option 4 - New stadium on the same site with 10,000 seats; and . Option 5 - New stadium on the same site with 15,000 seats. He advised that: · The basic program included bench seats, restrooms and concessions for 8,000 people; however, the feasibility of the number of events and the number of persons in attendance most likely would not be 15,000 or 20,000, therefore, a considerable amount of money would be spent for restrooms that are not needed, which would be negotiable; it would be possible to renovate existing lower restrooms to make up the difference or temporary facilities could be used; an expanded or improved press box, support space of 11,000 square feet net, locker rooms, dressing rooms, rooms for coaches and officials, and improvements to field lighting. · Optional program areas include a new field; if the field is used with a great deal of frequency, it may be advisable to level out the playing field and install artificial turf with a full drainage system. · The architectural façade must remain the same whether it is replaced or repaired in place in order to qualify for the Historic Tax Credit, which would impact other options regarding the type of architectural presence at the site; I.e.: it could be a "plain Jane" kind of facility or a facility of comparable nature to the current Victory Stadium. · Site aesthetics is another optional issue; I.e.: leave the site as is or improve the site with better landscaping, gateways, arches, ticketing facilities, etc. · Another option would be to construct locker rooms above the floodplain at a higher level in lieu of floodproofing and building locker rooms underneath the stadium. 337 Mr. Holleman reviewed the following options: OPtion 1 - Existina Stadium - Historic Rehabilitation with Historic Tax Credit Historic Rehabilitation - Site Plan · One of the main issues with the current stadium is that the stairs do not meet current Life Saving Code standards in the aisles, however, that could be corrected in the stands when the seats are redone; redoing the front row of seats can improve the situation for disabled persons using wheelchairs; if restrooms and concessions are moved to the second floor, stairs will be needed, within the facility and outbound on the stair tower, however, anything built outside of the stadium footprint will not be eligible for historic tax credits, therefore, consideration can be given to an alternate scheme that gives up some of the restroom facilities and places the stair tower within the structure to save money, and leave the handicapped ramp outbound leading up to the wheelchair positions. · Everything within the stadium footprint, including the field, will be eligible for Historic Tax Credit; and site costs that are beyond the footprint of the building; I.e.: parking, fencing and gateways on the outside are not eligible for Historic Tax Credits. Historic Rehabilitation - Concourse Level . -.- ~ - ~ -..., ~.- , ""1"":':': t----'I~J , ¡j._- ~~__ ~d~ --,...---...-'~-, -¡=¡: - ~:. : -, "; ~ ~iJ~+ . .=---::c.;: .,,--- ¡-: -, ¡": i jJ ' ..._-.,........ .j 338 Historic Rehabilitation - Exterior Elevations 11 ¡ ...... West Elevation Historic Rehabilitation - Stadium Section """""'.... -- '~-=-::-:~-"-~-- GradeLev.r ;c_ . This section shows space underneath that would be raised up about six inches above the existing concourse outside which would place the space just above the ten-year floodplain; and patrons would go up the stairs to the concourse and walk straight out into the grandstand. . The press box is currently bricked to a certain height; an addition was later constructed for a camera deck which does not fit within the original architecture; an elevator will need to be installed to the press box to meet ADA requirements, which will be located inside the building and would come up in the middle of the press box; and expansion of the press box toward the field side would uplift the elevator and stair access and provide the right facilities for the press box. 339 OPtion 2 - Existino Stadium - General Renovation Without Tax Credit General Renovation - Site Plan General Renovation - Concourse Level , :~---_.:.~I:=-,T: .-~_t=_~_~_::.-:_-_~.-_~_~__o .m~~_I~ -j . ..~~ .-~ --A I ¡ j t _:m Uji .{ L " ¡¡¡-j ,m' ..,.."" ¡-: ¡ -~:. - ::..J_ , . :........---.- '-._1-- I -, -;-', ~ ~. --' .... .!- , . . I , "t -l--- :-t:::J . .". ,:a;;... _-t ~'_"'_'__ i,'r"J r::r'---!.- l._n· , . :] :1 -fJ - ï ì" i General Renovation -, Exterior Elevations "t , ,""~r"1~"''''r~·~ "¡""'1" '-';i'~' "\ y·..i,,,,,,·i..,,, ·&·,,,·,,~"···'··,1·' -'.,,' :~.t L:¡{.l~ti,;,!~; ;. .,.. !_ ; !'1"1/"!Ì !"I)"~/"'!"" /",!," I; ,i 11 ;! !' , ,r-':, ! \ ~~~ ' - , , West Elevation 340 · This option does not qualify for Historic Tax Credit; all of the brick would not have to be put back on the building; there would be an optional choice to either remove all of the brick and leave the structure exposed, or remove all of the brick and replace brick in certain areas. · In addition, support facilities could be left underneath the stands or, if they are taken out of the floodplain, a building could be constructed in the end zone, possibly the fountain end at the river, or a 14,000 square foot faCility could be constructed for locker rooms above the floodplain; players would have to come out of the faCility and go down the stairs to reach the playing field which is rarely done because players would be wearing cleats that would pose a trip hazard; or construct a ramp which would be more costly due to the need for a connector that would extend between the concourses from one side of the stadium to the other. · Site costs include areas from the perimeter fence around the facility up to the building. · New landscaping and a wrought iron fence with brick piers to upgrade the appearance of the stadium from the outside. OPtion 3 - New 5.000 Seat Stadium New 5.000 Seat Stadium - Site Plan 341 New 5,000 Seat Stadium - Stadium Sections · A new 5,000 seat stadium reflects an equal number of seats on each side of the stadium; however, there could be consideration for 3,000 seats on one side and 2,000 on the other, depending on whether there is a home field side and a visiting side. · This option is straight forward with a football field and a soccer field; seats are concentrated between the 20-yard lines, with access to a concourse in the back, and restroorils and concessions located above the floodplain. · . This scenario would incur an added cost compared to building on a site that has great soil and no floods. Construction of the concourse, restrooms· and concessions in the air is favorable from a fan's perspective, because they can still see out into the field; stands and ADA compliant wheelchair seating would be at the top arid support facilities could either be at grade level as shown above or there is sufficient height to raise them underneath the level; and it would be less expensive than constructing the building in the end zone. Ootion 4 - New 10.000 Seat Stadium New 10.000 Seat Stadium - Site Plan 342 New 10.000 Seat Stadium - Concourse Level r f-:- ----~::- --- "'::;'::õ" --~ -- -.-: ,-- -~--. :, ¡ I ::, , ., :: ~- '~._".." ~,----~- --- ¡: [+J :-==-:- l--!-~=-·-=- L -;- 1 L ~ --1·· ------",;,. j ¡ ! a-- : : I " , ¡ : _m...___"...... ..: J. '_I_~ r1- :', .~ ~-';......~._..,._-~............._- ~----....'._: " :', : ; ,,--,-_Y. ' "----..- -- -- ---""-------:+--~ 1 ! Lh _ _ _ _ _ __ _~_ _ -è_~ ~-_ _ ~ _ _ _ __ __-j--' New 10,000 Seat Stadium - Stadium Sections WoIt_ , , -....... ---. -.::::- ..... ""=,.".....-..... , - ~~.,..-.......... -- -..... .... ""t,':::::.~:'" --__ -~~~'=---. · The 1 O,OOO-seat option is similar to the 5,000 seat concept, but extends farther down the sidelines and goes to the end of the end zones. · It is a comfortable plan, with stairs, restrooms and concessions on upper level and the ability to look down onto the field. · A plus with regard to a 10,000 seat facility is that it begins to enclose the stadium. 343 Ootion 5 - New 15,000 5eat Stadium: New 15.000 Seat Stadium - Site Plan New 15.000 Seat Stadium - Concourse Level r --------------- 1 ----,- -=i-. : I :: .: -1:': . j _ r---4:-.'".- :~;~~.::~-::..,I--"-,---~_._,.. l J "" ::., I l-,! -_·~'::·--'--"4-~-,-±==-:~-=.-._ -i:1 ~ I··· 1__ - ~,------------t_:- ..-J -r -;- ---.,-~~---~--..- ~-- - -._".". ;- -I- I i ::'~=- -~-~:... ~-:l-_.c ,"9-:-- ¡: :' L E ,i : L+:u u__ ___-'.,"".;;._~.:.__.::~__.j.J .__..__·_'T_·__~ ï i''i New 15,000 Seat Stadium - Stadium Sections --- .....- ""'----- ~""...-:..::.-:._::.~:.._:..._..-_. J --~~~~~:'- · The 1 5,000-seat option provides for a concourse, stands that go up and patrons would go through vomitories similar to the current Victory Stadium. 344 · Another concept allows for a concourse allowing patrons to look down onto the field, and the remainder of the seats could be placed in one of the end zones. · The concept also allows for a U-shaped stadium that would contain 15,000 seats, which is about two rows deeper than the previous concept, with restrooms and concessions on the side of the concourse, and a connecting walkway at the rear. · This scenario provides a more intimate type of stadium. If the National Guard Armory building were removed from the present site, the area could become a full court or grassy area that would lead to the stadium and could accommodate both football and soccer. Schedule · The schedule is similar for completing all five concepts, which could be completed for the football season of 2007, with construction commencing in May 2001). · The schedule provides for: notice to proceed, design phase, schematics, design development, construction documents, procurement, and construction. · The renovated concepts require some renovation before the football season, and work would continue through the football season. · The new stadium concept requires demolition of the existing stadium; I.e.: demolishing one side and leaving the other side for one season for use by fans; immediately following that season, demolition would occur on the other side, followed by construction; the end date would be the same; one side of the stands would be missing for one year, however, there is sufficient capacity and unless there is an issue with regard to separating fans from one side of the stadium from the other, it would be a workable solution. Ooeratino and Maintenance Costs . Operating and maintenance costs of Victory Stadium are presently shown to be $232,000.00; depending on whether the stadium has 5,000 seats or 18,000 seats, projected costs range between $250,000.00 and $217,000.00; and certain basic costs will be incurred regardless. 345 At this point, Mr. Holleman turned the presentation over to Brian Parker, representing Conventions, Sports & Leisure International ("CSL International"). Mr. Parker advised that CSL International was requested to join the team with Heery International when the initial RFP was issued; Heery International reviewed phYSical capabilities and CSL International identified market demand and support in terms of facilities and types of events, the types of uses that a stadium in Roanoke could accommodate, needed capacities, and financials based on the above referenced scenarios. Mr. Parker reviewed the following Victory Stadium Market and Financial Analysis report: Victory Stadium has provided the Roanoke region with a major outdoor venue for football games, soccer matches, concerts, festivals and various other events since 1941. The 25,000-seat Stadium has hosted a number of collegiate football games in its history, including the annual game between Virginia Tech and the Virginia Military Institute, which was held at the Stadium until 1971, and the Western Virginia Education Classic, which will play its sixth annual game at the Stadium in 2005. The facility has also hosted a variety of regular season and postseason high school football, soccer and lacrosse games over the years, and currently serves as the home field for the William Fleming High School and Patrick Henry High School football programs. In addition to sports events, the Stadium has served as the primary outdoor venue in Roanoke for concerts and various community and other events. While Victory Stadium has a storied history, the 1)4-year old structure has several deficiencies in comparison with more modern stadiums, including: · General deterioration of the structure, including exterior walls and seating areas; · Lack of modem amenities for fans; · Inadequate disabled access; · Susceptibility to flooding; and, · Other such deficiencies. The disrepair of the Stadium's bleachers has resulted in unsafe conditions for fans in much of the seating areas, resulting in a current capacity of approximately 4,000 usable seats. This limited effective capacity, along with the aforementioned Stadium deficiencies, have hindered the ability of the Stadium to attract strong event and attendance levels. 346 In order to address the poor .state of the existing Stadium, the City of Roanoke ("the City") has been considering various renovation and replacement options for the Stadium for a number of years. However, none of these plans have been enacted to date due to disagreements on the part of several constituencies concerning the appropriate course of action. Currently, the City is considering several potential development options, as follows: · Renovate Victory Stadium, reducing the capacity to approximately 18,000 seats; · Build a new stadium on the same site, with a capacity of 1 5,000; · Build a new stadium on the same site, with a capacity of 10,000; or, · Build a new stadium on the same site, with a capacity of 5,000. In order to evaluate the feasibility of each potential development option, the City retained the team of Heery International ("Heery") and Conventions, Sports. and Leisure International ("CSL") to evaluate various issues related to each development option, including: · Potential event demand; · Potential annual financial performance, including operating revenues and operating and maintenance expenses; and, · Other such issues. CSL's primary role in the study was to assess the market and financial feasibility of each potential development option. Key tasks completed by CSL included: · Assembled and analyzed key operating issues related to the development of a new or renovated stadium; · Reviewed historical event and attendance levels of Victory Stadium; · Assembled and analyzed the physical characteristics, event levels and financial performance of several comparable stadiums throughout the country; · Analyzed the potential event mix of each potential development option utilizing a number of research methods including interviews with event organizers, the results of the aforementioned analyses, and various other techniques; and, 347 · Developed a financial model based on the estimated levels of utilization and patron spending derived from the market analysis, comparable facility analysis, and other information pertaining to the Roanoke market. The following report focuses on the study methods and results of the aforementioned research and analyses, and is presented to the . Task Force in order to assist in making informed decisions with regard to the future of its sports and entertainment facilities. The report is divided into the following sections: 1.0 Introduction 2.0 Comparable Facility Analysis 3.0 Market Demand Analysis 4.0 Preliminary Financial Analysis 2.0 Comparable Facility Analysis Victory Stadium lacks many of the amenities and characteristics typically associated with more modem stadium venues. In order to identify specific areas of potential improvement for Victory Stadium it is helpful to gain an understanding of the physical and operational characteristics of modem stadiums. The purpose of this section is to present an analysis of the physical and operational characteristics of existing stadiums that can be considered comparable to a new or renovated Stadium in Roanoke. The stadiums included in the analysis consist of stadiums that have been built or renovated in recent years, have similar capacities to the various Victory Stadium development options, and share operational characteristics and an event focus that is similar to the proposed new or renovated Stadium. Through research of existing faCility databases, information received from various publications, and discussions with facility management, information was gathered on each stadium, including physical characteristics, event levels and other operational issues. Stocker Memorial Stadium - Grand junction, Colorado The 5,1 OO-seat Stocker Memorial Stadium is owned by the City of Grand Junction and operated by the City's Parks and Recreation Department. The Stadium opened in 1949, but has undergone several renovations in recent years to bring it up to the standards of more modem facilities. The Stadium features a natural grass football field and a l4 -mile track, but is not able to accommodate a full-size soccer field. 348 Four area high schools play their home football games at the Stadium, accounting for approximately 22 events per year. Mesa State College, an NCAA Division 11 program, also plays five to six football games at the Stadium each year. The Stadium also hosts the graduation ceremonies for Mesa State College and each of the four high schools, as well as special events such as marching band festivals, Special Olympic events, the Shrine Circus, a cancer walk and various other events. The Stadium's track hosts high school track meets, and recently hosted the Hershey Track and Field Games. In total, the Stadium hosts approximately 50 events in a typical year. Legion Stadium - Wilmington, North Carolina The I),OOO-seat Legion Stadium originally opened in the 1930's, but recently underwent a major two-phased renovation. Phase I renovations were completed in 2001 and included installation of a new drainage system and turf, new facade, seating, restrooms, and concessions, press box improvements, a new parking lot and general landscaping and site improvements. Phase II was completed in 2003 and included new locker rooms and a new concession stand. The Stadium is owned and operated by the City of Wilmington. Legion Stadium is currently the home of New Hanover High School athletics. The school plays all of its football, soccer and lacrosse games at the Stadium. The faCility is also home to two semi-pro football teams and the Wilmington Hammerheads of the PSL, a professional soccer league. The Stadium also hosts four to six special events a year such as concerts and art shows. Excluding athletic team practices, approximately 1)5 events or games are held annually at Legion Stadium. The current rental rate for the stadium is $750.00, but the City is considering increasing the rate to $1,000.00 per event in the future. Civic Field - Bellingham, Washington Civic Field is owned by the City of Bellingham and operated by the City's Parks and Recreation Department. The I),OOO-seat stadium opened in 191)0, and is currently undergoing a $10 million renovation which will include a new scoreboard, remodeled locker rooms and improved ADA access. Civic Field's artificial Field Turf playing surface allows it to host a high number of events on an annual basis with relatively low field maintenance costs. The field serves as the home of the Division II Western Washington University's football and soccer programs. 349 In addition, three local high schools utilize the field for varsity and junior varsity home games. The field also hosts a few community events each year and is available for public rentals for recreational soccer practices and other such uses. The Stadium also features a track, which hosts a number of collegiate and high school track meets, as well as occasional meets organized by the City. All told, the stadium averages approximately 300 uses per year. The rental . fee for the stadium ranges from $800.00 to $1,1)00.00. Hugh Mills Stadium - Albany, Georgia The 10,OOO-seat Hugh Mills Stadium is owned by the City of Albany/Dougherty Count combined government and is operated by the Dougherty County School District. The Stadium features a . natural grass playing surface and originally opened in 1932. A series of renovations over several years have allowed the Stadium to rernain viable for various types of events. The Stadium was formerly the home of the Albany State University football program· uritil the University constructed its own on- campus stadium in 2005. The Stadium's current tenants include fQur ·Iocal . high schools, each of which play all of their home football games at the stadium. In addition to high school football games, the Stadium hosts several high school track meets each year, including the three-day State girl's public school meet and the three-day State boys and girls private school meet. Other stadium utilization includes a variety of youth league football games. Stadium management estimates that approximately 1)0 events are held at the stadium on an annual basis. The Stadium's base rental rate is $300.00 per event. For high school football games and other events with significant ticket sales, an additional rental fee of $1.00 per ticket is assessed in addition to the $300.00 base fee. Municipal Stadium - Daytona Beach, Florida The City of Daytona Beach owns and operates Municipal Stadium, which opened in 1988. The stadium has a capacity of 10,000 seats, including 1),000 seats on the home side and 4,000 seats on the visitors' side of the Stadium. The Stadium serves as the home of Bethune Cookman University's football program, as well as three local high school football teams. The Stadium also hosts several state high school postseason games and occasional high school and other soccer games. Stadium management indicated that, while the Stadium is capable of hosting concerts, very few have historically been held there. 350 Along with the football field, the Stadium features a l4-mile motors ports track, which hosts a variety of go-kart and motorcycle races. The field and track combine to host approximately 80 events in a typical year. Howard Wood Field - Sioux Falls, South Dakota Howard Wood Field is a 10,OOO-seat stadium capable of hosting football, soccer and track and field events. The stadium is owned by the City of Sioux Falls and operated by the Sioux Falls School District. The facility originally opened in 1958. In 2003, a new artificial surface was installed, allowing the Field to increase its annual event levels. Additional renovations completed in 2005 included the addition of new concessions and restroom facilities. Four local high schools use the Field for a portion of their varsity and junior varsity football and soccer schedules. In addition, Augustana College and the University of Sioux Falls both use the field for all of their home football games and occasional practices. Other events held at the stadium include Pee Wee and middle school football games, postseason high school football games, an annual band festival and occasional track meets. In total, school district representatives estimate that the field is used approximately 100 times per year, compared to 30 uses per year prior to the installation of artificial turf. The Field's rental rate ranges from approximately $1)0.00 for practices to $500.00 for events utilizing only the playing field, to $3,300.00 for collegiate football games. Lion Stadium - Ennis, Texas The Ennis School District opened the 10,000-seat Lion Stadium in 2001. The $13.1) million stadium features a Field Turf playing surface capable of hosting football and soccer games, as well as a l4-mile track. Additional stadium amenities include a two-story, 7,500-square foot press box that incorporates a VIP room, radio broadcast booths and scout seating, as well as a 20 by 3l)-foot scoreboard and state of the art sound system. The Stadium hosts the District's varsity and junior varsity football home games, as well as a portion of the varsity and junior varsity soccer schedule. Additional District utilization includes home track meets and graduation ceremonies. The Stadium is rented out to neighboring districts for postseason playoff football games approximately three to four times per year. In total, District official estimate that the Stadium is used approximately 25 times per season. 351 Braly Municipal Stadium - Florence, Alabama The 14,215-seat Braly Municipal Stadium originally opened in the 1950's and underwent a major renovation in 1998. The Year Opened 1950 renovation included the addition of 1,200 seats, improvements to the press box and coach's booths, additional restrooms, new stands on the east side of the stadium and cleaning and repainting throughout the stadium. The Stadium features a three-level press box capable of accommodating up to 50 sportswriters as well as coaching staffs, public address announcer, clock operator and radio crews and television crews. The Stadium is used exclusively for football games and practices, including the home games of the University of North Alabama and Florence High School, along with various regional postseason high school football games. In addition, the Stadium has hosted the NCAA Division II football championship game each year since 1981) and is under contract to continue hosting the game through 2009. In total, the facility hosts approximately 1)0 events in a typical year. Summary Within this section, physical and operational characteristics of a number of recently built or renovated municipal stadiums have been presented. The following table summarizes this informati0n. Com-oarable Stadium SummarY Stocker Memorial legion Civic Field Hugh Mills Stadium Stadium Stadium location Grand Junction CO Wilminoton NC Bellinoham WA Albanv GA Market Pooulation 126 700 301 800 180100 162 400 Year Ooened 1949 1930 1960 1932 Year Renovated 2000-05 2001-03 2005 2002-05 Caoacitv 5 100 6000 6000 10000 Sports Uses Football, T&F Football, Football, Soccer, Football, T&F Soccer, T&F lacrosse Annual Events 50 65 300 60 Municipal Howard Wood lion Braly Average Stadium Field Stadium Municipal Stadium location Davtona Beach Fl Sioux Falls SO Ennis TX Florence, Al Market 481,400 203,400 130,200 141,100 21 5,900 Pooulation Year Ooened 1988 1958 2001 1950 Year Renovated nfa 2003-05 nfa 1998 Caoacitv 10,000 10,000 10,000 14215 8,900 Sports Uses Football, Soccer, Football, Football, Football Motorsoorts Soccer T&F Soccer T&F Annual Events 80 100 25 60 100 352 As shown in the exhibit, the average comparable facility has a capacity of approximately 8,900 and hosts approximately 100 events per year. Excluding Civic Field, which hosts a number of sports practices on an annual basis, the remaining stadiums included in the analysis host an average of 1)3 events per year. Each comparable stadium hosts football games, with other sports utilization consisting of sports such as soccer, track and field, lacrosse and motor sports. While comparisons with the facilities described within this section may be useful, the actual physical characteristics and ultimate operational philosophy adopted by the proposed new or renovated stadium will depend on the specific needs and preferences of the City and other relevant constituencies. For example, factors such as the desire to emphasize community events to benefit the region's population as a whole will need to be weighed against the need to generate acceptable revenue levels. In developing a building program and utilization plan for the stadium. project, the City may look to these comparable stadiums as general benchmarks, but ultimately, must make its own decisions on how to best utilize the stadium. 3.0 Market Demand Analysis The purpose of this section is to estimate potential event levels and attendance at a renovated Victory Stadium or a new stadium in Roanoke. For purposes of this. analysis, it is assumed that a renovated Victory Stadium would have a seating capacity of approximately 18,000 seats, while a new stadium could have a capacity of 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 seats. A variety of factors have been analyzed in order to gauge the ability of a new or renovated stadium to attract various events including, but not limited to: · Historical Victory Stadium event and attendance levels; · Event levels of comparable stadiums discussed in Section 2.0; and, · Interviews with various potential stadium users. The interviews with potential users were conducted to obtain opinions on the stadium development options being considered and to gauge interest in utilizing the stadium. These conversations provided an understanding of the Roanoke market's current ability to attract various types of events, and how the market's attractiveness could be impacted by the presence of a renovated or new stadium. 353 The remainder of this section summarizes the analyses conducted to develop event and attendance assumptions for each potential stadium scenario, presented by event type. High School Football Victory Stadium currently serves as the home field of the William 'Fleming High School and Patrick Henry High School football programs. Each school typically plays five regular season home games at the Stadium each fall, with attendance typically averaging approximately 1,000 to 1,500 spectators per game. Because neither school has an on-campus stadium capable of hosting football games, it is assumed that both schools would continue to utilize a renovated Victory Stadium or a new stadium for their home games, regardless of the capacity of the stadium. However, due to the relatively modest attendance levels, a smaller stadium may be best suited to hosting these events, as such a stadium would provide a more intimate atmosphere and result in fewer empty seats for football games. A smaller. stadium could also help reduce the costs associated with operating the stadium for high school football games. Based on conversations with representatives of schools within the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County, there does not appear to be substantial demand to hold events at a new or renovated Victory Stadium beyond the games currently played' at the Stadium by William Fleming and Patrick Henry High Schools. Schools generally stated a preference to play home games at on-campus stadiums when possible. Therefore, it is possible that William Fleming and/or Patrick Henry High School could elect to' remove their games from Victory Stadium if appropriate facilities are built on their respective campuses. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke could host approximately 10 regular season high school football games per season, with average attendance of approximately 2,000 per game, regardless of stadium capacity. These estimates do not include postseason games, which will be discussed later in this section.- Summarv of Hie h School Football Assumotions Victory Stadium 18,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 2004 Events Seats Seats Seats Seats Annual Events 11 10 10 10 10 Attendance: Averaae 1,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Annual 11,000 20,000 20.000 20,000 20,000 354 High School Soccer In addition to football games, Victory Stadium has also hosted high school soccer games in past, years, including seven games in 2004. However, the Stadium did not host any high school soccer games in 2005. Attendance for high school soccer events at the stadium has averaged approximately 200 per game. As with regular season high school football, a smaller stadium may be best suited to hosting high school soccer events due to the relatively low attendance levels typically associated with soccer games. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the improved amenities associated with a new or renovated stadium could cause William Fleming and Patrick Henry High Schools could hold the majority of their varsity boys and girls soccer games at the stadium. Specifically, it is assumed that the stadium could host approximately 30 regular season high school soccer games per season, excluding potential postseason games. Attendance at these games is estimated to average approximately 300 per game. Summary of High School Soccer Assumptions Victory Stadium 18,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 2004 Events Seats Seats Seats Seats Annual Events 7 30 30 30 30 Attendance: Average 200 300 300 300 300 Annual 1,400 9,000 9,000 9,000 9,000 High School Lacrosse Patrick Henry High School is the only school within the City of Roanoke that fields lacrosse teams. Two high school lacrosse games were held at Victory Stadium in 2004, but none were held at the stadium in 2005. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that Patrick Henry High School would continue to play its lacrosse games at locations other than a new or renovated Victory Stadium. Therefore, no regular season high school lacrosse games are included in the event estimates developed for this analysis. However, postseason lacrosse could potentially be held at the stadium, as discussed below. 355 Postseason High School Sports Along with the regular season high school sports discussed previously, Victory Stadium has historically hosted a number of postseason high school events. According to representatives of the Virginia High School League (VHSL), the early rounds of postseason tournaments are typically held at the home stadiums of participating schools. Therefore, the extent to which a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke would host early round postseason football, soccer or lacrosse postseason events would likely depend on William Fleming, Patrick Henry or another local school playing host to the game, and choosing to hold the game at the stadium. As a result, playoff utilization could fluctuate from year to year, depending on the ability of local teams to· qualify to host postseason play. The final rounds of postseason tournaments are typically predetermined by the . VHSL. All of the spring sports championships, including soccer, lacrosse, baseball and softball, are held in the same city over the same tim.e period, resulting in a spring sports "festival". Currently, Radford University in Radford hosts the Class A and AA spring sports festival, while Christopher Newport University in Newport News hosts the Class AAA event. The ability of a new or renovated stadium to host soccer or lacrosse championships would depend on Roanoke's ability to prepare a bid to host all of the aforementioned spring sports. The soccer championship, which consists of the semifinal and final rounds, requires a stadium capacity of 1,000 to 1,500, with a field measuring at least 110 yards by 1)5 yards. There is no minimum capacity requirement for the lacrosse championship. Football championship games could represent an additional source of postseason utilization for the proposed new or renovated stadium. The VHSL currently conducts championships in six classes. The following table presents the current locations of the final for each division, as well as the minimum required seating capacity to host the event as determined by the VHSL. Division Division 1 Division 2 Division 3 Division 4 Division 5 Division 6 356 As shown, the six football championship games are currently divided between three host Universities, each of which hosts two championships on the same day. VHSL representatives indicated that they have been pleased with each of the current hosts, but Roanoke could make a proposal to the VHSL Executive Committee to host a football championship event if it had an appropriate stadium. The current locations are based primarily on the proximity of each University to the greatest concentration of schools within each division. Based on conversations with VHSL representatives, the Division 3 and 4 championships would represent the best geographic fit for Roanoke. While. the official capacity requirements to host these events are 3,500 and 4,000, respectively, VHSL representatives indicated that attendance has often reached 8,000 to 9,000 in recent years. Therefore, a stadium with a capacity of 10,000 would likely be adequate in order for Roanoke to attract these events. . In addition to stadium capacity, other factors considered by the VHSL when considering sites for football. championship events include: · Safety of the facility and playing surface; · Locker room access and space; · Financial potential; · Motel and restaurant accommodations; · Parking availability; · Traffic ingress/egress; and, · Facilities for television filming. While specific guidelines for these factors have not been developed, the stadium and market must be adequate in each area in order to attract consideration for football championship games. For purposes of this analysis, it is estimated that a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke could host approximately two postseason events in a typical year. These games are assumed to represent games hosted by local high schools who earn the right to host postseason events. While a stadium with a capacity of at least 10,000 seats could potentially attract two divisions of State football championship games, there is no guarantee that the presence of a new or renovated stadium would attract these events. Therefore, they have not been included in the estimates developed herein. 357 Summary of Hiah School Postseason Assumot'ions , . Victory Stadium 18,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 2004 Events Seats Seats Seats Seats Annual Events 3 2 2 2 2 Attendance: , Averaae 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Annual 6,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 'Note: Estimates exclude ootential State tournament oames. College Sports ,. Victory Stadium has hosted a variety of collegiate sports events in past years, most notably the annual football game between Virginia Tech and the Virginia Military Institute, which was held at the stadium for several decades until 1971. Currently, the Stadium hosts the annual Western Virginia Education Classic, which features two 'region'al collegiate teams and raises funds to help address school dropöut problems among area youth. The Classic typically draws approximately 1),000 fans per year. In order to assess interest in bringing additional collegiate sports events to a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke, interviews were . conducted with representati,ves of the NCAA, as well as several regional colleges, universities and collegiate athletic conferences. Rl!pre~entatives of area. colleges and universities. generally indicated limited interest in utilizing a stadium in Roanoke, as they typically prefer to host events at on-campus facilities, allowing them to limit travel costs and enjoy a home field advantage. In order to induce these programs .to relocate a home game to a stadium in Roanoke, the City would likely need to provide financial guarantees to the school to offset the costs associated with a neutral field game. Such financial incentives would negatively impact the Stadium's financial bottom line, and would need to be . weighed, against the revenue generating potential of the events. . In the case, of major NCAA Division I programs such as Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia, the financial incentives required to lure them to Roanoke would likely be prohibitive, as these universities generate substantial game day revenues from their on- campus stadiums. Division II and III programs would likely require more modest guarantees to cover travel costs. However, these games would lack the prestige, attendance levels and economic impact that could be generated by a Division I game. 358 In terms of postseason collegiate games, many of the collegiate athletic conferences with member institutions in the Roanoke region play at the NCAA Division 11 or Division III levels. Conferences at these levels typically do not play a football championship game, relying solely on regular season results to determine a conference champion. Lower division conference championship events in sports such as soccer and lacrosse are , typically held at on-campus locations and are hosted by the top seeded university or are determined on an annual rotation among schools within the conference. Utilizing on-campus facilities decreases the travel costs associated with the championship events and helps draw fans to events that would otherwise have limited regional interest. Therefore, it is unlikely that that the majority of regional conferences would utilize a stadium in Roanoke for postseason events. While minor conferences indicated little interest in utilizing the proposed new or renovated stadium, representatives of the Atlantic Coast Conference (ACC), a major NCAA Division I conference whose members include Virginia Tech and the University of Virginia, indicated that a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke could potentially host the conference's postseason soccer and/or lacrosse championships. The ACC men's and women's soccer championships will be held at the SAS Soccer Park in Cary, North Carolina for the third consecutive year in 2001). M&T Bank Stadium in Baltimore hosted the men's and women's lacrosse championships in 2005 and will host them again in 2001). ACC representatives indicated that both championships will be up for bid for future years. While a stadium capacity of 10,000 may be adequate to host thesè events, ACC officials prefer a facility with a capacity of at least 12,000. In addition to capacity, the Conference considers several· additional factors when considering bids to host championship events, including: · Spectator parking; · Quality of playing surface; · Ticket booths, concessions areas, restrooms and other such fan accommodations; , · Areas for press, coaches, officials, medical personnel and other staff; · Two to four quality locker rooms; · Videoboard, scoreboard and public address system; · Hospitality areas; · Adequate lighting for televised events; and, · Other such amenities. 359 In addition to conference tournaments, NCAA championships could represent opportunities to draw major events to a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke. It is assumed that the stadium would be capable of hosting football, soccer and lacrosse events. The following is a summary of the current circumstances surrounding NCAA championships in these events. Football The NCAA currently does not conduct a championship tournament or game at the Division I-A level. Postseason games consist of bowl games held at a number of markets throughout the country. Based on the current markets and facilities hosting bowl games, it is unlikely that a stadium with a capacity of 18,000 or less in Roanoke would be capable of hosting a Division I-A bowl game. Football championship games are played at the NCAA Division I-AA, Division II and Division III levels. The Division I-AA championship game is currently held at the 20,OOO-seat Carter Stadium in Chattanooga, Tennessee, where it has been played since 1997 and is contracted to remain through 2007. The Division II championship has been held at the 14,215-seat Braly Municipal Stadium in Florence, Alabama each year sin'ce 1981) and is contracted to continue to be held in Florence through 2009. The Division III game is played at the 7, 13 I)-seat Salem Stadium in Salem, Virginia. The 2005 championship will be the 13th straight played in Salem. ' While the Division I-AA, II and III football championships are currently held at the same sites each year, the NCAA p'eriodically allows other markets to present bids to host the e'vent in future years. In order to attract an NCAA football championship event to a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke, a bid would need to be prepared in order to induce the NCAA to relocate one òf the games from its existing market. The NCAA allows only schools arid conferences to submit bids for championship events. Therefore, the City would need to partner with an area scho'ol or conference to prepare a bid to submit to the site selection committee for a particular event. According to NCAA guidelines, a 15,OOO-seat stadium would be sufficient to host the Division I-AA football championship game, while a stadium with a capacity of at least 8,000 seats would likely be required to attract the Division II or III championship game. 360 In addition to stadium capacity, other key characteristics considered by the championship site selection committee include geographic location, attendance potential, historical support for college football in the region, adequate hotel rooms, convenient practice facilities and the support of the local community. Soccer The NCAA selects separate sites for its Division I men's and women's soccer championships, while the men's' and women's championship events are held at shared sites at the Division II and III levels. Each championship event consists of the semi-final and final rounds at a predetermined site. In recent years,soccer championship events have been held only at soccer-exclusive stadiums. The NCAA avoids playing events at shared football/soccer facilities, as field conditions are often less than optimal at shared facilities.' In order to attract a soccer championship event, the stadium would likely need to feature an artificial playing surface, or the City would likely need to guarantee that no football games would be held on the field for a specified period of time prior to the championship, .potentially three weeks or longer. The Division I men's and women's championships require minimum seating capacities of 8,000 to' 10,000. NCAA representatives indicated that a 5,000-seat stadium would be adequate to host Division II or III championships. Additional stadium requirements include four locker rooms, adequate accommodations for television broadcasting and other media, enclosed rooms for media interviews and press conferences and adequate lighting. Lacrosse The NCAA has historically combined its Division I, II and III men's lacrosse championships into a single weekend-long event, and plans to continue to do so in future years. These events are currently held exclusively at large NFL stadiums in major markets, and are unlikely to be held at a smaller stadium in a market such as Roanoke. The three divisions of women's lacrosse championships are each held at separate locations, and are rotated to difference locations each year. In 2001), the Division I championship will be held at the 10,400-seat Nickerson Stadium in Boston, the Division II championship will be played at the 3,OOO-seat stadium at the Benedictine University Sports Complex in Lisle, Illinois, and the Division III championship will be held at the I,OOO-seat DeBaun Field in Hoboken, New Jersey. 361 It is likely that a 5,OOO-seat stadium would be adequate to host Division II or III championship games, while a 10,000-seat facility may be required to attract the Division I game. As with the other sports discussed herein, the ability of a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke to host a women's lacrosse championship would depend on the City's ability to partner with a regional university or conference to prepare a bid to hold the event in Roanoke. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the Western Virginia Education Classic would continue to be held at a new or renovated Victory Stadium. It is assumed that additional collegiate sports utilization would be limited. If the City is aggressive in providing guarantees to regional universities to play home games at the stadium, or in developing additional special events similar to the Western Virginia Education Classic, the number of collegiate athletic events held at the stadium could increase. In addition, while the stadium could potentially' host ACC and/or NCAA championship events in various sports,. Roanoke would need to develop a competitive bid package to attract such events. For purposes of this analysis, it is 'assumed that a new or renovated stadium could attract one additional collegiate sporting event per year on an ongoing basis. While the City may be able to attract a conference or NCAA championship event, due to the uncertainty of the bid process and lack of recurrence, such events have not been included in the event estimates prêsented herein. Summary of Collegiate Sports Assumptions' Victory Stadium 18,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 2004 Events Seats Seats Seats Seats Annual Events 1 2 2 2 2 Attendance: Average 8,000 15,000 12,000 8,000 5,000 Annual 8,000 30,000 24,000 16,000 10,000 Note: Estimates exclude potential NCAA and regional conference postseason/championship I IJames. . Other Sports In addition to the high school and collegiate sporting events discussed above, a new or renovated stadium could potentially attract other amateur, semi-professional or even professional sports events. Such events could include amateur youth soccer or lacrosse tournaments as well as semi-professional or professional soccer, football or lacrosse leagues and teams. 362 Based on discussions with amateur athletic event organizers, the primary deciding factor for selecting a particular market for tournaments is the availability of an adequate number of fields to accommodate a potentially large tournament field. Ideally, these fields will be centrally located with easy access to hotels and other support services. While a stadium located amongst a large number of fields may offer an attractive venue for tournament finals, most , potential amateur sports event organizers indicated that a stadium is not needed. Therefore, no usage from such evens has been assumed for the new or renovated stadium at this point. In addition to amateur sports events, there are several semi- professional or professional" football, lacrosse and soccer organizations that could potentially utilize the stadium for a tenant franchise. While such usage may be beneficial to the facility in terms of utilization as a community asset, the financial impact on the stadium's operations from such events may actually result in additional operating losses. For purposes of this analysis, no semi- professional or professional sports tenant has been assumed for the new or renovated stadium. Concerts Concerts could represent an additional source of utilization for a renovated Victory Stadium or a new stadium in Roanoke. Because football stadiums are not typically designed with a focus on concerts, they often offer relatively poor configurations and acoustics for concerts. In addition, the costs associated with stadium concerts are typically high due to the need to construct a stage from the ground up. However, design features such as a permanent concert stage or other such amenities could facilitate the production of concerts in the faCility and make it a more attractive venue for concert promoters. Victory Stadium last hosted a concert in 2004, when two concerts were held at the venue. Based on conversations with local concert promoters, concert industry trends and other such information, it is estimated that a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke could potentially host approximately three concerts annually. For purposes of this analysis, average concert attendance is estimated to range from approximately 3,500 to 10,000 per performance depending on the capacity of the stadium. 363 SummarY of Concert AssumDtions Victory Stadium 18,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 2004 Events Seats Seats Seats Seats Annual Events 2 3 3 3 3 Attendance: Averaae 5,000 10,000 7500 5,000 3.500 Annual 10,000 30,000 22,500 15,000 10,500 Other Events In addition to athletic events and concerts, Victory Stadium has occasionally hosted other events such as festivals and community events. Based on historical Stadium event levels; it is assumed that a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke could host approximately 15 miscellaneous events on an annual basis, with attendance approximating 500 per event. These could include a ,variety of festivals, flea markets, auto shows or other similar events. Summary of Other Event Assumntions Victory Stadium 18,000 15,000 10,000 5,000 2004 Events Seats Seats Seats Seats Annual Events 11 1 5 1 5 15 1 5 Attendance: Averaae 500 500 500 . 500 500 Annual 5,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 Summary Based on the market analysis performed in this section, e.stimates of event activity for a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke have been developed. The following exhibit presents estimated event levels at the proposed stadium for each potential development option. 'Estimated Ticketed Events and Attendance New or Renovated Victory Stadium Event Tvne 1 8,000 Seats I 1 5,000 Seats T 1 0,000 Seats I 5.000 Seats Annual Events Hiah School Football 10 10 10 10 Hioh School Soccer 30 30 30 30 High School 2 2 2 2 Postseas,on Colleae SDorts 2 2 2 2 Concerts 3 3 3 3 Other Events 15 15 15 15 Total Annual Events 62 62 62 62 364 Avera~ e Attendance Hiah School Football 2,000 2,000 2,000 2.000 Hiah School Soccer 300 300 300 300 High School 2,500 2,500 2,500 2,500 Postseason Colleae SDorts 15,000 15,000 15,000 15,000 Concerts 10,000 7,500 5,000 3,500 Other Events 500 500 500 . 500 Annual Attendance Hiah School Football 20,000 20,000 20,000 20000 Hiah School Soccer 9,000 9000 9,000 9000 High School 5,000 5,000 5,000 5,000 Postseason Colleoe Snorts 30.000 22,500 15,000 10000 Concerts 30,000 22,500 15,000 10,500 . Other Events 7,500 7,500 7,500 7,500 Total Annual Events 101,500 88,000 72,500 62,000 As shown, it is estimated that event levels are not likely to vary significantly based on variations in stadium capacity due to the relatively low number of events that would require a larger stadium. Specifically, it is estimated that the stadium could host approximately 1)2 events per year regardless of stadium capacity. Attendance at these events is estimated to range from 1)2,000 per year at a 5,000 seat stadium to 101,500 per year for a stadium' with 18,000, seats. Based on this analysis, it appears that a stadium with a capacity of 5,000 seats would be sufficient to capture the majority of events that would potentially be held at the stadium. However, building a stadium with only 5,000 seats would likely preclude the facility from consideration for larger events such as VHSL football championships, ACC or NCAA tournament or championships events and other major events. Based on this analysis, i'( appears that a stadium with a capacity of approximately 10,00,0 seats would likely be sufficient to enable the City to offer an appropriate facility for these events. A larger stadium may not necessarily place the City ïn a significantly better position to be able to compete for these events. Assuming a 10,000-seat stadium would have the ability to add temporary seating as demand dictated, this capacity appears to be adequate to accommodate the vast majority of the potential users of the facility. In order to determine the most appropriate capacity, the City should undertake a detailed cost-benefit analysis that will address not only the incremental revenues that could be generated by the stadium with these additional events, but also the added revenues 365 that could be generated throughout the community due to visitor spending related' to these events. These impacts should be' compared to the incremental cost to construct and operate a larger new or renovated stadium to determine the most cost effective stadium size. 4.0 Preliminary Financial Analysis The intent,of this section is to provide a preliminary estimate of the potential operating results of a new or renovated stadium in. Because facility design, configuration and cost estimates for the " proposed stadium renovation or development· have not yet been completed, the assumptions used in this analysis are based on the results of the market analysis, industry trends, knowlèdge of the marketplace arid financial results from comparable stadiums. Using this information, an evaluation of the potential operating results has been developed under the, range of event and attendance levels as discussed in the previous section. . . This presentation is designed to assist in estimating the financial . operations of thé proposed stâdium development options being considered. Therefore, this analysis may not be useful for any other purpose. The assumptions disclosed herein are not all inclusive, but are those deemed significant to the operations of the facility. However; there will be differences between estimated and actual' results, . due to the fact that events and circumstances frequently do,not occur as expected, and these differences may be material. As is the case in all studies of this type, the estimated results are based on competent and efficient facility management and assume that no significant changes in the various event markets will oçcur beyond those set forth in this report. The . remainder· of this section presents the financial and economic impact analyses under the following components: · Operating Revenues, · Operating Expenses, and · Estimated Financial Results. Operating Revenues A new or renovated stadium will likely derive revenues through rental revenue, concessions sales, merchandise sales, parking fees, advertising and other such revenue streams. This section summarizes the estimates for each potential revenue source, identifying revenues that could be derived from stadium events. The estimates presented herein relate to the event and attendance assumptions developed in the previous section. 366 Rental Revenue Rental revenues often make up a significant portion of a facility's operating cash flows. Typically, stadium rental rates consist of a flat rental fee. For certain ticketed events such as concerts, a percentage of gate receipts generated by the event may be collected rather than applying a flat fee. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that organizers of all events other than concerts would pay a flat rental fee, and would retain all ticket revenue from their respective events. It is assumed that concert promoters would be assessed a rental fee equal to the greater of a flat rate, depending on stadium capacity, or 10 per cent of gross gate receipts. The rental rates assumed in the estimates are based largely on rates charged at comparable stadiums. The following exhibit summarizes the assumptions used to estimate the annual rental revenue from all events held at the· stadium under each development scenario. Estimated Stadium Rental Revenue 18,000 Seats . . Annual Rental Event Type Annual Average Average Rental Rate Rental Rate Events Attendance Ticket Price Flat Fee % of Gate Revenue HS Football 10 2,000 $ 5.00 $ 500.00 nfa $ 5,000.00 HS Soccer 30 300 $ 5.00 $ 250.00 nfa $ 7,500.00 Postseason HS 2 2,500 $ 8.00 $1,000.00 nfa $ 2,000.00 College Sports 2 15,000 $20.00 $2,000.00 nfa $ 4,000.00 Concerts 3 10,000 $30.00 $5,000.00 10% $90,000.00 ()ther Events 15 500 $ 8.00 $1,000.00 nfa $15,000.00 Annual Totals $ 123,SOO.OO 1 S,OOO Seats Event Type Annual Average Average Rental Rate Rental Rate Annual Rental Events Attendance Ticket Price Flat Fee % of Gate Revenue HS Football 10 2,000 $ 5.00 $ 500.00 nfa $ 5,000.00 HS Soccer 30 300 $ 5.00 $ 250.00 nfa $ 7,500.00 Postseason HS 2 2,500 $ 8.00 $1,000.00 nfa $ 2,000.00 College Sports 2 12,000 $15.00 $1,900.00 nfa $ 3,800.00 Concerts 3 7,500 $30.00 $4,500.00 10% $67,500.00 Other Events 15 500 $ 7.00 $1,000.00 nfa $15,000.00 Annual Totals $100,800.00 367 1 0,000 Seats Event Type Annual Average Average Rental Rate Rental Rate Annual Rental Events Attendance Ticket Price Flat Fee % of Gate Revenue HS Football 10 2,000 $ 5.00 $ 500.00 nfa $ 5,000.00 HS Soccer 30 300 $ 5.00 $ 250.00 nfa $ 7,500.00 Postseason HS 2 2,500 $ 8.00 $1,000.00 nfa $ 2,000.00 College Sports 2 8,000 $10.00 $1,700.00 nfa $ 3,400.00 Concerts 3 5,000 $30.00 $4,000.00 10% $45,000.00 Other Events 15 500 $ 6.00 $1,000.00 nfa $15,000.00 Annual Totals $77,900.00 5,000 Seats Event Type Annual Average Average Rental Rate Rental Rate Annual Rental Events Attendance Ticket Price Flat Fee % of Gate Reve n ue HS Football 10 2,000 $ 5:00 $ 500.00 nfa . $ 5,000.00 250.0'0 . HS Soccer 30 300 $ 5.00 $ nfa $ 7,500.00 $ $1 ,~OO.OO nfa $ . Postseason HS 2 2,500 8.00 2,000,00 College Sports 2 5,000 $10.00 $1,500.00 nfa' $' 3,000.00 Concerts 3 3,500 $30.00 $3,500.00 10% $31,500.00 Other Events 15 500 $ 5.00 $1,000:00 . nfa $15,000.00 Annual Totals $64,000.00 As shown, rental revenue is estimated to range from approximately $124,000.00 per year at an 18,000-seat renovated Victory Stadium to approximately $1)4,000.00 per year assuming a new 5,000-seat stadium. ' Concessions Concessions revenue consists of sales of various food and beverage items at concession stands throughout the stadium. Revenue assumptions are based on estimated event and attendance levels, concession spending at comparable facilitIes and industry trends. . 368 Based on industry trends, the profit margin on concessions generally approximates 40 per cent of gross sales, with remaining percentage being allocated to the vendor to cover the cost of labor and merchandise. The profit generated by concessions and catering is often shared between stadium management and event organizers. The percentage of concession profits allocated to event organizers can often be a key negotiating point when developing rental agreements suitable for both the stadium and the tenant or organizer. For purposes of this analysis, it is assumed that the stadium would retain an average of 50 per cent of profits from the sales of concessions, with the remaining 50 per cent allocated to the event organizer. The following table summarizes the assumptions used to estimate annual concessions revenues resulting from each stadium development option. Estimated Food & Beveraae Revenue 18,000 Seats Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue Attendance Spending of Gross High School Football 20,000 $ 3.00 $ 60,500.00 20% $ 12,000.00 High School Soccer 9,000 $ 3.00 $ 27,250.00 20% $ 5,400.00 . Postseason HS 5,000 $ 3.00 $ 15,000.00 20% $ 3,000.00 College Sports 30,000 $ 3.00 $ 90,000.00 20% $ 18,000.00 Concerts 30,000 $ 6.00 $180.000.00 20% $ 36,000.00 Other Events 7,SOO $ 2.00 $ 1 S,OOO.OO . 20% $ 3,000.00 Totals 101,SOO $387,000.00 $ 77,400.00 1 S,OOO Seats Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue Attendance Spending of Gross Hi9h School Football 20,000 $ 3.00 $ 60,000.00 20% $ 12,000.00 High School Soccer 9,000 $ 3.00 $ 27,000.00 20% $ S,400.00 Postseason HS 5,000 $ 3.00 $ 15,000.00 20% $ 3,000.00 College Sports 24,000 $ 3.00 $ 72,000.00 20% $ 14,400.00 Concerts 22,500 $ 6.00 $135,000.00 20% $ 27,000.00 , Other Events 7,500 $ 2.00 $ 15,000.00 20% $ 3,000.00 Totals 88,000 $ 324,000.00 $64,800.00 369 10,000 Seats Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue Attendance Spending of Gross " High School Football 20,000 $ 3.00 $ 60,000.00 2096 $ 12,000.00 High School Soccer g,OOO $ 3.00 $ 27,000.00 2096 $ 5,400.00 Posts~ason HS 5,000 $ 3.00 $ 15,000.00 2096 $ 3,000.00 College Sports 16,000 $ 3.00 $ 48,000.00 2096 $ 9,600.00 Concerts 15,000 $ 6.00 $ 90,000.00 2096 $ 18,000.00 Other Events 7,500 $ 2.00 $ 15,000.00 2096 $ 3,000.00 Totals 72,SOO $2SS,OOO.00 $ s 1 ,000.00 S,OOO Seats Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue Attendance Spending of Gross High School Football 20,000 $ 3.00 $ 60,000.00' 2096 $ 12,000.00 High School Soccer g,OOO $ 3.00 '$ 27,0.00.00 2096 $ 5,400.00 Postseason HS 5,000 $ 3.00 $ 15,000.00 . 2096 $ 3,000.00 College Sports 10,000 $ 3.00 $' 30,000.00 2096 $ 6,000.00 Concerts 10,500 $ 6.00 $ 63,000.00 2096 t 12,600.00 Other Events 7,500 $ 2.00 $ 15,000.00 ·2096 $ 3,000.00 Totals 62,000 $210,000.00 $42,000.00 Concessions revenue is estimated to range from a high of approximately $77,000.00 at an 18,OOO-seat stadium to a low of $42,000.00 assuming a 5,OqO-seat facility. ' Merchandise Sales Merchandise sales consist of clothing, souvenirs, programs and other miscellaneous items sold during events at the stadium. It is assumed that the facility users would be responsible for merchandise sales and would retain the majority of revenues generated. However, for concerts and other potential outside events, it is assumed thai a 'new or renovated stadium may be able to negotiate a revenue sharing agreement. For purposes of this analysis, it is estimated that net revenues from merchandise sales could range from $5,000.00 in an 18,000-seat stadium to $2,000.00 in a 5,000-seat facility. 370 Parking Revenue There are currently approximately 700 parking spaces on the Victory Stadium grounds. Because each develop'ment scenario assumes that a new or renovated stadium would exist on the site of the current Stadium it is assumed that the same number of spaces would continue to be available. Based on an estimated 90 per cent of event attendees driving to attend the event with an average of 3.5 persons per car and an 80 per cent profit margin, the following table summarizes the parking revenue that could be generated by events at a new or renovated stadium. It is important to note that these revenues reflect the utilization of only the 700 spaces located on the Victory Stadium grounds. For events requiring additional parking, it is assumed that patrons would park off-site and that any revenues generated there from would be allocated to other entities. Estimated Parkina Revenue . 1 8,000 Seats Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue Attendance Spending of Gross High School Football 514 . $ 2.00 $10,286,00 80% $ 8,229.00 High School Soccer 77 $ 2,00 $ 4,629.00 80% $ 3,703.00 Postseason HS . 643 $ 2.00 $ 2,571.00 80% $ 2,057.00 College Sports 3,857 $ 2,00 $ 2,800.00 ,80% $ 2,240.00 Concerts 2,571 $ 2.00 $ 4,200,00 80% $ 3,360.00 Other Events 129 $ 2.00 $ 3,857.00 80% $ 3,086.00 Totals $28,343.00 $ 22,674.00 . 1 S,OOO Seats Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue Attendance Spending of Gross High School Football 514 $ 2.00 $ 10,000.00 80% $ 8,229.00 High School Soccer 77 $ 2.00 $ 4,629.00 80% $ 3,703.00 Postseason HS 643 $ 2.00 $ 2,571.00 80% $ 2,057.00 College Sports 2,OS7 $ 2.00 $ 2,800.00 80% $ 2,240.00 Concerts 1,286 $ 2.00 $ 4,200.00 80% $ 3,360.00 Other Events 129 $ 2.00 $ 3,857.00 80% $ 3,086.00 Totals $28,343.00 $22,674.00 371 10,000 Seats Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue Attendance Spending of Gross High School Football 514 $ 2.00 $.10,286.00 80% $ 12,000.00 High School Soccer 77 $ 2.00 $ 4,629.00 80% $ 5,400.00 Postseason HS 643 $ 2.00 $ 2,571.00 80% $ 3,000.00 College Sports 1,286 $ 2,00 $ 2,800.00 80% $ 9,600.00 Concerts 900 $ 2.00 $ 4,200.00 80% $ 18,000.00 , $ Other Events 129 $ 2.00 $ 3,857.00 80% 3,000.00 Totals $28,343.00 $ 22,674.00 S,OOO Seats Event Type Annual Per Capita Gross Revenue Stadium Share Net Revenue Attendance Spending of Gross· High School Football 514 $ 2.00 $ 10,286.00 80% $ 8,229.00 High School Soccer 77 $ 2.00 $ 4,629.00 80% $ 3,703.00 Postseason HS 643 $ 2.00 $ 2,571.00 80% $ 2,057.00 College Sports 1,286 $ 2.00 $ 2,800.00 80% $ 2,240.00 Concerts 900 $ 2.00 $ 4,200.00 80% $ 3,360.00 Other Events 129 $ 2.00 $ 3,8S7.00 8096 $ 3,086.00 Totals . $28,343.00 $22,674.00 As shown in the table, parking revenue is estimated to total approximately $23,000.00 per year regardless of stadium capacity. Because parking revenue is limited by the number of parking spaces available at the stadium, it is not estimated to fluctuate based on stadium capacity. Advertising Advertising at stadiums is typically genera,ted from two sources: electronic displays and panel displays. Electronic displays are often located on scoreboards, outdoor marquees and interior fascia, and typically flash advertisements for a specified period of time. Panel displays can be found attached to scoreboards, outdoor marquees, concourses, interior fascia or a number of other locations within a stadium. Victory Stadium does not currently generate any advertising revenue. However, the physical design of a new or renovated stadium could provide additional opportunities for advertising signage and displays. Further, a new or refurbished facility could attract new advertisers who want to be associated with the improved stadium. 372 Ultimately, the revenue the stadium is able to generate for advertising will rely on factors such as the total estimated number of events and total attendance at the stadium, the number of televised events at the stadium, and the extent to which the City chooses to maximize advertising opportunities. The following table summarizes estimated annual advertising revenues for each stadium development scenario, based on factors such as advertising at comparable stadiums and the size and corporate inventory of the Roanoke market. Estimated Advertising Revenue . 18,000 Seats 1 S,OOO Seats 10,000 Seats 5,000 Seats $ 50,000 $ 45,500 $35,000 $25,000 Operating Expenses " The following estimates represent the potential operating expenses at a new or renovated stadium in Roanoke, and are based on an analysis of operating expenses at comparable facilities. The assumptions made in this section are based on industry averages and results at comparable facilities. Estimated Stadium Oper,uing Expenses Expense Type Historical Renovated New Stadium ' New Stadium New Stadium Victory Stadium 15,000 Se.ats 10,000 Seats S,OOO Seats Stadium (l) 18,000 Seats Salaries, Wages & $ 116,000.00 $·130,000,00 $ 122,000.00 $ 110,.000 $ 99,000.00 Benefits Utilities $ 39,000,00 $ 50,000.00 $ 47,000,00 $ 42,000 $ 38,000.00 Repairs & $ 6,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 30,000 $ 27,000.00 Maintenance Materials and $ 8,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 17,000 $ 15,000.00 Supplies Professional Services $ 33,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ . 19,000.00 $ 17,000 $ 15,000.00 Other $ 30,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 32,000,00 ' $ 27,000 $ 23,000.00 Totals $232,.0.0.0..0.0 $29.0,.0.00..0.0 $272,.0.0.0.0.0 $243..0.0.0 $217,.0.0.0.00 (1) Represents average annual operating expenses over the past four fiscal years, inflated to 2005 dollars. Note: Expenses in the table exclude any annual capital reserve fund contributions, the amount of which may vary depending on total 'renovation/construction project costs. 373 As shown in the table, stadium operating expenses are estimated to range from approximately $217,000.00 for a 5,OOO-seat stadium to ,$290,000.00 per year assuming a stadium with a capacity of 18,000 seats. Salaries, wages and benefits are assumed to cornprise the largest share of operating expenses, as is currently the case at Victory Stadium. It sh'ould be noted that the expense estimates presented herein do not include debt service associated with the cost of the potential construètion or renovation project. Further, no contribution to a capital reserve fund has been included in the expense estimates. Typically, facility owners and/or managers make annual contributions to a capital reserve fU'nd, often in an amount equal to 0.5 per cent to 1.0 per cent of total project development costs. The amòunt of annual capital fund contributions made for a new or renovated stadium will likely depend on the cost of renovating or constructing the stadium.' Estimated Financial Results The total revenues and expenses estimated in this section are summarized in the following exhibit. New/Renovated Victory Stadium Estimated Revenues and Expenses , , Current 18,000 Seats 15,000 Seats' 10,000 Seats' 5,000 Seats Stadium (1) Rent $ 124,000.00 $ 101,000.00 $ 78,000.00 $ 64,000.00 Food and Beverage . $ 77;000.00 $ 65,000.00 $ 51 ,000.00 $'42,000.00 Parking $ 23,000.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 23,000.00 $ 23,000.00 Novelties $ 5,000.00 $ 4,000.00 $ 3,000.00 $ 2,000.00 Advertising/Sponsorships, $ 50,000.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 25,000.00 Total Revenues $ 28,000.00 $279,000.00 $238,000.00 $190,000.00 $1 56,000.00 Salaries" Wages & $ 116,000.00 $ 130,000.00 $ 122,000.00 $ 110,000.00 $ 99,000.00 Benefits " Utilities $ 3'9,000.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 47,000.00 $ 42,000.00 $ 38,000.00 Repairs and Maintenance $ 6,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 33,000.00 $ 30,000.00 $ 27,000.00 $ , Materials and Supplies 8,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 1 S,OOO.OO Professional Services $ 33,000.00 $ 20,000.00 $ 19,000.00 $ 17,000.00 $ 15,000.00 Other $ 30,000.00 $ 35,000.00 $ 32,000.00 $ 27,000.00 $ 23,000.00 Total Expenses $232,000.00 $290,000.00 $272,000.00 $243,000.00 $217,000.00 374 Net Operating ($204,000.00) ($11,000.00) ($34,000.00) ($S3,000.00) ($61,000.00) Incomef(Loss) Capital Reserve nfa (2) (2) (2) (2) Net Operating ($204,000.00) ($11,000.00) ($34,000.00) ($53,000.00) ($61,000.00) Incomef(Loss) After Capital Reserve (1) Represents the average annual financial performance of Victory Stadium over the past four fiscal years, stated in 2005 dollars. (2) The amount of annual capital reserve contributions will likely depend on the total project cost, which has yetta be determined. As shown in the exhibit, it is estimated that operations of a new or renovated stadium could result in net operating losses ranging from $11,000.00 for an 18,000-seat stadium to $1) 1,000.00 for a 5,OOO-seat stadium. In comparison, Victory Stadium has sustained an average operating loss of approximately $204,000.00 annually over the past four fiscal years. It should be noted that the estimates presented above do not include annual debt service payments to cover the cost of a renovation or construction project. The construction of a larger stadium is likely to result in higher annual debt service payments in comparison to the development of a smaller facility. In summary, Mr. Parker stated that CSL International began with an analysis of comparable facilities, which were municipal stadiums that host a variety of high school football, soccer, and college football around the country to understand the dynamics of the financials, the types of events, and how events were marketed, etc. He further stated that their analysis involved a broad range of event utilizations ranging from about 25 event days similar to Lyons Stadium in Texas, up to 300 event days in Bellingham, Washington. He added that the bulk of the analysis was geared toward market demand in Roanoke, the historic utilization of Victory Stadium, and comparable facilities at those levels; a considerable amount of time was spent interviewing potential users, high schools, colleges, football conferences, the NCAA, as well as concert promoters and other event promoters to understand the type of facility where there is a demand. He made the following points: . Currently, high school football is the primary user of Victory Stadium averaging approximately 1,000 - 1,500 seats per game. . Roanoke's two high schools indicated a preference to have facilities constructed on their campuses and discontinue the use of Victory Stadium. For the CSL International analysis, it was assumed that the high schools would continue to play regular season games at Victory Stadium; averaging about five games a year per team, or about ten total regular season games per year. 375 . With a new stadium and a better experience for fans, it is hoped that attendance will increase from approximately 1,000 - 1,500 up to about 2,000 persons per game. · Victory Stadium currently hosts a few soccer games per year and one or two lacrosse games a year, with low attendance levels, but with a new facility and the installation of artificial turf, Victory , Stadium could be a prime facility for soccer and la,crosse. · Championship games for high school football, soccer and lacrosse require various stadium scenarios, post-season high school Opportunities exist, currently the majority of post-season games are held at the higher seed's home, opportunities may exist at the final rounds for Roanoke Valley localities to submit a joint competitive bid, although there is no guarantee, even with a new stadium, that Roanoke would be successful in booking the events. · College sports may also be an opportunity, inasmuch as Roanoke currently hosts the Western Virginia Education Classic; there is limited interest in bringing neutral site games to Roanoke; the decision is usually based on travel expenses and gate receipts, certain guarantees will be required in addition to covering event and travel expenses, and such opportunities are limited at this point. · Championship games also involve dollars, minimizing travel expenses, bringing all the teams to one market, and having three teams travel instead of four creates an impact on the programs. The ACC is a strong conference in this region at the Division I athletics level, the ACC requires large stadiums, factors considered by the ACC in bringing events to markets include quality parking, a top notch playing surface, adequate ticket booths, concessions, restrooms, fan amenities, adequate press space, locker room space, quality locker rooms and officials space, a vioeo'board and scoreboard, hospitality areas, meeting space for pre-game and post-game functions for team boosters, and adequate lighting as events are televised. · NCAA football championship events at Division IAA , Division II and Division III may also be an opportunity;' Division 1M has been played at Carter Stadium in Chattanooga, Tennessee, for several years periodically, and comes up for competitive bid and Division II· would be a prime opportunity for the Roanoke area. Braly Municipal Stadium in Florence, Alabama, has expended funds to upgrade its stadium; the Stagg Bowl, Division III, is currently played 376 at the ball field in Salem, and in order to attract any of the above referenced collegiate events, the City would have to partner with the local college, university or an athletic conference to qualify for bringing the events to Roanoke. Division IAA football championships require at least 15,000 seats, for Division II and Division III, 8,000 seats are preferred; other factors that are considered relate to geographic location of the market, where Division II teams are currently playing, how far the teams will have to travel, the attendance potential of the market, the availability of adequate lodging within the immediate area and outside of the area, as well as the availability of practice facilities for both teams. · There are limited opportunities in terms of the NCAA soccer championships; the NCAA has played in soccer specific stadiums, and more soccer specific stadiums are under construction, however, the main issue concerns the quality of turf. . When games are played in a football stadium, soccer players prefer a quality turf facility, and providing artificial turf may mitigate the situation; Division I championships request at least 8,000 - 10,000 seats ad Divisions II and III require at least 5,000 seats. · The lacrosse championship is somewhat different at the Divisions I, II and III levels and are currently played in. major NFL facilities, such as Lincoln Field in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Women's championships rotate and there may be an opportun.ity for the Roanoke Valley to submit a competitive bid. · It is assumed that the Western Virginia Education Classic will continue to be held at Victory Stadium, one additional neutral site game could be brought to Roanoke; I.e.: an early or late season classic, or some other event that would guarantee revenue to the team and cover expenses. No championship events have been assumed because of the competitive bid situation; therefore, depending on capacities, Roanoke could bring two even.ts to sell out with about 5,000 seats up to approximately 15,000 seats at the largest stadium capacity. · Other sports opportunities exist, some of the venues that were studied host semi-professional football,and professional league soccer may be available; there may be opportunities to attract professional sports team, however, league economics require that all revenues generated go to the teams, so, in effect, revenue will not benefit the facility other than through added utilization. It would be necessary for the City to solicit a local ownership group to sponsor a team. 377 · Youth sports were considered such as regional tournaments, or AAU-type tournaments that generate visitors to the market. Initially, one might think that a new stadium would provide a prime opportunity to attract these types of events; however, the reality is that promoters do not care about new stadiums, or about having 5,000 seats or 10,000 seats, but instead they look for 20 or 30 fields in order to accommodate all events. · CSL International interviewed concert promoters both locally and regionally. Victory Stadium has hosted some concerts in the past, such as the Dave Matthews Band which was successful, but required certain significant guarantees. In order to attract concerts, promoters require money and guarantees that they will be able to cover costs and generate as much revenue as possible. · There is very little interest in stadium configuration. . Football stadiums are somewhat unique and stadium seating is better situated for football games. The curved seating arrangement allows patrons to focus on the center field. With a new faCility and new amenities, it was assumed that Roanoke would continue to host those events that have been held at Victory Stadium for the past several years, such as "Music for Americans" and other festival- related events. The City of Roanoke would do well if it hosts three of those types events per year, depending on the capacity and type of concert, ranging from 3,500 to 10,000 persons per event. · In addition to festivals, Victory Stadium has acted as a home base for road races and other community events. The new stadium would afford an opportunity for other activities such as flea markets and car shows, using the stadium grounds to host the events · It is estimated about 1)2 events per year could be held at Victory Stadium, ranging from 1)2,000 to 100,000 persons total. The Stadium could be operated as a business and as a part of an enterprise fund that would be actively marketed to attract new events. · The financial analysis relies on the fact that Victory Stadium will be operated as a business and that the faCility will control concessions; total revenues, historically, have been about $28,000.00, however, it may be possible to generate between $151),000.00 to $279,000.00 in total revenues. Total expenses could be about $217,000.00 on the low end, up to about $290,000.00. There is no estimate for a capital reserve account at this time since costs are not known; generally, an estimate of about 378 one-half to one per cent of project costs on an annual basis would be set aside in order to have available funds for operations. Overall, Victory Stadium has operated on about a $200,000.00 loss, but with active marketing and an active business approach, the City could reduce the deficit anywhere from $11,000.00 to $1) 1,000.00. If concession revenues were given to local community groups and/or high schools, revenue would decrease significantly. Mr. Parker advised that after all is said and done, the question in the minds of most people is, what size facility should be built. He stated that based on all of the information that was received, a 5,OOO-seat stadium will be the capacity that will accommodate approximately 90 per cent of the events that will utilize Victory Stadium; a 5,000-seat stadium may not allow the City of Roanoke to compete for certain other events; and temporary seats could be used to get the facility up to 7,000 or 8,000 seats, thus enabling the City to bid on certain championship events. He further stated that a 10,000-seat facility would position the market and provide the City with the ability to compete for other larger events; however, there is no guarantee that any of the events will come to Roanoke. He advised that whether or not the City of Roanoke should build a facility with added capacity and added cost, with no guarantee of attracting any of the above referenced events, is a decision that City Council will have to make. He noted that some events may not be recurring events; I.e.: they may occur one year and not again until five years later. He stated that the ability to add temporary capacity to either a 5,000 or a 10,000-seat facility would be a plus in attracting certain other events to the stadium. In closing, Mr. Parker stated that the City of Roanoke has a unique situation with an existing stadium that has considerable capacity for other events. Mr. Holleman reviewed a cost benefit analysis of incremental costs for other events that Victory Stadium may be able to attract, the amount of revenue that could be generated to the facility and to the community in terms of hotel rooms, tax revenue and other spending in the community. Mr. Holleman advised that: . Construction cost - Area square footage of space was multiplied by unit costs which provides the subcontractor's price for the sub-area of a particular unit; general conditions, overhead and profit for the contractor is added to that figure, and because there are numerous unanswered questions, a 1 5 per cent estimated contingency was included, providing a new subtotal, or bid price, that would be used in the marketplace for the bid. The figure does not represent the total project cost since other project costs, known as soft costs, will be added in 379 and will be different depending on whether the facility is a new or a renovated facility. There would be a construction contingency due to the potential of finding more things wrong in a renovation project than in a new construction project of five per cent for a renovation project and three per cent for a new project. Also involved are fees for architects and others, as well as direct costs for printing and travel expenses, in the range of ten per cent for a renovation project, and about eight per cent for a new project; and one per cent for the owner contingency. He called attention to the need to include a three per cent project contingency in the event of necessary additions and soft costs range between 19 and 23 per cent of the total bid price figure. Mr. Holleman reviewed the following: Purpose of the Victory Stadium Study Report prepared by Heery International, Inc.: · Evaluate Existing Conditions · Develop Five Options · On Existing Site · Comparative Analysis Agenda: · Flood Plain · Existing Stadium Assessment Loose Brick Spalled Concrete Seats Lacking Amenities Poor Field and Track Sound Structure on Deep Foundations · Historic Tax Credit Registered Historic Landmark Preliminary indication from DHR is positive 20% Federal and 25% State eligible Everything within stadium footprint eligible Soft cost associated with eligible cost are eligible Net savings back to City estimated at 35% Example: If the eligible cost is $10,000,000.00, the proceeds to the City are $3,500,000.00 380 · Five Options 1. Existing. Stadium - Historic Rehabilitation (with Historic Tax Credit) 2. Existing Stadium - General Renovation (without Tax Credit) 3. New 5,000 Seat Stadium 4. New 10,000 Seat Stadium 5. New 15,000 Seat Stadium · Program Basic Program Bench Seating Toilets and Concessions for 8,000 Press Box Support Space - Locker Rooms (11/1 5k) Option Program New Field Architectural Façade Site Aesthetics Raised Support Space · Budget Methodology Area x Unit Costs $ . Su btotal GC OHP 18% Estimating Contingency 15% Bid Price Su btotal Soft Costs Renovated New Construction Contingency 5% 3% FF&E 3% 3% Testing, Surveys, GEO 1% 1% Owner Contingency 1% 1% Project Contingency 3% 3% Subtotal Soft Cost 23% 19% Total Project Costs Total $$ Total $$ 'Escalation Mid-Construction December 2006 381 Budget Comparison . Ontion 1 OPtion 2 Option 3 Ontion 4 Ontion 5 Renovate Renovate 18,000 Tax 18,000 No Tax. New 15,000 Items Credit Credit New 5 000 Seats New 1 0 000 Seats Seats Basic Stadium Costs $1 7 010 349.00 $13.443983.00 $1281299S.00 $18620749.00 $20614 083.00 Facade Uoorade $0.00 $2 4S4 013.00 $1737804.00 $2404912.00 $ 3.221 S8S.00 Field Imorovements $1 073 97S.00 $1 073 97S.00 $1 073 97S.00 $1.073.975.00 $1 073 975.00 Site Unorades $999600.00 $999600.00 $999,600.00 $ 999 600.00 $999 600.00 Raised Support . nla Facilities $1612997,00· 709 049 709 049 709 049 Sound Svstem $17S.000.00 $1 7S 000.00 $1 75 000.00 $17S 000.00 $1 75 000.00 . Patron nla . . Connection n/a .. S 500,000.00· n/a n/a Scoreboard NIC NIC NIC NIC NIC Total . 19 2S8 924 18146S71 16,799,374 23274281 26084243 Eligible Base Tax Credit $16,360;432.00 n/a n/a . At 35% $S 7261S1.00 . Operation and Maintenance Costs Estimated Stadium Operating Expenses Expense Type Historical Victory Renovated New Stadium New Stadium New Stadium Stadium (1) Stadium 15,000 Seats 10,000 Seats 5,000 Seats 1 B,OOO Seats Salaries, Wages & Benefits S 116,000.00 S 130,000.00 S 122,000.00 S 1 '0,000.00 S 99,000.00 Utilities . S 39,000,00 S 50,000.00 S 47,000.00 S 42,000.00 S 38,000.00 Repairs & Maintenance S 6,000.00 S 35,000.00 S 33,000.00 S 30,000.00 S 27,000.00 Materials and Supplies S B,OOO.OO S 20,000.00 $ 19,000.00 S 17,000.00 S 15,000.00 Professional Services S 33,000.00 S 20,000.00 S 19,000.00 S 17,000.00 S 15,000.00 Other . . S 30,000.00 S 35,000.00 S 32,000.00 S 27,000.00 S 23,000.00 TOlals $232,000.00 . $290,000.00 $272,000.00 $243,000.00 $217,000.00 (l) Represents average annual operating expenses over the past four fiscal years, inflated to 2005 dollars. Note: Expenses in the table exclude any annual capital reserve fund contri.butions, the amount of which may vary depending on total renovation/construction project costs. 382 The City Manager advised that Mr. Garland was present to answer specific questions with regard to Historic Tax Credits. Following a brief recess, Mayor Harris recognized the Members of Council for questions and comments. Council Member Cutler asked the followinQ Questions: Question: The Branch Highways contract with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers to dig bench cuts along the Roanoke River just down stream is creating a considerable amount of fill material. Using available fill material. for both the demolition of Victory Stadium and the construction of bench cuts as recommended by the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers along the Roanoke River, would it be practical or advantageous to elevate the new stadium site by the river with fill material before beginning construction. Response: Mr. Holleman stated that he would address the question in general terms. It is possible to use fill material to raise the site in areas that are not critical to the structure of the stadium; the site currently has a lot of silt and the more weight that is placed on it, the more the structure tends to settle. In areas such as under the playing field, fill material could be used, as well as underneath sidewalk areas, landscaping, etc. Question: Explain the premium that the City would pay to build a 5,000 seat stadium on or near the Victory Stadium site near the river, compared to an identical seating capacity stadium on an upland site, such as the campus at William Fleming High School. Response: Mr. Holleman stated that without knowledge about the William Fleming site, his response would be based on assumptions and conditions. Based on a previous comparison, a high school stadium of 5,000 seats, with lighting and a comparable amount of support space for locker rooms, would cost approximately $7.8 - . $7.9 million, including all soft costs. If locker rooms are not needed, $2.2 million could be deducted from the estimate. Question: For years, the City has stored motorized equipment under the stands at Victory Stadium, and on several occasions the equipment has been damaged by flooding. Would that area be permanently closed, or how would the accumulation of flood water be avoided? 383 Response: Mr. Holleman stated that presently there is no plan to prevent flood water from coming in inasmuch as the water comes up through the drain pipes, etc.; new support facilities would be built above the ten-year floodplain level; lower space where equipment was previously stored would not be changed and would flood during heavy rainfall; and one solution would be to install a sump pump to pump out water as it comes in. If the site totally . floods, it would be difficult to keep water out of the area. Question: How do you account for the discrepancy between your vehicle parking capacity number for Victory Stadium compared to that used by Richard Rife, Architect, which was based on an estimate provided by the City's Parks and Recreation Department. Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the consultant did not go into an analysis on the number of parking spaces, typically about 3.5 - 3.75 people are calculated per car for football games, so the number of parking spaces needed would be determined on capacity; patrons typically walk about ten minutes to a ball park and all the spaces in the area could also be calculated. An efficient parking lot in the space was allowed for which provided for about 525 cars, and the figure was derived by taking the capacity number and dividing it by 3.5. In addition, there are other lots around the area on which patrons could park and walk to the stadium. Question: Based on your experience asa stadium consultant, what are your thoughts with regard to the traffic situation, street capacity and parking capacity around the site of Victory Stadium? Response: Mr. Holleman responded that it was average at best; there are large stadiums situated in the mi.ddle of campuses with no surrounding parking,and patrons walk from 10-1)0 minutes to reach the stadium; and it depends on the level of convenience and how the City would want patrons to come to the stadium. If the desire is to encourage patrons to use the facility, it should be as convenient as possible. The area is somewhat congested, but considering the types of events that have been held at Victory Stadium, traffic would not be that unreasonable and shuttle buses could be used, if necessary. Council Member Dowe asked the followino ouestions: Question: Would sound system upgrades be primarily for sporting events, would the same sound system have the capacity to be used for concerts, or would the City have to address other improvements? 384 Response: Mr. Holleman stated that other improvements would be necessary because the sound system basically works for specific seat locations, for PA announcements, for playing the National Anthem, and would not support a rock band concert which was not included in the numbers inasmuch as the consultant was not instructed to look at concerts. The consultant's report did not include how to provide power for large events that may come to the stadium, however, additional costs would be incurred to provide electric power, or it could be accomplished through a temporary generator. Question: It was mentioned that very seldom are there events at Victory Stadium where attendance of 15,000 - 20,000 people was achieved. Is that based on the historical propensity of the markets to support attendance, or on some historical information of the sites and the types of markets? Response: Mr. Parker stated that it was based on the estimated types of events that could be held at the stadium, estimates for attendance were based on similar events held elsewhere and the historical usage of Victory Stadium. Question: How many of those sites had similar facilities within a ten-mile radius? Response: Mr. Parker stated that he did not know specifically, but did not think there were many, other than another municipal high school football stadium; and the com parables that the consultant reviewed did not host those types of outside events. Question: If the schools decide to build stadia, how would that affect the potential of 1)2 events per year at Victory Stadium? Response: Mr. Parker stated that 30 soccer. and lacrosse and ten football games were included in the study, therefore, 'the stadium would loose 40 events out of the 1)2. Question: In essence, the City would have to hold 18 such events to make up for lost operating expenses. How many missed opportunities could the City allow before the faCility starts to look like it does now? Response: Mr. Parker stated that he could not answer how many activities could be missed, the consulting team tried to show that there is no guarantee that any of the events would come to Roanoke, the City would have to go through the competitive bid process, and he did not know how long the City would choose to sustain that type of loss with that type of facility. 385 Question: Has research shown that aesthetics of a facility does not matter as much as the market's propensity to support the facility? Response: Mr. Parker advised that both aesthetics and market support are important and the propensity of support is based upon events, which is based on providing a quality facility; therefore, it is a kind of circular equation. Providing a top quality facility and top quality events are key to encouraging patrons to visit the facility. Vice- Mavor Fitzpatrick asked the followinQ Questions: Question: What is entailed in the Historic Tax Credit process in terms of benefits to the City and monetary value? Response: . Mr. Garland stated that his group considers itself to be experts in historic preservation and in identifying those properties that have the potential to qualify for tax credits; however, they are not attorneys and do not form corporations and entities that are necessary to carry this type of project forward. The Historic Tax Credit project is both a State and Federal program; State tax credits are 25% of eligible expenses and the Federal program is 20% of eligible expenses. A structure must qualify for the program, meaning that the building is over 50 years old, and if the structure is not in a historic district, it would have to be included on the Register for Historic Places. In the case of Victory Stadium, the City would have to apply for the stadium to be included on. both the State and Federal Register for Historic Places. Consultants met in early October with State representatives that are responsible for determining whether a structure can be included on the registry, and State representatives agreed to take the Victory Stadium issue to the appropriate committee to obtain a preliminary ruling as to whether Victory Stadium could be placed on the Registry. They have since advised that it is thought that Victory Stadium could be included on the listing which is the first step to qualify for Historic Tax Credits. Once the stadium is placed on the Register. of Historic Places, any architectural and/or engineering projects would have to be done in such a way that they would not take away from the historic architecture of the building. The City would have to maintain the existing façade, and there could be no construction of additions on the outside of the existing façade. The City should try to limit building outside the extremities of the stadium since tax credits only apply to the existing structure, which would include anything from outside wall to outside wall, including the field, but would not apply to site work costs outside extremities of the building. A "not-for-profit" group could take advantage of the tax 386 credit by forming a "for-profit" corporation, the "not-for-profit" corporation would become a general partner in the syndication, and after the tax credit portion of the project is taken advantage of, ownership would revert back to the "not-for-profit" group. Most of the expenses on the project would be eligible; the total of 45 per cent that could be obtained through Historic Tax Credits on a normal for-profit project is diminished somewhat on a municipal project, because associated administrative costs carry a not-for- profit forward to take advantage of the taX credits, which historically have been about 35 per .cent instead of 45 per cent of eligible expenses. The $5 million figure comes from what can be recouped after construction, which can be subtracted from the total cost of the project. Council Member Lea asked the followinQ Questions: Question: If the City leans toward the larger stadium venue, would marketing be a critical piece? Response: Mr. Parker responded in the affirmation and advised that the larger the facility, the more expenses will be incurred and more events will need to come through the facility. If the City looses the high school events, marketing will be critical. Question: Are there certain persons or groups whose sole purpose is to market such facilities? Response: Mr. Parker stated that· he did not think it was all that common for a stadium with fields of this type, although there is a market primarily for baseball and football stadiums. There is a large community effort in the City of Salem to promote their facility and host between 20 - 30 events per year. Question: When a locality talks about partnering with various conferences and/or college conferences, such as the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the first question is, how many people will a venue accommodate; therefore, is marketing an important element? Response: Mr. Parker stated that marketing is critical, and starts with a demonstration of support by the facility and the community. His firm has been involved with the NCAA on a variety of levels looking at second-tier championships, and because of the push to make the second-tier championships more major events, communities are becoming more and more aggressive in their marketing efforts. 387 Council Member McDaniel asked the followinQ Questions: Question/Comment: The Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project when completed would only protect the City from the 30-year flood range. Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the levy goes only to the 30, , year flood level, but the consultant's scenario goes to the railroad tracks and areas where the water backflows onto the site; there is no full protection even on the 30-year level, flood water is still projected to come in up to the ten-year level; and regardless of what the City does at Victory Stadium, there will be flooding. Question: Review briefly the different scenarios at a 30-year flood level if the stadium is left as is versus the new options? Response: Mr. Holleman referred to a previous slide and stated that currently, patrons enter on the lower grade and go up the ramp into the stands, the level where a visitor walks up is about the ten-year floodplain level, and theoretically floods to fhe level every ten years; and the area below, where equipment was previously stored, floods more often because it is in the two-year flood area. The line denoted below the first level is the 1 OO-year floodplain and is about where the vomitories are located in the front of the facility; the 30-year floodplain is about half way in between, so practically speaking, the 30-year floodplain level cannot be worked with because space cannot be fitted between the 30-year floodplain and the level above. The consulting team also looked at the upper level, and there is structure to build a third level, but there is a question with regard to seating and what would be included on the third level. It is too far from the field to place the 'locker rooms, and it would not be practical for concessions. The third level would be the practical level to build on because it would be above the 1 OO-year floodplain. Question: Talk about the new scenarios? Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the main concourse would be built above the 100-year floodplain, removal of a few rows of seating resulted in the concourse being higher; and placement of the concourse would allow people to look down onto the field and give vertical space which could support facilities above the 100- year floodplain, with about 14 feet of space underneath. The goal was to try and keep the artificial turf out of the ten-year floodplain by raising the field level; the lifespan of artificial turf is about ten years; and there would be a problem with artificial turf as particles would tend to float in the event of a lot of water and the turf would have to be hosed off to remove accumulated silt. 388 Question: Would it be economical in the long run to add on to the facility piecemeal? Response: Mr. Holleman stated that in the long term, costs would increase just as the cost of construction increases every year; ten years from now, it would cost about 25 per cent more, so it will never be cheaper than it is currently. It is practical to add on, just as larger stadiums started out small, and added on approximately every five years. This concept works from the 5,000-seat configuration, which is the way that many stadiums have expanded. Question: What would be the approximate cost of additions? Response: Mr. Holleman responded that he could work up costs using today's dollars, but it would not be an accurate projection of costs in ten years. Council Member Wishneff made the followinq observation and asked the followinq questions: Question: Two examples locally of projects that were accomplished using Historic Tax Credits are the Jefferson Center and Warehouse Row. They continue to be owned by the City pursuant to 40-year leases with entities operating the facilities separately from the City. The Higher Education Center, O. Winston Link Museum, Grandin Theater, Shenandoah Hotel, and Burrell Hospital were also accomplished through Historic Tax Credits. The Culinary School will also be constructed through Historic Tax Credits, therefore, it is a well tested process. Question: Can you provide more details regarding structural issues, since there has been a considerable amount of discussion in the community regarding the safety and condition of Victory Stadium. Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the structural frame of the stadium is in good condition, with no cracks or spalling in the frame; the underside of the grandstands look better than most grandstands of its age, grandstands are fairly thick in order to withstand abuse where the concrete is spalling which is a good basis for which to work, it appears that the building is not settling and only those things that are not attached to the frame are settling, such as the sidewalk on grade, restrooms that were built on grade, block walls that were built on spread footings and/or 389 those things attached to the brick where one thing has moved and the other has not, whrch is an expansion situation between two different types of frames. Rusting of brick ties is an issue which can be addressed by taking out all of the brick and reinstalling with new stainless steel ties, or a method to remove the brick in place which would be almost as expensive as tearing the brick off and re- bricking. Either way, funds to cover the cost would need to be , included in the budget. Question: instructions program? Should building plans be oriented to fit general by representatives of the State Historic Tax. Credits Response: Mr. Holleman advised that he met with State representatives to present,' preliminary alternatives, and suggestions were made on what should and should not be done which were conveyed to Heery International to incorporate in the report. Question: Ifthelevywere in place,would flood water flow over the levy? Response:- Mr. Holleman stated that it appears that flood water comes through the back side of Victory Stadium and would come in ',before the water goes over the levy side. . COuncil Member Wishneff stated that to assist the biomedical research park in the area, the City may want to address the levy issue outside of the Victory Stadium project. ,He advised that if the levy were never constructed, or if the flood reduction project was not completed, Victory Stadium would have a field 'that could be washed off, with only locker rooms that would be left in the floodplain that could be hosed off. .' Mr. Holleman responded that if the levy was not built, it will take less than a ten'year' flood to flood up to that same level; water would come in at the five-year level instead of the ten-year level, and there would be a more frequent situation where locker rooms would have to be hosed down, etc. Mr. Parker stated that the City's Building Commissioner was emphatic that any alternative, whether it be renovation or new construction, must meet code standards relative to floodplains, and anything that would be destroyed by a flood would have to be elevated above the 1 OO·year floodplain by approximately two feet under any of the alternatives. 390 Question: Operating costs increase as the size of the stadium goes up and revenues go up. Under the consultant's projections, would it be less expensive to operate current Victory Stadium, rather than a 5,000 seat stadium, by approximately $50,000.00 a year? Response: Mr. Parker responded in the affirmative, with the facility being reliant upon the two-three concerts that were included in the report which act as a revenue driver. Council Member Wishneff stated that it is important for the public to understand that the larger version of Victory Stadium looses less money annually than any of the other options. Mr. Parker replied in the affirmative, assuming that there are three 1 5,OOO-person attended concerts per year, with the revenue driver coming from the concessions and rent that would be gel'\erated. The ability to attract three 15,000-person attended concerts is difficult and would require a serious marketing effort. Question: Review the cost for each Option 1 using Historic Tax Credits. Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the total for each concept includes the brick façade, field improvements, site upgrades, a good sound system, and support facilities that are waterproofed just above the ten-year floodplain. The total cost for Option 1 is approximately $19.25 million, with $1).31) million available in eligible funds through a Historic Tax Credit, equaling approximately $13.5 million for Option 1 which includes 18,000 seats. Question: Temporary restroom facilities were used for a recent concert in Charlottesville, Virginia. Are temporary restroom facilities typically provided for large events? Response: Mr. Holleman replied that temporary restroom facilities are typical in areas where there is a lot of temporary seating or lawn seating, but code standards are specific and provide that the number of fixtures must be provided based on the number of permanent seats, no matter how many times the facilities are used. Option 2, which is the Victory Stadium renovation at 18,000 seats, with no tax credit, is about $18.14 million; Option 3, which is a new stadium of 5,000 seats is $11).8 million; Option 4 is a new 10,000 seat stadium, at a cost of $23.27 million; and Option 5 is a 15,000 seat stadium at a cost of about $21).08 million. 391 Council Member Cutler asked the followinQ Questions: Question: The leadership of the Virginia National Guard plans to abandon the National Guard Armory within the next two years and move to a site "out of the floodplain"; hypothetically, if that building was not there, would the consultant have proposed to . locate the building or the additional 5,000 seats of a 15,000 seat stadium on that end rather than on the river end of the stadium? Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the issue would have to be revisited, although most likely it would. not make that much difference relative to the floodplain. It is doubtful that the soil would be much different if the floor elevation of the building was high enough, it would involve flood proof construction, and would be less expensive to place some of the support space in the building instead of constructing a new structure. Council Member Dowe asked the followinQ Questions: Question: How many more floods would it take to deteriorate OJ at least leverage the solid foundation? Response: Mr. Holleman stated that he did not think it was possible to say one way or another if further flooding would affect the foundation of the stadium to the point where it would start to settle, and the water table is very close underneath the building. Stadiums pose a continuous maintenance item inasmuch as they are neglected all over the country, because people build them, use them once a week, then forget about them with little or no maintenance. Stadiums require more maintenance than any other type building because they are open to the elements on all sides. Question: Given flood considerations and the proximity of Victory Stadium to the Roanoke River, would it be feasible to consider a kind of river-front development that would be used in conjunction with a stadium, or a stadium site that could be used, regardless of whether the stadium was in operation? Response: Mr. Holleman stated that he could not speak to the developability of the concept, other than to say that anything could be made to look good, and whether a business would want to come into a location that had the potential of flooding and whether that area of the City would promote that type of development is a big question. There would most likely be some spin-off businesses as a result of the bio-medical institute in the area. 392 Vice-Mavor Fitzpatrick asked the followinQ Questions: Question: If the City decided to spend $13.5 million using the Historic Tax Credit option, would the City get another 1)0 years out of Victory Stadium before major investment is needed; or if the City elected to construct a new $11).8 million aluminum metal structure facility, with a façade around it, what would be the life of that type . of facility? Response: Mr. Holleman stated that projections could be made, however, it is a matter of maintenance as to how long the stadium will last; if existing concrete at Victory Stadium had been properly maintained over the years, spalling would not have occurred and the only money required to be spent would have been for maintenance; and that type of decking requires more maintenance and waterproofing than for an aluminum deck. The structure that holds up the aluminum deck, which is galvanized steel, also must be maintained, just like any structural system or it will start to rust and cause problems with the steel, but aluminum decking requires less maintenance than concrete decking. . Council Member Lea asked the followinQ Questions: Question: Could the two high schools use Victory Stadium while the facility is undergoing construction or renovation? Response: Mr. Holleman stated that either concept would work, although both would have some inconveniences. If a new stadium is constructed, one side of Victory Stadium would have to be torn down while constructing a new side, and all patrons would sit on the same side. Many stadiums have been constructed through the football season. Certain things can be done with the right amount of timing and planning, I.e.: recoating the seats and installing new seats, using both sides for seating while working on restrooms and concessions underneath, and utilizing temporary restroom facilities and concessions. Council Member McDaniel asked thefollowino auestion: Question: Were other stadiums studied for marketing purposes or for location, and were there any com parables? Response: Mr. Parker stated that the focus was on the types of events, how they were operated and by whom, most of which were school districts or cities. 393 Council Member Wishneff asked the followinq question: Question: Victory Stadium is a facility with commercial roads surrounding it and the structure is visible from 1-581. As opposed to constructing high school facilities in the neighborhoods, would it be an attractive location? Response: Mr. Parker stated that it would depend upon ingress and egress and it was difficult to answer the question since he did not know what traffic is like around Victory Stadium when the facility is occupied by 1),000 - 7,000 people. Council Member Dowe asked the followinq question: Question: When the consultant looked at other stadiums across the country that have a high volume of usage, was there a way to determine the affect of attendance levels? Response: Mr. Parker stated that the team did not specifically look at attendance levels, many facilities were operated by school districts which do not closely track attendance, and facilities are generally constructed to accommodate the primary attendance in terms of capacity. There is an impact if the facility has 15,000 seats and only 2,000 people in the stands, and 2,000 people in a 5,000 seat venue would still feel empty, therefore, it is important to generate a home-field advantage and to scale the facility accordingly. Mavor Harris asked the followinq questions: Question: Will the new option at 10,000 seats and 15,000 seats, as well as the two renovation options, price restrooms and concession points at a permanent seating level. of 8,000 people? Response: Mr. Holleman responded in the affirmative. Question: With regard to renovation options, how did the consulting team get from 18,000 seats to an 8,000-seat toilet connection? Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the figure came about as a result of previous stadium work, in that there were "X" amount of seats that were permanent and the number might have been 8,000, and everything above that for special events would be in temporary facilities; as the consulting team started to hear that the number would be over 2,000 - 3,000 people in the facility, to have 394 toilets for 18,000 people seemed like an extreme cost, the point being to include less and get permission to use temporary facilities in the event of a large festival that might require toilets for 15,000 people. The toilets downstairs would either be revamped as back- up toilet facilities, realizing that they are located in the floodplain, or some combination of both; and typically, by the plumbing code, a facility must have X many fixtures for X many people, with X number for women and X number for men; therefore, the City would need seek a variance, or an agreement from its Building Department. Question: Would permanent seating be any type of seating; for example, if some part of the stadium had aluminum benches and some part had the concrete terracing, does the concrete terracing still count as permanent seating, or would benches be counted as permanent seating? Response: Mr. Holleman stated that a determination would be made by the Building Commissioner. Question: Under the renovation scenario, the first nine rows would be removed for wheelchair seating. Since most patrons will tend to gravitate to the first 12 rows because of the view, how would that affect the sight line from the first row to the field? Response: Mr. Holleman stated that it would depend upon where the wheelchairs are parked as to whether they would pose an inconvenience, and as the structural seats are removed in the first bay by the column and the wheelchair platform is installed, wheelchairs would be located against the next row of seats, therefore, spectators would be able to see over wheelchairs in the same manner as anyone sitting in a regular seat. The only obstruction would be when wheelchairs are moving around on the front, which is no different than someone standing up and walking down the row. Question: Raising the field surface to the point where the crown is presently located and leveled from there would place the field above the ten-year floodplain. Under a renovation option, if artificial turf were installed, is there the capacity to raise the field to the 20-year floodplain level? Response: Mr. Holleman stated that there is a little give and take, but when watching a football game, spectators rarely sit and prefer to be about six feet above the grade in order to see over the shoulder of the player. The more the field surface is raised without raising the stadium, the worse the sight line will become for persons in the front row, therefore, a balance must be achieved. 395 Question: When studying at communities that regularly host AAU events, what are typically the number of soccer or lacrosse fields that a community should provide? Response: Mr. Parker stated that it would depend on the size of the tournament. AAU officials would take as many as they could get, or perhaps in the realm of 20 to 40. Question: How much of the work could be done in advance of receiving the Historic Tax Credit? Response: Mr. Garland stated that Historic Tax Credit is a multi- application process and whether or not the project qualifies should be known prior to commencing the project. A preliminary application provides certain assurances that the project will qualify for Historic Tax Credit. Mr. Garland advised that he felt comfortable in stating that Victory Stadium would qualify for Historic Tax Credits based on discussions with representatives of the Department of Historic Resources. The longest piece in the process would involve getting on the Register for Historic Landmarks; and a three-six month time period would be involved, including a lengthy pictorial process of photographing the current structure and providing proposed renovation plans to the Department of Historic Resources. Question: With regard to the· renovation option, what would be included on the second level out of the 1 OO-year floodplain? Response: Mr. Holleman stated that the second level would include restrooms, concessions, concourse and stairs. Locker room facilities would have to go either on ground level or in a separate building; however, if the City pursues the'Historic Tax Credits, a separate building could not be constructed. Mayor Harris expressed appreciation to Mr. Garland, Mr. Parker and Mr. Holleman for their presentations. He stated that if Council Members require additional information, they are requested to e-mail their question(s) to the City Manager who will forward the question(s) to the consulting team, and the question(s) and response(s) would then be e-mailed to all Members of the Council. The Mayor advised that the Roanoke City School Board had tentatively been requested to meet with the Council Thursday, November 3 at 4:00 p.m.; however, he stated that the Chair had previously indicated that the School Board did not have a presentation that it wished to make to the Council. 396 He called attention to correspondence from the School Board Chair transmitting a preliminary report of the Superintendent's Athletic Committee, and noted that the School Board would be available to provide clarification to respond to questions by Council, and/or to engage in dialogue; whereupon, he inquired as to the pleasure of the Council. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick stated that the communication from the School Board was tantamount to not accepting responsibility for the duties of School Trustees. He further stated that it is the responsibility of the School Board to advise Council as to what the School Board believes is in the best interest of the young people who attend Roanoke's schools, and whether the City of Roanoke can afford to do what the School Board wants, or agrees with their recommendations, is an issue for the Council to address. He advised that it is the responsibility of the School Board to apprise Council of the Board's position regarding Victory Stadium versus stadia at the two high schools. Council Member Cutler stated that Council should pursue the opportunity to meet with the School Board on Thursday, November 3, 2005 at 4:00 p.m. Council Member McDaniel spoke in support of meeting with the School Board on November 3 to hear the Board's position on the issue. Council Member Lea stated that there had been ample time for the School Board to present its position to the Council regarding stadia at the two high schools inasmuch as the matter has been on the table for an extended period of time, and to bring the School Board into the discussion at this "11 'h hour" would only cloud the issue. He advised that it is incumbent upon the Council to move forward and make a long· overdue decision with regard to Victory Stadium. He called attention to correspondence from the Chair of the School Board advising that the Board has no recommendation to submit to the Council, therefore, to force the School Board to make a recommendation would be inappropriate on the part of Council. Council Member Wishneff concurred in the remarks of Mr. Lea and advised that an alternative would be to ask the School Board to review the consultant's report and advise if the five options meet the needs of the school system. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick stated that the School Board is appOinted. to operate Roanoke's schools and to provide the best pOSSible education for the City's 13,000 students. He added that to have an issue involvi.ng high school football with no direction from the School Board, which is responsible for school programs, is ludicrous. He advised that his purpose in calling for the joint meeting is to offer an opportunity for the School Board to review the five options and to advise Council of what the Board believes will be in the best interest of Roanoke's students. 397 Council Member Wishneff stated that when he served on the Roanoke City School Board, the School Board advised Council, in writing, that it supported the renovation of Victory Stadium. Council Member Dowe stated that the School Board should be informed of all ramifications associated with the five options presented by the consultant, inasmuch as the School system will be the Stadium's largest user. The Mayor advised that five members of the School Board were present and heard the Council's discussion; and Council had previously received correspondence from the Chair of the School Board, and he would contact her on the following day to invite additional comment,. either .in person or in writing, by the School Board as a result of the consultant's report. He stated that this approach would leave the decision with the School Board in terms of how the Board would like to interact or communicate with the Council, and he would advise· the Council prior to the close of business on Wednesday, November 2, if the School Board wishes to meet with the Council on Thursday, November 3, 2005, at 4:00p.m. There being no further business, the Mayor declared the special meeting adjourned. APPROVED Ã~ -J~ Mary F. Parker City Clerk c. W1ID C. Nelson Harris Mayor 398 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL November 3, 2005 4:00 P.M. A special meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke City -School Board was called to order on Thursday, November 3, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., in the Emergency Services Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris and Chair Kathy G. Stockburger presiding. ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT: M. Rupert Cutler, Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, and Mayor C. N e Iso n H arri s __n__u_____nn__nnnn_u__ _n_nn n____nnn__ _____nnnu__n__noo____n_n______I). ABS ENT: Non e ___n_n_______nn____nn__oo___nn_nnn__nnnnu___nnn____n_n__uu____O. (Council Member Dowe arrived late.) ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: Jason E. Bingham, David B. Carson, William H. Lindsey, Alvin L. Nash, Courtney A. Penn, David B. Trinkle, and Chair Kathy G. Stockburger----------------n---------:-----------------n--n-"-----------------7. ABS ENT: No n e_nn__u__nn____n__n_____nnn_n___n _nn____n_nn_u__n.n_u __nn -00--- O. The Mayor and Chair declared the existence of a. quorum of their respective bodies. The invocation was delivered by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. 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: Marvin T. Thompson, Superintendent; Cindy H. Lee, Clerk; and Timothy R. Spencer, Legal Counsel. The Mayor read the following communication calling the special meeting: 399 "November 2, 2005 The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members of the Roanoke City Council Roanoke, Virginia Dear Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and Members of Council: Pursuant to Section 10, Meetings of Council Generally, of the Charter of the City of Roanoke, this is to advise you that I am calling a special meeting of the Council on Thursday, November 3, 2005, at 4:00p.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W. The purpose of the special meeting will be to meet with the Roanoke City School Board to discuss issues in connection with the consultant's report regarding Victory Stadium and a football stadium at Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools. With kindest regards. Sincerely, SiC. Nelson Harris C. Nelson Harris Mayor" The Mayor advised that the special meeting was called for the purpose of discussing an issue, not to discuss people, and if the discourse in any way becomes uncivil, he would adjourn the meeting. The Mayor referred to a communication from the Chair of the School Board under date of October 27, 2005, transmitting a report submitted by the Superintendent's Athletic Committee; whereupon, he called upon the School Board Chair for remarks. Council Member Dowe entered the meeting. Chair Stockburger advised that it is the intent and the responsibility of the School Board to provide safe, high performing schools for Roanoke's children during a time of significant and time critical challenges, therefore, to the extent that athletic programs help the school system to achieve its goals, the conversation that is about to take place is important. However, she stated that it is hoped that future conversations will center on instruction, learning and building high quality schools. The Chair reviewed the contents of the interim report submitted by the Superintendent's Athletic Committee that was appointed in April 2005, and was charged with the responsibility of evaluating City Schools athletic needs. 400 She added that the committee will not complete its assignment until the end of the calendar year; however, the interim report stated that it would be in the best interests of Roanoke City students to locate a stadium at each high school. Historically, she explained that the rationale has been for a shared stadium, due to cost effectiveness and the fact that fewer students were involved in athletics than they are today; and while the rationale supports and the School Board prefers school based stadiums, it understands that costs are a consideration as well as the impact on neighborhoods. She added that the issue is ultimately a decision that will be made by the Council; therefore, the position of the School Board is in support of school stadiums, however, the School Board would support ultimately the decision of Council. She stated that this is not an eleventh hour maneuver by the School Board; the School Board did not encourage or request any of the petitions or advocacy groups to come forward, but the above stated position was taken after reviewing the report of the Athletic Committee. A summary of the report of the Superintendent's Athletic Committee is as follows: "Charge: The Superintendent's Athletic Committee was unanimously agreed to by the School Board at its April 2005 meeting. This committee was established to discern District athletic needs. These needs include, but are not limited to: · Determining short-term faCility, management, safety, maintenance, and cost needs for a high school football faCility for the next three to four years. · Being ready to respond to the upcoming Roanoke City Council decision regarding a stadium, confirming and lobbying for the needs of our student athletes and school system as a whole as it pertains to this decision. · Evaluate and make recommendations for athletic programming at,the middle and high school level, including hiring practices, stipends, transportation needs, relationship with the City Parks and Recreation department, intramurals, etc. · Planning long-range and short-term capital plans for football as well as all athletic programs and facilities in the school system. History: 401 . The committee convened in September. · The committee has met for two-hour sessions on three occasions. · The committee is made up of board members, parents, coaches, teachers, athletic directors. · The committee hopes to present its report to the school board at the December school board meeting. Discussions and Decisions to Date: · . Preparations are underway to determine a location for high school football within the City and on the grounds of RCPS. Final cost analyses are due soon. It is anticipated that a subcommittee will be formed to work with the school system, the Parks and Recreation Department, and neighborhoods in order to be fully ready for football in August 2001). · Much time has been spent discussing the difficulties in fielding equitable teams in all ten sports at the middle school level. Concerns regarding costs, travel, and skill development have been discussed. "Out-of-the- box" alternatives are being considered. It is hoped that a way to provide competitive sports in a cost effective manner can be found. This is felt to be vital to school spirit, student health and developing feeder programs for the high schools. There is still much work to do in this area. We will probably have a public forum on this and other issues before the committee finishes its work. · Much time has also been spent on the longer term stadium decision. We have carefully reviewed the history, including many documents, regarding the Victory Stadium decision as it pertains to the school system. The committee has understood the decision of previous school boards and school administrations to support a shared stadium. It is felt, based on documentation, that if cost, space, and ongoing maintenance were not issues, the school system would have supported two high school stadiums throughout the debate. "Plan B" for a shared stadium was "satisfactory" due to perceived cost savings in a shared facility. However, this committee feels that with the 402 time that has elapsed in this debate, the changes in school board and administration, the now available space on the high school campuses and the possibility that it may very well be more cost effective to have a stadium at each high school. "Plan A" should be more fully promoted by the School Board. This, again, has been the school system's "Plan A" all along, and if indeed it is more cost effective, then this is the right path to take. We feel it is okay for the School Board to adopt this decision based on all the new information that has become available. Again, if there are not cost savings in a shared facility (which we do not know at this time), then the School Board should strongly support what appears to be what it has wanted all along: two high school stadiums. It is the unanimous consensus of the committee that each high school has a stadium on campus. The reasons given by committee members include: 'Home games' should actually be 'at home.' On-site stadiums would promote student involvement if for no other reason than to eliminate the need for transportation. It is time to give these children their own memories as opposed to trying to relive a bygone year. The booster clubs could actually earn money. 'Better school control of facility - Improved pep and morale - Multiple uses: soccer, band, convocations, pep rallies, etc. - Opportunity for booster clubs - Improvement opportunities for city wide events with better complexes and facilities.,. Less cost associated with travel, security, etc.' 'We would use the field for more than just football. We not only struggle with scheduling home games on Friday night but we are without a place to play soccer, lacrosse, sub varsity footb~lI, as well as sub varsity soccer, lacrosse, and a place for the band to practice on a, regulation field. We are at a huge disadvantage for students to have opportunities to use a school field and we lose money, spirit and community support not having our own field.' 403 '1. Build school spirit and pride. 2. Eliminate transportation costs for home games. 3: Booster clubs, school clubs, and other teams could earn money from concessions. 4. Home fan attendance would increase due to decreased travel.' 'I. The students develop a better school identity by playing on their own campuses. 2. Transportation costs can be reduced. 3. Students take ownership and develop pride. 4. Schools can make a schedule without constantly having to coordinate with another school or another government agency.' 'Constructing two stadiums to be used for high school athletics (football, soccer, lacrosse, etc.) will cost less than a shared City stadium and they will certainly improve student morale, foster school and community pride and spirit. They will allow schools and booster organizations the opportunity to collect revenues that a shared stadium will not allow and will reduce the costs that the high school must now incor in terms of facility rent and transportation costs. Stadiums at the high schools are what our students deserve.' · Work on short-term and long-range capital plans for the athletiC needs of our school system have just begun by this committee. Obviously these will be related to the outcome of the pending City Council decision, and the recommendations as related to programming and this work will, therefore, be the last task of this committee." . The Mayor opened the floor for discussion. The Superintendent reviewed the following High School Statistics 2000- 2001 through 2004-2005: 404 Roanoke City Public Schools High Scbool Statistics 2000-2001 tbrougb 2004Þ2005 Dronouls SchOOl Yellr Grade Level 2000~2001 2001·2002 2{)O2"'2003 2003-2004 2004·2005 PlitrlckHenr HI h Grade 9 39 15 20 24 20 Grade 10 38 22 21 13 17 Grade 11 21 9 14 11 30 Grade 12 21 9 9 8 13 TotalOrooouts 119 55 64 56 90 Oro o.ut Rete 8.87% 3.22% 3.54% 3.08% 4.49% WIlliam F..mlna-HI h Grade 9 50 56 42 24 29 Grade 10 36 39 19 21 17 Grade 11 34 18 15 18 23 Grade 12 18 13 13 11 12 Total Dr outs 138 '28 89 74 8' Ora out Rete 10.24% 9.28% 8.29% 5.31% 5.58% Noel C. T':..~lor Academ Grade 9 ,. 26 20 17 2' Grade 10 9 5 '0 6 5 Grade 11 5 8 5 4 . Grade 12 2 2 3 2 3 Total Ora outs 30 ., 38 .38 Ora outRa.. 21.67% 27.78% 33..57% 28.72% 22.0$% Blu6 Rid . Technlc:a' G-rade9 0 0 3 7 . Grade 10 0 4 7 . 2 Grade 11 0 0 0 2 1 Grade 12 0 0 0 2 1 Total Or outs 0 4 10 15 8 Oro utRat. 0% 33.33% 29.41% 17.24% 8.51% Combined Middle School Gr de7 '2 2 4 5 14 Grade 8 16 17 12 8 9 Total m~~~le school dro outs 28 19 16 13 23 Tota' RepS Ora outs 315 245 217 187 228 Drø out Rate 6.08% 4.87% 3.99% 3.40% 4.07% The Superintendent reviewed the following fact sheet with regard to proposed high school athletic facilities: 405 t~1 ROANOKE CITY PUBLIC SCHOOLS Bernard J. Godek Office of Associate Superintendent for Management P. O. Box 1314S . Roanoke, VA 24031 Phone: (540) 853-1644 . Fax: (540) 8S3-2590 E-Mall: bandp.k f[ roanokek12.v..l!!l us , Roanoke City Public School. PropOsed High School AthletlcF.dlltles F.ct Sheet Go.l: It is the goalof-Rollnoke City Public Schools tó brfng high school athletics back to the h~h schools. Description 3,000 $eating cepadty athletic facilities, located at Patrick Hen~ andWiUlam Fleming Hlgh Schools. State of the art lighting system, which limits Illumination of Ilreas outside of the athletic fecllity. The latest I" multiuse I!IrtlflCial turf technology, known 85 Field-Turf (!tI. 700+ perking spaces ðvellable, wlth overflow parking at Shriner Field. The,at:hletlcfacUttles will be complete. wl~h _the following feetures: Home grandstand seating (lower level - concrete, upper, lev~1 - steal), Visitor g.rendstand seating- (concrete), Home end ,visitor concessions, . ReStroom buildings, Press box, Landscaping, Scoreboard, Sid.ewallcs '& conc.ourse¡.Slte fendng & gBtes~ Ticket building. Complete trac;k renovations _ 'including an all weather eight lane rubberized metric track. ' Benefit. Increase pride in school culture. Schools will receive the benefit for all revenue generated through tJckfii!t or concession sales. . Elimlnatf~s the fee$i!Issoclated with per game or scrimmage facIlity use as charged throu'gh rentels less required by the City of Roanoke. Removes flooding concerns and postponements due to inclement weather. Allows students to 'E!xperlence traditional homecoming events at their home sçhool. Prevents the need fQr students tp drive from game events back to their sc.hool sites for p'ost game activities. Good Neighbor Inltl.tlve. . Ro!!lnoke City Public Schools, In cpnjunctlon with the Roanoke City Police Department, wiU-devlsea trame, 'parklng, and pedéstrl8n control plen. School dlvlstoCl Jpdetes and _c;ommuAity feedbeck will be conducted on a quarterly basiS. . There will be limited nighttime use IInd daytime usage will be maximized. The school system will work with prtncipals lit the respective high school ¡ to develop a liter control service-learning project.. managed by student groups such as the Student Government·Assodatlon. - Fendng w!1I prevent access to th~ athletic facility from eny point other- than the main entrance. . Provisions will be made for the use of the facility by the school PTAs and other neighborhood organlzetlons, 85 ellowed by local iewl> IInd school board policy. Provisions will be made tor access to addltionalconce&slons by the schoOl PTAs and other, neighborhood organizations, as allowed by local' laws IInd._sehool board policy. Discovering the Wealth In Every Student . The S.uperintendent reviewed the following conceptual estimates for high school stadia under date of October 27,2005: 406 Ro__Ok_ CI~y H_ a<l_d',,-, Conc_ptu_. I!!.tlrn." Octo_ a7. aooe Phoylne Pi_lei UllIhtlna 8»'__ _........ ,......k _no-UOrqo A_ou,,_ · ., 78,000 · 20.000 · 2.3._0 · _,100 · 87.012 · .1.aoo · 26.000 · 48,800 · 215,800 · a.._, I ~.M · aaa,_" I ~fi:m · a.a.... · ._.000 · ..ao.GOO · :Z80,OOO · 227.860 · t1eo.zee · '".110O · '.- · 2..000 · 1e.~ · 'tO,OOO I .1:.. · 'ITa,ClOO . ....-. · 3.".*."_ · ~..... · ..... · ....7._.. . :!It~."_ · 3,"'."'.._ . 37"'~. · 4,1:a2;".8. _o-rl"""'" Ercalon Contl'Ol.,.d S_-,," - ......, -...... --- .s__~~ -~_..... ~.- stoFnJ O::::I.~-== _.rOonn~ ,... s..n~_" --~ Mono. _..~nd_ne VJett.Dr Or....-_..... L.O~ L__I aon-wNo H.-.._ Con_'''___ Toilet ......dl.... H____ Tøll__ulldlng va......... C__.ron.IT_____b...... _Ikllng stone ,,__ and 1Jn~ ."...,.m F~ilS~""'" ""'~,.Con_ C&H'b -- ..... ~ I' """1oI;r tstonn o-~~ ..... ~ -"'r:/ Pu_"'_iS~ ~~c-,. Up~"~~-," --, GI......,_~..,. r___ Co~__ Aroh~~/.naE~·_ ....-- ~n D.~_c:onnnv-IHQ' T_' Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that since his children are no longer enrolled in the City's School system, he is not attuned to what today's young people need as the school system tries to intergrate both academics and athletics to provide an overall holistic education; his purpose in asking for the joint meeting of Council and the School Board was not for the purpose of requiring the School Board to take a position but to ask the School Board and the School Superintendent to share their thoughts on what is best for Roanoke's young people. Therefore, he asked the School Board and School Superintendent to help the Council to understand the relationship between academics and athletics. Superintendent Thompson advised that Roanoke currently has two high schools that are undergoing change with regard to not only their physical location, but their physical design; Roanoke has had two campus-style schools for many years; in a matter of a few short months, Patrick Henry High School students will be moved into a singular facility, which, in itself, changes the culture of the school community; and in approximately three years, students at William Fleming High School will do likewise. In terms of cultural changes, he explained that for years, students have passed each other in pods, but when students are brought together in one unit, different types of communication takes place which presents certain implications for the school to begin to grow into a total school community. 407 He stated that there are certain numerical values to examining the need to provide on site stadiums and reviewed information with regard to Roanoke City's graduation and drop-out rate which demonstrates the pattern for the past five years. He added that the City's graduation rate has not been above 1)0 per cent during the last five years; as the school system strives to improve the graduation rate, numbers will be added to every class each year, and as the school system moves to progress and change, numbers at each grade level could increase by about 200 students on average for each year; therefore, 1)00 extra students every year in each school in a school system that is already at capacity at both high schools brings to mind questions with regard to the future impact of a third high school in six to seven years. He stated that he expects the school system to become better at closing the gap in the graduation rate, and Roanoke's schools will be well over capacity in six years or more. He advised that when talking about building stronger school communities, at some point in time William Fleming and Patrick Henry High Schools may not be the only entities in the City of Roanoke in terms of providing educational and other opportunities for high school students. Council Member Cutler asked the Superintendent to be more specific with regard to the role of athletics, particularly football stadiums on school campuses, insofar as contributing to the graduation statistics. The Superintendent advised that currently in th.e athletic community, a lot vf time is being spent on feeder patterns and developing stronger athletic programs overall and an increase in student participation. He stated that in his experience as a high school administrator, it is quite telling when strong athletic programs are not in place which leads to idle students; students look to the school for a sense of belonging, for activities and opportunities; many students have to travel away from the school to participate in and to practice sports activities, therefore, there is no true connection to the school which is the missing piece. He called attention to certain inherent intangibles that can translate into negative discipline numbers, the number of students who drop- vut of school who are not inspired or motivated, and athletics is the first phase of enhancing opportunities for the largest number of students in any high school and creates the greatest number of opportunities for all students to participate by the number of sports activities that are offered. For example, he added that the Science Club is Simply the Science Club for those students who are interested in science, but athletics has many bounds and offers students an opportunity to expose their skills based on their personal preference. 408 With regard to the relevance of athletic fields versus the drop-out rate, the Superintendent advised that Roanoke City is losing students as early as the seventh grade; as we look at what the schools and school programs are doing for children, it is important to look at feeder patterns to involve young people as early as possible in order to formulate strong athletic programs; walking out of a student's own school down to his or her locker room and onto the school's athletic field instills a source of pride, decreases travel time for young people who drive to practice, and removes a transportation barrier for some students who do not have the means to travel to other locations. . He stated that athletic fields have a great impact on not only students but parents who use the facilities after hours for walking or jogging which enables the school to become a part of the entire community, rather that simply a building where students attend school. Council Member Wishneff requested clarification on the Superintendent's statement that providing an athletic field for practice and sports activities will help to decrease the school drop-out rate; whereupon, Mr. Thompson advised that it is a variable that provides an opportunity for students to participate and to become a part of the school community. Council Member Wishneff requested data to confirm that the student drop out rate will decrease if practice fields are located on the school campus; whereupon, Mr. Thompson advised that he would provide research articles that speak speCifically to the effects of interscholastic sports participation on academic achievement at the middle and high school levels. Chair Stockburger called attention to a school district in the State of Pennsylvania that recently constructed a stadium, and research reveals that extra curricular activities increased the school systems graduation rate. The Superintendent advised that a 3,000 seat capacity athletic facility located at each of the high school sites has been discussed. Council Member Cutler inquired if there is sufficient land for an athletic field at Patrick Henry High School; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that according to the architect, the sitting is located to the rear of the building, below level in a kind of bowl configuration, and he has been assured that the area will accommodate a 3,000 seat athletic field. When questioned if the bowl configuration would help to alleviate light and noise issues, the Superintendent advised that he would confer with the architect and advise Council accordingly. 409 Council Member McDaniel inquired as to the number of night games that would be held on each athletic field; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that football is the primary night event and each high school plays five home games, and other events could include soccer which is played during early evening in the spring. On the cost handout, Council Member Dowe requested a clarification of the term domestic water and testing allowance. Upon question, Dr. Trinkle advised that subsurface evaluations were performed and utilities were purposely moved out of the area at Patrick Henry High School. Question was raised as to whether the School Board/School Administration had entertained the idea of limiting lights to football play only so that the neighborhood would not be subjected to a 24/7 kind of use. The Chair responded that the fears articulated by the Raleigh Court community relate to "what if' types of questions such as traffic control, or whether the field is used 15 or 20 lighted nights a year. She stated that if stadiums are constructed at the two high schools, residents of the areas should provide input. Council member Wishneff advised that 11) per cent of the City's population is 1)5 years of age or older, the City 'has a limited amount of tax dollars, Roanoke's taxpayers have been generous by allowing the City to construct/renovate $100 million in high schools improvements; therefore, he inquired if the School Board had $10 million dollars to spend and the question , was raised as to the best way to improve the high school drop-out rate, would the answer be to construct stadia at the two high schools. Superintendent Thompson responded that the School Board was invited to the meeting because the City of Roanoke has $15 million to spend on stadiums that impact schools. Council Member Dowe inquired about traffic as it relates to present school activities versus the addition of a sporting venue; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that any school when addressing new goals, new challenges and certain changes could, by its design, create a new traffic pattern or increase the volume of people. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation to the School Board and to the Superintendent for meeting with Council and advised that the sharing of information will help Council to make the best decision on behalf of Roanoke's children. 410 Council Member McDaniel advised that concerns have been expressed not only in the Raleigh Count neighborhood, but in the Grandin Court neighborhood concerning the stadium at Patrick Henry High School. She inquired if the stadium at Patrick Henry will include a track; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that the track will be located at the William Fleming site. She inquired if students drive from game events back to the school sites for post game activities; whereupon, the Superintendent responded in the affirmative and advised of the risk of various negatives that could happen. Council Member Cutler advised that he was not comfortable in spending taxpayers' money on Victory Stadium which is located in a floodway; and after spending 50 years studying natural resources management and water management, he can attest to the fact that floods on the Roanoke River will continue and worsen as suburbs in Blacksburg develop on the headwaters of the Roanoke River, and as more development takes place in Roanoke County, flood water will flow down the Roanoke River. He advised that when touring the new Patrick Henry High School, it appeared that the design created the sense of smaller schools by dividing the school. He inquired if a stadium has the potential of bringing groups of students together around one athletic program in order to generate a sense of one school. Superintendent Thompson advised that the design of Patrick Henry offers great opportunities for internal small learning communities; a variable of the school drop-out rate involves curriculum and when the curriculum is changed, students will be engaged in a different way; and stadia at the two high schools will provide an opportunity that Roanoke's students have not previously had. Mayor Harris inquired if the Superintendent was comfortable in advising the Council that two stadia could be constructed for a combined cost of $8.2 million; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that he was quite confident with the $8.2 million figure. He stated that inflation is always a variable, if stadia for the two high schools are approved by Council, it would be two years before the stadium at Patrick Henry High School is completed; and it would take three to four years before construction on the William Fleming stadium could begin therefore, a natural five per cent inflation rate was built into the $8.2 million figure.. Mayor Harris inquired about the opinion of the athletic community; I.e.: athletic directors, coaches, parents, teachers etc., concerning sêhOol athletic fields; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that they support stadia at the two high schools. 411 Other than football, Mayor Harris inquired if there would be a need to hold other athletic events at a shared stadium; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that compacted school stadiums with more green space would allow other events to occur on site. Mayor Harris inquired if stadia were constructed on the two high school campuses as a part of the school complex, would the School Board operate, manage and maintain the facilities; whereupon, the Superintendent responded in the affirmative and advised that it was one of the reasons the school system chose to look at astroturf which is low maintenance and creates greater opportunities for more frequent play. Mayor Harris asked the Superintendent to discuss how concessions would be addressed at a high school-based stadium versus a shared stadium; whereupon, the Superintendent referred to a concept where revenue generated at school activities would go back to the school's athletic programs; some programs could become self sufficient; and operating concessions would provide an opportunity for students that participate in clubs and organizations to increase their activities. Assuming that stadia for both high schools are approved, Mayor Harris inquired about the timeline for completion; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that the Patrick Henry stadium would be completed in the fall of 2007, followed by the William Fleming stadium in the fall of 201 O. Mayor Harris made the observation that the William Fleming stadium would include a track and field within the stadium footprint; however, the footprint for the Patrick Henry stadium would include improving the existing track on the other side of Shrine Hill. Dr. Trinkle advised that some of the track and field events will be moved to the outside of the track. It was noted that a price of $11)0,000.00 was quoted to rotorize and remove everything from the Ðutside, however, it was not clear if the $11)0,000.00 was included in the $4.1 million figure for a stadium. The Mayor advised and the Superintendent confirmed that the stadium would be constructed in the general vicinity of McQuilkin Hall located on the Patrick Henry campus. He inquired if participation by students in high school athletics has increased or decreased; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that participation has declined. Dr. Trinkle advised that participation, city-wide, in Parks and Recreation programs, as well as middle school participation has declined and no one understands why; the school system enjoys a good relationship with the City's Parks and Recreation Department and a part of the solution will involve a better relationship between the Parks and Recreation Department and the schools to develop a new and more competitive programs at the middle school level in order to feed the high school level. 412 When going off site for an athletic event, Mayor Harris inquired if a cost analysis was prepared comparing on campus versus off campus activities; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that figures have not been quantified to this point. The Mayor inquired if there is any liability exposure to going off campus for an athletic event; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that there are always liability issues when students travel to and from school activities. Mayor Harris requested more information on the thrust of Roanoke's school system to enhance the school athletic program on a number of levels. Dr. Trinkle advised that to date there has been no mention of athletics within the school system, no studies have been completed on how athletics affect academics or school morale, and there are no short term or long term budgetary plans in the school budget involving athletics. He stated that the goal of the Athletic Committee is to determine and to prioritize needs leading to short term and long term capital, as well as programming needs that involve athletics. He explained that various options are under consideration such as eliminating certain programs, enhancing other programs, working with the City's Department of Parks and Recreation, and cutting back on transportation expenses, etc., all of which will be presented to the School Board for consideration. Should the Council approve stadia at the two high schools, Mayor Harris inquired about the strategy of the School Board to engage the Raleigh Court/Grandin Court neighborhood in discussions; whereupon, the Superintendent advised of the importance of receiving input from the neighborhoods by listening to concerns and establishing an oversite committee that would participate in implementation. . In the event of a sell out at the 3,000 seat stadium at Patrick Henry, Mayor Harris inquired about parking capacity; whereupon, the Superintendent advised that approximately 1500 persons attend a average football game so there will be sufficient parking. Council Member Cutler advised that the School Board has other priorities to consider, particularly instruction and academics; City Council also has other priorities such as a new library, a recreation center, etc., therefore, if stadia can be constructed for less that $1 5 million, any excess funds could be used to address other City/School priorities. The Mayor expressed appreciation to the School Board for meeting with the Council and advised that Victory Stadium options will be discussed by the Council on Monday, November 7, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. 413 The Mayor advised that Council is scheduled to meet on Monday, November 7, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., for the Council's monthly work session; however, a quorum of the Council was not expected to be present until 10:00 a.m. Following discussion, it was the consensus of the Council that Council Member Cutler would open the meeting on Monday, November 7 at 9:00 a.m., declare that a quorum was hot present and recess the meeting until 10:00 a.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia. There being no further business, at 5:40 p.m., the Mayor and the School Board Chair declared their respective meetings adjourned. ' APPROVED ~-..JP~ Mary F. Parker'· City Clerk e·1ttQ*~ht c. Nelson Harris Mayor -----..,.----- 414 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL November 7, 2005 9:00 a.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, November 7, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Council Member M. Rupert Cutler 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 pursuant to Resolution No. 37109-070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005. PRESENT: Council Member M. Rupert Cutler _____________n_________n_________nnnl. ABSENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff and Mayor C. Nelson Harris ---------------------------------------------,------------------.------------------------------------------€i. OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. COUNCIL: In view of the fact that a quorum of the Council was not present at 9:05 a.m., Council Member Cutler declared the meeting in recess to be reconvened at 10:00 a.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke The Council reconvened at 10:00 a.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding. . PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Brenda L. McDaniel and Mayor C. Nelson Harrisn------5. ABSENT: Council Members Sherman P. Lea and Brian J. Wishneff ---n------2. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. I I I 415 COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council,. pursuant to §2.2-3711 (A)(l) , Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Council Member Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene in Closed Meeting as· abovedescribed. . The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the follOWing vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Dowe, McDaniel and Mayor . - - , .. H arri s _nnnn__nn_nu___nn'_n_nn ____nn_"nn. __n__ __nn _n_'___ _'nn.-..n.u-n-n.n---------nn - 5 . . . NAYS: Non e -.-- u__nnnn _n_____"n·n__nn_.--n-n'-.nn _U____n_nn_n______n -- ~- _nU_ -nO. , (Council Members Lea and Wishneff were absent.) ITEMS LISTED ON THE 2:00 P.M., COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING DISCUSSION/CLARIFICATION, AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE 2:00 P. M., AGENDA: STADIUM-SCHOOLS: Council Member Cutler inquired as to how public comments will be handled with regard to the Victory Stadium issue which is included on the Council's 2:00 p.m. docket. Mayor Harris responded that each speaker will be allotted three minutes; an announcement will be made at the beginning of the Council meeting that an issue will be discussed, and no personal remarks and/or attack$ on the ·Members of Council, City staff or the School Board will be allowed; a police officer will be on duty in the Council Chamber; if any person violates the procedure, their remarks will be immediately concluded and they will be requested to leave. the lectern, and if they refuse to cooperate, the police officer will be instructed to escort the individual from the Council Chamber. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE MAYQR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: Council Member Cutler inquired about the criteria for funding non-profit organizations which was adopted by the Council on Monday, October 17, 2005. He stated that he was not present when the guidelines were adopted and was uncomfortable with the process. . He explained that he attended a meeting with representatives of certain non-profit organizations, at which time the City Manager reviewed the process and rationale by. which the guidelines were adopted, etc. Although he did not have a problem with the focus, he stated that he did have a problem with the process, and added that the City should· avoid making grant application guidelines complicated, particularly for small grants. , ' 416 I I>·. ( , , .0 " The Mayor advised that Dr. Cutler discussed the issue with him, and it was suggested that they meet with the City Manager to process the results of I the meeting which was' held on Thursday, November 3 with non-profit .. I. organizatIOns. BRIEFINGS: CRYSTAL SPRING STREETSCAPE: The City Manager called attention to a request submitted by Crystal Spring Avenue businesses for improved parking and certain other aesthetic improvements to the streetscape. She advised that the firm of Anderson and Associates, Inc., was engaged to assist with the project; whereupon,she called upon Kenneth H. King, Director, Streets and Traffic; and Brad Ball, Project Manager, Anderson and Associates, Inc., to 'present tentative plans and specifications. " ' Working from the Master Plan, Crystal Spring Village Center, Mr. King presented the following overview of the conceptual plan: · The project will be limited to Crystal Spring Avenue and Rosalind Avenue between 22nd and 23rd Streets, S. W. Improvements along Crystal, Spring Avenue will consist of, 45 degree angled parking. The projeçt will include new, sidewalk along Crystal Spring Avenue (plain sidewalk without brick borders,) new curb for the entire length of the west side of the block, and resurfacing of both, Crystal Spring and Richelieu Avenues. Patterned crosswalks will be incorporated across Crystal Spring and Richelieu Avenues on both ends of the block. I · Preliminary discussions with the U. S. Postal Service indicate that mailboxes may be relocated to the south side of 23rd Street, ' remaining on the east side of the street. Relocating mailboxes will create approximately six additional spaces and additional spaces can be created on the west side of Richelieu Avenue closer to the intersection at 22nd Street. · Other project features include removal of existing street trees along Crystal Spring Avenue and replacement with trees that are more appropriate for the location. Trees will also be planted in the median between Crystal Spring and Rosalind Avenues. Trash receptacles, benches, and streetlights will be considered as additional amenities in the block. I 417 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation to City staff and to Anderson and Associates for the manner in which the project was presented, which incorporates the "pedestrian sense" that is being promoted throughout the City. He suggested that trees be planted in an island on the east side of the street, similar to those to be located on the west side, to allow for future parking at an angle on the east side of the street. The City Manager advised that the Mayor previously suggested that a piece of public art be located in the area, with plantings, as well as along the major gateways into the City. Council Member Dowe inquired about the location of handicapped parking spaces; whereupon, Mr. King advised that the spaces have not been identified, however, some of the angled parking spaces would be designated for handicapped parking. He added that the challenge will be the location of the designated handicapped spaces becaus.e the pharmacy is located on one side of the street and the Post Office is located on the opposite side, and designated handicapped parking spaces and ramps will be included in final design review. Council Member Dowe inquired if some of the remaining parking spaces would be used by patrons of other restaurants in the area, and suggested that the sidewalk be made as "handicapped friendly" as possible since there is no signal at the intersection, or a four way stop sign. Mr. King called attention to a potential four way stop sign at the intersection, replacement of the sidewalk and installation of decorative treatments. He stated that the challenge is, where should the improvements end, while attempting to be responsive those issues that have been identified by business owners in the Crystal Spring Avenue area. Following completion of the project, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick suggested that parking behind the buildings be redesigned, because a significant amount Ðf parking space is not well organized and could be integrated into one lot that could be used for additional parking. He added that the alleys would also provide access from both 22'd and 23'd Streets. There being no further discussion, the Mayor expressed appreciation to Mr. King for the presentation. SIX-YEAR IMPROVEMENT PLAN-VDOT: The City Manager called attention to the VDOT-Six-Year Improvement Plan which is included on the Council's 2:00 p.m. agenda; whereupon, Kenneth H. King, Director, Streets and Traffic, presented the following briefing: 418 The transportation project development process starts with a long- range transportation plan, which is a 20-year planning document that was adopted by Council approximately two years ago. The Transportation Plan was updated approximately three - four years ago. The updated 2001) Plan, which is administered by the Metropolitan Planning Organization, will broaden the list of the ,City's transportation projects and projects that need to be identified to implement improvements. The following projects have been funded through the Six-Year Improvement Program: · Tenth Street from Orange Avenue to Williamson Road · 13'h Street from Jamison Avenue and Bullitt Avenue, north of Dale Avenue, to Orange Avenue off of Hollins Road · Wonju Street, a $21 million project, which has dramatically changed direction in terms of the financial perspective and once the new estimate is completed, funds will be available through programs from other projects. Funds will not be available until fiscal year 2001), and the City will redirect between $15 - $18 million of funds next year. · Smaller. projects such as Riverland Road, Bennington Street, Mount Pleasant Boulevard and other small intersection projects. Mr. King reviewed the following additions to the Six Year Plan: · Campbell Avenue from Williamson Road to Norfolk Avenue, in conjunction with the 1 3'h Street project. · Colonial Avenue from Brandon Avenue, Winding Way Road. Reconstruct the existing roadway from Brandon Avenue to Winding Way Road to include sidewalk, curb and gutter, drainage, and bike lanes. Improvements are intended to tie into the TSM Alternative of the Wonju Street project. · Elm Avenue from Jefferson Street to I)'h Street. Corridor improvements will enhance interchange operations, increase left turn storage and improve signals. · Norfolk Avenue from Campbell Avenue to Wise Avenue. The project is in conjunction with the 1 3'h Street project. 419 . Orange Avenue from 11 ,h Street to Gus Nicks Boulevard. . . Intersection and miscellaneous spot improvements - candidate locations: Orange Avenue and King Street, Peters Creek Road and Cove Road, Orange Avenue and Williamson Road, Hershberger Road and Williamson Road, Hershberger Road and Ordway Drive, and Wasena Bridge spot improvement. Isolated improvements, additional turn lanes, geometric improvements, and other spot improvements. The intersection of Orange Avenue and King Street has been identified as a priority by Council. · Mobility and accessibility improvements - Hershberger Road Corridor improvements - Cove Road - Williamson Road. Install pedestrian and bicycle accommodations (sidewalks or shared- use path), resurface roadway, and add landscaping improvements. · Signal and ITS improvements - traffic signal and ITS upgrades to include new LED signal heads,intercbnnection and coordination. · Transit Improvements - Flex funds for transit infrastructure construction and maintenance to include sidewalks, benches and shelters. Surface transportation funds will be flexed over to support bus shelters, bus pullouts, downtown circulator, and other transit enhancements. Council Member Cutler inquired about the relationship between VDOT's Six-Year Improvement Program and bikeway and greenway plans; whereupon,· Mr. King advised that they will fall under the umbrella of the Metropolitan Planning Organization Long Range Transportation Plan, as well as City departmental plans that are prepared as a part of the City's budget, such as Strategic Business Plans. He noted that staff recommendations with regard to pedestrian or bike amenities, greenways etc., required action by Council and received input from the City's Planning department, Transportation Division, Parks and Recreation and the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission. With regard to neighborhoods, Council Member Cutler inquired about GIS layers that show greenways and bikeways; whereupon, Mr. King advised that the City has the capability to identify a particular neighborhood, but he was not certain if the GIS system could identify greenways, bikeways, etc. in a particular neighborhood. He added that the matter will be discussed by the Metropolitan Planning Organization. 420 From an economic development standpoint, Council Member Cutler inquired as to what is available for employees with regard to various ways to access their work place, I.e.: hiking, biking, etc. The City Manager responded that the neighborhood portal located on the GIS system shows all parks, schools, etc., and staff would study Dr. Cutler's inquiry and respond accordingly. Council Member McDaniel inquired about the process of determining intersections and miscellaneous spotting improvements; whereupon, Mr. King advised that VDOT's typical model of programming a project is to widen a street from point A to point B and approximately ten years later, the City moves on to the engineering piece; and if the City attempted to complete small scale intersection projects under the same model, it would take approximately six years for completion. Therefore, he indicated that the City's goal is to work with VDOT to identify an intersection categorical area, which are intersection and miscellaneous spotting improvements, and to earmark funds in a six-year fiscal document that will allow the City to advance the project at a much shorter period of time. With regard to the intersection at Towne Square, Mr. King advised that Council appropriated funds to advance the project, and granted approval for additional funds from the State. He added that the City has also partnered with the local business community to advance the project. The City Manager advised that construction advertisement for the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., project will take place. in January 2006. Council Member Cutler commended Rolanda Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development, for her leadership in chairing the Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Bridge Advisory Committee. With regard to signage located at Exit I) on 1-581/Route 220 South, Council Member Dowe suggested that directions to downtown Roanoke be included on the sign directing traffic to Elm Avenue and the Town of Vinton. He also requested that signs be erected to. identify traffic exiting on Colonial Avenue from the shoulder of the road during rush hour. Mr. King stated that the Director of Public Works will discuss the requests with VDOT and submit further report to the Council. There being no further discussion, the Mayor expressed appreciation for the briefing. BUILDING PERMIT FEE SCHEDULE: Karl Kooler, Building Commissioner, highlighted the following: h ... ,'"",., 421 2003 Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) · Adoption is set for November 11), 2005 · Three Parts · Part I - Construction Code · Part II - Existing Buildings Code · Part III - Maintenance of Existing Structures · Technical References are the 2003 International Family of Codes · Part II - International Existing Building Code (Rehab Code) is new Multiple vs. Combination Permits · Multiple Permits o Basic Development· o Plan Review o Temp electrical o Building :0· Electrical o Plumbing o HV AC o Gaç o Fire SUppression o Fire Alarm o Utility o CO · Combination Permit o Combination Benefits of Combination Permit · More customer friendly - one visit to City Hall. The/-Stop Shop · All information related to the project in one place o Reviews o Approvals o Conditions o Inspections o Correspondence · Easier to determine permit and review fees · Contractor benefits more from the declining rate scale · Easier to avoid delays in closing out a project by coordinating all final requirements $1 50,000.00 Single Family Residence .$800,000.00 - Roanoke existing and City of Richmond · $700,000.00 - City of Portsmouth (slightly over), City of Norfolk (slightly under) and the average · $1)00,000.00 - Roanoke proposed, (slightly over) City of Lynchburg (slightly over), City of Newport News (slightly over), and City of Hampton 422 $1 ,000.00 Commercial · $7,000.00 - City of Richmond · $4,000.00 - Roanoke existing (slightly over), City of Newport News (slightly over) and average (slightly below) · $3,000.00 - Roanoke proposed (slightly over), City of Lynchburg, City of Norfolk (slightly over), City of Hampton · $2,000.00 - City of Portsmouth (slightly over $2,000.00) F C F' C ee omoarison - Virainia Irst ities $150,000.00 $300,000.00 $150,000.00 . $1 ,000.000.00 $5,000,000.00 lurisdiction Residential Residential Commercial Commercial Commercial Roanoke - Existing $820.00 $1,520.00 $820.00 $4,320.00 $16,320.00 Roanoke - $665.00 $1,174.00 $665.00 $3,324.00 $15,234.00 Pro Dosed Lvnch bu ra $671.00 $1 166.00 $671.00 $2 926.00 $12824.00 Newoort News $650.00 $1,200.00 $660.00 $4 400.00 $22015.00 Norfolk $685.00 $1,101.00 $795.00 $3514.00 $17,580.00 Portsmouth $745.00 $1 065.00 $810.00 $2 600.00 $20225.00 Richmond $804.00 $1,567.00 $1 156.00 $7210.00 $35700.00 HamDton $640.00 $1,230.00 $725.00 $3,326.00 $19,100.00 Average $694.00 $1,215.00 $783.00 $3,900.00 $20,382.00 (Does not include Roanoke Existina) Revenue Impact · FY04 - 05 Revenue $1,01)3,000.00 · Recommended adjustments to the fee schedule will impact revenues an estimated (-4.78%) · Projected revenue decrease is approximately $50,800.00 · Actual permit revenue (FY04-05) was approximately 29% higher than budget projections · FY '05-01) is continuing the current level of activity rooose ermlt ees TVDe Perm it Total Valuation Fee $0.01 to $1,000.00 $45.00 Combination $45.00 for the first $1,000.00 plus $5.00 each Building $1,000.01 to $50,000.00 additional thousand or fraction thereof, to and Electrical includina' $50000.00 Plumbing $290.00 for the first $50,000.00 plus $4.00 for Mechanical $50,000.01 to $100,000.00 each additional thousand or fraction thereof, to and includina $50000.00 Gas $490,000.00 for the first $100,000.00 plus Elevator $100,000.01 to $250,000.00 $3.50 for each additional thousand or fraction Tanks thereof to and includina $250000.00 Fire Suppression $1,015.00 for the first $250,000.00 plus $3.25 Alarm Systems $250,000.01 to $500.000.00 for each additional thousand or fraction thereof, Demolition to and includina $500000.00 Utility $500,000.01 and up $1,827.50 for the first $500,000.00 plus $3.00 for each additional thousand P d P . F 423 Mr. Kooler advised that the City of Roanoke will move from a multiple fee system to a combination permit system at no additional cost. He further advised that when the fee schedule for permits was compared to other Virginia First Cities, the City of Roanoke ranked high. He added that the process will be simplified and permit fees will decrease; overall impact will be approximately a 4% per cent reduction in permit fees over a period of one year and it is anticipated that the City will receive approximately $50,000.00 per year in revenue. Council Member McDaniel inquired if the proposed permit system will add any extra burden on the general contractor; whereupon, the Building Commissioner stated that the general contractor is not required to list specialized contractors working on a project, such as mechanical and plumbing, etc., and the general contractor will be aware of the total cost of the project to be performed. There being no further questions or comments, the Mayor expressed appreciation to Mr. Kooler for the briefing. BRANDING UPDATE: The City Manager advised that Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and Council Member McDaniel have served on a steering committee with City staff with regard to the City's branding efforts; whereupon, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick reviewed the following information: Tagline Research · For the past year, the City's Branding Committee has researched and discussed the use of a tag line to accompany Roanoke's brand. At the request of th~ branding committee, local and national market research was conducted on thr~e possible tag lines: Mountains of Possibility, Elevation: Unlimited, and Opportunities on the Rise" · Research results showed that of the three, Mountains of Possibility tested highest, citing that it best matched Roanoke's image and positioning statement. After considering the results, the Branding Committee discussed whe~her the City should move forward with the recommendation, select multiple taglines for different uses, or opt not to use a tagline at all. At present, the committee has decided to wait until a future time to address the adoption of an official tagline. · The committee is open, however, to the possibility of using temporary taglines. For marketing purposes, there is an opportunity to use tag lines for special initiatives (ex. using "Opportunities on the Rise" for business relocation or for housing; and "Mountains of Possibility" for tourism or recreation). 424 · The committee is open to the possibility of using temporary tag lines. For marketing purposes, there is an opportunity to use tag lines for special initiatives (ex. using 'Opportunities on the Rise" for business relocation or for housing; and "Mountains of Possibility" for tourism or recreation). · In addition, interchangeable tag lines could be used for new City signage and during special events. Examples were submitted on how the three could be paired with the Roanoke brand. City Wide Branding · The City is continuing to apply the brand throughout Roanoke. Variations of the brand will be used for new parking garage signs. · The City is currently working with firms to develop gateway signs that would replace the wooden Welcome to Roanoke signs, as well as an updated wayfinding sign system. · Other applications underway for the logo include the new City limit signs, and new branding flags at The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center, the Civic Center, and City fire stations. · Fire-EMS vehicles and police patrol cars and bicycles now have logo decals. A schedule is underway to place the brand on all vehicles in the City's fleet. · A downtown banners committee has evaluated logistics of placing logo banners in the downtown area. Additionally, the City is developing strategies for external marketing of the City, as well as looking at the use of the brand versus the Roanoke City Seal. · Staff from the Branding Committee and the Office of Communications will respond to questions regarding use of the brand, as well as any additional plans for marketing and advertising of Roanoke. . Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that the Branding Committee is requesting Council's approval to continue a study of the three potential taglines, and positive reviews have been received regarding the new logo. He added that he, along with Council Member McDaniel, will work with City staff to implement the logo. Mayor Harris suggested that the Branding Committee consider taglines that will highlight successes by the City at gateway entrances to the City of Roanoke; I.e.: high school championships, etc. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick also suggested that major activities/events being held in the City of Roanoke be documented, such as the Annual Conference of the Virginia Municipal League. 425 Council Member Dowe inquired about a tagline that could be installed in the Council Chamber behind the dais; whereupon, Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that the City Seal should be replaced with the branding logo. He added that the seal is the official Seal of the City of Roanoke and the brand is a progressive image. The City Manager advised that when the City first converted to use of the branding logo approximately three years ago, staff made the decision to implement the logo gradually; and staff did not address Council related issues, such as the Council's stationary/letterhead. She stated that the Branding Committee has discussed changing the City Seal to resemble the newer image, however, the Committee has chosen not to address the issue at the present time. She called attention to research that has been conducted in other Virginia communities that previously changed their City Seals and upgraded to a more futuristic approach of the logo, which revealed that one-half of the localities that were surveyed elected to retain their official City Seal; and the decision is a Council issue as to when the Council might wish to change from the City Seal to the branding logo. She reiterated that no steps have been taken to change the Council's letterhead, the City Seal, or the image behind the dais in the Council Chamber; however, new logo flags are· now being floWn at all of the fire stations, many City departments display the new flag, and the new flag is currently being flown in the front and to the rear of The Hotel Roanoke, as opposed to the official City Seal Flag. Council Member Cutler spoke in support of modernizing the City's official Seal. He also spoke in support of assisting service clubs by posting meeting dates, times and locations on the City's website in an effort to establish a partnership with the service organizations. The City Manager advised that City representatives are. working with various groups to replace the wooden "Welcome to Roanoke" signs at gateway entrances to the City, and the comments made by Council Members involving interchangeable signs will be reviewed by the Branding Committee. At 11 :40 a.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for one closed session. At 11 :50 a.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with Mayor Harris residing and all Members of the Council in attendance, except Council Members Lea and Wishneff. 426 COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Session just concluded, Vice-Mayor 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 Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, McDaniel and Mayor Hélrris------------------------------------------------------.---------------.----.--------------------------------5. NAYS: Non e _n_ ______ nnn_n_n____n_nn_n________nn_nn _n___ ---- ___n_n_n____oo_oo_n_nO. (Council Members Lea and Wishneff were absent.) OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-TOWING ADVISORY BOARD: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Towing Advisory Board, created by expiration of the term of office of Christine Profitt; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Phyllis A. Johnson. There being no further nominations, Ms. Johnson was appointed as a member of the Towing Advisory Board, for a term ending June 30, 2008, by the fellowing vote: FOR MS. JOHNSON: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, McDaniel an d Mayo r H arri s _________n__n______nnn_n__nnnn__________n__ _n__oo__nnn_n_____.nn_______oo 5 . (Council Members Lea and Wishneff were absent.) OATHS OF OFFICEcCOMMITTEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, created by expiration of the term of office of Monica S. Jones; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Council Member Dowe placed in nomination the name of John W. Elliott, Jr. There being no further nominations, Mr. Elliott was appointed as a member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, for a term ending September 30, 2008, by the following vote: 427 FOR MR. ELLIOTT: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, McDaniel an d Mayo r H arri s __nn_nnn__nnnnn n_nn nn__ __nn _,_u__u____n__ nn_n___n_n_nn_n_'_nn 5 . (Council Members Lea and Wishneff were absent.) OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Roanoke Arts Commission, created by the resignation of Mark C. McConnel; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Council Member Cutler placed in nomination the name of Edward W. Barnett. There being no further nominations, Mr. Barnett was appointed as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission to fill the unexpired term of Mark C. McConnel resigned, ending June 30, 2007, by the follOWing vote:. FOR MR. BARNETT: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, McDaniel and Mayo r H arri s n_nn__nnn n_u__uu_ - ________n_n_n_'_n__u____unu_nn"_n_n___nn__u_uu 5 . (Council Members Lea and Wishneff were absent.) At 11 :55 a.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess until 2:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke. At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, November 7, 2005, the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding. PRESENT: Council Members M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff and Mayor C. Nelson Harris-u--nn-nnnnnnu_"________n,__"n.____uu__nn_n_nnnu__u---7. ABS E NT: Non e n_n__n____uu_____n_nnnnn___u__n__'nnnn___u___u_nnn_nn___u---0. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. 428 The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: COMMUNITY PLANNING-DECEASED PERSONS: Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution memorializing the late Jack Ronald '~ohn" Marlles, former Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development: (#37228-110705) A RESOLUTION memorializing the late Jack Ronald "John" Marlles, former Director of the Department of Planning and Community Development for the City of Roanoke. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 41.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37228- 110705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick; Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayor Harris_nn____nnnn_n___n_n__n_______n_nn_-nn-------,-n-nn-------·-7. NAYS: Non e ________nn_n__________nnn_________nnn_ _______nnnn________'nnn____________O. The Mayor called for a moment of silence in memory ofMr. Marlles and presented a ceremonial copy of the above referenced resolution to Mrs. Marlles. 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. MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Monday, September 19, 2005, were before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: 429 . AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dower Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, . Wi s h neff ant:! Mayo r Harri S-----------n---nn------------n___m__________________________n_________7 . NAYS: Non e __n_______n______n___ ______..__n__n_n_nn_nn_nn_ nn_nn___n_ ---------------0. AUDIT COMMITTEE: Minutes of a meeting of the Audit Committee which was held on Monday, October 3, 2005, were before the body. . Topics of discussion included: Audit Findings Follow Up, Police Department Cash Funds, Sheriff's Canteen Fund and Jail Inmate Fund, Audit Committee Annual Report - June 30, 2005, Municipal Auditing Annual Report - June 30, 2005; N.A.L.G.A. Peer Review of City of Roanoke Municipal Auditing, and Letter from the Auditor of Public Accounts. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the minutes of the Audit Committee be received al'ld filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wi s h neff and Mayor Harri 5___n'_n____n__nn___--_--_---------n-nn-n-n______________nnn_nn7 . NAYS: Non e __n'_ _nn_n___________n,____nn__nnnn____oo__nn_nn n,n_ _n____oo_________n_O. . COMMITTEES:HOUS1NG/AUTHORITY: A communication' from John P. Baker, Executive Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, advising of the resignation of Mornique E. Smith as a member of the Board of Commissioners, effective September 4,2005, was before Council. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the resignation be accepted and that the communication be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members· Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick,Lea, McDaniel, . Wi s hneff an dMayo r Harri 5n---------mm-----------------__________'______nn_n______nn_________7 . NAYS: No n e_n_nn_______________n_.nn-:---n_________nnnn______________n___n--------oo---O. OATHS OF OEFICE-COMMITTEES-HOUSING/AUTHORITY-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER-INDUSTRIES-SCHOOLS-VIRGINIA'S FIRST REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL FACILITY AUTHORITY: A report of qualification of the following persons, was before Council: Paul P. Anderson and Brownie E. Polly as members of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, for terms ending September 30, 2008; 430 R. Brian Townsend as a City of Roanoke representative to Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority, to fill the unexpired term of Elizabeth Neu, ending June 30, 2001); Jason E. Bingham as a Trustee of the Roanoke City School Board, to fill the unexpired term of Gloria P. Manns, resigned, ending June 30, 2001); and Stuart H. Revercomb as a Director of the Industrial Developmènt Authority, for a term commencing October 21, 2005 and ending October 20, 2009. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wi s h neff and Mayo r Harris--m---n---------m----------n------m---------------------------n---n7. NAYS: Non e __nn__nn _______nn_nn_ _________n_ n_nnnn___nn__nnnn_________nn_nnnO. REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: NONE. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: NONE. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: HEALTH DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that in 2001, Roanoke Fire-EMS was awarded the "Get Alarmed, Virginia!" Grant, which is a State-secured Federal grant from the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Virginia Department of Health; the Get Alarmed, Virginia! Program has been credited with saving the lives of more than 1)1) men, women and children across the Commonwealth of Virginia and also is credited with preventing millions of dollars in property loss; according to the National Safe Kids Campaign, every dollar spent on a smoke alarm, prevents $21.00 worth of loss, which is a 2,100 per cent return on investment; and the grant provides smoke detectors to fire departments and other local agencies to disperse to citizens in need. 431 It was further advised that in September, 2005, Roanoke Fire-EMS was once again awarded the Get Alarmed, Virginia! Grant; the program focuses on installing smoke detectors in the homes of families that have children under the age of five and in homes where elderly residents over the age of 1)5 reside, because these age groups are more likely to die in a house fire; this year, the grant is focusing not only on fire prevention, but on fall prevention for the elderly; the grant will provide the Roanoke Fire-EMS Department with: 3,000 smoke detectors with ten-year lithium batteries, bath mats, night lights, oven mitts, educational brochures covering fall and fire prevention and grant funds totaling $1 5,000.00; and grant funds are reimbursable; I.e.: Roanoke Fire-EMS will pay for needed items to implement the program (ex: ladders, drills, salaries, other educational material and media promotion) and will be reimbursed by grant funds. The City Manager recommended that Council accept the grant award and that she be authorized to execute the required grant agreement, contract and any other related documents, to be approved as to form by the City Attorney; and that Council adopt a budget ordinance establishing a revenue estimate in the amount of $15,000.00 and appropriate funds in the same amount to accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund. Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance: (#37229-110705) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Get Alarmed, Virginia! Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 43.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37229- , 110705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, . Wish neff and Mayor Harris---------mm--------n--------mmmm---c-nc-_m_m______nn_____7. NAYS: Non e _____nnnnn____nnn_n_u_____nnnnn___·______n_nnnCn___n________n-nn--O. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: . (#37230-110705) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of the Get Alarmed, Virginia! Grant from the U. S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention arid the Virginia Department of Health, and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 44.) 432 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adopted of Resolution No. 37230- 110705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wish neff and Mayor Harris______________n_____________n______nnn_mm__________________n__nm 7. , NAYS: Non e n__n__nnn~nnn_________n_nnn________________nn__nn_n____ ___________nnnO . STATE HIGHWAYS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT) has advised the City of Roanoke that funds are projected to be available for programming new projects in the FY 2007-2012 Six-Year Improvement Program (SYIP); the projection is based upon the funding status of projects in the current SYIP; current,SYIP projects including 10'h Street Im.provements, the Wonju Street Extension project, and Hollins Road/13th Street extension are now fully funded projects, or will be fully funded in FY 2007; and projected available funding to the City of Roanoke over the next six year period is $23,1)94,000.00. It was further advised that the' Virginia Department of Transportation requires a Council resolution documenting the City's support of projects in advance of placing the projects in theSYIP; projects propos~dfor addition to the SYIP must be included in the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP,) which Council previously approved on October 23, 2003; based upon public comments during preparation of the LRTP, and the SYIP, identified transportation needs, and projected, funding, the folloWing projects are recommended for addition to the FY2007~2012 Six-Year Improvement Program: · Campbell Avenue · Colonial Avenue · Elm Avenue · Norfolk Avenue · Orange Avenue · Intersection and MiscellaneouS'Spot Improvements · Mobility and Accessibility Improvements · Signal & ITS Improvements · Transit Improvements It was noted the City's request to add projects to the SYIP must be submitted to VDOT no later than December 1, 2005; VDOT will consider the request and submit a recommendation to the Commonwealth Transportation Board; the Board is expected to take action on the request in the spring of 2001) and the final SYIP should be announced in the summer of 2006; provisions of the SYIP require the City to provide a local match representing two per cent of 433 total project costs; two per cent of the $23,1)94,000.00 program cost is $473,880.00, which will be required over the six year period; and funds totaling $310,000.00 are budgeted annually by the City for transportation needs and will be adequate to cover the required local match. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a resolution in support of the addition of the abovereferenced projects to the FY2007-2012 Six-Year Improvement Program. Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37231-110705) A RESOLUTION concurring in the programming of new projects in the City of Roanoke's Six-Year Improvement Program FY2007 - 2012 ("SYIP"). (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 44.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37231- 110705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. Mr. Chris H. Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., commended the City of Roanoke on the widening of Orange Avenue from 12th Street to Gus Nicks Boulevard, N. E.; however, he stated thatthere is a need to look at the corner of Gus Nicks Boulevard and King Street where traffic backs up. He asked that the intersection be included in the City's Six-Year Transportation Plan, orthat short term measures be implemented to alleviate traffic congestion. There being no further discussion, Resolution No. 37231-110705 was adopted by the follOWing vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatríck, Lea, McDaniel,. Wi s h neff and Mayor H arris--n------n---------------m--mmn-n----"-____________m_____________7 . NAYS: No n en_nn_n________oo____oo_____nn_n_n_n_oo____oo_______n__n_.n________-----oo-n--O. CITY CODE-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on March 1, 2004, Council amended and reordained Division 1, Generally, and Division 2, Fair Housing Board, Article III, Fair Housing Administration, Chapter 11), Human Rights, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by adding certain definitions and certain sections to effect amendments to the City's Fair Housing Ordinance, in order to be consistent with current Federal and State Fair Housing regulations, and to revise responsibilities of the Fair Housing Board. 434 It was further advised that since the City's Fair Housing ordinance was first enacted in March 1973, prior to enactment of Federal and State Fair Housing regulations, age was recognized as a protected class in the City; and while Federal and State regulations do not recognize age as a protected class (both Federal and State Fair Housing regulations include "elderliness" as a protected class which applies to anyone over 55 years of age), the City of Roanoke opted to retain age and include "elderliness" as protected classes during a recent amendment of the ordinance. It was explained that housing for older persons is specifically allowed under Federal and State Fair Housing regulations; however, inclusion and retention of "age" as a protected class in the City's Fair Housing Ordinance unintentionally prohibits the establishment of housing communities for older persons in the City; while recent amendment to the City's Fair Housing Ordinance included addition of a definition for "housing for older persons" that was consistent with Federal and State definitions, the definition was included because State and Federal regulations recognize "housing for older persons" as a permitted exception to "familial status"; familial status ·is· a protected class which prohibits housing discrimination against persons with children under the age of 18 and was added to the City's ordinance during the recent amendment; inclusion of the definition by itself in the City's ordinance is not sufficient to indicate the allowance of housing for older persons in the City; and the Fair Housing Board recommends that the City's Fair Housing Ordinance be further amended to allow for "housing for older persons", in accordance with Federal and State regulations. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance amending Section 11)-152, "Exceptions from article", Division 1, Generally, Article III, Fair Housing Administration, Chapter 11), Human Rights, of The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by the addition of a provision to allow housing for older persons in accordance with State and Federal law. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37232-110705) AN ORDINANCE amending Section 11)-152, Exceotions from article, of Division 1, Generallv, of Article III, Fair Housino Administration, of Chapter 11), Human Riohts, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by the addition of subsection (8), to clarify that housing specifically for older persons is permitted in the City, in accordance with State and Federal laws; and dispensing with the second reading by title ofthisordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 45.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37232- 110705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: 435 AYES: Council Members· Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and· Mayor Harris-,---_n_____________n,n______________---n------------_---n---_,n_,__m 7. NAYS: Non e _nn_nnnnnn_nn_nn_n_nnnn_n'_nnnnn__nn___nn_nn_nn__n___n--0. BUILDINGS/BUILDING DEPARTMENT-FEE COMPENDIUM: The City Manager 5ubmitteda· communication advising that the City's Fee Compendium, as maintained by the Director of Finance, was authorized and approved by Council, pursuant to Resolution No. 32412-032795,adopted on March 27, 1995; and the Fee· Compendium is the basis for fees charged for all tonstruction'related permits issued through the Building Inspections Division of . the Department of Planning Building and Economic Development. It was further advised that the ßuildinglnspections Division currently uses a multiple permit system in which each trade involved in a building project obtains a separate permit for its portion of the work; the Building Inspections Division is recommending adoption of a combination permit system to replace the system currently in existence. to allow one all-inclusive permit to be issued for each project; an ·all-inclusive. permit will streamline the permitting process and improve the ability to monitor· a project; as a part of the change, adjustments are recommended to Building Inspections Fees as outlined in a fee schedule-; the net effect of changes in fees will result in a decrease of 4.75 per cent in building"related fees; and it should be noted that fiscal year 2001) building inspecti·on-related revenues are still projected to meet their revenue estimates due to the positive volume of permits which will offset fee decreases. The City· Manager recommended that Council adopt. a resolution amending Building Inspections Fees. Council Member Cutler offered the follOWing resolution: (#37233-110705) A RESOLUTION amending and adding certain fees and charges with regard to building inspections division permit fees, amending the Fee Compendium, and providing for an effective date. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 41).) Council M.ember Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution .No. 37233- 110705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: . AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wis hneff and Mayo r H arrisn----------nn-----------n--------------------------------'-------------m 7 . NAYS: Non en_n_n_n__________________nnnnnnnn_____n___n,___ nnn_n_nn_ ------n--n-O. 436 SPECIAL PERMITS-DOWNTOWN ROANOKE, INCORPORATED: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke has been approached by a private carriage company to facilitate a horse-drawn carriage service for the downtown area; and Downtown Roanoke, Inc. (DR ) has met with the vender and supports establishment of the service which can help draw visitors to the downtown area and provide a value added experience. It was further advised that an ordinance was drafted that will provide control and structure for carriage operators; included in the ordinance is a permit fee structure of $45.00 to operate a horse-drawn vehicle business and $20.00 for a horse-drawn vehicle operator's business; the area for normal carriage operations will be bordered by Salem Avenue on the north, Third Street on the west, Church Avenue on the south and Williamson Road. on the east; and there may be occasion when operating outside the normal geographical area is permissible to facilitate special events or requests¡ for example, at The Hotel Roanoke and surrounding area. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance to permit and to provide oversight of a horse-drawn vehicle service in the downtown area of the City of Roanoke. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#37234-110705) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by adding a new Article IV, Horse- Drawn Vehicles, to Chapter 34, Vehicles for Hire; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 49.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37234- 110705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. Richard Ferron, operator of the private carriage company, appeared before Council in support of the request. There being no questions or comments, Ordinance No. 37234-110705 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wis h neff and Mayo r Harris_______n______nmn_________________________nn___n_____mmm_______7. NAYS: Non e ____n__nn_nnn_____ nn__n_____ _n_n_nnn_____nn_nn________nn_nn________O. 437 POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUILDINGS/BUILDING DEPARTMENT-BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on February 13, 2003, the City of Roanoke executed a Contract with Cederquist Rodriguez Ripley, P.c., d/b/a Rodriguez Ripley Maddux Motley (Architect) for design and construction administration for the Police Building, Phase II; a construction contract was awarded to J. M. Turner & Company, Incorporated (Contractor), on June 29, 2004, with a Notice to Proceed date of August 11), 2004, and a completion date of October 10, 2005; the contractor has requested two time extensions, and the City has granted a total of 27 consecutive days, which extended the completion date to November I), 2005; however, additional time to complete the project will be needed which requires additional construction administration services; an amendment to the architect's contract is necessary to pay for additional services which are anticipated to be no more than $40,000.00, based on rates in the base contract; and total anticipated architectural/engineering fee is within a reasonable range of eight - nine per cent of total construction cost. It was further advised that Council was previously informed of early changes to the project which led to an increase in the construction budget and required additional services from the architect which.were provided for in two amendments; the two amendments increased the architect's contract by $74,571.80, or 21.1) per cent of the original fee of $345,000.00; several other minor amendments to the architect's contract have been approved; and authorization by Council is needed to fund the abovereferenced additiOnal services inasmuch as additional services', when··. combined with prior amendments, will exceed 25 per cent of the original contract amount. It was explained that City staff is negotiating with the contractor to define the additional time necessary to complete the project and to determine if credits and/or liquidated damages are due from the contractor to the City; it is anticipated that the City of Roanoke will realize some amount of creditsor liquidated damages from the negotiations and any such amounts would offset the additional architectural/engineering construction phase services; and funding is available in Account No. 008-530-951)7, "Police Building Design - Phase II", to fund the proposed amendments. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute additional amendments to the City's contract with Cederquist Rodriguez Ripley, P.c., d/b/a Rodriguez Ripley Maddux Motley (Architect), not to exceed $40,000.00, for additional professional services needed to complete the Police Building, Phase II Project. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: 438 (#37235-110507) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager's issuance and execution of additional Amendments to the City's contract with Cederquist Rodriguez Ripley, P.c., d/b/a Rodriguez Ripley Maddux Motley for additional professional services for the Police Building, Phase II Project. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 55.) . Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37235- 110705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe,Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wi s h neff and Mayo r Harri S___nn___n______m___n_____________mm__________________n_n_m__m 7 . NAYS: Non e______nn__ __nnn__________n_nnn__nn__ ________n_n'n_nn-n-------------n-nO. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: AUDITS/FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of Finance submitted the Financial Report for the month of September 2005. (For full text, see Financial Report on file in the City Clerk's Office.) There being no questions or comments and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the Financial Report for the month of September would be received and filed. POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-GRANTS: The Director of Finance submitted a written report advising that a budget ordinance adopted by Council on Monday, October 3, 2005, did not match the accompanying staff report for the Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant; therefore, adoption of another budget ordinance by Council is necessary to correct the oversight. The Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt a budget ordinance appropriating funds in the amount of $1,900.00 in revenue and expenditure accounts in the Grant Fund. Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: (#37231)-110705) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 51).) 439 Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of OrdinanCe No. 37231)- 110705. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wish neff and Mayor Harrisummmm_m_m_mmmm_mmm_m_m__mmummmm__7. NAYS: Non e_oo___oo_oo___oooo__oooooonoo_____________oo__n_noo_________oo__oo_oo______ 00----00---0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: ZONING-ARMORY/STADIUM-SCHOOLS: Council at a Special Meeting which was held on Tuesday November 1, 2005, at 4:00 p.m., having been briefed on five specific options for Victory Stadium, as developed by Heery International, and Council having agreed to receive public comment at its meeting on Monday, November 7, 2005, the matter is before the body. The Mayor advised that 51) persons had signed .up to speak. He stated that Victory Stadium is a passionate and emotional issue; however, the purpose of the meeting is to discuss an issue and not to discuss people, therefore, personal comments would not be allowed by the Chair if they are directed to the Members of. Council, the School Board,·· the City Manager· or the Superintendent of Schools, and any individual making any such comments would be immediately ruled out of order and would not be allowed to complete their comments. He added that he expected the discourse to be civil and becoming of the community, because of the number of persons in attendance, some persons who signed up to speak were directed to Room 159 in the Municipal Building where they were viewing the proceedings via RVTV Channel 3, therefore, he would call several names at one time 'and requested that speakers begin to make their way to the Council Chamber when their names were called. Council Member Lea requested a clarification of the Mayor's remarks and inquired if citizens will not be allowed to exercise their first amendment rights to freedom of speech; whereupon, the Mayor clarified that speakers may comment on various positions, but the Chair would not tolerate attacks on the character of individuals and there would be civil discourse throughout the meeting. Council Member Lea called for a clarification by the City Attorney; whereupon, he advised that the Mayor will chair the meeting and issue rulings; if Members of Council disagree with a ruling by the Chair, they may move to challenge the ruling of the Chair and if a majority of the Council disagrees with the ruling of the Chair, the Mayor would be overruled. 440 The following persons addressed the Council: Mr. Andrew S. Boxley, 301 Willow Oak Drive, S. W., spoke as a business person, but primarily as a parent, and encouraged Council to support construction of stadiums at the two high schools for the following reasons: high school stadia are less expensive than any option that was proposed by the Victory Stadium consultant, and high school stadia will provide more opportunities for students and redefine the campus experience at each high school. He stated that a vote by Council in favor of high school stadiums would send a clear signal to future generations that the Council cares about the needs of Roanoke's students and has acted accordingly on their behalf. Mr. C. Richard Cranwell, 111 Virginia Avenue, Vinton, Virginia, advised that in today's world, government in America is suspect at all levels because citizens believe that they have no control over what goes on in government, and they believe that government leaders do not listen to or respond to their constituency. Having served for 30 years in the Virginia General Assembly, he stated that his experience was that if everyone believed that they had been heard, although they may not agree with a decision, they still believed that the process had not turned its back on them, Ms. Carol Brash 2259 Westover Avenue, S. W., spoke on behalf of stadia at the two high schools. She stated that she lives within six blocks of Patrick Henry High School, and looks forward to the noise,traffic.and excitement that a stadium would bring to the neighborhood. She advised that she serves on the PTSA Board of Directors at Patrick Henry High School and on the Roanoke Central Council PTA, and at a recent meeting of the Central Council PTA, 27 of the 29 schools represented unanimously supported stadia at both high schools. She noted that a cost of $8.2 million was quoted for the two high school stadiums, which leaves $1).8 million of the $15 million that was appropriated fÐr stadia, and suggested that remaining funds be used for renovation of Victory Stadium. Mr. E. Duane Howard, 1135 Wasena Avenue S. W., advised that all citizens should pause and think about the power they hold with regard to City Council elections in May 2001) because regardless of the Council's vote today, two new high school stadiums cannot be constructed in a few months, Victory Stadium cannot be torn down in a few months, and the City Council May elections cannot be postponed. He stated that the citizens of Roanoke can elect three new persons to City Council who will honor their word and promise to save Victory Stadium. Mr. Bill McClure,. 542 Walnut Avenue, S. W., spoke as the parent of a junior at Patrick Henry High School. He qualified his remarks by stating that he was not against construction of stadia at the two high schools; however, the problem rests with the process that has generated a perception that the desired result was not found in the consultant's report, therefore, it must be changed. He added that the process generated a public perception that not only were the 441 rules changed, but the game was changed as well, and the process generated the question of what will happen to Victory Stadium. He added that there are numerous issues that have not been publicly addressed, closure is needed, but to change the course at the "11 th hour" does not seem to be cautious or prudent. He stated that if Victory Stadium is not addressed in depth, Council will be shirking the responsibilities of office and misleading voters which could be a deciding issue in the political careers of some Council Members. Ms. Mary C. Pruette, 2914 Carolina Avenue, S. W., a senior at Patrick Henry High School, advised that she and her fellow classmates will not benefit from a school stadium or a new school, however, they felt strongly enough about the issue that approximately 20 students accompanied her to the Council meeting. She added that today's events are unique because Council will vote on constructing two new high school stadia; whereupon, she expressed support for a stadium at Patrick Henry High School for safety reasons, field conditions, and most importantly, school spirit. She stated that safety is an important factor, a stadium at the school site would offer the advantage of locker rooms and shelter in the event of inclement weather, field conditions have not been thoroughly discussed, and whether it be the soccer team playing at River's Edge Sports Complex, or the football team playing at Victory Stadium, or the band performing at Victory Stadium, or lacrosse teams playing on the practice field, Roanoke's field conditions are sub par to its competitors. She added that school spirit has reached an all time high, with a level of. excitement and pride due to a new Patrick Henry High School, therefore, there could ·be no better way to top off existing student pride and excitement than to construct a stadium that will be the focus of athletic achievement. In conclusion; she asked that· Council do what is right and best for Roanoke's students of today and' tomorrow. Mr. Robert N. Turcotte, 1890 Arlington Road, S. W., advised that two questions need to be answered: are the right questions being asked' and are the right people being listened to. He stated that constructing two high school stadia means that the stadiums will be the right size. Mr. Nick A. Brash, 2259 Westover Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of construction of stadiums at the two high schools. He stated that he attended high school in a community that had an athletic field on the school campus which helped to increase student pride; and upon graduation from college, he returned to the community and lived within a block and one-half of the same stadium, and attested to the fact that any inconvenience was minor, noise was not an issue and vehicular traffic was manageable. He added that he moved to Roanoke 19 'years ago, he considers himself to be a Roanoker with no emotional attachment to Victory Stadium; and he has attended numerous functions at Victory Stadium and has never seen the stadium filled to capacity. 442 He commended Roanoke's Police Department on the professionalism with which they manage traffic at Patrick Henry High School on a daily basis, and urged that Council objectively review the type of facility that would best serve the needs of the students of the City of Roanoke. Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., expressed concern with regard to the Mayor's preliminary instructions to citizens limiting their right to speak. She stated that she has attended City Council meetings for many years and has not witnessed any incident when a citizen was disrespectful. She inquired as to how the Council could ignore an informative and detailed report by a consultant the was hired to study the various options for Victory Stadium when it was clear that Victory Stadium could be renovated for $13.5 million using Historic Tax Credits; and the stadium could be renovated for not only football, but for the enjoyment all citizens of the. Roanoke Valley. She expressed concern with regard to "11 'h hour" maneuverings, and the possibility of constructing a stadium at each of the two high schools. She advised that stadia at Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools would cost $8.2 million; however, it is strange that the City did not request more clarification as to how the $8.2 million figure was calculated. She stated that those Council Members who vote in support of constructing a stadium at each high school will have let Roanoke's taxpayers down, and all citizens of Roanoke should have a vote on the fate of Victory Stadium via a public referendum. Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that it appears that the Council has gone against the recommendations of the Victory Stadium Study Committee, and the citizens of Roanoke have suffered a disservice because the joint meeting of Council and the School Board which was held on November 3, 2005, to discuss high school stadia was not televised via RVTV Channel 3. She stated that it was mentioned that students at Patrick Henry High School would be able to use the stadium in 2007, but students at William Fleming would not have a stadium until 2010. She took issue with the statement that football fields at each high school would increase the graduation rate, and advised that she was not aware of a football field anywhere that taught anything to a child, and if they were taught by virtue of being on a football field, it was due to the dedication of coaches and teachers. She urged that Council give the teachers the tools they need to teach and give the citizens of Roanoke and the Roanoke Valley a renovated Victory Stadium. She stated that Victory Stadium is an historic building and, if renovated properly, Roanoke's children sould be proud to play sports in a newly renovated stadium. Mr. Ivan Moore, 2219 Carter Road, S. W., spoke in support of stadia at the two high schools, primarily to increase school pride and as a fundraising venture for the booster clubs. He stated that there is not a lot of neighborhood opposition and any concerns can be addressed as a result of meetings with City and School officials. He commended Mayor Harris for taking a stand on the issue of high school stadia, and stated that as a taxpayer, he does not favor using $22 million plus of taxpayers' dollars to renovate Victory Stadium when the facility does not have a business plan and lies in a floodplain. He advised 443 that William Fleming High School deserves a stadium, and with the existing infrastructure· such as the airport, interstate, restaurants, hotels/motels and . shopping malls, it makes sense to construct a high school football stadium at that location which will enable Council to move on to other pressing issues. Ms. Jackie Gentry, 1819 Warrington Road, S. W., a senior at Patrick Henry High School and President of the Student Government Association, advised that as the student body president, she listens to concerns and opinions of students on a daily basis, most of whom believe that separate stadiums at the two high schools are needed. She stated that separate stadiums wi.1I not only remove the inconvenience of driving to Victory Stadium, but raise school spirit, which in turn will lower violence in the schools, motivate students to attend school, and raise the attitude of some students which will lead to better school performance. Ms. Leslie Hubble, 2424 Lofton Road, S. W., advised that no one has the right to build a stadium without first soliciting input by the residents of the area. She stated thauhe City ofHoanoke should not vote on the issue until all affected residents have ·been heard, and called attention to the area around Patrick Henry High School that is already plagued by traffic .flow. issues. She added that if a stadium is constructed, existing problems will be compounded by noise pollution as a result of horns blaring and spectators celebrating after a football game. Ms. Allyn K. Hughes, 3833 Park Lane, S. W., a senior at Patrick Henry High School, spoke in support of two separate high school stadiums. She' stated that· on campus stadiums would help the booster dubs to raise funds for school activities, and a school stadium would help to increase school spirit and unite the student body. She encouraged Council to think about not only today's students, but future generations of students. Mr. John R. Graybill, 2443 Tillett Road, S. W., advised that it appears that the Council has already decided to build stadia at each of the two high schools. He commended Council Members Lea and Wishneff for remaining true to their campaign promise regarding Victory Stadium. Mr. Daniel C. Webster, 21)23 Guilford Avenue, S. W., advised that ViàOry Stadium was constructed to honor the memory of Roanokers who gave their lives in World War II; however, their memory has already been tarnished due to improper maintenance of the stadium for a number of years and their ultimate sacrifice would be totally dishonored by razing the facility. In the event that Victory Stadium is torn down, he inquired as to what venue the City would offer to its citizens for public concerts, Fourth of July celebrations, Festival in the Park, etc., and how could two smaller remote high school stadiums replace a larger central venue that serves the entire Roanoke Valley as opposed to a select few. He inquired as to the purpose of appointing a citizens committee to study the question of whether to renovate or rebuild Victory Stadium when, after a year of intense study and fact gathering, the Committee's 444 recommendations were totally disregarded; and based on the Council's response to the Committee's work, why would any citizen even consider serving on a committee in the future knowing that their hard work and recommendations will be dismissed if they do not echo the desired results. He stated that the City funded a $159,000.00 study by a highly qualified stadium design firm only to disregard their recommendations, and almost immediately thereafter construction estimates were obtained for the two high school stadiums from another source. He inquired if the source of the high school stadia estimate has the same credentials as Heery Inte'rnational, are estimates detailed and available for public review, how will the school system be able to operate the two stadiums when the schools presently lack the necessary resources to maintain existing school facilities, and would the Superintendent of Schools set aside pay increases for presently under paid teachers, or would the school system cut back on funding for much needed basic and instructional materials which are often purchased personally by teachers. Mr. AI C. Scanlan, 11)31 Center Hill Avenue, S. W., advised that for years, if not generations, the question of Victory Stadium has been on the City's agenda; I.e.: renovate the facility, replace it, tear it down, rebuild it, relocate it, etc. He stated that in April, 2005, the final report of the Stadium Study Committee was completed and presented to Council, and subsequently Council obtained an engineering report and set a target budget of $15 million; it appeared clear that the Mayor and others gave the recommendation of the Stadium Study Committee their full support if estimates came in under budget, and today Council appears to be on the threshold of voting in favor of a plan that was not a part of the recommendations of the Study Committee and will set the entire Victory Stadium question back for many years. He advised that two 2,000 - 3,000 seat high school stadiums will not serve the needs of the total community, and no effort was made to consider the opinions of those persons residing in the specific areas where the stadia are proposed to be located; stadiums appear to be inadequate to meet the needs of the two high schools under certain circumstances; cost of the stadia is not clear; the future of Victory Stadium is unknown; recommendations by the Stadium Study Committee have been ignored; taxpayers spent $159,000.00 on a consultant's report that is being ignored; future taxpayer liability is unclear; and the citizens of the City of Roanoke want and deserve answers to their questions. He stated that one of the recommendations of the Stadium Study Committee was to sell legacy bricks from Victory Stadium as a fundraiser; whereupon, he offered a check in the amount of $500.00 for the first purchase of legacy bricks. 445 Ms. Hannah Updike, 2803 Woodlawn Avenue, S. W., a junior at Patrick Henry High School, advised that two stadiums, one at Patrick Henry and one at William Fleming are a necessity. She called attention to the importance of pride in one's school and advised that two separate stadiums would allow each school to have adequate and safe facilities for home and visiting teams. She asked that surrounding neighborhoods be considered with regard to traffic, light and noise concerns and that Council keep the needs of present and future students at the forefront of deliberations. Ms. Suzanne Osborne, 1702 Blair Road, S. W., called attention to a vote· on May 2, 2005, at which time the Council elected to not consider high school stadiums as an option. She advised thatthe Stadium Study Committee reported at the same meeting that high school stadiums had been unanimously eliminated as an option, and it was also reported that the School Board was not in favor of any type of facility that would require a maintenance responsibility. She expressed concern that a $159,000.00 consultant's report that contained rational information with which to make an informed decision on Victory Stadium has been ignored, the recommendations of a citizens committee that spent nine months and diligently pursued' the issues with all options on the table has been ignored, and to ignore the voice of a majorityof'citizens in favor of the special interest of a few citizens is disrespectful, shameful, and an attempt to prevent the public from obtaining accurate information which is needed to make an informed decision on how tax dollars will be spent. She stated that the figure quoted by the Superintendent of Schools that two stadiums could be constructed for $8.2 million has not been questioned and the Superintendent has given the assurance that the, stadia can be constructed without additional funding by the City; however, at the same time, the School Superintendent advises that the school system does not have sufficient manpower or equipment to maintain current school facilities. Mr. Chris H.Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., advised that during the last Councilmanic election, some Council Members campaigned on the promise that Victory Stadium would be renovated. He· stated that the school system should be permitted to use Victory Stadium free of charge which would allow the funds to be used for other school needs, such as teacher pay raises, and the· elimination of mobile classrooms, etc. He expressed concern for those residents of the area surrounding Patrick Henry High School who were not given the opportunity to address the issue; therefore, action on the matter should be tabled by Council until there is sufficient input by the Raleigh Court/Grandin Road neighborhoods. Mr. Winfred Noell, 2743 Northview Drive, S. W., advised that he has followed the Victory Stadium issue for quite some time and he has observed a City administration that manipulates numbers and is not truthful with the citizens. 446 The Mayor cautioned Mr. Noell that personal comments regarding th.e Members of Council, the School Board, the City Manager, or the Superintendent of Schools would not be tolerated by the Chair. Mr. Noell continued his remarks and advised that it appears that the entire Victory Stadium issue has resurfaced, which has the effect after all of the mistakes and maneuvers that occurred during the Orange Avenue stadium/amphitheater issue of planting more seeds of distrust toward leaders of the City. The Mayor once again requested Mr. Noell address to his remarks to the issue under discussion. In view of the fact that persons from the audience were making remarks without being recognized by the Chair, the Mayor advised that heckling from the audience would not be tolerated and if such behavior continued, he would declare a recess and ask that Police Officers remove those persons from the Council Chamber. He again asked that persons conduct themselves in a civil manor. Mr. Noell advised that the issue will be resolved during the CouncilmaniC election in May 2001), because the events of the past two weeks have been "backroom, good old boy politiCS at its worst". Ms. Mary Scanlan, 11)31 Center Hill Drive, S. W;, expressed concern with regard to the lack of time and information that has been given to those citizens of the areas that will be impacted by the two high school stadiums. She stated that she was opposed to the two high school stadium plan, a stadium is not suitable for the Patrick Henry High School site, nor will the stadium meet the needs of citizens for major events that have become a tradition in Roanoke. She inquired as to why the Council would consider a two stadium plan when there are many unanswered questions, with very little citizen input, and especially after receiving the Heery International report on Victory Stadium options. She stated that as a 30 year Roanoke City elementary school teacher, she would respectfully disagree with the statement that constructing on site stadia at the two high schools would lower student dropout rates, and advised that the dropout rate relates to many factors and not to a building. She advised that the focus should be on meeting the 2005-2001) academic expectations set by the State Board of Education, rather than school stadiums, and the City should stay within the original financial guidelines for a stadium that will meet the needs of the entire community. 447 Mr. Kit Hale, 2222 Blenheim Road, S. W., advised that as a member of the Board of Zoning Appeals and inasmuch as the issue may come before the Board, he would not speak on the matter. The City Attorney stated that his office is currently researching the issue and inasmuch as Mr. Hale is also an adjacent property owner, he is researching the question of whether it will be necessary for Mr. Hale to disqualify himself from participating if the issue is addressed by the Board of Zoning Appeals. Ms. Patricia Pruett, 4902 Grandin Road, S. W., commended Council Members Wishneff and Lea on their efforts to save Victory Stadium. She spoke in support of preserving the City's historic landmarks and asked if the lights went out on the star on Mill Mountain, would the City move the star to another location? She stated that the staron Mill Mountain and Victory Stadium represent the same principle and Victory Stadium deserves to be renovated and used by all of Roanoke's citizens. Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, advised that he predicted over two years ago that the City would tear down Victory Stadium and give the property to Carilion Health System. He stated that in November 1942, Victory Stadium was dedicated to the memory of World War II veterans and in November 2005, the City could decide on the death of Victory Stadium. He encouraged City leaders to act according to the wishes of those citizens who elected them to office and in compliance with the Victory Stadium consultant's report which indicated that it would be less costly to renovate Victory Stadium. He stated that one solution would be to spend $5 million on a stadium for William Fleming High School and spend another $5-7 million dollars to renovate Victory Stadium for use by. not only Patrick Henry High School, but all of the citizens of the Roanoke Valley. He called attention to the agreement that was entered into between the City of Roanoke and Norfolk and Western Railway Company which donated the land to the City and stipulations of the agreement provide that the land can only be used for stadium, armory, and park purposes. Mr. Barton J. Wilner, 2709 Crystal Spring Avenue, S. W., advised that as a business person, whenever he is confronted with various issues, he considers the best interest of his customers; and the number one customer of Victory Stadium is high school athletics, which represents over 90 per cent of the stadium's usage, therefore, it makes sense to seek the preference of the stadium's number one customer. He stated that when asked the question, would you prefer to have your own stadium at your own high school, principles, athletic directors, coaches, parents, students, the Parent Teacher Association, the School Board and school administrators all advised that two high school stadiums would strengthen the school campus, increase school spirit and school pride, increase attendance at events, increase participation in sports, increase usage of the facilities for other sports assemblies/band, strengthen booster involvement and create concession sales, decrease travel expenses, increase safety, strengthen the neighborhoods, increase neighborhood commerce, and provide two first class venues that are used on a regular basis. He added that two high school stadiums could be constructed for about $8.2 448 million versus $13.5 million, or more, to renovate Victory Stadium; and by eliminating Victory Stadium, the City could develop Reserve Avenue from Victory Stadium to Franklin Road and provide multiple athletic fields with pedestrian bridges linking the fields with the River's Edge Sports Complex, and provide an outstanding recreation venue for Roanoke's children and adults that could be used Monday through Friday throughout the year, as well as a valuable marketing tool for tournaments on weekends. He stated that professionals at the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Department· of Parks and Recreation will verify that this is the type of product they can market and sell. He advised that high school stadiums have been constructed all over the United States from Virginia to California; and the City of Roanoke is building the first of two world class high schools, and the project should be completed with two first class high school stadiums. He encouraged the City to construct facilities that are needed for the next 50 years and not confuse the decision with what was needed and built 50. years ago; and it is time to do. the right thing for Roanoke's children, the community and for Roanoke's future by bUilding two high school stadiums, tear down Victory Stadium and develop Reserve Avenue. Mr. John Kepley, 2909 Morrison Street, S. E., referred to five occasions when the Mayor publicly stated that he supported the renovation of Victory Stadium. He stated that an honorable man is trustworthy and keeps his word which should be his bond. There were remarks from the audience; whereupon, the Mayor instructed the individual to leave the Council Chamber. When he refused to do so the Mayor declared a brief recess so that Police Officers could escort the person from the Council Chamber. Mr. Phillip Wright, 11)41) Center Hill Drive, S. W., advised that the issue will define for the citizens of Roanoke what is meant by public trust and respect and preservation of minority rights. He stated that public trust has been badly shaken, if not shattered, by the realization that certain elected officials cannot be relied upon to do what they say or to say what they do; and public trust has been damaged by a cleverly orchestrated campaign to insert the .Iocal school stadia issue as an "11 'h hour" maneuver around what is truly needed for the City of Roanoke in the form of a high quality, first class City stadium that meets the needs of all citizens. He added that no one has bothered to ask the taxpayers of the City of Roanoke, and especially the taxpayers in the· Grandin Court, Raleigh Court and William Fleming residential neighborhoods their opinion inasmuch as they could be subjected to loss of property values, privacy and the quiet enjoyment of their homes. 449 Council· Member Wishneff expressed concern that speakers were not allowed to quote the names of Council Members while making their presentations, and noted that the comments of Council Members are a matter of public record in the Council's minutes which are on file in the City Clerk's Office. The Mayor responded that he stated at the beginning of the discussion that there would be civil discourse in the Council Chamber, and he would not allow personal attacks on the Members of Council, the School Board, and the City and School administrations. He stated that he has been broad in his interpretation of remarks and as advised by the City Attorney, any Member of the Council has the right to make a motion to overrule the Chair. Council Member Wishneff moved that speakers be permitted to read statements that are a matter of public record, whether they be news articles, e-mails, or statements made by the Mayor and Members of Council. The Mayor responded that he has allowed broad latitude to speakers; however, if a future speaker is overruled by the Chair and Council disagrees with the ruling by the Chair, he would entertain a motion to overrule the Chair. Mr. Dick Kepley, 550 Kepplewood Road, S. W., advised that a stadium for all of the citizens of the City of Roanoke is needed. He stated that 90,000 people live in Roanoke, most of whom will never attend a high school football game; looking to the future, a 3,000 seat stadium at each of the two high schools will not be successful; and a Virginia High School League playoff game cannot be played at a stadium with a seating capacity of 3,000 according to an official of the Virginia High School League who stated that at least 4,000 seats would be necessary for a playoff game at either school. He took issue with the remarks of the Superintendent of Schools that high school stadia would improve student performance, school spirit and test scores~ He also took issue with the figure quoted by the Superintendent of Schools that two 3,000 seat stadiums could be constructed for $8.2 million when the consultant's report quoted $11).8 million to build a 5,000 seat stadium. He stated that the citizens of Roanoke deserve to know how the $8.2 million figure for the two high school stadiums was calculated. Ms. Susan Wadsworth, 11)50 Center Hill . Drive, S. W., expressed appreciation for the countless hours of service that Council Members give to the citizens of Roanoke. She stated that she appeared before Council with a heavy heart because Council is about to make a decision that will affect her, her family and her neighbors without their permission; Council has not been able to make a decision regarding Victory Stadium during the last ten years and now the Council is about to make a decision to construct two stadiums at two City high schools as a solution to the Council's indecision. She stated that to ignore the recommendations of paid consultants and a citizen's task force is not befitting of the democratic process; residents of the area surrounding Patrick Henry High School are not obstructionists and they have enjoyed being good 450 neighbors with Patrick Henry High School, but they must and should be considered because their property values will be affected; and no one has the right to construct a stadium in their back yard without consulting with them. She advised that the big picture should be considered because a 3,000 seat stadium on each of the City's high school campuses will not attract playoff games and other events such as concerts, statewide athletic events, etc. She stated that Roanoke's students need a stadium and the Roanoke Valley deserves a state of the art facility that will serve the needs of the entire community. Ms. Chris Kaze, 11)47 Center Hill Drive, S. W., expressed concern about the message that is being sent to the children of Roanoke when a political agend.a is forced on an entire neighborhood; and residents of the area surrounding Patrick Henry High School should have been the first to be consulted, rather than having been left out of the process. She stated that her main purpose in addressing the Council is to point out that the City's actions will teach the children of Roanoke to be less than good neighbors, and Council should listen to the recommendations of the Stadium Study Committee and set the right example for Roanoke's youth. Mr. Bob Caudle, 4231 Belford Street, S. W., spoke in support of ·renovating Victory Stadium in view of the figures quoted in the consultant's report. Ms. Margaret Keyser, 2701 Guilford Avenue, S. W., commended those students who addressed the Council and advised that they were poised, respectful and articulated their position in support of constructing stadia at the two high schools. She inquired as to why those citizens, whose property will be the most affected by the construction of a stadium at Patrick Henry High School, were left out of discussions. Ms. Valerie Garner, 221)4 Mattaponi Drive, N. W., called attention to a telephone conversation with an official of the Virginia Department of Aviation . who expressed concern with regard to stadium lighting adjacent to Roanoke. Regional Airport and the Aviation official has referred the matter to the Eastern Region of the Federal Aviation Administration for investigation. She stated that Land Use Recommendations of the Virginia Department of Aviation provide that communities discourage the development of residences, schools, churches, hospitals, daycare centers, nursing homes, and other similar uses, including uses resulting in large open air assemblies of people such as amphitheaters and stadiums, near airports. She suggested the City to investigate the matter prior to proceeding with a lighted stadium at the William Fleming High School site. 451 Mr. Tom Bradley, 2042 Westover Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the renovation of Victory Stadium. Dr. J. Keith Bohon, 5012 Cave Spring Circle, S. W., spoke in support of the renovation of Victory Stadium which can be done for $13.5 million using . HistoriC Tax Credits. He stated that Victory Stadium could receive an $18 million renovation for $13.5 million, and the remaining funds could be used to construct a 5,000 seat stadium at William Fleming High School. He advised that Victory Stadium was neglected by the City of Roanoke for over 20 years and cannot be repaired using a "band aid" approach, and advised that a renovated Victory Stadium could be the crown jewel of Riverside Park. Mr. Tom Skelly, 2402 Avenel Avenue, S. W., spoke in support of the renovation of Victory Stadium. Mr. Eric Woodard, 2809 Guilford Avenue, S. W., advised that high school stadia appear to be -a last minute initiative,· nobly motivated, yet lacking adequate and proper planning and process. He stated that the City of Roanoke should improve athletic and academic infrastructure and achievement; and much progress has been made to renovate schools, but rather than providing a better place to play football and soccer, the School Board should be challenged to fund more programs that will act toward achieving State and Federal Standards. He further stated that the City of Roanoke has not followed due process and study in order to make an informed decision; and the issue is not a ·decision on Victory Stadium, but a last minute power play by a small, but vocal and powerful community claiming noble causes. He advise{ that as a new parent, he respected· the cause of Roanoke's children, but· one community, neighborhood or special interest group should not be allowed to force their will on another by claiming nobility and ignoring due process. He stated that if Council votes in favor of high school stadia today, the Members of Council will be accountable in the coming months not for { ealing with what is right for the children, but with activities that have allowed a total disregard for those residents who are most profoundly affected. . ML Stuart Revercomb, 855 Wildwood Road, S. W., advised that the presènt City Council and past City Councils have changed direction at the last minute with regard to Victory Stadium, with little information regarding the will of the citizens of Roanoke-. He stated that all relevant information has been received after many years of public discourse, opinion surveys, consultant reports, remarks by independent citizens, committee· recommendations, editorials, elections in which people are swept into and out of public office, site preparation studies, engineering studies, feasibility studies, School Board input, City staff input and yet on the brink of making a decision, the Council by all indications, is preparing to proceed in another direction, without public cemment, a site preparation report, traffic studies, or a feasibility study to make a decision that will once again plummet the community into the same malaise of contention and controversy that has divided Roanoke for many years. He noted that the City of Roanoke has wasted an unbelievable amount of 452 taxpayer's time and money on the issue, and as elected leaders, Council is charged with the responsibility of making informed and well reasoned decisions, decisions that are arrived at through logical and timely debate. He advised that there are two options; I.e.: nighttime high school stadiums, or renovate Victory Stadium at the $11.1) or $13.5 million level and provide day stadiums as called for by the School Board without lights, which would provide a vast majority of the benefits addressed by the Superintendent of Schools. He added that day stadiums could be funded by the balance of the Victory Stadium budget, proceeds from the sale of the Orange Avenue property, and if necessary, by the City's budget for the three years that it takes to develop the William Fleming site. He noted that one of the options will cast the City back into the extended continuous debate that has divided the community and prevented the City from focusing on far more important issues, and the other option will provide a win-win for all Röanokers that will allow the City to move forward as it honors the past with a renewed spirit of cooperation and optimism. Ms. Estelle McCadden, 2128 Mercer Avenue, N. W., advised that citizens and neighborhoods make a city and neighborhoods are the fabric of a city. She stated that while recognizing the needs of Roanoke's students, Council is forgetting the City's general citizenry; therefore, she spoke in support of renovating Victory Stadium and moving the facility out of the floodplain. Mr. Jim George, 2340 Blenheim Road, S. W., advised that Council Members should place service to the citizens of Roanoke above themselves, and asked that Council Members listen to the people, pay attention to what is going on in the community and not make decisions based on politics. He called attention to actions of past leaders of the City of Roanoke to save The· Hotel Roanoke which has created numerous ec{)nomic opportunities for the downtown area and increased property values. He questioned what will happen to property values in the neighborhoods surrounding Patrick Henry High School if a stadium is constructed and pointed out that Council Members were elected to represent the best interests of the citizens of the City of Roanoke by asking Iluestions and by obtaining the necessary information prior to making major decisions. Mr. Ralph Eaton, 2428 Lofton Road, S. W., advised that residents of Grandin Court are disappointed that they were not included in the decision to construct a stadium at Patrick Henry High School. Ms. Claudia A. Whitworth, 2318 Melrose Avenue, N. W., advised that her remarks regarding Victory Stadium were made with no emotional commitment to the Stadium. She stated that over the years she has listened and observed with an open mind the "political ping pong" that has gone on as to whether to rebuild a new City stadium, or to renovate existing Victory Stadium in its present state of disrepair, which is due to the benign neglect of the facility by the City. She expressed surprise that after all this time the Council is now considering the construction of stadia at the two high schools and advised that 453 after listening to previous speakers, it would appear that she has observed two separate meetings; I.e.: one for a City stadium and one for high school stadia. She stated that she was astonished to hear that stadia are proposed to be constructed at the two high schools, one of which is historically black and one is historically white, and regardless of current statistical data on either stadium, they will be stigmatized as such. She expressed disappointment that a City stadium for all of the citizens of Roanoke has gotten lost in the process with no reasonable alternative. Mr. Don Bouldin, 2114 Berkley Avenue, S. W., advised that the Victory Stadium Study Committee submitted its recommendations; Council stated that the two options under consideration were to either renovate or to demolish Victory Stadium, a consultant reported that Victory Stadium is structurally sound and it would be cheaper to renovate the facility,and at the last minute the School Board recommended smaller stadia at the two high schools. He challenged the Council to follow its original plan; I.e.: to not place any other options on the table and to renovate Victory Stadium. Mr. Tommy Firebaugh, 4703 Phyllis Road,S. E., advised that the City of Roanoke is missing an important opportunity by not promoting Victory Stadium at a .higher level for concerts, special activities, celebrations and arts and crafts, rather than primarily for football. He stated that Roanoke's two high schools have used Victory Stadium in the past for football games and there is no reason why football games cannot continue to be played in a renovated Victory Stadium. He spoke in support of holding a referenda to allow the citizens of Roanoke to vote on the fate of Victory Stadium. He expressed concern that citizens residing in the neighborhoods surrounding the two high schools were not consulted prior to the School Board submitting a recommendation to the Council regarding high school athletic fields. Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., expressed concern with regard to the consideration of stadiums at the two high schools at this late hour, and espeCially without input from the neighborhoods s,urrounding the two high schools, or more detailed financial information. He stated that if properly promoted, Victory Stadium could generate much needed revenue for the City. Mr. Kurt Navratil, 1877 Arlington Road, S. W., President, Greater Raleigh Court Civic League, which consists of more than 10,000 residences and over 400 members, including residents and businesses, advised that the Board of Directors voted to support the concept of stadia at the City's two high schools; however, the Board of Directors did not support a specific proposal, nor did it intend to give carte blanche approval to construction of just any type of facility cn campus. He added that it is understood that the facility will introduce many things to the neighborhood and the Board of Directors intends to ensure that issues such as lighting, frequency of use, litter, vehicular and pedestrian traffic, parking and noise are minimized and contained to the highest extent possible. He stated that the neighborhood's rationale for supporting the concept of high school stadiums is to improve the education and athletic experience of 454 Roanoke's children and to strengthen the neighborhood. He further stated that the topic under discussion deals with not just structures, but with children and the desire to give Roanoke's children every reason to want to return to the Roanoke Valley after graduating from college. The Reverend Carl T. Tinsley, 21)47 Springhill Drive, N. W., expressed concern that if Council votes to construct stadia at the two high schools, such action will be in conflict with a recommendation of the Council appointed Stadium Study Committee and the consultant that was engaged by the City to study the condition of Victory Stadium. He advised that he was not opposed to the construction of high school stadia, but he was opposed to a stadium in his neighborhood. He stated that Roanoke's schools should be updated, and, in due time, stadiums can be constructed for the two high schools, but there is a need to move forward with the Victory Stadium issue and to renovate the stadium so that it can be used by all of the citizens of Roanoke. Mr. Tom Cain, 2258 Memorial Avenue, S. W., encouraged the City of Roanoke to begin to think of itself not only as a City, but as an ecosystem. He stated that water cannot be compressed from the Roanoke River basin, water displaced from one place must seek another, therefore, Roanoke should be careful not to try to mitigate its problems by worsening. the problems of its neighbors down stream. He further stated that having just commemorated the 20th anniversary of the flood of 1985, the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Valley should be especially sensible with regard to development in flood plains; the world is full of anomalies, Historic Tax Credits may be available to encourage and in this case, to enable new development in flood plains, but as a matter of publiC policy, they should not be. He added that stadia on the high school campuses in the neighborhoods will enrich community life, improve neighborhoods and provide a commercial boost to neighborhood merchants. Mr. Roy Chambers, 2807 Huntington Boulevard,' N. W., President, RÐanoke Valley Hospitality Association,.which is comprised of business leaders in the hospitality industry representing hotels, convention and visitor bureaus, surrounding cities and counties, civic centers, chambers of commerce, restaurants, and educational facilities spoke on behalf of all of the above entities that will be affected by a stadium. He spoke in support of athletic fields at William Fleming and Patrick Henry High Schools which will provide a sense of individualism for each of the high schools, for current students and for the students of future generations. Additionally, he requested that Council reconsider Victory Stadium options and a new stadium. He stated that Roanoke is the largest City on the Blue Ridge Parkway, the City of Roanoke is the capitol of the Roanoke Valley and southwest Virginia, the City of Roanoke is in a position to be the leader of all other cities and towns in the Roanoke Valley and southwest Virginia; and in this leadership position, Roanoke City and City Council have a duty to its citizens to preserve Roanoke's history and to prepare for Roanoke's future. Therefore, he recommended that Council table consideration of all options regarding Victory Stadium and/or a new facility and appoint another committee composed of persons who are attuned to both the 455 history and the future of the Roanoke Valley, to those types of activities that a stadium will attract, and to how funds can be appropriated to preserve the history of Victory Stadium while preparing for the future of the City of Roanoke. He encouraged Council to be the leaders they were elected to be by representing the citizens of Roanoke, by following the advice of the City Manager, and by not allowing personal agendas to hinder present and future progress of the Roanoke Valley. Mr. Robert Craig, 701 12'h Street, S. W., advised that the citizens of Roanoke pay $103,000.00 collectively in salaries to the Members of Roanoke City Council, therefore, Council should be accountable for its actions to Roanoke's citizens. He asked the following question: . What is the City's current debt and how much interest is paid each year? Ms. Frieda Tate, 4551) Van Winkle Road, S. W., spoke in support of the· renovation of Victory Stadium. She expressed concern that some Council Members have changed their position with regard to Victory Stadium after publicly stating that they supported renovation of the facility. Mr. Charlie Bowles, Camp Careysbrook, Riner, Virginia, spoke in support of the renovation of Victory Stadium, and stated that Victory Stadium is a regional facility that attracts people from as far away as the Town of Blacksburg and Montgomery County. He added that Victory Stadium is in its current state of disrepair because the City of Roanoke did not budget funds for maintaining the facility after the Civic Center was constructed. Ms. Margaret Kreger, 835 Wildwood Road, S. W., a junior at Patrick Henry High School and Spirit Chair of the Student Government Association, advised that students support an athletic field at Patrick Henry High School. She expressed concern and embarrassment with regard to the behavior that was exhibited by some adults at today's Council meeting. She stated that the number one reason to construct stadiums .at the two high schools is due to the Jloor condition of Victory Stadium, which is "prison-like" in its appearance with fencing around the facility and the presence of police officers. She spoke in support of the construction of high school stadia which will not only improve academics, but improve school spirit by involving students which, in turn, will increase their motivation to attend school. The Mayor expressed appreciation to all speakers for their participation and called on Council Members for remarks. Council Member Cutler offered the follOWing resolution: (#37237-110705) A RESOLUTION authorizing the filing of a petition to amend the conditions attaching to the zoning of property which is owned by the City of Roanoke and which is designated as Official Tax No. 141)0101. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 57.) 456 Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37237- 110705. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. Council Member Dowe expressed appreciation to the citizens of the community for their love and passion for Roanoke. He stated that each citizen came to the Council meeting with various opinions, yet he personally sensed a genuine respect as he interacted with citizens during the course of the afternoon. He added that he prayed for a healing of the community, and commended the Members of Council because it is not easy to be in the Council's position. He stated that the Victory Stadium issue has been studied and restudied, however, certain issues stood out in the consultant's report that indicated that it would not be a wise decision to construct a stadium larger than 5,000 seats. He acknowledged that Victory Stadium has not been properly maintained for a number of years and a marketing study revealed that the City of Roanoke cannot do a lot more to market the stadium, because there are more markets, cities, populations, and historical propensity to support events-- in other words, there are not a lot of football teams or concerts that could fill 10,000-20,000 seats. He stated that the same study reinforced the fact that it would be difficult to justify building a facility of 18,000 seats for a declining population. He advised that when a child speaks he listens, and Roanoke's students are asking for high school athletic fields. He emphasized that it would be necessary for the City to address any problems that ne.ed to be dealt with in the surrounding neighbor.hoods. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that Victory Stadium and high school stadia are challengirig issues for all of the Members of Council; there appears to be a lack of community sense as to what Council and the citizens are attempting to do, and it is not a Council that is against the neighborhoods, but a Council that is trying to do the best it can with taxpayers' dollars. He stated that speaking as a past economic developer, there are certain things in the community that some people eit~er do not want to know, or do not want to accept; the City of Roanoke is facing tremendous challenges at the present time with an older population per capita than any other city in the Commonwealth of Virginia, the City of Roanoke has more citizens who have frozen their real estate taxes than any other city in Virginia and as a result, Roanoke's schools are in trouble, the City has a shrinking tax base because the tax base cannot be expanded through annexation, Roanoke is not creating the right kind of jobs for its young people, and the cost of operating the City is increasing every year. He added that Victory Stadium could be renovated for $17 plus million and with Historic Tax Credits, the cost would be $13.5 million, however, an additional $2 million would be required to install restrooms for 18,000 people; attorneys have indicated that the City cannot be certain that it will be eligible for the entire Historic Tax Credit package, and if the entire tax credit package is not approved, the remainder of funds would have to come from taxpayers. He added that the marketing study indicated that the City is not in a good competitive position to have a large stadium for any purpose, and promoters do not book concerts at football stadiums because they prefer amphitheaters. He 457 advised that bottom line, the City does not have the market to sell 18,000 seats to anyone, and from a fiscal perspective, taxpayers' money would go into an empty stadium with an average of about 1,500 attendees. He added that the consultants indicated that 90 per cent of Victory Stadium's usage would be by the two high schools; therefore, the question is, what is best for the students, what will it take to keep young people in the Roanoke Valley, what is needed to have more than a 50 per cent graduation rate, and where is the City of Roanoke when it has five schools that are already on probation and five more that are about to go on probation. He stated that the issue is not about a stadium, but about an inner city that is experiencing challenging times and it will cost taxpayers large sums of money if some of the major issues cannot be fixed. He acknowledged that certain valid issues have been addressed by the neighborhoods if stadia are constructed at the two high schools, and the resolution introduced by Council Member Cutler provides for public hearings at the City Planning Commission and City Council levels; neighborhoods have not been left out of the process and residents will have every opportunity for input to address traffic, lighting and other issues. He explained that the decision today would not be to construct a stadium, but to initiate the process for the rezoning that will enable the City to work out the details. He added that it would be irresponsible to vote against two high school stadiums at a cost of $8.2 million and save the taxpayers $10 million, but more importantly the young people of Roanoke have stated their interest in having a complete school. He advised that Victory Stadium will not last forever, the Stadium will not generate revenue, but will continue to cost the City money, and knowing what lies ahead, the City cannot afford to continue to pay for Victory Stadium. He stated that the Victory Stadium issue is holding the Roanoke Valley back from achieving its potential and must be resolved one way or another. The Mayor commended the behavior of students who addressed the Council. He advised that when he ran for office, on a number of occasions, he stated that Council should study the renovation of Victory Stadium, but any option that would exceed $10 million was too costly. He added that he had not discarded or ignored the reports by consultants that were presented to the Council last week; the Heery report found that four out of the five options exceeded the City's financial capacity; and the one exception was the renovation option using Historic Tax Credits. He added that it was also important to remember that the Heery study was submitted with a marketing and feasibility analysis which was clear in its assessment that for 90 per cent of the activities that a stadium could generate, the City of Roanoke would not need more than 5,000 seats; and the marketing and feasibility study also indicated that even in a best case operating scenario, regardless of whether it was the two renovation options or the three new build options, the stadium would have to be heavily subsidized annually by the City for operations. He stated that approximately one month ago, when he began to hear from the Roanoke Central Council PTA and from school administrators of their interest in stadia at the two high schools, he was not excited about the concept, and was frustrated and fatigued by the entire stadium saga; however, prior to receipt of the Heery report and the marketing and feasibility study, he realized that he 458 should not allow his frustrations and fatigue to have, as its only goal, a decision, but his ultimate goal should be to make the right decision. He submitted that he has tried to be fair in the process, whether it was with regard to organizing the Stadium Study Committee, or engaging the consultant's report. He stated that citizens residing in Raleigh Court and Grandin Court should and will be involved; the resolution that was previously introduced will immediately initiate community and neighborhood meetings with both School and €ity officials to discuss the stadium at Patrick Henry High School and allow opportunities for residents to present their concerns regarding lights, traffic, ingress and egress and parking, etc., within the next two to four weeks. He added that information will be disseminated through the Grandin Court Civic League, the Raleigh Court Civic League, flyers and the news media to promote community engagement meetings; and following community meetings, public hearings will be held by the City Planning Commission and the City Council which will provide additional opportunities for public involvement regarding any unresolved concerns or suggestions. He advised that he has asked himself two primary questions in the midst of the issue: first, what is in the best interest of the City as a whole, and second, what, in that context, is the most fiscally responsible thing to do. He stated that the School Board and the Superintendent of Schools, faculty and the administrators are working hard to bring a new spirit and a sense of community to Roanoke's high school campuses; and although high school stadia will not be the panacea that will cure all ills, they can have a positive impact on the City's high. school campuses and on Roanoke's students. Council Member Lea stated that he was appalled that citizens residing in the Grandin Court/Raleigh Court neighborhood had to read in The Roanoke Times that Council was preparing, on a fast track, to construct a stadium· in their neighborhood. He stated that Council met with the consultants last Tuesday; shortly after the meeting, there was a need to meet with the School Board, that had one week earlier forwarded information státing that the School Board's Athletic Committee and the School Board were in favor of high school stadia, however, the School Board indicated that it was a decision that would ultimately have to be made by the Council. He added that even though the School Board did not request a meeting with Council, Council met with the Board on Thursday, November 3, at which time the Superintendent of Schools stated that if athletic fields are constructed at the two high schools, the dropout rate would be reduced and student achievement scores would go up; and it was reported through the local news media that the Superintendent of Schools, who assumed his position in July 2005, recently advised the Central Council PTA that he was conceding to have stadiums constructed at both high schools. He advised that when the Mayor states that he changed his mind on the stadia issue out of concern for the community as a whole, he would question what community the Mayor is making reference to, because Victory Stadium is an icon in the Roanoke community and a historical landmark. In the days of segregation, he stated that Victory Stadium was the one place in the City of Roanoke where all citizens, black or white, could go and leave segregation at the gates; William Fleming, Jefferson, and Lucy Addison High Schools used the 459 same football fi~ld and brought the community together, and now the City is talking about tearing the stadium down. He·further stated that Victory Stadium has hosted Fourth of July celebrations where the community comes together and the Western Virginia Education Classic that raised over $100,000.00 over the last six years and has brought approximately 500 young people back to school. He advised that three Members of the Council voted to construct a stadium/amphitheater on Orange Avenue; week after week barrels containing contaminated substances were uncovered, but there was no rush at that time to bring the School Board to the table, and no concern was expressed for Roanoke's children. He stated that the consultant's report provided' information that was needed to resolve the Victory Stadium issue both fairly and openly. He stressed the importance of remembering that under discussion is not just a' building, but an icon that has existed in the Roanoke community for many ye.ars and Victory Stadium' is an important historical landmark to a vast majority of Roanoke's citizens. Council Member McDaniel advised that a lot of voices have been heard and she did not doubt the passion or the sincerity of any speaker. She stated . that when one opts to serve in public office, they know that they will not be able to make everyone happy, but they strive to do what is right. . She further . stated that she lives in the Raleigh Court area, about two blocks from Patrick Henry High S(hool,she is a former President of the Greater Raleigh Court Civic league, and she is passionate about the neighborhood where she has lived for the past 30 years. She advised that if she believed that constructing a football stadium on the Patrick Henry campus would hurt the neighborhood, she would fight against it, however, after hearing more about how the lights can be mitigated, that only five or StX football games a year would be played on the athletic field, the needs of the schools, and the wishes of students, she has come to realize that a stadium might not be such a bad thing. She stated that it could bean opportunity to make the neighborhood stronger as it embraces the sch.ool, Patrick Henry High School is a part of the neighborhood and it would be Icgical to construct a football field on the high school campus, while offering a substantial savings to the taxpayers of Roanoke. She pledged support to the Greater Raleigh Court Civiè League and to the Grandin Road Neighborhood Association to ensure that the athletic field will be an asset to the neighborhood. 460 Council Member Wishneff referred to previous comments and commitments made by certain Members of Council with regard to Victory Stadium that have not been honored. He advised that the Stadium Study Committee did not agree on the construction of stadia at the two high schools, School Board members served on the Study Committee, no one at that time brought up the issue of athletic fields at the two high schools, and this most recent attempt to construct high school stadiums is an excuse by the Council to not renovate Victory Stadium. He reviewed the minutes of the May 2, 2005, Council meeting at which time Members of Council commented on the recommendations of the Stadium Study Committee and the construction of athletic fields at the two high schools and read a portion of a previous e-mail from the Mayor regarding his position on high school stadia. He expressed concern that ever since the findings of the consultant were made public, some persons have worked to discredit the report; as a consultant he has worked with the Historic Tax Credits program throughout the United States, however, no City representative contacted him to discuss their concerns, but instead went in other directions to discredit the consultant's report. He added that Roanoke is a City that tax credits built, and referred to the following projects that were completed using the Historic Tax Credit program: Higher Education Center, Seven North Jefferson, O. Winston Link Museum, Shenandoah Hotel, Burrell Hospital, Grandin Theater, Jefferson Center, Warehouse Rowand the future Culinary School, all of which have created $30 million in cash from Historic Tax Credit investors. He advised that it would cost less to construct and operate an 18,000 seat stadium, which could be an enormous opportunity for the City of Roanoke if marketed correctly; and the consultant advised that for a facility of its age, Victory Stadium is a sound structure. Mr. Wishneff questioned the figures quoted by the Superintendent of S(hools to construct stadia at the two high schools and compared the cost of renovating Victory Stadium with the cost of the two athletic fields. He stated that Victory Stadium could be renovated for the benefit of all of the citizens of Roanoke and the high schools could play their five football games at the newly renovated facility. He added that for the Councilmanic election in May 2001), the issue will not be about Victory Stadium specifically, but about trust and integrity. There being no further discussion, Resolution No. 37237-110705 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, McDaniel and Mayor H a r r i s n__n - - n --- - -- ---- n __ __ n _nn - n _n n - __ - __ ___ n__ - n ___ n - __ n n n_n n n__ __ ___ - nn n __ n n _n_ n -- n 5 . NAYS: Council Members Lea and Wishneffm--------mmm-nn---nnnnn------2. 461 INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND· RESOLUTIONS: COUNCIL: Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution changing the time of commencement and the place of the regular meeting .of City Council scheduled to be held at 2:00 p.m. on Monday, November 21,2005, to 12:00 p.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal BUilding, for a meeting of Council with Congressman Bob Goodlatte: (#37238-110705) A RESOLUTION changing the time of commencement and the place of the regular meeting of City Council scheduled to be held at 2:00 p.m. on Monday, November 21,2005. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 58.) Council Member Cutler moved the. adoption of Resolution No. 37238- 110705. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wi s h neff and Mayor Harri S_______n_n_nnnn_nn_____________n_'n__n-'nn--n--n-n-_---u----7. NAYS: Non e ___oo_________nnnn_n__________uun_n_n_nnn________ oo_________n_n_n_n_____O. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: POLICE DEPARTMENT: Council Member Lea advised that a community forum on domestic violence will be held on Tuesday, November 29, 2005, at 6:00 p.m., at the Roanoke Civic Center. 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. CITY COUNCIL: Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., suggested that Council Members be seated faCing the audience at the 9:00 a.m., Council work session on the first Monday of each month. 462 PROCLAMATIONS: Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., stated that she was under the impression that Council was interested in developing good character, but the actions she had witnessed at today's Council meeting were quite saddening. She advised that those persons who addressed the Council stated that citizens have no control over the stadium issue, and expressed concern with regard to the example that was set today for Roanoke's young people. ARMORY/STADIUM-SCHOOLS: Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., expressed concern that citizens were permitted to speak for only three five minutes to the Victory Stadium/high school stadia issue and that restrictions were placed on what they could and could not say. She expressed disappointment that some Members of the .Council have not honored their word, and expressed appreciation to other Council Members who have displayed character, vision, integrity, leadership, courage, truthfulness, and dedication to all of the citizens of the Roanoke Valley. She stated that Victory Stadium is used for more than just football games, it is an historic structure that is used by all of Roanoke's citizens, and the majority of citizens have spoken in favor of renovating Victory Stadium. She encouraged that Council place the question on a referendum for a vote by Roanoke's citizens. POLICE DEPARTMENT: Mr. Shaheed Omar, 1219 Loudon Avenue, N. W., spoke with regard to an incident of alleged police brutality on Wednesday, October 21), 2005, in Melrose Park, which was witnessed by a number of persons. He stated that pursuant to the Virginia Freedom of Information Act, he would request information relating to the arrest, and advised that the Chief of Police should be in control of the actions of police officers who should be required to abide by certain standards of conduct and should not be allowed to come into low income communities and physically abuse citizens. He requested that the City initiate an- independent investigation and that the U. S. Department of Justice also investigate the matter. TRAFFIC: Mr. Don Bouldin, 2114 Berkley Avenue, S. W., commended the City of Roanoke on traffic calming measures on Grandin Road; however, he noted that no space is allocated for handicapped parking, other than in the vicinity of a local restaurant and the theater. He called attention to four spaces in front of the drug store that would provide a good location for handicapped parking. He also called attention to a dangerous traffic situation at the stop sign when attempting to turn leJt onto Grandin Road, where visibility is obstructed due to the curb extension. He further called attention to the traffic light at Grandin Road and Memorial Avenue, as vehicles turn left onto Grandin Road, the light changes at the same time for a right turn from Grandin Road onto Memorial Avenue, which creates the potential of a traffic accident, particularly between 3:00 - 3:15 p.m., at the close of the school day. 463 CITY COUNCIL: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29'h Street, N. W., spoke with regard to ethics, morals and the obligations of elected officials to the citizenry of Roanoke. POLICE DEPARTMENT: Mr. Tony C. Hairston, 121)3 Tayloe Avenue, S. E., spoke with regard to alleged police brutality. He stated that the City of Roanoke and the nation, in general, have declined over the past ten years; and America has become a nation of onlookers, where violence is seen but not addressed, and a nation where drugs are present, but only those who are oppressed by drugs are arrested. He added that Victory Stadium should be renovated for use by all of the citizens of Roanoke. ARMORY/STADIUM-SCHOOLS: . Mr. Winfred C. Noell, 2743 Northview Drive, S. W., advised that as he listened to the comments made by students earlier in the Council meeting, they referred to various physical reasons for supporting stadia at the two high schools; however, if Victory Stadium is renovated, all of their concerns would be addressed. Also, he noted that certain things could be done through renovation of Victory Stadium that would increase school identity. He advised that numerous comments were made by various speakers that stadiums in the neighborhoods surrounding Patrick Henry High School and William Fleming High School would be an asset, therefore, citizens residing in northeast and southeast Roanoke might be inclined to make the same request. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:. NONE. There being no further business, the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess to be reconvened on Thursday, November 10, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., at The Hotel Roanoke and Conference Center, 110 Shenandoah Avenue, N. E., City of Roanoke, Virginia, for the Regional Legislative Dinner. (Inasmuch as a quorum of the Council was not present, no minutes of the Regional Legislative meeting were recorded.) APPROVED AT", ! P ~ Mary F. Parker City Clerk e,W~~ C. Nelson Harris Mayor 464 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL November 21,2005 12:00 p.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, November 21, 2005, at 12:00 p.m., in the Emergency Operations Center Conference Room, Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris 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 pursuant to Resolution No. 37109-070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005, and Resolution No. 37238-110705 adopted by the Council on Monday, November 7,2005. PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T.Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L McDaniel, M. Rupert Cutler and Mayor C. Nelson Hélrris---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------·--15. . ABSENT: Council Member Brian J. Wishneff ___n________.nn..___nn_______m___nl . The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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: Congressman Bob Goodlatte; Peter Larkin, District Director for Congressman Goodlatte; Troy A. Harmon,. Municipal Auditor; Mary F. Parker, City Clerk; Stephanie M. Moon, Deputy City Clerk; Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development; Faye T. Gilchrist, Assistant to the City Manager; and Larry Brown, Public Information Officer. The Mayor advised that the purpose of the meeting was to meet with Congressman Bob Goodlatte to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern to the City of Roanoke. The City Manager introduced Faye Gilchrist, Assistant to the City Manager, who previously served élS Accreditation Coordinator in the Police Department; prior to becoming a City employee, she worked for the Department of Juvenile Justice; and she holds a bachelor's degree in Psychology from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 465 COUNCIL-LEGISLATION: On behalf of the Members of Council, the Mayor welcomed Congressman Goodlatte and Mr. Larkin to the meeting, and expressed appreciation for Congressman Goodlatte's assistance in connection with the City's flood reduction project. The following is a summary of Congressman Goodlatte's remarks: · He will continue to monitor developments related to Interstate 73 ($2.2 million in transportation equity and right- of-way acquisition). · He will continue to monitor the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project, including funding and greenway components (total of $1 0 million secured). · He will continue to monitor all developments related to improvements to Interstate 81 ($141.5 million in surface transportation reauthorization for improvements, and $900,000.00 in Transportation Equity Act funding for variable message boards. · He will continue to monitor developments with regard to keeping the Social Security Administration offices in downtown Roanoke. · $418,000.00 was included in the Transportation Equity Act for the Virginia Railway Station. · $208,000.00 was included in the Transportation Equity Act for the Commonwealth Coach and Trolley Museum. · $208,000.00 was included in the Transportation Equity Act for the Roanoke Passenger Station. · He will continue to monitor the Heartland Corridor Project, particularly as it relates to a possible Roanoke Valley Intermodal Facility ($130 million in surface transportation reauthorization for corridor, and $200,000.00 in the Transportation Equity Act for an intermodal facility). · He supported the City's successful application for Justice Department "COPS: funds for an interoperable communications system with localities in the region ($81)1),000.00 grant). 466 . He will continue to be available with regard to any opportunity to promote the qualities of the Roanoke area for the purpose of economic development. With regard to eminent domain, Congressman Goodlatte advised that he will introduce legislation that will address the Supreme Court's decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, which is a controversial court decision. He added that the bill will discourage state and local governments from invoking eminent domain power to obtain private property for private commercial development. Congressman Goodlatte stated that several members of the Congress are concerned about the Supreme Court's decision, as well as some earlier Supreme Court rulings, because the decision gave local governments broad power to seize property under the guise of "economic development" to generate tax revenue, and the decision threatened every home, business, farm· or other private land. He further stated that traditional uses of eminent domain by local and state governments are completely preserved, such as schools, roads, buildings, etc.; and most modern uses where local government contracts with a private entity are acceptable as long as the uses are for public purposes, which are clearly defined, and all other public uses are provided for in the Constitution. Since the House Bill has already passed, Congressman Goodlatte stated that any input would be shared with Senators John Warner and George Allen, as well as other Senators who serve on key committees. He added that the intent is not to overturn the Supreme Court decision, but to state that the Supreme Court has ruled, and if localities act under the rights of the Supreme Court, they should be aware that Federal funds could be denied. Council Member Cutler inquired if eminent domain would affect the Western Virginia Water Authority; whereupon, Congressman Goodlatte responded that eminent domain would only affect the Water Authority only if the Authority attempts to do something that is not for public use. Council Member Cutler also inquired about forest service, or aid to farmers that would relate to the City's water quality through grants to farmers or assistance to landowners with respect to protecting forestry land, terrain along streams, or other aspects of watershed conservation that would protect normal water. Congressman Goodlatte advised that the last Farm Bill moved in the direction of providing greater funding for agriculture and civil culture conservation; and it is expected that the next farm bill, which will be written in 2007, will continue to move in the same direction due to the need to provide assistance and to remain competitive internationally. 467 Council Member Dowe inquired about updates with regard to the Blue Ridge Parkway; whereupon, Congressman Goodlatte called attention to several local issues with regard to the Parkway, such as certain efforts at Explore Park which are currently underway. He stated that it should be duly noted that access to Explore Park is on Federal land and Parkway officials will have major input on the character of the land if it is to maintain access. He stated that some of the suggested development ideas are appropriate, and if the spur remains open, he would like to see Explore Park in a better financial condition. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick called attention to the lack of maintenance to the crossover to the Blue Ridge Parkway on Route 220 South toward the Clearbrook area in Roanoke County, and asked if the Department of the Interior plans to paint the bridge in the near future. If not, he inquired if the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County could use its resources to enhance the appearance of the crossover. Congressman Goodlatte advised that he would discuss the matter with Parkway officials and report his findings to Council. Council Member Dowe inquired about the role of the Federal government with regard to art culture in the Roanoke Valley, specifically the Arts Museum, with respect to certain sporting organizations in southwestern Virginia. Congressman Goodlatte advised that he recognizes the importance of having minor league sports in the Roanoke Valley and is willing to be of assistance whenever necessary. With regard to the Arts Museum, Congressman Goodlatte stated that the Federal government has provided financial support through tax credits to support several cultural organizations in the Roanoke Valley throughout the years. He indicated that approximately $3 million in Federal support has been provided for the O. Winston Link Museum and the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau; the Arts Museum has received approximately $1.2 million in Federal funds which is a small percentage of the $40 million project; and he would continue his efforts to support the projects. Congressman Goodlatte stated that the Dumas Center received $500,000.00 in 2004 and will receive another $200,000.00 in Federal funds in 2005, matched with donations by State and local government support. The City Manager called attention to air service at the Roanoke Regional Airport and advised that the City of Roanoke is the only locality or region that has not received a Federal grant for air service, yet the City continues to submit regular applications; and while the City has been fortunate to not lose additional air service, the City recognizes that its competitiveness on the economic development front is limited due to the lack of a low cost air carrier and the right service connections. 468 The City Manager stated that the City is willing to work with government officials regarding the Social Security Administration Office building; and the General Services Administration is seeking a location for the new DEA facility, and certain requirements and restrictions make it impossible to locate the facility in a downtown location in the City of Roanoke. She added that the need for security, given the nation's experience during the past several years is understood, however, it appears that some of the concerns could be considered to be "overkill" in terms of expectations since DEA offices have been located in the downtown area for several years. She explained that downtown locations are important for certain types of activities, such as their proximity to the courts and other law enforcement organizations and agencies that benefit from various forms interaction. Congressman Goodlatte advised that he would investigate the matter and serve as an interface with the DEA on potential locations in the City of Roanoke. With regard to air transportation, he stated that securing a low cost carrier for the Roanoke Valley has been a major challenge, and he is willing to continue to work with the City. There being no further discussion and/or comments by the Members of Council, the Mayor expressed appreciation to Congressman Goodlatte for his efforts on behalf of the City of Roanoke. COMMITTEES-CITY COUNCIL: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to §2.2-3711 (A)(I), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Council Member Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene in Closed Meeting as abovedescribed. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Dowe, Lea, McDaniel and Mayo r H arri s __n_nn_____nn_nu_____nnn_ __n__n_nU_n__nnn__U___ nn_n______n_nn________n__I). NAYS: Non e _____nn_nn___ nnn _nun_nn_ ____n__nn_nU_ _nn_nnU___n_nn_ ______nn_O. (Council Member Wishneff was absent.) CITY COUNCIL: A communication from the City Attorney requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to consult with legal counsel regarding pending litigation where such consultation in open session would adversely affect the City's negotiating or litigating posture, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(7), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. 469 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request of the City Attorney to convene in Closed Meeting as abovedescribed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Dowe, Lea, McDaniel and Mayo r H arri s _n___ __nn__ _n_n_____n_nnn - nnn u__n_n__nnn__nnn noon _n__n_n__n_n_nn____I). NAYS: Non e _nn___n_n_n___nn n__n _nn__ __ _nn___n_n_n __n__ oonnn__oo_nn____n__n_O. (Council Member Wishneff was absent.) At 1:25 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess to be immediately reconvened in Closed Session in the Council's Conference Room, Room 451, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. At 2:05 p.m., the meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room <450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Session just concluded, Vice-Mayor 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 Council Member Lea and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Dowe, Lea, McDaniel and Ma1f()r Hélrris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15. NAYS: Non e -nnnn____n__n___oonnn____n_n_____nn____n_n___nnn_____ _nnn____n_n_O. (Council Member Wishneff was absent.) Council Member Wishneff entered the meeting. OATHS OF OFFICE-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-COMMITTEES: The Mayor advised that the four year term of office of Cheri W. Hartman as a member of the Human Services Advisory Board will expire on November 30, 2005; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Cheri W. Hartman. There being no further nominations, Ms. Hartman was reappointed as a member of the Human Services Advisory Board, for a term of four years ending November 30, 2009, by the following vote: 470 FOR MS. HARTMAN: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Dowe, Lea, McDan iel, Wishneff and Mayor Harris________m___n____m________nm____n___nn__m____nn7. OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE: The Mayor advised that the three year term of office of Robert Williams, Jr., as a member of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors will expire on December 31, 2005; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Robert Williams, Jr. There being no further nominations, Mr. Williams was reappointed as a member of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, for a term of three years ending December 31, 2008, by the following vote: FOR MR. WILLIAMS: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayor Harris__________n_____u________nn____nn___n___nn__m____n7. OATHS OF OFFICE-ZONING-COMMITTEES: The Mayor advised that the three year terms of office of William D. Poe, Diana B. Sheppard and Joseph F. Miller as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals will expire on December 31, 2005; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancies. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the names of William D. Poe, Diana B. Sheppard and Joseph F. Miller. There being no further nominations, Mr. Poe, Ms. Sheppard and Mr. Miller were reappointed as members of the Board of Zoning Appeals, for terms of three years each, ending December 31, 2008, by the following vote: FOR MR. POE, MS. SHEPPARD AND MR. MILLER: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayor Harrisn--mm--------nn--m7. OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMiTTEES-CABLE TELEVISION: The Mayor advised that there is a vacancy on the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee, created by expiration of the term of office of Delvis O. McCadden; whereupon, he opened the floor for nominations to fill the vacancy. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick placed in nomination the name of Carla Terry. There being no further nominations, Ms. Terry was appointed as a member of the Roanoke Valley Regional Cable Television Committee, for a term ending June 30, 2008, by the following vote: FOR MS. TERRY: Council Members Cutler, Fitzpatrick, Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff and Mayor Harrisnnnmuun______________n__________n______n__unn___7. 471 At 2:07 p.m., on Monday, November 21, 2005, the regularly scheduled 2:00 p.m. session of the Council convened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S~ W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding. PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wish neff, M. Rupert Cutler, and Mayor C. Nelson Harris-nn-----n----------,n--n------__________m___nn__n____m______n__n____7. A BS ENT: Non e-n-n___n __nn____nnn__ n_nn _____n_nn __nn__n__ _nnn___n_ _n___nn__ O. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. . 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 Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: DECEASED PERSONS-CITIZEN OF THE YEAR: offered the following resolution memorializing the former 1989 Citizen of the Year: Council Member Dowe late George F. Pollash, (#37239-112105) A RESOLUTION memorializing the late George F. Pollash, a longtime resident of the Roanoke Valley and Citizen of the Year in 1989. . (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 59.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37239- 112105. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle r and Mayor Harri S------m-------m------nmnn----_________m_______m___________nn_mn7. NAYS: Non e n__n__nn__n __nn__nn__n____nnnn___nn_nn__nn_ -___n_nn__nn__n___nO. The Mayor called for a moment of silence in memory of Mr. Pollash and presented a ceremonial copy of the abovereferenced resolution to Mrs. Pollash. 472 VIRGINIA AMATEUR SPORTS/COMMONWEALTH GAMES: Peter Lampman, President, Virginia Amateur Sports, Inc., presented the following report on the economic impact to the City of Roanoke from the Virginia Commonwealth Games and the National AAU 15 Under Baseball Tournament which was hosted by Virginia Amateur Sports on July 29, 2005 - August 5, 2005, including demographics of athletes that participated. He advised that over the past 11) years, approximately 134,000 athletes have competed in the event which has come to be known as Virginia's Olympics. VIRGINIA AMATEUR SPORTS 2004-2005 ECONOMIC IMPACT Tourism in Virginia Tourism is a $ I 3 billion per year industry in Virginia Tourism is a $1 million per day industry in the Roanoke Valley Each dollar spent on tourism marketing returns $4-$6 in tax revenues Commonwealth Games of Virginia I. Number of athletes that stayed overnight 2. Number of spectators that stayed overnight (I :2 ratio) 3. Average length of stay 4. Estimated average daily expenditures 5. Estimated overnight expenditures (I + 2 x 3 x 4) 6. Number of day athletes 7. Number of day spectators (I :2 ratio) 8. Number of day volunteers 9. Estimated average daily expenditures 10. Estimated daily expenditures (6+7 +8 x 9) 11. Estimated total visitor expenditures (10 + 5) 3,521 7,042 2.20 days $]50 $3,485,790 3,34] 6,654 ],200 $30 $335,850 $3,821,640 AAU 15 UNDER NATIONAL BASEBALL TOURNAMENT I. Number of Teams 2. Number ofp]ayers, coaches, spectators 3. Average length of stay 4. Estimated average daily expenditures 5. Estimated total visitor expenditures (1,020 visitors x $]50 daily expenditures x 8 days) 24 ]020 8 days $150 $1,224,000 TOTAL ECONOMIC IMPACT FOR THE COMMONWEALTH GAMES & NATIONAL TOURNAMENT $5,045,640 - 473 2005 Common""ealth Games orVirginia Estimated Regional Distribution I ~~-I Roanoke_lie)': ,",,_to c-,tnll, North: E.." Othes-, Cityo'-Roanoke. Cit)' orS.loom, Roanoke Count)', Vinlon Srlatol,lVI..-.:ln..ville. Nev.> R..iver......lIey Charlon_ville,l...:Ync:hbura, F.-nnville, Staunton VVlnc:h_Ics:r. CulpepeT. Harriaonbura, Nonhern VA , Chell.peake. Norlolk, R.ic:hn1ond, Fredetick..bura, Virainl. Beach DC, !'VID, Nc;. NJ, OH, .PA,TN And VVV 2005 Estimated Age Distribution 45 & Over 7% 25-44 17% 19-24 7% 1- -- , _ 0-18 ¡_19-24 i 0 25-44 I I LIII-1~~º,-,:~!'_ 2005 Estimated Gender Distribution o Female 55.66% . Male 44_34% r'"'ì I.SJ_~J 474 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. MINUTES: Minutes of the regular meetings of Council held on Monday, October 3, 2005, and Monday, October 17, 2005, were before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the reading of the minutes be dispensed with and that the minutes be approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the folloWing vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Mayor Harris__nn___n______m_____________________n___n_un_________n____________n___7. NAYS: Non e nnn__ _un - n_n - _no_on nn - - - nn ___on n_nn n___ - __n_ _nn __nn_ - ___n_nn_nO. COMMITTEES-BLUE RIDGE BEHAVIORAL HEALTHCARE: A communication from S. James Sikkema, Executive Director, Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare, recommending Council's concurrence in the reappointment of Linda H. Bannister as an at-large member of the Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare Board of Directors, for a term commencing January 1, 2001), and ending December 31, 2008, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick recommendation. The motion adopted by the following vote: moved that Council concur in the was seconded by Council Member Dowe and AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle rand Mayo r H arris______nnm_nnn___m_______n_m__n___________________nn__m____nn__7 . NAYS: No n e-n- nnn______ nnn n___n_nnn_______nn__n____ nn__nn - ______nnnn______n_O. COMMITTEES-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: A communication from Sherman V. Burroughs, IV, tendering his resignation as a member of the Fair Housing Board, was before the Council. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council accept the resignation and receive and file the communication. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: 475 AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle r and Mayor Harri s--------------nn---------n-----nn__n___n___________n_________nn______n7 . NAYS: Non e nnn__nn__ _n___ n nnn __nn_ _n_____nn__ __nn ____ nn__ - _n_nn__ _nn_n__n_O . OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-BUILDINGS/BUILDING DEPARTMENT- COMMITTEES-ROANOKE CIVIC CENTER: A report of qualification of the following persons, was before Council: Reginald P. Church as a member of the New Construction Code, Board of Appeals, for a term ending September 30, 2010; and John W. Elliott as a member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission, for a term ending September 30, 2008. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle r an d Mayo r H arri Snn---n------n------------_____________n________m________________________n7 . NAYS: Non e _n_ -- __nn_n___ __nnn n____ _nnn_____nnn_____n_n__. _nnnn__ nnn -n------O. REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: YOUTH-TEEN PREGNANCIES: Brooks Michael, Teen Pregnancy Prevention Coordinator, presented the following information on the Roanoke Teen Pregnancy Prevention Projects. (Virginia Department of Health Teen Pregnancy Prevention Project (TPPP).) · Health Teen Pregnancy Prevention ~ Phase I of the VDH TPPI began in 1993 with the appropriation of $1)00,000.00 in general funds for the purpose of establishing three pilot TPP programs. ~ In 1995, VDH obtained matching Federal dollars, establishing a fund of $1.4 million for an additional four TPPP sites in which Roanoke was one, making a total of seven TPPP sites in Virginia. ~ In 2002-03, the Virginia TPPI lost 38 per cent funding and is now solely funded through TANF. 476 · Roanoke's Success ~ Seven TPPP sites exist in Virginia. Of all seven sites, the Roanoke Health District has experienced the most significant decrease in its teen pregnancy rate, an average of 1).8 per cent decrease per year over the last nine years. ~ The teen pregnancy rate for Roanoke City was 71.8 per 1,000 females in 1991); the 2004 rate is 39.4 per 1,000 females. ~ The decrease from 2003 to 2004 was most significant in that the rates went down almost ten per cent in one year. ~ Roanoke TPPP is the only TPPI site that has consistently evaluated program effectiveness which is due to the .funding and support received by Roanoke City. · The Cost of Teen Pregnancy ~ The effect of teen pregnancy on Roanoke City can be viewed as having health, social and economic consequences that effect the entire community. Teen parents are more likely to: Need public assistance Never complete high school Have fewer employment skills Abuse and/or neglect their children ~ Babies born to teen parents are at greater risk for: Premature birth and low birth weight Birth defects Lower IQ Learning and Emotional Disabilities ~ Nationally, approximately $7 billion are spent on the consequences of teen pregnancy. · Roanoke's Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program ~ For Males Only (FMO) FMO is a curriculum-based program that empowers young males with the knowledge and skills to make responsible decisions. FMO enrolls teenagers ages 12-19, and has been successfully used to educate young men in Roanoke since 1991). Due to the local success of the FMO program, it is now being replicated in Norfolk, Virginia. The program is called Reducing Adolescent Pregnancy and is housed within the Norfolk Health Department. 477 98 per cent of participants were not involved in a pregnancy in 2004-2005. Participants were unanimous in feeling that the program should be expanded so that all male students could participate. ~ Teen Outreach Program (TOP) 'TOP is a nationally recognized model for providing a youth development approach to teen pregnancy prevention, highlighted as one of the most effective programs in the U. S. for teen pregnancy prevention by Dr. Douglas Kirby (Emergency Answers, Dr. D. Kirby 2001). TOP is implemented in both schools and in after-school programs. TOP focuses on broader reasons why teens get pregnant or the cause of pregnancy such as disadvantaged families and communities, detachment from school, and lack of close relationships with parents or other caring adults. Research suggests that teens who are doing well in school and have educational and career plans for the future are less likely to get pregnant or cause pregnancy. 98 per cent of participants were not involved in a pregnancy in 2004-2005. ~ Roanoke Adolescent Health Partnership (RAHP) RAHP provides access to health care and health education with the goal to reduce risk-taking behavior among Roanoke City teens. RAHP provides comprehensive health care for teens including child care, family planning, immunizations, health education, sexually transmitted disease, and triage/walk-in services. These services are provided at two high school campuses and one'school linked facility. In 2004-2005, RAHP teen encounters totaled 5,291. 95.7 per cent of RAHP's family planning patients remained free of pregnancy. DATA COMPARISON 2003 and 2004 Teen Pregnancy Rates per 1000 Females by Age Commonwealth of Virginia Rate: 2002 - 27.6 2003 - 27.4 2004 - 21).5 478 Roanoke City 2002 2003 2004 Overall: 54.5 48.9 39.4 Ane> 15: 2.3 2 1.3 Aae 15-17: 58.9 51.9 42.7 Aae 18-19: 245.9 216.7 168.8 Roanoke County 2002 2003 2004 Overall: 26.3 25.9 30.6 Ane> 15: 2.4 2.4 1.7 Aae 15-17: 27.7 27.5 30.9 Aae 18-19: 84.7 83.6 101.2 In response to questions raised by Council Members, Ms. Michael advised that Roanoke City's rate for teen pregnancies is 39.4 per thousand compared to 21).5 for the Commonwealth of Virginia; the City of Roanoke ranked number one out of approximately 1 30 cities and counties ten years ago and currently ranks 24'h; there is some interaction with Roanoke City Public Schools through health clinics at Patrick Henry High School, William Fleming High School and William Ruffner Middle School, and the Teen Outreach Program; the For Males Only program specifically focuses on boys at eight school sites and is a curriculum based program, which involves an adult male who talks with males between the ages of 12 to 19 with regard to making responsible decisions and self esteem issues and the program has proven to be successful. Erica Witt, Youth Co-chair, Roanoke Area Youth Substance Abuse Coalition, Youth Vice-President for Community Voters Network of Virginia and Director of the Network Neighborhood Youth Office at Villages at Lincoln, reiterated that data indicates that youth in Roanoke City are involved in a series of risky behavior at alarming rates. She stated that her experience as a teen in Roanoke is that life can be dangerous and violent at times which can be witnessed at certain social events where teens engage in drugs and alcohol use and a party can rapidly erupt into violence when a peer arrives with a weapon and/or displays gang symbols. She called attention to the need for community involvement and advised that the community can help to build resilient youth through individual mentors hip, community leaders can think first about youth when making decisions that affect all citizens, and any investment made by community leaders will create healthy youth development and lasting positive effects on the economy, on citizens and most importantly on the future of Roanoke's youth. 479 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick commended Ms. Michael on the quality of information contained in the report. He stated that teen pregnancy is not just a Roanoke City problem, but a regional, state and national problem, and asked that Council be kept informed of any actions that need to be taken and the time frame in which actions should be addressed. Council Member Cutler concurred in the Vice-Mayor's remarks. He inquired if there is a plan of action with regard to what City Government and the School system can do to address the issue so that a specific set of statements can be developed that will become a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan and implemented by various divisions of City Government. Ms. Michael responded that the Teen Pregnancy Council will continue to work with the City's Youth Planner and the Youth Commission on the youth portion of the Comprehensive Plan and through this process it is hoped that some of the more specific aspects of the data will be included. Council Member Lea asked Ms. Witt to respond as to what the School Board could do that it is not currently being done to help resolve some of the school-related issues. Ms. Witt responded that more programs are needed that will draw young people away from selling and using drugs and committing crimes. Mr. Lea called attention to the future Council/School Board Retreat scheduled to be held on Tuesday, January 2, 2001), and asked that the City Clerk communicate to the Clerk of the School Board a request for information regarding the use of drug dogs, in general, in the schools, how often are inspections held, are inspections announced or unannounced, etc. He concurred in the remarks of the Vice-Mayor that issues addressed by Ms. Michael are not just Roanoke City related, but regional in nature and it is hoped that the City will do everything possible to ensure a drug free environment in the City's educational system. Council Member Dowe advised that the key is to listen to what Roanoke's youth are saying. He stated that the City of Roanoke's problems are not unlike those that other cities experience. He commended· Roanoke's Youth Commission and advised that the youth component of the Comprehensive Plan and how the plan integrates into the City's Comprehensive Plan will be of monumental proportions. Council Member Wishneff expressed appreciation to Ms. Michael for the quality of information contained in the report. He referred to $200,000.00 identified in the report for a Teen Pregnancy Prevention Program and inquired if the matter should be referred to the Council's 2007 budget study for consideration. The City Manager advised that the item speaks to allocation of funds for a biannual survey and the issue of funding prevention programs will be best addressed in the Council's 2007 budget deliberations. She stated that 480 young people, led by a consultant, will identify specific youth needs and programs and the information could be used as a guiding element in the allocation of funds. She stated that the City may not be able to allocate $200,000.00 in the first year, but could begin to look at youth prevention programs as an element of the City's annual budget process in much the same way that other elements of the Comprehensive Plan are used in an incremental approach, recognizing that when the Council deliberates the City's fiscal year budg'et, there will be numerous competing interests. Council Member McDaniel advised that charts provided with the report contain averages of 10th and 12th grade students and I)'h and 8'h grade students, and inquired if the information could be broken down in order to review each year's responses as students grow older; whereupon, Ms. Michael responded in the affirmative. Council Member McDaniel pointed out that the information contained in the report is serious in nature and it is hoped that all persons who are concerned about saving Victory Stadium will realize that what needs to be saved is Roanoke's youth, and the City of Roanoke has many important issues that should be addressed. Ms. Michael advised that the Roanoke Pregnancy Prevention Planning Team would like to play an advisory role in the City's youth comprehensive planning process; and other Roanoke Valley jurisdictions have compiled similar youth risk data and surveys which will be included in a valley-wide report. The Mayor expressed appreciation to Ms. Michael for an informative briefing. COMMUNITY PLANNING: Dr. Mindy T. Fullilove, a professor of clinical psychiatry and public health at Columbia University, advised that for the past 13 years she has studied health problems related to the collapse of communities, and her research led to the publication of Root Shock: How Tearing Up City Neighborhoods Hurts America and What We Can Do About It in June 2004. She further advised that the book featured the story of urban renewal in the City of Roanoke as was related by local residents during her visits to the City between the period of 1995 and 2003; and based on her knowledge of Roanoke and her visits to many other cities, the current proposal to construct a Social Security Building on Henry Street runs against the evolving "best practice" for the following reasons: 1. Civic injuries require recognition and repair. 2. Repair requires the engagement of local residents with the planning process. 3. Repair requires reconnection of City parts. 481 She stated that the abovereferenced points argue against constructing the Social Security Building on Henry Street; other cities are building squares, cultural centers and other institutiòns that recognize the way of life that was destroyed by urban renewal and the current development of Henry Street is in that vein; the Social Security building will take up a great deal of space and detract from the sense of the area as a vibrant place that belongs to its neighborhood; the Social Security building dòes not have the support of area residents, nor do residents believe that they have been included in the process; the imposition of such a building on a neighborhood is a continuation of urban renewal, rather than a break with its destructive policies; the building will add to the impoverishment, ill health and alienation that were engendered by urban renewal; because of security requirements, the new building will impede the reconnection of the area to downtown Roanoke, which will ultimately undermine the vital flow that is needed to make downtown the bustling and attractive locale that it should be. Dr. Fullilove advised that Roanoke has excellent features: a beautiful river, lovely downtown buildings, a town square, a historic stadium, and lovely parks; comprehensive, community-led planning can protect this great heritage and allow Roanoke to fulfill its potential as one of the most beautiful cities in America and the placement of the Social Security building is a key decision; careful placement of the building in a location that meets security standards and supports the vitality of neighborhoòds and downtown will be a great boon to the City of Roanoke; incorrec:t placement of the building - on Henry Street for example - would undermine and impede' the City's well-being; and the Gainsboro area is not the right location for the building, but with input by the citizens of the City of Roanoke, the right location can be found. With regard to the Gainsboro neighborhood, a question was raised as to how "past ails" could be corrected; whereupon, Dr. Fullilove recommended a process of dialogue among planners, politicians, community residents and outside entities. She stated that the City of Roanoke has great institutions of higher education; Roanoke has many treasures, but those treasures are not tightly knit, therefore, understanding what Roanoke's unique treasures are and linking them together, which involves a process of bringing in planners and urban designers will, over a period of time, set the City in the right direction. In additièn to the City Planning Department, she added that outsiders can be stimulating to help the City think in other directions, because local people tend to focus on local visions. Dr. Fullilove advised that the following are key components to Gainsboro: the recognition that a mistake was made, inclusion by the City of the citizens of Gainsboro, and the opening of roads that will connect the Gainsboro community to the rest of the City. She stated that the widening of Wells Avenue 482 and Gainsboro Road has created a kind of thoroughfare which is not attractive to walking; grassy knolls exist on the side of Gainsboro Road but no houses face the street, therefore, the appearance is given of being in a kind of grassy tunnel that is not attractive to pedestrians for walking. Question was raised with regard to the future Social Security building on Henry Street, and what can be done to recapture the historic character of the area;~ whereupon, Dr. Fullilove advised that there is time. to pause and reflect on whether Henry Street is the right location for the Social Security building; and if the Social Security building is constructed, the real question becomes how to convince the people of Gainsboro that the City cares about them, or about their neighborhood. She referred to the widening of Wells Avenue and Gainsboro Road, and construction of the Coca-Cola Bottling Plant, all of which were projects that were imposed on the neighborhood and have not strengthened the neighborhood, therefore, there is a long history of urban renewal and the Social Security Administration Office building will become yet another example of urban renewal in the burden of history. She added that scholars who study these types of issues point out that if the policy is not broken by policy makers, injuries of the past will continue; therefore, construction of the Social Security building on Henry Street will deepen the crisis experienced by the City that was previously created by urban renewal. Question was raised as to whether the structure itself or what goes on inside of a building helps to create synergy; whereupon, Dr. Fullilove advised that a building cannot be separated from what goes on inside and some buildings do more to help a neighborhood than others; and the issue with the Social Security building is that for Homeland Security reasons, the structure must occupy a considerable amount of space, and the building will alter traffic flow. She stated that if the City is trying to create a village center, a single building that will occupy an enormous amount of space is .not the right way to go, and it would be preferable to construct smaller size buildings that will house a variety of uses as did Henry Street in the past. She added that there are issues with the scale of the building and security problems that go hand in hand with a Social Security building, therefore, the question becomes, where to locate sufficient space to construct the building. Secondly, she advised that there is already a fragile connection of Henry Street to downtown Roanoke; the Social Security building will disturb movement around Henry Street, and the connection of downtown Roanoke to Gainsboro will also be disturbed to the extent that Gainsboro will not play the role that it should in terms of supporting The Hotel Roanoke Conference Center and the downtown Roanoke area, therefore, the type of buildings that are constructed are critical to the Gainsboro community. She advised that as a visitor to the hotel proper, there is 483 no inviting place to walk from The Hotel Roanoke; if the Gainsboro area were re-animated as a small village center offering various types of shopping experiences, the Hotel would become a much more exciting place for visitors and would attract more visitors to the area by creating a kind of triangle with downtown Roanoke to the Farmers' Market. She stated that the Social Security building does nothing for the City in the proposed location on Henry Street, but whereas the building, if constructed in another location in the City of Roanoke, could help to energize the City. Question was raised if the Social Security building is not constructed on the site, would it be preferable to leave the site undeveloped. Dr. Fullilove responded that the answer to the question is not inactivity, but slow activity. She stated that the City is proceeding in the right direction with. the new apartments in the Norfolk Southern building, the Roanoke Higher Education Center, the culinary school and the Hotel Dumas, but the City should not plunge in another direction because of a need to fix the problem, or the mindset that buildings need to be constructed on the land. She encouraged the City of Roanoke to turn in a different direction from those urban renewal policies that wrecked the nation's cities many years ago toward the kind of organic development that is currently taking place in the City of Roanoke. Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., extended heartfelt appreciation to Dr. Fullilove for her explanation as to why residents of Gainsboro are opposed to construction of the Social Security Office building on Henry Street. She stated that there are other locations within the City of Roanoke where the building would be better suited to serve the needs of 80 per cent of its clients who do not reside in the City of Roanoke. She added that Dr. Fullilove clearly explained the importance of Henry Street, not only to the Gainsboro community, but to the City as a whole; and if the Social Security Office building is constructed on Henry Street, streets will be closed, the building will be dark from Friday at 5:00 p.m., until Monday at 9:00 a.m., thus creating an imposing structure on Henry Street. She stated that Dr. Fullilove clearly explained why there is not an atmosphere conducive to walking in the Gainsboro area, because who would want to go past a building that takes up an entire street and alters traffic patterns, or visit the Dumas Hotel for entertainment, or walk past such an imposing structure to reach the Higher Education Center or the culinary school. For the above reasons, she asked that Council give further consideration to constructing the Social Security Administration Office building at another location. There being no further questions or discussions, on behalf of the Council, the Mayor expressed appreciation to Dr. Fullilove for her presentation and presented her with a Roanoke Star paperweight. 484 BUDGET-CLERK OF COURTS: A communication from the Clerk of the Circuit Court advising that the Clerk is responsible, by statute, for the recordation of legal documents which include land records, marriage licenses, financing statements, assumed names, wills and other probate records, and Law, Chancery and Criminal orders; and the records must be maintained and available to the public, was before Council. It was further advised that the Library of Virginia has awarded a grant, through the Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation Program, for funds to have certain original paper Court records converted to both digital images and preservation microfilm; these records consist of indexes including, but not limited to deeds, orders, marriages and wills; records have no security backup at this time; and acceptance of the above referenced funds is vital to the Circuit Court Clerk's Office meeting mandated statutes. The Clerk of Circuit Court recommended that she be authorized to execute. the required grant agreement and any related documents, such agreement to be approved as to form by the City Attorney, to accept funds from the Library of Virginia in the amount of $21),980.00; and that Council adopt a budget ordinance appropriating $21),980.00 and establish a corresponding revenue estimate in the same amount in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund. A communication fror:n the City Manager concurring in the recommendation of the Clerk of Circuit Court, was also before the Council. Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance: (#37242-112105) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation Program Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 1)3.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37242- 112105. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle r and Mayo r Harris_n___n_u_______________________u____n___n___n___________________________n7. NAYS: Non e __n_UU_ n_nn_____ - _nnn _n__n n noon __n__nn - __nnn_ - _00_ nnn__nn___nnO. Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution: 485 (#37243-112105) A RESOLUTION authorizing acceptance of funds from the Library of Virginia through the Virginia Circuit Court Records Preservation Program to the Clerk of the Circuit Court to provide for converting certain original paper Court records to both digital images and preservation microfilm, and authorizing the Clerk of the Circuit Court to execute any and all necessary documents to comply with the terms and conditions of such grant. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 1)3.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37243- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cut Ie r and Mayo r Harri Sn--m---n--n-------_m___n_______n___n_________n_n_-__m______________7 . NAYS: Non e nnn ____n__ n__n nnn__ __nn - _n_ __"_nn ___n_ nn____n n_n ___n_ _n___ nn__ ---0. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: NONE. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET-GRANTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Office of Community Oriented PoliCing Services (COPS), under the U. S. Department of Justice, has awarded the City of Roanoke $81)1),570.00 from the COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Program; funds are awarded to successful applicants for activities which improve interoperable communications technology in Virginia; and a local match, in the amount of $288,857.00, is required and will be provided by the City's project partner, the Virginia State Police. It was further advised that during the last decade, the Roanoke Metropolitan Service Area's (RMSA) governmental partners and public safety agency stakeholders worked to establish and improve interoperability throughout the region to better respond to emergency events, coordinate safety services at incident sites, build cooperative relationships among first responders, expand channels of communication, and prevent terrorist related attacks; however, there are still several areas within the RMSA where communication remains a problem; Craig, Botetourt, and Franklin Counties and the City of Salem are unable to communicate with the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County, even though only a few miles separate the agencies; and the RMSA consists of the following counties and cities (total population of approximately 301,000): 486 Botetourt County City of Roanoke City of Salem Craig County (31,777) (95,31)2) (24,347) ( 5,139) Franklin County Roanoke County Town of Vinton (49,541) (87,1)79) ( 7;782) It was explained that the City of Roanoke was awarded grant funding and will serve as lead agency for implementation of a proposed MOTOBRIDGE IP technology project, which will allow continuous interoperable communications and data sharing in real time by all governmental and public safety agencies in the RMSA; and proposed MOTOBRIDGE IP technology will also support other regions of the state through mutual aid in the event of a major emergency (flooding, hurricanes and other natural disasters) and/or a terrorist incident in New York, Washington, D. c., or other population centers including the City of Roanoke or other Virginia cities, such as Richmond and Lynchburg. The City Manager advised that the existing Statewide Agencies Radio System (STARS) network design for Virginia provides a single Radio Frequency (RF) dispatcher-to-dispatcher patch to each of the counties and independent cities of Virginia (coordinated by the Virginia State Police); the STARS network was originally intended to provide statewide interoperability for local government as the State/Virginia State Police completed the network throughout all seven divisions including Division I) (includes the City of Roanoke, Roanoke County and other public safety agencies in the RMSA); however, with the advent of the new "MOTOBRIDGE IP" technology, a new strategy was adopted by Virginia to achieve regional and statewide communications interoperability; MOTOBRIDGE IP technology will be interfaced with the original STARS radio network, and MOTOBRIDGE IP equipment and software will essentially replace the existing RF system, thereby providing true interoperability; operation of the MOTOBRIDGE IP system, which will be completed by December 2001), will provide maximum mU,lti-jurisdictional and multi-disciplinary connectivity, allowing for communications at the local, regional, state and federal levels and for future scalability; technology will also allow participating jurisdictions to communicate on the State's emergency communications network regardless of equipment and bandwidth used by the individual agency; and equipment purchased through the grant will allow cooperating agencies in the RMSA to purchase the necessary MOTOBRIDGE IP equipment modules to enable public safety agencies in the region full access to the proposed system's capabilities. It was further advised that the proposed project will be implemented in conjunction with the statewide implementation plan; first phase state implementation will be completed in December 2001); and proposed implementation for the RMSA will begin in January 2001), to be completed in December 2001). 487 The City Manager recommended that Council accept the COPS Interoperability Communications Technology Grant and that she be authorized to execute grant agreements and any related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and that Council adopt a budget ordinance establishing a revenue estimate in the Grant Fund, in the amount of $81)1),570.00, from the U. S. Department of Justice and $288,857.00 from the Virginia State Police, and appropriate funds totaling $1,155,427.00 in accounts to be' established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund, as follows: DescriPtion Obiect Code Amount Fees for Professional Services Expendable Equipment Training & Development Furniture & Equipment Other Equipment 2010 2035 2044 9005 9015 $ 271),1)04.00 54,994.00 33,750.00 254,889.00 535.190.00 $1,155,427.00 Total Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: (#37244-112105) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia and Federal governments for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Interoperable Communications Technology Program Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 1)4.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37244- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Mayor Harris---n---------------------n----------n---___n_________n_____________nm____7. NAYS: Non e-n-n______nn_____nnn____nnn______n_n_____nn_n_____ -nn.___n_nn___nn.O. Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#37245-112105) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a COPS Interoperable Communications Technology Grant from the U. S. Department of Justice, and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 1)5.) 488 Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37245- 112105. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, C utle r and Mayo r Harri Sn_________n____m_____________________n__________nn______________mmnn7 . NAYS: Non e __nn nnn __n__ nnn _n___ n_nn _n___n nnn n__n nn_nnn__n__nn_n___'____O. POLICE DEPARTMENT-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; and DMV offers the funds to successful applicants for activities which improve highway safety in Virginia. It was further advised that the Roanoke Police Department was awarded grant funding in the amount of $10,000.00 for overtime and related FICA expenditures associated with conducting selective enforcement activities which target speeding and motor vehicle occupant safety; and the grant period is from October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2001). It was explained that in a separate award, the Roanoke Police Department was granted funding in the amount of $15,000.00 to be used for overtime and related FICA expenditures associated with conducting enforcement activities which target Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and equipment purchases to enhance investigative abilities toward the crimes; and the grant period extends from October 1, 2005 through September 30, 2001). The City Manager stated that there is a statistical 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 programs will allow police officers to concentrate on alcohol impaired drivers and speeders at those times when such violations are most likely to occur. The City Manager recommended that Council accept the Occupant Protection/Safety Restraint Grant and the Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement Grant and that she be authorized to execute grant agreements and any related documents, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and that Council adopt a budget ordinance appropriating funds totaling $25,000.00, as follows, and establish corresponding revenue estimates in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund: 489 Occupant Protection/Safetv Restraint Grant: Overtime FICA $9,290.00 710.00 Enhanced Impaired Drivino Enforcement Grant: Overtime $11,148.00 ' FICA 852.00 Expendable Equipment 3,000.00 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37241)-112105) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding from the Commonwealth of Virginia for the Occupant Protection/Safety Restraint and Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement Grants, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 1)1).) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37241)- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, C utle r an d Mayor Harri s---n-m-n--------------___m________n_________mn____n.n______nn_______7 . NAYS: Non e ---nnnn_.nnnn___n_n_nn__n_nn____,n_n___n__nnn___n_nnn nn_nn__nO. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37247-112105) A RESOLUTION accepting the Occupant Protection/Safety Restraint and Enhanced Impaired Driving Enforcement Grant offer made to the City by the U. S. Department of Transportation and authorizing execution of any required documentation on behalf of the City. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 1)7.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37247- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: 490 AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle r and Mayo r H arris____n_________________u______nn___u___n________nn___nn____n____nn___7 . NAYS: Non e nu _nn_ nnn ___on nnn _n_U - nnn nnu ..nn n nn n__ n - nn_n___n nn__n__ - O. BUDGET-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-GRANTS-FDETC: 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 Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig, Franklin and Roanoke, and the Cities of Covington, Roanoke, and Salem; and WIA funding is intended for four primary client populations: · 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 $101),889.00 for the Adult Program which serves economically disadvantaged adults and $87,1)88.00 for the Dislocated Worker Program which serves workers laid off from employment through no fault of their own for Program Year 2005 Ouly 1, 2005 - June 30, 2007); and ten per cent of the aforementioned totals are to be allocated to the administrative function of the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board. It was noted that existing activities will continue and planned programs will be implemented; and funds are available from the Grantor agency and other sources as indicated, at no additional cost to the City. The City Manager recommended that Council accept Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act funding in the amount of $194,577.00 for Program Year 2005; and adopt a budget ordinance appropriating Workforce Investment Act funds in accounts to be established by the Director of Finance and establishing corresponding revenue estimates in the Grant Fund. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: 491 (#37248-112105) AN ORDINANCE appropriating funding for the FYOI) Workforce Investment Act Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 1)8.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37248- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler. In response to previous questions raised by Council Members with regard to diversity issues applicable to the Workforce Development Board of Directors, the City Manager advised that requests have been made of two jurisdictions to nominate persons to the Board that would lead to improved diversity of the organization and the Workforce Development Board. There being no further questions or comments, Ordinance No. 37248- 112105 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Mayor Harris-n--------m--------mnn---m___________n_______u_____n______________m 7. NAYS: Non e____nnn ------ _nn_ ____n__n__ - _nnn_ ____nnnn___n_nn_n__ __nn ___n_ -nn__O. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37249-112105) A RESOLUTION accepting the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act funding of $194,577.00 for Program Year 2005 and authorizing the City Manager to exeCute the requisite documents necessary to accept the funding. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 1)9.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37249- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick,Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle rand Mayo r H arri s----------------------m------nm-nn---___n__________________n___n__n___7. NAYS: Non e----nnn____n________n_n___nn_____n_nn___nn __n___n_ _n____n__ ---n-n_____O. POLICE DEPARTMENT-CITY CODE: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that as a part of the overall effort toward increasing the quality of life for Roanoke residents, the Police Department has initiated numerous investigations into prostitution and related crimes; Section 15.2- 908.1, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended, enables the City to adopt an 492 ordinance to address the abatement of bawdy places; bawdy places are difficult to regulate largely due to the fact that these locations are most often inside and on private property; the Police Department's ability to combat these situations will be enhanced by adopting an ordinance that allows the City to require the owner to take corrective action; and if the property owner fails to take corrective action, the City may commence action to abate the bawdy place. . The City Manager recommended that Council, as permitted under Section 15.2-908.1, Code of Virginia, adopt an ordinance amending and re-ordaining the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by adding a new Article IX, "Abating Bawdy Places," to Chapter 21, "Offenses - Miscellaneous". She advised that recommended revisions will strengthen the City's ability to compel private property owners to abate the situations of bawdiness, or face possible corrective action by the City to abate the bawdy places. Council Member Cutler offered the following o.rdinance: (#37250-112105) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by adding a new Article IX, AbatinQ Bawdv Places to Chapter 21, Offenses - Miscellaneous. and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 70.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37250- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel. Mr. Robert N. Richert, 415 Allison Avenue, S. W., advised that the triple crown of inner city social challenges include alcohol, illegal drug sales and consumption, and prostitution; and Old Southwest has a good handle on the issue of alcohol and is currently working with the Police· Department on the issue of drug sales. However, he stated that the prostitution issue, which seems to defy control in that it moves from one location to another never disappears. He added that Old Southwest is in favor of holding property owners, who are frequently absentee property owners, responsible for harboring this type of activity, and asked that Coundl give favorable consideration to adoption of the proposed ordinance. There being no further questions or comments, Ordinance No. 37250- 112105 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cut Ie r an d Mayo r H arri s ___nnnn_______m__________m___n___n__ n______n____n___n____________n7 . NAYS: None _nnn_ n__nn __nnnn__ nn_nn____n__ nnn___nnnnn__nnnn___nn_ -n-n-O. 493 BUDGET-ROANOKE PASSENGER STATION RENOVATION PROJECT: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the O. Winston Link Museum of the History Museum & Historical Society of Western Virginia received notification in 2004 that an application for Transportation Enhancement funds through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21" Century (TEA-21) for the open storage component of the O. Winston Link Museum was approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board in the amount of $55,000.00; funds will be used to support design and construction of the Museum's open storage component, refurbishment of authentic station benches, and restoration and installation of N&W Passenger Station signs; the City of Roanoke must enter into separate agreements with the Museum and the Virginia Department of Transportation (V DOT) to define responsibilities of each party; authority for all agreements for the project was previously authorized by Council's <;Iction on October 17, 2005 (Resolution No. 37227-101705); the Museum would be responsible for the match requirement of $13,750.00; and the $55,000.00 of TEA-21 Enhancement funds needs to be appropriated (to be reimbursed by VDOT) to a new project account for disbursement to the Museum. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance appropriating $55,000.00 of TEA-21 Enhancement funds to an account to be established by the Director of Finance entitled, "0. Winston Link Museum Open Storage'! and establish a corresponding revenue estimate in the same amount for State reimbursement through the TEA-21 program in the Capital Projects Fund. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37251-112105) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate TEA-21 Enhancement Grant funding to be provided by VDOT for the O. Winston Link Museum, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text'of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 73.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37251- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Cutler and Mayo r H arri s ___un_n____ __nn___n_nn____n_n_n___nn___u_n_nn_ Unn_n___n_n_______nn_ ____nl). NAYS: Non e ___n_n______ _n____n_n_______n_n_____nnn____n_nn_ - _nnnn___nn__ _n_ nn-O. (Council Member Wishneff abstained from voting.) 494 BUDGET-STATE HIGHWAYS-TOTAL ACTION AGAINST POVERTY: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Total Action Against Poverty (TAP) received notification that it would receive additional Transportation Enhancement funds for the Hotel Dumas Artistic and Cultural Center project, in the amount of $40,000.00, which is in addition to the $150,000.00 in Enhancement funds that were approved in 2003, bringing the total to $190,000.00; the City of Roanoke must enter into separate amended agreements with TAP and the Virginia Department of Transportation (V DOT) to define the responsibilities of each party; authority for all project agreements was previously authorized by Council's action on June 21, 2004 (Resolution No. %734-01)2104); Total Action Against Poverty would be responsible for the match requirement of $10,000.00; and the $40,000.00 of Transportation Enhancement funds needs to be appropriated (to be reimbursed by VDOT) to Project Account No. 008-530-9825-9007 for disbursement to TAP. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a budget ordinance increasing the Dumas Center TEA-21 revenue estimate, Account No. 008-530- 9825-9801), in the amount of $40,000.00 and appropriating funds in the same amount to the Hotel Dumas Artistic and Cultural Center project, Account No. 008-530-9825-9007, for disbursement to TAP. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37252-112105) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate additional TEA-21 Enhancement Grant funding to be provided by VDOT for the Dumas Artistic and Cultural Center Project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005- 2001) Capital Projects Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 74.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37252- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the follOWing vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Mayor Harris__n____m____n___nn_m___________m____nm_____________m_____nnm__7. NAYS: No n e_nnnn_ ._n__ nnn __nn nnn__n_n__nn_n.__ nn_" _n__nnnnn____n_nnnnO. POLICE DEPARTMENT-BUDGET: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that in 1991, the Virginia General Assembly passed State legislation allowing local law enforcement to seize and have forfeited property connected with illegal narcotics distribution; the law also makes it possible for police departments to receive proceeds from forfeited properties; application for an equitable share of property seized by local law enforcement must be made to the Department of Criminal Justice Services, Forfeited Asset Sharing Program, and certified by the Chief of Police; property, including funds 495 shared with State and local agencies, may be used only for law enforcement purposes; program requirements mandate that funds be placed in an interest bearing account and that interest earned be used in accordance with program guidelines; and revenue totaling $38,807.00 has been collected and is available for appropriation in the Grant Fund, Account Nos. 035-1)40-3302-3299 and 035-1)40- 3302-3300. It was further advised that drug and other undercover investigations extend past the normal work day/period, thus requiring overtime; however, funds for overtime through the General Fund has historically been underfunded for vice operations; and the above referenced State funds will be used to cover overages in overtime expenses for drug and other undercover activities. The City Manager explained that in 1981), Congress authorized the transfer of certain Federally forfeited property to state and local law enforcement agencies that participated in the investigation and seizure of the flroperty; application for an equitable share of property seized by local law enforcement must be made to the U. S. Department of Justice and certified by the City Attorney; the property, including funds shared with state and local agencies, may be used onlv for the purpose stated in the application, I.e., narcotics investigations related to law enforcement; and participation in Federally forfeited property enhances the effectiveness of narcotics investigations by providing necessary investigations equipment, investigative funds, and offsets costs that would otherwise have to be borne by the City's taxpayers. It was advised that the Police Department receives funds periodically from the Federal Government's Asset Sharing program; grant requirements mandate that the funds be placed in an interest bearing account and that interest earned be used in accordance with program guidelines; revenue totaling $951),309.00 has been collected and is available for appropriation in Grant Fund Account Nos. 035-1)40-3304-3305 and 035-1)40-3304-3301); and some intended uses for the Federal funds include: · A & E funds for study of a new Police Academy; · ITT Night Enforcer pocketscope; · Ballistic vests w/trauma plate; . Stinger spike strips; · Riot helmets; · Radar units; · Furniture for police building; and . Other items as needed. The City Manager recommended that Council adopt a budget ordinance increasing Grant Fund revenue estimates and appropriating funds for the State Asset Sharing and Federal Forfeited Property Sharing grants, as follows: 496 Revenues: State Asset Forfeiture - Interest 035-1)40-3302-3299 State Asset Forfeiture 035-1)40-3302-3300 Federal Forfeiture 035-1)40-3304-3305 Federal Forfeiture - Interest 035-1)40-3304-3301) , Appropriations: Overtime Wages FICA Investigations and Rewards Fees for Professional Services Other Equipment 035-1)40-3302-1003 035-1)40-3302-1120 035-1)40-3304-2150 035-1)40-3304-2010 035-1)40-3304-9015 $ 824.00 37,983.00 952,1)21.00 3,1)88.00 $ 31),050.00 2,757.00 783,1)91).00 75,000.00 97,1)13.00 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37253-112105) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the State Asset Sharing Program and Federal Forfeited Property Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Capital Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 75.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37253- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle r and Mayor Harri S_oomnn_______oomm___n_____________________m.n___n____u__m_______n7 . NAYS: Non e __nnnnU____nnn_n________n_nnn_ _____n_nnn____nnn_nn_oo__n_nn_nnO. CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that military leave at full pay is limited to 15 work days per Federal fiscal year for employees of the City of Roanoke who are military reservists or members of the national guard and are called to active duty; Council authorized Special Military Pay on November 5, 2001, and extended the provision annually thereafter to provide supplemental pay for military reservists/national guard called to active duty and service related to the war on terrorism, which action was effective through September 30, 2005, and benefited 15 City employees called from reserves/national guard to active duty; the 15 employees received a total of $21,1)20.21 (during October 1, 2004 thru September 30, 2005) in supplemental pay as a result of Council's action; there are 31 reservists/national guard members in ten departments within the City of Roanoke full time employment; and one reservist was called to duty related to natural disasters in the Gulf States, but was not covered by the special pay. 497 The City Manager recommended that Council approve a special policy to pay military reservists/national guard who are called to active duty between October 1, 2005, and September 30, 2001), the difference between actual military base pay (including any other related compensation received from the military) and pay with the City of Roanoke in their current job; covered employees would be those reservists/national guard members who are called to active duty related to the country's war on terrorism or natural disaster relief, subsequent to the employee's employment with the City of Roanoke; and supplemental pay will be provided upon request and with necessary documentation provided to the Department of Human Resources. Council Member Cutler offered the following resolution: (#372 54-112105) A RESOLUTION authorizing payment of supplementary compensation and restoration of certain benefits to employees who are called te active military duty and serve between October 1, 2005 and September 30, 2001). (For full text of resolution, see Resolution ,Book No. 70, page 71).) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37254- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Mayor Harris------nnmn_---________m________________________________n_________________7. NAYS: Non e _nnn_._ __nn__nn__nnn n___n__n___nnn_____ nnn n___nn__n__ __nn -------0. POLICE DEPARTMENT-ANIMALS/INSECTS: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the SPCA has a need for a vehicle equipped to transport animals; and the Police Department, through the normal vehicle replacement program, is slated to turn in for disposal, upon delivery of a new vehicle, a 1998 Ford pickup equipped as an animal control vehicle that has mileage of over 81),300 and an estimated residual value of $9,200.00. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to donate the vehicle to the SPCA to facilitate the proper continued care of animals seized in the City of Roanoke and surrounding areas. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#372 5 5-112105) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to donate a 1998 Ford pickup truck equipped as an animal control vehicle to the Roanoke Valley Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Inc. (RVSPCA). (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 77.) 498 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37255- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. The City Manager was requested to report on the status of City of Roanoke vehicles that will be donated to Gulfport, Mississippi, Roanoke's sister city that sustained considerable damage as a result of hurricane activity, whereupon she advised that minor repairs have been completed on six vehicles that have been identified from a list of about 20 vehicles that will be provided to the Gulfport area; and transportation arrangements have been finalized. She stated that the firm of Dependable Auto Shippers will complete delivery of the vehicles by Saturday of this week; the City has been in regular contract with the Gulfport community, which at this point has not requested additional manpower assistance, but it is anticipated that at some point in the near future the City will be requested to dispatch employees, primarily in the Building Inspections area, to the Gulfport area for finite periods of time. She advised that Gulfport officials stated that their immediate needs include vehicular equipment, and pursuant to approval by Council, a 1991, 1995 and two 1991) vans, a 2000 Ford sedan, and a 1988 Chevy Blazer, all of which are in good operating condition, will be donated to the Gulfport, Mississippi community. There being no further questions/comments, Resolution No. 37255- 112105 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle r an d Mayo r Harri S__nnn______n___n___n______n__________________n______________nn_________7 . NAYS: Non e uu nnn__ nnn - ___nnn__nn_ _n_ __ __nn nnn nU__ nnn - nnn____n nnnnn -0. SCHOOLS-PARKS AND RECREATION: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that on February 5, 2001, pursuant to Resolution No. 35201-020501, Council authorized an agreement to operate a fitness center at Jackson Middle School for use by the general public, upon certain terms and conditions; Roanoke City Public School's use the fitness room and equipment for physical education classes and sports conditioning; and the Department of Parks and Recreation operates the faCility as a fitness center, open to the public during non-school hours. It was further advised that subsequent to the original agreement, it has been deemed to be in the best interest of both parties to make several minor changes which include, but are not limited to, the term of the agreement, and terms of use; and copy of proposed Amendment No.1, as approved by the School Board on November 8,2005, was submitted for information and review. 499 The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute Amendment No.1 to the Jackson Middle School Fitness Center agreement, such Amendment to be approved as to form by the City Attorney. Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: (#372 51)-112105) A RESOLUTION authorizing the City Manager to execute Amendment No.1 to an agreement dated January 9, 2001, between the Roanoke City School Board and the City of Roanoke, allowing the City to operate a fitness center at Jackson Middle School for use by the general public, upon certain terms and conditions. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 78.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37251)- 112105. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle rand Mayo r H arri s---------------n----------nn----m--------m__________________________nnn7 . NAYS: Non e _nnn_____ __n____ __nn_nn__n__nn__ nnn n____ nnnnn___ nn__.___ nnn 00---0. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: COMMITTEES-LEGISLATION: Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick, Chair, Legislative Committee, presented the City of Roanoke's 2001) Legislative Program. He advised that on November 7, 2005, the Council's Legislative Committee met to review the proposed Program; and commends the Program to Council for approval; and the School Board's portion of the Program was approved by the Board at its meeting on November 8, 2005. The following 2001) legislation is requested: Public Safety. Section 15.2-901), Code of Virginia, authorizes localities to remove, repair or secure any building, wall or other structure which might endanger the public health or safety. However, this section prohibits localities from taking such action for at least 30 days following the "later of the return receipt [for mailed notices] or newspaper publication". The City requests an amendment to reduce the 30 days to seven days in those instances where a locality simply seeks to "secure" (board up, for example) a building, as opposed to removing or repairing it. 500 Historic Districts. The City requests legislation to amend §31)-99, Code of Virginia, to authorize localities to require building permits for the installation of replacement siding, roofing and windows in buildings within historic districts. This will benefit the City's historic neighborhoods. Energy Efficiency. The City requests a study to develop enabling legislation to authorize a real estate tax break for buildings constructed using "green building" or "sustainable" designs consistent with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. Trash Containers. The City requests that legislation be enacted enabling localities to assess civil penalties against those who fail to remove their trash containers from the street within the time period required (currently in the City, by 7:00.a.m. of the day following collection). Agents for Rental Units. Section 55-218.1 of the Code of Virginia requires property owners who own four or more units in the Commonwealth of Virginia, but 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. The legislation could be limited to apply only in those localities, such as Roanoke, which have significant percentage of houses that are rented. In 2000, only 52 per cent of the housing in the City was owner-occupied. Domestic Violence. The City requires that the Virginia Crime Commission consider recommending proposals to address domestic violence that would include: amending §9.1-111).1, Code of Virginia, which creates the Virginia Domestic Violence Victim Fund, in order to authorize the use of such fund to provide immediate assistance to victims of domestic violence; legislation to permit the victimless prosecution of domestic violence cases when a victim is uncooperative and sufficient evidence and/or supporting witnesses are otherwise available; enact sentencing guidelines that require a set fine and incarceration for domestic violence offenses, similar to DUI statutes; and legislation to prohibit the immediate release of domestic offenders, in order to prevent them from being able to immediately confront their victims, as often is the case. 501 Constitutional Amendment for Partial Tax Exemption. The General Assembly should approve an amendment to Article X, Section l)(a)(7)(h) of the Constitution of Virginia to provide authority for the passage of legislation authorizing localities to provide for a partial exemption from local real property taxation of new construction in conservation, redevelopment or rehabilitation areas. The Constitution already permits this for substantial renovation, rehabilitation and replacement of existing structures. This will benefit the City's neighborhoods. This passed in the 2005 General Assembly and must be approved again in 2001). Other legislative priorities: Support for Virginia First Cities Coalition Legislation. As a member of Virginia First Cities, a group of 15 of the State's older cities, Roanoke supports the broad legislative objectives of this coalition. The State should realign its policies and funding formulas to reduce disproportionate economic, fiscal and demographic stresses and disparities on Virginia's fiscally stressed cities. The State should actively promote conditions to encourage the economic health of cities through employment, neighborhood redevelopment and revitalization of commercial areas. Additionally, the City supports First Cities' efforts to: · Preserve local taxing authority. · Fully fund the Standards of Quality. · Add funds to programs that improve the educational attainment of at-risk students. · Substantially increase State funds for public transportation. · Increase enterprise zone funding. · Support Housing Commission legislation that benefits cities. Telecommunications Taxes: Some changes to the Commonwealth's telecommunications tax structure are necessary to address new and changing technologies. However, any proposed revisions must keep such taxes revenue neutral for the City. Cable Television Franchise: The City supports competition in the provision of cable television service. However, the City prefers to negotiate the franchise agreements for all providers that best meet the needs of the community instead of a standardized statewide franchise. 502 Eminent Domain. The City opposes legislation that would further limit local eminent domain authority and notes that in the past ten years, the City has acquired property after filing eminent domain processings only five times. Two of these were for sewer easements, two for property for a pedestrian walkway, and one was for a power line extension. , Dangerous Animals. The City supports legislation that would strengthen laws pertaining to dangerous and vicious dogs. Among other things, such legislation should provide for more severe criminal penalties for owners of dogs declared dangerous that attack and seriously injure or kill a person. Support for School Board Legislative Priorities. The City of Roanoke supports the School Board Legislative Program in its entirety and incorporates it into the City's Legislative Program. Policy Positions: . State Support for Cultural Agencies and Activities. Institutions such as the Center in the Square and its constituent agencies, the Virginia Museum of Transportation and the Commonwealth Games all attract tourists to the region and help support the economy. City Council is appreciative of the legislature's partial funding of regional cultural institutions and regional events in previous years. The State is encouraged to develop a policy that ensures stable funding for these agencies. Additionally, a regional funding mechanism is needed to provide a source of funding for environmental, entertainment, and cultural assets. The City supports legislation that would allow for the development of funding from regional resources for cultural, 'historic, and recreation amenities such as a Blue Ridge Asset District. Transportation (Including Mass Transit) Funding. Adequate funding, especially that for mass transit, is critical to keep Virginia's transportation system viable. In addressing transportation needs, the General Assembly should consider: adjusting fund sources such as the motor fuels tax to keep pace with inflation; imposing moderate increases in state transportation- related taxes and fees; authorizing the creation of regional transportation districts; seeking equity among various road users by ensuring that trucks pay their proportionate share of road costs and promoting mass transit solutions on a regional and statewide basis. 503 Mental. Health Funding. The State should expand its scope of mental health services to include those with traumatic brain injuries. The State should provide additional funding to operate a comprehensive mental health facility in the western part of the State. Such facilities already operate in at least two other parts of the State, but not in the southwestern region of Virginia. The City supports line item funding in the State budget for "Brain Injury . Services of Southwest Virginia". Additionally, special consideration should be given to meeting mental health needs that fall under the jurisdiction of the court system. Standards for Adult Homes. The State should raise its standards for adult homes to more fully reflect the care needed for t,his population segment. Additionally, the State should improve funding for adult homes, particularly for indigent care. Zoning Districts. Roanoke opposes any legislation that would restrict present land use powers of local governments to establish, modify and enforce zoning classifications. Local governments should remain free to adopt and enforce zoning changes that address local land use needs. The City opposes any legislation that would limit local government regulation of historic zoning districts and its ability to accept proffered conditions in rezonings that relate to building features and materials. General Policy Considerations: The Federal and State governments should recognize that local governments are the best vehicles for the delivery of many services to the public because local governments are closest to the people and the most responsive. Roanoke remains conce'rned with the cumulative effect of Federal and State legislative and regulatory mandates that have stressed the serious financial problems of local governments. It is essential that the State fully fund all State mandates, including public employee salaries. Roanoke is vitally concerned over the continued erosion of local revenue sources. The General Assembly is urged to leave the taxing authority and revenue sources of local governments alone. Additionally, the State should pay a greater share of the costs of education and other essential services. 504 City Council calls upon the Governor and the General Assembly to develop an economic development strategy for the Commonwealth and its local governments. The strategy should include special programs for those areas west of the Blue Ridge Mountains and central cities across the Commonwealth. Tourism and convention activities that enhance the economic well being of the State and its political subdivisions should be recognized as legitimate components of economic development. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37241-112105) A RESOLUTION adopting and endorsing a Legislative Program for the City to be presented to the City's delegation to the 2001) Session of the General Assembly. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 1)1.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37241- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler. Robert N. Richert, Chair, Architectural Review Board, spoke in support of the 2001) City of Roanoke Legislative Program which is important to Roanoke's inner City. He also spoke in support of an item pertaining to the requirement to obtain a building permit for roofing, siding and windows in the historic districts, particularly in the H-2 District, and advised that over one half of enforcement issues that create concern with the City's inspection staff are related to these types of issues in the historic district. He stated that certain contractors and tradesmen know that they are prohibited from doing certain things in the historic district, but instead take advantage of uninformed citizens by starting a project knowing that City staff must stop work on the project while the affected property owner goes through the process of hearings before the Architectural Review Board. He expressed appreciation to Council for bringing the matter to the attention of the City's representatives to the General Assembly and offered the assistance of the Architectural Review Board in support of the proposed legislation. Dr. Cutler advised that another example of tradesmen offering their services to citizens resulting in illegal actions relates to the tying of basement sump pumps to sewer systems, which must be discouraged in order to reduce infiltration and inflow problems associated with illegal connections of sump pumps and roof drains, etc., into the sewer system. He spoke in support of a new item of legislation that would request a study to develop enabling legislation to authorize a real estate tax break for buildings that are constructed using green building for sustainable designs consistent with leadership in energy and environmental design or LEED standards. 505 Council Member Wishneff introduced an item that was not previously included in the City's proposed 2001) Legislative Program with regard to the issue of advisory referenda. He advised that most cities in Virginia have the option for advisory referenda and there is strong support across the City of Roanoke for such legislation. He submitted copy of proposed legislation that was submitted to the General Assembly in 2005 by Senator John S. Edwards with the following revisions: a requirement for 20 per cent instead of ten per cent 'of registered voters and elimination of the automatic charter amendment provision. ' Council Member Wishneff moved that the City's 2001) Legislative Program be amended to include the above referenced item relating to advisory referenda. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea. Council Member Dowe advised that having just received the information presented by Mr. Wish neff, he was not comfortable with voting on the issue until he had an opportunity for more in-depth review. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick suggested that the issue of advisory referenda be referred to a special meeting of the Legislative Committee for review and discussion. Council Member Lea advised that the issue of advisory referenda was discussed last year, therefore, it is not a new item that has been presented to the Council for discussion. Council Members Cutler and McDaniel concurred in the remarks of the Vice-Mayor and Council Member Dowe. The Mayor advised that the issue of advisory referenda has been discussed by the Council in the past and would give the City the authority, as a locality, to govern itself in a number of areas where the City is currently limited by Charter provisions. Council Member Lea spoke in support of an item in the legislative program with regard to domestic violence which sends a message to Roanoke's citizens that the City of Roanoke is serious about domestic violence by encouraging sentencing guidelines that require a fine and incarceration for domestic violence offenses, similar to those of a DUI offense, and prohibiting the immediate release of domestic offenders in order to prevent them from immediately confronting their victims. He commended the City of Roanoke for being in the forefront to address this major problem in the community. 506 Council Member Lea called attention to a community forum on domestic violence that will be hosted by the City of Roanoke on November 29, 2005 from 1):00 to 8:00 p.m., at the Roanoke Civic Center, which will include round table discussions on domestic violence and members of the panel will include representatives of the Commonwealth Attorney's Office, law enforcement officials, representatives of victim advocacy groups, and medical services for victims. Following further discussion, Council Members Wishneff and Lea agreed to withdraw their amendment to the motion with regard to including an item in the 2001) Legislative Program pertaining to advisory referenda, inasmuch as the Council was of the consensus that the matter would be referred to a special meeting of the Legislative Committee on Monday, December 5, 2005, for discussion by the Council. There being no further questions/comments, Resolution No. 37241- 112105 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle r and Mayor H arri Snnuu_________m__m_m___nn______________nm_mn___n___mu_______7 . NAYS: Non e 00_00_ - - nnn nnn - - __nn nnn - ____ nnn__ noon _>__ __n__nn_ noo__ __nn_nn_oo_O. BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A report from the Roanoke City School Board requesting appropriation of the following funds, was before Council. · $28,091).00 for the 2005-01) Title II, Part A (formerly Class Size Reduction Initiative and Eisenhower) to provide funds for the placement of classroom teachers in grç¡des one through three throughout the district to reduce class size and to provide funds for teacher and principal training. This continuing program will be reimbursed 100 per cent by Federal funds. · $993,01)0.00 for the Teaching American History Grant. The program will raise student achievement by improving teachers' knowledge, understanding and appreciation of American History. The Schools will work cooperatively with the Center for Liberal Arts and the Virginia Center for Digital History at the University of Virginia and Virginia Tech to provide training to participants. This new program will be 100 per cent reimbursed by Federal funds. · $12,150.00 for the 2005-01) Race to GED Fast Track program. The funds will provide supplies, tuition, and instructors to increase participation in the GED examinations. This continuing program will be 100 per cent reimbursed by State funds. 507 A report of the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request of the School Board was also before the body. Council Member Cutler offered the following budget ordinance: (#37257-112105) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the 2005- 2001) Title II, Part A Program, Teaching American History Grant, and 2005-2001) Race to GED Program, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005- 2001) School Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 78.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37257- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Lea, McDaniel, Cutler and Vice-Mayor F itz pat ri c k n__ _nnn__ __un n___un n - _n___ - _n"_ n__u nnnn_n_ nn__ __n_ _n_ _ _ nn n nn__un_n_nl). NAYS: Non e nn__ _n_n__ nn__ nnn -- -00- n_nnn__n__n__ __nn n____nn_ nn__ nnnn____n_O. (Mayor Harris was out of the Council Chamber when the vote was recorded.) 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-CITY EMPLOYEES: Council Member Dowe inquired about the holiday schedule for City employees; whereupon, the City Manager advised that both Christmas Day and New Year's Day fall on a Sunday, therefore, City offices will be closed on the Monday following both holidays. HOUSING/AUTHORITY-COMMUNITY PLANNING: Council Member Dowe inquired about the timetable for receipt of the Strategic Housing Initiative study; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the study will be presented to the City Planning Commission in November and a work session could be scheduled if Council would like to review the document prior to the Council's public hearing. 508 ARMORY/STADIUM: Council Member Wishneff advised that at the last Council meeting, several persons made reference to the fact that 90 per cent of events at Victory Stadium were generated by the two high schools; however, after checking the math, he reported that 1)5 per cent of events instead of 90 per cent were generated by the two high schools. More importantly, he stated that 85 per cent of projected revenue is derived from non high school events. . 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. ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. John Graybill, 2443 Tillett Road, S. W., advised that he attended a recent community meeting at Patrick Henry High School with regard to construction of an athletic field on the school campus and expressed concern that no City Council Members or School Board members were in attendance. He stated that Victory Stadium should be renovated and should continue to serve as a memorial to those persons who served their country in World War II. COMPLAINTS-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Dick Kepley, 550 Kepplewood Road, S. E., spoke in support of a stadium for all of the citizens of Roanoke and for future generations of Roanokers. He read the following excerpt from a communication from Richard A. Rife, Architect for the Patrick Henry High School renovation project: "Locating a stadium on each campus would delay construction until after the reconstruction of the two schools to be complete in 2009. It is hard to make economic sense out of the building of a stadium on each school campus. A high quality football stadium with 3,000 seats, toilets, concessions, locker rooms, parking, etc., will run in the neighborhood of $3 million. Each school will have five or six home games per year, and it is hard to justify building duplicate stadiums for that level of use. While a stadium of this size would fit onto Fleming's campus, it would be a very awkward fit at Patrick Henry, and there would undoubtedly be opposition from adjacent homeowners. It is also questionable if the school's parking would be adequate for a football crowd; and the overflow crowd would likely find its way into the neighboring residential areas and cause problems. It is doubtful that a stadium at William Fleming surrounded by industrial, retail and multiple family use, would cause any neighborhood opposition. I suspect that the athletic directors at both high schools would be happy to share a football stadium as long as it was a high quality facility." Mr. Kepley proposed that inasmuch as a majority of Council Members voted to promote a stadium at each high school, because City Council appoints members of the City Planning Commission and because the City Planning Commission is composed of persons with special interests, the Planning Commission should be excused from making decisions with regard to stadia at each of the two high schools. 509 ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, advised that in the near future, the citizens of Roanoke will celebrate the 1)0th anniversary of Victory Stadium; therefore, he suggested that $5 million be allocated to a stadium for William Fleming High School and that another $5 million be set aside for renovation of Victory Stadium. He stated that Victory Stadium is an historic landmark that is important to a vast majority of the citizens of Roanoke and all citizens would win if Victory Stadium is renovated; I.e.: high school students would have a place to play football and other citizens would have a place to enjoy special events, such as July 4th activities that have become a tradition at Victory Stadium. COMPLAINTS-CITY EMPLOYEES: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., spoke with regard to the rising cost of health care insuranc~ for City employees, lack of affordable housing in the City of Roanoke, and other general concerns. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: REFUSE COLLECTION-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager advised that in view of the Thanksgiving holiday, solid waste will be collected one day in advance of the regular collection day which will enable City employees to observe four day break. CELEBRATIONS: The City Manager advised that the Grandin Road Holiday Parade was held on Saturday, November 19, 2005. At 4:40 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess to be reconvened at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. At 7:00 p.m., on Monday, November 21, 2005, the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding. PRESENT: Council Members Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, M. Rupert Cutler, and Mayor C. Ne Ison Harris----m------m-------m---nm-------m_________m_________________m____n7. A BS E NT: Non e -----n--n------nn-n___n__u_n__n_n_nn__u_unn__n___nnn___n_n-----O. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. OFFICERS PRESENT: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager; William M. Hackworth, City Attorney; Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance; and Mary F. Parker, City Clerk. 510 The invocation was delivered by Council Member Sherman P. Lea. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: CITIZEN OF THE YEAR: The Mayor advised that he was pleased to announce that Nicholas F. Taubman was selected by the Members of Roanoke City Council as the City of Roanoke's 2005 Citizen of the Year; whereupon, he asked that Mr. and Mrs. Taubman join him at the lectern. He advised that Mr. Taubman served as a member of Roanoke City Council from November 1975 to June 1978 and is the former CEO of Advance Stores; he was nominated by President George Bush to be the next U. S. Ambassador to Romania, and Mr. Taubman and his wife, Jenny, have a long history of charitable involvement in the Roanoke Valley. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37240-112105) A RESOLUTION naming Nicholas F. Taubman as Roanoke's Citizen of the Year for the year 2005. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 1)0.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37240- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wish neff, Cutle r and Mayor Harri Sn__m_______nnu______nn__m___________n________n___n____mm____nn7 . NAYS: Non e n_______nnnnnUunn_ nn_unn__nn_n_________ nn_nn________nn__n_n____O. The Mayor presented Mr. Taubman with a ceremonial copy of the above referenced resolution, a personal plaque containing his photograph with the inscription "Nicholas F. Taubman - City of Roanoke 2005 Citizen of the Year"; and a Key to the City. The Members of Council expressed appreciation to Mr. and Mrs. Taubman for their many contributions to the City of Roanoke. Mr. Taubman expressed appreciation for the honor bestowed upon him by the City of Roanoke and advised that although he will reside in Romania for the foreseeable future, Roanoke will always be his home. 511 PUBLIC HEARINGS: TAXES: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, November 21 , 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., for exemption of property located at 3711) Melrose Avenue, N. W., from real estate taxation, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, November 11, 2005. The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., recently purchased property described as Official Tax No. 271)2101, located at 3711) Melrose Avenue, N. W., from the YMCA of Roanoke Valley; Kummba's current facility is a leased modular unit which received exemption from personal property taxes, effective May 9, 2001; current plans are to construct a new, larger facility on the premises within the next year; the primary purpose of the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., is to deliver primary health care that is affordable, high-quality, comprehensive in scope, and culturally sensitive to the citizens of Roanoke; Kuumba offers family medical care to all ages, with no restrictions on place of residence, income or insurance status; and annual taxes due for fiscal year 2005-2001) on the above referenced parcel of land is $1,595.00 on an assessed value of $1 31 ,800.00. It was further advised that on May 19, 2003, Council approved a revised policy and procedure in connection with requests of non-profit organizations for tax exemption of certain property in the City, pursuant to Resolution No. 31)331-051903, adopting the revised Process for Determination of Property Tax Exemption dated May 19, 2003, effective January 1, 2003; and Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., provided the necessary information as a result of adjustments made to the City's revised local policy prior to October 15, 2005, which was the deadline for applications for exemptions that would take effect on January 1, 2001). The City Manager advised that according to the Office of the Commissioner of the Revenue, the loss of revenue to the City will be $1,271).00 annually after a 20 per cent service charge is levied by the City in lieu of real estate taxes; the service charge will be $319.00; the Commissioner of the Revenue has determined that the organization is currently not exempt from paying real estate taxes on property described as Official Tax No. 271)2101 by classification or designation under the Code of Virginia; and the IRS recognizes Kuumba as a 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt organization. 512 The City Manager recommended that Council authorize the request of Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., to be exempt from real estate property taxation, pursuant to Article X, Section l)(a)1) of the Constitution of Virginia, effective January 1, 2001), for property described as Official Tax No. 271)2101, located at 3711) Melrose Avenue, N. W., if the organization agrees to pay the subject service charge by that date. , Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordin~nce: (#37258-112105) AN ORDINANCE exempting from real estate taxation certain property of the Kuumba Community Health & Wellness Center, Inc., located in the City of Roanoke, an organization' devoted exclusively to charitable or benevolent purposes on a non-profit basis; providing for an effective date; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 80.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37258- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler. The Mayor inquired if there were persons in attendance who would like to speak in connection with the public hearing. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions and/or comments by Council, Ordinance No. 37258-112105 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle r and Mayor Harri s_______n______________n___________________n________,____nn_______n_____mn 7 . NAYS: Non enn________n_n_n____n__n__nn_ 00__00 nnn ________nnnnn__n___nn_n____nnO. ROANOKE VISION, COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN-COMMUNITY PLANNING: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, November 21,2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on a proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Garden City Neighborhood Plan, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, November 11, 2005. 513 The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the Garden City neighborhood was annexed into the City of Roanoke in 1949; the area is bound by Mill Mountain and Riverland Road to the north, Yellow Mountain Road and the Blue Ridge Parkway to the west, and Roanoke County to the south and east; Garden City is a neighborhood geographically isolated from the rest of Roanoke as it lies in a valley between several mountains and is shielded from the City behind Mill Mountain; and staff noted the following issues in the Plan that need to be addressed: Residential Development · Controlling residential densities with appropriate zoning patterns. · Appropriate development of vacant land. Infrastructure · Pedestrian access to Garden City Boulevard· · Traffic control at the intersection of Riverland Road/Bennington Street ' · Flood prone properties · Lack of public sewer service in some areas. To address the above referenced issues, the Plan features the following priority recommendations: · Change zoning patterns to better reflect the residential density patterns of the neighborhood and provide for a series of village center nodes along Garden City Boulevard. · Preserve Mill Mountain, Roanoke Mountain, and other natural resources in the neighborhood. · Storm Water Management o Complete the Capital Improvement Projects for the Garden City Flood Reduction Plan, which is the highest priority of the plan. o Complete the segment of the Roanoke River Flood Reduction Project between 9th Street, S. E. and the Wastewater Treatment Plant; and completion of this portion of the project should significantly reduce flooding along Garnard Branch and Gum Spring. · Garden City Boulevard o Improve pedestrian access and design based on the following considerations: o Complete curb, gutter and sidewalk with lighting where phYSically feasible o Add bike lanes and/or a greenway route to connect the Mill Mountain Greenway to the Roanoke River Greenway 514 . Bennington and Riverland Road o Improve the intersection of Bennington Street and Riverland Road The City Planning Commission recommended that Council approve the Garden City Neighborhood Plan for adoption as a component of Vision 2001- 2020. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#372 59-112105) AN ORDINANCE approving the Garden City Neighborhood Plan, and amending Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Garden City Neighborhood Plan; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 82.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37259- 112105. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler. The Mayor inquired if there were persons in attendance who would like to speak in connection with the public hearing. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions and/or comments by the Council, Ordinance No. 37259-112105 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Dowe, Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutle r and Mayo r H arris______________________nnnnm___________n____m___________________nn_____7 . NAYS: No n e------n-- n____nnnnn__ ---- __nn_n__________ __nn_n_:____nnnn______ ------n-O. ZONING: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, November 21 , 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on a proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend the City Code to repeal Chapter 31).1 Zoning, and to adopt a new Zoning Ordinance, new Chapter 31).2, Zoning; and a proposal of the City of Roanoke to rezone all property in the City in order to implement new Chapter 31).2, Zonina, and Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and to adopt new zoning maps, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Tuesday, November 15, 2005. 515 The Mayor advised that the public hearing is the final or last step in what has been a long process; in July, 2002, a Citizens Steering Committee was appointed that consisted of a number of representatives of various boards and committees within the City and the community; the Citizens Committee worked from July 2002 until December, 2004, and devoted over 1500 hours to reviewing and deliberating the draft ordinance; approximately 39 work sessions were held to review over 1100 comments from the community; City staff conducted six open houses throughout the City, in addition to other meetings; and following a July 28 workshop, the City Planning Commission held 15 subsequent work sessions to address public comments on the proposed zoning ordinance. On behalf of the Council, the Mayor expressed appreciation to members of the Citizens Steering Committee, the City Planning Commission, citizens, and City staff, all of whom participated in the process of drafting a new zoning ordinance and zoning map for the City of Roanoke. The Mayor stated that Council would not take official action this evening inasmuch as there were a number of unresolved issues, and tonight's session would involve citizen comments and concerns which would be referred to City staff for review and report to the Council. He noted that 52 persons had signed up to speak, each person would be allotted three minutes, however, if any lIerson· had written comments they would like to file with the City Clerk, their comments would be treated in the same manner as a verbal presentation. The Mayor advised that the City Planning Commission has recommended adoption of new Chapter 31).2, Zoning, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended; and the rezoning of all property in the City in order to implement new Chapter 31).2, Zoning, and Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, as set forth on a map dated September 29, 2005. (For full text, see reports on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Council Member Dowe offered the following ordinance: "AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by repealing Chapter 31).1, Zoning, consisting of §§31).1-1 through 31).1-730, and enacting Chapter 31).2, Zoning, consisting of §§31).2-1 through 31).2-840, and accompanying Appendices A, B, and C, such Chapter 31).2 being a comprehensive revision of the zoning regulations of the City; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance." Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of the abovereferenced ordinance. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler. 516 The Mayor inquired if there were persons in attendance who would like to speak in connection with the public hearing; whereupon, the following persons addressed the Council: G. Michael Pace, Attorney, spoke on behalf of five persons who own prÐperties near the Roanoke Regional Airport that will be affected by the proposed Airport Development District; I.e.: Geoffrey Ottaway, A & M Enterprises, Calvin and Mary C. Powers, and N & W l,nvestments. He stated that A & M Enterprises is the owner of seven properties which are proposed to be included in the AD District, one of which is an unimproved property at the corner of Aviation Drive and Municipal Road, property located at 1304 Municipal Road, an eight acre undeveloped parcel of land at Precision Circle, property located at 551)8 Airport Road, and three parcels of land on Airport Road, 5550, 5531), and Airport Road undesignated. He advised that the property owned by Calvin and Mary C. Powers is described as Official Tax No. 1)1)40102; and property owned by N & W Investments is located at 1305 Municipal Road. He stated that all of the above referenced properties are currently zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District under the current zoning ordinance; and 29 uses are permitted by right under the current zoning ordinance, 22 of which are not allowed under the proposed AD District in the new zoning ordinance. He further stated that the Airport Development District had its origin in a provision of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Vision 2000- 2020, which established a policy for regulating uses around the Airport, particularly for limiting those uses for Airport related purposes; his clients and other persons who will speak this evening who own property around the Airport do not believe that there is sufficient justification for creating a special zoning district for property at or near the Airport, and question the policy on which the special zoning is based. In addition, he advised that the proposed uses in the AD District are too restrictive; not allowing the type of positive economic development that is permitted at virtually every other ai~port in the country does not make sense; for example, why would the City not promote and recruit the type of commercial uses that are currently located at the Corporate Research Center at the Blacksburg Airport? He stated that the current version of the proposed AD District ordinance does not permit, by right, laboratories for testing and research such as Johnson and Johnson or the Egg Factory; the proposed ordinance does not allow for general or professional offices unless they consist of 20,000 square feet or more, with a special exception from the Board of Zoning Appeals; and if offices of that size are required, they are virtually undevelopable. He pointed out that the proposed ordinance does not permit an electrical component assembly plant for wholesale distribution, or a manufacturing facility to support the type of research and development that would be expected to be generated by institutions like the Carilion Biomedical Institute, or those that are to be included at the new Riverside Park; the proposed ordinance does not include educational facilities that train knowledge workers or employees for companies that economic development dollars are meant to attract and retain; the new ordinance does not permit government offices, although the Airport itself is a government facility; and the ordinance 517 specifically allows certain types of government uses. He added that the only uses that are permitted by right under the proposed AD District are hotels, motels and restaurants, but those types of facilities will not locate at the Airport because they prefer 1-581 and Valley View Mall; and car rental businesses, truck terminals, distribution centers, community gardens, military reserve, National Guard, Post Office, police, fire and rescue, governmental type uses, limousine services, taxi cab businesses, utility substations, and Airport related uses, which is a nebulous and undefined term as yet, are inapplicable to properties at or near the Airport. He asked the following question: What problem is the City trying to solve? He advised that if the City's goal is to reserve large undeveloped tracts of land, or tracts of land that include buildings that are at the end of their useful lives for some future undesignated Airport related use, he would propose that the City or the Airport Commission purchase the land at its current fair market value before the land is significantly devalued by what will be a drastic down zoning; and if the answer is to promote positive economic development activities in and around the Airport, the proposed ordinance strikes out. He called attention to two things that are wrong with the proposed ordinance: first, the ordinance does not allow the owners of properties currently zoned LM to develop, or to redevelop their properties for almost all of the commercial uses that they can currently place on the properties; the proposed 1-1, Light Industrial District, under the proposed ordinance most closely resembles the current LM, Light Manufacturing District, zoning designation; and including the properties in the proposed AD District is a drastic down zoning that will have a tremendous adverse impact on the properties. Second, he stated that the ordinance will eliminate any remaining opportunity to use the Airport to promote economic development; the ordinance as written will not reverse development trends that have occurred over the past 25 years for lack of prior planning; and the ordinance will enable undeveloped parcels of land to remain hay fields, because proposed uses are not applicable to those types of property and will ensure that the owners of the properties will not commit the necessary capital to redever'op the buildings for modern uses of the type that the City should recruit and retain. He advised that to address and to alleviate numerous concerns with regard to the proposed ordinance, an option would be to not adopt the AD District as proposed; however, it is believed that there is significant justification for the AD District, and, at a minimum, the City should allow certain commercial or light industrial uses. He called attention to previous correspondence that was forwarded to the Council suggesting additional uses that should be included in the AD District; and other correspondence regarding the properties owned by A & M Enterprises, N & W Investments, and Mr. and Mrs. Calvin Powers which include moving 1-1, Light Industrial Uses, into the AD District, in order to treat the properties more like their current LM zoning; secondly, to change certain definitional issues so that certain ambiguities are eliminated and to eliminate or to reduce restrictions on office uses; and to remove some of the properties from the AD zoning map, the original version of which included fewer properties than are currently included and some are not near or at the Airport, or near enough to the Airport that they should be included in the AD District. 518 Finally, he stated that the Roanoke Regional Airport is a regional facility and represents one of the most significant economic development assets of the Roanoke Valley; therefore, the Airport should not be misused by limiting uses of a commercial nature that could add economically to the City of Roanoke and to the greater region, but instead the Airport should be used to promote and to encourage business, research development and technological advances in and around the Airport so that the Roanoke Valley will remain competitive with airports in cities of its size. (See communications on file in the City Clerk's Office.) Edward A. Natt, Attorney, representing Mr. and Mrs. Frank Hylton, owners of property fronting on Challenger Avenue, Official Tax Nos. 7130102 and 7130103, consisting of approximately 28-30 acres, advised that the property has been zoned commercial for over 30 years, and inquired as to the City's rationale for reclassifying the property to Residential Single Family, R-5, when it is one of the largest pieces of undeveloped property in the City of Roanoke, fronting on a road that has as much, if not more, traffic volume than any other roadway in the City to allow for multi-family zoning. He stated that it does not make sense to provide access off of Daleton Boulevard, which is the property that extends to the rear; and approximately 170 residences generating about 850 vehicle trips per day on Daleton Boulevard cannot be accommodated, in addition to the volume of traffic that is generated by current residences of Daleton Boulevard. Secondly, he stated that the property is currently zoned commercial and there is no reason to change the zoning; therefore, the Hylton family requests that the property continue to be zoned commercial under the new zoning ordinance. Mr. Natt addressed the concerns of PDJ Associates, owner of property proposed to be included in the proposed Airport Development District. He explained that the property is a developed parcel of land that is approaching the middle of its useful economic life, it is basically rental property, and if limitations are placed on the property, his client will be required to go through the matrix to special exceptions through the Board of Zoning Appeals because permitted uses today will be taken away under the proposed zoning. He stated that there are numerous uses in the Airport Development District for economic development which should be taken out of the special exception category and placed back in permitted uses by right. He spoke speCifically to the 20,000 square foot office use limitation and advised that it would be difficult to find a client who desires 20,000 square feet of office space, and the property owner could not afford to break the property down into smaller components; therefore, the limitation for 20,000 square feet should be significantly reduced to 5,000 or 10,000 square feet if there is to be any type of limitation for the benefit of small companies that would like office space in close proximity to the Airport. 519 Mr. F. B. Webster Day, 131)5 Hidden View Road, S. W., representing approximately 37 residents in the area of Hidden View Road near Sewell Lane, S. W., spoke specifically to property described as Official Tax No. 131)0137, which is vacant property owned by the City of Roanoke that is, in effect, a neighborhood park or open space. He advised that under the proposed zoning, the property would be classified Resident Single-Family District, R-12, and referred to a petition signed by 37 persons requesting that the parcel of land be designated ROS, Recreation and Open Space District, in order to preserve the character of the neighborhood and to make it more diffi'cult for a future Council to sell the property for development purposes. Mr. Donald L. Hiemstra, 1501) Edmund Avenue, N. E., advised that his property is described as Official Tax Nos. 32101)21 - 32101)25, inclusive, and is currently zoned Light Manufacturing District. He requested that the lots be zoned Residential Mixed Density District, RM I,' in order to enable the property to retain its existing residential use and afford the ability to expand his residence. Beth Doughty, Executive Director, Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, advised that busine.ss represents more than 50 per cent of total local revenue to the City of Roanoke, or about $80 million in real money; in addition, business creates revenue from sales tax, food preparation tax, and business license tax, for another approximately $40 million. Therefore, she advised that when the City hears from representatives of business, particularly those presenting concerns regarding the proposed Airport Development District, and representatives of Williamson Road businesses and the Roanoke Valley Home Builders Association and others, it is hoped that Council will take their specific concerns to heart as it relates to the future of the City of Roanoke because any unnecessary barriers and burdens on the ability of businesses to operate and to be creative in the future will harm the City's tax base and reduce much needed revenue. She added that the Chamber of Commerce is also concerned about the Airport Development District, about commercial sign portions of the proposed zoning ordinance, about CN zoning along Williamson Road, and other specific and excessive regulations pertaining to utilities, landscaping and planning documents. She advised that the Chamber supports the overall need to update the City's zoning ordinance, the Chamber of Commerce submitted comments more than a year ago on several components of the plan that members believed would place unnecessary burdens on business and was harmful to Roanoke's competitive position, some of which were addressed and some were not in the proposed zoning ordinance. She asked that Council take into consideration the concerns of business and how the proposed new zoning ordinance could affect Roanoke's future. 520 Dennis Cronk, representing A & M Enterprises and Hylton, Reed & Saker, advised that creating a new comprehensive zoning ordinance for the entire City of Roanoke is a monumental task, public input is important, and it is hoped that Council will carefully consider all public input. He stated that the financial impact to the City of Roanoke and to private property owners can be substantial and an effective economic development program is dependent on a quality land use plan and a business-friendly zoning ordinance. He addressed the proposed Airport Development District and advised that with a stated purpose to permit and to encourage development of uses dependent on or related to air transportation in and around the Airport, the Airport Development designation, as written, severely restricts how properties can be developed or redeveloped which constitutes a form of down zoning, drastically reduces property values and creates an approach that is inconsistent with how other properties have been treated in the overall comprehensive rezoning process. He stated that currently, a number of properties within the identified Airport Development District are ready for development and/or redevelopment due to their age and condition of the properties; and the purpose of the Airport Development classification severely limits the rights of property owners to identify future uses that will make productive use of their land and improvements. He advised that should the City of Roanoke or the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission deem it necessary to protect or to control land adjacent to the Airport, they should purchase the properties at a fair market value. He urged Council to consider eliminating the Airport Development District classification because permitted uses are too restrictive by limiting the use of properties to those uses that are, in large part, neither realistic nor feasible and will drastically reduce property values and severely hamper economic development efforts. Mr. Cronk also referred to the Hylton property located on Route 41)0 which was previously addressed by Attorney Ed Natt and advised that from an economic development standpoint, it is important that the property be developed properly through sound planning. He stated that the land is a prime commercial property in the City of Roanoke; traffic issues can be addressed by VDOT and/or the City's Traffic Engineer, and the proposed classification would down zone the property and affect marketability of the property to potential developers. He added that if the property is zoned residential, it would be difficult to find a developer who would be willing to take a large residential property and turn it into commercial development due to the time and delays involved. Paul Nordt, CEO and one of the owners of the John C. Nordt Company, 1420 Coulter Drive, N. W., addressed concerns with regard to the Airport . Development District. He stated that the new zoning ordinance will have a detrimental effect on his business; until 25 years ago, the John C. Nordt Company was located in New Jersey; when there was a need to expand due to growth, the City of Roanoke contacted and recruited his company to relocate to Roanoke and promoted the current site which would provide manufacturing operation access to the Roanoke Regional Airport; and, in response to the City's 521 invitation, the business has been relocated to Roanoke where substantial sums of money has been invested in constructing a facility that was designed specifically for manufacturing. He stated that the company employs about 135 skilled workers, specializing in jewelry and industrial precious metal parts that are shipped all over the country, the proceeds from which generate funds that are returned to the Roanoke Valley and contribute to the local economy. He called attention to the challenges of operating a manufacturing company in the United States as they compete with off shore manufacturers, while attempting to remain agile and flexible and reacting quickly to changes and environments; therefore, restrictions under the Airport Development District will be detrimental to the flexibility of his business. He asked that the flexibility that is afforded to his business under the current Light Manufacturing District zoning classification not be taken away and specifically, that the property occupied by the John C. Nordt Company be classified in the Industrial District, 1-1, category, or a similar zoning classification. Donald Wetherington, Attorney, representing the John C. Nordt Company, advised that he represented the Company in the late 1970's when the business made the decision to relocate to Roanoke on the representation of City officials. He stated that the Airport Development District would undo an important part of what brought the John C. Nordt Company to Roanoke in the 1970's, which was an opportunity to construct a state-of-the-art manufacturing facility on Coulter Drive, which now contains in excess of 45,000 square feet of floor space on seven and one-half acres of land. He advised that since inception of the subdivision of the Coulter property, the land has been zoned manufacturing and to take away so many of the permitted uses and the versatility that was available to his client under a manufacturing classification minimizes the value of the Company and disrupts the very reason that the John C. Nordt Company made the decision to relocate to Roanoke. He stated that his second concern relates to the fact that the property is clearly a manufacturing facility; in March 2004, when it became apparent that the property would be slated for inclusion in the AD District, he visited with City Planning staff who understood that the property was a manufacturing facility, and until about two and one-half months ago, it was the understanding of his client that the property was designated as Industrial District, 1-1, instead of Airport Development District; therefore, the easiest way to meet the needs of his client is to reclassify the property as Industrial District, 1-1 . Paul Black, representing Branch Bank and Trust Company (BB&T), owner of three parcels of land on Coulter Drive, Official Tax Nos. 1)1)30109-1)1)30111, inclusive, reiterated the remarks of Mr. Pace and Mr. Cronk regarding concerns of property owners in the area of the proposed Airport Development District. He advised that BB&T presently operates an operation center, call center, training center, and offices located on Coulter Drive; BB&T has identified the abovereferenced tracts of land as potentially significant for its northern geographic footprint in the City of Roanoke which extends from the North Carolina line all the way north to Maryland. He stated that while the property 522 has the potential for expansion and creation of jobs, no definitive plans have been made for the site, however, proposed inclusion of the land in the Airport Development District severely restricts any potential for future development. He pointed out that no studies were conducted, nor was the proposed AD District modeled after another locality with a similar Airport Development District, but was created by the City's Zoning and Planning staff. Therefore, he suggested that the Airport Development District not be enacted, and requested that 'the abovereferenced property owned by BB&T be withdrawn and reclassified as 1-1 , Industrial District. . Mr. Sam Lionberger advised that his family owns and operates a faCility at 3710 Tom Andrews Road, N. W., which is currently known as the Ice Station. Speaking as an individual with a major commitment to the success of Airport property, he expressed concern that the proposed Airport Development District zoning is too restrictive. He stated that it is unfortunately a fact that the Airport is not growing as it should, however, he asked that the City not take a step back by placing further restrictions on those businesses that are located at the Airport. He further stated that to enact the AD District zoning would cause devaluation of numerous Airport properties; when the property on Tom Andrews Road was purchased, the Lionberger family made the decision to purchase the more expensive land and to construct a generic type building in the event that the structure might be changed; and currently those uses as proposed are being severely restricted, which, in effect, will devalue the property. He spoke in support of 1-1 zoning for the Airport, and advised that he would be willing to work with the Council and the City Planning Commission to reach a solution that enhances and does not inhibit the opportunity for Roanoke to have an Airport that will grow and prosper. Eva Hughes, representing Loudon Avenue Christian Church, advised that in 2002, Trustees of Loudon Avenue Christian Church purc;:hased three houses adjacent to the existing church structure; the houses were razed and leveled off with future plans to be used as a parking lot; and due to an increasing congregation, off street parking is now a necessity. She stated that the land on which the church is currently located is proposed to be zoned Institutional District, IN, under the proposed new zoning ordinance; however, the third lot is proposed to be zoned RM-2, Residential Mixed Density District; whereupon, she requested that the third lot also be designated Institutional zoning to conform with the other two lots. Lucy Ellett, representing Valley Beautiful Foundation, a group whose purpose is the beautification of the Roanoke Valley, advised that Valley Beautiful has, for many years, advocated stronger tree ordinances for the City of Roanoke; therefore, the organization endorses the proposed new landscaping requirements which include tree canopy preservation requirements, and requirements for plantings in parking lots and along the perimeter of parking areas, façade plantings in residential areas, and other requirements. She added that over time, these strengthened regulations will make a huge difference in 523 the appearance of all areas of the City; and Valley Beautiful also endorses efforts to strengthen the sign ordinance as applied to both free mounted signage and building mounted signage and the prohibition of certain types of signs. She stated that well thought out signage requirements will help in the future to prevent jumbles of signs along major thoroughfares and entrances to the City; Valley Beautiful commends the recommendation regarding outdoor lighting which will help control glare spillover and light pollution by controlling aiming angles and location of outdoor lighting; and the requirement for placing utility lines underground in new developments is a' welcome step toward improving community appearance. She added that representatives of Valley Beautiful have participated in neighborhood meetings and in City Planning Commission hearings regarding the ordinances, and agree that they will move the City toward more attractive neighborhoods and business areas, which, in turn, will boost economic development and quality of life in the Roanoke area. Mr. William D. Bestpitch, 381 Washington Avenue, S. W., requested further consideration of regulations regarding the placement and maximum heights of fences on corner lots with two or more street frontages in residential zoning districts, as contained in the standards proposed in Section 31).2-410(b) Fences and Walls, of the proposed Zoning Ordinance. He stated that the proposed regulations do not recognize the difference between the appropriate heights for fences when dealing with principle front yards (which abut the primary entrance to a residence) and the yard which abuts a side elevation of a residence adjacent to the other street frontage. He added that fence heights should be allowed to be up to six feet in those areas between the building line and the street frontage when the frontage does not abut the primary entrance to the residence; therefore, he requested the favorable consideration of Council. Bob Flynn, representing the Roanoke Regional Home Builders Association, and Chair of the Governmental Affairs Committee, advised that the Home Builders Association has a unique point of view regarding the zoning ordinance because the Association deals with every aspect of the document; therefore, it is. very important that the ordinance be relatively easy to understand, to implement and to utilize. He stated that many of the components of the ordinance have been improved; however, there is a concern that the document remains significantly more complicated than the existing zoning ordinance and will restrict the ability of the business community to be creative. He explained that if one of the primary goals of the City is to promote development and growth, the Home Builders Association believes that the proposed ordinance does just the opposite in that it is an extremely complicated maze of regulations and restrictions which will consume an inordinate amount of time and money to comply, even at the concept plan level. With regard to particulars, he stated that the concerns of the Home Builders Association lie primarily with new landscape and submittal requirements which are so extreme in their reach and complexity that property owners are basically left with few choices regarding how to landscape their property; many of the submittal 524 requirements for basic and comprehensive development plans have little to do with actual building or development of property and are mostly informational in nature and should not be included on construction drawings, but submitted in text format and addenda, and many of the items required are currently available in public records. He added that a primary concern is that certain issues may arise that the ordinance cannot anticipate, and valuable parcels of land will emerge as not developable and such issues will invariably create conflicts that need to be resolved. He stated that the Board of Zoning Appeals was originally created to handle such matters, however, the Board's hands are tied by State Code and recent court decisions; therefore, it is requested that an administrative mechanism be created by which users of the ordinance may seek flexibility and compromise which can be addressed by creation of a committee within the Department of Planning, Building and Development that would be charged with the responsibility to hear cases submitted by land owners and developers who are having difficulty with implementing the ordinance. He explained that this approach would allow all affected parties to work together to reach a compromise; the committee would be composed of members of City staff, design professionals and members of the development and building community; the committee would also be empowered to create amendments to the ordinance that could quickly move through the approval process; the composition, duties and powers of the committee would be defined within the ordinance under Article 8; and the committee would greatly facilitate implementation of the zoning ordinance in years to come. Wayne Dunman, Secretary, Church Board, First Church of the Nazarene, advised that the Church is in the process of acquiring and owns land containing less than one acre, more or less, located in the 1)00-800 blocks of Highland Avenue, S. E., Official Tax Nos. 4122510, 4122511, 4122512, 4122514, 4122515 and 40218%, which is currently zoned RM-l , and under the proposed zoning ordinance the property would be rezoned to Residential Multifamily District, RMF. He requested that the property be zoned Institutional District, rather than Residential Multi Family District, in order to be consistent with the intended use of the property and to further the intent and purpose of the Zoning Ordinance and the City's Comprehensive Plan. Mr. John Gross, 931) Lee Lane, Fincastle, Virginia, spoke in support of provisions in the proposed zoning ordinance with regard to outdoor lighting. He requested a minor modification to Section 31).2-1)25(a)(3) with regard to shielded lighting which directs light toward the ground, by requiring that shielded lighting be turned up 45 degrees from the horizontal to allow a certain amount of light to be directed upward and some light will also spill over to adjacent property. Ms. Alice Hincker, 4042 South Lake Drive, S. W., spoke with regard to a concern relating to the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan which was adopted by Council and became a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan in 1990, but has not been used as a decision making tool relative to residential development 525 in the Greater Deyerle neighborhood. She stated that the Neighborhood Plan identifies specific neighborhood values and goals; I.e.: to maintain the existing residential character of the neighborhood; and many residents have multiple acre lots, with a typical lot consisting of one-half to one acre, thereby encouraging residential development which meets the neighborhood's goals, especially as it relates to open space and storm water management, and recreation and parks. She further stated that the neighborhood encourages the provision and protection of open space in new development and walking and jogging trails; and the Neighborhood Plan also refers to maintaining open space and protecting lakes and creeks in the floodplains. She read the following sentence from the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan: "The Greater Deyerle neighborhood prides itself in its pastoral rural character with numerous lakes and abundant green space". She stated that four of the pastures and fields that are within one half mile of each other are now developed, and can hold up to 42 homes; 12 homes have been constructed on one of the streets, ten of which have been constructed on lots that are smaller than one-half acre, which is the typical size; and when it rains, water floods the property across the creek making the barn practically unusable. She added that Spring Valley Lake has 1 5 lots, and is composed of 31) acres under current zoning; the City could permit as many as 100 homes, and with one-half acre lots, there could be as many as 78 houses; and the proposed zoning ordinance will reduce the minimum lot area, therefore, the development trend will continue until the City of Roanoke uses the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan as a guide to its decision making, or until the neighborhood runs out of land. She acknowledged that the City's Comprehensive Plan states that environmental elements of quality of life are critical amenities; and the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan calls for maintaining open space and protecting and enhancing lakes, creeks, and floodplains. She expressed appreciation for the decision by Council to postpone action on the ordinance which will allow time to meet with City staff and to reach a consensus on how the City Code can be adjusted so that future decisions will be based on what is in the best interests of the neighborhood based on how the Greater Deyerle neighborhood defines the issue in the Greater Deyerle Neighborhood Plan. Ms. Jo Wilson, 4107 Lake Drive, S. W., referred to a petition that was submitted to Council in 1995 with regard to issues associated with high density development downstream in the Greater Deyerle neighborhood. She stated that ten years ago, Timberlake Dam collapsed, two lives were lost, there was a huge economic impact, and no one was held liable because it was considered to be an act of God; whereupon, she inquired if it will take another tragedy to rethink the issue of high density development downstream. She stated that the Greater Deyerle area is located in an inundation zone, the State is reviewing policy regarding inundation zones, and requested that Council impose certain restrictions on development in the inundation zone. 526 Ms. Lisa Farthing, 4023 Lake Drive, S. W., spoke on behalf of residents of the Greater Deyerle neighborhood and requested that there be special considerations both above and below the dam. She advised that Spring Valley was built in 191)0, the area was annexed to the City in 1977, it is a private area without water and sewer service or street lights, and residents fund the paving of roads and snow removal; however, the private road is an asset to the City of Roanoke not only for walking, biking and jogging, but building restrictions that apply to the private road provide the only measure curr!!ntly in place to prevent high density development around the lake. She stated that protective building restrictions are needed for the area above the lake as well as below the lake; and in the drainage area of over 1)00 acres, the two lakes act as a retention basin for holding and providing flood storage which reduces the peak flow down stream from Cravins Creek and the Roanoke River. She stated that if floodplains require ordinances to reduce future development of dams, similar ordinances pertaining to the watershed above the dams should be demanded; capacity of the dams is defined as the water volume capacity impounded at the top of the dam; and if new impervious structures continue to multiply, the amount of water run off in the drainage area retention ponds will reach a capacity beyond the capacity of the dam itself. She asked that the City review and adopt procedures that would provide protective restrictions for the dam area. Mr. Mike Najari, 90 Ferrum Forest Lane, Ferrum, Virginia, advised that he purchased property located at the corner of Elm Avenue, S. E., Official Tax Nos. 402041 2 and 402041 3, approximately two years ago when the property was zoned C-2, General Commercial District; however, under the proposed new zoning ordinance, the property will be zoned residential. He stated that he would prefer that the property continue to be zoned commercial, but if not, the site would be a good location for police, fire and emergency response facilities in view of its close proximity to 1-581, or the land could be, used by the City for green space. Ms. Sheila J. Wright, 3951 Hershberger Road, N. W., referred to property she recently purchased located at 1314 Orange Avenue, N. W., Official Tax No. 2221905. She advised that the area presently consists of duplexes, converted residential homes that have been turned into duplexes, some of which are now boarded up and vacant. She stated that the proposed RM, Residential District zoning, is not a good classification for the neighborhood because businesses should be established in the area for economic development purposes and to raise property values. Gene McGuire, Vice President, Berglund Chevrolet, advised that as the owner of several pieces of property along Williamson Road, Berglund Chevrolet has a vested interest in the matter. He questioned the rationale for the selection of certain of their properties to be zoned CG and CN, Commercial Districts, and referred to several lots on the south side of Noble Avenue, N. E., that were originally shown to be zoned CG and were subsequently changed to 527 CN without discussion with representatives of Berglund Chevrolet; other Berglund properties where CN has been arbitrarily assigned are the Towne Motel property across from Avendale Avenue and properties on the south side of Plantation Road at the intersection of Liberty Road. He requested that the zoning ordinance and zoning map be referred back to City staff to achieve a true consensus with owners of the properties and to use sound reasoning in the selection of CN and CG zoning of properties. The Mayor referred to a communication from Greg Apostolou, President, Edmund H. Armentrout, Chair of the Zoning Committee, and Linda Plunkett, Executive Director, Williamson Road Area Business Association, advising that the problem with the proposed Zoning Ordinance is that City staff has set up the ordinance so that if one supports Commercial-General, CG, zoning, one must accommodate many more restrictions on how their property is developed, such as increased landscaping requirements, special exception zoning for many previously allowed uses, increased set backs from adjoining uses and more restrictions on parking. It was noted that if. one supports Commercial- Neighborhood zoning, one has fewer restrictions on how one can develop their property, but the uses allowed are greatly diminished, so the trade-off is to take fewer development restrictions with fewer allowable uses, or to take more rl-strictions on development with more allowable uses. It was advised that in response to this unacceptable situation, the Williamson Road Area Business Association Board of Directors unanimously recommends the following: 1. The proposed zoning ordinance should be modified to allow for a new zoning category: Commercial - Williamson Road (CW) 2. In addition to rezoning all parcels' of land on Williamson Road, which are currently proposed for CG or CN zoning as CW, two special nodes are identified for redevelopment; I.e.: the area around Williamson Road (CW) 3. WRABA supports Commercial-Large Site District (CLS) zoning for selected parcels of land on Williamson Road, such as Berglund Chevrolet and Civic Mall. They advised that in the absence of a special zoning district for Williamson Road, the Williamson Road Area Business Association cannot support the proposed Zoning Ordinance. Bill Tanger, representing the Roanoke Business Group, advised that there are numerous positive aspects to the proposed new zoning ordinance; I.e.: better tree coverage, a river and creek overlay; however, there are problems with regard to commercial activity/business activity, one being the CN, Commercial Districts designation and the other being the Airport Development District designation. He stated that neither City staff nor the City Planning Commission have enough of an understanding of business needs as it relates to 528 the CN District. He called attention to various problems associated with CG zoning which is similar to C-l zoning under the current zoning ordinance; and CN zoning was not requested by the Williamson Road business community inasmuch as the proposed CN zoning will hurt commercial growth. Therefore, he requested that the CN zoning designation be given further review by City staff. R. Craig Balzer and Kip Foster, representing Grandin Court Baptist Church, advised that the rezoning of Grandin Court Baptist Church excluded the following properties: Official Tax No.1 51) 1028- new construction pending Official Tax No. 1 51) 1301 - Mission House Official Tax No. 1 51) 131 5 - parking behind the Church Official Tax No.1 51) 1317 - parking behind the Church Official Tax No. 1 51) 1002 - parking across the street from the Church They stated that the above referenced property should be included as Church preperty and considered IN, Institutional District; and Grandin Court Baptist Church is currently working with Balzer and Associates to expand the Church facility using one of the properties for new construction, therefore, they requested that IN zoning be applied to all Church property prior to adoption of the new Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. Chip Dicks, representing the Outdoor Advertising Association, advised that the City used an outstanding public input process that involved citizens, the City Planning Commission and City staff who are to be commended for their work on the new Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. On behalf of the Outdoor Advertising Association, he commended City staff and the City Planning Commission for addressing many of their concerns; however, he spoke to the three classifications of Commercial Districts, CN, CG and CLS. He stated that the Advertising Association understands why billboards are excluded from the CN district as a permitted use because Commercial General District is the "catch all" of commercial districts; however, his primary focus relates to the commercial large scale district and the reason why billboards are not a permitted use in the district which includes large parking areas and outdoor display of merchandise. He stated that current billboards will automatically become non-conforming uses with legal ramifications and requested that billboards be a permitted use in the CLS District as well as the CG District. Mr. Bob Crawford, part owner of The Oakes on Thirlane Road adjacent to Roanoke Regional Airport, spoke with regard to the Airport Development District which was overly restrictive in its first draft version. He stated that the second draft was an improved version and demonstrated a clear effort on the part of the City Planning Commission to thoroughly address the issues and most of the needed changes inasmuch as there are far fewer restrictions in the second draft. 529 Mr. Pete Johnson, 1830 Arlington Road, S. W., expressed appreciation for community gardens and community markets that are permitted in the proposed new zoning ordinance. He stated that local food systems will become more important as energy costs increase. He encouraged Council to adopt the proposed new zoning ordinance and, more specifically, that position of the ordinance that pertains to a one acre tract of land that he owns on Grandin Road, S. W. Kevin Earl, 529 Day Avenue, S. W., representing Old Southwest, Incorporated, expressed personal support and the support of the Old Southwest neighborhood with regard to the proposed new zoning ordinance which recognizes the unique development in Old Southwest.' Ms. Barbara N. Duerk, 21)07 Rosalind Avenue, S. W., expressed appreciation to the City Planning Commission and to City Planning staff for the untold number of hours that they devoted to the new zoning ordinance. She addressed the importance of a new zoning ordinance to implement the City's Comprehensive Plan, and referred to the Second Economic Summit which was sponsored by the Roanoke Valley Regional Chamber of Commerce in which it was noted that green space/open space is important to the economic vitality of the community. Therefore, she expressed concern that the zoning of most parks adjacent to schools in the new Zoning Ordinance have been included in the Institutional Planned Unit Development District and suggested that the correct zoning for Roanoke's existing parks should be Recreation and Open Space District, ROS. She stated that if economic development is desired in the City of Roanoke, more of the color green should show on the City's zoning map by classifying existing parks as Recreation and Open Space District. Mr. Robert N. Richert, 415 Allison Avenue, S. W., spoke as a representative of Old Southwest, and advised that adoption of a new zoning ordinance map will go a long way to encourage and to protect those citizens who wish to live in the City of Roanoke. He spoke with regard to concerns relating to town houses and row houses in the Residential Mixed Density District, RM-l, which should be 3500 square feet per unit, consistent with duplexes in the same district. Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., raised a question with regard to the Gainsboro Neighborhood Plan; I.e.: the area of Fairfax Avenue and Fifth Street which was designated as a play area, and the Henry Street area which was designated as a village center. She stated that Gainsboro residents paid close attention to the process to ensure that the above referenced areas were included on the zoning map, but at some point during the process, the play area/village center concept was changed. She asked that Council pay close attention to those changes that have taken place during the zoning process and specifically to those in the Gainsboro neighborhood. 530 Mr. Tony Hairston, 121)3 Tayloe Avenue, S. E., reiterated the comments of Ms. Bethel and stated that most of the changes in the Zoning Ordinance have occurred in the African-American community. He also referred to instances when the African-American community has been excluded from programs and/or projects that would benefit those persons living in the area, and stated that if Roanoke is to be a great city, the voices of all of its citizens should be taken seriously. Mr. Robert Young, spoke with regard to property located at 210 Carver Avenue, N. E., which is proposed to be zoned Downtown District, D. He stated that the property is not located in the downtown area and therefore requested that Commercial zoning be applied to the property under the new zoning ordinance because commercial zoning is not as restrictive as downtown zoning. He also referred to property located in the 13th Street/Jamison Avenue, S. E., area that is currently zoned residential and requested that the property be zoned Commercial. Liz Belcher, Roanoke Valley Greenway Coordinator, expressed appreciation for all of the effort that went into the new zoning ordinance, particularly inclusion of the floodplain and the River and Creek Corridors Overlay District and tree protection regulations. She stated that greenways are included as an allowed use in the River and Creek Corridors Overlay District, and requested that greenways also be included as an allowed use in the Floodplain Overlay District, which includes parks, picnic areas, and hiking trails. She referred to the remarks of a previous speaker that some of the City's parks are proposed to be zoned Institutional Planned Unit Development District instead of Recreation and Open Space District (ROS); there are several greenways in City parks that are not zoned ROS, such as Shrine Hill Park, the wooded area behind Patrick Henry High School between the track and the Shenandoah Life Insurance Company building, a section of Fishburn Park between the service road to James Madison Middle School and the park, a parcel of land behind Washington Park and Brown Robertson Park, and in downtown Roanoke. She called attention to greenways that were included in parks to provide the highest level of protection and expressed concern that greenways are not included as a category in the matrix; the category of parks is included, parks are allowed in five of the 21 districts, and greenways should be allowed in all of the districts, because greenways go through industrial and residential areas. She requested that greenways be added to the matrix as a permitted use in all districts. Mr. Robert Howard, 4310 Cravens Creek Road, S. W., expressed concern with regard to over development in the Greater Deyerle neighborhood, and requested that the Recreation and Open Space District apply to the Spring Valley Lake area. He called attention to flooding issues and stated that restrictions along the floodplain are appropriate until a permanent solution can be found to address the issue. 531 Mr. John Bradshaw, 3132 Burnleigh Road, S. W., advised that those persons who have been involved in the zoning process over the past three years have tried to reach a good balance between economic development, residential usage, beautification, quality of life, and all other aspects that the citizens of Roanoke revealed to the steering committee. He urged Council to stay as close as possible to the document as submitted by the City Planning Commission and not rezone small parcels of land simply because an individual makes a request of the Council. He asked that Council not broaden the requirements relating to billboards unless and until more study has been given to the issue and spoke in support of tree disturbance requirements. There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. He expressed appreciation to all speakers and again advised that no action would be taken by the Council this evening, and all questions, comments, and concerns would be referred to City staff for response. Members of Council expressed appreciation to the Citizens Steering Committee, the City Planning Commission and City staff for their work on the proposed new zoning ordinance and zoning map. Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that ordinances enacting Chapter 31).2, Zoning, being a comprehensive revision of the City's zoning regulations and adopting a new zoning map would be tabled until the next regular meeting of Council on Monday, December 5, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. 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. POLICE DEPARTMENT-SEGREGATION/INTEGRATION: Mr. Tony Hairston, 121)3 Tayloe Avenue, S. E., spoke with regard to alleged police brutality and racial profiling. He stated that an example of racial profiling occurs when a police officer singles out a person because of a scarf, or a headband that the person is wearing, specifically if the person is of African or African American decent. He expressed concern with regard to the way in which police officers carry out their jobs and an overall concern for living conditions in the City of Roanoke. He advised that he has personally experienced job discrimination and community discrimination. He stated that Roanoke's high schools are not up to date, text books are not current, some children come to school hungry and changes need to be made in the City of Roanoke. 532 ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, spoke with regard to the renovation of Victory Stadium, and suggested establishment of a Victory Stadium Hall of Fame to recognize prominent persons who have played football at the facility and to provide a history of the stadium for present and future generations of Roanokers. He stated that according to the agreement with the Norfolk and Western Railway, who donated the property to the City of Roanoke, the land cannot be used for any purpose other than for a stadium, armory and sports complex. He advised that consultants have reported that Victory Stadium is structurally sound, therefore, he suggested that $5 million be set aside for renovation of Victory Stadium which is an historic landmark and was constructed as a memorial to World War II veterans. He also suggested that the two high schools could use Victory Stadium, or a smaller stadium could be constructed at William Fleming High School. COMPLAINTS: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., advised that Council's first responsibility is to the City's neighborhoods and then to the City's workforce. He stated the mail of Council Members is being tampered with by City staff, therefore, Council does not know everything that is going on in the City of Roanoke. He stated that the City needs to do a better job of marketing itself in order to attract more citizens and businesses by providing jobs that pay well which, in turn, will boost the City's economic growth. He further stated that City employees are also citizens and consumers and should receive fair wages for the work they do; more manpower is needed to address the maintenance needs of City facilities; and City workers are being misused and leaving their jobs which affects the City's growth and prosperity. There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 9:50 p.m. APPROVED A?\~JrL- ~\~~ Mary F. Parker City Clerk C. Nelson Harris Mayor 533 REGULAR WEEKLY SESSION----ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL December 5, 2005 9:00 a.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, December 5, 2005, at 9:00 a.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris 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 pursuant to Resolution No. 37109-070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005. PRESENT: Council Members Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea (arrived late), Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff (arrived late), M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., and Mayor C. Nelson Harrisn---n-n----n--------------n___7. ABS E NT: Non e _____n_n___n_n__ __nn ___nn__n_nn_n___nn_nn __nnn_n __nn_nn_ n--O. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 C. Nelson Harris requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to §2.2-3711 (A)(I), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Council Member Cutler moved that Council concur in the request of the Mayor to convene in Closed Meeting as abovedescribed. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, McDaniel, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor H a r r i s ___on n___ n n_n -- - n___ - -- __n n_ __ - n_n 00 - n _n - __ _n_ n __ _n n__n - n_ n n __ n __ n - - _n n_ __ - n_n _ __ _ 5 . NAYS: Non e ____n_ --n--nn-n-nn-n__nnn____n______n_n____nn____nn___n_n_________nO. (Council Members Lea and Wishneff were not present when the vote was recorded.) 534 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 adversèly 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. Council Member Cutler moved that Council conClJr in the request of the City Manager to convene in Closed Meeting as abovedescribed. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the follOWing vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, McDaniel,Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor fiarris-----------------------------------------------------------------------------.------------------------------5. NAYS: No n e nU___ nnn:____n_nn__ _n_nn_ ____n__n____ __nn ____n_nn__ __nn_n___ nn_nO . (Council Members Lea and Wishneff were not present when - the vote was recorded.) ITEMS LISTED ON THE 2:00 P. M., COUNCIL DOCKET REQUIRING DISCUSSION/CLARIFICATION, AND ADDITIONS/DELETIONS TO THE 2:00 P. M., AGENDA: ZONING: Council Member Cutler inquired if it was the intent of Council to vote on the new Zoning Ordinance at the 2:00 p.m., session; whereupon, the Mayor advised that the public hearing was held on Monday, November 21, 2005, however, there may be citizens who wish to speak at the 2:00 p.m. Council meeting prior to Council's vote on the ordinances. COUNCIL-SCHOOLS: The Mayor reminded Council of the joint Council/Roanoke City School Board Retreat to be held on Tuesday, January 3, 2001), from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, and suggested that any agenda items be submitted to the City Clerk. The City Manager advised that the School Board's agenda would include the sharing of plans to address various aspects of educational standards and the School Board is prepared to assume responsibility for a majority of the meeting in order to help Council become better grounded in school-related issues. TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: NONE. Council Member Lea entered the meeting. 535 BRIEFINGS: CITIZEN SURVEY: The City Manager advised that a comprehensive citizen survey has been conducted by the City of Roanoke for the past five years by the Virginia Tech Center for Survey Research which focused on customer satisfaction levels regarding certain City services. She stated that results of the surveys have helped the City to be more responsive with regard to the delivery of se:rvices; and the time schedule for the survey this year was modified in order to aid City departments as they prepare their fiscal year budgets inasmuch as past results were not available until after departmental budgets were adopted and caused approximately a one year delay to implement certain improvements. She further stated that this year's survey was designed to not only ask citizens to rate the quality of City services, but to respond to a number of. strategic issues that the City wishes to address, in addition to several open-ended questions. The City Manager introduced Susan Willis-Walton, Co-Director, Virginia Tech Center for Survey Research, to present the briefing. Ms. Willis-Walton called attention to the results of another survey that was published in The Roanoke Times which contained similar topical questions, but methodology was different and was conducted over a two-day period with rlgistered voters, versus the survey conducted by Virginia Tech which was a random scientific sampling of citizens. She presented the following survey highlights: Citizen Ratinas of the Citv of Roanoke As A Place To Live: 2000-2005 o Random Sampling Design o Survey Instrument Focus: New Items and Methodology o Dates of Administration: 5/23/05-8/9/05 o Survey Pre-test o Survey Administration Via Telephone o 505 Completed Telephone Interviews o Sampling Error: ±4.4 percent o Survey Length: 18.S Minute Average Population 2003 Respondents 2005 ResDondents Gender 53.1%Female; ~3.9% Female; b3.6% Female; 6.9% Male 36.1 % Male 36.4% Male I\ge 39.7% <40 yrs. 33.9% <40 yrs. 23.8% <40 yrs. 0.3% 40+ yrs. ki6.1 % 40+ vrs. 76.2% 40+ vrs. Race 26.7% Black 19.3% Black 1 .1% Black ~9.4% White 79.1 % White 75.9% White 3.9% Other 1.6% Other 3.0% Other Income ~5.1%<$50,000 72.8% < $50,000 8.7% < $50,000 34.9% $50,000+ 27.2% $50,000+ 31.3% $SO 000+ 536 Citinn Ratlnas Qfthe Cltv afRo.noke As A Place..I2..Lb:l.; 2000·2005 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 o .2000 .2001 . 2002 02003 .2005 0.2 1.2 0.6 0.2 0.6 Excellent/Good Fai;lPoor Don't know/Refuse . 85.8 Citizen Rallnas of Duality of lift! in the City of Roanoke 100 79.4 79.377.2 75,1 .2000 80 .2002 60 02003 40 .2005 19.7 20.021.8 24.9 20 0.8 0.8 I.. ... 0 ExceUenllGood Fair/Poor Don't knowlRefust 100 95 90 . 85 87.0 80 75 2000 . 88.5 .. 91.0~ . 84.9 2001 2002 2003 __ 'Very' or 'SOmew....t' Satisf'Jed 2005 537 xce ent or 00 atmos .nnear m arent eses (95.1) Fire Protection Services - 92.2% (75.5) Cultural Activities/Events in the City - 0.5% (93.0) Emergencv & Rescue Services - 1.7% (78.4) The City's Recreation Proarams - 69.0% (94.1) 911 EmerQencv Call Center - 91.5% (75.4) Clean/Maint. Parks/Rec. Facilities - 68.7% (92.6) Public Library Services - 90.7% (70.0) Maint. of City-Owned BUildings - 68.7% (84.6) Weekly Trash Collection - 85.9% (69.1) Street Lighting - 68.7% (75.6) City Beautification Programs - 81.9% (74.0) Clean/Maint. Community Rec. Cntrs. - 7.2% (79.1) Police Services - 80.4% (NA) Maint. of Trees Along Streets/In Parks - 67.2% (81.8) Emergency/Disaster Mgmt. - 80.1 % (65.3) Removal of Snow/Ice From Streets - 66.9% (81.9) Mowing/Maint. of City Parks - 79.3% (72.5) Mowing RtWays/ Medians/ Roadsides - 66.7% (74.2) Recycling Services - 77.7% (67.9) Animal Control - 65.3% (75.6) Pick·up of Large Items/Brush - (69.4) Quality Civic Center Cultural Events - 64.9% 76.5% (75.4) Convenience of Bill Pavment - 72.5% (NA) Qualitv New Sidewalk Construction - 64.8% (74.9) Bagged Leaf Collection - 71.6% (69.3) Building Permits Application/Review - 62.1% 'E II 'G d' 20052003 R . A . P h Citizen RatinQs of Citv Services as 'Excellent' or 'Good': 2005 Continued2003 Ratings Aooear in Parentheses 56.7) Building Insoections - 61.4% 50.2) Promoting Env. Awareness - 50.8% 65.6) Loose Leaf Collection - 60.5% 56.2) Regulation/Zoning Land Use - 50.1 % 64.3) City Gov. Support N brhd Orgs. - 52.4) Efforts to Improve Housing - 50.0% 59.9% 59.7) Econ. Dev. Assist. to Business - 58.9% NA) Maint. of Existing Sidewalks - 49.3% 62.0) Quality Civic Center Events - 58.7% 52.0) Resoonse to Citizen Reguests - 48.6% NA) Quality Athletic Fields/Facil. - 57.8% 53.6) Transoortation Planning for Traffic - 48.6% 64.1) Getting Information to Citizens - 50.9) Availability of Civic Center Parking - 45.2% 56.7% 63.4) Street Sweeoina - 54.2% 54.3) Prooertv Code Enforcement - 43.8% 46.0) City Parking Facilities - 54.1 % 48.2) Street Paving, Maintenance/Reoair - 40.4% 63.5) Maint. Storm Drainage Syst. - 52.7% 42.3) Weed Abatement - 37.6% Ratinas For Services Provided By Autonomous Government Organizations 84.4) Water Services - 79.3% K60.8) Roanoke Public Schools - 62.2% 82.2) Health Deoartment - 78.0% I Citv Services With At Least A Five Position Rank Order Increase Since 2003 D City Parking Facilities (From 47th to 34th) D Removal of Snow and Ice From City Streets (From 28th to 16th) D City Beautification Programs (From 15th to 6th) D Street Lighting (From 26th to 17th) D Economic Development Assistance to Businesses (From 37th to 29th) D Recycling Services (From 17th to 9th) D City's Efforts to Promote Environmental Awareness (From 45th to 38th) D Current Level of Bagged Leaf Collection Service (From 21 st to 14th) D City Efforts to Improve the Quality of Housing in the City (From 42nd to 35th) D Maintenance of City Owned Buildings (From 25th to 20th) 538 (Citizen Ratinos 0 'Exce ent' and 'Good' Com ined) ¡tv Service 003 Ratino 005 Ratino ~ Decline Maintenance of Storm Drainaoe Svstems ~3.5% 52.7% 10.8 Enfercement of ProDertv Maintenance/Nuisance Codes 54.3% ~3.8% 10.5 ~itv's Recreation Proorams 78.4% )9.0% 9.4 treet 5weeoino 53.4% 54.2% 9.2 treet Pavino, Maintenance and Reoair q8.2% qO.4% 7.8 -itizens Gettina Information About Citv Services/Activities ~4.1% 56.7% 7.4 Buildino Permits Aoolication and Review Process 9.3% 62.1% 7.2 leanliness and Maintenance of Communitv Rec Centers 74.0% 67.2% 6.8 '""Ieanliness/Maintenance of Parks/ Rec Facilities in General 75.4% 68.7% 6.7 Reoulation and Zonina for Land Use 56.2% 50.1% 6.1 Mowino Rioht of Wavs Street Medians and Roadsides 72.5% 66.7% 5.8 Availabilitv of parkino at the Civic Center 50.9% 45.2% 5.7 Buildino Insnections 66.7% 61.4% 5.3 '""urrent Level of Loose Leaf Collection Service 1>5.6% 60.5% 5.1 ultural Activities and Events in the Citv 75.5% 70.5% 5.0 ransoortation Planning for Traffic 53.6% 48.6% 5.0 Weed Abatement 42.3% 37.6% 4.7 Dualitv of Civic Center Cultural Events 1>9.4% 54.9% 4.5 Services With A Percentaoe Ratino Decrease Since 2003 f II b Citizen Anreement on Roanoke 5trateaic Issue /()u estion Survey Items 2000-2005 !Survev Item 000 2001 2002 '003 2005 Roanoke's neighborhoods are good places tc 83.2 NA ~7.4 NA 85.3 ive Clean air and water are valued by the Roanoke NA NA 80.0 NA 85.0 "ommunitv Downtown is vibrant/dynamic destination NA NA 84.8 NA 82.4 leffering mix of res tau rants/ e nte rtai n me nt/ "ultural attractions City does good job offering multicultural 85.5 NA 79.0 NA 79.6 events and attractions City government does good job of historical 79.0 NA 78.8 NA 79.2 IJreservation/orotection in the Citv Neighborhoods provide needed businesses/ NA NA 78.0 NA 78.0 ervices/activities rransportation system allows good mix 0 55.0 NA 74.1 NA 77.6 ransoortation ontions "oanoke's greenway development effort is ¡ NA NA NA NA 75.2 aluable asset to the Citv and its residents here is a good mix of housing types and 75.4 NA 77.0 NA 74.9 ffordabilitv in Roanoke Roanoke's downtown is (becoming) the NA NA 73.5 NA 71.9 reo ion's economic enoine and cultural center Roanoke does good job providing 71.0 NA 72.5 NA 70.9 health/human services to citizens who need hem effectiveness of City government in meeting 79.4 80.4 74.3 ~8.8 69.3 ommunitv needs' The services prOVided by the City of Roanoke ~5.8 75.1 70.3 ~9.7 57.1 re worth the taxes Daid bv citizens Educational resources and opportunities ~4.9 NA 54.3 NA 67.1 available to yOU and vour familv in Roanoke' 539 Roanoke does a good job of supporting NA NA NA NA ~6.9 pxistinQ businesses City government does a good job of educating 74.3 NA 66.3 NA ~5.9 itizens about Citv services City) Community does good job promoting 74.3 NA 65.1 NA 63.4 Roanoke as (top) tourist destination fOI outdoor/familv vacations l.ity government does good job developing 75.0 NA 3.7 NA 152.8 redeveloping commercial and industrial areas in Roanoke Roanoke actively expanding cooperative 58.9 71.1 53.7 64.0 02.6 fforts with local Qovernments in rea ion _ity government performance is improving in 72.9 5.9 163.1 61.5 01.2 Roanoke Roanoke's air transportation system effectivel~ NA NA 59.5 NA 01.2 links rea ion to major national destinations \-ity officials actively involve. citizens in 63.9 NA 165.5 NA 0.2 business of City government Roanoke does a good job of attracting neVI 65.0 NA NA NA 54.9 businesses Roanoke does good job focusing on unique 56.3 NA 56.3· NA 149.7 ~eeds ofvouth How much of the time do you think you can NA NA 149.3 '17.9 145.1 rust the Citv to do what is riaht· City government's efforts to improve the local 46.9 NA 140.5 NA 142.0 economv· City officials do a good job bringing higher paying jobs to City 53.2 NA 44.1 NA 38.8 ·Perceptions of Safety in Roanoke: 2003 & 2005 PerceDtions of 5afetv in Roanoke: 2003 & 2005 Neighborhood 90.7 91.2 ParksIRec. Facilities 73.7 69.0 Downtown 81.8 81.5 82.6 78.4 .2005 02003 Civic Center Parking Lot City Parking Garages 57.0 55.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 Percentage Reporting 'Very' or 'Somewhat' Safe 540 Ouestions and Answers: Council Member Dowe asked the following questions: Question: What can the City do to remind or re-educate the citizens that reduced State funding has affected some areas of the City's ability to provide services? Response: The City Manager stated that City staff attempts to address the issue during the annual budget process by making recommendations to Council with regard to those service activities that need to be modified and by identifying opportunities to re- engineer as opposed to eliminate services; some reduction in activities and services has occurred, but not all were mandated by the State; general citizen attention is best garnered at the time that a particular service is delivered; and it is important to continually remind citizens of the City's revenue sources and the number of services that are provided within those revenue sources. Question: Considering a survey of this magnitude, is there any indication that the City is trending downward? Response: Ms. Willis-Walton called attention to the importance of monitoring trends, and advised that five years of data is a good data base from which to determine the direction of services. She stated that the City plans to conduct a survey every other year to monitor various trends to ensure that City services are not spiraling downward. 541 Council Member McDaniel asked the following question: Question: With regard to perceptions of safety, is safety broken down with regard to race and gender? Response: Ms. Willis-Walton advised that data was cross-tabulated by race and gender. , Council Member Cutler asked the following questi~n: Question: The service with the greatest percentage of decrease was in maintenance of the storm drainage system. Absent Roanoke County's interest at this time in regional storm water and utilities, what is the City's option to address the issue? Response: The City Manager stated that the City has no other choice but to either enact a storm water management fee, or delay the fee until such time as neighboring jurisdictions are willing to participate, and suggested that the matter be included on a future agenda for regional discussion by the Roanoke Valley's chief elected officials. She stated that because of the magnitude of storm drainage projects and current commitments, both capital and operating, the City will not be able to make any significant progress on storm water management issues over the next 10 to 12 years unless the City of Roanoke enacts a storm water management fee. Council Member Dowe stated that appreciation is in order to those City employees who give their best to provide a high level of service to Roanoke's citizens. The City Manager stated that she was pleased with the significant improvements made by City staff since the 2000 survey; it was a bold move on the part of the City to conduct a survey of citizens regarding City services and citizens responded in a friendly, courteous and helpful manner. She expressed appreciation for the manner in which City staff delivered services throughout the period of organizational changes and recession. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick suggested that the City Manager forward a communication to all City employees expressing the Council's appreciation for their individual efforts in delivering services to Roanoke's citizens. Council Member Cutler inquired about the availability of Federal and/or State grants to address storm water management and water quality; whereupon, the City Manager advised that the inquiry would be called to the attention of the consultant engaged by the City to pursue potential grant opportunities. 542 The City Manager stated that she reviewed the citizen survey from the standpoint of improvements that need to be made and challenges that need to be addressed and requested that City staff prepare action plans to address specific issues of concern; whereupon, she reviewed the following action plans: Action Plan for Maintenance of Storm Drainaae Svstems o The City's consultant presented an overview of the storm water utility options and recommendations. City Council indicated a desire to take a regional approach to such a utility and asked the WVWA to consider this issue, but it has not advanced further at this time. Seek guidance on the appropriate next step. o Continue to develop budget and CMERP requests that will improve our ability to address storm water maintenance needs. o Purchase and deploy recently funded storm drain camera system. o Encourage the shortening of the loose leaf collection season to free up maintenance crews to work on storm water maintenance and other critical maintenance projects. Action Plan for Enforcement of Prooertv Maintenance/Nuisance Codes o Continue working with RVTV and the Office of Communications to develop educational series on code enforcement. o Continue to cross-train inspectors. o Continue to canvass for nuisance codes and Rental Certificate of Compliance program, thus being proactive and not reactive to reduce the number of citizen complaints. o Recruiting inspectors for two vacancies. o Continue to demolish derelict structures and mow weeds; the Dept of Housing and Neighborhood Services has eliminated an under performing contractor from their weed abatement program. Action Plan for Citv's Recreation Proarams o Increase and amend the current use of program evaluation forms to determine specific reasons why customers are dissatisfied. It should be noted that participant evaluations for classes, trips, events and athletic programs rate over 80%. o Continue our recently strengthened partnership with Roanoke City Public Schools to revamp opportunities for all middle school children during the after-school hours. 543 D Develop new partnerships with youth and adult service agencies to leverage resources for a diversity of market segments. D Continue current plans for increasing the quality of our youth athletic coaches. D Continue the new system for communicating youth sports information to the citizens on a regional basis. D Expand upon our user groups and constituents by making our residents more aware of our programs and benefits of participation through implementation of the strategic marketing plan. Share our program successes by becoming more visible in the media. D Enhance the use of non-participant survey methodologies to improve program delivery and develop new outcome based programs. D Continue to implement the Comprehensive Master Plan to develop new recreation facilities. D Improve. the image of our program locations by enhancing the atmosphere of our facilities as well as the turf conditions of our ball fields. Action Plan for Street Sweeoina D The Sweeper Shop continues to suffer vacancies and an inability to attract qualified applicants. Staff will request Human Resources to evaluate this problem. D The Division's website has been modified to allow residents to track street sweeping progress and schedules on-line. D Evaluate the impact of only sweeping streets with curb and gutter and the impact of sweeping arterial streets less frequently in an effort to sweep all streets more frequently. D Procure and deploy recently funded GPS enabled management system that is intended to increase our ability to track street sweeping progress and productivity. D Due to heavy leaf drop in the fall, consider elimination of the late fall and early winter residential street sweeping and modify schedules to focus on leaf collection on arterial streets and in storm drain sensitive areas. Action Plan for Street Pavina. Maintenance, and Reoair D The Right of Way Excavation and Restoration Standard went into effect on 12/01/04 and is providing an enhanced level of inspection and an improved standard of repair for utility cuts. 544 D The pothole patching truck continues to be utilized in a wider range of weather conditions than previous methods. D Even though the funds available for paving have increased, the increased cost of asphalt and milling continues to erode the Division's efforts to meet its goal of paving 57 lane miles per year. A multi-year plan to increase funding is in place. However, alternative pavement preservation techniques such as crack sealing and thin asphalt overlays will continue to be used. D Advocate the collection of system wide inventory and condition information (currently included in the lTC's future projects list) in an effort to apply limited resources in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Action Plan for Citizens Gettino Information about Citv Services/Activities D The Office of Communications continues to encourage citizens, the media, and businesses to sign up for the my Roanoke service. D The website is updated continually with new content, information, and successful applications such as Reverse 911 and eChecks. D Continue to maintain production of the Roanoke Citizen Magazine, PLAY, and the municipal calendar. D Continue to promote City programs and services through RVTV and Inside Roanoke. D Will work more closely with City Departments to ensure that citizen communication is consistent, clear, concise, and of the highest quality. D Continue to promote City programs and events to local media, including increased promotions to smaller publications such as the Roanoke Tribune. Action Plan for Buildino Permits Aoolication and Review Process D The Building Inspections Division continues to use its comment cards in the Development Assistance Center to get first hand feedback from customers using the DAC for plan/permit submission, etc. D In addition, the Division has recently implemented a combination permit system that will eliminate the need to obtain multiple permits for a construction project. This move along with reduction in permit fees is expected to streamline the application process. 545 o With deployment of the primary plans examiner to Iraq last year, Building Inspections was required to adjust personnel to accommodate this function. With the plans reviewer back in place now, we have also made changes to allow backup support for this function to avoid delays in plan reviewer turn-around times. Next Steos . 0 In January of this year, City staff provided Council with a comprehensive update of the action plans that were implemented as a result of the 2003 survey. o Staff is currently updating that document with all of the action plans that are being put in place' due to this year's results. Council Member Lea called attention to previous remarks by the Commonwealth's Attorney in connection with attracting sufficient staff to prosecute misdemeanors through the court system and inquired if the City could be of assistance. The City Manager stated that it would be necessary to appropriate additional funds to the Commonwealth Attorney's budget for the purpose of hiring additional attorneys. She called attention to certain Virginia localities that provide locally funded positions in the Commonwealth Attorney's Office and the City Attorney's Office which positions are intended specifically to prosecute misdemeanors, inasmuch as this is not an area that the State currently funds. Council Member Wishneff suggested that the Legislative Committee consider the issue of funding for additional attorney positions in the Commonwealth Attorney's Office. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick stated that decreased State funding is only one component of the issue, and another challenge is the fact that the judicial system is not as serious about specific issues as police officers. He spoke in support of developing a better overall understanding of what could be requested of State legislators since they may not be in a position to address funding issues. He also suggested that the matter be brought to the attention of the Virginia Municipal League and tothe Virginia First Cities Coalition. Council Member Wishneff expressed concern with regard to citizen rating on economic development, and inquired if an action plan was developed by City staff to address the issue. The City Manager stated that all issues have action plans that are currently under development, and Council will receive a comprehensive report in early January, 2001) on each item. With regard to tourism, she stated that the City is the major funding source for the Roanoke Valley Convention and Visitors Bureau, and the organization has been requested to increase efforts to obtain additional funding from other Roanoke Valley jurisdictions and to provide performance results relative to previous City funding. 546 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick pointed out that the survey was completed by citizens, who mayor may not know the dynamics of economic development. The City Manager called attention to past efforts of the City to solicit input regarding economic development through monthly breakfast meetings with representatives of various businesses, which have resulted in the receipt of positive feedback and suggestions with regard to needed improvements. She stated that the City would continue to use that avenue as a future resource. Mayor Harris made the observation that if the City planned to use the citizen survey as a way to focus the City's attention on areas that need improvement, economic development clearly surfaced as one of the lowest ranked items in terms of perceived City performance. Roanoke Redevelopment and Housino Authoritv (RRHA) Proiect Update: HOUSING/AUTHORITY: The City Manager advised that she was recently requested to sign a letter regarding plans of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Heusing Authority (RRHA) for the Hurt Park community; however, prior to signing the correspondence she requested that the RRHA brief the Council on the proposed plans. She introduced Earl B. Reynolds, Jr., Deputy Director, Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority. Mr. Reynolds advised that in the fall of 2004, in response to a Board of Commissioners planning retreat, the RRHA Management Team developed an operational plan which attempted to address the development of a number of strategic plans within the community, and more specifically attempted to address maintenance and/or reconfiguration of RRHA owned and operated housing communities, one of which is Hurt Park. He stated that in January 2005, the total plan, including Hurt Park, was presented to the City Manager and in March 2005, RRHA staff began meeting with community residents, Hurt Park residents, representatives of the Roanoke City School system and certain business persons from the Hurt Park area. He added that the mission of the RRHA is to improve the phYSical environment of the Hurt Park housing development, to reduce the denSity of public housing and to promote self- sufficiency, while, at the same time, helping to revitalize the entire Hurt Park community; Hurt Park, constructed in 191)7, is the only large rental housing complex in the entire Hurt Park/Southwest area of the City; no major renovations have taken place; the complex is heated with gas heat, but does not have air conditioning; buildings are constructed of brick veneer, stucco and wood siding, with 13 buildings on a small site representing 105 rental units. He advised that improvements are needed in the following categories: 547 Phvsical imorovement issues - Masonry erosion and infrastructure issues exist throughout the development; the restrictive site allows for only 105 rental units and does not allow for storage units for residents which results in outside clutter; another infrastructure issue relates to servicing the original gas boilers used for heating the facilities, which require that a repairman must go underground and take the boiler apart, piece by piece, and some parts are no longer available. Social Issues - Density of the buildings: 13 buildings on a restricted site containing 105 rental units does not allow for sufficient exterior space for residents to call their own; there are no acceptable outside areas for people to fellowship, or to hold activities for small children; program issues abound and have been discussed by a group of citizens that have been meeting at Hurt Park School for the past year; the Housing Authority has tried to address the issues by bringing in more services, not just to the Hurt Park community which is owned and operated by the Housing Authority, but to the greater Hurt Park area; and certain chronic issues exist with regard to a specific sector of the community:· graffiti, bullet holes in doors, and frequent responses to calls by the Roanoke City Police Department. Mr. Reynolds advised that: o The study team held meetings and workshops and other types of interaction to discuss how the problems could be fixed. o The study team consists of Hurt Park residents, neighborhood residents and groups, City and Housing Authority staff, and architects and engineers. o Villages at Lincoln, formerly known as Lincoln Terrace, is an example of a successful public housing project; Lincoln Terrace looked much like the Hurt Park community, with a number of deteriorated buildings and a lot of vandalism, etc.; as a result of the Hope Six Program, the Lincoln Terrace community was transformed into a different type of housing development and density was reduced by 145 units (300 units previously existed), which essentially recreated the neighborhood. o As a part of interaction with Hurt Park community residents, the study team conducted weekend tours with numerous people who had not visited the Villages at Lincoln in order to provide a sense of what could be done in the neighborhood. o In order to accomplish this type of development, the Hurt Park neighborhood must be recreated. 548 D There is a need to demolish all 105 Hurt Park units and reconfigure the site. D Construction of 75 new mixed-finance units, on-site, would be more acceptable as a neighborhood. D Additional property would need to be acquired in the Hurt Park neighborhood in order to construct approximately 25 new scattered site units and duplexes, single-family homes, etc., similar to what was done at the Villages at Lincoln, and would develop and revitalize the entire neighborhood within a two - four square block area. D The creation of more home ownership opportunities and the targeting of CDBG and HOME funds in· the neighborhood would increase promotion of self-sufficiency. D A preliminary estimate of the project is $15-$11) million. D HUD funds, low-income housing tax credit funds, mixed financing, CDBG and HOME funds, City infrastructure funding, bonds, and mortgage financing are a potential source of funds. Possible timeframe: D 2005 - Continue to consult with residents and community groups. D 2001) - Move forward with the demolition program, relocation of residents currently residing in Hurt Park, demolition, grading and development of new site plan; funding applications, self-sufficiency grant applications,etc. A Ross Grant has been submitted and if approved, would be divided between Hurt Park and Indian Village. D 2007 - Begin construction of a two-year construction project. Mr. Reynolds advised that the RRHA, residents and the neighborhood are excited about the Hurt Park project; and the Housing Authority will continue to develop plans containing more specificity with the City administration and submit a request to HUD for funding approval and for demolition of existing buildings. The City Manager stated that she was previously requested to sign a letter to HUD officials acknowledging that the City administration was aware of the plan of the RRHA to demolish 25-30 units of Hurt Park public housing, and if Council concurs, she would sign correspondence as requested by the Housing Authority. She further stated that the Housing Authority is pursuing various funding sources and will request certain infrastructure funds from the City of Roanoke that are not currently in the Capital Improvement Plan, which could cause a delay in the construction schedule, or it may be necessary for Coum:i1 549 to re-prioritize certain redevelopment and capital improvement activities in order to make funds available. She added that the most recent budget figure is approximately $1 million for infrastructure needs, which mayor may not be available at the time the request is submitted, assuming that the RRHA is successful in securing funds for demolition of current units and for construction of new units. Council Member Dowe spoke in support of naming a faCility to honor Richard Chubb, long time principal at Hurt Park Elementary School and a strong community advocate. He also suggested that Mr. Chubb's input be invited with regard to initial planning for the Hurt Park community. Council Member Lea stated that the City of Roanoke will not reach its full potential until communities and neighborhoods like Hurt Park are changed. He commended the City on the positive improvements that have been made to date and advised that the improvements reviewed by Mr. Reynolds for the Hurt Park community are a step in the right direction. He encouraged the RRHA to move forward with the Hurt Park project. Council Member McDaniel requested more information with regard to the relocation plan and how the plan would work during the demolition process. Mr. Reynolds advised that relocation of residents would be addressed similar to the Lincoln Village project through vacant units that would be demolished first; presently, Hurt Park units are at approximately 80% occupancy; the units to be constructed will not be HUD public housing units; and two - three years out, when new units are available, those persons who wish to move back to the housing development would be given first priority; and the process has identified several candidates who would be placed on a self-sufficiency track leading to relocation in the private market place. Council Member Wishneff inquired if Hope Six funding is available; whereupon, Mr. Reynolds advised that Hope Six funding is available in name only and is woefully funded inasmuch as larger cities like Detroit, Philadelphia, New York City and Los Angeles are given priority. The City Manager stated that the Hurt Park project is not a Hope Six application, funds are available through HUD for renovation and reconstruction of units through multiple applications, and the City of Portsmouth recently received Hope Six funding for a project. Council Member Cutler stated that the Hurt Park housing development is at the end of its physical life in terms of the condition of buildings and infrastructure; and a village center, with trees, and bike trails, etc., would make it difficult to identify where the Hurt Park project stops and the neighborhood begins. 550 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick agreed that the Hurt Park housing development is well beyond its useful age. He spoke in support of the concept of a village center, and stressed the importance of a partnership by Council and the Housing Authority to develop the site into more of a village center, while enriching all of Hurt Park as a neighborhood. He suggested that consideration be given to reducing the number of units to less than the number that is projected, and inquired if there is any significance in single-family homeownership that would help to change the ratio of the levels of low-income housing. Mr. Reynolds replied in the affirmative and advised that the Housing Authority has developed a considerable amount of experience with its single- family homeownership program, which is accomplished through. a lease- purchase arrangement, with almost 100 per cent occupancy. He stated that persons are given up to three years to purchase the home, but experience has shown that participants on average actually purchase the homes within 12-11) months. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick requested more specific information from the RRHA with regard to the role of the City in connection with infrastructure improvements which will be critical to the support and success of the project. Council Member Wishneff requested a definition of the boundaries of the Hurt Park area; whereupon, Mr. Reynolds stated that Hurt Park is composed of about three different neighborhoods, and Housing Authority owned property is the center point for a community development planning activity that would extend approximately two-three square blocks, but would not take in the entire Hurt Park area. The City Manager stated that there will be a separa~e planning function and activity with regard to the Patterson Avenue/Thirteenth Street, S. W., corridor, and Council will receive information at a later date concerning the transformation of multiple apartment homes back to the large estate homes that previously existed which will involve certain creative financing. Council Member Cutler suggested that consideration be given to retaining the Mountain View Recreation Center as a location for meetings, gatherings and recreation center functions. Mayor Harris expressed appreciation to Mr. Reynolds for the briefing and advised that the information would be helpful to the Members of Council as they engage in dialogue with citizens regarding the Hurt Park neighborhood. 551 New Parkino Ticket Procedure: TRAFFIC: The City Manager advised that Sgt. Charles· Karr, Police Department; Dana Long, Chief of Billings and Collections; and Pat Kinsey, representing Downtown Roanoke, Inc., served as a team to address City parking enforcement initiatives; whereupon, she called upon Sgt. Karr and Ms. Long for a briefing on the City's new parking ticket procedure. Sgt. Karr demonstrated a handheld device containing the City's database of all persons who have been issued parking tickets, which would eventually be included in a wireless handheld device. Ms. Long presented the following information: Background: D 25,000 parking tickets are issued annually by the Police Department, Fire Department, Virginia Western Community College Police, and Airport Police. D The Police Department employs civilianized parking enforcement personnel. D The Office of Billings and Collections manages the database. D 'Parking Roundtable' meetings were held with Downtown Roanoke, Inc. New Technology: D In 2001, Council was briefed on new parking enforcement technology and how technology would allow future flexibility. D On October 3, 2005, the City implemented a new computerized parking ticket system along with 'handheld' ticket issuance devices, which was the first major upgrade in ticketing technology in over 20 years. D Use of new technology now provides the framework for implementing new initiatives and for re-engineering business processes. Current Ticketing Process: D A ticket is issued allowing 1 5 days for payment. D If the ticket is not paid, a Past Due Statement providing for payment within another 1 5 days is mailed and a $1 5.00 late payment penalty is applied. D If the ticket remains unpaid, a Law Enforcement Notice is mailed allowing 15 days for payment. D If the ticket remains unpaid, a Court Summons is issued. 552 o If the ticket is not dismissed or collected through the court system, it is returned to the Department of Billings and Collection for further collections including submittal to the Set-Off Debt Collection program. o 20 per cent of all tickets issued require additional collection effort. Goals: o To ensure ample on-street parking for visitors. o To make parking a pleasant experience for the casual downtown visitor. o To encourage off-street parking by downtown employees. New Initiatives Requiring Council Action to Adopt: o Warning Tickets. o Escalation of Fines. o Booting. o Implementation Period. o These programs address three problem areas: 1. One-time or casual visitor to downtown who receives a ticket; 2. Habitual offender who pays tickets; 3. Habitual offender who does not pay tickets. Reasons for Additional Enforcement Initiatives: o Habitual offenders have learned the 'system' - Court process, chalking. o Business complaints. o Need to free up parking spaces for visitors and businesses. o Time and resources to pursue collections on the accounts. o Unpaid parking tickets cost the City thousands of dollars in lost or delayed revenues. Warning Tickets: o Warning tickets are proposed to be issued in the downtown area and nearby vicinity for motorists who have never received a prior parking ticket. Note: Warning tickets are only available for use with the handheld ticket issuance devices. o The one-time warning ticket will also include a flyer directing motorists to off-street parking facilities. o Warning tickets will aid in dispelling the misperception that parking is difficult in the downtown area. o Warning tickets will also decrease the amount of tickets issued to visitors and out-of-state motorists. 553 How The System Works: D The 'handheld' contains a database of everyone who has been issued a parking ticket. D First time offenders will receive a warning ticket. D Warning tickets will only be issued in Timed Zone parking areas. They will not be issued in fire lanes, disabled zones, or no parking zones. D A warning ticket will look like a regular ticket, only there is no fine. Escalating Parking Fines: D Using wireless technology, repeat offenders within the same day would receive escalating fines. D Parking fines would increase for repeat violations from $15.00 to $30.00 to a maximum of $45.00 for each repeat violation within the same day. D It discourages repeat offenders and those who move vehicles during the day or otherwise wipe off chalk marks, or try to 'beat the system'. Booting: D Effective enforcement tool for citizens who ignore tickets. D Wheel immobilization devices are placed on vehicles with over five unpaid parking violation tickets. D Boots are removed when all fines are paid. D Currently, 171 accounts qualify for booting. Booting Process: D Repeat offender account information is electronically loaded into handheld devices. D When a vehicle is located with five or more unpaid tickets, a 'boot' is placed on the vehicle. D A window sign is attached warning the motorist not to move the vehicle and. stating that the City is not responsible for vehicular damage. D The window sign provides a telephone number for payment and removal of boot. D Vehicles will be allowed 24 hours to pay for the tickets and have the boot removed prior to the vehicle being towed. D Numerous cities, localities, universities, and parking management companies use booting devices, including private lots in the City, Arlington, Alexandria, Richmond, major universities, Virginia Tech, Fairfax, Winchester, VCU, and the District of Columbia. D Some localities and states use booting for unpaid taxes and for delinquent child support payments. 554 o Virginia Beach and Norfolk tow vehicles after three unpaid tickets. Proposed Implementation Period: o It is recommended that violators be allowed to pay fines and avoid the potential for booting during the four weeks prior to the effective date of the booting ordinance. Information Plan: o Citizens will be informed of changes through RVTV, press releases, the City's web-site, Downtown Roanoke, IFK. Advocate, and flyers. Proposed Timeframe: o Report to Council, December 19, 2005. o Implement information plan: December 19, 2005 through January 31, 2001). o Warning tickets: January 1, 2001). o Escalation of fines: February 1 , 2006. o Booting: February 1, 2006. Ouestions bv Council Members: Council Member Dowe asked the following question: Question: Is there an opportunity in the court system for individuals who may be temporarily handicapped or those who have received a parking ticket for parking in a space other than a space identified for handicapped parking to offer an explanation? Response: Sgt. Karr stated that individuals who are åpproved for a handicapped parking permit are granted permission by State Code to park four hours within a timed zone, but not in a fire lane or a no parking zone, and information is printed on the parking ticket regarding the option to pay the ticket or to appear in court. Council Member Cutler asked the following questions: Question: Is the ticket envelope also a return envelope, and did the team receive input from area businesses during the study process? Response: Sgt. Karr stated that envelopes are returnable, the study team met with representatives of several businesses with regard to employee parking issues, and several businesses offer an off-street parking benefit for their employees, although some employees opt not to use off-street parking. 555 Question: Have you considered including a flyer with all parking tickets? Response: Ms. Long stated that a flyer would be considered. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick stated that downtown parking has been an issue for many years. He commended the study team for their , work, and advised that he did not see anything in the proposed initiatives that could not be addressed by obeying'the law. Council Member Wishneff asked the following questions: Question: Is the warning on a one time basis for the life of the vehicle? Response: Ms. Long responded in the affirmative. Question: Is there better use of loading zones which are empty for most of the day? Response: Sgt. Karr advised that some loading zones have been changed to "truck only" for delivery purposes, true loading zones do not distinguish who can park in the spaces as long as the person operating the vehicle is legitimately delivering or picking up an item, and parking is discouraged in certain loading zone areas by marking the space as "truck only". Council Member Lea asked the following questions: Question: Could the City receive negative publicity ,as a result of booting? Response: Sgt. Karr stated that the City would contract with a certain vendor for a specific period of time, and private lot managers using the booting process have reported success with regard to payment issues. Ms. Long advised that booting was proposed, as opposed to towing, due to the additional expense incurred to retrieve the vehicle; vehicles of habitual violators would be booted, and discussions with various judges and court officials revealed that prosecuting towing violations is burdensome to the average person. Sgt. Karr also stated that technology accessing data bases would help to identify stolen vehicles and provide a better management tool. 556 Question: What does the habitual offender say in court to be excused from paying the parking ticket? Response: Sgt. Karr stated that the priority for prosecuting parking tickets is low in the court system and comes down to one person's word against another, much of the process takes place behind the scenes, and the City must ask for the presence of an Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney during a court hearing since the City cannot ask cross-examination questions. Ms. Long stated that producing digital photographs in the future will help to remove some of the "his word against her word" type issues. The City Manager advised that the City currently has 171 accounts that are eligible for booting, which have five or more outstanding parking tickets, some of which amount to thousands of dollars. Street Restoration Standards: STREETS AND ALLEYS: The City Manager stated that the City previously instituted new standards for excavation and restoration of streets, which include changes that were deemed appropriate following meetings with various persons and business interests. She called upon Jason Thomas, representing the City Engineer's Office, for a briefing. Mr. Thomas advised that new street excavation standards replaced the old street opening permit process and presented the following overview: o Provides a new way of doing business Who is applying? Running the Numbers: Pass/Fair Rates Application Review Fast-Track Maintenance Permits Work Location Sheets Work Zone Protection Standardized Backfill Requirements Compaction Testing Coordination of Utility Work Ahead of Paving Program Mill/Overlay o Bringing innovative repair methods to the valley Backhoe-mounted plate compactor Infrared Standardized asphalt thickness o Getting it done in 30 days o Feedback: Changes proposed by Utilities and Contractors o Changes proposed by the City o Summary of proposed changes 557 f h f 2/01/04 - 09/30/05: S ices 0 t e pie rom 1 APCO Verizon Contractors for Utilities Contractors for Developers Roanoke Gas Comoanv Western Virginia Water Authoritv Total permits 2003 - Total permits 2004 - Total permits 2005 - 841 1,500 (Water Authority created 7/01/04) 1,550 (projected) PASS RATES '" " ,... '" ". O_mber J.n....ry Ffllruary M'''Ch ....1l1 "" June July "",,...., Sepilllmba. -TOTAL PERMITS THE FIRST YEAR = 1550 (PROJECTED) -AVERAGE PERMITS EACH MONTH = 131 -AVERAGE PASS 1 ST INSPECTION = 67% Application Review: Required for capital projects and large scale repairs Fast-Track Maintenance Permits: For large permit volume customers Pre-approved permits submitted via e-mail Required for minor or routine repairs and single service connections Hard copy for inspector Daily work location sheets: 558 Puts inspector on the job during the work Improves communication of the City's expectations Work Zone Protection: Good - Adequate signs and flagman Bad - No signs or flagman Why standardize backfill and compaction requirements? Improves long-term durability of repair Standardized backfill requirements: VDOT 21 A Aggregate Vibratory trench roller Proper moisture makes compaction easier Most important component of repair is good compaction Avoids future settlement Standardized testing: Developing a "Field Spec" Coordination of utility work ahead of paving program - "Free Ride" for Utilities Mill and Overlay: Why mill and overlay? Because it has got to last! Surrounding pavement cracks near edges of trench wall Surface water infiltrates cracks and speeds degradation Improves ride quality Improves appearance Mill/Overlay mitigates these conditions beyond the warranty period. Innovative repair methods: Backhoe-mounted plate compactor introduced by Water Authority Innovative repair methods: Infrared pavement repair introduced by Roanoke Gas Company Why getting it done in 30 days is important: Minimizes hazard to traveling public Reduces exposure to excess moisture Reduces chance of repairs being forgotten 559 Changes proposed by permittees: Ride tolerance Current definition of rideability - leveling tolerance to within )14" at any point across the patch as it relates to the surrounding street surface Shape of patch Current standard - repair shall be rectangular and saw-cut in straight, uniform lines that are aligned with the street centerline Proposed changes Eliminate this requirement for larger patches; allow non- rectangular shapes such as diagonals Changes proposed by permittees: Mill and overlay Current standards if a patch is: On a street with lane striping On a street not on the paving candidate list Larger than 40 square feet Mill and overlay is required 10 feet in both directions of the lanes that were disturbed. Proposed changes: Eliminate mill/overlay and offer an extended warranty on the repair or increase the size of the patch to 100 square feet. Changes proposed by permittees: Warranty Current standard: Each permit carries a one-year warrant. If the work fails, the repair to correct that work is subject to an additional one-year warranty period. Proposed changes: Reduce the 'perpetual' warranty period to minimize the risk to contractors. Changes Proposed by City: Standard patch thickness Current standard: All pavements shall be restored to match depths of existing surface, base and aggregate layers. 560 Proposed changes: Streets with land striping: eight-inch deep repair consisting of two three-inch lifts of asphalt base mix and one two-inch lift of surface mix Streets without lane striping: four-inch deep repair consisting of one two and one-half inch lift of asphalt base and one, one and one-half inch lift of surface mix Changes proposed by City: Temporary pavement repair Current standard: None Adding provision for temporary patching for all cuts in streets with lane stripping Summary of proposed changes: Standard Section No. Existing Suggested Changes Author Staff Standard Recommendations Patch 5.1 (b)(4) Defined: a For patches up to 99 WVWA/LVC Do not change 'Rideability' leveling sf in area, apply 14". ' rideabili1Y' tolerance to For patches larger definition. within one than 99 sf in area, quarter inch apply W. (1/4") at any point across the patch as it relates to the surrounding street surface. Subjective Does not Add language to WVWA/LBC Analysis of exist address existing 'Rideability' pavement conditions that make it very difficult to meet 'rideability' definition. Also add language to allow a more subjective analvsis. 561 Shape of Attachment The repair I. All utility cut WVWA/LBC Add: "When an Patch 1, Detail shall be patches shall be Initial Pavement UTR-l, rectangular rectangular within Repair will be Note 7. and saw cut two and one half larger than 40 in straight, (2.5) inches per square feet, a non· uniform every five (5) linear rectangular shape lines that feet of cut area, in may be allowed are aligned respect to curb/edge provided the repair with the of pavement and the is saw cut in street patch itself. straight, uniform centerline. lines. Any other II. Any utility cut deviation on patch patch that will shape must be exceed more than approved by the 10 percent of the inspector prior to initial disturbed the" »(CHECK pavement in order to HANDOUT) meet the Standards, shall have the right to complete the patch in the shape that currently exists with the attempt to use uniform lines. Mill/Overlay 5.1 ©(1) If a cut is in Mill/overlay should WVWA Change the a street not automatically be maximum patch with lane required if a good size before milling striping, ride quality can be is required from not on the achieved with the 40 sf to 100 sf. Pavi ng initial pavement Cand idate repair. Offer an List, and extended warranty larger than or change 40 sf to 40 sf, 100 sf. mill/overlay required for entire lane width and 10ft in both directions. Patch 5.1 (b)(3), All Standardize asphalt City Eng. Acce pt Thickness Attach. 1 pavements thickness based on shall be striped vs. un- restored to striped street. match Streets with lane depths of striping: 8" deep existing repair (2-3" lifts of surface, as phalt base and base, and one 2" lift of surface aggregate mix. lavers. 562 Temporary 5.1 (b)(3) When it is Add a requirement LBC Do not change. Pavement necessary to that a temporary Monitor repairs Repair use cold pavement repair and collect more patch in an must be applied to data on warranty opening due all excavations into a failures. to the striped street before unavailability the area is opened to of hot mix traffic. material, the cold patch will be applied on one lift, approximatel y 2 inches thick. Warranty 6.2. One-year If work fails, the LBC Do not change. warranty. If repair to correct that Monitor repairs work fails, work is subject to an and collect more the repair to additional and final data on warranty correct that three-month failures. work is warranty period. subject to an add itional one-year warranty oeriod. Automatic Does not Create an automatic SC Rossi Develop a Fast- Permitting exist permitting process Track Process for that allows a Development New developer or Permit process, Develop- contractor to get a similar to Fast· ment permit issued for Track Maintenance work approved Permits. under a Comprehensive or . Bas ic Plan Michael McEvoy, Executive Director for Waste Water Services, Western Virginia Water Authority, advised that the Water Authority appreciates the efforts of the City to revise street excavation and restoration standards, which could save approximately $700,000.00 per year; however, it is necessary to address the warranty issue, which presents a problem for contractors and translates to a cost for the Water Authority. At 11 :30 a. m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for a meeting of the Legislative Committee. At 11 :40 a. m., the meeting reconvened in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, with all Members of the Council in attendance, Mayor Harris presiding. 563 Zonino Ordinance revision: ZONING: The Mayor stated that during the past two weeks, City staff responded to various comments that were made at the November 21, 2005, public hearing on the proposed new zoning ordinance, which comments were reviewed by the Members of Council, and a second administrative response was prepared. He inquired if there were other issues that Council Members would like for City staff to address prior to the 2:00 p.m., Council session. Council Member Wishneff inquired if there had been appropriate follow up by City staff with those persons who spoke at the November 21" public hearing; whereupon, the City Manager stated that after finalizing the report, copies were made available to all persons who spoke at the public hearing, in addition, the information was made available on the City's website and changes were set forth in a communication addressed to the Council under date of December 5, 2005. She further stated that the new zoning ordinance was a tremendous undertaking for the Council, the City Planning Commission and the Steering Committee, and if the City administration finds a problem with a specific property in the future, the matter could be addressed at that time; from ~ staff perspective, there have been numerous opportunities for input and reaction; and staff would like to be advised of any additional changes that Council Members propose prior to the 2:00 p.m. Council meeting, to allow sufficient time to prepare the required changes to the Zoning Ordinance/Zoning Map. Mayor Harris stated that citizens would be heard at the Council's 2:00 p.m. session and the Council would have an opportunity to request amendments, if necessary, prior to voting on the ordinances. Council Member Wishneff stated that he was concerned with regard to issues that were referenced by the Roanoke Valley Home Builders Association and the Williamson Road Action Forum, and both organizations should have an opportunity to review any changes proposed by City staff and respond to the City accordingly prior to the Council's vote on the ordinances. Council Member Lea requested further clarification as to whether or not information regarding proposed revisions to the Zoning Map was provided to those persons who addressed the Council at the November 21" public hearing on November 21; whereupon, the City Manager advised that each individual who spoke at the public hearing was provided with a personal notice by letter of the contents of the Council report which detailed all changes recommended by City staff since the November 21 public hearing; and approximately 98 per cent of those persons who spoke at the public hearing had their needs addressed in a satisfactory manner without compromising the balance of the document. 564 There was discussion as to when correspondence with regard to proposed revisions to the ordinances was sent out; whereupon, the City Manager advised that Council's correspondence was included with the Wednesday, November 30, 2005 agenda packet, information was posted on the City's website on the following Thursday and was also mailed to all affected persons on that date, and any person who requested a copy of the response was provided with a copy. , At 11 :55 a.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for a joint session of Council and the Roanoke City School Board, with the City's representatives to the Virginia General Assembly. At 12:00 p.m., on Monday, December 5, 2005, the Council meeting reconvened in Room 159, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., the City of Roanoke, for a joint meeting of Council and the Roanoke City School Board, with the City's representatives to the General Assembly, with Mayor Harris and Chair Stockburger presiding. PRESENT: Council Members Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., and Mayo r C. N e I so n Harri S------m------------------ n________________n_________________n___nnn___nn7 . ABS ENT: Non en_nnnnnnn_nn_ nn__nn_ _nn_ ------ ------ ------ _____________nn_n_n__nO. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. SCHOOL TRUSTEES PRESENT: Jason E. Bingham, David B. Carson, William H. Lindsey, Alvin L. Nash, Courtney A. Penn, David B. Trinkle, and Kathy G. Stockbu rge r, Chai r_n__________________nnn__mm_mmmm.__m__m__n____n_______7 . A BS ENT: Non e nnnn_n_n________________________nn_nn__nn__nn_nnn_nn_nn______--- O. 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 Roanoke City Public Schools: Marvin T. Thompson, Superintendent; Bernard Godek, Associate Superintendent for Management; Cindy H. Lee, Clerk to the Roanoke City School Board; and Timothy R. Spencer, Assistant City Attorney and Legal Counsel. OTHERS PRESENT: Senator John S. Edwards and his legislative aid Allison Baird, Delegate Onzlee Ware and his legislative aide Frederick W. Hutchins, Jr., and Delegate William Fralin and his legislative aide B. J. Robertson. 565 COUNCIL-SCHOOLS-LEGISLATION: Chair Stockburger expressed appreciation for the opportunity to meet with Council and the City's representatives to the Virginia General Assembly. She stated that not only is the School Board charged with the responsibility of securing funds to operate and to educate children in Roanoke's schools, but with spending funds as efficiently and effectively as possible; however, the School system cannot provide the high quality of education necessary without governmental support. She called attention to a comprehensive audit that is currently underway to align what is being taught in the classroom with other aspects of education and the benchmark report will account for the amount of time spent in the classroom. Chair Stockburger introduced William H. Lindsey, a School Board representative to the Legislative Committee, to present the following school related items contained in the 2001) Legislative Program: Mr. Lindsey advised that: State Fundino Current Biennium o State Biennium Funding Increase - $1.5 Billion o Roanoke City Schools' State Funding Increase - $12.0 Million In connection with State revenue increase, it was advised that a three percent increase is being anticipated, which is consistent with past years. FY2001) Fundino Outcomes o Teacher Salary Raise of 3.096 It was noted that the three per cent increase represents an across the board, which includes classified employees and administrators who primarily participate at the same level as teachers; teacher salaries are competitive with the region and are in line with the State average, but are lower than northern Virginia; the City's average annual starting salary is $33,000.00-34,000.00, and in view of the nation's economy and market, the City is quite competitive. Delegate Fralin inquired if the three per cent is an average number per teacher, do senior teachers receive a larger percentage increase, and do junior teachers receive less than average; whereupon, Superintendent Thompson advised that a step formula is in effect for every teacher and employee based on the number of years of employment with the school system and the amount of experience, and the increase is relative to the step category of the individual employee. 566 o Addition of Three Guidance Counselors and Two School Nurses. It was noted that the additional positions will enable two guidance counselors to be on staff at each middle school; a school nurse is not placed in every school, but shared among elementary schools; adult programs are provided the two high schools; and a full time nurse serves at each middle school. There was discussion with regard to leg'islation requiril'l9 standards for guidance counselor/student ratios, in which it was stated that more counselors per student would be preferred in view of an increase in· responsibilities of guidance counselors who deal with more than curricut,um guidance. The Chair advised that the change in demographics within the City determines what School personnel are required to do, and while numbers may not be different from surrounding jurisdictions, the intensity of engagement is much greater. o Addition of Eight Technology Positions o Increase in Health/Dental/Virginia Retirement Rates $975,000.00 o Increase of $900,000.00 in Debt Service It was pointed out that the Standards of Quality require the State to pay 44 per cent of the cost of all new construction of schools; and lottery monies have assisted inasmuch as funds may be carried over from year to year and are not required to be returned to the State. o Projected shortfall of $124,000.00 to cover increased fuel costs. o Projected shortfall of $173,000.00 to cover increased food costs. It was noted that this is also fuel related because of increased food delivery costs. o Projected shortfall of $125,000.00 to cover increased maintenance costs. 567 2005-01) Suoerintendents' Initiatives o Leadership Academy - $85,000.00 o External Academic Audit - $157,000.00 o Information Technology - $30,000.00 o Staff Development - $200,000.00 o SOL Incentives - $25,000.00 o Facilities Maintenance - $100,000.00 o Equipment Replacement - $45,000.00 Superintendent Thompson explained that the External Academic Audit is a full system audit that requires every department in the School system to be evaluated based on national and state standards for operation; and within the next ten days, a draft report with findings and recommendations will be received. He further advised that the group that was selected to perform the audit was chosen because not only do they conduct a comprehensive audit, but they solicit input with regard to how the school system can be more effective. With regard to SOL incentives, Superintendent Thompson explained that when a new superintendent is hired, changes occur within the organization, and when he evaluated Roanoke's school system, several things were needed within the schools to assist. students academically. Therefore, he stated that he recommended to the School Board that funds be allocated to each elementary, middle, and high school to be used at the discretion of the principal to support teachers and to meet the needs of students. In connection with the Leadership Academy, Superintendent Thompson advised that education has changed dramatically requiring a different skill set and it is incumbent upon the Superintendent to build leadership from within the school system, so that if changes occur, it will not be necessary to look outside the Roanoke City school system for quality personnel. ' Leoislative Priorities o Maintain and Enhance State Funding for the Standards of Quality o Continue Joint Partnership with the State for Improving Low Performing Schools. o Maintain Fiscal Integrity of State Literary Loan Fund to Finance School Construction Projects. Mr. Lindsey called attention to the importance of the State providing its share of funding for the Standards of Quality, and for a re-benchmarking of the Standards of Quality. He advised that the School Board requests the State to maintain funding at a level in which funds could be acquired early, if necessary. 568 Prioritv 1 - SOO Fundino D Full Funding of SOQ Positions D No Sales Tax Offset of SOQ Costs D Maintenance of Pooled VRS Rate D Elimination of Federal Deduction from SOQ Computation D Adjusted funding for Districts with high poverty indexes D Funding for School Safety Needs Mr. Lindsey advised that numerous school safety needs were addressed during fiscal year 2004-05, and in view of recent reports which indicate that incidents are down from prior years, success is being achieved with implementation of new procedures to decrease disciplinary incidents, such as cameras in the schools, diversionary programs, and guidance counselors. Prioritv 2 - loint Assistance to Low Performino Schools D State Program of Joint Grants and Academic Review Teams Continued . D No State Takeover of Low Performing Schools Priority 3 - State Literarv Loan Fund D Fiscal Integrity of Fund Maintained in Order to Make Timely Loans D Loan Term Objective for State to Finance 55% of School Construction Needs Leoislative Outcomes D Improve Student Performance on Standards of Learning Tests. D Ensure All Schools Meet State Accreditation Standards and NCLB Requirements (AYP) D Reduce Dropout Rate and Increase Graduation Rate D Raise Competitiveness of Employee Compensation D Modernize or Replace School Facilities Senator Edwards inquired as to how the City intends to address dropout and graduation rate issues; whereupon, Mr. Godek advised that the school system must believe that every child can learn; and graduation begins with a linear track between middle school curriculum and high school curriculum, as well as monitoring a student's progress, and informing the parent of the expectations placed on the student. He stated that the dropout rate is about 569 prevention which begins at the elementary school level; those children who are passed on to middle school who are two or three grade levels behind are destined to be dropouts; and with a large number of students reading at the second grade level, in conjunction with the current graduation and dropout rates, it was determined that the school system's curriculum needed to be adjusted. Senator Edwards inquired about alternative programs for students who have fallen behind and do not wish to remain in school, such as the former Blue Ridge Technical Academy, and whether other alternative programs that teach a skill are available for students who are not college bound. It was advised that City representatives are currently meeting with area businesses and a group of educators will attend the National Career Technical Education Forum to evaluate current trends in industries. It was further advised that an assessment is prepared to identify interests and ability levels at the middle school age and guidance counselors meet with students and use the assessment as a tool to accurately counsel students on future goals; and for leday's student, a diploma does not have to look like the advanced or the standard diploma because there are a number of other ways to educate young people. Senator Edwards stressed the importance of the school system providing ways for young people who are not college bound to pursue other forms of vocational training, and to provide those students with a sense of pride and the skills to acquire meaningful employment. Mr. Lindsey advised that the Blue Ridge Technical Academy has been absorbed into the career and technical education curriculum; and the expanded curriculum is currently being taught at William Fleming and Patrick Henry High Schools. The Chair referred to a report that was previously submitted to the School Board advising that the cost for 90 students to attend Blue Ridge Technical Academy was approximately $800,000.00. Senator Edwards emphasized the fact that more funds are spent to address the needs of special education students and students with various problems because if those students drop out of school with no skills, more funds will be spent in other areas, such as police, jail, and social services, etc. He stressed that not every child will fit into the mold of a certain cost per child for education. Senator Edwards expressed appreciation for the tour of the new Patrick Henry High School, and stated that it is rewarding to see tangible evidence of the use of taxpayers' money. He advised that a bill was passed during the last Session of the General Assembly endorsing experiential learning for second career teachers, and the Department of Education established certain regulations pertaining to experiential learning. 570 Senator Edwards discussed certain education issues that he plans to support during the upcoming Session of the Virginia General Assembly, such as the leveling out of VRS payments which may not be possible without some kind of constitutional issue, introduction of legislation to standardize graduation rates across the Commonwealth of Virginia in order to make a comparison with other jurisdictions, and a bill that will help train School Resource Officers to stress the importance of Internet safety. He announced that a No Child Left Behind special education meeting will be held in the near future, and stated that he shares many of the City's concerns with regard to 'the program and looks forward to learning more about potential options. He added that he plans to introduce a budget amendment to increase alternative school funding due to the importance of placing young people who do not thrive in the traditional school environment and who may be hindering the learning of others in a suitable setting. He requested support of and/or suggestions with regard to the abovereferenced issues.' Thomas A. Dick, the City's Legislative Liaison, reviewed the City of Roanoke's 2001) Legislative Program. Public Safetv Section 15.2-901), Code of Virginia, authorizes localities to remove, repair or secure any building, wall or other structure which might endanger the public health or safety. However, this section prohibits localities from taking such action for at least 30 days following the "later of the return of the receipt [for mailed notice] or newspaper publication." The City requests an amendment to reduce the 30 days to seven days in those instances where a locality simply seeks to "secure" (board up, for example) a building, as opposed to removing or repairing it. Delegate Fralin called attention to the language, "secure any building", and inquired if the City has a preference as to whether the building is occupied or vacant, because unoccupied buildings have a more urgent need than occupied buildings. Vice- Mayor Fitzpatrick stated that it depends on whether or not an absentee property owner has occupants residing in the dwelling under conditions that are detrimental to their health and safety; this is one of the more difficult issues that Council has dealt with, and asked if the request could be addressed under the City's population as opposed to a state wide initiative. Historic Districts The City requests legislation to amend Section 31)-99, Code of Virginia, to authorize localities to require building permits for installation of replacement siding, roofing and windows in buildings within historic districts. This will benefit the City's historic neighborhoods 571 The City Attorney explained that the City has approximately 1,400 properties in the designated Historic District, and architectural review and approval is required for certain non-structural repairs such as new roofs, windows and sidings, etc., and State law requires that no building permit be issued if repairs are not structural in nature. He stated that no mechanism is currently in place to assist property owners when repairs are not consistent with code requirements and in those instances when a Certificate of Apprbpriateness by the Architectural Review Board was not obtained prior to commencing the repairs. He further stated that because repairs can cost the property owner substantial sums of money, the City is trying to find a way to help the property owner by requiring building permits in the Historic Districts prior to commencing repairs. Aaents for Rental Units Section 55-218.1, Code of Virginia, requires property owners who own four or more units in the Commonwealth of Virginia, but do not reside in the Commonwealth, to maintain an agent who is a resident of the State. The General Assembly is requested to amend the 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. Senator Edwards inquired if proof of notice is the issue, and suggested that the City require appointmènt of an in State agent who would be required to register with the State Corporation Commission, and the agent would not be required to live in the locality or adjacent locality. The City Attorney agreed that the suggestion would be an improvement. Domestic Violence The City requests that the Virginia Crime Commission consider recommending proposals to address domestic violence that would include: amending §9.1-111).1, Code of Virginia, which creates the Virginia Domestic Violence Victim Fund, in order to authorize use of such fund to provide immediate assistance to victims of domestic violence; legislation to permit the victimless prosecution of domestic violence cases when a victim is uncooperative and sufficient evidence and/or supporting witnesses are otherwise available; enact sentencing guidelines that require a set fine and incarceration for domestic violence offenses, similar to DUI statutes; and legislation to prohibit the immediate release of domestic offenders in order to prevent them from being able to immediately confront their victims, as often is the case. 572 The City Attorney advised that the State Crime Commission has been requested to study some of the issues, and additional information is forthcoming with regard to the nature of various issues that have been raised by law enforcement officials locally. Constitutional Amendment for Partial Tax Exemotion Approval of an amendment to Article X, Section l)(a)(7)(h), Constitution of Virginia, to provide authority for passage of legislation authorizing localities to provide for a partial exemption from local real property taxation of new construction in conservation, redevelopment or rehabilitation areas. The Constitution already permits partial tax exemption for substantial renovation, rehabilitation and replacement of existing structures. The legislation passed in the 2005 General Assembly and must be approved again in 2001). Trash Containers The City requests that legislation be enacted enabling localities to assess civil penalties against residents who fail to remove their trash containers from the street within the time period required. (Currently in the City by 7:00 a.m. of the day following collection.) Mr. Dick reviewed the following other legislative priorities: o Energy Efficiency. The City requests a study to develop enabling legislation to authorize a real estate tax break for buildings constructed using "green building" or sustainable" designs consistent with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards. o Telecommunication Taxes. Some changes to the Commonwealth's telecommunications tax structure are necessary to address new and changing technologies. However, any proposed revisions must keep such taxes revenue neutral for the City. o Eminent Domain. The City opposes legislation that would further limit local eminent domain authority and notes that in the past ten years, the City has acquired property after filing eminent domain processing only five times. Two were for sewer easements, two for pedestrian walkway, and one was for a power line extension. o Cable Television Franchise. The City supports competition in the provision of cable television service. However, the City prefers to negotiate the franchise agreements for all providers that best meet the needs of the community instead of a standardized statewide franchise. 573 Additionally, the City of Roanoke supports Virginia First Cities Coalition efforts to: o Preserve local taxing authority o Fully fund the Standards of Quality o Add funds to programs that improve the educational attainment of at-risk students , 0 Substantially increase State funds for public transportation o Increase enterprise zone funding , o Support Housing Commission legislation that benefits cities Council Member Lea advised that he was appointed to the Urban Transportation Commission by Governor Warner, and the Governor's çharge to the Commission in Executive Directive No. 11 is as follows: o What are the current obstacles to better urban transportation? o What long-term fiscal and energy savings can be generated through the adoption of improved urban transportation initiatives? o What can be learned from evaluation of recent regional land use studies to promote better development and redevelopment? o What framework should the legislature establish in order to improve the quality of urban transportation? o What are the legislative, regulatory, and incentives-based reforms necessary to improve urban transportation? He further advised that the Transportation Commission has met on four occasions, and referred to a letter addressed to the Governor requesting a one time capital fund. He stated that the City of Roanoke has' proposed a total of $4 million for capital projects, with a majority of funds to be used for a 125 space expansion of the Greater Roanoke Transit Company's parking facility at the Campbell Court Transportation Center. He called upon Kenneth King, Jr., Director, Streets and Traffic, for additional comments. Mr. King advised that the Transportation Committee expressed concern with regard to the language in the document, however, funding is the primary issue. He further advised that: o the State should allow localities to assess a regional gas tax; o the State-wide gas tax should be increased as a source of additional funding; o a gas tax is not a sustainable long term funding source of transportation, but is the best current source and could serve as a stop gap measure to meet current demands; and 574 o the formula for street maintenance payments for urban areas does not take into account age and infrastructure, or complexity of the system. He further stated that the City of Roanoke currently maintains over 100 bridges which is expensive; and the Transportation Commission will most likely recommend that the issue of imposing tolls on Interstate 1-81 be studied. He noted that the City of Roanoke carries a large portion of the share of matching funds with Federal funds, and the Transportation Commission is recommending that the State share in any increases. Mr. King pointed out that Congressman Goodlatte was instrumental in obtaining Federal funds to assist the City with the Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Bridge project which eliminated numerous environmental review procedures in crder to expedite the project. He added that the Transportation Commission will encourage the State to provide greater flexibility to the City to allow Federal funds to be used for large projects, and to use State funds for smaller improvements. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick advised that Council Member Wishneff previously introduced language with regard to amending the City Charter to authorize the holding of advisory referenda in the City of Roanoke; and at a special meeting of the Legislative Committee which was held earlier in the day Council approved the following: The council shall have authority to order, by resolution directed to the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, the submission to the registered voters of the city for an advisory referendum on any proposed question or group of questions relating to the affairs of the city. Upon receipt of such resolution, the Court shall order an election to be held at the next general election. The election shall be conducted and the result thereof ascertained and determined in the manner provided by general law of the Commonwealth for the conduct of referendum elections, and by the regular election officials of the city. Following certification of the election results by the Electoral Board to the Circuit Court, the Court shall enter an order proclaiming the results of the election, and shall transmit a duly certified copy of the order to the Council. If a petition requesting the submission of a question or group of questions relating to the affairs of the city, set forth in such petition, signed by registered voters equal in number to twenty-five percent or 5,000, whichever number is the greater, of the largest number of votes cast in any general or primary election held in the city during the five years immediately preceding, each signature to which has been witnessed by a person whose affidavit to that effect is attached to the petition, and the address of each signator having 575 been given along with the signature, is filed with the clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, the clerk shaff forthwith certify that fact to the Court after the city's registrar has verified that the requisite number of persons registered to vote in the city have signed the petition. Upon certification the Court shaff order an election to be held at the next general election after the receipt of such resolution, in which such proposed question or questions shaff be submitted as a resolution to the registered voters of the city for their approval or disapproval. Such election shaff be conducted and the result thereof ascertained and determined in the manner provided by general law of the Commonwealth for the conduct of referendum elections, and by the regular election officials of the city. If a majority of those voting approve the proposed referendum, then the clerk of the Court shaff communicate such result to the council for its consideration as an advisory resolution. The City Attorney explained the process for a Charter amendment; I.e.: Council will hold a public hearing on Monday, December 19, 2005, follOWing legal advertisement in a local newspaper, and Monday, December 21), 2005, is tile deadline for requesting draft legislation. Council Member Wishneff stated that Senator Edwards submitted the same legislation last year, but the legislation died due to lack of support by the Council. Delegate Ware pointed out that advisory referenda is not taken lightly at the General Assembly. He expressed concern that the request came at the last minute and there has not been sufficient time for study and consideration. He questioned the basis on which the request was made for consideration at the 2001) Session. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick clarified that the Legislative Committee had completed the City's 2001) Legislative Program prior to the time that Council Member Wishneff introduced the City Charter amendment regarding adviSOry referenda. Council Member Wishneff advised that the proposed Charter amendment request was not tied to the Victory Stadium issue which has already been addressed, and Council Member Lea added that a recent Mason Dixon poll conducted by The Roanoke Times showed that 84 per cent of Roanoke's citizens favor advisory referenda. 576 Delegate Fralin stated that there will most likely be questions regarding the proposed Charter amendment, I.e.: why it is being requested, who will pay for the referendum should it pass the General Assembly, and the bill may not be effective until July 1, following the last general election. He also inquired if the referendum would be citizen or Council initiated. Council Member Wishneff explained that the intent of his proposal is that the referendum would be held only at a scheduled election, therefore, no additional costs would be incurred by the City. . Delegate Fralin noted that there is no reference as to when a petition must be presented; whereupon, the City Attorney advised that the issue of the petition is addressed by the State statute that governs referenda. Mayor Harris stated that if bills are introduced that contain lower thresholds than the 25 per cent or 5,000 signatures of registered voters, he would personally forward a letter asking members of the General Assembly to not vote in favor of the referendum because such was not the intent of Council. Senator Edwards advised that 2004 was the first time in decades that the General Assembly fully funded the Standards of Quality, and legislators are re- benchmarking which means more money because the numbers must be readjusted every two years; the legislators will continue to lobby for full funding of the Standards of Quality, raises for teachers, etc.; and the City's representatives to the General Assembly are committed to ensuring that education is the number one priority. He called attention to the positive impact of the Headstart and Preschool At Risk Programs, and he will continue to work toward implementation of preschool programs, and to work with private providers to establish a public program in which every child, four years old, can attend a preschool program at the option of the parents. He stressed the importance of school systems, statewide, continuing to work for better and more nutritional lunch standards throughout the state, ·and noted that the Department of Education and the Department of Health are currently reviewing the standards which are anticipated to take effect sometime this year. Senator Edwards called attention to transportation issues; I.e.: road upgrades in southwest Virginia, clogged roads in northern Virginia and Hampton Roads which will continue to hinder economic progress unless improvements to the transportation system in other areas of the State are completed; problems are enormous and a special session of the General Assembly may be necessary to discuss the issue; and a tax reform plan may also be necessary. 577 Senator Edwards stated that an independent authority may be needed, with State and private rail carriers working together in a public/private partnership, in order to maximize rails which could minimize the need for taxpayer's money since most of the expenses could be paid by a surcharge on shippers that would pay for bonds to be issued to upgrade the rail system and could remove approximately 30 per cent of trucks from Interstate 581. He pointed out that the national average for trains is 405 miles per gallon of fuel per tbn, which is the most efficient form of land transportation in the State, and to rely more heavily on trains would help to address energy, environment, and congestion issues. Delegate Fralin expressed appreciation for the 'opportunity to work with the City's representatives to the General Assembly during his first two years in the State legislature, and stressed the importance of working together to accomplish common goals. ' With regard to domestic violence, Delegate Fralin advised that he plans to introduce a bill requiring that victims be notified when a suspect or an accused suspect makes bail. In addition, he stated that he introduced a bill last year, and will continue to introduce legislation with regard to those parents who place their children in foster care in order to qualify for Medicaid benefits, particularly for mental health care issues. He called upon the City for assistance inasmuch as one version of the bill may have a fiscal impact on the City's share for community service agencies, and concerns will need to be addressed with regard to cost. He expressed appreciation for the City's support of the Heartland Corridor initiative and commended the Economic Development staff for assistance with regard to a request by the Department of Rail in connection with Norfolk Southern Corporation backup data. He stated that if funds are approved by the Commonwealth Transportation Board on December 15, 2005, the Heartland Corridor can be started for east/west intermodal rail transportation. ' There being no further business, the Mayor expressed appreciation to Senator Edwards and to Delegates Fralin and Ware for meeting with the Council and the School Board to discuss matters of mutual interest and concern to the City of Roanoke and the City's school system. At 1 :55 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess until 2:00 p.m., to be reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., and Chair Stockburger declared the meeting of the Roanoke City School Board adjourned. At 2:00 p.m., on Monday, December 5, 2005, the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding. 578 PRESENT: Council Members Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wish neff, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., and Mayor C. Ne I so n Harri S------mu---------------______m____n_______________________n__m___________7 . A BS ENT: No ne ______n_n_nnnn_n_____ _oon_oo_nnnn__ ___On nn_nn___oo___ _nnn_n____O. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: 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. OATHS OF OFFICE-COMMITTEES-ROANOKE ARTS COMMISSION-TOWING ADVISORY BOARD: A report of qualification of the folloWing persons, was before Council. Edward W. Barnett as a member of the Roanoke Arts Commission, to fill the unexpired term of Mark C. McConnel, resigned, ending June 30, 2007; and Phyllis A. Johnson as member of the Towing Advisory Board, for a term ending June 30, 2008. Council Member Cutler moved that the report of qualification be received and filed. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayo r Harri s ________nnn_n_n_nn_____________________________n___noon________________7 . NAYS: No ne n_n__nn_n_n__ nnn _n___n ____n__nnnnnnnn_ nn___n_______________nn__O. 579 REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS: LIBRARIES: Stanley G. Breakell, President, Roanoke Public Library Board, presented the following resolution which was adopted by the Library Board on November 17, 2005: "A RESOLUTION URGING THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL TO BEGIN THE IMMEDIATE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE ROANOKE LIBRARY COMPREHENSIVE STUDY WHEREAS, City Council commissioned a comprehensive study of the City of Roanoke Public Library System, and the Roanoke' Library Comprehensive Study (Study) was received by City Council at its meeting of October 3, 2005; WHEREAS, although Roanoke is a vibrant community, which has been voted as one of America's most "livable" cities, the library system in the City and the Roanoke Valley is a quality of life element in which the City and Valley are clearly deficient; WHEREAS, the current annual appropriations for City library staffing, facilities, collections, technology and programs are inadequate; WHEREAS, the City allocates only $2.99 per capita for library collections while Roanoke County allocates $4.1) 1 per capita and upper quartile peer libraries nationally allocate $9.79 per capita; WHEREAS, with the exception of the Law Library, all City Library facilities were built prior to the mid-1970's; WHEREAS, the City Library staffing level is .42 staff per 1,000 population while the national staffing level for public library systems serving similar base populations (100,000 to 250,000) is .74 staff per 1,000 population; WHEREAS, a healthy local economy is more and more dependent upon information technology and the growth of knowledge industries, and publiC libraries are an economic development tool, as well as an important ingredient of a community's quality of life; 580 WHEREAS, if Council's vision of "a community of stable, safe, healthy, caring and friendly neighborhoods" is to be achieved, then neighborhood libraries must be provided that are learning and recreational havens for Roanoke citizens; and WHEREAS, the Roanoke Public Library Advisory Board urges a meaningful and timely response to the Roanoke Library , Comprehensive Study; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the Roanoke Public Library Advisory Board as follows: 1. The Library Advisory Board concurs with ~he regrettable finding of the Study City Libraries are under utilized because staffing, facilities, collections, technology and programs are inadequate. 2. The Study recommends that the City begin a phased program of funding the capital needs of the City Library System which are estimated to total $41.2 million ($37.9 million in facilities and $3.3 million in technology), and the Library Advisory Board urges that City Council immediately begin the process of designating funding for Phase I of the needed system capital improvements recommended by the Study ($1).1) million in facilities and $1.0 million in technology). 3. The Study finds that an additional appropriation of $1.9 million per year will be requited to meet the operating cost needs of the City Library System, .and the Library Advisory Board urges City Council to immediately adopt a phased program that will meet the operating costs needs of the City Libráry System as recommended by the Study. 4. Although the Library Advisory Board believes that merger of the City Library System and the County Library System would result in a more efficient and effective unified system,the Board recognizes that this goal may not be immediately achievable, and the Board urges close cooperation between the two systems, particularly with respect to the location of library facilities. 5. The Library Advisory Board wishes to express its appreciation m City Council for its continuing interest in the City Library System and for Council's careful consideration of the critical needs of the City Library System as documented by the Comprehensive Study." Phase I System Capital Cost Phase I Neiohborhood Center Kiosk Branch Renovation Allowance Full Service Branch Library Total Facilities' Technology o Collection Operating System o Radio Freq. Tags (308,1 OI)X .70) o Self Check out Stations (17X$22,000.00) o A/V Allowance (ex: Safari Systems) o Computers (127X$750.00) o Kiosk (Information) o 24/7 Hold Lockers (2X$4,500.00) Total Technology TOTAL CAPITAL COST Additional Annual Operational Cost Staff (Adding 31 FTE) $1,238,000.00 Collection Development $ 355,388.00 Technology Upgrade Allowance $ 200,000.00 Special Program Allowance $ 200,000.00 Additional Operational Cost' $1,993,338.00 $ 50,000.00 $ 200,000.00 $1),398,000.00 $1).1)48.000.00 $ 375,000.00 $ 215,1)75.00 $ 374,000.00 $ 24,075.00 $ 95,250.00 $ 10,000.00 $ 9,000.00 $1.103.000.00 $7.751.000.00 'Land Cost not included 'Cost are in addition to current 2004 funding levels of $3,364,721.00 581 Given the numerous competing needs of the City of Roanoke, Council Member Cutler moved that the resolution be referred to the City Manager with the request that the matter receive a high priority response in terms of what can be done in the immediate and long term future, and that the Director of 582 Finance be requested to respond as to what extent the City, given its competing needs for capital construction, can be responsive to the request of the Library Board insofar as the infrastructure issue. The motion was seconded by Vice- Mayor Fitzpatrick. The Director of Finance responded that the library project is not included on the list of projects that are prioritized in the City's Capital Improvement Program through the 2008 financing plan. He added that the Council will hold its Annual Financial Planning Session in February 2001)' to discuss the addition of new projects and to review the priority of current Capital Improvement Projects, and it is anticipated that the library project will be discussed at the Council's Financial Planning Session. Council Member McDaniel requested that Mr. Breakell provide a summary of Phase 1 of the library project; whereupon, Mr. Breakell advised that Phase 1 includes construction of a new full service library branch which will set the stage for all that goes forward and will serve as a model. Secondly, he called attention to a need to address the customer service model; I.e.: construction of stere front libraries that speak to urban villages and village centers, which is a part of the Comprehensive Plan; outlying and smaller projects feed into larger facilities, ultimately store front libraries or kiosks, followed by full service branches, followed by a major research area and The Virginia Room. He referred to the technology piece which consists of more than just additional computers, but automated check in and check out systems that allow staff to move away from behind the desk in order to work directly with the public. He stated that a third component involves increasing staff, funding for collections, technology and special programs, such as collection development, technology upgrades, additional computers, and computer databases, etc. Council Member McDaniel raised the following question: As Council embarks upon meetings in February 2001) to discuss capital needs, what is the number one library priority? Mr. Breakell responded that the number one priority will be to make small changes immediately that will demonstrate to all citizens of the Roanoke Valley that the library system needs to be and can be transformed, and that measurable results will be shown to the community. Council Member McDaniel inquired about the status of filling the position of Director of Libraries; whereupon, the City Manager advised applications have been screened and the selection process should be completed within the next 30 days. She advised that Council will have the opportunity to offiCially adopt the Library Study in January as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan; and guidance by Council will be requested with regard to prioritizing the various phases of the library study at the Council's Financial Planning Session in February, 2006. The motion offered by Council Member Cutler, seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick, was unanimously adopted. 583 REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: NONE. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: BUDGET-GRANTS-PARKS AND RECREATION-YOUTH: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke has continued to provide for the nutritional needs of children and youth during the summer months while young people are out of school; the Parks and Recreation Youth Services Division continues to supervise the Summer Nutrition Program; breakfast, lunch and a snack are provided for young people throughout the City; and approximately 51),712 meals were served at 31 sites during the year, which is an increase of four sites from 2004. It was further advised that administrative review was rated "very good" with records that were easy to review and the City was complimented on a well run program; funds for the program are provided through the United States Department of Agriculture Food & Nutrition Services (USDA); the program concept is based on the National School Lunch Program with eligibility requirements determined either by census tract or by school location based on free or reduced priced meals during the school year; the purpose of the program is to provide nutritionally balanced, healthy meals to children, ages one through 18 and for those with special needs; and the City of Roanoke is reimbursed on a per meal basis. It was stated that local funds in the amount of $40,000.00, and Federal funds in the amount of $143,31 5.00 were originally appropriated, for a total 2005 Summer Food program of $183,315.00; due to an increase in allowable reimbursements from the USDA, the City has received an additional $12,41)4.00 over the previous adopted amount, which will require the revenue estimate and expenditure budget to be increased; and additional funding will be available to begin the 2001) Summer Food program. The City Manager recommended that Council authorize execution of any forms that may be necessary to accept the additional funds, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney; and that Council adopt a budget ordinance increasing the revenue estimate in Account No. 035-1)30-5189-5289, in the amount of $12,41)4.00, and appropriating funds in the same amount to expenditure Account No. 035-630-5189-1004 in the Grant Fund for the 2005 Summer Food Program. 584 Council Member Dowe offered the following ordinam:e: (#3721)0-120505) AN ORDINANCE appropriating additiona'l funding for the Summer Food Program Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 73.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37260- 120505. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Harris---m----n----------------nn-------------n------______n________________nn7. NAYS: Non e ______nn _nnn_ _____nn_nn nn_ __nnn _nnnuu___nnn_nnn n_U_nn nnn -0 . Council Member Dowe offered the folloWing resolution: (#3721) 1-120505) A RESOLUTION authorizing acceptance of additional allowable reimbursement from the USDA Food and Nutrition Service in the amount of S 12 ,41)4.00 on behalf of the City to provide for the nutritional needs of children and youth during the summer months, and 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. 70, page 84.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 3721)1- 120505. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Harri Sm-m--n--------------__m____n_________nnn______________________m_nn7 . NAYS: No n e _n_n_n_nn______________n__nn_n__n__nnn_nn__n___n__n__nn__nn_n----O. CITY CODE-BUILDINGS/BUILDING DEPARTMENT: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that effective November 11), 2005, the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development adopted the 2003 edition of the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code (USBC) for the purpose of establishing minimum regulations to govern construction and maintenance for buildings and structures; provisions of the USBC are based on nationally recognized model building codes published by the International Code 585 Council, Inc., and are made part of the USBC by reference; the USBC also contains administrative provisions governing use of the model codes and establishing requirements for enforcement of the USBC Code by local building departments and other code enforcement agencies; and amendment of the City Code will reflect recent amendments to the Virginia USBC, which were adopted by the State and are enforced at the local level. 'The City Manager recommended that Council adopt an ordinance amending §§7-5 and 7-35 of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to bring the City Code into conformity with recent amendments to the Virginia Uniform Statewide Building Code. Council Member Dowe offered the following ordinance: (#37262-120505) AN ORDINANCE amending §7-5, AdoPted: where copies filed, and §7-35, Definitions, of Article II, Buildina Code, of Chapter 7, Buildina Reaulations, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, to update code enforcement regulations; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinanu. (før full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 85.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37262- 120505. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wish neff, Cutler, Dowe, an d Mayo r H arri s _____________________________________________________n__nn__nn__n__________ 7 . NAYS: None _n__nnnn__nnnn_n_nnnn__nn_n_nn_n_n__nn_nnn_n_n_nnnnn_n-0. BUDGET-CITY MARKET-FEE COMPENDIUM: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Downtown Roanoke, Inc., (DRI) handles the day-to- day operations for the Historic Roanoke City Market for the City of Roanoke; vendors selling goods on the City Market currently pay DRI a monthly market space fee ranging from $35.00 to $40.00 and a daily rate of $10.00 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 September 2003, effective January 1, 2004. It was further advised that DRI staff worked with the Market Rules Committee, which included several vendors, to evaluate and revise fees for use of Market spaces, as well as revisions to the Market Handbook; on November 11, 2005, the proposed revised fees were approved by the Market Rules Committee and also approved by the DRI Executive Committee; on November 18, 2005, a scheduled quarterly meeting was held with Market 586 vendors who were briefed on the proposed revised fees; most Market vendors are in agreement with the proposed revised fee schedule; and on November 15, 2005, the DRI Executive Committee, acting on behalf of the DRI Board of Directors, voted in favor of the proposed revised fee schedule, effective January 1, 2006. Proposed revised market space fees are as follows for each market space covered by such permit or license: Daily Permit: o Monday through Thursday - $10.00 per space per day. o Friday and Saturday - $15.00 per space per day. Primary/Shared Permit: o Six Month Permit: Six month permits at $35.00 per space per month. o Single Month Permit: Monthly permits at $40.00 per space per month only during the months of January through October. o Saturday Only Permit: space per month. Six month minimum at $40.00 per o Holiday Season Permit: (November 1 through December 31). Two month minimum at $75.00 per space per month. Spreading Fee: $5.00 per space per day. Cleanup Fee: Actual cost of cleanup per Section VIII (C) of the Handbook. The City Manager recommended that Council approve market space fees for the City Market and amend the City's Fee Compendium to reflect the revised fees as above referenced, effective January 1, 2001). Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#3721)3-120505) 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, 2001); and directing amendment of the Fee Compendium. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 86.) 587 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37263- 120505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, an d Mayo r H arri S _nn_n_ n_nn_n_n"nn_"n_""n_nnnn______n______n_n_n_nn_n_nn_ 7 . , NAYS: None _nn_nnn__nnn_nn_ un _n___n--n-------n-nn-n-- nnnn_nn nnn ---------0. , BUDGET-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Social Services, through the City's Foster Care Program, provides out-of-home placements for children in need of protection who can no longer live at home; for those children who are deemed eligible for Title IV-E funding, the Federal and State governments will reimburse localities for costs of out-of-home placements at 100 per cent of maintenance, day care and visitation-related transportation; and Federal and State funding is also available to assist with maintenance costs and special needs for adoptive families and to assist with refugee resettlement. It was further advised that the City of Roanoke will receive additional funding for Foster Care, Special Needs Adoption, Adoption Incentive, Subsidized Adoption and Refugee Resettlement for FY 2005-2001) in the amount of $41)5,000.00; and Social Services currently maintains over 1)00 children in Foster Care, or receives some type of adoption assistance, and the cost of providing services continues to increase, with many children who experience difficulties that require special needs payments. The City Manager recommended that Council take the following actions: Adopt a budget ordinance to increase General Fund revenue estimates by $41)5,000.00 and appropriate funds' in the same amount as set forth below: Revenues 001-110-1234-01)79 (Refugee Program) 001-110-1234-01)75 (Foster Care) $ 9,000.00 451).000.00 $41)5,000.00 Appropriations 001-1)30-5313-3150 (Indo-Chinese) 001-1)30-5314-3115 (ADC Foster Care) 001-1)30-5314-3130 (Special Needs Adoption) 001-1)30-5314-3131 (Adoption Incentive) 001-1)30-5314-3155 (Subsidized Adoption) $ 9,000.00 232,000.00 81,000.00 1,000.00 142.000.00 $41)5,000.00 588 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#3721)4-120505) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding from the Commonwealth for various Department of Social Services programs, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) General Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 88.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37264- 120505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the follOWing vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor H arri S--n-------n----__________nnn_______________n______nnn__________m____n7 . NAYS: Non e ---- nnnnn__ U_n_ nnn _n_u___nnn__nn_n___ ___nnn_ - _nn_______n_n_n___O. INDUSTRIES-ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke and Faison-Southern Lane, LLC (FSL), developer of property located along U. S. Route 220/Franklin Road (across from Lowe's), have negotiated an annual Economic Development Grant Performance Agreement; the Economic Development Grant will be funded by the City, but issued and administered through the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (IDA), to assist with the provision of necessary infrastructure to make the site developable, including a heightened level of water quality improvements to the site's stormwater system and enhanced aesthetic finishes to certain retaining walls built adjacent to Franklin and Griffin Roads; the grant would also assist in the provision a new street extension with sidewalks, landscaping, street lighting, and related storm water improvements which will be dedicated to the City with connections to the Southern Hills neighborhood; in addition, FSL will fund the provision of a pad for construction of a Home Depot retail store, all related pad infrastructure improvements, and facilitate development of two retail out parcels; and the project will provide additional tax revenue, jobs, and services to and benefit the citizens of the City of Roanoke and the Roanoke Valley, as well as provide an economic benefit to the City. It was further advised that a proposed Agreement outlines the obligations of FSL in order to qualify for and receive the grant; some of the main provisions provide that FSL must complete the road extension with the connection to Southern Hills within 18 months following the date of the Agreement; within 30 months after the date of the Agreement, a Home Depot retail facility will be 589 opened to the public for business; and FSL will have spent, or caused to have been spent, at least $4,500,000.00 on development of the Project, including at least $1,71)8,825.00 on the street extension and related infrastructure improvements and enhancements as detailed in the Agreement. The City Manager noted that after the Home Depot store is opened, FSL can make up to ten annual grant requests to the IDA under certain conditions; the various tax revenues, as listed in the Agreement, that the City actually receives for the Property or Project must exceed $400,000.00 for the preceding grant year; and if so, FSL may make a grant request to the IDA for up to an amount equal to 50 per cent of the amount of revenue the City actually received during the preceding grant year, subject to certain other provisions as set forth in the Agreement; however, the maximum amount of all grant funds FSL may receive shall not exceed $1,71)8,825.00; the Agreement requires FSL to provide the City and the IDA with appropriate supporting documentation for each grant request; and funding for each annual grant request will be subject to appropriation by Council to the IDA. The City Manager recommended that Council approve the terms of the Performance Agreement between the City of Roanoke, Faison-Southern Lane, LLC, and the Industrial Development Authority, as set forth in the Performance Agreement, and determine that such grant will promote economic development within the City; and that the City Manager be further authorized to execute a Performance Agreement between the City, FSL, and the IDA, and to execute such other documents and to take such further action as may be necessary to implement and administer the Performance Agreement, the form of such Agreement to be approved by the City Attorney. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: (#3721)5-120505) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the proper City officials to execute a Performance Agreement among the City of Roanoke (City), the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, (IDA), and Faison-Southern Lane, LLC (FSL) that provides for certain undertakings by the parties in connection with the development of certain property located along U. S. Route 220/Franklin Road, in the City of Roanoke; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this Ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70 page 89.) 590 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37265- 120505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Harris---m--------n---------n-------------------______n___nn_m________n_m__7. , NAYS: Non e ___n_n_nn_____nn_nn_ ---- n_nn _n___ _n_n__nn____n_n_nnn_____nn__nn_O. HEALTH DEPARTMENT-LEASES: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that the City of Roanoke and the Commonwealth of Virginia, by the Virginia Department of Health (VDH), entered into a Lease Agreement dated June 5, 2001, granting the Virginia Department of Health permission to lease City owned office space located at 515 and 530 8'h Street, S. W.; the term of the Lease Agreement commenced July 1, 2001, and terminated June 30, 2004; the VDH and the City of Roanoke amended the lease to extend the term by one year, which established a new expiration date of June 30, 2005; the Virginia Department of Health has leased the space from the City of Roanoke for a number of years prior to the most recent Lease; and VDH has continued to occupy the office space and wishes to continue leasing the space for another year as build out of new office space for the Virginia Department of Health proceeds at the Civic Mall facility on Williamson Road. It was further advised that the VDH has proposed amending the current Lease Agreement to extend the term by one year, retroactive to July 1, 2005, which will establish a new expiration date of June 30, 2001), with the option to renew on a month-to-month basis for a period of up to one additional year, with all other terms and conditions of the Lease to remain unchanged; VDH will continue to pay rent in the amount of $38,950.00 per quarter for the one year extension; if the lease is extended past the June 30, 2001), date, such rent will be on a month-to-month basis for up to an additional 12 months, and rent will be paid monthly in the amount of $12,983.33. The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute the appropriate documents to amend the Lease Agreement dated June 5, 2001, to lease City owned space located at 515 and 530 8'h Street to the Commonwealth of Virginia for use by the Virginia Department of Health, subject to approval as to form by the City Attorney, with the proposed Amendment to be in accordance with provisions as set forth in the Second Amendment to Deed of Lease. Council Member Dowe offered the following ordinance: 591 (#3721)1)-120505) AN ORDINANCE authorizing the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Lease Agreement dated June 5, 2001, between the City of Roanoke and the Commonwealth of Virginia, by the Department of Health ("VDH"), to extend the term of the current lease agreement by one year, with an expiration date of June 30, 2001), and the option to renew on a month- to-month basis for an additional one year period, for office space located at 5' 5 and 530 8'h Street for the VDH, upon certain terms and conditions, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordin~nce. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, page 90.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3721)1)- 120505. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the follOWing vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, an d Mayor Harri Sn__n______n___n________nn___n__________________nnn_____ummn_mn7 . NAYS: None nnn__ nnnnnnn__nnnn_n_n_ _nnn_n_nnn_ _________n_____n_ nnn_ -n-nO. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: FINANCIAL REPORTS: The Director of Finance submitted the FinanÖal report for the month of October, 2005. There being no questions or comments and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the October Financial Report would be received and filed. PURCHASE/SALE OF PROPERTY-BONDS/BOND ISSUES: The Director of Finance submitted a written report advising that Resolution No.3 7104-01)2005 adopted by the Council on June 20, 2005, authorized issuance of bonds for various projects, including $3,975,000.00 principal amount of General Obligation Bonds to finance costs of acquisition of land for redevelopment, specifically the Countryside Golf Course; and the .resolution authorized the City Manager and the Director of Finance to complete the sale of bonds using either a negotiated or competitive method and provided authority to complete a competitive sale, but did not authorize acceptance of bids for a negotiated sale. It was further advised that in coordination with the City's financial advisor, BB&T Capital Markets, it was determined that sale of bonds for the project by negotiated sale would be in the best financial interest of the City, due to the relatively small size of the bonds needed for the project, coupled with the City's desire for flexibility in the bonds based on the fact that it is uncertain of the ultimate disposition of the property; and since development of the property will be in coordination with a private developer, the bonds need to be issued as taxable debt. 592 It was explained that general obligation bonds will be sold via competitive sale for remaining projects, as well as for others previously approved by Council; and total amount of the bonds to be sold by competitive sale in late January 2001) will be approximately $35 million, all of which will be tax exempt, to fund projects such as the Patrick Henry High School renovation, Civic Center renovation, South Jefferson redevelopment area, the City's contribution to the Art Museum, and others. The Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt a resolution authorizing the sale of $3,975,000.00 taxable bonds, to provide funds for acquisition of land for redevelopment and to delegate authority to the City Manager and to the Director of Finance to complete the sale of bonds. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#3721)7-120505) A RESOLUTION authorizing the sale of not to exceed three million nine hundred seventy-five thousand dollars ($3,975,000.00) principal amount of general obligations of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in the ferm of General Obligation Public Improvement Bonds, taxable Series 2005, of such City, for the purpose of providing funds to pay the costs of the acquisition of land for redevelopment; delegating to the City Manager and the Director of Finance certain powers with respect to the sale and the determination of the details of such bonds; and otherwise providing with respect to the issuance, sale and delivery of such bonds. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, page 91.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 3721)7- 120505. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor Harris----nn--mm------------n-----m-mm-----n---n---------nm___n_____7. NAYS: Non e -00----- ______nnn__nn__________n__nnnn_nn nn_nn_ _n_nnnn_nn_nn____O. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: NONE. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: CITY CODE-ZONING: Council at its meeting on Monday, November 21, 2005, having tabled action on an ordinance repealing Chapter 31).1, Zoning, and enacting Chapter 31).2, Zoning, of the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, the matter was before the body. 593 Council Member Cutler moved that the above referenced ordinance be removed from the table. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and unanimously adopted. A communication from the City Manager advising that Council held a public hearing on the Zoning Ordinance/Zoning Map on Monday, November 21, 2005, and at the conclusion of the public hearing, the matter was tabled until the December 5, 2005, Council meeting and City staff was requested to review public comments and to provide a response to each issue that was raised at the public hearing. The City Manager stated that Council was provided with a list of issues, including staff positions for review and consideration; and each Council Member provided reactions to citizen comments and staff positions on those issues. She further stated that based on comments received, there was support for making the following changes to the Official Zoning Map: (1) Designate the Hylton properties on Orange Avenue, N. E. (Official Tax Nos. 7130102, 7130103 and 7130111)) as CLS, Commercial- Large Site District. (2) Designate two properties (Official Tax Nos. 3130805 and 3130901, located at the intersection of Liberty Road and P.lantation Road to CG, Commercial-General District. Note that Official Tax No. 3130805 is subject to proffered conditions associated with a rezoning initiated by the owner, so it will have a "CG-conditional" designation. As with other conditional rezonings, the conditions will remain in effect, regardless of the new zoning designation. The City Manager advised that the folloWing additional map changes, as recommended by staff and supported by responses from Council, include the following: o Windsor Lake (Official Tax No. 5110104) remapped as ROS o Sewell Lane, S. W. (Official Tax No. 131)0137) remapped as ROS o First Church of the Nazarene (Official Tax Nos. 4122509, 4122510, 4121511, 4122512, 4122514, and 4122515) remapped as IN o Grandin Court Baptist Church (Official Tax Nos. 151) 1028, 151)1301,151)1315 and 151)1317) remapped as IN o Loudon Avenue Christian Church (Official Tax No. 2112104) remapped as IN o 2903 Peters Creek Road (Official Tax Nos. 1)410105 and 1)410101)) remapped as CLS, conditional 594 o Gilford Road, N. W. (Official Tax Nos. I) 110414 and I) 110436) remapped as RM-2 o 1501) Edmund Road, N. E. (Official Tax Nos. 32101)21, 32101)22,32101)23, 32101)24 and 31201)25) remapped as RM-1 It was further advised that responses indicated support for changes to the AD, Airport Development District; five uses permitted by special exception in the AD District have been recommended for change to permitted by right, and other permitted uses in the district have been added in response to the concerns about the AD district; the AD purpose statement has been reviewed, the definition of financial institution has been revised to include support services and the definition of large-scale general or professional offices has been changed to require a minimum of 10,000 square feet rather than 20,000; and specifically, the following uses have been added to the list of permitted uses in the AD district: Financial institution Laboratory, dental, medical or optical Building supplies and materials, retail Building supplies and materials, wholesale Commercial printing establishment Mini-warehouse, subject to Sec. 36.2-415 Educational facilities, business school or non-industrial trade school Educational facilities, industrial trade school Government offices or other government facilities Parking lot facility She noted that the follOWing additional changes are proposed: Sec. 31).2-410(b) - Maximum height of fences on residential corner lots Table 312-1 - Clarification of density application in RM-l Sec. 31).2-340, Use Matrix - Addition of Office, general or professional, large scale as a permitted use in INPUD and MXPUD Table 1)1)8-1 - Permit electronic reader boards in CG District, limited to 22 square feet in sign area Sec. 31).2-1)1)2 - Revision of definition of "temporary sign" to allow attachment to an existing freestanding sign structure. 595 The City Manager advised that the changes to the text and map are reflected in the Zoning Ordinance and Official Zoning Map, dated December 5, 2005. The City Manager recommended approval of the Zoning Ordinance and Official Zoning Map, dated December 5, 2005. Council Member Cutler offered the following ordinance: (#3721)8-120505) AN ORDINANCE amending and reordaining the Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, by repealing Chapter 31).1, Zonina, consisting of §§31).1-1 through 31).1-730, and enacting Chapter 31).2, Zonina, consisting of §§31).2-1 through 31).2-840, and accompanying Appendices A, B and C, such Chapter 31).2 being a comprehensive revision of the zoning regulations of the City; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70 page 93.) Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3721)8- 120505. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. The Mayor advised that at the Council's public hearing on Monday, November 21, 2005, a number of citizens spoke and their comments were referred to the City administration and to City staff for review and response; Council Members received a written response from staff shortly thereafter and responded to the document; and last week City staff finalized their recommendations with regard to both public and Council input. The following persons addressed the Council: Mr. John Beard, 500 North Washington Street, Alexandria, Virginia, advised that he owns three parcels of land located at the intersection of Cove and Hershberger Roads, N. W.; one parcel is zoned C2, another parcel is zoned partially C2 and RS3, and the remaining parcel is zoned RS3. He stated that he has owned the properties for over 20 years, having purchased them in 1985 for investment purposes; when he purchased the property, a plat indicated that almost one acre of land was commercial C2 zoning, while the balance of the property was RS3 and he paid property taxes to the City for over 20 years based on C2 and RS3 zoning. He further stated that in the past when talking with City officials about rezoning the property, the response has been that the City needs to know if the property has been purchased, as opposed to simply rezoning the property to C2. He added that when the highway was widened, a portion of this commercially zoned property was taken, and after meeting with officials of the Virginia Department of Transportation, it was decided that a deceleration lane, or room for a deceleration lane in front of his property, would not be implemented due to lack of sufficient space to turn into, but the land still exists 596 today with the availability for a deceleration lane on Cove and Hershberger Roads. He advised that four curb cuts into the property would allow for up to four lots; the property has been marketed as potential' commercial development; and the traffic count in front of the property is in excess of 25,000 cars per day. He called attention to recent discussions with interested parties with regard to acquiring the property, prices have ranged from $750,000.00-$800,000.00, and the impact and sale of the property would be beneficial to the City by increasing not only property taxes, but sales taxes from retail uses. Therefore, he advised that the proposed single family residential zoning would constitute a down zoning of the property, create a devastating economic impact, and could decrease the value of the propeFly from $750,000.00 to less than $100,000.00. He stated that he previously forwarded correspondence to the City setting forth his concerns, however, he received no explanation as to why the property was proposed to be down zoned; and inquired as to how the City plans to compensate him for the loss of value of the property. He requested that Council delay action on the proposed rezoning, or allow the property to continue to be zoned under its current classification. Kevin Otto, Attorney, representing Messrs. Richard Kepley, Vic Foti, Bruce Farrell, John Fulton and J. B. Goria, who previously voiced objections and concerns regarding the proposed ordinance, advised that he was pleased with the recommendation of City staff with regard to the property located at the intersection of Liberty and Plantation Roads; however, as it relates to numerous other changes, it appears that they have not been adequately addressed, or, if they were considered, they were rejected. He stated that his clients are opposed to adoption of the proposed ordinance as drafted. He referred to property owned by Everett Holdings LLC, of which Drew Kepley is a principle, located on Maple Avenue, S. W., Official Tax No. 10311)01) which is currently zoned C-l, and under the new zoning ordinance will be rezoned to RM2. He explained that Mr. Kepley recently acquired the property and is concerned that the proposed rezoning will affect plans for an office-type use, therefore, he has requested mixed use designation for the property, which will be more consistent with existing properties on Maple Avenue. On behalf of his clients, he requested that Council delay action on the ordinance and refer the matter back to City staff for further review. Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., requested that Council delay action on the ordinance, specifically as it relates to the Henry Street area. She stated that she did not receive a copy of the correspondence referenced by the City Manager at the Council's 9:00 a. m. work session. 597 Bill Tanger, representing the Roanoke Business Group, spoke with regard to two major issues; I.e.: process and substantive changes. He stated that the process was not adequate for citizens of the City of Roanoke, and noted that he did not receive notification that City staff had addressed the issues until his mail was delivered on Monday morning, or approximately two hours ago. He added that when one considers the fairness of the timeline for voting on the issue, especially when citizens have just received the recommendations of City staff; two hours does not afford sufficient time to review the recommendations; therefore, based on the merits of process, Council should defer action on the ordinance. With regard to substantive changes, he spoke in support of changes that were made regarding property at the Roanoke Regional Airport; however, there are certain issues that have not been satisfactorily addressed, and the Roanoke Business Group cannot support the proposed ordinance as drafted. He requested additional time to address the comments by City staff in response to citizen comments that were made at the November 21,2005, public hearing. There being no further speakers, the Mayor requested a response by City staff with regard to the remarks of Mr. Beard concerning three parcels of land located at the intersection of Cove and Hershberger Roads; whereupon, the Director of Planning Building and Economic Development advised that the City Planning Commission reached the following conclusion: Official Tax No. 251)0109 which is the parcel of land that is split zoned, two-thirds of which is currently zoned Single Family Residential District, would retain its current zoning under the proposed zoning map; the Planning Commission was of the opinion that the entire property in combination, Official Tax Nos. 251)0134, 251)0152 and 251)0109, had limited commercial benefit, and the parcels had not been developed since 1985 because of the lack of good access from a commercial point of view; the City Planning Commission was of the opinion that at the bottom of the property, there is a street that dead ends into a cul-de-sac, which is zoned Single Family Residential District, and it is not unreasonable to say that the remainder of Official Tax No. 251)0109 could not be subdivided residentially by expansion of the street forward. He added that by the same token, the Planning Commission was concerned that by zoning the site commercial, it could potentially open up the rear of the site to traffic going through the residential area due to the lack of access from Hershberger Road. He stated that the property is troublesome due to the fact that it is located on a busy street, has considerable hindrance from an access point of view than it does just from a traffic pattern point of view. He added that the City Planning Commission declined to zone the remainder of Mr. Beard's property from RS3 to RMF because the Planning Commission was of the opinion that Multi Family was not an appropriate zoning without a specific plan, and was also of the opinion that the best zoning to apply to the entire parcel of land, given the lack of specificity, was the Single Family designation. 598 Mr. Townsend was requested to address concerns expressed by Mr. Otto and Mr. Tanger regarding the Williamson Road area; whereupon, in terms of the mapping along Williamson Road, he advised that City staff spent more time on the area than on any other area of the City and met with the Williamson Road Area Business Association to map the area before submitting a recommendation to the City Planning Commission in July, 2005. He stated that folloWing the public hearing in July, the Planning Commission further reduced the amount of CN zoning along the Williamson Road corridor by approximately two thirds in some cases, and identified neighborhood commercial zoning in three nodes along the Williamson Road corridor. He explained that the process started with the entire corridor, except for some nodes that were classified all CN; staff recommendations changed to slightly reduce that before the Planning Commission's public hearing; the Planning Commission, during its two month study period, significantly reduced the amount of neighborhood commercial zoning and increased the amount of general commercial zoning along the corridor to three nodes; I. e.: the node at Liberty and Williamson Roads, and two nodes around the two schools, one at 10'h Street and the other at Breckinridge Middle School; therefore, the City Planning Commission went to great lengths to address the issue of zoning balance along the Williamson Road corridor. He stated that the issue has been thoroughly discussed and is now a matter of whether the Council agrees with the recommendation of the City Planning Commission. He advised that there is not a lot of flexibility insofar as continuing discussions between City staff and the business association. Upon question, Mr. Otto clarified that his concerns dealt primarily with mapping issues. With regard to Mr. Kepley's property on Maple Avenue, Mr. Townsend advised that Mr. Kepley purchased the property at a time when the zoning issue was in transition; his property is currently the only property on the block that is vacant and the remainder of the block is developed with a series of residential structures; the City Planning Commission looked at the land use pattern along the two blocks, which is primarily residential in nature; the neighborhood's concern was that most of the other blocks in the area east of Franklin Road have a more than majority balance toward commercial; and even though the entire area has been zoned C-l for a long period of time, the blocks by Woods and Clark Avenues and the southern portion of Maple Avenue have not experienced significant transition to commercial use, which is the reason that the City Planning Commission recommended that the proposed map be amended to zone the property to RM2, Multi Family Residential District. In summary, he stated that at the request of the neighborhood, the City Planning Commission, looking at a preponderance of existing land use pattern, found that the property was more residential than commercial. 599 Mr. Townsend further advised that a goal of the City Planning Commission was to try and create districts that were logical in shape and size, and entire block faces were carved out, rather than singling out certain parcels of land. In view of a considerable amount of correspondence from residents of Old Southwest, Council Member McDaniel requested that Mr. Townsend talk about the lot size for townhouses and duplexes. Mr. Townsend responded that the zoning ordinance clarifies 2500 square feet for a townhouse and 3500 square feet per unit for a duplex; therefore, nothing was changed other than to clearly reflect carrying over the current density level to the new ordinance. Mr. Townsend was asked to outline the review process used by City staff following the November 21,2005 public hearing; whereupon, he advised that in crder to provide a response to Council after the November 21" public hearing, City staff compiled a memorandum outlining comments made at the public hearing and the position of staff on each proposed change. He stated that information addressed to the Council is not made available to the public until after Council has received the document, and a December 5, 2005, memorandum, which included changes that were recommended by staff based on comments received at the public hearing, was not forwarded to Council until Thursday, December 1. He stated that there is no legal requirement to re-notify any person based on their attendance and comments at a public hearing, however, it was deemed appropriate to mail a copy of the memorandum to those persons who spoke at the public hearing. With regard to the concerns expressed by Ms. Alice Hincker in connection with flood concerns relative to two private lakes and dams in the Greater Deyerle neighborhood, Mr. Townsend advised that the issue is complicated and affects significant property rights, both upstream and downstream from the dams; the City Planning Commission was unable to reach a cognitive resolution to the concerns this late in the process and stated that significant time is needed to analyze all issues, as well as the responsibility of the City of Roanoke from a regulatory point of view. He stated that he was not implying that the concerns of Ms. Hincker and other property owners in the Lake Drive area are not valid, but the concerns were presented very late in the process and contain deeper rooted issues that need to be analyzed before City staff could submit recommendations. He advised that three neighborhood plans are scheduled for renewal; I.e.: Deyerle, Raleigh Court and South Roanoke; and the neighborhood planning process will be initiated in the Deyerle neighborhood in January, 2006, and it is hoped to address the concerns of residents and to provide a regulatory response at that time. 600 Dr. Cutler inquired if parks and greenways can be included in all districts under the new zoning ordinance/map. Mr. Townsend responded that parks as land uses would be identified in the Recreation and Open Space District (ROS); a concerted effort was made to zone any open space area ROS; and greenways are not considered as land uses, but rights-of-way or means of conveyance. He stated that a number of greenways were developed under the current zoning ordinance, no regulations for greenways are included in the current zoning ordinance, and greenways are more representative of rights-of-way easements than a land use that would be regulated by zoning. He added that the Planning Commission's response to the parks issue was to enact a district that would be specific to parks and recreation, as opposed to permitting parks in any zoning district whi,ch would provide better regulatory response. Mr. Townsend provided clarification with regard to open space around schools and the overlay district for the Roanoke River. There being no further discussion, Ordinance No. 3721)8-120505 was a.opted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wish neff, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayo r H arri S_nnn_______________n__nn__nn_n______________n_n_nnnn__n__________7 . NAYS: Non e _nn_n_nn_nn_nn________n_ n_nnnnnnn_nn_________nnnnnn_ nn-n-___O. Council Member Cutler moved that the ordinance adopting a new zoning map entitled, "Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia," dated December 5, 2005, be removed from the table. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea and unanimously adopted. Council Member Cutler offered the following ordinance: (#3721)9-120505) AN ORDINANCE adopting a new zoning map entitled, "Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia," dated December 5, 2005, as the official zoning map for the City of Roanoke; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance book 70, page 98) , Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 3721)9- 120505. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel. The Mayor inquired if there were persons who would like to speak in connection with the ordinante. 601 Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., inquired about the proposed zoning for Gainsboro and Henry Street under the new Zoning Ordinance. She stated that according to the Gainsboro Neighborhood Plan, which has become a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan, Henry Street was to become a village center. Mr. Townsend advised that all of the property to the south of Wells Avenue would be zoned D, Downtown, which is consistent with its current zoning of C3; and the area north of Wells Avenue, between Jefferson Street and Gainsboro Road, is the proposed Neighborhood Commercial Zone which takes into account a number of properties along the Gainsboro Road corridor, in the vicinity of the library and the Claytor property. He advised that the Henry Street area is currently zoned C3 and would be zoned downtown inasmuch. as all of the property that is not developed is publicly owned, either by the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, or by the City of Roanoke. He stated that downtown zoning is appropriate in order to provide a consistent map, any development would be a part of public policy development and any details regarding development or disposition of the property would come through the Board of Commissioners of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority or the City Council, regardless of the zoning. With regard to Henry Street, Ms. Bethel advised that proposed zoning promotes crime and dangerous conditions, does not reduce or prevent traffic congestion on public streets, does not protect against destruction of or encroachment upon historic areas, and does not promote the creation and preservation of suitable affordable housing to meet current and future needs of the City; therefore, since the zoning is contrary to the City's Comprehensive Plan, it is not required by public necessity, convenience or general welfare and does not represent good zoning practice. She stated that inasmuch as she did not receive the letter referenced by Mr. Townsend which was mailed on Thursday or Friday of last week, it is requested that Coundl defer action on the ordinance until such time as there is a clear understanding of the affects of the new zoning on historic Gainsboro and the Henry Street area. There being no further speakers, the Mayor opened the floor for comments by Council Members with regard to the property referenced by Mr. Beard located at Cove and Hershberger Roads, N. W. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following proposal for the Council's consideration: D Change the entirety of Official Tax No. 251)0152 to CG, Commercial-General District; D Change a portion of Official Tax No. 251)0109, along the frontage of Cove Road, to CG, Commercial-General Distri(t; and that the rear zoning line be drawn in alignment with the rear property line of Official Tax No. 251)0134. 602 There being no questions or comments, and without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the zoning map would be amended as above described by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. Council Member Cutler moved that Ordinance No. 3721)9-120505 be amended to add the words, "as amended" when referring to the Official Zoning Map, City of Roanoke, Virginia, dated December 5, 2005. The motion was seconded by Council Member McDaniel and unanimously adopted. There was discussion with regard to Mr. Kepley's property on Maple Avenue during which some Members of Council expressed concern with regard to spot zoning. It was the consensus of Council to leave the zoning as proposed and entertain other possibilities at a later date. In response to Ms. Bethel's remarks regarding the Gainsboro and Henry Street area, Mr. Townsend advised that the general zoning pattern in the neighborhood will not change with the new zoning ordinance, land uses will be transitional from the current zoning designation and the current ordinance to the new ordinance; the Historic Overlay District which is located in the core of the neighborhood between Patton and Wells Avenues and between Jefferson Street and Williamson Road is protected by the H2, Historic District Overlay; and the area to the west of Gainsboro Road is classified in the Neighborhood Design District Overlay to protect the quality of infill housing that would be constructed in the neighborhood to the west of Gainsboro Road. He stated that the zoning pattern, the additional protections allowed by the Neighborhood Design District Overlay, and maintaining the Historic District Overlay in the older parts of the neighborhood will protect the area from inappropriate development, both from a density and from an aesthetic point of view in the future; and the general zoning pattern from Wells Avenue south to the railroad tracks remains the same in terms of current zoning (C3), and in the future, under the Downtown Zoning District, which is the transitional district between the two ordinances. Council Member Wishneff moved that the zoning map be amended to remove all CN zoning in the Williamson Road corridor (pages I) and 11 in map book). The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea. During a discussion of the motion, Mr. Townsend advised that the treatment of the corridor in the Williamson Road Neighborhood Plan would be a combination of various types of commercial uses by density and type; the neighborhood plan also identified certain nodes, or key locations, along the corridor; the Planning Commission focused on that particular framework in the neighborhood plan to the effect that a majority of the corridor should be general commercial; however, the Planning Commission identified three speCific areas for CN zoning, two of which are around City institutional uses, one being Breckinridge Middle School and the other being Oakland Elementary School at Tenth Street, and the intersection of Liberty and Williamson Roads. He stated 603 that Williamson Road has been treated monolithically since 1987 through C2 zoning, all with very little attention to where uses were most appropriate; and the Planning Commission's desire to establish CN zones in three locations was intended to promote a different type of commercial development in those specific locations, while the remainder of the corridor would remain General Commercial and retain the same use types as the previous C2 zoning. , There being no further discussion, the amendment offered by Council Member Wishneff, seconded by Council Member Lea, was lost by the following vote: AYES: Co unci I Me m be rs Lea an d Wi s h neff--nn---.---n--------------------n-----n- 2. NAYS: Council Members Fitzpatrick, McDaniel, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor fiélrris------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5. Ordinance No.3 721)9-120505, as amended, was adopted by the following vete: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, McDaniel, Cutler, Dowe, and Mayor ~rris------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------5. NAYS: Council Members Lea and Wishneff--------------------------------------------2. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS: NONE. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS: INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF COUNCIL: GENERAL SERVICES: Council Member Cutler advised of the promotion of Kenneth Cronin to the position of Director of General Services. The City Manager advised that Mr. Cronin has been a long term employee of the City, previously serving as Director of Human Resources; the process of recruiting on a permanent basis for the Director of Human Resources will begin, and three management level employees in the Human Resources Department have filled the position in two month rotating increments. ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT-CITY EMPLOYEES: Council Member Cutler announced that the City will dispatch another hurricane assistance Fire/EMS team to Cameron Parrish, Louisiana; I. e.: Battalion Chief Audie Ferris, Battalion Chief Roger Manuel, Captain Allen Austin, Captain David Bishop, Captain Anthony Wallace, Captain David Pope, and First Lieutenant Charles Swecker. 604 CITIZEN SURVEY: Council Member Cutler reported that at the 9:00 a. m. work session, Council was provided with a summary of the City of Roanoke 2005 citizen survey which was conducted by the Virginia Tech Center for Survey Research. He stated that the survey revealed that 85.8 per cent of Roanokers sampled were very, or somewhat satisfied, with the quality of City services. The City Manager advised that the City received a high satisfaction rating from citizens with regard to quality of services and customer service by City employees. She stated that in comparing the data from the year 2000 to the current year's data, it is obvious that significant progress has been made, and she was particularly pleased that citizens have acknowledged the hard work, effort and sensitivity of Roanoke's employees. She added that all citizens should be proud of those City employees who serve on a daily basis to meet the needs of Roanoke's citizens, and expressed her personal appreciation for their service. ZONING: Mayor Harris and Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick commended citizens of the City of Roanoke and City staff upon completion of a multi-year process to implement a new Zoning Ordinance for the City. 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. CELEBRATIONS-COM PLAINTS-TREES: Mr. Clarence E. Martin, 155 Huntington Boulevard, N. E., spoke with regard to the naming of Roanoke's holiday tree, and advised that the Council should take action to change the name of the tree from a "holiday" tree to a "Christmas" tree. He encouraged Council to take a formal vote at the next Council meeting on Monday, December 19, 2005. COMPLAINTS-TAXES: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., advised that the root of all evil is the love of money and the manner in which money is used can make a difference in the lives of the citizens of Roanoke. He called attention to the use of taxpayers' money for such projects as the Ukrops store, Victory Stadium, the Roanoke River Bio Technical project, expansion of Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, and Wiley Drive improvements. He expressed concern with regard to the wages of City employees and advised that the average City employee cannot afford to purchase a house. He also expressed concern with regard to Roanoke's declining real estate assessments. 605 He stated that an individual on welfare with children is entitled to $41),000.00 a year with free medical assistance, and the average social worker and school teacher starts off at $31,000.00 a year, while the average City employee starts at a level below the poverty rate. He added that the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority has developed housing in areas where the average citizen cannot afford to live and has converted $1)5,000.00 homes into $21)5,000.00 homes in areas that already have a high crime rate. He complained that certain actions that are undertaken by the City without the involvement of citizens should be stopped. STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, reiterated the remarks of the previous speaker. He advised that Victory Stadium should be renovated and continue to be dedicated to the memory of World War II veterans from the Roanoke Valley. He suggested that the National Guard Armory be converted into a Hall of Fame for all famous persons who played football at Victory Stadium and fought for their country. He called attention to a report by consultants, which were hired by the City to study the condition of Victory Stadium, who reported that the facility is structurally sound and with S5-7 million, could be an outstanding entertainment venue. He stated that a stadium large enough to serve the needs of all of Roanoke's citizens is needed. SCHOOLS: Mr. Winfred Noell, 2743 Northview Drive, S. W., reported on meetings that have been held at Patrick Henry High School regarding the proposed construction of a high school stadium. He stated that at the first meeting a question was raised as to where excess parking would be directed, to which the architect responded that excess parking would be directed into adjacent neighborhoods. He further stated that at the second meeting, a plan was presented that allowed parking on soccer fields, and it was reported that William Fleming High School would play their football games at Patrick Henry for the next three years, which will place an extra burden on the neighborhood. He added that other issues that were discussed evolved around entrances and exits, budget over runs that could be tied into tax increases, the cost of renovating the two high schools, and the use of bond funds for improvements to the two high schools. He expressed concern that residents purchased their homes with the knowledge that the area included a high school and school related activities, property owners made improvements to the neighborhood and real estate assessments continued to increase, therefore, residents deserve to be treated better by the City of Roanoke. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: CELEBRATIONS-NEIGHBORHOOD ORGANIZATIONS: The City Manager commended the Old Southwest Parlor Tour which was held on Saturday, December 3 and Sunday, December 4, 2005. 606 CELEBRATIONS-PARKS AND RECREATION: The City Manager commended the City's Department of Parks and Recreation on the beautiful decorations of the season at Mountain View Recreation Center. At 4:35 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for two Closed Sessions to be held in the Council's Conference Room. 'At 5:25 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, with the exception of Council Member Dowe, Mayor Harris presiding. COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Session just concluded, Council Member Lea 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 Council Member Cutler and adopted by the follOWing vote: AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler and Ma1{or fiélrris--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Ei. NAYS: Non e _nn__ nnn__nnnn_oo_______nn_nnn __nn __nn____oo ___oo_n__nn_n__nn__n_O. (Council Member Dowe left the meeting during the Closed Session.) There being no further business, the Mayor declared the Council meeting adjourned at 5:27 p.m. APPROVED ~~4~ Mary F. Parker City Clerk C.~L~ C. Nelson Harris Mayor 607 ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL December 19, 2005 2:00 p.m. The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Monday, December 19, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., the regular meeting hour, in the Roanoke City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding, pursuant to Chapter 2, Administration, Article II, City Council, Section 2-15, Rules of Procedure, Rule 1, Reaular Meetinas, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and pursuant to Resolution No. 37109-070505 adopted by the Council on Tuesday, July 5, 2005. PRESENT: Council Members Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wish neff, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Mayo r C. Ne I son Harri s --------m----------------m----n--------_______________________________n__________7. A BS E NT: --------------------------------------------------------------------------n------------------------O. The Mayor declared the existence of a quorum. 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 Council Member Alfred T. Dowe, Jr. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag ofthe United States of America was led by Mayor Harris. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: DIRECTOR OF FINANCE-BUDGET-ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: The Mayor advised that the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States and Canada announced that the City of Roanoke is the recipient of the GFOA's Distinguished Budget Presentation Award for its fiscal year 2004-2005 budget. He further advised that the award represents a significant achievement by the City, it reflects the commitment of the governing body and staff to meeting the highest prinCiples of governmental budgeting, in order to receive the award, the entity must satisfy nationally recognized guidelines for effective budget presentation, and guidelines are designed to assess how well an entity's budget serves as a policy document, a financial plan, an operations guide and a communications device. On behalf of the Council, the Mayor presented a plaque of achievement to Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management and Budget. 608 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 certain Council appointed boards and commissions. MINUTES: Minutes of the special meetings of Council held on Tuesday, November 1,2005, and Thursday November 3, 2005, and the regular meeting held on Monday, November 7, 2005, were before the body.. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that the reading ofthe minutes be dispensed with and that the minutes be. approved as recorded. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick and Mayo r Harri s---------------------------------------------------n--------------------------------------------7. NA'(S: None-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0. COMMITTEES-HOUSING/AUTHORITY: A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris requesting that Council convene in a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and committees appointed by Council, and to interview an applicant for a vacancy on the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council convene in Closed Session as abovedescribed. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick and Mayor Harris------m----n-------n---------------m---------m-n-_________n__________________________n7 . NA'(S: None-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------0. CITY" MARKET-LEASES: A communication from the City Manager requesting that Council schedule a public hearing for Tuesday, January 3, 2006, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, with regard to execution of a lease with Elias Azar, d/b/a Azar Jewelry, Inc., for space located in the City Market Building, was before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved that Council concur in the request ofthe City Manager. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: 609 AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick an d Mayo r H arri s ___m_____m____________________________________________--n-n---------_______________________7 . Nt\'(S: ~()Ill!----------------------------------------------.-------_________________________________________(). REGULAR AGENDA PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE. PETITIONS A~D COMMUNICATIONS: YOUTH-BLUE RIDGE COMMUNITY SERVICES: Ginny Hardin, Director of Prevention for Blue Ridge Behavioral Healthcare and Chair, Roanoke Prevention Planning Team (RPPT), presented a report on youth risk behaviors and the power of developmental assets. She advised that the Roanoke City Prevention Planning Team is a coalition of youth-serving organizations working together to promote the healthy development of youth; the Coalition strives to promote community awareness about risk behaviors and attitudes among youth, advocate for the development and continuation of prevention programs and encourage family and (emmunity involvement in building strong youth. Ms. Hardin stated that RPPT, in partnership with Roanoke City Public Schools, surveyed Roanoke youth in 2005 using the Center for Disease Control's Youth Risk Behavior Survey and the Search Institute's Profiles of Student Life: Attitudes and Behaviors Survey; Carilion Medical Center for Children and the Roanoke City Health Department provided funding for the project; and Roanoke's youth were also surveyed in 2002. She stated that survey responses revealed consistently high rates of risk behaviors and attitudes in four areas: sexual activity, drug use, violence and suicide: High School Youth (10 &.12 grades) Roanoke Roanoke National Average 2002 200S YRBS 2003* Ever Had Sex 62.3% 60.5% 52.9% sexua1 Intercourse Before Aoe 13 12.9% 16.7% 7.0% Had 5+ drinks once or more In last 30 davs 25.1 % 22.8% 32.4% Used mariluana In last 30 daYs 28.5% 29.6% 23.9% Carried a wea n one or more davs within Dast 30 days 18.2% 19.2% 15.7% In physical fight one or more times within past 12 months 31.8% 28.8% 29.3% SeriouslY considered attemntln suicide In last 12 months 17.7% 19.8% 16.8% Actuallv attemoted suicide In last 12 months 10.4% 12.5% 7.6% * Averages among youth across the nation as reported by the Center for Disease Control. Middle School YOuth (6m &. 8 grades) Roanoke Roanoke Center for Disease 2002 2005 Control does not Ever had Sex 24.6% 27% report data on Sexual Intercourse Before A e 13 18.9% 22% National Averages First used alcohol at 13 years old or younger 31.9% 28.6% among Middle Schoof Youth~ First tried mart uana at 13 years old or vounoer 9.4% 13.3% Ever carried if weanon (aun knJfe 29% 30% Ever been In a leal Iloht 61% 62% Ever been bullied 47% 4 5ertoustv considered attemDtlna sutclde In last 12 months 23.9% 23.9% Actuallyattem d suicide In last 12 months 10.9% 8.4% 610 Ms. Hardin advised that the results are alarming and require immediate attention and community action; left unattended, these high risk behaviors will have far reaching negative consequences in the personal lives of youth, the City of Roanoke's economic growth and ultimately the quality of life in the Roanoke Valley; research has documented that high-risk behaviors among youth lead to increased rates of high school dropouts,juvenile offenders, foster care placement, and welfare dependency, all of which absorb vital financial resources that could be used to promote the community's positive growth and development; and informed, strategic prevention efforts are key to providing youth with the skills necessary to avoid risk and behaviors that lead to healthy and productive lives. She further advised that the Search Institute's framework of 40 development assets represents a common core of developmental building blocks essential for the positive development of all young people; the Search Institute analyzed youth behaviors in hundreds of communities and research has consistently shown that youth with higher levels of assets are significantly less likely to engage in risk- taking behaviors, and youth demonstrate the most success in school, community, and healthy lifestyle choices when they experience 31-40 developmental assets; and survey responses reveal that many youth are not experiencing some of the most important assets regarding family and community that support boundaries and expectations, resistance skills and constructive use of time. ~IAøet Røllnoke Roanoke N===- 2002 2005 Young person and his or her parents communicate positively, and 29% 28% 30% I vounll Of!rson 1$ wllllnoto seek oarents' advice & counsel. Famny has clear rules and consequences, and monitors the young 49% 48% 48% oerson's whereabouts. Young person receives support from 3 or more non-parent adults. 45% 46% 4S% Young person experiences caring neighbors. 41% 40% 40% Young person perceives that adults In community value youth. 28% 28% 2S% Young person believes It is important not to be sexually active or 46% 46% 42% to use alcohol or other drUQs. Young person can resist negative peer pressure and dangerous 42% 4S% 45% sItUations. Young person serves in community one hour or more per week. 54% 54% 51% Young person spends three or more hours per week in lessons or 23% 23% 20% oractlce In mUSic theater or other arts. 58% Young person spends three or more hours per week in sports, 54% 56% dubs oroanlzations at school. or communltv oroanizations. Young person $peIlds one hour or more hours per week in 67% 64% 63% activities in a rellaious institution. 49% Both parents and teachers encourage young person to do well. 52% S6% In 2005, average number of assets experienced by youth was 19.5; 11% reported experiencing 31-40 assets. . Averages among youth across the nation as reported by the Search ¡nst~ute. 611 Ms. Hardin advised that Council can help youth to build developmental assets and avoid risk behaviors by: · Adopting and utilizing data: Adopt the YRBS and Search surveys as the official data source to guide all Roanoke City planning, and fund allocation and evaluation efforts for youth programming, particularly for the Youth Comprehensive Plan to be completed by May 2001). In partnership with RPPT, establish community-wide goals to increase the number of youth experiencing 31 - 40 developmental assets and reduce the prevalence of risk behaviors, including priorities for specific assets and strategies to be targeted. · Continuing to survey youth: Allocate $12,000.00 in 2007 and every two years thereafter to pay for the YRBS and Search surveys to be administered to youth attending Roanoke City Public Schools (cost of surveys, data analysis, and dissemination of results). It is imperative that youth behaviors and assets be monitored every two years and use the data as an accountability mechanism to measure the "overall" success of youth programs. · Funding prevention programs: Establish a pool of funds to specifically support prevention programs to achieve community-wide goals for increasing assets and reducing risk behaviors (suggested amount of $200,000.00). City Council needs to make prevention the community's top priority and invest in programs that have been evaluated and proven to be effective. Erica Witt, Youth Co-chair, Roanoke Area Youth Substance Abuse Coalition, Youth Vice President for Community Voters Network of Virginia and Director ofthe Network Neighborhood Youth Office at The Villages at Lincoln, reiterated that data indicates that Roanoke's youth are involved in a series of risky behavior at alarming rates. She stated that her experience as a teen in Roanoke is that life can be dangerous and violent at times which can be witnessed at certain social events where teens engage in the use of drugs and alcohol, and a party can quickly erupt into violence when a peer arrives with a weapon and/or displays gang symbols. She called attention to the need for community involvement and advised that the community can help to build resilient youth through individual mentorship, community leaders can think first about youth when making decisions that affect all citizens, and any investment made by community leaders will create healthy youth development and lasting positive effects on the economy, on citizens and most importantly on the future of Roanoke's youth. 612 Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick commended Ms. Hardin on the quality of information contained in the report. He stated that teen pregnancy is not just a Roanoke City problem, but a regional, state and national problem, and asked that Council be informed of any actions that need to be taken and the timeframe in which actions should be addressed. Council Member Cuter concurred in the Vice-Mayor's remarks. He inquired if a plan of action has been formulated with regard to what City government and the School system can do to address the issue so that a specific set of statements can be developed that will become a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan and implemented by various divisions of City government. Ms. Hardin responded that the Teen Pregnancy Council will continue to work with the City's Youth Planner and the Youth Commission on the youth portion of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and through this process, it is hoped that some of the more specific aspects of data will be included. Council Member Lea asked Ms. Witt to respond as to what the School Board could do that is not currently being done to help resolve certain of the school- related issues. Ms. Witt responded that more programs are needed to draw young people away from selling and using drugs and committing crimes. Council Member Lea called attention to the future Council/School Board Retreat scheduled to be held on Tuesday,January 2,2001), and asked that the City Clerk communicate to the Clerk of the School Board a request for information regarding the use of drug dogs, in general, in the schools, how often are inspections conducted, are inspections announced or unannounced, etc. He concurred in the remarks of the Vice-Mayor that issues addressed by Ms. Hardin are not just Roanoke City related, but regional in nature, and it is hoped that the City will do everything possible to ensure a drug free environment in the City's educational system. Council Member Dowe advised that the key is to listen to what Roanoke's youth are saying, and the City of Roanoke's problems are not unlike those that other cities experience. He commended Roanoke's Youth Commission and advised that the youth component of the Comprehensive Plan and how the plan integrates into the City's overall Comprehensive Plan will be of monumental proportions. Council Member Wishneff expressed appreciation to Ms. Hardin for the quality of information contained in the report. He referred to $200,000.00 identified in the report to establish a pool of funds to specifically support prevention programs to achieve community-wide goals for increasing assets and reducing risk behaviors, and inquired if the matter should be referred to the Council's 2007 budget study for consideration. The City Manager advised that the item speaks to allocation of funds for a biannual survey, and the issue of funding prevention programs will be best addressed in the Council's 2007 budget deliberations. She stated that young people, led by a consultant, will identify 613 specific youth needs and programs and the information could be used as a guiding element in the allocation of funds. She further stated that the City may not be able to allocate $200,000.00 in the first year, but could begin to look at youth prevention programs as an element of the City's annual budget process in much the same way that other elements of the comprehensive plan are used in an incremental approach, recognizing that when the Council deliberates the City's fiscal year budget, there will be numerous competing interests. Council Member McDaniel advised that charts provided with the report include averages of 10th and 12th grade students and I)th and 8'h grade students, and inquired if the information could be broken down in order to review each year's responses as students grow older; whereupon, Ms. Hardin responded in the affirmative. Council Member McDaniel pointed out that the information contained in the report is serious in nature and it is hoped that all persons who are concerned about saving Victory Stadium will realize that what needs to be saved is Roanoke's youth and the City of Roanoke has many important issues that should be addressed. Ms. Hardin advised that the Roanoke Prevention Planning Team would like to play an advisory role in the City's youth comprehensive planning process; and other Roanoke Valley jurisdictions have compiled similar youth data and surveys which will be included in a valley-wide report. On behalf of the Council, the Mayor expressed appreciation to Ms. Hardin for an informative report. REPORTS OF OFFICERS: CITY MANAGER: BRIEFINGS: NONE. ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION: BUDGET-HUMAN DEVELOPMENT-GRANTS-FDETC: 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; and 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. 614 It was further advised that WIA funding is intended for four primary client populations: · 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 stated that the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board has received a Notice of Obligation (NOO) from the Virginia Employment Commission allocating $192,077.00 for the Youth Program which serves economically disadvantaged youth, $181,725.00 for the Adult Program which serves economically disadvantaged adults, and $208,131.00 for the Dislocated Worker Program which serves workers laid off from employment through no fault of their ewn for Program Year 2005 Uuly 1, 2005 - June 30, 2007); and ten per cent ofthe aforementioned totals are to be allocated to the administrative function of the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board. It was noted that existing activities will continue, and planned programs will be implemented; and funds are available from the Grantor agency and other sources as indicated at no additional cost to the City. The City Manager recommended that Council accept the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act funding of $581 ,933.00 for Program Year 2005; and adopt an ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in the amount of $581,933.00 and appropriate funding in the same amount to expenditure accounts to be established by the Director of Finance in the Grant Fund. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the follOWing budget ordinance: (#37270-121905) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the FYOI) Workforce Investment Act Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 103.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No.3 7270-121905. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: 615 AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick an d Mayo r H arri S----m-------------________________________n__________-----------------------------------------7. N)\'(S: NOIll!----------------------------------------------.------__________________________________________(). Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution: , (#37271-121905) A RESOLUTION accepting the Western Virginia Workforce Development Board Workforce Investment Act fundin'g of $581,933.00 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the requisite documents necessary to accept the funding. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 10S.) Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37271- 121905. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick all d Mayo r H arri s -----n--n___n_n______nn_____n__n____nn____n_n____n_______n__n----n-n-____n_____7 . N)\'(S: NOIl!!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. POLICE DEPARTMENT-TRAFFIC-ClTY CODE: The City Manager submitted a communication advising that during 2001, the Police Department began the process of investigating new technologies that would increase the availability of downtown on street parking, as well as increase the efficiency of parking enforcement fine collection efforts; recently, computer automation and hand held ticket issuance devices have been deployed; and technology associated with the units enables Police and Billings and Collections to implement new initiatives and to re-engineer outdated business processes. It was further advised that the City administration held several meetings with representatives of Downtown Roanoke, Inc., concerning parking in the downtown area; the administration has also reviewed parking regulations from around the Commonwealth of Virginia; and a review of parking regulations, examination of the City's internal data and consultation with Downtown Roanoke Inc., revealed that efficiencies in customer service and business practice could be improved in four areas. · In an effort to enhance the downtown shopping experience, first time parking violators should be given a warning ticket instead of a fine; many first time violators are out of town visitors shopping in the downtown area; and the proposed change is supported by Downtown Roanoke, Inc. 616 · Parking violators who receive more than one ticket on the same calendar day should be subject to an escalation of fines; the first violation would result in a $1 5.00 fine, the second violation on the same calendar day would result in a $30.00 fine, and the third violation on the same calendar day would result in a $45.00 fine. · Parking violators who refuse to pay their fines should be subject to a vehicle immobilization program which will hold the vehicle until all fines are paid; and the vehicle immobilization program should be administered through the Police Department. · The court system should be used only as a remedy for redress concerning disputes over issued violations and not as a collection agent for unpaid fines; the City would have the option of sending a law enforcement notice to the violator to begin the court process, or to utilize other collection methods, including utilizing the vehicle immobilization program. It was explained that updating City parking statutes to address the above referenced four areas will enhance the ability of the Police Department to open up on street parking spaces and reduce excessive parking violations; code modification allowing warning tickets will provide for a more welcoming atmosphere in the downtown area for first time visitors and out of town guests; proposed changes will also increase the efficiency of the Department of Billings and Collections when properly cited violators fail or refuse to complete required payments; impaCt on revenues should be minimal; and the procedure will take effect on February 1, 2001). The City Manager recommended that the City Code be amended to revise Section 20-89, "Penalties for Unlawful Parking" and to add new code Section 20-90, "Immobilization of Motor Vehicles Against Which There Are Outstanding Parking Violations". She advised that the recommended revisions will strengthen the ability of the City to provide efficient and empathetic service to all downtown parking violators, as well as to those persons seeking short term on street parking. Council Member Cutler offered the following ordinance: (#37272-121905) AN ORDINANCE amending Section 20-89, Penalties for Unlawful Parkino, Article IV, Stoooino. Standino and Parkino, and adding a new Section 20-90, Immobilization of Motor Vehicles Aoainst Which There Are Outstandino Parkino Violations, of Chapter 20, Motor Vehicles and Traffic, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, providing for an effective date; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 101).) 617 Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37272- 121905. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick and Mayo r H arri s--------------n-----------_______________________nn_______----------------m-----------n____7 . Nt\'(S: NOIl!!---------------------------------------------------____________________________________________(). DIRECTOR OF FINANCE: BONDS/BOND ISSUES: The Director of Finance submitted a written report advising that Council adopted Resolution No. 31)1)43 on March 15, 2004, authorizing issuance of $ 5 ,500,000.00 of Qualified Redevelopment Bonds to fund property acquisition in the South Jefferson Redevelopment Project; the bonds will be included in the City's upcoming bond sale to be closed on February 8, 2001); funds were expended on December 15, 2005, and will be reimbursed from bond proceeds; it is planned to issue up to $15,000,000.00 in Bond Anticipation Notes (BANS) to provide cash flow and liquidity for projects included in the upcoming bond issue; and a resolution authorizing issuance of the bonds did not include authorization to issue Bond Anticipation Notes, if needed, as is typically included in the City's bond resolutions. the Director of Finance recommended that Council adopt a resolution authorizing the Director of Finance and the City Manager to issue up to $5,500,000.00 in Bond Anticipation Notes to be reimbursed from bond proceeds from the upcoming bond sale. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37273-121905) A RESOLUTION authorizing the sale of not to exceed five million five hundred thousand dollars ($5,500,000.00) principal amount general obligations of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in the form of General Obligation Bond Anticipation Notes, Series 2005, of such city, the proceeds of which are to be granted by the City to the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority for the purpose of assisting such Authority in paying a portion of the costs of a redevelopment project in the City known as The South Jefferson Redevelopment Area Project; delegating to the City Manager and the Director of Finance certain powers with respect to the sale and the determination ofthe details of such notes and the bonds in anticipation of which such notes are being issued, sold and delivered, and otherwise providing with respect to the issuance, sale and delivery of such notes and bonds. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 110.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37273- 121905. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by the following vote: 618 AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick and Mayo r H arri sn----------------------------ooo-----------------------___n_________________________________n_7 . NJ\'(S: ~ClIll!----------------------------------------------,------------------------------------------------(). REPORTS OF COMMITTEES: BUDGET-SCHOOLS: A report of the Roanoke City School Board requesting appropriation of the following funds: · $173,343.00 for the Hurt Park Community Learning Centl!r; tIIll! 21" Century Community Learning Center Federal grant will address the critical attendance, academic, and parl!ntal involvement needs of the Hurt Park Community Learning Center. · $50,287.00 for the 2005-2001) Roanoke Care Connection Clinic program to provide funds for the salary and expenses of the educational coordinator, said program to be 100 per cent reimbursed by State funds. · $8,250.00 for the 2001) Western Virginia Regional Science Fair being hosted by Roanoke City; participating school distri(ts and corporate and individual contributions will contributl! toward the cost of the Fair, with a local match cost to Roanoke City Schools of $2,000.00. A report of the Director of Finance recommending that Council concur in the request of the School Board was also before the body. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance: (#37274-121905) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the Hurt Park Community Learning Center, 2001) Roanoke Care Connection Clinic program, and 2001) Western Virginia Regional Science Fair, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2001) School Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance BOClk No. 70, Page 114.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37274-1219()5. The motion was seconded by Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatri£k ancl ~a1fClr Harris-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1'. NAYS: No Ill!________n_______nn_n_____________________________n____n_______n______________ooo________O. 619 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: ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CITY EMPLOYEES: Council Member McDaniel commended those City employees who serve the citizens of Roanoke during inclement weather, espeCially during times of snow and ice removal. STADIUM-SCHOOLS: Council Member Wishneff responded to a previous comment made by Council Member McDaniel regarding Victory Stadium (See page 8). He stated that youth and the problems of youth have nothing to do with a football stadium, and if there is a perception that discussions regarding a stadium are holding up the City's progress, a simple vote by a majority of the Members of Council can change any action heretofore taken by the Council. NATIONAL LEAGUE OF CITIES: Council Member Dowe expressed appreciation for the opportunity to represent the City of Roanoke at the Annual Conference of the National League of Cities which was held on December I) - 10, 2005, in Charlotte, North Carolina. He stated that after listening to Mayors from large cities such as New Orleans, Washington, D. c., and Detroit, the similarities of cities are amazing, regardless of their size. 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. ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Chris Craft, 1501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., spoke with regard to the renovation of Victory Stadium and stated that if renovated, officials of the NCAA have advised that Victory Stadium could be considered as a potential site for a future Stagg Bowl. He called attention to the need for the City of Roanoke to focus on something other than Victory Stadium, because roads and City equipment need to be repaired, the school system is in need of more funds to replace mobile classrooms on school sites, pay raises are needed for teachers, and City buildings need to be repaired. He stated that the City of Roanoke should move forward and if it is necessary to raze Victory Stadium, a stadium should be constructed at another location other than at Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools. He stated that the City of Roanoke should work more closely with Roanoke County on joint ventures in an effort to save taxpayers' money. 620 COUNCIL-ARMORY/STADIUM-SCHOOLS: Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., advised that there is turmoil, stress, unrest, distrust, and anger among Roanoke's citizens; there are serious problems and concerns relative to historic Victory Stadium; and the City of Roanoke has never had a Superintendent of Schools who involved himself or herself in Roanoke City Council decisions. She stated that the citizens of Roanoke elected present City Council Members to make decisions on their behalf and to honor campaign promises; and there is a general lack of leadership by a majority of the Council and the City Manager who have ignored the rules, principles, processes and promises made to the public. She added that for a majority of City Council Members to support separate stadiums on campuses at Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools is deceitful, and she questioned the message that is being sent to Roanoke's young people. She stated that many citizens believe there is a hidden agenda; and the City's reputation has been severely tarnished by the decisions made by the majority of a Council that has repeatedly changed its mind about Victory Stadium. She commended Council Members Lea and Wishneff for their stand on Victory Stadium, and advised that it is hoped that in the year 2001), Roanoke City Council will regain the principles of integrity, character, wisdom, truth, peace and a sense of community. ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, spoke in support of renovating Victory Stadium as a historical site in memory of World War II veterans from the Roanoke Valley. He stated that if the City of Roanoke has $4.5 million to spend on a stadium at Patrick Henry High School, the funds could be used to renovate Victory Stadium. He called attention to issues regarding lack of maintenance of Victory Stadium by the City and called for a complete investigation; and the loss of parking in the vicinity of Victory Stadium because the gravel parking lot was leased to Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital when the Hospital constructed the parking garage. He stated that Victory Stadium was constructed for $350,000.00 and questioned the cost to construct the same type of stadium on the present site using today's dollars. He advised that Victory Stadium is a beautiful facility that should be used by all Roanoke Valley residents, and a part of Roanoke's past will no longer exist if Victory Stadium is torn down. COMPLAINTS: Mr. Robert E. Gravely, 727 29'h Street, N. W., advised that Roanoke's economy is based on the work of the people, not politiCS; and job growth is meaningless if employees are not paid sufficient wages to create opportunities that will lead to a better quality of life. He stated that the average City employee cannot afford to purchase a house, and the average City worker with over 15 years of service, at the present pay rate, will never earn $32,000.00 annually when taking into consideration periodic increases in health insurance, yet the value of land and real estate taxes continue to increase. He added that City officials should market the City of Roanoke to its citizens before trying to attract other persons/businesses to the area. 621 CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager called attention to a project which was undertaken by the City's Service Excellence at Work Committee in connection with the use of approximately S 1,1)50.00 from a hot dog/bake sale fund raising event to assist Roanoke's "Sister City," Gutfport, Mississippi, which was severely affected by Hurricane Katrina. She stated that as the result of a contact by the City's Director of Parks and Recreation with his counterpart in Gulfport, it was learned that approximately 51)0 kindergarten children attend seven different schools; and the City's Service Excellence Committee voted to prepare Christmas gift bags for the children consisting of Christmas cards signed by Roanoke City School students and other Christmas items that were donated by the City's Fire and Police Departments. She stated that a group of Service Excellence Committee members, Parks and Recreation staff, Youth Council members, and a Council member and his spouse stuffed approximately 1)00 gift bags that were placed in boxes donated by Corrugated Containers; and three City employees, in a vehicle loaned by the Fire Department, left Roanoke on Sunday, December 18 to deliver the gift bags to the young people of Gulfport. She added that during the holiday luncheon for City employees, an acllditional $315.00 was collected which will be given to the Superintendent of Sc:hools in Gulfport for use as he deems appropriate. ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CITY EMPLOYEES: The City Manager highlighted the following achievements by City departments during the calendar year 2005: Housing and Neighborhood Services Leadershio Colleae Proarams Housing and Neighborhood Services sponsored two leadership College sessions during 2005. The Leadership College meets one evening a week for three hours over an eight week period. This interactive educational program helps citizens understand City operations and procedures, learn how to access these services, assist them in becoming leaders and resources in their neighborhoods by incorporating conflict resolution and leadership building skills, and provide them with the tools for improving the quality of life in their neighborhoods. The spring session graduated 23 out of 24 registrants. The fall session graduated 17 out of 22 original registrants. All City Departments collaborate in this program by presenting on their respective Departmental activities. 622 Citv Neiahborhood Oraanizations Online With help from the Department of Housing and Neighborhood Services, all neighborhood organizations in the City now have their own web pages on the Internet. Created by Housing and Neighborhood Services staff, each web page provides a brief overview of the neighborhood the organization represents, coupled with information regarding the neighborhood organization's officers and contact information, and meeting time, date, and place. Web pages will enable each neighborhood organization to build capacity by providing information to residents and nonresidents. Future plans call for each neighborhood organization's website to be linked to the City's Internet community portal. Access the web page by visiting www.roanokeva.aov/neighborhoodlinks. 1741 Inooerable Vehicles Code compliance cited 1741 inoperable vehicles and towed 217 vehicles that were not brought into compliance. A vehicle is deemed to be "inoperable" if it is in publiC view on private property and is either (1) not in operating condition or (2) does not have current license plates and/or inspection tags. Welcome Roanoke Initiated in June 2004, the Welcome Roanoke program continues to welcome newcomers to the City, as well as citizens relocating within the City. To date, 11)1)2 informational packets have been mailed to citizens who have purchased homes in the City. These packets contain information that assist new residents in becoming acquainted with the community and with the services provided by the City. As a result of the program, Housing and Neighborhood Services staff received 14 calls from newcomers requesting their choice of either a star-shaped wicker basket or coffee mug imprinted with the Roanoke brand, each containing a small packet of H&C coffee and a package of Virginia peanuts. The program's goals are to create a positive City image with new residents, improve opportunities to increase new residents' awareness and knowledge of City operations and services, engage new citizens as municipal volunteers for City programs and initiatives, and provide greater access to new citizens by neighborhood organization leaders and Housing and Neighborhood Services staff. 623 Neiohborhood Month 2005 During May 2005, Housing and Neighborhood Services sponsored the City's first Neighborhood Month celebration. Neighborhood Month provided an opportunity for neighborhood organizations to showcase their neighborhoods to others, and allowed opportunities for neighbors to come together to celebrate their neighborhood. Eight City neighborhood organizations participated in the month-long event, sponsoring a variety of activities that included how to research the history of a historic house, a 24-block yard sale, flea markets, cookouts, a Safety Education Day, and block parties. Weed and Trash Abatement Code compliance inspectors cited 1510 properties for weed and trash violations. Weeds over ten inches tall violate City Code. 1112 owners corrected the problem when cited. The City's contractors mowed 398 non-compliant properties - the most in the Department's history. Public Works Bench Strenoth in Middle Manaoement Middle managers and front-line supervisors in Public Works continue to grow through participation in the Leadership Development Initiative (LDI) and the Fundamentals of Leadership Excellence (FLE) programs, thereby enabling them to step up when positions are vacant and ensure that the job gets done. Growth is further being demonstrated through presentations to City Council, Leadership Team, Leadership College, etc. and day-to-day leadership experience in Public Works programs and operations. Street Calmino The successful completion of three projects, which have already demonstrated their benefit in terms of reduced speed, reduced accidents and improved pedestrian conditions: a. Jamison/Bullitt: reduced average vehicle speeds by five to six mph without increasing travel time b. Williamson Road: reduced rear-end accident rate by 77 per cent c. Grandin Road: reduced crossing distance for mid-block pedestrian crossing from 55 feet down to 22 feet. 624 Department of Management and Budget Develooment of a Neiahborhood Revitalization Strateav Area Plan For use of CDBG funds in the Gainsboro neighborhood. This plan will broaden the reach of CDBG funds beyond the use of only tow- moderate income benefit. The Financial Performan(e The financial performance of the City of Roanoke in FY 2004-05 resulted in funding in the amount of approximately $2 million being available for Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement. Planning Adootion of a New Zonina Ordinance On December 5,2005, Council adopted a new Zoning Ordinance and accompanying zoning map for the City. The new ordinance represents a three and one half year effort by the Department of Planning Building and Economic Development to develop a zoning ordinance, which would be consistent with the City's Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan. The process to develop the new ordinance included a citizen-based Steering Committee, stakeholder focus group sessions, City-wide open houses, on-line posting of draft ordinances and draft zoning maps, meetings with numerous civic and neighborhood organizations, as well as individual property owners, the publishing of an eight-page legal advertisement supplement in The Roanoke Times, individual notification by first class mail to all owners of approximately 44,000 parcels of real estate in the City, a Planning Commission public hearing followed by 15 Planning Commission work sessions, and a City Council public hearing. Five New Neiahborhood Plans Five new neighborhood plans were adopted during 2005. A major milestone was reached with the adoption of the Garden City Neighborhood Plan, which culminated a five-year effort to ensure that each of Roanoke's neighborhoods has a plan. The work resulted in 21) plans covering 49 neighborhoods. 625 Public libraries Librarv Study The Library just completed the Comprehensive Library Study. Bill Hidell and Associates, consultants, presented a final recommendation report in October. The study offers recommendations on staffing, , facilities, collections, technology and programs. Staff will move forward in the next few months on implementatio'n of the plan. Staffina In July, 2004 primarily because of retirements, nine key positions were open. All positions are now filled with new, enthusiastic and experienced librarians. Vacant positions were: Head of Youth Services, Law Branch, Jackson Park Branch, Virginia Room, Melrose Branch, Youth Assistant II, Raleigh Court Branch, Virginia Room Librarian, and Library Associate in Virginia Room. A reclassification of positions in July, 2004 helped to make the accomplishment possible. There is a shortage of librarians nationally and this helped Roanoke to be more competitive in the process. Police Department Drua Dealers Off The Street During 2005, the Police Department was active with investigations, arrests, and the removal of drug dealers from the community. This year, focus was placed on the mid and upper level layers of the drug dealing community, and as a result, 13 high-level drug dealers were arrested. As a part of investigations, police seized approximately $1,900,000.00 (street value) of cocaine and approximately $400,000.00 in currency. Fullv Staffed At the start of 2005, the Police Department was understaffed by approximately 14 per cent, or 35 officer positions. In January, after implementation of the new pay classification system, recruitment increased tremendously. At the close of 2005, the Police Department is fully staffed and placing people in over hire status in order to keep a full complement of officers on the street fighting crime. 626 Cadet Proaram This cooperative program between the Police and Parks and Recreation Departments has been a resounding success. Five college students have been employed in the program; one of which is now in the Police Academy; an additional eight cadets are about to be hired. During this year, Cadets have worked at several valuable community functions, conducted over 1500 park inspections, handled over 130 traffic control incidents, assisted over 120 motorists and relieved officers from non law enforcement duties on approximately 340 occasions. As a result of the program, the City has provided extra security in the parks and allowed police officers to conduct the more serious business of law enforcement, while providing the public service that the community expects and deserves. Civic Center Accomplishments Event Business Manaaer Software (EBMS) Installation, training, and implementation ofthe Civic Center's EBMS system has been completed. Sales and marketing, event services, maintenance, operations and housekeeping staff have been trained to use the system. The purpose of the program is to increase effiCiency and accountability. EBMS is a comprehensive, seamlessly integrated- yet modular-business management system covering all aspects of venue and event management. In addition, Civic Center staff can create notes, checklists, follow-up traces (reminders), correspondence, spreadsheets, and more. As technology expands, the system can be upgraded since it is comprised of modular programs and additional modules may be added in the future. The latest upgrade, 15.1 has been installed through the Department of Technology. EBMS is the complete management solution for: · Marketing and Contract Management · Booking · Contracts (imported from Microsoft Word application) · Event Planning · Work Orders · Inventory · Facility Maintenance · Accounting o Receivables o Payables o Purchasing o General Ledger 627 Ticketino TechnoloQV Tickets.com has extended its ticketing agreement with the Civic Center. Included in the agreement is the integration ofthe SKIDATA's new handshake wireless, web-based access control system, which is designed to allow ticket-takers to authenticate and rapidly process large patron volumes. The Roanoke Civic Center is the first . Tickets.com venue to use this technology. The handshake technology will also help reduce fraudulent tickets. In addition; technology offers Tickets@Home and other digital functionality. The system will enable the Civic Center to monitor attendance and to track guests in real time. To date, the new system has been used. successfully in the Theatre for the "Nutcracker" and "Full Monty". Patron access to the Coliseum has doubled in speed and was successful for the near sellout for the "Brad Paisley Concert". Wireless Internet An additional technological addition to the Civic Center is wireless Internet access for event promoters. Through the assistance and expertise of DoT staff, the Civic Center can now offer wireless internet in the arena, dressing rooms, production offices, media room, and Exhibit Hall and plans are underway to expand access to the Theatre. Although Wi-Fi is free of charge in the downtown area, the Civic Center is using this feature as a revenue source. However, based on surveys of other venues, some do not charge a fee and others charge either by the day, hour, or a flat fee. Wireless access is less costly for the shows than DSL installation for each event that requires internet access. The wireless access fee will help amortize the expense of the purchase and installation of the system. Parks and Recreation Park Ranoer Prooram To increase safety, customer service and communication at public venues throughout the City, the Police Cadet (Park Ranger) program was begun in 2004. The Cadet program, under the management of the Police Department, is primarily designed to assist the Police Department whenever regular officers are not available. Cadets are also available to assist the Parks and Recreation Department for security reasons at City parks, events and other special occasions. Since its inception, Cadets have performed over 1,400 park and facility inspections, and attended 24 events. 628 Mill Mountain Park Manaoement Plan The Mill Mountain Land Use Plan was an exercise in green infrastructure analysis requested and led by the Mill Mountain Advisory Board. Through partnership with the School of Landscape Architecture at Virginia Tech, Parks and Recreation was able to bring the archives of previous planning efforts of the City and fuse them with current natural resource science in the form of GIS data-layering, resulting in five new management zones for Roanoke's park and natural resource system. These management zones will now provide the City with a definitive avenue and nexus for decades of future holistic decision-making for Roanoke's premier urban park. Preston Center The newly renovated Preston Center serves youth, intergenerational programs, and community events. The Center has state of the art stereo and projection systems, and a fully equipped youth recreation area with video games, a lounge setting, and computer room. The Center was also made more ADA accessible with improvements to the walkway, driveway, and parking areas. Fall Waterways C1eanuD Approximately 350 volunteers and City employees participated in the Fall Waterways Cleanup on October 1, 2005. Endorsed by the City Manager and City Council, this joint partnership involved numerous City of Roanoke departments, the Clean Valley Council, Explore Park, the Upper Roanoke River Roundtable, Save Our Streams, and local businesses. More than 24 tons of trash was collected and three similar volunteer events are planned for 2001). Social Services Elioibilitv Certification Prooram The Eligibility Certification Program was developed by staff in partnership with Radford University School of Social Work. Staff at the worker level were the primary movers of the project. Courses cover a variety of skills required by staff who perform eligibility work and includes a practice component. The program is a major step in recognizing this type of work as a distinct practice area. 629 Hurt Park Neiohborhood Team The Hurt Park Neighborhood Team is a pilot project composed of eligibility and employment services workers assigned to handle cases in the Hurt Park area. In addition, staff has performed outreach services and are making contacts with community groups to find ways to better serve the residents. Technology Reclaimed No.1 Soot as Too Dioital Citv The City's Department of Technology was ranked first in the United States among cities with a population between 75,000-125,000 by the Center for Digital Government for the fourth time in five years. Roanoke earned the award based on the City's high respected web site and GIS, eChecks on-line billing, Community Portal, and the Downtown Wi-FL New Budoet Preo Svstem Rather than purchasing an expensive software package, the Department of Management and Budget and DoT teamed up to design and develop an in-house solution based on software provided at no cost by Virginia Beach. The cost savings to the City over five years is projected to be at least $400,000.00. Public Safetv Imorovements Police records and jail management systems now provide full records interoperability, allowing the sharing of data between the Police Department and the Sheriffs Office, including mugshot images. Both systems were installed using grant funding and will provide an annual savings in support costs of $54,898.00. In-car digital video cameras and mobile computers in six new "take home" police patrol vehicles now interface, allowing for far greater functionality for ensuring accurate incident reporting. Citv Awarded Radio Interooerabilitv Grants The City was awarded a $1)5,000.00 grant in the spring to equip the Police Department's Mobile Command Center with a radio infrastructure that will allow responders to utilize radios regardless of radio, radio system, or frequency when on the site of the Mobile Command Center during an event. 630 The City was awarded a $1.2 million grant on behalf of the Roanoke Metropolitan Statistical Area (including Roanoke, Roanoke County, Salem, Craig County, Botetourt County and Franklin County) to implement a solution that will allow responders throughout the MSA to communicate via radios, regardless of the radio, radio system or frequency. . Office of Communications Web Site The City-County Communications and Marketing.Association (3CMA) selected the City's web site for an Award of Excellence. In addition, The Communicator Awards gave the site an Honorable Mention, and the Public Relations, Society of America (PRSA) - Blue Ridge Chapter recognized Roanoke's web site development with an Honorable Mention. PLAY The User's Guide to Roanoke Parks and Recreation received an Award of Excellence from 3CMA, and an Honorable Mention from The Communicator Awards. Municioal Calendar For the first time, the Public Relations Society of America - Blue Ridge Chapter selected Roanoke's Municipal Calendar as a Summit Award winner. Roanoke Citizen Maaazine The Communicator Awards chose Roanoke Citizen magazine for an Award of Distinction and the Public Relations Society of America - Blue Ridge Chapter gave the magazine an Honorable Mention. Human Resources Health Care Proaram Human Resources played a key role in Roanoke's Health Care Program earning a Program Excellence Award for Innovations in Local Government Management from the International City/County Management Association. The City was honored for its management of the high cost of health care. 631 At 3 :30 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess for one Closed Session. At 4:40 p.m., the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, with all Members of the Council in attendance, except Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and Council Member Wishneff who left the meeting following the Closed Session, Mayor Harris presiding. COUNCIL: With respect to the Closed Meeting just concluded, Council Member Dowe 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 Council Member Cutler and adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Cutler, Dowe and Mayor Harris-------5. Nt\'(S: N()I1E!-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Cl. (Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick and Council Member Wishneff were absent.) At 4:42 p.m., the Mayor declared the Council meeting in recess to be reconvened at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building. At 7:00 p.m., on Monday, December 19, 2005, the Council meeting reconvened in the City Council Chamber, Room 450, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., City of Roanoke, Virginia, with Mayor C. Nelson Harris presiding. PRESENT: Council Members Sherman P. Lea, Brenda L. McDaniel, Brian J. Wishneff, M. Rupert Cutler, Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., and Mayor C. Ne I so n Harri s --------------------------------------------------------------------------------n-----7. ABS E NT: _______n___n__n______n_________n____________________n_____--------n-n-n-___________________O. 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 Council Member Sherman P. Lea. The Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America was led by Boy Scout Troop 50 from Woodlawn Methodist Church. 632 PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT: The Mayor recognized the following recipients of the First Annual Fire Prevention Week Art Contest: First Place: Dakota Hale, Fifth Grade - Fallon Park Elementary School Taylor Dosh, Seventh Grade - William Ruffner Middle School Spencer Borthen, Twelfth Grade - Patrick Henry High School Second Place: Rowan Cai, First Grade - Grandin Court Elementary School Evelyn Knezovich, Seventh Grade - William Ruffner Middle School Devon Ray, Tenth Grade - Patrick Henry High School Third Place: Kayla Berkley, Fourth Grade - Fallon Park Elementary School Jon Lovern, Eighth Grade - James Madison Middle School Philipp Schmitt, Twelfth Grade - Patrick Henry High School Honorable Mention: Kimani Daley, Second Grade - Wests ide Elementary School Keviajalen Engram, Kindergarten - Lincoln Terrace Elementary School Na'arja Jones, First Grade - Forest Park Elementary School ACTS OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-FIRE DEPARTMENT-EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES: The Mayor advised that the City of Roanoke is proud to announce that Acting Chief David Hoback was awarded the 2005 Governor's Award for Outstanding Emergency Medical Services Administrator on Saturday, November 12, 2005, at the 2005 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Symposium in Norfolk, Virginia. 633 He stated that Acting Chief Hoback has made a significant contribution to strategic planning for EMS delivery in Roanoke; he was a founding member of the Virginia Association of Governmental EMS Administrators and has served for two terms as President; he is a life member of the Read Mountain Volunteer Fire- Rescue Squad, and he has contributed to the delivery of emergency medical services for over 25 years. On behalf ofthe Council, the Mayor commended Acting Chief Hoback for his dedication as a provider, instructor, manager, rescue squad volunteer and Acting Chief and presented him with a Roanoke Star paper weight. PUBLIC HEARINGS: STREETS AND ALLEYS: Pursuant to Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council on Monday, April I), 1981, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, December 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the request of Fielden and Mary Bayne that a portion of Laura 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 December 2, 2005, and Friday, December 9, 2005. The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that the petitioners request vacation of an approximately 12,000 square foot portion of laura Road, N. W.; the petitioner owns Official Tax No. I) 1501)08; and the owners Ðf Official Tax Nos. I) 1 501)04, I) 1 501)08, and I) 1 50804 have agreed to the petition and will split the property evenly with the petitioner if the request is approved. It was further advised that a map provided by the petitioner shows that Laura Road between Arcadia Drive and Cove Road was "closed but not vacated by Roanoke County Supervisor" on April 25, 1972; the City Attorney advises that since the City tax map shows this portion of Laura Road as a paper street, it could only be acquired through the petition and subsequent plat recordation; and the City annexed the land from Roanoke County in 1971). The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the petitioner's request to vacate, discontinue and close the subject portion of Laura Road, N. W., subject to certain conditions as more fully set forth in the report and further recommended that the petitioners not be charged for the property, provided that a plat is recorded that will divide the subject portion of right-of-way between the owners of Official Tax Nos. 1)1501)04, 1)1501)08, 1)150801 and 1)150804. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following ordinance: 634 (#37275-121905) 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 by title of this ordinance. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 1 Hi.) , Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37275-121905. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe. Fielden Bayne, petitioner, appeared before Council in support of the request. The Mayor inquired ifthere were persons present who would like tò speak in cÐnnection with the request. There being none, he declared the public hearing closed. There being no questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37275-121905 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick aJld Mayo r H arri Sn_________________n____________________n_________________________________________________n_n7 . NJ\,(5i: NOlle-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). LIBRARIES-ROANOKE VISION, COMPREHENSIVE DEVELOPMENT PLAN: The City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, December 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on the proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study, the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Friday, December 9, 2005, and in the Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, December 8,2005. The City Planning Commission submitted a written report advising that in April 2004, the City of Roanoke contracted with Hidell-Katz-McConnell & Associates to prepare a comprehensive plan for the Roanoke Public Library system; the consultant was asked to identify and submit recommendations regarding system services, facilities, funding, and the possible benefits of integrating with the Roanoke County Library System; and as a part of the assessment, the consultant team conducted a series of neighborhood and public work sessions, and detailed telephone surveys and questionnaires of system users and key stake holders. 635 It was further advised that the Library Study identifies several positive aspects of the City and County library systems (e.g., the Virginia Room and neighborhood loyalty to their branch); however, major conclusions are that current budget levels for library staffing, facilities, collections, technology, and programs are inadequate, and conclusions are substantiated by the following findings: · Over 1)0% of City of Roanoke residents do not use the City of Roanoke Library. · State of Virginia funding for the Roanoke Public Library has decreased over 21 % from $248,581.00 to $195,947.00 over the past six years. · Staffing for both the City of Roanoke and Roanoke County library systems is declining and is well below all peer library comparisons. · All but one of the City and County libraries were built before the mid 1970s. The only newer addition is the Law Library, which was established in 1982. · Library facilities are not inviting. They are small, lack seating, have insufficient lighting, and do not provide enough programming space or parking. It was explained that to address the issues, the consultant recommends significant changes and improvements to the City's library system by coordinating and consolidating selected library operations of the County and City systems, building new facilities to serve regional and neighborhood needs, and further developing services that current patrons want, such as better access to information technology and alternative media, including books on compact disc and e-books. The City Planning Commission recommended approval of the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study as a component of Vision 2001-2020 and further recommended that Council pursue appointment of a new authority to oversee a regional library system. Council Member Dowe offered the following ordinance: (#37271)-121905) AN ORDINANCE approving the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study, and amending Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study; and dispensing with the second reading of this ordinance by title. (For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 70, Page 119.) 636 Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37276- 121905. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick. The Mayor inquired ifthere were persons present who would like to speak in connection with the matter; whereupon, the folloWing persons addressed the Council: , Joyce Waugh, representing the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce and its 1400 members, spoke in support of the recommendations contained in the Roanoke Public Library Comprehensive Study, and encouraged action by Council on the first phase of the study. She advised that the Library Study makes several good points, with regard to transactions, program attendance, collection turnover rates which are declining, the need to correct certain deficiencies including customer service and the retail model, and creating a welcoming library atmosphere. She further advised that libraries are an integral part of the community, investments are needed to provide top tier libraries, and quality of life issues continue to weigh heavily in the decision making process of employers and employees. She called attention to the book, Rise of the Creative Class by Richard Flora, in which he states that amenities like libraries play an increasingly larger role in the lives of people in determining where entrepreneurs want to live and work; Roanoke College's, Dr. Sabina O'Hara, recently outlined, among quality of life factors in a keynote address at the Chamber's Economic Summit II, Five Pillars of Economic Development, that in building the region's assets, a particular quality is required in a library system as a threshold and as an important part of the community's culture in adding to the vibrancy of the region. She advised that the Roanoke Valley Regional Chamber of Commerce supports a regional library system, and while such does not appear to be in the immediate future, investments in the library system would enhance the entire valley-wide library system. Allen Ronk, Director, Community Foundation for -Roanoke Valley, an organization that holds significant endowment funds that are distributed to the library each year, encouraged the addition of the Library Comprehensive Study to the City's Comprehensive Plan. He advised that a quality library system is an essential part of the fabric of a thriving community; transforming the current library system will be time well spent; and the City must ensure that the information, conclusions and recommendations that are included in the Library Study will remain at the forefront of future planning and implementation efforts. Michael Ramsey, President, Roanoke Public Library Foundation, advised that for the past six decades, the Library Foundation has provided funding for pregrams to serve the citizens of the Roanoke Valley, such as annual summer reading programs serving children and adults, the Annual Valley Bookfest that showcases regional writers, many of whom have national reputations, and a new program called Café Nights at the branch libraries. He stated that in addition to the programs, the Library Foundation has helped to finance the purchase of a security system to stop chronic inventory shrinkage, which paid for itself within a year and freed up funds to buy new materials in lieu of replacing lost materials; 637 created of a full-time staff member to expand program offerings and to increase attendance at various programs; and provided new equipment to help staff ofthe Virginia Room to more efficiently meet increasing requests for special genealogical research materials. He advised that Library Foundation Trustees are eager to build on past successes and to support additional programs for more citizens; however, in order to do so, an expanded and updated library physical plant is needed because current facilities barely meet current usage levels and are inadequate to meet the demand for expanded services. On behalf of the Board of Directors of the Roanoke Public Library Foundation, he urged adoption of the Library Comprehensive Facility Study and its recommendations as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Dr. Thomas McKeon, Executive Director, Roanoke Higher Education Center, and member of the Board of Directors of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, spoke in support of including the Library Comprehensive Study in the City's Comprehensive Plan. He stated that the Roanoke Public Library is one of thousands of libraries in the Untied States of America that represent nothing less than the preservation of the country's democracy; libraries are second only to public schools in their importance to maintaining a free and democratic society; libraries have been called the arsenals of a democratic culture, and locally, libraries are essential to the quality of life in the region by providing citizens with the opportunity to freely access information, to educate themselves, to keep current in their lives and jobs, and to be enlightened and entertained; therefore, the public library is an essential element of the City's capacity to thrive and to grow economically, as well as intellectually. He stated that nothing could be more important to the knowledge economy than the resources of a state-of-the-art library that is fully accessible to all citizens. As an educator and as a member of the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce, he advised that he joined the ranks of 1400 colleagues who are committed to fostering economic development in the City of Roanoke and in the region and urged that Council support the recommendations contained in the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study, and specifically and more immediately to fund improvements recommended in the first phase of the study. Annette Loschert, Executive Director, Literacy Volunteers of the Roanoke Valley, a 501 (C)(3) non-profit community based educational organization which is accredited by Pro Literacy America, spoke in support ofthe comprehensive library study. She stated that tutors are professionally trained in the organization's learning center which is located at Williamson and Hershberger Roads, N. W., but the general learning experience itself that takes place between learner and tutor occurs in the City's libraries due to a long-standing collaborative partnership between Literacy Volunteers and the Roanoke City Public Library System. She explained that Literacy Volunteers of Roanoke Valley has more than 120 learners who regularly meet with tutors in libraries throughout the City of Roanoke, however, the majority of learners and tutors use space in the downtown and Williamson Road libraries in small spaces that accommodate tutors who work with one or two learners at a time; conference room and special event space is provided to accommodate larger English language civics classes; on an average 40-50 638 individuals are included on a wait list to be matched with a tutor, and as tutor/learner relationships are forged, these individuals need a public space in which to work. She stated that Roanoke's libraries are bursting at the seams and with the influx of potential learners who come through the doors on a daily basis, there is a critical need to expand available space for tutor/learner use. She commended those persons who worked on the Roanoke Public Library Comprehensive Study and the plan to provide for additional small meeting room space, as well as larger classroom space in the City's libraries; and urged that Council amend Vision 2001-2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Roanoke Public Library Comprehensive Study and to begin the process of designating funds for Phase I of Library system capital improvements which are recommended in the Library Comprehensive Study. Trisha Edwards, President, Patrick Henry Parent Teacher Student Association, advised that at a recent meeting ofthe Board of Directors, the Board unanimously recommended that Council vote in favor of amending the City's Comprehensive Plan to include the Comprehensive Library Study. She stated that a full service library will help to meet the needs of Roanoke's children from the very young through those in high school; and technology and programs that can be implemented as a result of approval of the Comprehensive Library Study will ilnprove and enrich the educational experience. She requested that funds be allocated to begin the first phase of transformation of Roanoke's libraries. Mr. Alan Scanlan, 11)31 Center Hill Drive, S. W., advised that libraries are an integral part of a vibrant City and as Roanoke strives to become a world class city, a high quality library system is essential. Kurt Navratil, 1877 Arlington Road, S. W., spoke in support of the library study which revealed many good findings, perspectives, positive considerations and recommendations to improve Roanoke's libraries. He stated that the library system, along with the School system, reaches into all corners ofthe City; and the main branch and outlying branches are bursting at the seams and are in need of improvements to the facilities and to materials that are housed in the facilities. He expressed appreciation for the Library Comprehensive Study and called attention to Roanoke's historical gem, the "Virginia Room" which is in need of improvements. He advised that educational, technological, and fundamental resources that serve businesses, individuals, and institutions throughout the City will benefit by adoption of the Library Study as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Carol Seaver, President, Jefferson College of Health Sciences, called attention to discussions regarding the possibility of a partnership between the Jefferson College of Health Sciences and the City of Roanoke. She explained that the College of Health Sciences is a growing entity and will relocate to Community Hospital within the next two years; therefore, there is an ongoing need to improve library services and to retain excellent staff and resources in order to maintain 639 accreditation at the higher education level. She stated that the timing of the library study implementation would provide an opportunity for students of Jefferson College of Health Sciences to begin to feel that the City is their campus and to create a synergy that would be advantageous for both the City and the College. She encouraged Council to adopt the comprehensive library study as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Gordie Zeigler, 3420 Canter Circle, S. W., advised that from the time of ancient Greece to the expansion of the Roman Empire, libraries have played a pivotal role in the sharing of information from one generation to the next and from one culture to another. He stated that we now live in the information age, and what better facility to house information and to entrust information to future generations than libraries. He called attention to recent articles in The Roanoke Times concerning how the United States of America is falling behind other countries around the globe with regard to the educational process, and stressed the importance of libraries that playa critical role in the educational process. Therefore, he urged that Council adopt the comprehensive library study as a part of the City's Comprehensive Plan. Owen Schultz, 1914 Westover Avenue, S. W., a member of the Library Steering Committee, advised that the library study examined Roanoke's library system compared to other libraries, and the study revealed that the City of Roanoke has a dedicated staff that is knowledgeable, helpful and yet entrambled by circumstances and by workloads that prevent them from doing their jobs; the study revealed that Roanoke has library facilities that are over aged and under equipped; 1)0 per cent of Roanoke City residents, while library users, do not use ¡heir own library, but prefer to go elsewhere; economically disadvantaged individuals do not use the City's libraries to an even higher degree; State funds have decreased 20 per cent in the near term; and in 1980, a quarter of a million dollars of support was provided for the Roanoke City library system, however, 25 years later, the figure has decreased to $221),000.00. He added that the study also revealed that all of the City's libraries, from branch to main, are too small, too old, and under utilized, with inadequate support for every major aspect ofthe library; I.e.: budget, staff, facilities, collections, technology, and programs. He stated that economically strong municipalities are measured by the metric of information, knowledge resources, educational and cultural opportunities, therefore, libraries playa critical role in that metric; and libraries, however, are not just economic engines, nor repositories for dusty books, but encompass all media, all forms of expression, all opinions, and are available to all people. He advised that if an informed and engaged populace is an important democratic ideal, libraries are important to the same degree and no less important; and libraries hold a lively record of a locality's highest goals, hardest won knowledge, most intense debates, and expressions of individual and social ideals. He stated that it is easy to see when other City services or resources have fallen short; I.e.: houses would burn to their foundations were the Fire Department poorly equipped and funded, broken streets would strip the axels off cars, alarm bells and E-911 calls would not be answered, etc. He noted that the library study made the condition of Roanoke's libraries alarmingly visible for the first time in a long time, therefore, he 640 added his voice to the voices of those who previously spoke to support the service and critical municipal need that was revealed by the Comprehensive Library Study. He urged that Council include the Library Study in the City's Comprehensive Plan and authorize Phase I; I.e.: a model super branch, improved technology, improved collections, improved programming, and increased support for an over worked but dedicated staff. : There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Council Member Cutler advised that he supports inclusion of the Roanoke Library Comprehensive Study as an integral part of the City's Vision 2001-2020 Comprehensive Plan. If the ordinance passes, he called for a consensus among Council Members that the Council's action will go beyond adding the library study to the Comprehensive Plan that the Library Study be included on the agenda for the Council's upcoming Financial Planning Session in February/March 2001), and that City staff be prepared to offer suggestions with regard to beginning the construction of a super branch library or demonstration branch. He stated that the City's capital construction budget is tight and available funds have been designated for future projects, but if the City can build a new Fire and Police headquarters, new parking decks, new high schools, new stadiums, and contribute to a new art museum, the City can also find a way to make a long overdue commitment to an adequate public library system for Roanoke's citizens. He further stated that private contributions such as those from the Community Foundation for Roanoke Valley, will help to address the issue and new libraries could include public/private partnerships. He spoke in support of the concept of a joint library project with the Jefferson College of Health Sciences. Council Member Lea stated that if the City of Roanoke is to be the kind of City that citizens want and if Roanoke is to move forward in the new millennium, it is imperative that the City improve its public library system, He advised that he supports the inclusion of the comprehensive library study in the City's Comprehensive Plan. Council Member McDaniel concurred in the remarks of her colleagues, and commended those persons who spoke in support of the comprehensive library study. Council Member Wishneff spoke in support of a joint partnership with the Jefferson College of Health Sciences, and commended Council Member Cutler on his leadership role with regard to library issues. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick concurred in the remarks of Council Member Cutler that it is time for the City to address Roanoke's library system, just as other needs such as police, fire, parking decks, schools, etc., have been addressed. He called attention to the concept of the City joining with the Roanoke Higher Education Center and the Jefferson College of Health Sciences toward a unique and creative project. He spoke in support of continued improvements to Roanoke's public 641 library system, because it will be a difficult decision when considered in combination with all other proposed City projects, especially taking into consideration that Roanoke is an inner City that has little new revenue, and is located in a State that does not allow independent cities to grow, although there is a considerable amount of infrastructure. There being no further questions or comments by Council Members, Ordinance No. 37271)-121905 was adopted by the follo~ing vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick an d Mayo r H arri s---------------------------------------------n--------------------------------------------------7. NA'(S: NOlle-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------(). CITY CODE-CITY CHARTER-ELECTIONS: Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a public hearing for Monday, December 19, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, on a proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend the City Charter to add new Section 19.1, authorizing advisory referenda in the City of Roanoke on "any proposed question or group of questions relating to the affairs of the City", the matter was before the body. Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke Times on Wednesday, December 7, 2005; and in The Roanoke Tribune on Thursday, December 15, 2005. Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution: (#37277-121905) A RESOLUTION requesting the 2001) Session of the General Assembly to add a Section 19.1 to the Roanoke Charter of 1952 in order to authorize advisory referenda in the City on any proposed question or group of questions relating to the affairs of the City. (For full text of resolution, see Resolution Book No. 70, Page 120.) Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37277- 121905. The motion was seconded by Council Member Lea. Mr. Bill Tanger, 129 Thurston Avenue, N. E., spoke in support of including the right to referenda in the City's 2001) Legislative Program. He stated that Senator Edwards has agreed to serve as patron of the Charter bill and it was not clear as to whether either ofthe two Delegates have agreed to co-sponsor the bill; however, he encouraged the Members of Council to be supportive of the bill and to encourage support by the City's representatives to the General Assembly. He advised that the right to referenda is a tool of democracy that works well in America's representative democracy as something that can be brought to the forefront in those cases when there is a need for clarification regarding the wishes ofthe public; this tool of democracy has been used by many other cities in various 642 ways in the Commonwealth of Virginia; and other cities in Virginia that have exercised this right are Charlottesville, Chesapeake, Falls Church, Hampton, Norfolk, Portsmouth, Richmond, Salem, and Virginia Beach. He stated that advisory referenda is an excellent mechanism that every city in the Commonwealth of any size should have; and a recent Mason-Dixon poll showed that 84 percent of those persons who were polled supported a referendum on a particular issue. He pointed out that when the right to referenda is needed, in most cases it is too late because it takes approximately 18 months to complete the process for approval by the General Assembly; therefore, he expressed appreciation for Council's willingness to submit the matter to the City's representatives to the General Assembly. Mr. Alan Scanlan, 11)31 Center Hill Drive, S. W., advised that he previously resided in a community in another state that adopted advisory referenda and the option was used very sparingly during the past several years; and advisory referenda was used with effective results to resolve those issues that citizens could not agree upon, it has made the jobs of employees in local government easier, and it has allowed citizens to make decisions. He stated that Roanoke has a wealth of knowledgeable, informed, interested, engaged, and dedicated people and the passage of advisory referenda will help many citizens feel connected to rile community; therefore, he encouraged that Council give favorable censideration to the matter. Ms. Suzanne Osborne, 1902 Blair Road, S. W., advised that advisory referenda will be a visionary step if the Council stands behind and supports the proposed Charter bill. Therefore, she requested that Council vote in favor of the resolution and support the proposed City Charter bill. There being no further speakers, the Mayor declared the public hearing closed. Council Member Wishneff spoke in support of advisory referenda because there are certain issues that citizens should be permitted to vote on. There being no further comments by Council, Resolution No. 37277-121905 was adopted by the following vote: AYES: Council Members Lea, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe, Fitzpatrick, and Mayor fiarris------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------15. NAYS: Co unci I Me m be r M c Dan i e I___________n____n_______n_____________________________nn__ 1 . Council Member Dowe left the meeting. 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. 643 SCHOOLS-ARMORY/STADIUM: Ms. Theresa Gill-Walker, 2807 Ordway Drive, N. W., advised that the City of Roanoke will suffer various consequences if stadiums are constructed at the two high schools. She added that it has been stated that the William Fleming High School stadium will not be completed until the year 2010, however, Patrick Henry High School will have the use of a stadium in 2001); and two high school stadiums will send an economic and a racial message inasmuch as it is difficult to understand why it would take four years to construct a football stadium at William Fleming High School. She stated that Patrick Henry and William Fleming High Schools have a healthy rivalry, but there would be resentment among students who would have to travel across town for years to play football at another school; traffic congestion that the two stadiums would generate in both communities is not needed; the value of real estate in the area of the two stadiums would be affected and the City of Roanoke could lose some of its citizens to surrounding localities. She stated that many citizens of Roanoke do not care to attend football games, but they are interested in other stadium activities; and the citizens of Roanoke want a faCility that is similar to Victory Stadium, although it does not have to be Victory Stadium. She called attention to those citizens who do not have children in the City's school system, but would like to participate in other activities at Victory Stadium. In closing, she stated that separate stadiums at the two high schools would separate the Roanoke community. POLICE DEPARTMENT: Mr. Shaheed Omar, 1219 Loudon Avenue, N. W., spoke with regard to alleged police brutality, and advised that low income persons receive the brunt of police abuse because they do not know their constitutional rights. He suggested that a Member of Council initiate a public forum, similar to the public forum sponsored by the City on domestic violence, to address alleged police violence against Roanoke's citizens. He advised that the situation in Roanoke is not unlike similar situations across the country, and more law suits would be initiated if low income people knew their constitutional rights. He also spoke in support of a review of the City's police complaint process. ARMORY/STADIUM: Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, spoke in support of the renovation of Victory Stadium. There being no further business, the Mayor declared the meeting adjourned at 8:25 p.m. APPROVED ATTEST: . /J A ~ .jlw..~.A. Mary F. Parker City Clerk Q.tt~~ C. Nelson Harris Mayor