HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Actions 10-17-05Wishneff
37209-101705
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
OCTOBER 1 7, 2005
2:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
AGENDA
1. Call to Order--Roll Call. (Council Members Cutler and
McDaniel were absent.)
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 C. Nelson Harris.
Welcome. Mayor Harris.
NOTICE:
Today's Council meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Thursday,
October20,2005, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, October22, 2005, at
4:00 p.m. Council meetings are offered with closed captioning for the
hearing impaired.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
THE PUBLIC IS ADVISED THAT MEMBERS OF COUNCIL RECEIVE THE CITY
COUNCIL AGENDA AND RELATED COMMUNICATIONS, REPORTS,
ORDINANCES AND RESOLUTIONS, ETC., ON THE WEDNESDAY PRIOR TO THE
COUNCIL MEETING TO PROVIDE SUFFICIENT TIME FOR REVIEW OF
INFORMATION. CITIZENS WHO ARE INTERESTED IN OBTAINING A COPY OF
ANY ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA MAY CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S
OFFICE, ROOM 456, NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BUILDING, 215 CHURCH
AVENUE, S. W., OR CALL 853-2541.
THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PROVIDES THE MAJORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ON THE INTERNET FOR VIEWING AND RESEARCH PURPOSES. TO
ACCESS AGENDA MATERIAL, GO TO THE CITY'S HOMEPAGE AT
WWW. ROANOKEVA.GOV, CLICK ON THE ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL ICON,
CLICK ON MEETINGS AND AGENDAS, AND DOWNLOAD THE ADOBE
ACROBAT SOFTWARE TO ACCESS THE AGENDA.
ALL PERSONS WISHING TO ADDRESS COUNCIL ARE REQUESTED TO
REGISTER WITH THE STAFF ASSISTANT WHO IS LOCATED ATTHE ENTRANCE
TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER. ON THE SAME AGENDA ITEM, ONE TO FOUR
SPEAKERS WILL BE ALLO'I-FED FIVE MINUTES EACH, HOWEVER, IF THERE ARE
MORE THAN FOUR SPEAKERS, EACH SPEAKER WILL BE ALLO'I-I'ED THREE
MINUTES.
ANY PERSON WHO IS INTERESTED IN SERVING ON A CITY COUNCIL
APPOINTED AUTHORITY, BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMI3-1'EE IS
REQUESTED TO CONTACT THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE AT 853-2541, OR
ACCESS THE CITY'S HOMEPAGE AT WWW.ROANOKEVA.GOV, TO OBTAIN AN
APPLICATION.
2. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
Proclamation declaring October 23 - 29, 2005 as Childhood Lead Poisoning
Prevention Week.
File #3
3. CONSENT AGENDA
C-1
C-2
C-3
C-4
C-5
Approved (5-0)
ALL MA'I-FERS LISTED UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA ARE CONSIDERED TO
BE ROUTINE BY THE MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL AND WILL BE ENACTED BY
ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THE ITEMS. IF
DISCUSSION IS DESIRED, THE ITEM WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT
AGENDA AND CONSIDERED SEPARATELY.
Minutes of the regular meeting of Council held on Tuesday,
September 6, 2005.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Dispense with the reading of the
minutes and approve as recorded.
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)(1), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in the request.
File #132
A communication from Monica S. Jones tendering her resignation as a
member of the Roanoke Civic Center Commission.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the resignation and receive
and file the communication.
File #110-192
A communication from Rich McGimsey tendering his resignation as a
member of the Fair Housing Board.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept the resignation and receive
and file the communication.
File #110-1 78
Annual Report of the Board of Equalization for the Taxable Year July 1,
2005 to June 30, 2006.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
File #79-162-214
3
C-6
C-7
C-8
A communication from the City Attorney requesting that Council
convene in a Closed Meeting for consultation with legal counsel regarding
actual 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.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in the request.
File #132
Qualification of the following persons:
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 of the Court Community
Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal
Justice Board, for a term ending June 30, 2008.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and file.
File #15-67-110-242-249
A communication from Mayor C. Nelson Harris requesting that Council
convene in aCIosed Meeting to discuss nominations for Citizen of the Year,
pursuant to Section 2.2-3711(A)(10), Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Concur in the request.
File #132-496
REGULAR AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE.
PETITIONS AND COMMUNICATIONS:
Recommendation from the Commonwealth's Attorney for
appropriation of Forfeited Criminal Assets funds to continue criminal
law enforcement efforts; and a communication from the City Manager
concurring in the recommendation.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 3721 0-1 01 705. (5-0)
File #5-60-76
Approval of issuance of not to exceed $450 million in Industrial
Development Authority Virginia Hospital Revenue Bonds for Carillon
Health System Obligated Group for various construction projects.
Harwell M. Darby, Jr., Attorney, Spokesperson. (Sponsored bythe City
Manager.)
Adopted Resolution No. 37211-101 705. (5-0)
File #53-221
6. REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
a. CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
Acceptance of Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Grant
funds from the United States Department of Health and Human
Services; and appropriation of funds.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 37212-101 705 and
Resolution No. 37213-101 705. (5-0)
File #5-60
Adoption of the Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan for the
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Region.
Adopted Resolution No. 37214-101 705. (5-0)
File #326
Adoption of a criteria for funding non-profit organizations.
Adopted Resolution No. 372215-101 705. (5-0)
File #
Amendment of the City Code to provide for the practice of
veteran's preference in compliance with State law with regard to
personnel decisions.
Adopted Ordinance No. 37216-101 705. (5-0)
File #24-197
Endorsement of Alternative 3, the Transportation System
Management (TSM) alternative, in connection with extension of
Wonju Street between Colonial Avenue and Brandon
Avenue, S. W.
Adopted Resolution No. 3721 7-101 705. (5-0)
File #316-514
Appropriation of funds for the purchase of Country Side Golf
Course and management lease.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 3721 8-101 705 and
Ordinance No. 37219-101 705. (5-0)
File #2-60
b. CITY A~-I'ORN EY:
Adoption of an Ordinance repealing Ordinance No. 37157-
081505, adopted August 15, 2005, in connection with
amending proffered conditions binding upon a 2.615-acre
parcel of land located at 3361 Melrose Avenue, N. W., owned by
Roanoke Investments Associated, Inc., correcting the date of
the filing of the Second Amended Petition, and adopting
proffered conditions filed on that date.
Adopted Ordinance No. 37220-101 705. (5-0)
File #51
c. DIRECTOR OF FINANCE:
Adoption of an Ordinance implementing 2004-2005 changes to
the Personal Property Tax Relief Act.
Adopted Ordinance No. 37221-101 705. (5-0)
File #79
6
7. REPORTS OF COMMITTEES:
Request of the Roanoke City School Board for appropriation of funds
to various school accounts; and a report of the Director of Finance
recommending that Council concur in the request. Kenneth F. Mundy,
Executive Director of Fiscal Services, Spokesperson.
Adopted Budget Ordinance No. 37222-101705. (5-0)
File #60-467
8. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
9. INTRODUCTION AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES
AND RESOLUTIONS: NONE.
10. MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
Inquiries and/or comments by the Mayor and Members of City
Council.
Council Member Lea advised that the first meeting of a
domestic violence discussion group was held on September
30 and a community forum will be held on November 29
from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., at the Roanoke Civic Center
to educate citizens on services that are available to victims
and to fu. rther enhance .an understanding of issues
affecting victims of domestic violence.
File #5-192
Council Member Wishneff expressed disappointment with
regard to reports on the national news regarding a riot 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 in Toledo is
in no way representative of the citizens of the Roanoke
7
area. He volunteered to participate in a discussion with
regard to actions, if any, that could be taken to address the
matter.
File #5-227
The Mayor shared Mr. Wishnefrs sentiments and advised
that legally the Council can only respond to incidents that
occur in the Roanoke community.
132
Council Member Dowe concurred in the remarks of Mr.
Wishneff and Mayor Harris and stated that for the well
being of citizens who attend City Council meetings, staff
and Members of Council, he would be in favor of securing
the Council Chamber, beginning as early as the 7:00 p.m.,
Council session this evening.
File #5-132
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 at 10:00 a.m. He also advised that
Total Action Against Poverty celebrated its 40th anniversary
at a luncheon which was held earlier in the day. He
congratulated both organizations on their anniversary
celebrations.
File #80-226
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick expressed appreciation to Council
Member Wishneff for his remarks and advised that many
citizens have not suffered in the same way as the African-
American and Jewish population. He expressed concern
that the name of the Roanoke community was used in a
repugnant manner and suggested that a letter under the
signature of the Mayor of the City of Roanoke be forwarded
to the Mayor of the City of Toledo, Ohio, advising the
8
citizens of Toledo that Mr.
represent the City of Roanoke.
File #132-394
William White does not
b. Vacancies on certain authorities, boards, commissions and
committees appointed by Council.
1 1. HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA'I-i'ERS:
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.
MA'II'ERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED
IMMEDIATELY FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO
COUNCIL.
Daniel Hale, President, advised that at the September general
membership meeting, the Roanoke Branch, NAACP voted
unanimously to support the Henry Street Development ProJect
proposed. b.y the R. oanoke Neighborhood Development
Corporation in connection with a proposal for the development
of First Street/Henry Street that would include the Social Security
Administration office.
File #511-434-488
Mr. Shaheed Omar, 1219 Loudon Avenue, N. W., presented
proposed revisions to the Police Department's Citizen Complaint
Process.
File #5-66
Council Member Lea requested that the City Manager provide
information with regard to composition of the Citizen Review
Board.
File #104-132
Ms. Evelyn D. Bethel, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke with regard
to actions that are taken behind closed doors which are
administered unfairly 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.
File #132
Mr. Jim Fields, 17 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, spoke with
regard to renovation and promotion of Victory Stadium.
File #122
Mr. Robert Gravely, 727 29th Street, N. W., advised that the
wages paid to City employees have not kept up with wages paid
to State employees; the average City employee cannot afford to
pur.chase a home; and the use of taxpayers money for
businesses and/or projects that are of little value to the average
citizen.
File #184
1 2. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS:
The City Manager advised that the City of Roanoke has rendered
assistance to one of the communities that was affected by
Hurricane Katrina through deployment of six firefighters to
Louisiana. In addition to providing certain strategic planning
and over sight at the fire station, Roanoke's firefighters received
a call that a truck was on fire and when arriving at the scene
discovered that the truck was owned by a Roanoke electrical
company that was in the area to help restore electricity. She
stated that responding to a fire call for a Roanoke truck in
Louisiana indicates that it is indeed a small world that we live in.
The City Manager advised that she accepted an award which was
presented to the City of Roanoke by the International City
Management Association for populations of 50,000 or more
under the category ..of Innovation in Local Government
Management in recogmt~on of Roanoke's program on "Managing
the Rising Cost of Health Care".
]0
The City Manager advised that October 1 7 was a "red letter" day
for the City of Roanoke and called attention to the ground
breaking for the Colonial Green project that was held earlier in
the day which is the first time that City land has been made
available in order to facilitate more housing in the community.
Additionally, she advised that earlier in the meeting Council
approved purchase of the Countryside Golf Course property
which is another example by the Council to look long term to
the future and the need for the City to continue to look for ways
to enhance, grow and sustain the community.
File #2-70
CERTIFICATION OF CLOSED SESSION. (5-0)
R. Brian Townsend, Director of Planning, Building and Economic
Development was appointed as a member of Virginia's First
Regional Industrial Facility Authority for a term ending June 30,
2006.
File #200
Adopted Resolution No. 37223-101705. (5-0)
File #102
THE COUNCIL MEETING WAS DECLARED IN RECESS TO BE RECONVENED AT
7:00 P.M., IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, ROOM 450, NOEL C. TAYLOR
MUNICIPAL BUILDING.
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR SESSION
OCTOBER 17, 2005
7:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER
AGENDA
Call to Order -- Roll Call. (Council Members Cutler and McDaniel
were absent.)
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 C. Nelson Harris.
Welcome. Mayor Harris.
NOTICE:
Tonight's Council meeting will be replayed on Channel 3 on Thursday,
October20,2005, at 7:00 p.m., and Saturday, October22, 2005, at
4:00 p.m. Council meetings are offered with closed captioning for the
hearing impaired.
A. PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
A Resolution memorializing the late F. Wiley Hubbell, a long-time resident of
the City of Roanoke and 1996 Citizen of the Year.
Adopted Resolution No. 37209-101705. (5-0)
File #72-80
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend Vision 2001-2020, the
City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Peters Creek South
Neighborhood Plan. R. Brian Townsend, Agent, City Planning
Commission.
Adopted Ordinance No. 37224-101 705. (5-0)
File #424
Conveyance of an easement across City-owned property located on
Luck Avenue, S. W., the site of the Commonwealth Building, to
Roanoke Gas Company for installation of a new regulator station.
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager.
Adopted Ordinance No. 37225-101705. (S-0)
File #28
Consideration of previously received applications for Federal funds
made available through the Department of Transportation for
transportation enhancement projects in Fiscal Year 2005-2006.
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager.
Adopted Resolutions Nos. 37226-101705 and 37227-
101 705.(5-0)
File #77
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MATTERS:
CITY COUNCIL SETS THIS TIME AS A PRIORITY FOR CITIZENS TO BE HEARD.
MA'I-fERS REQUIRING REFERRAL TO THE CITY MANAGER WILL BE REFERRED
IMMEDIATELY FOR RESPONSE, RECOMMENDATION OR REPORT TO
COUNCIL.
13
The following persons addressed Council in support of
construction of a stadium at William Fleming and Patrick Henry
High Schools:
Mr. Ivan Moore, 2219 Carter Road, S. W.
Ms. Trisha Edwards, 3045 Poplar Lane, S. W.
Ms. Barbara Colonna, 2318 Laburnum Avenue, S. W.
Ms. Mary Ellen Langan, 251 5 Belford Street, S. W.
Ms. Brenda Foster, 3726 Heatherton Road, S. W.
Mr. John Phelps, 2915 Canteberry Road, S. W.
Mr. Jay Foster, 3726 Heatherton Road, S. W.
File #122
William Bestpitch, Executive Director, Big Brothers/Big Sisters,
addressed certain concerns regarding the criteria adopted by
Council at the 2:00 p.m. session with regard to funding non-
profit organizations.
File #165
Mr. Jim Fields, 1 7 Ridgecrest Road, Hardy, Virginia, spoke with
regard to the renovation and promotion of Victory Stadium.
File #122
Mr. Chris Craft, 1 501 East Gate Avenue, N. E., spoke with regard
to real estate taxes for the City's elderly and disabled
population, the need for the City to get its fiscal house in order,
the renovation of Victory Staidly in lieu of stadia at the two high
schools, endorsement of George McMillan as City Sheriff, and
revisions to the City's sign ordinance as a component of the new
zoning ordinance.
File #51-121-122-132
14
Office of the Mayor
CITY OF
ROANOKE
}FtlE~, the City of Rnanoke is committed to the future of our infants and
children; and
Fr'HERE.4S, childhood lead poisoning is a silent, but very harmful
environmental illness, and the number one preventable environmental threat to
Virginia's children; and
I~'HERF_MIS, lead is a potent neurotoxin that can cause delayed development,
learning disabilities, cognitive and behavior disorders, hyperactivity and, at very
high levels, organ damage and death; and
}FtlERE~IS, children who are under the age of six years and who live in pre.
1978 housing are considered to be a high risk for lead poisoning; and the only
way to know ifa chiM has lead poisoning is through a blood lead test performed
by a qualified medical professional; and
}FHERE. dS, leadpoisoning can be prevented by removing lead hazards from a
child's environment and by educating the public about lead poisoning prevention;
and
I4rI'IERE/~, all citizens, families, agencies, governments and businesses are
encouraged to participate in observing this important event by learning more
about childhood lead poisoning, by identifying and eliminating local lead
hazards, and by ensuring that all children under the age of six who are at risk for
lead poisoning receive a blood lead test.
NOgF, THEREFORE, 1, C. Nelson Harris, Mayor of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia, urge all citizens to join in efforts throughout the state and the nation to
promote lead poisoning prevention and awareness, and do hereby proclaim
October 23 - 29, 2005, throughout this great ~lll-~lmerica City, as
CHILDHOOD ILEAD POISONING PREVENTION
Given under our hands and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this seventeenth day of
October in the year ~vo thousand and five.
Mary I~ Parker
City Clerk
C Nelson Harris
Mayor
C-1
ROANOKE CITY COUNCIL
September 6, 2005
9:00 a.m.
The Council of the City of Roanoke met in regular session on Tuesday,
September 6, 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.
COMMI'I~'EES-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)(1), 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.)
k:ckwb 1/dratis/September 6 revised ]
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 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 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 .................................................. 0.
(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.
k:ckwb l/drafts/September 6 revised 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
Harris ............................................................ 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
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, Dowe and
Mayor Harris ....................................................... 6.
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.
k:ckwb l/drafts/September 6 revised 3
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick stated he, along with Council Member Wishneff,
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.
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,
and 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 Assembly:
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
k:ckwb 1/altaRs/September 6 r~vised 4
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
2006 General Assembly:
Budget Proposals-The Governor will consider amendments to the existing
current year budget and propose his out-going budget for 2006 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); $56 million in upgrades to Waste Water Treatment
Facilities impacting the Chesapeake Bay; $9 million to public schools for SOQ's;
$26 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 2006-08 Budget 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
$4:~5 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
k:ckwb I/draffs/Scpteraber 6 r~vised 5
$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.
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 2006-08 Budqet 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
k:ckw'ol/drafts/September 6 r~vis~d 6
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 Iocality'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.
Taxation:
Real Estate Tax Proposals
Kilgore - 5 per cent cap
Kaine - 20 per cent exemption, local option
Proposal Impacts
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.
k:ckwbl/drafts/September 6 revised 7
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 advance. In addition, the tax
would have required the State Tax Department to collect and
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 Fairfax lost about $2 million in revenue due to the
reduction in land lines over the past few years.
Machinery 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.
k:ckwb 1/drafts/September 6 revi~d 8
Transportation Funding:
Senate Study (START)
House Study (Public-Private Partnerships, Allocation Formula)
Baliles Proposal (Tolls)
The Senate created the Transportation Analysis and Recommendations
Task Force (START), 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 0LARC)
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.
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 2006 Session of the
General Assembly.
k:ckwb 1/drafts/September 6 revised 9
Eminent Domain:
Kelo v. City of New London, Connecticutt
State's Rights Decision
Constitutional Amendment Proposed
Legislation to "Strengthen" Existing Law
The Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City 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.
Cable Television Franchises:
Verizon Providing Cable Television
2005 Legislation
Competition
Continuation of Services and 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
k:ckwb I/drafl~/September 6 revised 10
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.
Dangerous Doqs:
Response to March $ 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.
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.
k:¢kwb 1/drafts/September 6 revised
Towinq and Recovery Industry:
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
cost; 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 2006
Session of the General Assembly to address the various issues.
Family Courts System:
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.
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.
k:¢kwb 1/drafts/September 6 revised ] 2
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 :~59 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'$ 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.
k:ckwb 1/drafts/September 6 revised 13
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 2006 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 2006 Legislative Program.
On behalf of the Council and City staff, the Mayor expressed appreciation
to Mr. Dick for his presentation.
Day Avenue Project Briefinq:
The City Manager called attention to a previous discussion with the
Members of Council with regard to funding for the purchase of 17 private
properties located in the 400 block of Day Avenue, S. W.; whereupon, she called
upon 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 iow-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:
Create a unique living environment by converting the 17
structures back to single family use;
k:ckwb 1/dr~fls/Sept~rflber 6 r~vised 14
Foster additional middle-to-upper income home ownership
opportunities within the City; and
3. Preserve and restore the historic character of the 17
structures.
On May 16, 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:
2.
3.
4.
5.
City of Roanoke, Brian Townsend (City Incentives)
RRHA (Owner/Developer)
FNB Salem Bank and Trust, Greg Feldmann and Steve Lyons
MKB Realtors, Kit Hale (Sales and Marketing)
Breakell Construction, Stan Breakell Construction
(Construction)
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 $265,000.00 per completed structure must
be maintained. This pricing is contingent upon the following:
Maintain a project schedule of no more than 18 months in
order to limit interest financing;
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);
k:¢kwbl/dmil~September 6 revised 1~
Convince the Virginia Housing Development Authority
(VHDA) to offer a special program to provide Iow interest
permanent financing to home buyers with incomes up to
150% of median or higher (meeting scheduled for September
12 in Roanoke); and
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 2006 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 2600 to 3400 square feet.
k:ckwb 1/dlafts/S~ptember 6 revised 16
Council Member Dowe inquired if the price point of no more than
$265,000.00 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.
Council Member Wishneff questioned the $265,000.00 figure per house
and inquired if the bar might be set too high insofar as public subsidies. He
also asked if the $265,000.00 included 100 per cent of all costs. Mr. Reynolds
responded that the $265,000.00 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 $265,000.00 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 Iow 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 $265,000.00 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 $26,000.00 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
k:ckwb 1/drafts/September 6 revised 17
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.
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 $265,000.00 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 Iow 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 Iow and
moderate income persons in the community, however, much of the Iow 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
k:ckwbl/drafts/September 6 revised
City of substandard Iow 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.
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 $265,000.00; 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 were assessed for less than $100,000.00 in their existing
condition. The City Manager stated that the Day on the Hill project is intended
k:ckwb l/drafts/September 6 revised 19
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.
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. l, no decision has been made on future
use of Fire Station No. :1, Fire Station No. ! 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.
k :ckwb I/draf~s/Scpt~raber 6 r~vis~d 20
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 Headquarters
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.
A news article published in The £oanoke Times on December 11,
1963, 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 :~7, 2001
· Consolidation of Stations 1 and 3 and
Administration
· Consolidation of Stations 5 and 9
· Build a new Fire-EMS Station 10
Fire-EMS
Published department's Resource
Model
o Fire-EMS Response Times · Fire = 90%/4minutes
· EMS/ALS = 90%/8 minutes
· EMS/BLS - 90%/12 minutes
Allocation and Response
k:ckwb 1/dra~s/Septemher 6 revi~ed 21
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 (2005/2006): Construct a new Fire-EMS
Headquarters-Consolidate the present No. 1 (Church Avenue)
and No. 3 (6'h Street) stations, as well as Fire-EMS
Administration (Jefferson Center).
Phase Ih Construct a new Station - Consolidate the present
No. 5 (12~h Street and Loudon Avenue) and No. 9 (24'~ Street
and Melrose) stations into the new facility, with community
center concept.
Phase Ill: Construct a new Station No. 10 - Relocate the
residential component currently assigned to the Airport
station to the new facility.
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 90%
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
k:ckwbl/dra~/September 6 revised 22
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
Odd shape requiring substantial site work/retaining walls
After drilling, some construction issues for foundation (karst
seams between thin rock shelves)
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
O
O
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
· Bids Received
· 8reakell, 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 3rd floor administration
· Reduction of square footage in Fire-EMS administration (office
space)
· Changes to floor covering (VCT vs carpet)
k:ckwb 1/drafls/Septetnber 6 revised 23
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
$6,204,231.00
$ 672,651.00
$ 589,235.00
$ 83,416.00
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
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
Total Funding:
233,390.00
260,509.00
896,105.00
388,770.00
388,770.00
429,767.00
799,850.00
309.288.00
k:ckwbl/drafts/September 6 revised 24
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 - 260 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 onehalf 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.
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.
k:ckwb 1/dra~s/September 6 revised 25
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. I since 1991, and called attention to the
fact that if Ladder One from Fire Station No. I 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. 6 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. 6 was equipped with
an ambulance because of the response time.
k:ckwb l/drafts/September 6 mvi~d 96
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. I 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.
k:ckwbl/dra~/September 6 revised 27
Ms. Shawver reviewed the following comparisons:
General Fund Revenues
FY 2005
FY 2004 Actual FY 2005 % Budgct
Actual (Unaudited) $ Variance % Variance Budget Collected
General
Property Tax $75~346,292 $80,983,210 5~636,918 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 1,275,026 248,420 24.20% 1,112~000 114.66%
Fines and
Forfeitures 1,365,502 1,354,775 (10~727) (0.79%) 1~321,000 102.56%
Investment and
Rental Income 682~798 796~688 113,890 16.68% 735,000 108.39%
Grants-in-Aid
Commonwealth 54,319,259 57,707,112 3,387,853 6.24% 58~973,375 97.85%
Grants-in-Aid
Federal 150,116 38,770 (111,346) (74.17%) 34,000 114.03%
Charges for
Services 9,303,046 8,732,058 (570,988) (6.14%) 8,404,380 103.90%
Miscellaneous 40%829 593,786 183,957 44.89% 494,445 120.09%
Transfers from
Other Funds 15,501,876 15,501~876 100.00% 15,501,876 100.00%
Internal
Services 2,241,909 2,381,971 140~062 6.25% 2,6947000 88.42%
Total $207,526,988 $233,903,699 $26~376,711 12.71% $231,910,287 100.86%
General Fund Local Tax Revenues
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*
Property Tax 22,465,810 24,542,280 2,076,470 9.24% 23,017,000 106.63%
Public Service
Tax 4,463,696 3,868,419 (595,277) (13.34%) 4,209,000 91.91%
Sales Tax 19,225,559 19,663~577 438~018 2.28% 18~892,000 104.08%
Utility Tax 13,321,752 13,349,039 27~287 0.20% 13,241,000 100.82%
Business
License Tax 11,330~ 195 11,843,734 513,539 4.53% 11 ~553~000 102.52%
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 2,616,491 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%
Cigarette Tax 1,895,533 1,889,419 (6,114) (0.32%) 1 ~900,000 99.44%
All Other Local
Taxes 5,873~489 6,461,223 587,734 10.01% 6,391,000 101.10%
Total 145,717,454 153,847,458 8,130,004 5.58% 150,508,000 102.22%
*Personal property tax as shown above includes both local and state tax relief portions.
k:ckwbl/dra~/September 6 revised 28
General Fund Expenditures and Encumbrances
FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2005 % Budget
Actual Actual $ Variance % Variance Budget Obligated
(Unaudited)
General
Government $11~898,598 $11,505,505 (393,093) (3.30%) $11,609,1-11 99.11%
Judicial
Administration 6~2117622 6,551,413 339,791 5.47% 6,587,819 ~ 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 8,561,826 205,641 2.46% 8,649,906 98.98%
Community
Development 5,860,516 5,529,454 (331,062) (5.65%) 57570,156 99.27%
Transfer to Debt
Service Fund 15,270,488 15,509,083 238,595 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
Projects Fund 1,025,630 (1,025,630) (100.00%) 0.00%
Nondepart-
mental 11,071~528 10,587,660 (483,868) (4.37%) 10,705~383 98.90%
Total $211,136~496 $219,192,532 $8z056,036 3.82% $220,908,292 99.22%
General Fund Balance
Budget Stabilization Reserve - $15.7 million
o Maintained as a funding source
for emergencies or
unforeseen declines in revenues.
Supported by the Budget Stabilization Reserve policy adopted
in April 2005
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 - $166,730
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
k:¢kwbl/drafts/September 6 revised 29
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 36% 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 30th that will
be paid in the upcoming fiscal year.
· 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
~ 5250;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 F¥05. Net income of $673,000
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.
k:ckwb l/draftatS~ptember 6 revised 30
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 $15].,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 FY06.
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 General 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.
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 Bi'Il 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 .86 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.
k:ckwbl/drafts/September 6 ~evised 31
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 2006.
She explained that the personal property tax has increased to 9.3 per cent since
200].; 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.
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 200]..
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 $ - 6 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-9].].. The City experienced its
first full year at the $2.00 per line rate.
k:ckwb 1/drafts/September 6 revised 3 2
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 .75 per cent, or approximately $1.7 million
remained unobligated at the end of the fiscal year.
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 36 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
k:¢kwb 1/drafistScptember 6 ~vis~d 33
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.
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.
k:ckwb 1/draflstSeptember 6 revised 34
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 City has planned additional debt issuance in the amount of
approximately $5 million in two years, and final income at the end
of the year was $673,000.00.
Market Building Fund
Net income for the year totaled approximately $1:~9,000.00.
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
k:ckwb l/drafta/Sept~mber 6 revised 3 5
· Developing the two programs in a partnership arrangement suited the
needs of both departments; and approval was granted
· Total amount budgeted: $86,237.00
· 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
responsibilities
police related
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
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 Vehicles and Uniform · Uniforms unique to their missions
· Police vehicles modified
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 public
· Traffic control and direction
· Funeral escorts
· Other duties as assigned
k:ckwb 1/draffs/Sc~ptember 6 revised 36
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 Eggstravaganza 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
Cadet/Ranger Stats at a Glance
· Since inception of the partnership:
o Over :~,400 park inspections performed
o 121 dispatched calls received
o 114 traffic control incidents
o 106 assist motorist incidents
o 63 property checks
o 51 warrants/papers/code 8 duties performed
o 4! 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
k:ckwb 1/drafts/September 6 revised 3 7
Criminal Apprehensions by Cadets/Rangers · i grand larceny apprehension
· ! DUI called in and subsequently apprehended
· I 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.
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.
k:ck wb I/d~l~s/Sept ember 6 ~vised 3 8
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.
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 16'h Street, N. W., spoke in support
of the proposed changes.
k:¢kwb l/draf~s/September 6 revised 39
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 6, 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.
PRESENTATIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:
COMMITTEES-SCHOOLS: The Mayor announced that Council will accept
applications until 5:00 p.m., on Friday, September 16, 2005, for a vacancy on
the Roanoke City School Board, to fill the unexpired term of Gloria P. Manns,
resigned, ending June 30, 2006; 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.
k:ckwb 1/drafl~September 6 r~vised 40
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 :~8, 2005, and Monday, August :~, 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 Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler, Dowe
and Mayor Harris ................................................... 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
k:ckwb l/draRs/Septeraber 6 revised 41
CITY COUNCIL-CMERP: A communication from the City Manager
requesting that Council schedule a public hearing for Monday, September Z9,
2005, 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 .................................................. 0.
COMMI-I-rEES-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.
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 .................................................. 0.
k:ckwb l/dva~s/Septemb~r 6 revi~d 42
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 .................................................. 0.
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 .................................................. 0.
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 6, 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.
k:ckwbl/drafts/September 6 revised 43
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 $224,289.00 for the second five years,
beginning April 1, 2005 through March 31, 2015.
Without objection by Council, the Mayor advised that the bid would be
referred to the City Manager for report and recommendation to Council.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
CITY PROPERTY-LEASES-COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA BUILDING:
Pursuant to instructions by the Council, the City Clerk having advertised a
public hearing for Tuesday, September 6, 2005, at 2:00 p.m., or as soon
thereafter as the matter may be heard in the City Council Chamber on the lease
of certain City-owned property located in the Commonwealth Building to be
used for office space for a term of up to ten years, the matter was before the
body.
Legal advertisement of the public hearing was published in The Roanoke
T/me$on Friday, August 19, 2005 and Friday, August 26, 2005.
The City Manager submitted a communication advising that Ordinance
No. 27529 adopted by the Council on May 6, 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 1986, 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.
k:ckwb 1/drafis/S~ptember 6 r~viscd ~
The City Manager recommended that she be authorized to execute a
lease agreement with the successful bidder for :].7,253 ANSl/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.
Council Member Cutler offered the following ordinance:
(#37166-090605) 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. 69, Page 562.)
Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37166-
090605. 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. 37166-090605 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler,
Dowe, and Mayor Harris ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
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:
k:ekwb 1/drains/September 6 revised 45
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
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 6:00 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 r~sum~s and a review of interview
techniques; r~sum~s 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
Times.
Soft skill workshops will be offered throughout the school year.
k:ckWb 1/draRs/September 6 r,:vised 46
She advised that businesses will receive the following services:
Job openings will be posted
Student r6sum6s 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.
REPORTS OF OFFICERS:
CITY MANAGER:
BRIEFINGS: NONE.
ITEMS RECOMMENDED FOR ACTION:
VICTIM/WITNESS/JUROR ASSISTANCE PROGRAM-GRANTS-BUDGET-
COMMONWEALTH'S A'I-rORNEY: 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, forJuly 2005 through June 2006 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.
k:ckwbl/dra~s/Septcrnber 6 revised 47
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. 06-
L8554VW05 would be $25,671.00 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
2005-2006 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. 06-L8554VW05, in the amount of
$115,117.00, with the City of Roanoke providing $25,671.00 as a
local cash match from monies provided in the Transfer to Grant
Fund Account in the Fiscal Year 2005-2006 budget, for a total
grant of $140,788.00.
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 $25,671.00 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:
(#36167-090605) AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the Victim
Witness Program 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. 69, Page 564.)
Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37167-
090605. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick.
k:ckwb 1/draI~/September 6 revised 48
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. 37167-090605 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler,
Dowe, and Mayor Harris ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#37168-090605) 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. 69, Page 565.)
Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37168-
090605. 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.
k:ckwbl/drafis/September 6 revised 49
tt was further advised that a new program, the Edward Byrne Memorial
Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 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
continuation 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 $ 92,894.00
FICA $ 7,106.00
Expendable Equipment $ 9,960.00
Fees for Professional Services $ 1,050.00
Total SJ.J.1J~t0_.D~
Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#37169-090605) AN ORDINANCE to establish the Edward Byrne
Memorial Justice Assistance 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. 69, Page 566.)
Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37169-
090605. 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 .................................................. 0.
k:¢kwb i/draRs/September 6 revised ~ 0
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#37170-090605) A RESOLUTION authorizing the acceptance of a Edward
Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant (JAG) 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. 69, Page 567.)
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37170-
090605. 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 .............................................
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
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.
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 $ 72,152.00
Furniture and Equipment $ 27,848.00
Total ~
k:ckwb 1/dra~s/September 6 revised 51
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following budget ordinance:
(#37171-090605) AN ORDINANCE to establish the Buffer Zone Protection
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. 69, Page 568.)
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37171-
090605. 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
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.
k:ckwb 1/draflsfScpt~mb~r 6 revised 52
There being no further discussions, Ordinance No. 37171-090605 was
adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler,
Dowe, and Mayor Harris ............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
Council Member Dowe offered the following resolution:
(#37172-090605) 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. 69, Page 569.)
Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37172-
090605. 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 .................................................. 0.
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 Iow
bid having been submitted by Breakell, Inc., in the base bid amount of
$4,800,000; and additional funds totaling $672,651.00 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
k:¢kwb 1/drafts/September 6 r~vis~d 53
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 $83,416.00
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.
008-056-9620-9003, and $83,416.00 from Capital Projects Contingency Fund,
Account No. 008-530-9575-9220, to the Fire/EMS Administration Facility
Improvement Program, Account No. 008-530-9678-9003.
Council Member Dowe offered the following budget ordinance:
(#37173-090605) 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 2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund
Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
(For full text of ordinance, see Ordinance Book No. 69, Page 569.)
Council Member Dowe moved the adoption of Ordinance No. 37173-
090605. The motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick.
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, 601 Camilla Avenue, S. E., advised that
many citizens believe that Fire Station No. I should be saved, it should be
functional and continue to be as the Number I Fire Station in the City of
Roanoke. He asked that Council honor its pledge to save Fire Station No. ! by a
formal vote of the Council. He stated that some time ago, the City spent
k:ckwbl/drafls/September 6 revised 54
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 the 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, 353! Peters Creek Road, N. W., spoke in support of
continued operation of Fire Station No. I 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. ].. 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.
Ms. Helen E. Davis, 35 Patton Avenue, N. E., spoke in support of
continued operation of Fire Station No. I 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. ]. remain open.
k:¢kwb I/drafts/September 6 revised 5 5
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 Iow,
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, 2806 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
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
k :ekwb I/drafts/September 6 ~evised 5 6
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. I 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 $6 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
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
k:ckwb 1/drafts/September 6 revised 5 7
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 ].1
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 replaced; 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. ]. 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 located in the City, which should be addressed in a study
that takes advantage of modern methods. He stated that the funds that are
required 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.
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
k:ckwb 1/dra~s/September 6 revised 5 8
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 Iow, and there is a lack of respect and support for employees.
Ms. Evelyn O. 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
Roanoke'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, 36Z2 Medmont Circle, S. W., advised that she is a
long time downtown business owner. She spoke in support of keeping Fire
Station No. I open and requested that the citizens of Roanoke receive written
confirmation that Fire Station No. I 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.
k:ckwb 1/drains/September 6 revised 59
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 I and 3 and Fire/EMS
administration serves both efficiency and effectiveness. It was noted that Fire
Station No. ! 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.
k:¢kwb l/drafts/September 6 revised 60
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
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
been 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; i.e.: eight minutes 90 per cent of the time; working fires
have decreased from approximately 260 per year to 87 in 2004; fires to date in
2005 total 56; 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.
k:ckwb 1 ldra~s/Scptemb~r 6 r~vised 61
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,
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 Iow 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
$672,6S1.00, 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.
k:ekwb l/drafts/Sept~mbcr 6 revised 62
The City Manager was requested to comment on the City's rationale to
build a fire station on what is perceived to be a developable commercial lot;
whereupon, she advised that the City initially looked at approximately 1! 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,
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
meeting by Mr. RodneyJordan 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
Council accordingly.
k:ckwb 1/draf~s/September 6 revised 63
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
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. I 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
k:ckwb l/dral~s/Sept~rab~r 6 r~vi~d 64
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
today, 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.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick called for the question.
Ordinance No. 37173-090605 was adopted by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Wishneff, Cutler,
Dowe and Mayor Harris .............................................. 7.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
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 ].7, 2004,
with regard to the Unity sculpture; pursuant to terms of the Agreement, the
deadline for completion and acceptance of the sculpture is September :~7,
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.
k:ckwbl/drafts/September 6 revised 65
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, 2006.
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick offered the following resolution:
(#37174-090605) 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. 69, Page 570.)
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37174-
090605. 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 ............................................. 0.
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.)
The Director of Finance advised that the Budget Stabilization Reserve at
June 30, 2005 is $15,650,125.00; 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 FY06, 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.
k:¢k wb 1/draits/Scpt ~mbcr 6 revised 66
He further advised that the allocation to the Reserve for Uninsured Claims
was $166,730.00; 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 ("CMERP") 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
$1,478,146.00 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 from the City's General Fund as above-
described.
The Director of Finance explained that a Reserve for Encumbrances of
$1,150,687.00 is required in order to provide funds to cover purchase orders
from June 30'~ 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.
k:ckwb 1/dra~s/Septcmbcr 6 Revised 6'7
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 COMMI'I-fEES: NONE.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS: NONE.
INTRODUCTION
RESOLUTIONS:
AND CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCES AND
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:
(#37175-090605) 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. 69, Page 571.)
Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37175-
090605. The motion was seconded by Council Member Dowe and adopted by
the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Fitzpatrick, Lea, McDaniel, Cutler, Dowe and
Mayor Harris ....................................................... 6.
NAYS: None .................................................. 0.
(Council Member Wishneffwas not present when the vote was recorded.)
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:
k:ckwbl/dra~s/Septcmb~r 6 revised 68
(#37176-090605) 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. 69, Page 572.)
Council Member Cutler moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37176-
090605. 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 .................................................. 0.
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.
(#37177-090605) 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. 69, Page 573.)
Vice-Mayor Fitzpatrick moved the adoption of Resolution No. 37177-
090605. 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.
MOTIONS AND MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS:
INQUIRIES AND/OR COMMENTS BY THE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF
COUNCIL:
k:ckwb l/draRs/Scptember 6 revised 69
CELEBRATIONS-HENRY STREET REVIVAL COMMI'I-rEE: Council Member Lea
called attention to the Henry Street Heritage Festival which will be held on
Saturday, September24 from 10:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m., and on Sunday,
September 25 from 12:00 p.m. - 6:00 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.
OATHS OF OFFICE-COM MI'I-I'EES- ROANOKE NEIGHBORHOOD
PARTNERSHIP: 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:
FOR MS. 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.
k:ckwb l/dta~s/Septeml~r 6 revised 70
HEARING OF CITIZENS UPON PUBLIC MA'I-fERS: The Mayor advised that
Council sets this time as a priority for citizens to be heard and matters
requiring referral to the City Manager will be referred immediately for response,
recommendation or report to 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 o~ 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'h 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 for the 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.
k:ckwb 1/dra~ts/Sept ember 6 revised 71
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 Harris ................................................... 6.
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:
Mary F. Parker
City Clerk
C. Nelson Harris
Mayor
k:¢kwb l/drafts/September 6 r~vis~d 72
C. NELSON HARRIS
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
215 CHURCH AVENUE. S.W., ROOM 452
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1594
TELEPHONE: (540) 853-2444
FAX: (540) 853-1145
October 17, 2005
The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
This is to request a Closed Meeting to discuss vacancies on certain authorities, boards,
commissions and committees appointed by Council, pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A)(1),
Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
Sincerely,
CNH:snh
C. Nelson Harris
Mayor
C. NELSON HARRIS
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
215 CHURCH AVENUE, S.W., ROOM 452
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1594
TELEPHONE: (540) 853-2444
FAX: 1540) 853-1145
October 24, 2005
File #15-110-192
Ms. Monica S. Jones
P. O. Box 1881
Roanoke, Virginia 24008
Dear Ms. Jones:
Your communication submitting your resignation as a member of the Roanoke
Civic Center Commission was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a
regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the resignation was accepted.
On behalf of the Members of Roanoke City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for your service to the City of Roanoke as a member of the Roanoke
Civic Center Commission from November 4, 2002 to October 17, 2005. Please
find enclosed a Certificate of Appreciation and an aerial view photograph of the
Roanoke Valley in recognition of your years of service.
Sincerely,
C. Nelson Harris
Mayor
CNH:MFP:ew
Enclosure
pc:
Linda Vaught, Secretary, Roanoke Civic Center Commission
Thomas G. Powers, Chair, Roanoke Civic Center Commission, 329 Darwin
Road, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Mary F. Parker, CMC, City Clerk
S.
1881
Tommy ~ P~_ L,~,p~_ ~
710 W'~ Road
~ Vlr~?~ 24016
D~r Mr. Power:
up ~is poaMon, ~t would tdlow you m fill my potion with someo~o who c~ give the
My exp~imc~ with ~to bomi ofco~m~budonm I~ be~ ve~ t~ve~l/n~.
hvins hud ~he ~Srportuniiy to s~m u a member.
cominued success.
C. NELSON HARRIS
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
215 CHURCH AVENUE, S.W., ROOM 452
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1594
TELEPHONE: (540) 853-244~
FAX: (540 853-l~45
October 24, 2005
File #-110-178
Mr. Rich G. McGimsey
P. O. Box 18208
Roanoke, Virginia 24014
Dear Mr. McGimsey:
Your communication submitting your resignation as a member &the Fair Housing
Board was before the Council of the City of Roanoke at a regular meeting which
was held on Monday, October 17, 2005.
On motion, duly seconded and adopted, the resignation was accepted.
On behalf of the Members of Roanoke City Council, I would like to express
appreciation for your service to the City of Roanoke as a member of the Fair
Housing Board from April 4, 2004 to October 17, 2005. Please find enclosed a
Certificate of Appreciation and an aerial view photograph of the Roanoke Valley in
recognition of your years of service.
CNH:MFP:ew
Enclosure
pc:
Sincerely,
C. Nelson Harris
Mayor
Angle Williamson, Secretary, Fair Housing Board
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
0CT-4-2005 00:09 FROM:
T0~8536597 p.2
PO. Box 18208 *ROanoke, Virginia 24014 ,, w',vw, rgrnpro erties.cem
Main Office: (540) 345-4464
Brandon West: 1540)982-0417
Fax (540) 345-0303
October 4, 2005
Dear Board Members:
I regret to inform the board that I .
month. '/'his will
change in residence requirbe; movu~g to ROanoke County at the end
that ~ resig~ a~ a voting member of the Fair
.Housing Board. I have very much enjoyed being a part of this board and feel of this
~s extremely important for the citizens of Roanoke and housin r
· ' ' i~s mission
remain involved w~th the board and help out in o,,--.. . g P oviders. I would like ~o
,~,yway possible.
~ch MeGimseyf
CLIFFORD K. WECKSTEIN, JUDGE
TWENTY-THIRD JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
OF VIRGINIA
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF ROANOKE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF ROANOKE
CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE CITY OF SALEM
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
October 3, 2005
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Roanoke
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 452
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1594
Annual Report of the Board of Equalization
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of Council:
I am enclosing the Report of the Board of Equalilation for the taxable
year July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006. The members of the Board rendered
signal service this year, hearing and deciding 107 appeals (75 residential and
32 commercial and industrial) -- an increase of almost 73 % from the 62
appeals considered last year.
The three members of the Board of Equalization appear to have
carried out their duties with commitment, dedication, and industry. They are
highly-qualified, active, successful professionals who have demonstrated that
they are willing to devote the time and effort necessary to diligently perform
their vital public function. For each member of the Board, the "opportunity
cost" of this public service is quite high. Under City Code § 32-39, Board
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 -- the amount that Council set more than two decades
ago. On behalf of the members of the Board, I suggest that it would it be
quite appropriate for Council to consider substantially increasing this per
diem amount.
The members of the Board were unstinting in their praise for Ms. Pat
Lamb, who once again served as the B, oard's clerical secretary. They
appreciate the fact that the City's Administration has provided office space,
furniture, computers and software that continue to be available for the
· Board's exclusive use, and they are grateful to Susan Lower and the
Mayor Harris and Members of City Council
October 3, 2005
Page 2
employees of the Office of Real Estate Valuation for their cooperation in
supplying property data and making sure that the Board's information and
software are up-to-date, and for their accommodating and open attitudes.
I send best regards.
CC;
~t~fford ~R. Weckstein
Ms. Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, Esquire, City Attorney
.//Ms. Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Ms. Sharon L. Ramsey, Chairman, Board of Equalization
Mr. Thomas M. Hubard, Vice-Chairman, Board of Equalization
Mr. Robert K. Floyd, Jr., Secretary, Board of Equalization
Judges Jonathan M. Apgar, Robert P. Doherty, Jr.; James R. Swanson,
Charles N. Dorsey, William D. Broadhurst
ROANOKE
Board of Equalization
September 21,2005
The Honorable Judge Clifford R. Weckstein
Judge of the Circuit Court
City of Roanoke
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Judge Weckstein:
We wish to inform you that the Board of Equalization has completed its work for the
taxable year July 1,2005 to June 30, 2006.
The Board received 107 appeals. All properties were inspected with the following
results:
107 Appeals were considered
75 Residential
39 Residential affirmed value
30 Residential decreased value
2 Residential increased value
4 Residential appeals were withdrawn before inspection
32 Commercial and Industrial
24 Commercial and Industrial affirmed value 4 Commercial and Industrial decreased value
4 Commercial and Industrial appeals were withdrawn before inspection
The Honorable Judge Clifford R. Weckstein
September 21,2005
Page 2
Orders were dated and mailed on September 20, 2005 informing each property owner
of our decision.
We would like to thank the Office of Real Estate Valuation for supplying property data
on various properties. We trust that this assistance will be available for future Boards.
It is recommended that future Equalization Boards continue to have separate office
space from the Office of Real Estate Valuation.
Should you have any questions, please contact us.
Respectfully,
Board of Equalization of Real Estate
Assessments for the City of Roanoke
S~R/pal
WILLIAM M. HACKWORTH
C[~ A3~ORNEY
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
TELEPHONE: 540-853 2431
FAX: 540 853-1221
EMAIL: cityatty C°~roanokeva.gov
TIMOTHY R, SPENCER
STEVEN J. TALEVI
GARY E. TEGENKAMP
DAVID L. COLLINS
HEATHER P. FERGUSON
ASSISTANT CITY ATFORNEYS
October 17, 2005
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Re: Request for closed meeting
Dear Mayor Harris and Council Members:
This is to request that City Council convene a closed meeting for consultation with
legal counsel regarding actual litigation where such consultation in open session would
adversely affect the City's negotiating or litigating posture, pursuant to §2.2-3711 .A.7, Code
of Virginia (1950), as amended.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
William M. Hackworth
City Attorney
WMH:s
cc: Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
~/TY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
October 24, 2005
File #:~5-110-249
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary
Architectural Review Board
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Franklin:
This is to advise you that Alison S. Blanton has qualified as a member of the
Architectural Review Board for a term ending October 1, 2009.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
pc: Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Alison S. Blanton, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and
perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Architectural
Review Board, for a term ending October 1, 2009, according to the best of my
ability (So help me God).
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _'~__~day of///~'/~005._
BRENDA L. HAMILTON, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
MARY K PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Vnginia 24011 - 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanok¢.va.us
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHE1LA N. ItARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
October 24, 2005
File #15-67-110
Donald R. Witt, Chair
Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission
3332 Kenwick Trail, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Dear Mr. Witt:
This is to advise you that Talfourd H. Kemper, Jr. has qualified as a member of the
Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission for a term ending June 30, 2007.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
pc:
Elizabeth Belcher, Greenway Coordinator, Roanoke
Commission, P. O. Box 29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
Valley Greenway
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Talfourd H. Kemper, Jr., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties
incumbent upon me as a member of the Roanoke Valley Greenway Commission, for a term
ending June 30, 2007, according to the best of my ability (So help me God).
Subscribed and sworn to before me this~"~ay of~r200~
BRENDA L. HAMILTON, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
N:\CKEWI~AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE 04~JULY 2004\JUNE OATHS.DOC
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, V'rrginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us
October 24, 2005
File #:~5-110-242
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
James T. Phipps
Director of Court and Community Corrections
516 E. Main Street
Salem, Virginia 24153
Dear Mr. Phipps:
This is to advise you that Julian H. Raney, Jr. has qualified as a member of the
Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board
for a term ending June 30, 2005.
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
pc: Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
Oath or Affirmation of Office
Commonwealth of Virginia, City of Roanoke, to-wit:
I, Julian H. Raney, Jr., do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support the
Constitution of the United States of America and the Constitution of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge
and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a member of the Court
Community Corrections Program Regional Community Criminal Justice Board,
for a term ending June 30, 2008, according to the best of my ability (So help me
God).
Subscribed and sworn to before me this J day of/'//z-~ 2005.
BRENDA L. HAMILTON, CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT
DEPUTY CLERK
K:\oath and leaving service\Court Community Corrections Program Regional Community Cr/rnianl Justice BoardXJulian H Raney Jr oath05.doc
C. NELSON HARRIS
Mayor
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
215 CHURCH AVENUE, S.W., ROOM 452
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1594
TELEPHONE: (540) 853-2444
[;AX: (540 853- 145
October 17, 2005
The Honorable Vice-Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Members of Council:
This is to request 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.
Sincerely,
CNH:snh
C. Nelson Harris
Mayor
CITY OF R O/INOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanle M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
October 21, 2005
File #5-60-76
The Honorable Donald S. Caldwell
Commonwealth's Attorney
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Caldwell:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 37210-101705 appropriating funds for the
Forfeited Criminal Assets Grant, and amending and reordaining certain sections of
the 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 37210-101705.
AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Forfeited Criminal
Assets Grant, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 Grant
Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
following sections of the 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same
are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
Grant Fund
Appropriations
Telephone-Cellular
Administrative Supplies
Expendable Equipment<S5000
Training and Development
DOT Billings
Revenues
Forfeited Cdminal Assets Grant
Forfeited Cdminal Assets Interest
035-150-5140-2021
035-150-5140-2030
035-150-5140-2035
035-150-5140-2044
035-150-5140-7005
035-150-5140-7107
035-150-5140-7275
$ 4,000
4,499
6,911
3,000
6,500
22,999
1,911
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second
reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
A']-I'EST~'
"~City Clerk. ~..
DONALD S. CALDWELL
COMMONWEALTH'S ATTORNEY
Vi R,.,,n
· MoNWEALTH' OF I
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE COMMONWEALT[ I'S ATTORNEY
315 CEIURCH AVENUE
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24016
Are& COD£ 540 TEL. NO. 853-2626
FAX 853-1201
October 17, 2005
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
Honorable Dr. M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, CouncJl Member
Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member
Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Cash Assets Forfeited to the Roanoke Commonwealth
Attorney's Office
In an effort to better fund law enforcement efforts to fight crime, particularly drug crime, in 1986, the Federal
government adopted a system of asset forfeiture whereby forfeited assets, under certain conditions, could be
returned to local law enforcement agencies, police and prosecutors, for use in their fight against crime.
In July, 1991, Virginia asset forfeiture statute, which generally is patterned after the Federal statute, took
effect, providing that forfeited criminal assets may be returned to local police and prosecutors for use in the
fight against crime.
Periodically, assets seized as evidence are ordered forfeited by the local courts to the police or the Office of
the Commonwealth's Attorney to be used for criminal law enforcement efforts.
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.
Considerations:
Since August, 1991, the Office of the Commonwealth's Attorney has expended the $25,000 originally
appropriated, and periodically receives additional funds from the state's asset sharing program. Grant
requirements include that these funds be placed in an interest bearing account and the interest earned be
used in accordance with program guidelines.
Revenues collected through June 30, 2005, for this grant are $211,254. The interest on this account
collected through June 30, 2005, is $18,899. Funding received in excess of the revenues estimate totals
$24,910, and needs to be appropriated.
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
October 17, 2005
Page 2
Funds must be appropriated before they can be expended for law enforcement.
Recommended Action(s):
Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to increase the revenue estimates for Forfeited Criminal Assets
(035-150-5140-7107) and Forfeited Criminal Assets Interest (035-150-5140-7275) in the amounts of $22,999
and $1,911 respectively, and appropriate funding to the Forfeited Criminal Assets accounts (035-150-5140)
in the Grant Fund as listed in Attachment 1.
Respectfully submitted,
Roanoke City Commonwealth Attorney
DSC:jf
Attachment
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Attachment i
2030
2035
2044
7007
2021
Administrative Supplies $4,499
Expendable Equipment<S5000 $6,911
Training & Development $3,000
CIS-Personal Computer Rent/ $6,500
Maintenance
Telephone-Cellular $4,000
TOTAL $24,910
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
City Web: www.roanokeva.gov
September 6, 2005
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member
Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member
Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Cash Assets Forfeited to the
Roanoke Commonwealth
Attorney's Office CO05-0006
I concur with the recommendation from Donald Caldwell, Commonwealth
Attorney, for the City of Roanoke, with respect to the subject reference above and
recommend that City Council adopt the budget ordinance to increase revenue for
Forfeited Criminal Assets and Forfeited Criminal Assets Interest in the amount of
$22,999 and $1,911 respectively.
Sincerely,
City Manage~t
DLB:sm
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk @ ci.roanoke.va.us
October 21, 2005
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
File #53-221
Harwell M. Darby, Jr., Attorney
Glenn, Feldmann, Darby & Goodlatte
210 1't Street, S. W., Suite 200
P. O. Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
Dear Mr. Darby:
I am enclosing copy of Resolution No. 37211-101705 authorizing, among other
things, the issuance of not to exceed $450,000,000.00 aggregate principal
amount of industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia
Hospital Revenue Bonds (Carillon Health System Obligated Group) to the extent
required by Section 147 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon,
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
pc:
Dennis R. Cronk, Chair, Industrial Development Authority, c/o Waldvogel,
Poe and Cronk Real Estate Group, Inc., 30 W. Franklin Road, Suite 800,
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE C1TY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of October, 2005
No. 33_2_11-101705.
A Resolution of the 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 1986, as amended.
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke, Virginia (the "City") is a political subdivision of the
Commonwealth of Virginia exercising public and essential governmental functions pursuant to
the Constitution and laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (the
"Roanoke Authority") is a political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Virginia and is
authorized under Chapter 49, Tide 15.2, Code of Virginia of 1950, as amended (the "Act"), to
issue revenue bonds for the purpose of facilitating the financing or refinancing of certain projects
required or useful for health care purposes; and
WHEREAS, Carilion Medical Center ("CMC") is a private, nonstock corporation duly
incorporated and validly existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, which owns and operates Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital located in the City of
Roanoke, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, CMC also owns and operates Cadlion Roanoke Community Hospital in the
City of Roanoke, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Cafilion Giles Memorial Hospital ("CGMH") is a private nonstock
corporation duly incorporated and validly existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, which owns and operates a health care facility located in the Town
of Pearisburg, Giles County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Bedford Memorial Hospital ("BMH") is a private, nonstock corporation
duly incorporated and validly existing under and by virtue of the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia, which owns and operates a health care facility located in the City of Bedford, Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, Carilion Franklin Memorial Hospital ("CFMH") is a private, nonstock
corporation duly incorporated and validly existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
Commonwealth of Virginia, which owns and operates a health care facility located in the Town
of Rocky Mount, Franklin County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, Carilion New River Valley Medical Center ("CNRV") is a private, nonstock
corporation duly incorporated and validly existing under and by virtue of the laws of the
\~'~258140.3
Commonwealth of Virginia, which owns and operates Carilion New River Valley Medical
Center in Montgomery County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Authority has by resolution adopted October 5, 2005 (the
"Roanoke Authority Resolution") approved a plan of financing and refinancing (the "Plan of
Financing") and authorized the issuance of the Industrial Development Authority of the City of
Roanoke, Virginia Hc~spital Revenue Bonds (Carilion Health System Obligated Group) (the
"Bonds") in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed $450,000,000 for the purpose of
providing funds to undertake all or a portion of the following: (I) paying, or reimbursing CMC
for paying, a portion of the costs of (i) renovating and/or expanding certain portions of Carilion
Roanoke Memorial Hospital and/or (ii) acquiring certain capital equipment for use in or in
connection with Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital (the "Project"); (1I) refunding all or a
portion of (A) the Authority's Hospital Revenue Bonds (Carilion Health System Obligated
Group), Series 2002A and (B) the Authority's Hospital Revenue Refunding Bonds (Carilion
Health System Obligated Group), Series 2002B, Series 2002C, Series 2002D and Series 2002E
(collectively, the "Bonds To Be Refunded"), the proceeds of which were loaned to CMC,
CGMH, BMH, CFMH and CNRV; (m) paying a portion of the interest accruing on the Bonds
during the acquisition, construction, renovation and equipping of the Project; and (IV) paying
certain expenses incurred in connection with the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, CMC owns and operates Carilion Roanoke Memorial Hospital, located at
Jefferson Street and Belleview Avenue, S.E., Roanoke, Virginia; CMC also owns and operates
Carilion Roanoke Community Hospital, located at 101 Elm Avenue, S.E., Roanoke, Virginia;
CGMH owns and operates Carilion Giles Memorial Hospital, located at 1 Taylor Avenue,
Pearisburg, Virginia; and CFMH owns and operates Carilion Franklin Memorial Hospital,
located at 124 Floyd Avenue, Rocky Mount, Franklin County, Virginia; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia (the "Roanoke City
Council") must first approve the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds before the
Roanoke Authority can proceed with the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke Authority has delivered or caused to be delivered to the
Roanoke City Council the following: (i) a reasonably detailed summary of the comments
expressed at the public hearing held by the Roanoke Authority in connection with the Plan of
Financing and the issuance of the Bonds, (ii) a fiscal impact statement in the form specified in
Section 15.2-4907 of the Act, and (iii) a copy of the Roanoke Authority Resolution, which
constitutes the recommendation of the Roanoke Authority that the Roanoke City Council
approve the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds; and
WHEREAS, the Roanoke City Council has determined that it is necessary at this time to
approve the Plan of Financing and issuance by the Roanoke Authority of not to exceed
$450,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds to promote the improvement of the health
and living conditions of the people of the City of Roanoke and the Commonwealth of Virginia,
increase opportunities for gainful employment, improve health care and otherwise aid in
improving the prosperity and welfare of said City and Commonwealth and its inhabitants by
improving the hospital facilities of CMC, CFMH and CGMH, respectively;
\W1NX258140.3
2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Roanoke,
Virginia:
SECTION 1. The Roanoke City Council hereby approves the Plan of Financing and
authorizes the issuance by the Roanoke Authority of the Bonds an aggregate principal amount
not to exceed $450,000,000 for the purpose of (i) paying, or reimbursing CMC for paying, a
portion of the costs of the Project; (ii) refunding all or a portion of the Bonds To Be Refunded;
(iii) paying a portion of the interest accruing on the Bonds during the acquisition, construction,
renovation and equipping of the Project; and (iv) paying certain expenses incurred in connection
with the issuance of the Bonds.
SECTION 2. The Mayor or Vice Mayor and the Clerk or any Deputy Clerk to the
Roanoke City Council are hereby authorized and directed, on behalf of the City, to take any and
all action necessary, including the execution of any documents, to consummate the issuance and
sale of the Bonds in conformity with the provisions of this resolution.
SECTION 3. The approval of the Plan of Financing and the issuance of the Bonds, as
required by Section 147(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and the Act, does
not constitute an endorsement to any prospective purchaser of the Bonds or the creditworthiness
of CMC, CGMH, BMH, CFMH or CNRV and, as required by the Act, the Bonds shall provide
that neither the Commonwealth of Virginia, the City nor the Roanoke Authority shall be
obligated to pay the principal of, the redemption premium, if any, or the interest on the Bonds or
other costs incident thereto except from the revenues and funds pledged therefor and neither the
faith or credit nor the taxing power of the Commonwealth of Virginia, the City nor the Roanoke
Authority shall be pledged thereto.
SECTION 4. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage.
ATTEST:
3
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
City Web: www.roanokeva.gov
October 11,2005
The Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor and Members of Council:
I would like to sponsor a request from Sam Darby, requesting City
Council to take action on a resolution regarding $450 million in IDA
Virginia Hospital Revenue Bonds for Carilion Health System Obligated
Group for various construction projects.
Respectfully submitted,
City Manager
DLB:sm
C:
City Attorney
Director of Finance
City Clerk
GLENN
FELDMANN
DARBY
GOODLATTE
210 1st Street SW
Suite 200
Post Office Box 2887
Roanoke, Virginia 24001
5402248000
Fax 540 224 8050
gfdg@g~dg corn
HARWELL M. DARBY, JR.
Direct Dial (540) 224-8006
E-mail hdarby~gfdg.com
October 11, 2005
HAND DELIVERED
Ms. Mary F. Parker, Clerk
Roanoke City Council
456 Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, VA 24011
Attention: Ms. Sheila Hartman, Deputy Clerk
Re:
Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia
Requested Action for Carillon Health System
Dear Mary,
We have, by email, delivered a so called TEFRA Resolution as well as a
Certificate of Public Hearing, requesting action by the City Council of the
City of Roanoke, Virginia at its October 17 meeting.
The Industrial Development Authority of the City of Roanoke, Virginia has
undertaken a large bond issue for Carilion Health System. The size of the
financing at this point is $329,050,000 though it could vary between now and
the scheduled date of the closing, November 9, due to fluctuations in the
financial markets.
The purpose of the financing is to pay for the 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 Montgomery, Giles and
Franklin Counties.
We would appreciate the Council's favorable action on this resolution on
October 17.
HMDJR: Iww: 0042106
Very truly yours,
Harwell M. Darby, Jr.
CITY OF RO_..ANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephania M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Shaila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clark
October 21, 2005
File #60-304
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
lam attaching copy of Ordinance No. 37212-101705 appropriating funds for the
Runaway and Homeless Youth Act Grant, and amending and reordaining certain
sections of the 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Jane R. Conlin, Director of Human/Social Services
Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 37212-101705.
AN ORDINANCE appropriating funds for the Runaway and Homeless
Youth 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.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
following sections of the 2005-2006 Grant Fund Appropriations be, and the same
are hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
Grant Fund
Appropriations
Regular Employee Salaries
Temporary Employee Wages
City Retirement
ICMA Match
FICA
Medical Insurance
Dental Insurance
Life Insurance
Disability Insurance
Telephone Cellular
Administrative Supplies
Dues and Memberships
Training and Development
Local Mileage
Program Activities
Revenues
Runaway and Homeless Grant FY06
035-630-5142-1002
035-630-5142-1004
035-630-5142-1105
035-630-5142-1116
035-630-5142-1120
035-630-5142-1125
035-630-5142-1126
035-630-5142-1130
035-630-5142-1131
035-630-5142-2021
035-630-5142-2030
035-630-5142~042
035-630-5142-2044
035-630-5142-2046
035-630-5142-2066
035-630-5142-5242
$63,939
3,053
8,227
1,300
5,225
7,080
474
729
166
1,920
1,850
7OO
6,529
740
32,449
134,381
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second
reading of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with,
ATTE,~i~T: . .~ , ,
'~0W...~ 'tYClerk' t
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hat,man
Assistant City Clerk
August18,2005
File #60-304
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 37213-101705 authorizing acceptance of a
grant, in the amount of $134,381.00, 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
execution of the necessary documents.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
pc:
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Jane R. Conlin, Director of Human/Social Services
Frank E. Baratta, Budget Team Leader
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 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.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City of Roanoke hereby accepts the United States Department of Health
and Human Services' Runaway and Homeless Youth Program Grant (No. 03CY0459/1), in
the amount of $134,381.00 to be used for salary and fringe benefits of counselors and related
activities in the Sanctuary Outreach Program, and as more particularly set forth in the
October 17, 2005, letter of the City Manager to this Council.
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any and all requisite
documents, upon form approved by the City Attorney, and to furnish such additional
information as may be required in connection with the City's acceptance of this grant.
ATTEST:
' ~City Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
City Web: www.roanokeva.gov
October 17, 2005
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member
Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member
Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of Council
Subject:
Acceptance of United States
Department of Health and
Human Services funds for the
Runaway and Homeless Youth
Act program, Sanctuary
Outreach
Background:
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 Runaway and Homeless Youth (RHY)
program under the provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act. The
amount of the grant is $134,381 annually. The project period for this grant
began September 30, 2005 and will end on September 29, 2008. These funds
are used to cover the 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. The required local match is offered as in-kind
services.
The focus of this program is to alleviate the problems of runaways and
homeless youth and their families, strengthen family relationships and
Mayor Harris and Members of City Council
October 17, 2005
Page 2
encourage stable living conditions. The 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. 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.
Recommended Action(s):
Adopt a resolution accepting the $134,381 in funding from the U.S. Department
of Health and Human Services, Grant #03CY0459/1 for Sanctuary's Runaway
and Homeless Youth Outreach program.
Authorize the City Manager to execute any other forms required by the
Department of Health and Human Services in order to accept these funds.
Adopt the accompanying budget ordinance to establish a revenue estimate in
the amount of $134,381 in the Grant Fund and appropriate funding in the same
amount to expenditure accounts to be established by the Director of Finance as
detailed in Attachment A.
Respectfully submitted,
DLB:jo
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Jane Conlin, Director of Human/Social Services
CM05-00150
Attachment A
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services RHY
2005--2006 Account Set-up Transactions
Account No. Description Amount
Revenue--2005/2006 RHY grant $134,381.00
Total revenue $134,381.00
Expenditures:
1002 Regular Salaries $ 63,939.00
1004 Temporary Employees $ 3,053.00
1105 Retirement $ 8,227.00
1116 ICMA Match $ 1,300.00
1120 FICA $ 5,225.00
1125 Health $ 7,080.00
1126 Dental $ 474.00
1130 Life $ 729.00
1131 Long term disability $ 166.00
2021 Telephone Cellular $ 1,920.00
2030 Administrative Supplies $ 1,850.00
2042 Dues and memberships $ 700.00
2044 Training and Development $ 6,529.00
2046 Local Mileage $ 740.00
2066 Program Activities $ 32,449.00
Total expenditures $134,381.00
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
October 21, 2005
File #188-326
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 37214-101705 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, as more
fully set forth in a letter from the City Manager addressed to the Council under
date of October 17, 2005.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
James L. Grigsby, Acting Assistant City Manager for Operations
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Paul J. Truntich, Jr., Environmental Administrator
Joseph Coyle, Coordinator of Emergency Management
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 37214-101705.
A RESOLUTION adopting a Regional Predisaster Mitigation Plan for communities that are m~nbers of lbo
Roanoke Valley-Alloghany Regional Commission; and authorizing the City Manager to take such action as may bo
needed to implement and administer such Plan~
WHEREAS, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, as amended, requires that local governments develop and
adopt predisaster mitigation plans in order to receive certain federal assistance;
WHEREAS, a Mitigation Advisory Committee ("MAC") comprised of representatives from lbo couraies of
Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke; the cities of Roanoke and Salem; and the towns of Buchamm, Clifton
Forge, Fincastle, Iron Gate, New Castle, Troutville and Vinton was convened in order to study the Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Region's risks from, and vulnerabilities to, natural hazards, and to make recommendatiom on mitigating
the effects of such hazards on the Roanoke Valley-Alleglumy Region; and
WHEREAS, the efforts of the MAC members and the Roanoke Velley-Allegheny Regional Commission, in
consultation with members of the public, private and non-profit sectors, have resulted in the development of a
Regional Predisaster Mitigation Plan for the communities that are members of the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany
Regional Commission, including the City of Roanoke.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City Of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City of Roanoke hereby approves and adopts the Regional Predisastes Mitigation Plan, dated
Septm'nber 2005, referred to above and in the City Manager's leRer to Council dated October 17, 2005, including the
City of Roenoke's part of such Plan.
2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to take such further actions as may be needed to implement and
administer such Plan.
ArI'~ST:
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
City Web: www.roanokeva.gov
October 1 7, 2005
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
Honorable Dr. M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member
Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member
Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council:
Subject: Regional Pre-disaster Mitigation
Plan
Background:
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 requires that local governments, as a
condition of receiving federal disaster mitigation funds, have a mitigation plan
that describes the process for identifying hazards, risks and vulnerabilities,
identifies and prioritizes mitigation actions, encourages the development of
local mitigation and provide technical support for those 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 meeting these requirements. In collaboration with
staff from the localities, a final draft plan has been completed. Such plan has
been approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and
VDEM. Each locality is asked to adopt the global portions of the plan as well as
their locality specific section. An Executive Summary of the plan, dated
September 2005, is attached. Also attached is the City of Roanoke specific
section of the plan.
Adoption of this plan does not require the appropriation of City funds at this
time, nor does it commit the City to completion of any specific projects. 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.
Mayor Harris and Members of City Council
October 17, 2005
Page 2
Recommended Action:
City Council adopt the Regional Predisaster Mitigation Plan referred to above
and authorize the City Manager to take such actions as may be needed to
implement and administer such Plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
DLB: lac
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Paul Truntich, Environmental Administrator
Joe Coyle, Coordinator of Emergency Management
CM05-001 54
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requires that local governments, as a condition of
receiving federal disaster mitigation funds for Presidential Disaster Declarations, have a mitigation plan
that describes the process for identifying hazards, risks and vulnerabilities, identifies and prioritizes
mitigation actions, encourage the development of local mitigation and provide technical support for those
efforts. The Roanoke Valley-Alleghany region has had eleven (I 1) Presidential Disaster Declarations
since 1969.
The Federal Emergency Manage~nent Agency (FEMA) defines 3,1itigatio~ as aoy sustained action taken
to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to life and property from a hazard event. Mitigation, also known as
prevention, encourages long-term reduction of hazard vulnerability. The goal o1' mitigation is to save lives
and reduce property damage. Mitigation can accomplish this, and should be cost-effective and
environmentally souod. This, in turn, can reduce the enormous cost of disasters to property owners and all
levels of government. In addition, mitigation can protect critical community facilities, reduce exposure to
liability, and minimize colnmunity disruption. Examples include land use planniog, adoption of building
codes, and elevation of homes, or acquisition and relocation of homes away from floodplains.
It has been demonstrated time after time that hazard ~nitigation is most effective when based on an
inclusive, comprehensive~ long-term plan that is developed before a disaster actually occurs. However. in
the past, many communities have undertaken mitigation actions with good intentions but with little
advance planning. In some of these cases, decisions bave been made "on the fly" in the wake of a disaster.
In other cases, decisions may have been made in advance but without careful consideration of all options,
effects, and/or contributing/:actors. The results have been mixed at best, leading to less than optimal use
of limited resources.
The purpose of this plan is to fulfill local Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan requirements. The plan will
identify hazards; establish community goals and objectives and select mitigation activities that are
appropriate for the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Region.
Roanoke VaIley-Alleghany Regional Commission i
Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, September 2005
Planning Area
The Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan affects unincorporated areas, towns, cities and counties within
the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission service area. While the plan does not establish any
legal requirements for the localities, it does provide a framework for planning for natural hazards.
The localities addressed in this plan include: the counties of Alleghany, Botetourt, Craig and Roanoke;
the cities of Covington, Roanoke and Salem; and the towns of Buchanan, Clifton Forge, Fincastle, Iron
Gate, New Castle, Troutville and Vinton.
Hazards
The natural hazard most likely to affect the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany region is widespread flooding or
flash flooding. Watersheds in the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany region are typical of the Blue Ridge region
in which smaller streams collect water which then flows through steep terrain, picking up velocity, and
into the valleys and flatlands along major rivers where development has occurred.
In the Roanoke Valley wildfires are second only to flooding as the greatest recurring natural hazard. In
1999, Fort Lewis Mountain in the western part of Roanoke County burned out of control for a week,
destroying land and endangering homes before it was brought under control.
The area is frequently subjected to winter storms, heavy thunderstorms, tropical storms, hurricane
remnants, landslides, karst and occasional tornado. Meteorological events have the potential to impact all
communities and structures in the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany region.
The Regional Mitigation Plan
The purpose of this planning initiative is to develop a Plan that meets all State and Federal requirements.
The Plan will help localities maintain their eligibility for certain future Federal funding, especially the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. A FEMA-approved Mitigation Plan is also required to participate in
the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program and in projects under the Pre- Disaster
Mitigation Grant Program.
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission ii
Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, September 2005
The plan outlines general actions designed to address and reduce the impact of a full range of natural
hazards facing region, including such natural hazards as floods, hurricanes, winter storms and wildfires. A
multi-jurisdictional planning approach was utilized. By having multiple jurisdictions work together on
common hazards/risks, the planning process eliminated the need for each local jurisdiction to devise its
own approach and prepare its own separate document. Further, this type of planning effort resulted in a
common plan format and loss estimation technique that will help the State Department of Emergency
Management and FEMA understand the area's vulnerabilities when evaluating future policies and
projects.
While a single, regional plan was developed, please note that each local.jurisdiction has its own separate
section as part q/the overall plan.
Hazard Identification
The RVARC worked with the Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Committee to compile data on
natural hazards. Information was compiled on the occurrence of natural hazard events in the region.
Hazards that affect the area were identified based on historical and other available data. Each local
jurisdiction has been given an opportunity to review the hazard events data and make amendments as
appropriate.
Risk Assessment And Loss Estimates
RVARC assessed potential impacts from each hazard using available geographic information system
(GIS) layers and government databases. Loss estimates were performed only for flooding. Other disasters
are too variable and widespread to determine any useful loss estimates.
Mitigation Strategy Development
Based on the findings of the risk assessment, RVARC, working with local governments, drafted an
overall mitigation strategy for the region and each individual locality. During this step, goals, objectives
and actions to reduce the damage from each hazard were identified for the planning area.
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission iii
Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, September 2005
Public Participation
Localities, state and federal agencies, and other local groups were invited to serve on the Roanoke Valley-
Alleghany Regional Commission Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan Committee. Local governments were
asked to appoint the staff and/or citizens that would be the most appropriate representative(s) to the
Committee and responded with a wide range of appointees: Mayors, Emergency Service Coordinators,
Engineers, Planners, City and Town Managers, and fire and rescue personnel. Locality representatives
attended the Committee meetings on a regular basis. Additional groups that the Committee felt would be
of assistance were also invited to participate. These included local Chambers of Commerce, the local
Chapter of the Red Cross, Virginia Department of Forestry, U.S. Forest Service, and the Council of
Community Services. Committee meetings were held on an as needed basis at critical times in the
document's development and for review of the draft and final versions of the Plan. Committee meeting
agendas and attendance sheets are included in this appendix.
The public was invited to attend one or more of four open-house format workshops that were held to seek
input about hazards that have impacted the area. Participants were given the opportunity to review maps,
historical hazard data, damage estimates, and information about the Disaster Mitigation Act and the pre-
disaster planning requirements. Information gathered at the workshops was used in developing strategies
to mitigate natural hazards in the region.
Workshops were held in the early evening, two from 5 to 7 p.m. and two from 6 to 8 p.m., over a three-
week period. The workshops were advertised as display ads in two daily and four weekly local
newspapers. The workshops, and the mitigation plan process itself, were covered by the local newspapers,
local radio news broadcasts and a local chamber of commerce newsletter. A Public Forum for review of
the final draft of the Plan was held August 29, 2005 at the Roanoke Higher Education Center. Workshop
announcements, sign-in sheets, news articles, brochures, and handout materials are included in Appendix
A.
Plan Review, Adoption and Maintenance
In accordance with Federal and State requirements, the governing bodies of each participating jurisdiction
must review and approve that portion of the overall plan that affects their jurisdiction. FEMA has
requested that each locality review the final version of the plan and adopt it by resolution. The plan will
then be sent to the Virginia Department of Emergency Management and FEMA for review and approval.
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission iv
Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, September 2005
Following FEMA approval, the plan may then be officially adopted by each locality. No changes to the
plan should be made following FEMA's approval of the document. If changes are necessary, they should
be noted in the resolution and addressed in the next plan update.
The Plan Maintenance section of this document, Chapter 8, details the process that will ensure that the
Mitigation Plan remains an active and relevant document. The process includes a schedule for monitoring
the Plan on an annual basis and producing the required plan revision every five years and describes how
the localities will integrate public participation throughout the plan maintenance process.
(Remainder of page intentionally left blank)
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission v
Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, September 2005
CITY OF ROANOKE
Current and Past Mitigation Measures
Floodplain Management - The City of Roanoke has adopted a Floodplain Management Ordinance that
requires new residential buildings to be elevated to or above the base flood elevation. The City has a
floodplain overlay district, corresponding to areas identified on Flood Insurance rate Maps prepared by
FEMA.
Roanoke Valley Regional Stormwater Management Plan - All four Roanoke Valley jurisdictions
participated in the development of the plan that was coordinated through the efforts of the Fifth Planning
District Commission. It offers alternative solutions for both flooding and flash flooding problems. These
alternatives include clearing stream channels, enlarging drainage openings, constructing regional
detention facilities, and flood proofing individual structures. The plan presents a total of 138 individual
projects to address flooding in the 16 watersheds. These are ranked in order of priority within each
watershed but no overall ranking within the valley is presented. Cost estimates are presented for each
project, but neither individual project benefits, nor cumulative benefits are discussed. It would be
essential to analyze the benefits of these projects before the plan can be used as a guideline for specific
activities. The identified projects would cost a total of $66 million in 2001 dollars, not including land
acquisition or efforts to flood proof or move over 2,200 buildings. A formal quantification of the
corresponding benefits would go a long way toward justifying this cost, which can initially seem
ovetwvhelming to both citizens and community officials. For example, the 1997 plan reports that between
1972 and 1992, floods caused over $200 million in damages in the valley, and resulted in 10 deaths. The
plan's Financing Options Report recommends creation of a regional stormwater utility as a means of
funding the identified work.
Stormwater Management - The City has a Stormwater Management Ordinance that is part of the City
Code. It was developed to bring the City into compliance with state laws on stormwater management and
erosion and sedimentation control.
National Flood Insurance Program - The City participates in, and is in good standing with, the National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) by enfoming floodplain management regulations that meet federal
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission 177
Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, September 2005
requirements. This program allows property owners to purchase flood insurance from NFIP. There are
currently 607 NFIP policies in force in the City.
Dam Safety - Spring Hollow Reservoir Dam, located on a tributary of the Roanoke River and owned by
the Western Virginia Water Authority, could impact properties in the City of Roanoke if it failed. Carvin
Cove Reservoir Dam, located on a tributary of the Carvin Creek and owned by the Western Virginia
Water Authority, could impact properties in the City if it failed.
Erosion and Sediment Control - The City of Roanoke has adopted the regulations, references, guidelines,
standards and specifications promulgated by the Virginia Soil and Water Conservation Board (and any
local handbook or publication of the board) for the effective control of soil erosion and sediment
deposition to prevent the unreasonable degradation of properties, stream channels, waters and other
natural resources. Such regulations, references, guidelines, standards and specifications for erosion and
sediment control are included in, but not limited to, the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control
Regulations and the Virginia Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook, as amended from time to time.
[FLOWS The City participates in a flood warning system developed by the National Weather Service
called Integrated Flood Observing and Warning System (IFLOWS). Through the use of radio-transmitted
information, this system provides advanced flood forecasting to the City Emergency Operation Center.
There are five IFLOW stations located in the City.
Project Impact Roanoke Valley - Project Impact Roanoke Valley was a partnership of FEMA, Roanoke
County, the cities of Roanoke and Salem and the Town of Vinton to reduce destruction to life and
property during disasters through planning and mitigation. The Project Impact Roanoke Valley Steering
Committee and its work groups evaluated hazard mitigation needs from 1998 to 2001. The four work
groups were: Hazard Mitigation, Public Information and Community Education, Stormwater
Management and Partnership and Resource group. The Stormwater Management group was responsible
for the preparation of over 1,500 floodplain elevation certificates. The Public Information and
Community Education and Partnership and Resource groups met with community organization, civic
groups, businesses and the general public to promote hazard mitigation activities. The Land Use group
focused on the how local plans and ordinances relate to hazard mitigation and published Hazard
Mitigation through Land Use Planning in 2001. The Hazard Mitigation group addressed flooding,
wildfire, meteorological events, and hazardous materials incidents in its report Hazard Analysis.
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission 178
Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, September 2005
City of Roanoke Mitigation Goals and Strategies
In developing mitigation strategies for the region and each locality, a wide range of activities were
considered in order to achieve the goals and to lessen the vulnerability of the area to the impact of natural
hazards. All goals are dependant on the availability and timeliness of non-local funding.
Goals and Strategies were prioritized by each locality. Prioritization was completed in order of relative
priority high, medium or low - based on the benefit to cost criteria and the strategy's potential to
mitigate the impact from natural hazards. Consideration was also given to availability of funding, the
department/agency responsible for implementation, and the ability of the locality to implement the
project. Under each identified pre-disaster, applicable local government departments will be the lead in
making sure that each project or action will be implemented in a timely manner with other departments,
other Roanoke Valley govemments representatives and/or other regional agencies.
The anticipated level of cost effectiveness of each measure was a primary consideration when developing
the list of proposed projects. Since the mitigation projects are an investment of public funds to reduce
damages, localities have selected and prioritized projects based on the benefit to cost of each prc~ject in
hopes of obtaining the maximum benefit. Projects were categorized as high, medium or low benefit to
cost based on the available information for each proposed project. Reduced damages over the lifespan of
the projects, the benefits, are likely to be greater than the project cost in all cases. Although detailed cost
and benefit analysis was not conducted during the mitigation action development process, these factors
were of primary concern when prioritizing and selecting the proposed projects.
Flooding
Goal: Mitigation of loss of life and property from flooding and flood related disasters.
Responsible Department(s): Engineering, Emergency Management
Strategies:
I. In cooperation with local governments, support a comprehensive public information and
education program on flooding, living in the floodplain, flood risks, Iow cost simple flood
mitigation measures, flood insurance, stream remediation, hydrology, floodplain ordinances,
and NFIP. This can be accomplished through regional workshops and educational materials
for citizens, business, local staff; and elected officials.
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission 179
Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, September 2005
2. Develop and maintain an inventory of flood prone roadways in cooperation with the Virginia
Department of Transportation.
3. Develop and maintain an inventory of flood prone critical facilities such as hospitals, public
utility sites, airports, etc.
4. Participate in The Community Rating System.
Goal: Update existing G1S data layers related to natural hazards.
Responsible Department(s): Engineering, Department of Technology
Strategies:
I. Consider seeking funding and support programs that update FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate
Maps (FIRM). Consider participation in FEMA's Cooperating Technical Partners (CTP)
program that establishes partners with local jurisdictions to develop and maintain up-to-date
flood maps.
2. Utilize GIS to inventory at risk infrastructure and public and private structures within flood
prone areas.
3.Participate in FEMA's Digital Flood Insurance Rate Maps (DFIRM) program.
4. Support FIRM remapping projects that address areas in the region that have the most serious
mapping problems and where flooding is a repetitive problem.
Goal: Provide early warning of flooding.
Responsible Department(s): Emergency Management
Strategies:
1. Identify areas with recurring flood problems and request additional IFLOW stream/rain
gauges as appropriate to ensure that these areas are adequately covered and monitored.
2. Identify areas with recurring flood problems and incorporate the addresses and phone
numbers into an early warning database, specifically the Reverse 911 system
Goal: Identification of structural projects that could mitigate the impact of fiooding.
Responsible Department(s): Engineering
Strategies:
I. Consider seeking funding to prepare site-specific hydrologic and hydraulic studies that look
at areas that have chronic and repetitive flooding problems.
Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission 180
Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, September 2005
Support Virginia Department of Transportation projects that call for improved ditching,
replacement of inadequate and undersized culverts, enlargements of bridge openings and
drainage piping needed to minimize flooding.
All Hazards
Goal: Provide early warning for terrorism events and natural disasters and emergencies.
Responsible Department(s): Emergency Management
Strategies:
1.
Purchase and maintain the Reverse 911 system. Funding annual maintenance and upgrade
costs. Identify likely targets and develop call out list for quick activation. Identify flood
prone areas and incorporate those numbers in a flood notification database.
In cooperation with VDEM, FEMA, the Red Cross and other localities support a
comprehensive public information and education program dealing with citizen preparedness
for acts of terrorism as well as man made disasters.
Goal: Improved communications Interoperability.
Responsible Department(s): Department of Technology
Strategies:
1. Seek funding to develop an interoperable radio communications system for the region
Roanoke Valley-AIleghany Regional Commission 181
Regional Pre-Disaster Mitigation Plan, September 2005
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanle M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Shella N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
October 21, 2005
File #60-556
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 37215-101705 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 as more fully set
forth in a letter from the City Manager addressed to the Council under date of
October 17, 2005.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
pc:
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Frank E. Raratta, Budget Team Leader
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 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.
WHEREAS, after several months of discussion with public and private organizations
that fund non-profit agencies, the City developed criteria for non-profit organizations which
receive funding from the City; and
WHEREAS, Carilion Foundation, Roanoke City, and Funders Circle will use the
criteria in connection with their funding of non-profit organizations.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the
City hereby adopts the policy as more particularly described in the City Manager's letter
dated October 17, 2005, to City Council, containing certain criteria to be adhered to when
reviewing and approving funding for non-profit organizations in future budget cycles and
authorizing the City Manager to disseminate information about such policy.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
City Web: www.roanokeva.gov
October 20, 2005
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
The Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice-Mayor
The Honorable M. Rupert Cutler
The Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr.
The Honorable Sherman P. Lea
The Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel
The Honorable Brian J. Wishneff
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council:
Subject:
Criteria for Funding Non-Profit
Organizations
After several months of discussion with both public and private organizations
that fund non-profit agencies on a regular basis, the following criteria have
been developed that I recommend be adopted as prerequisites for
organizations receiving funds from the City 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 ~00% 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%.
3. Organizations must agree to an annual joint site visit by the City, and
Carillon Foundation, 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 or more must perform an annual audit and provide a copy of
the 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.
Mayor Harris and Members of City Council
October 17, 2005
Page 2
The City of Roanoke will be joined in this approach by Carillon Foundation and
the Funders Circle. Other private foundations are also considering using these
criteria in their funding process.
All past recipients of City funds will be informed of these new requirements as
soon as adopted.
Recommendation
Adopt the attached resolution adopting the criteria set forth above, and
authorize the City Manager to disseminate information about this policy to the
non-profit providers of health and human services as well as arts and cultural
organizations who have or are likely to apply to the City for funding.
DLB:sf
Respectfully submitted,
C i~ e~aenLa'gBeUr r c ,ff~ m
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
CM05-0155
CITY OF R OANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
October 21, 2005
File #24-184-197
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 37216-101705 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 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon,
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham
October 21, 2005
Page 2
pc:
The Honorable Robert P. Doherty, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable William D. Broadhurst, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit
of Virginia
The Honorable Clifford R. Weckstein, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable Charles N. Dorsey, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable Jonathan M. Apgar, Chief Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial
Circuit of Virginia
The Honorable James R. Swanson, Judge, Twenty-Third Judicial Circuit of
Virginia
The Honorable Julian H. Raney, Jr., Chief Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Vincent A. Lilley, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Francis W. Burkart, III,Judge, General District Court
The Honorable Jacqueline F. Ward Talevi, Judge, General District Court
The Honorable John B. Ferguson, Chief Judge, Juvenile and Domestic
Relations District Court
The Honorable Joseph M. Clarke, II,Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
The Honorable Philip Trompeter, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
The Honorable Joseph P. Bounds, Judge, Juvenile and Domestic Relations
District Court
Sheila N. Hartman, Assistant City Clerk, (For transmittal by electronic mail
to Municipal Code Corporation)
Municipal Code Corporation, P. O. Box 2235, Tallahassee, Florida 323:~6
Ronald S. Albright, Clerk, General District Court
David C. Wells, Clerk, Juvenile and Domestic Relations District Court
Kozuo Webb, Office of the Magistrate
Lora A. Wilson, Law Librarian
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Carolyn H. Glover, Acting Director of Human Resources
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 37216-101705.
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 (I 979),
as amended, to conform with Section 2.2-2903 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended; and
dispensing with the second reading by title of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, is hereby amended and
reordained by amending Section 2-70, Veteran's Preference, Article IV, Personnel Man~
and Practices, of Chapter 2, Administration, to read and provide as follows:
Sec. 2-70. Veteran's preference.
The Ci(y of Roanoke shall take into consideration or give preference to an
individual's status as an honorably discharged veteran of the arrned forees
of the United States in its employment hiring policies and practices,
provided that such veteran meets all of the knowledge, skills and eligibility
requirements for the available position. Additional consideration shall also
be given to veterans who have a service connected disabili(y rating fixed by
the United States Veterans Administration. "Veterans" as used in this
section refers to the same class as included in § 2.2-2903 of the Code of
Virginia with regard to the state service.
K:~leasurcs~Codc Amendment 2-70 Veteran's Preference 20051doc 1
this ordinance by title is dispensed with.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of
ATTEST
City Clerk.
K:~lcasures~Code Amendment 2-70 Vctcran's Prcfcrcnce 2005.doc 2
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
City Web: www.roanokeva.gov
October 17, 2005
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member
Honorable Brenda L McDaniel, Council Member
Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Subject: Veteran's Preference Change to City
Code
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council:
Background
The General Assembly amended Virginia Code Section 15.2-1509 related to the
preferences that local governments must give veterans when making hiring or
promotion decisions. The changes to this state code section broaden the preference
that a local government must give a veteran when making these personnel decisions.
In response to this change in the State law, section 2-70 entitled Veteran's Preference
of the Code of the City of Roanoke 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 the amendments made to the state code while still preserving the City's
current practice. Currently veteran's preference only applies for jobs in which a test is
given while the proposal provides preference regardless of whether a test is given.
Recommended Action:
Approve amendment of the Code of the City of Roanoke to provide for the practice of
veteran's preference in compliance with State law.
Respectfully submitted,
(~ ~t~l ~V~;nLa'gBe rU ~
DLB:ba
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Carolyn H. Glover, Acting Director of Human Resources
CM05-00148
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, xruginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ ci.roanoke.va.us
October20,2005
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
File #20-77-316-514
Leo H. Rutledge, Jr,
Urban Program Manager
Department of Transportation
1401 East Broad Street
Richmond, Virginia 23219
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 37217-101705 expressing the support of
the Council of the City of Roanoke to the Virginia Department of Transportation of
Alternative 3, a Transportation Systems Management Alternative, for the
extension of Wonju Street between Colonial Avenue and Brandon Avenue, S. W., as
more fully set forth in a letter from the City Manager addressed to the Council
under date of October 17, 2005.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
pc:
Dana M. Martin, Board Member, Commonwealth Transportation Board,
Salem District, Al-Mart Training Consultants, LLC, 2018 Electric Road,
Suite 216, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Robert K. Bengtson, Director, Public Works
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Kenneth H. King, Manager, Division of Transportation
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 37217~1~.1~05.
A RESOLUTION expressing the support of the Council of the City of Roanoke to the
. Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT") of Alternative 3, a Transportation Systems
Management (TSM) Alternative, for the extension of Wonju Street between Colonial Avenue and
Brandon Avenue.
WHEREAS, an extension of Wonju Street between Colonial Avenue and Brandon Avenue
was added to VDOT's Six Year Improvement Plan in 1999;
WHEREAS, two conceptual alternatives had been considered since project initiation, but as
fight-of-way impacts and cost estimates increased, a third alternative, a TSM Alternative, was
suggested;
WHEREAS, Alternative 3 makes use of existing capacity on Brandon and Colonial Avenues,
requires minimal acquisition of right-of-way, minimizes construction cost, provides an immediate
safety improvement through reducing the queue of vehicles on southbound Route 220; and
WHEREAS, at a Citizen Information Meeting held on October 3, 2005, the majority of
citizens present preferred Alternative 3.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City hereby expresses its support of Alternative 3, the TSM alternative, being
more particularly described in the City Manager's letter dated October 17, 2005, to City Council.
The City requests that VDOT advance this project to the construction phase.
The City Clerk is directed to transmit an attested copy of this resolution to VDOT.
ATTESt: ·
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853 1138
City Web: www.roanokeva.gov
October 17, 2005
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
Honorable Dr. M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member
Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member
Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council:
Subject: Colonial Avenue/Wonju Street
VDOT Project No. U000-128-
127
Background:
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 had been considered since project initiation, but as right of way
impacts and cost estimates for those alternatives increased over time, a third
alternative, a Transportation Systems Management (TSM) Alternative, was
suggested. On October 3, 2005, VDOTheld aCitizen Information Meeting on
this proposed project to share these alternatives and cost estimates with the
public.
Considerations:
Estimated costs for Alternatives 1 and 2 vary from $18 - 21 million. These
alternatives would require significant right of way acquisition costs,
representing approximately 70 percent of the 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 percent match would apply to any of these
three alternatives. Funding will be identified at a future time upon VDOT's
acceptance of the project request.
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
October 17, 2005
Page 2
At the Citizen Information Meeting, 43 comment sheets were submitted. Of
those comments, 21 preferred the TSM Alternative, eight preferred Alternative
1, six preferred Alternative 2, and the remaining comments indicated either a
preference for combinations of alternatives or did not indicate a preference.
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.
Recommendation:
City Council adopt the accompanying resolution in support of Alternative 3, the
Transportation System Management alternative, and request that VDOT
advance this project to the construction phase.
Respe~tfully~ su.b~itted,
~t ryl e~aenLa'g~rrcham
DLB/MDJ/gpe
Attachments
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Kenneth H. King Jr., P.E., Manager, Division of Transportation
CM05-00153
CITY OF RO_..ANOKE
Office of the C,ty Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clark
October 21, 2005
File #2-60
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 37218-101705 appropriating
$3,975,000.00 to be provided by the Series 2005 Bonds to purchase Countryside
Golf Course, and amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006
Capital Projects Fund Appropriations.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
pc:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 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
2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations, and dispensing with the second reading
by title of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following
sections of the 2005-2006 Capital Projects Fund Appropriations be, and the same are
hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
Appropriations
Appropriated from 2005 Bond Funds 008-310-9840-9170 $ 3,975,000
Countryside Golf Course 008-310-9740-9172 (3,975,000)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
A3-rEST:
City Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
October 21, 2005
File #2-60
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 372 :[9-:[01705 authorizing execution of an
Operating Agreement for Countryside Golf Course between the City of Roanoke
and Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., upon certain terms and conditions, as more
fully set forth in a letter from the City Manager addressed to the Council under
date of October :[7, 2005.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
pc:
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning, Building and Development
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, V1RGINIA
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 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.
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke intends to purchase Countryside Golf Course and desires to
continue operating it as a golf facility for at least one year after its acquisition; and
WHEREAS, Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., is engaged in the business of marketing,
maintaining, operating and managing golf facilities.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute, and to seal and
attest, respectively, an Operating Agreement between the City and Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc.,
such agreement to be in substantially the same form as that which is attached to the City Manager's
letter of October 17, 2005, to Council, and shall be approved as to form by the City Attorney.
2. The City Manager is authorized to take appropriate measures to implement the terms
and conditions of the Operating Agreement, as provided in the Operating Agreement.
3. Pursuant to § 12 of the Roanoke City Charter, the second reading by tire paragraph of
this ordinance is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853 1138
City Web: www.roanokeva,gov
October 17, 2005
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Honorable Beverly Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member
Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member
Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council
Subject: Countryside Golf Course
Purchase and Operating Agreement
In May 2005, City Council authorized the purchase of the approx mate y 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 which
provided time for further staff analysis to determine whether the property
should be acquired by the City for further development. In the event the
property was purchased the option amount would app y to the purchase price
In June 2005, City Council authorized the issuance of general obligation pub ic
improvement bonds in the amount of $3,975,000 to fund a portion of the
project. The bonds would be issued in late calendar year 2005 if the City
elected to proceed with the purchase of the project.
Since receiving that 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
the continued operation of the facility as a golf course for one year after its
purchase.
The management agreement provides for the Meadowbrook Go f Group Inc. to
be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the faci ity in a manner
consistent with its current operation. All expenses for operating the course will
be the responsibility of the operator, and it will collect all income generated
from the use of the facility by the general public. In addition, the operator will
pay a management fee of $35,000.00 to the City for the one year term of the
Mayor Harris and Members of City Council
October 17, 2005
Page2
operating agreement. A copy of that proposed agreement is attached for the
City Council's information.
The option agreement previously authorized by the City Council requires
notification to the seller by October 28, 2005 with closing no later than
November 30, 2005. In order to proceed with the notification and closing
process, City Council needs to appropriate the balance of funds necessary for
the purchase ofthe property. Funding totalling $4,006,000 is needed for
~roperty acquisition and other costs associated with the closing with
3,975,000 to be provided from the sale of the 2005 general obligation public
improvement bonds. Funding of $31,000 is available in the existing project
account for the remaining expenses.
Recommended Action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute the Operating Agreement w th the
Meadowbrook Golf Group, nc. on behalf of the City of Roanoke in such form as
approved by the City Attorney.
Appropriate funding in the amount of $3,975,000 in advance of issuance of the
2005 general obligation bonds to account 008-310-9840 Countryside Golf
Course acquisition.
Respectfully submitted,
DLB:rbt
C:
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Rolanda Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Brian Townsend, Director, Planning Building and Development
CM05-00156
CITY OF ROANOKE
INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMUNICATION
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
November 11, 2005
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
R. Brian Townsend, Director Planning,
Development
Glenn A. Asher, Risk Manager
Building and Economic
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Counuyside
Enclosed for your files, please find photocopies of the following:
1) Executed Operating Agreement with Meadowbrook Golf Group,
Inc.
2) Closing Settlement Statement
3) Assignment of Agreement of Lease
4) Request for Consent to Lease Assignment and Consent to
Assignment
If you need copies of any other related documents, please let me know.
WMH/Isc
Attachments
OPERATING AGREEMENT
THIS OPERATING AGREEMENT (this '"'Agreement'"') is made and entered into
effective as of this Iol'~ day of November, 2005, between the City of Roanoke ("Owner"), and
Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc., a Delaware corporation ("Manager").
WHEREAS, Manager is engaged in the business of marketing, maintaining, operating
and managing golf facilities;
WHEREAS, Owner desires to hire Manager as an independent contractor under the
terms and conditions set forth herein to operate, manage and conduct the business and services of
the Countryside Golf Club, located in the City of Roanoke, Virginia as a facility open to the
public which includes a golf course, pro shop, food concession, and tennis facility (the
"Facility"); and
WHEREAS, Owner intends to acquire the Facility fi.om The Fairways Group, LP, who
owns it, and Owner intends to accept as assignee fi.om The Fairways Group, LP, the lease of
approximately 40 acres of land owned by the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission which is
leased for part of the Facility; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained
in this Agreement, and intending to be legally bound hereby, Owner and Manager agree as
follows:
1. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES BY MANAGER
Manager hereby represents and warrants to Owner as follows:
1.1 Manager is a Delaware corporation validly existing and in good standing with the
State of Delaware, and qualified to do business in the State of Virginia;
1.2 Manager is not restricted fi.om entering into and performing its obligations under
this Agreement; and
1.3 Manager has full power and authority to execute this Agreement and to be bound'
by and perform the terms hereof, and the person executing this Agreement on behalf of Manager
is duly authorized to do so and to legally bind Manager.
2. REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES BY OWNER
Owner hereby represents and warrants to Manager as follows:
2.1 Other than what has been disclosed by Owner to Manager, there are no actions,
suits or proceedings of any kind or nature whatsoever, legal or equitable, pending or, to the best
of Owner's knowledge, threatened against the Facility or Owner in any court or before or by any
federal, state, county or municipal department, commission, board, bureau or agency or other
TAMP~3.4 1
governmental instrumentality, including, without limitation, any condemnation or eminent
domain proceedings;
2.2 No person, firm, corporation or other legal entity whatsoever has any right or
option whatsoever to acquire or lease the Facility or any portion or portions thereof or any
interest or interests therein;
2.3 To the best of Owner's knowledge, there is no existing violation or breach of any
ordinance, code, law, rule, requirement or regulation applicable to the Facility;
2.4
Agreement;
Owner has the financial ability to enter into and perform its obligations under this
2.5
Agreement;
Owner is not restricted from entering into or performing its obligations under this
2.6 Owner has full power and authority to execute this Agreement and to be bound by
and perform the terms hereof, and the person executing this Agreement on behalf of Owner is
duly authorized to do so and to legally bind Owner; and
3. APPOINTMENT OF MANAGER
Owner hereby appoints Manager as operator and manager of the Facility, subject to the
provisions of this Agreement.
4. TERM
4.1 Term.
The term of this Agreement shall be one (1) year. The services of Manager shall commence on
November ,2005 (hereinafter the "Effective Date"), and shall terminate on October 31,
2006, unless sooner terminated as provided hereinafter. Such period between the Effective Date
and the date of termination is hereinafter referred to as the "Term."
4.2 Renewal.
The parties may agree to extend the term for additional terms of one year on such terms
and conditions as they may mutually agree to.
5. OPERATION OF THE COURSE; MANAGER'S SERVICES
5.1 General Manager's Service.
During the Term, and subject to the terms of this Agreement, Manager shall have full
authority and responsibility to conduct, supervise, and manage the day-to-day operation of the
Facility, including, but not limited to, the following:
TAMP_384043.4 2
A. Supervise management of play and general operation of the Facility, including the
establishment of all fees. The parties acknowledge and agree that the fees set forth on Exhibit
"A" attached hereto are acceptable to both parties.
B. Assume responsibility for the hiring, training, disciplining and terminating of all
Facility personnel.
Manager shall specifically have responsibility, and commensurate authority, to provide
the services described in this Section and to operate the Facility in the manner provided in this
Agreement.
5.2 Scope of Services.
Pursuant to this Agreement, Manager shall provide and operate for the Owner the
existing recreational facilities at the Facility, as set forth in the Recitals to this Agreement, that
shall be open to the public, subject to the payment of fees as provided in this Section.
5.3 Management.
Manager agrees to use its best efforts to operate and manage the services and the Facility
in a manner consistent with the current operation of the Facility and comparable to other locally
managed municipal, daily-fee, entry-level golf courses during the T=m~ of this Agreement;
provided, however, the parties acknowledge and agree that Manager shall not be responsible for
any capital improvements to the Facility, unless Owner agrees to reimburse Manager for same
prior to the undertaking of any capital improvements.
5.4 Applicable Laws.
In its operation of the Facility, Manager shall observe in ail material respects all
applicable Federal, State and municipal laws relating to the Facility.
5.5 Health Reuulation.
Manager shall, at its expense, meet the requirements of local and state health departments
covering the handling and dispensing of food and beverages.
5.6 Utilities.
Manager agrees to pay all utility bills for electricity, gas, water, and any and all other
utilities used or consumed at the Facility.
5.7 Hours of Operation.
Manager will conduct business at the Facility to conform with hours and days of
operation as set forth on Exhibit "B" attached hereto, provided, however, the parties
acknowledge and agree that Manager shall be permitted to close the Facility in the event of
adverse weather conditions or other conditions beyond Manager's control.
TAMP_384043.4 3
5.8 Manager's Employees.
Manager shall use its best efforts to maintain a staff adequate to operate and administer
all facilities located at the Facility, in Manager's sole and absolute discretion.
5.9 Staff.
Manager shall be responsible for hiring such personnel as Manager shall deem reasonably
necessary for the operation and maintenance of the Facility and other business activities at the
Facility. All persons so employed by Manager shall be employees of Manager and not Owner.
Manager shall hire, train, promote, discharge, transfer and supervise the work of all employees of
the Facility, all in Manager's reasonable discretion.
5.10 Repairs and Maintenance.
Manager shall arrange for the making and installing, at Manager's expense, of all repairs,
decorations, or maintenance of furnishings, fixtures or equipment to the Facility, as Manager
deems reasonable or necessary. Manager shall notify Owner of any repairs in excess of $1,000.
5.11 Compliance with Laws~ Permits.
Manager shall arrange for compliance in all material respects to the extent reasonably
practicable with any statutes, ordinances, laws, rules, regulations, orders, and determinations
affecting the operation of the Facility. Manager will notify Owner of any notice that it receives
of any non-compliance with statutes, ordinances, laws, rules, regulations, orders, and
determinations, and, with the prior written consent of Owner make arrangements for curing the
non-compliance, including without limitation, any alterations or repairs ordered or required to
cure such non-compliance. It shall be the responsibility of Manager to secure and pay for all
permits, fees and licenses required for the operation of the Facility.
5.12 Emergene.yRepairs.
In the event an emergency occurs at the Facility as a result of fire or any other form of
casualty, which emergency presents an imminent risk to persons or property, Manager shall have
the right to take such steps and make such repairs as may be necessary to protect damage to
persons or property and to mitigate any potential future damage to the Facility. Notwithstanding
the foregoing, Manager agrees that to the extent the costs of such repair and replacement is less
than $1,000.00 in such circumstance, Manager shall have the right to undertake such emergency
repairs without Owner's prior approval; provided, however, Manager agrees that it shall
endeavor to notify Owner as soon as possible of the occurrence of such event, but in any event
shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the occurrence of any such emergeniy, notify Owner of
the occurrence and nature of suer emergency, the repairs made or proposed to made and the
estimated cost thereof. The costs of such emergency repairs shall be deducted from Manager's
general operating funds of the Facility subject to replenishment of such funds from any
applicable insurance proceeds. To the extent the costs of repairs exceeds $1,000.00, Manager
shall not undertake such repair without the Owner's prior written consent; provided, however,
Manager may expend up to $1,000.00 to stabilize the situation or mitigate potential further
damage to the Facility.
TAMP_384043.4 4
6. MANAGEMENT FEE AND EXPENSES
6.1 Management Fee.
In consideration of Owner engaging Manager to provide the services set forth in this
Agreement, Manager shall pay a Management Fee to Owner equal to Five Thousand Dollars
($5,000.00) per month for each month beginning in April 2006 and ending in October 2006 (the
.... Management Fee'S'). The Management Fee shall be due and payable on the first day of each
calendar month. The first Management Fee shall be delivered to Owner on April 1, 2006 and the
last Management Fee shall be delivered to Owner on October 1, 2006.
6.2 Exoenses.
Manager shall be responsible for and shall pay for all direct expenses incurred by
Manager in the course of providing the services contemplated in this Agreement, except as noted
above. All indirect costs associated with the providing of these services, such as off-site
overhead, wages of Manager personnel located off-site, off-site secretarial services and
otherwise, shall be the sole responsibility of Manager.
6.3 Income.
The parties acknowledge and agree that in consideration of Manager's provision of the
services set forth in this Agreement, Manager shall retain all income and proceeds earned from
the operation of the Facility and the services provided herein during the Term, other than the
Management Fees. The parties acknowledge and agree that Manager shall be entitled to all
income originating prior to expiration of the Term for the Facility. Owner agrees that if any such
income is received by Owner after said date, Owner shall promptly remit such income to
Manager,
7. INSURANCE
A. Manager shall, at its sole expense, obtain and maintain during the life of this
Agreement, the insurance policies required by this section. Any required insurance policies shall
be effective prior to the beginning date of this Agreement. The following policies and
coverage's are required.
(1)
Commercial General Liability. Commercial General Liability insurance,
written on an occurrence basis, shall insure against all claims, loss, cost,
damage, expense or liability from loss of life or damage or injury to persons
or property arising out of the Manager's actions under this Agreement. The
minimum limits of liability for this coverage shall be $1,000,000 combined
single limit for any one occurrence. Any pollution exclusion shall be amended
to cover application of herbicides and pesticides (Coverage Form CG22 64 07
98 or comparable).
(2)
Automobile Liability. The minimum limit of liability for automobile liability
insurance shall be $1,000,000.00 combined single limit applicable to owned
TAMP_384043.4 ~
or non-owned vehicles used in the performance of any work under this
Agreement.
(3)
Manager's Insurance. Manager shall, at its sole cost and expense, obtain and
maintain during the life of this Agreement a property insurance policy written
on an '"'all risk'"' basis insuring all of Manager's personal property, including,
but not limited to, equipment, furniture, fixtures, furnishings, and leasehold
improvements which are Manager's responsibility, for not less than full
replacement cost of such property. All proceeds of such insurance shall be
used to repair or replace Manager's property.
(4)
Workers' Compensation. Workers' Compensation insurance covering
Manager's statutory obligation under the laws of the Commonwealth of
Virginia and Employer's Liability insurance shall be maintained for all its
employees engage in work at the Facility. Minimum limits of liability for
Employer's Liability shall be $100,000 bodily injury by accident each
occurrence; $500,000 bodily injury by disease (policy limit); and $100,000
bodily injury by disease (each employee). With respect to Workers'
Compensation coverage, the Manager's insurance company shall waive rights
of subrogation against the City's, its officers, employees, agents, volunteers
and representatives.
B. The insurance coverage's and mounts set forth in subsections (1), (2), (3), and
(4) of this section may be met by an umbrella liability policy following the form of the
underlying primary coverage in a minimum amount of $1,000,000. Should an umbrella liability
insurance coverage policy be used, such coverage shall be accompanied by a certificate of
endorsement stating that it applies to the specific policy numbers indicated for the insurance
providing the coverage's required by subsections (1), (2), (3), and (4) and it is further agreed that
such statement shall be part of the certificate of insurance furnished by Manager to the Owner.
C. All insurance shall meet the following requirements:
(1)
Manager shall furnish the Owner a certificate or certificates of insurance
showing the type, amount, effective dates and date of expiration of the
policies. Certificates of insurance shall include any insurance deductibles.
(2)
The required certificate or certificates of insurance shall include substantially
the following statement: "The insurance covered by this certificate shall not
be canceled or materially altered, except after thirty (30) days written notice
has been received by the City's Risk Management Officer."
(3)
The required certificate or certificates of insurance shall name the Owner, its
officers, employees, agents, volunteers and representatives as additional
insured's except as to coverage under subsection (A) (4) above.
(4)
Where waiver of subrogation is required with respect to any policy of
insurance required under this section, such waiver shall be specified on the
certificate of insurance.
TAMP_384043.4 6
(5)
Insurance coverage shall be in a form and with an insurance company
approved by the Owner which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld
Any insurance company providing coverage under this Agreement shall be
authorized to do business in the Commonwealth of Virginia.
8. EVENTS OFDEFAULT
8.1 Owner.
With respect to Owner it shall be an event of default ("Event of Default") hereunder if:
(a) Owner shall fail to keep, observe or perform any agreement, term or
provision of this Agreement to be kept, observed or performed by it, and such default shall
continue for a period of fifteen (15) days after notice thereof to Owner by Manager; provided,
however, Owner shall not be in default if such matter cannot be reasonably cured within such
fifteen (15) day period and Owner commences cure within such fifteen (15) day period and
diligently prosecutes such cure to completion.
(b) Owner files a voluntary petition in bankruptcy or commences a proceeding
seeking reorganization, liquidation, or an arrangement with creditors or an order, judgment or
decree is entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, on the application ora creditor,
adjudicating Owner a bankrupt or insolvent or approving a petition seeking reorganization of
Owner or appointing a receiver, trustee or liquidator of Owner or of all or a substantial part of its
assets, and such order, judgment or decree continues tmstayed and in effect for any period of
sixty (60) consecutive days.
(c) One or more golf holes, the clubhouse, maintenance building, or any
material service of the Facility shall be rendered incapable of normal operation because of
weather, fire or casualty, and shall not be repaired restored, rebuilt, or replaced within three (3)
months after casualty, subject to delay for force majeure.
8.2 Manner.
With respect to Manager, it shall be an Event of Default hereunder if:
(a) Manager shall fail to keep, observe, or perform any material agreement,
term or provision hereof required to be kept, observed, or performed by it, and such failure shall
continue for a period of thirty (30) days after notice thereof shall have been given to Manager by
Owner; provided, however, Manager shall not be in default if such matter cannot be reasonably
cured within such thirty (30) day period and Manager commences cure within such thirty (30)
day period and diligently prosecutes such cure to completion.
(b) Manager files a voluntary petition in bankruptcy or commences a
proceeding seeking reorganization, liquidation, or an arrangement with creditors or an order,
judgment or decree is entered by a court of competent jurisdiction, on the application of a
creditor, adjudicating Manager a bankrupt or insolvent or approving a petition seeking
reorganization of Manager or appointing a receiver, trustee or liquidator of Manager or of all or a
TAMP_384043.4 7
substantial part of its assets, and such order, judgment or decree continues unstayed and in effect
for any period of sixty (60) consecutive days.
9. REMEDIES UPON DEFAULT
9.1 Remedies of Manager.
If any Event of Default by Owner shall occur, which is not cured within the applicable
cure period, if any, Manager may (in addition to any other remedy available to it in law or equity
including, without limitation, damages arising from the breach) terminate this Agreement.
9.2 Remedies of Owner.
If any Event of Default by Manager shall occur which is not cured within the applicable
cure period, if any, Owner may (in addition to any remedy available to it in law or equity,
including, without limitation, damage arising from the breach not to exceed $25,000.00)
forthwith terminate this Agreement.
9.3 Rights Cumulative; No Wavier.
The failure of either party hereto to insist any time upon the strict observance or
performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement or to exercise any right or remedy as
provided in this Agreement, shall not impair any such right or remedy or be conslrued as waiver
or relinquishment thereof with respect to subsequent defaults. Every right and remedy given by
this Agreement to the parties hereof may be exercised fi.om time to time and as often as may be
deemed expedient by the parties hereto, as the case may be.
10. INDEMNIFICATION
Manager agrees to indemnify, protect, defend, and hold harmless Owner and its owners,
officers, directors, and employees fi.om and against any and all claims, demands, actions,
lawsuits, proceedings, damages, liabilities, judgments, penalties, fines, attorneys' fees, costs and
expenses through all levels of appeal for all matters occurring during the term of this Agreement
which results from any act or omission constituting gross negligence or willful misconduct on
the part of Manager or its officers, directors, agents or employees. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the parties acknowledge and agree that Manager shall not be liable for nor does
Manager indemnify Owner from any act or omission on the part of Owner or its officers,
directors or employees.
11. NOTICES
Any and all notices, consents, or directives by either party intended for the other shall be
in writing and shall be deemed to have been duly given as of the date and time the same are
personally delivered, or within three (3) days after depositing with the United States Postal
Service, postage prepaid by registered or certified mail, return receipt requested, or within one
(1) day after depositing with Federal Express or other nationally recognized overnight delivery
service from which a receipt may be obtained, and addressed as follows, unless either party shall
TAMP_384043.4 ~ ': ~.
have designated a different address by serving written notice of change or address as provided
herein:
OwIler '
The City of Roanoke
Attn: City Manager
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Manager:
Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc
8390 Champions Gate Blvd., Suite 200
Champions Gate, FL 33896
Attn: Geary Leathers
(407) 589-7200
with a copy to:
Foley & Lardner LLP
100 N. Tampa Street
Suite 2700
Tampa, FL 33602
Attn: Thomas M. Little, Esq.
(813) 225-4187
12. FORCE MA~URE
If at any time it becomes necessary in either party's reasonable opin/on to cease operation
of all or part of the Facility to protect the Facility or the health, safety and welfare of tenants,
invitees, guests or employees of the Facility for reasons of force majeure such as, but not limited
to, acts of war, insurrection, civil strife and commotion, labor unrest, contagious illness,
catastrophic events, or acts of God, then, in such event, Manager or Owner may close and cease
operation of all or part of the Facility, reopening and commencing operation when such may be
done without jeopardy to the Facility, its tenants, invitees, guests and employees. The time for
performance of an obligation to which such force majeure applies shall be extended for a period
of time equivalent to the delay from such cause, provided that at no time shall the safety or
welfare of Facility's tenants, invitees, guests or employees be at risk nor shall Owner's interest in
the Facility be threatened or otherwise be put in jeopardy.
13. CASUALTY; CONDEMNATION
13.1 In the event fire, windstorm or other casualty shall damage or destroy the Facility
or any portion thereof, Owner may restore the Facility, or at Owner's sole option, terminate this
Agreement immediately upon written notice to Manager without any claim of liability against
Owner or Manager.
13.2 If the whole of the Facility shall be taken or condemned in any eminent domain,
condemnation, compulsory acquisition or similar proceeding by any competent authority for any
public or quasi-public use or purpose, or if such portion which is materially all thereof shall be
taken or condemned and as a result the Facility can no longer be operated as contemplated herein
in an economically viable manner, this Agreement shall terminate as of the date of such takim,.
Upon such termination, neither party shall have any further obligation to the other party
hereunder, except with respect to liabilities accruing, or based upon events occurring, prior to the
effective date of such termination. If this Agreement is not terminated as set forth above, Owner
may, in 0wner's sole discretion, repair any damage to the Facility, or part thereof, or alter or
modify the Facility, or part thereof, or elect to terminate this Agreement immediately upon
written notice to Manager. Notwithstanding anything in this Agreement to the contrary, in the
event of a condemnation, Manager shall be entitled to pursue a claim against the condemning
authority for the value of the unexpired term of this Agreement.
14. MISCELLANEOUS
14.1 Entire A~reement.
This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement of the parties hereto and cannot be
changed or modified except by another agreement in writing signed by the party sought to be
charged therewith or by its duly authorized agent.
14.2 Non-Assi~,nabilitv.
Except as otherwise provided, this Agreement cannot be assigned, encumbered or
subcontracted by either party without the prior written consent of the other party, which consent
shall not be unreasonably withheld.
14.3 Executed Counternart~.
This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each &which shall for all
purposes be deemed an original.
14.4 Captions.
The captions ofvahous of the provisions of this Agreement are included for convenience
only, and are in no way to be construed as part of this Agreement or as a limitation upon the
scope of the particular provisions to which they refer.
14,5 Successor and Assigns.
This Agreement and all the provisions hereof shall be binding upon, and shall inure to the
benefit of, the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigned.
14.6 Governine Law.
This Agreement shall be governed and construed in accordance with the laws of the State
in which the Facility is located.
14.7 Sever,ability.
If any of the provisions of th/s Agreement shall be construed to be illegal or invalid, such
construction shall not affect the legality or validity of any of the other provisions hereof, and the
illegal or invali'd provisions hereof shall be deemed stricken and deleted from this Agreement to
the same extent as if never incorporated herein, but all other provisions hereof shall remain in
full force and effect.
14.8 Attorneys' Fees.
In the event it becomes necessary for either party hereto to file suit to enforce this
Agreement or any provision contained herein, the party prevailing in such suit shall be entitled to
recover, in addition to all other remedies or damages, as provided herein, reasonable attorneys'
fees, paralegal fees and costs incurred in such proceedings.
14.9 No Third Part3/Beneficiaries.
It is the intention of the parties to this Agreement that no third party shall have the benefit
of or any right under any of the provisions hereof.
14.10 InspectlonofFaciliO?.
Owner, and its invitees, shall have the right from time to time to inspect the Facility.
14.11 Time of the Essence.
Time is of the essence of this Agreement.
14.12 No Par ,ty Deemed Draftsman.
All provisions of this Agreement have been negotiated by the Ox~mer and Manager at
arms length and with full representation by their respective legal counsel. This Agreement shall
not be construed for or against either party by reason of the authorship or alleged authorship of
any provision hereof or by reason of the status of the respective parties. Owner and Manager
agree that no party shall be deemed to be the draftsman of this Agreement and further that in the
event that this Agreement is ever construed by a court of law, such court shall not deem either
party to be the draftsman of this Agreement.
14.13 Survival of Covenan,ts.
Any covenant, term or provision of this Agreement which, in order to be effective, must
survive the termination of this Agreement, shall survive any such termination.
14.14 Incorooration by Reference.
The recitals first set forth above in this Agreement and all exhibits, appendices and
attachments hereto arc hereby incorporated herein by reference and made a part of this
Agreement.
14.15 Calculation of Time Periods.
Wherever under the terms and provisions of this Agreement the time for performance
falls upon a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, such time for performance shall be extended to
the next following business day.
14.16 Drug,free Workplace.
During the performance of this Agreement, Manager shall us its best efforts: (i) provide a
drug f~ee workplace for Manager's employees; (ii) post in conspicuous places, available to
employees and applicants for employment, a statement notifying employees that the unlawful
manufacture, sale, distribution, dispensation, possession, or use of a controlled substance or
marijuana is prohibited in Manager's workplace and specifying the actions that will be taken
against employees for violations of such prohibition; (iii) state in all solicitations or
advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Manager that Manager maintains a drug-
fi'ce workplace; and (iv) include the provisions of the foregoing clauses in every subcontract or
purchase order of over ten thousand dollars and no cents ($10, 000. 00) so that the provisions
will be binding upon each subcontractor or vendor. For the purpose of this section, ""drug-free
workplace'"' means a site, for the performance of work done in connection with this Agreement.
14.17 Equal Employment Opportunity.
During the performance of this Agreement, Manager agrees as follows:
(a) Manager will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for
employment because of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, age, disability, or any other
basis prohibited by state law relating to discrimination in employment, except where there is a
bona fide occupational qualification reasonably necessary to the normal operation of the Facility.
Manager agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for
employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
(b) Manager, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or
on behalf of Manager, will state that Manager is an equal opportun/ty employer.
(c) Manager will include the provisions of the foregoing subsections (a) and
(b) in every contract or purchase order of over ten thousand dollars and no cents ($10,000.00) so
that the provisions will be binding upon each contractor or vendor.
[SIGNATURES COMMENCE ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this instrument to be executed on the
day and year first written.
OWNER:
Title:
MANAGER:
Meadov~brook Golf Group, [nc, a Delaware
corporation
Name: '~'
Title: C.~'-t(: Cc-~.-.,nt.,~d ¢).¢¢~tt~,r
EXHIBIT A
Fees
Weekday Weekend *
18-hole Green Fee $39.00 (1) $45.00 (I)
9-hole Green Fee $18.00 (I) $25.00 (1)
Power Cart Fee $13.50 $13.50
Practice Range Balls $5.00 $5.00
These are maximum rates to be charged. Manager may provide promotional rates at
prices below these noted rates; i.e., Honor's Club Loyalty Plan, Twilight, Early Bird,
etc .... Prices are inclusive of all tax.
(1) Includes Power Cart Fee
TAMP_384043.4 ] 4
EXHIBIT B
Hours of Operation
Clubhouse, Golf Course and Driving Range:
7:00 A.M. - 7:00 P.M. April 1st - October 31st
8:00 A.M - 5:00 P.M. November 1st - March 31st
Manager may elect to extend clubhouse opening and closing times to maximize golfer
participation.
Manager may elect to reduce operating hours, or close entire facility, due to inclement weather.
TAMP_384043,4 1 5
SELLER:
PURCHASER:
CLOSING DATE:
LEGAL DESCRIPTION:
CLOSING SETTLEMENT STATEMENT
The Fairways Group, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
The City of Roanoke
November 10, 2005
See attached legal description Exhibit "A"
PURCHASE PRICE
LESS: Option Fee received by The Fairways Group, L~P.
TOTAL PURCHASE PRICE DUE FROM PURCHASER:
SELLERS COSTS AND EXPENSES:
1. Comn'Ussion to Hall and Associates, Inc.
(to be disbursed by The Fairways Group, L.P.)
2. Payoff to Fleet National Bank
3. Foley & Lardncr LLP Legal Fees and Costs
4. Stay Bonus to Bobby Kidder
(to be disbursed by The Fairways Group, L.P.)
5. Stay Bonus to Kent Crouch
(to be disbursed by The Fairways Group, L.P.)
TOTAL SELLER'S COSTS AND EXI~ENSES:
PURCHASERS COSTS AND EXPENSES:
1. Grantor's Tax
2. Recording Costs (a) Deed
(b) Plat
(c) Release of Deed &Trust and Assignment of Leases and Rents
TOTAL PURCHASER'S COSTS:
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE FROM PURCHASER
(a) Purchase Proceeds
(b) Plus: Purchaser's Costs
TOTAL:
$4,100,000.00
(125,000.00)
$3,975,000.00
$115,000.00
3,844,730.00
11,270.00
2,500.00
1,500.00
$3,975,000.00
$4,100.00
17.00
150.00
26.00
$4,293.00
$3,975,000.00
4,293.00
$3,979,293.00
(a)
~o)
TOTAL:
Purchase Proceeds
Less: Seller's Costs
$3,975,00&00
(3,975,000.00)
$0.00
1. All prorations will be made as of 12:00 a.m. on November 10, 2005, based on a 365 day year or a 30
day month, as applicable.
2. Seller and Purchaser agree that in the event that, at any time, it is discovered that this Closing Settlement
Statement or any of the documents executed and delivered in connection with the transaction underly/ng this
Closing Settlement Statement contains an error which was caused by a clerical mistake, miscalculation,
computer error, printing error, or similar error, Seller and Purchaser will re-execute any document that is
necessary to correct such error and Seller and Purchaser agree to indemnify each other fi.om and against any
responsibility for any damage which may result fi.om any such error.
3. Seller and Purchaser have this date checked, reviewed and approved the figures appearing on this
settlement statement, and each hereby acknowledges receipt of a copy of the same. Seller and Purchaser
acknowledge payment in full of the proceeds due them as shown on the settlement statement and author/ge
that all disbursements be made in accordance herewith.
Disbursement Recap
Disbursements by City
Clerk of Circuit Court
Fleet National Bank
Foley & Lardner LLP
The Fairways Group, L.P.
$4,293.00
3,844,730.00
11,270.00
$119,000.00
Total $3,979,293.00
Disbursements by The Fairways Group, L.P. to
Hall & Associates, Inc.
Bobby Kidder
Kent Crouch
$115,000.00
$2,500.00
$1,500.00
Cash Receipts
From Purchaser
$3,979,293.00
Total $3,979,293.00
Less Cash to Seller 0.00
Less Seller's Costs 3,975,000.00
Less Purchaser's Costs 4,293.00
Balance Due to Purchaser
$0.00
Real Estate Tax Refund of approximately $5,572.88 will be refunded later
(11/10/05 - 12/30/05 - 50/162.5 days X $20,341 = $5,572.88)
Dated this In.}~ day November, 2005.
The Fairways Group, L.P., a Delaware limited
parmership
By:.
Print Name:
Print Title:
Dated:
The City of Roanoke
Print Name: '~_,tv-/[]e~te L..
Print Title: -~/~
Dated: It
EXHIBIT A
BEEXlG all of that property containing 140.24 acres, more or less, designated as
Tax Map Nos. 6470801 through and including 6470806, 6431501, 6431502,
6431613, 6431614, and 6472302 and shown on the plat entitled "Boundary
Survey 140.42 Acres of U.S. Golf Properties LP for the City of Roanoke,
Virginia" dated November 3, 2005, prepared by LMW P.C. on record in the
Clerk's Office for the Circuit Court of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, in Map
Book 1, Pages 2924, 2925, 2926, 2927, 2928, 2929, 2930, 2931, 2932, and 2933,
incorporated by reference and made a part hereof.
ASSIGNMENT OF AGREEMENT OF LEASE
This Assignment of Agreement of Lease (this "Assignment") is entered into this to& day of
November, 2005 by and among TIlE FAIRWAYS GROUP, L.P., a Delaware limited partnership
("Assignor"), and THE CITY OF ROANOKE ("Assignee").
WITNESSETH
~HIqREAS, Assignor and Assignee, are parties to that certain Option Agreement, dated May 3,
2005 (the "Purchase Agreement"), relating to the purchase and sale of the Countryside Golf Course
located in Roanoke, Virginia (the "Property") by Assignee.
VVHEREAS, in connection with the transaction, Assignee agreed to assume all leases of the
Assignor relating to the Property.
VgH~:REAS, Assignor and the Roanoke Regional Airport Cormmssion (the "Commission") are
parties to an Agreement of Lease dated October 4, 1965, as amended by that certain Lease Amendment
Agreement dated October 3, 1983, and as further amended by that certain Second Lease Amendment
dated July 22, ! 993 (collectively, the Agreement of Lease and all amendments thereto shall hereinafter be
referred to as the "Airport Lease").
VgI~EREAS, Assignor desires to assign to Assignee all of its right, title, and interest in and to the
contracts and leases to the Property which are Permitted Encumbrances or which Purchaser elected to
assume v'/a written notice, including the Airport Lease (collectively, the "Leases"), and Assignee desires
to accept said assignment.
NOW, TI-rE~REFORE, in consideration of the sum of Ten and No/100 Dollars ($10.00) and
other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the
parties hereto agree as follows:
reference.
Recitals. The foregoing recitals are tree and correct and are incorporated herein by
2. Assignment. Assignor hereby assigns to Assignee all of its right, title, and interest in and
to the Leases and the Airport Lease.
3. Assumption. Assignee accepts the assignment of the Leases made pursuant to Paragraph
2 above and agrees to assume and be bound by all obligations and covenants &Assignor under the Leases
and the Airport Lease, including the obligation to pay rent under Article II of the Airport Lease.
4. Indemnification. The parties acknowledge and agree that after the sale of the Property to
Assignee, Assignor shall continue to operate and manage the Property in accordance with the terms and
conditions of the Operating Agreement between the Meadowbrook Golf Group, Inc. (an entity affiliated
with Assignor, hereinafter called "Meadowbrook') and Assignee, dated of even date herewith (the
"Operatiag Agreement"). Assignor covenants and agrees that it will indemnify and save harmless the
Commission from any and all liabilities, damage, expense, cause &action, suit, claim or judgment arising
from injury to persons or personal property on the property relating to the Airport Lease (the "Demised
Premises") which arise solely out of any act, failure or neglect on the part of Meadowbrook, its agents or
employees, acting as operator and manager of the Property under the Operating Agreement. The parties
acknowledge and agree that in no way shall Assignor be liable for any act, failure or neglect of Assignee,
its agents, employees, guests or invitees. The part/es acknowledge and agree that Meadowbrook shall
TAMP_398121.2
carry the insurance required under Section 7 of the Operating Agreement and that Meadowbrook shall list
the Commission as an additional insured under such policies. The parties acknowledge and agree that all
obligations under this section shall terminate upon the termination of the Operating Agreement between
Meadowbrook and Assignee.
5. Counterparts. This Assignment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of
which shall be deemed an original, but all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.
6. Governing Law. This Assignment shall be construed and interpreted according to the
internal laws of the State of Virginia.
2
TAMP_398121.2
IN WITNESS WItEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Assignment of Agreement of
Lease effective as of the day and year first above written.
The Fairways Group, L.P., a Delaware limited
parmership
Pr/nt Name: Calvin C. Sellers, I11
Title: Chief Financial Officer
t
3
TAMP_398121.2
NOU-11~-2~5 10:3'5 ROI::INO~E I~:'EG AtRPO~T COlql~l P.02/03
THE FAIRWAYS GROUP, L.P.
8390 CI-IAMPIONSGATE BOUI~VARD, SUITE 200
CHAMPIONSGATE, FL 33896
Date: November 9, 2005
Roanoke Regional Airport Commission
Jacquelinc Shuck, Executive Director
5202 Aviation Drive
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
Re: Request for Consent to Lease Assignment
Dea~ Iv~. Shuck:
This letter is to advise you that The FarrWays Group, L.P. ("FmrWays'') is currently in
negotiations with The City of Roanoke (the "Ci~'') for the purchase and sale of all of the assets
(excluding all personal property) of the Countryside Golf Course, including the Lease entered into
between the Roanoke Regional Airport Commission (the "Commission") and Fairways, dated October 4,
1965, as amended by that ccrtsin Lease Amendment Agreement dated October 3, 1983, and as further
amended by that certain Second Lease Amendment dated July 22, 1993 (collectively, the "Leas."). The
purpose of this leuer is to request consent by the ComXmssion to the assignment by Fairways of its rights
and obligations under the Lease to the City. Execution of this letter by Fairways signifies agreement by
Fairways to the terms and conditions contained in the "Consent to Assignmenl" below.
Since the lransaction is scheduled to close on or about November 10, 2005, your immediate
attention would be greatly appreciated. Please indicate your consent to the assignment by s/gni=g in the
space indica~cfl below, and lflea~e ret,tm a si~ned cony of this letter to Foley & Lardner LLP~ Atm-
Me£an Ellis, not later than November 10~ 200~ Please send a sig~ed copy by both fax ((813) 221-
4210) and by regular mail (Foley & L~rdner LLP, Aim: Megan Ellis, 100 North Tampa Sheet, Suite
2700, Tampa, Florida 33602).
If you have any questions or if you would like additional infosmation, please do not hesitate
contact me.
Very truly yours,
The Fairways C~roup, L.P.
By: ~ '--~-
Calvin C. Sellers 11I, Chief Financial Officer
CONSEI~ TO ASSIGNMENT
The Roanoke Regional A~rport Commission hereby consents to the assignment of the Lease fi.om
Fairways to the City, subject to the following: An entity affiliated with Fairways shall continue to operate
and manage thc golf course in accordance with the terms and conditions of thc Operating Agxccrrsmt
between the Meadowbrook G01f G-ronp,/ne. (the affiliated entily, hereinafter called "Meadowbrook') and
the City, dated of even date herewith (the "Overatine A~ecment"). Fairways eow.'nants and agrees tint it
TAMP.~306173.4
10:3~ ROANOKE REG AIRPORT COMM P.O3x03
NOU-10-2005
w/Il indemnify and save harmless the Commission from ay and all liabilities, damage, expense, cause of
action, suit, claim or judgracnt arising from injury to p~rsons or personal property on the property relating
to the Airport Lease (the "Demised Premises'9 whioh arise solely out o£any act, leailttre or neglect on the
part of Meadowbrook, its agents or employees, acting as opetatar and manager of the golf, course under
the Operating Agreement. The parti~ acknowledge ~nd agree that in no way shall Fairways be liable for
any sot, failure or neglect of the City, its agents, employee~, guests or invite~s. Meadowbrook shall oarry
the insurance requi~d cruder Section 7 of the Operating Agreement and Meadowbrook shall list the
Corrmgssion as an additional insured under such policies. All obligations under this Consont to
Assignment shall terminate upon the termination of'the Operating Agreement belw¢~n Mesdowbrook and
thc City.
ROANOKE REGIONAL AIRPORT COMIV~SSION
Approved a.s to Form
General Counsel
Commission
TAMP_39617&4
TOTAL P.03
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Yrrginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk @ ci.roanoke.va.us
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
October 21, 2005
File #51
Eugene M. Elliott, Jr., Attorney
Suite 910, Wachovia Building
213 South Jefferson Street
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1787
Dear Mr. Elliott:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 37220-101705 amending the conditions
presently binding .upon a tract of land located at 3361 Melrose Avenue, N. W.,
Official Tax No. 2660519, zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District, with proffers as
set forth in the Second Amended Petition to Amend Proffers filed in the City
Clerk's Office on July 17, 2005; and repealing Ordinance No. 37157-081505.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attach merit
Eugene M. Elliott, Jr., Attorney
August 22, 2005
Page 2
pc:
Roanoke Country Club, P. O. Box 6069, Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Mr. Alton B. Prillaman, 2803 Stephenson Avenue, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24014
Mr. and Mrs. John R. Angle, 1018 Country Club Drive, N. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24017
Messrs. Walter J. and Randell Wilkerson, 1026 Country Club Drive, N. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24017 . .
Mr. and Mrs. Clarence L. Hale, 1036 Country Club Drive, N. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24017
Ms. Cassandra M. Williams, 1024 Country Club Drive, N. W., Roanoke,
Virginia 24017
Mr. Curtis M. Dillon and Mr. William G. Crouch, Jr., 285 Mountain Valley
Road, Hardy, Virginia 24121
Mr. and Mrs. Michael L. Bell, P. O. Box 97, Salem, Virginia 24153
Ms. June S. Hoal, 3621 Oaklawn Avenue, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24012
HASl Partnership, P. O. Box 6023, Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Richard A. Rife, Chair, City Planning Commission, 1326 Grandin Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Nancy C. Snodgrass, Zoning Administrator
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
Karl S. Cooler, Building Commissioner
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 37220-101705.
AN ORDINANCE to amend {}{}36.1-3 and 36.1-4, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as
amended, and Sheet No. 266, Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, 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.
WHEREAS, Roanoke Investments Associated, Inc., has made application to the Council of
the City of Roanoke to amend certain conditions presently binding upon a tract of land located at
3361 Melrose Avenue, N.W., being designated as Official Tax No. 2660519, which property was
previously rezoned LM, Light Manufacturing District, with proffers, by the adoption of Ordinance
No. 29906-11690, adopted January 16, 1990;
WHEREAS, Roanoke Investments Associated, Inc., seeks to have the subject property zoned
LM, Light Manufacturing District, with proffers as set forth in the Second Amended Petition to
Amend Proffers filed in the City Clerk's Office on July 27, 2005;
WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission, which after giving proper notice to all
concemed as required by {}36.1 ~693, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as mended, and after
conducting a public hearing on the matter, has made its recommendation to Council;
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by City Council on such application at/ts meeting on
August 15, 2005, after due and timely notice thereof as required by {}36.1-693, Code of the City of
Roanoke (1979), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were given an
opportunity to be heard, both for and against the proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, this Council, after considering the aforesaid application, the recommendation
made to the Council by the Planning Commission, the City's Comprehensive Plan, and the matters
presented at the public hear/ng, is of the opinion that the conditions now binding upon a tract of land
located at 3361 Melrose Avenue, N.W., being designated as Official Tax No. 2660519, should be
amended as requested, and that such property be zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District, with
proffers as set forth in the Second Amended Petition to Amend Proffers filed in the City Clerk's
Office on July 27, 2005.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. Sections 36.1-3 and 36.1-4, Code of the City of Roanoke (1979), as amended, and
Sheet No. 266 of the Sectional 1976 Zone Map, City of Roanoke, be amended to reflect the changes
in proffered conditions as shown in the Second Amended Petition to Amend Proffers filed in the City
Clerk's Office on July 27, 2005, and as set forth in the report of the Planning Commission dated
August 15, 2005, so that the subject property is zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District, wi-th such
proffers.
2.
Ordinance No. 37157-081505, adopted August 15, 2005, is hereby REPEALED.
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this
ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
'~~ City Clerk.
WILLIAM M. HACKWORTH
CITY ATFORNEY
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF CITY ATTORNEY
464 MUNICIPAL BUILDING
215 CHURCH AVENUE, SW
ROANOKE, VIRGINIA 24011-1595
TELEPHONE: 540-853 2431
FAX: 540,853-1221
EMAIL: cityatty (a~roanokeva gov
October 17, 2005
TIMOTHY R. SPENCER
STEVEN J. TALEVI
GARY E. TEGENKAMP
DAVID L. COLLINS
HEATHER P. FERGUSON
ASSISTANT CITY AWFORNEYS
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
and Members of City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of Council:
On June 1, 2005, Roanoke Investments Associated, Inc., represented by Eugene M. Elliott, Jr.,
Esquire, filed a petition to change the conditional proffers attaching to Official Tax No. 2660519. At
the time of the filing, the property was zoned LM, Light Manufacturing District, subject to certain
proffered conditions. On July 21, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended by a 7-0 vote that the
revised proffers proposed by the applicant be approved. A Second Amended Petition, setting forth the
revised proffers made by the applicant, was filed on July 27, 2005.
At a public hearing on August 15, 2005, Council adopted Ordinance No. 37157-081505 by a
vote of 6-0, 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 City Council. Unfortunately, however, the ordinance
prepared by my Office did not reference the correct date of the filing of the Second Amended Petition.
Accordingly, I have prepared an ordinance which, if adopted by City Council, repeals Ordinance No.
37157-081505, and references the correct date of the filing of the Second Amended Petition, and
adopts the proffers filed that date, as requested.
Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely yours,
William M. Hackworth
City Attorney
WMH/SJT:s
Attachment
CC:
Eugene M. Elliott, Jr., Esquire
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
R. Brian Townsend, Director, Planning
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
October 21, 2005
Sheila N. Hartrnan
Assistant City Clerk
File #79
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 37221-101705 providing for
implementation of the 2004-2005 changes to the Personal Property Tax Relief Act
of 1998.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
pc:
The Honorable Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue
The Honorable Evelyn W. Powers, Treasurer
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
IN THECOUNCILOFTHE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 37221-101705.
AN ORDINANCE to provide for the implementation of the 2004-2005 changes to the
Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998; and dispensing with the second reading by title of this
ordinance.
WHEREAS, the Personal Property Tax Relief Act of 1998, §§ 58.1-3523, et seq., Code of
Virginia CPPTRA'), has been substantially modified by the enactment of Chapter 1 of the Acts of
Assembly, 2004 Special Session I (Senate Bill 5005), and the provisions of Item 503 of Chapter 95
of the 2005 Acts of Assembly (the 2005 revisions to the 2004-06 Appropriations Act, hereinafter
cited as the "2005 Appropriations Act");
WHEREAS, these legislative enactments require the City to take affirmative steps to
implement these changes, and to provide for the computation and allocation of relief provided
pursuant to the PPTRA as revised; and
WHEREAS, these legislative enactments provide for the appropriation to the City,
cormnencing in 2006, o fa fixed sum to be used exclusively for the provision of tax relief to owners
o f qualifying personal use vehicles that are subject to the personal property tax on such vehicles, and
provide the opportunity for the City to fashion a program of tax relief that serves the best interests of
its citizenry.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. Purpose; Definitions; Relation to other Ordinances. (a) The purpose of this
Ordinance is to provide for the implementation of the changes to PPTRA effected by legislation
adopted during the 2004 Special Session I and the 2005 Regular Session of the General Assembly of
Virginia.
(b) Terms used in this Ordinance that have def'med meanings set forth in PPTRA shall
have the same meanings as set forth in Va. Code § 58.1-3523, Code of Virginia, as amended.
(c) To the extent that the provisions of this Ordinance conflict with any prior Ordinance
or provision of the City Code, this Ordinance shall control.
2. Method of Computing and Reflecting Tax Relief. (a) For tax years commencing in
2006, the City adopts the provisions of Item 503.E of the 2005 Appropriations Act, providing for the
computation of tax relief as a specific dollar amount to be offset against the total taxes that would
otherwise be due but for PPTRA and the reporting of such specific dollar relief on the tax bill.
(b) The Council shall, as part of the annual budget adopted pursuant to Chapter 25 of
Title 15.2 of the Code of Virginia and §33 of the City Charter, set the percentage of tax relief at such
a level that it is anticipated fully to exhaust PPTRA relief funds provided to the City by the
Commonwealth.
(c) Personal property tax bills shall set forth on their face the specific dollar amount of
relief credited with respect to each qualifying vehicle, together with an explanation of the general
manner in which relief is allocated.
3. Allocation of Relief among Taxpayers. (a) Allocation of PPTRA relief shall be
provided in accordance with the general provisions of this section, as implemented by the specific
provisions of the City's annual budget relating to PPTRA relief.
Co) Relief shall be allocated in such as manner as to eliminate personal property taxation
of each qualifying vehicle with an assessed value of $1,000 or less.
(c) Relief with respect to qualifying vehicles with assessed values of more than $1,000
shall be provided at a percentage, annually fixed in the City budget and applied to the first $20,000 in
value of each such qualifying vehicle, that is estimated fully to use all available state PPTRA relief.
The percentage shall be established annually as a part of the adopted budget for the City.
4. Transitional Provisions. (a) Pursuant to authority conferred in Item 503.D of the
2005 Appropriations Act, the City Treasurer is authorized to issue a supplemental personal property
tax bill, in the amount of 100 percent of tax due without regard to any former entitlement to state
PPTRA relief, plus applicable penalties and interest, to any taxpayer whose taxes with respect to a
qualifying vehicle for tax year 2005 or any prior tax year remain unpaid on September 1, 2006, or
such date as state funds for reimbursement of the state share of such bill have become unavailable,
whichever earlier occurs.
(b) Penalty and interest with respect to bills issued pursuant to subsection (a) of this
section shall be computed on the entire amount of tax owed. Interest shall be computed at the rate
provided in § 32-106 of the City Code from the original due date of the tax
5. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this
ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
JESSE A. HALL
Director of Finance
emaik jesse hall(~ci roanoke.va us
October 17, 2005
CITY OF ROANOKE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 461
P.O. Box 1220
Roanoke, Virginia 24006-1220
Telephone: (540) 853-2821
Fax: (540) 853-6142
ANN H. SHAWVER
Deputy Director
email: ann shawvcr~ci.roanoke.va.us
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member
Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member
Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council:
Subject: Personal Property Tax Relief
Background:
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 of value for qualifying
vehicles. This relief was provided for vehicles owned by individuals and utilized for personal use.
Additionally, vehicles with an assessed value of $1,000 or less receive 100% relief. Relief is provided by the
Commonwealth 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 provides 70% relief on qualifying vehicles. The amount of relief provided by the
Commonwealth has been at this level for several years.
In 2004 and 2005, additional legislation was passed to amend the original Act. This legislation capped
PPTRA at $950 million for all Virginia localities for Tax Years 2006 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. Funding for delinquencies of the current and past years will continue until September
2006 or until the funding for such is exhausted.
The legislation also altered the timing of payments from the Commonwealth to localities. The impact of this
is dependent on the due date observed by the locality. For spring billers like Roanoke, the impact is the
delay of approximately two months in receipt of the majority of the funding provided by the Commonwealth.
Considerations:
Localities have certain options on how they administer amended PPTRA. These 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 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. 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.
Two relief methods are available regarding distribution of tax relief; the reduced rate method and the specific
relief method. The reduced rate method would entail major changes to the administration of the tax including
Honorable Mayor and Members of Council
October 17, 2005
Page 2
the use of multiple tax rates, one of which would require an annual modification by City 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 used now. 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. The specific relief method is fairly efficient
and effective to implement since it uses a tax method most consistent with the one currently in place.
Localities also have an option in 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 and less, but changes can be
made in how relief is provided for values up to $20,000. 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. This entails that vehicles valued at $1,000 and less continue to remain fully exempt and that relief
for vehicles with assessed values ranging from $1,001 to $20,000 continue to be taxed at by applying a
single common percentage to determine the amount to be paid by the tax payer.
The final option for localities concerns the ability to balance-bill delinquent taxpayers in full for personal
property taxes not remitted by the September 2006 deadline or the exhaustion of State funding for the
current program. This option is available to ensure localities the opportunity to receive funds from citizens
that may have otherwise been paid by the Commonwealth. To maximize collections of the tax, the Study
Team recommends that the City balance-bill any citizens with unpaid taxes once funding from the
Commonwealth is exhausted.
In summary, the recommendations provided by the Study Team and outlined above maintain the provisions
of the PPTRA most closely with those originally implemented by the Commonwealth, are the most equitable
for our citizens, and are the most efficient and cost-effective for the City to implement. The
recommendations are consistent with those planned by the majority of other localities in Virginia.
Recommended Action:
Adopt the accompanying ordinance to provide for the implementation of the 2004-2005 changes to the
Personal Property Tax Relief Act as recommended, including adopting the specific dollar amount relief
method, allocating 100% relief to vehicles with an assessed value of $1,000 and less, and balance billing of
delinquencies upon completion of the current PPTRA program.
Respectfully subm itted,
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
CZ
Honorable Sherman A. Holland, Commissioner of the Revenue
Honorable Evelyn W. Powers, Treasurer
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management and Budget
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
October 21, 2005
File #60-467
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mr. Hall:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 37222-101705 appropriating funds for the
2005 Supplementary Technology Grant, 2005-2006 Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Program and Westside Renovation Project, and amending
and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 General School, and School
Capital Fund Appropriations.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Jesse A. Hall
October 21, 2005
Page 2
pc:
Kathy G. Stockburger, Chair, Roanoke City School Board, 2506 Cornwallis
Avenue, S. E., Roanoke, Virginia 240~.4
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Marvin T. Thompson, Superintendent, Roanoke City Public Schools
Cindy H. Lee, Clerk, Roanoke City School Board, P. O. Box :~3145,
Roanoke, Virginia 24031
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 37222-101705.
AN ORDINANCE to appropriate funding for the 2005 Supplementary Technology
Grant, 2005-06 Capital Maintenance and Equipment Replacement Program, and Westside
Renovation Project, amending and reordaining certain sections of the 2005-2006 General,
School, and School Capital Fund Appropriations and dispensing with the second reading by title
of this ordinance.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that the following sections of
the 2005-2006 General, School, and School Capital Fund Appropriations be, and the same are
hereby, amended and reordained to read and provide as follows:
General Fund
Appropriations
Transfer to School Fund - CMERP
Fund Balance
Reserve for CMERP - Schools
School Fund
Appropriations
Assessment
Assistive Technology
New Textbook Adoptions
Instructional Technology
Vehicle Replacement
Facility Maintenance Equipment
Replacement of Roofs
Revenues
Federal Revenue
Transfer from General Fund
Fund Balance
Reserve for CMERP - Schools
School Capital Fund
Appropriations
1999 Bond Fund
General Fund
Schools
From General Revenue
001-250-9310-9532
$ 892,855
001-3324 892,855
030-062-6889-6100-0583
030-062-6889-6100-0614
030-065-7600-6100-0613
030-065-7600-6302-0826
030-065-7600-6676-0808
030-065-7600-6681-0821
030-065-7600-6896-0809
030-062-6889-1102
030-060-6000-1037
030-3324
031-065-6068-6896-9001
031-065-6068-6896-9003
031-060-9709-6896-9182
031-065-6999-6896-9003
15,041
74,084
300,000
150,000
200,000
200,000
450,000
89,125
892,855
407,145
356,271
56,365
(356,271)
(56,365)
Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this
ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
ROANOKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD
P. O. Box 13145
Roanoke, Virginia 24031
(540} 853-2381
October 17, 2005
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
and Members of Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, VA 24011
Dear Members of Council:
As the result of official School Board action at its meeting on
October 11, the Board respectfully requests City Council to appropriate
the following funds:
· $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. The funds can be used to purchase new scientific
and graphing calculators, repair non-functioning calculators, or
to purchase calculator batteries. This new program is one
hundred percent reimbursed by federal funds.
· $412,636.00 for the Westside renovation project. The additional
monies from 1999 Capital Bond Funds and Capital Reserve Funds
will provide funding for change orders for the project.
· $1,300,000.00 from the 2005-06 Capital Maintenance and
Equipment Replacement Fund to fund textbooks, instructional
technology requests, the replacement of school bus and
maintenance vehicles, the replacement of district-wide facility
maintenance equipment, and for roof repairs.
Members of Council
Page 2
October 17, 2005
The School Board thanks you for your approval of the
appropriation requests.
Sincerely,
Cindy H. Uee, Clerk
re
CC:
Mrs. Kathy G. Stockburger
Mr. Marvin T. Thompson
Mr, Bernard J. Godek
Mr. Kenneth F. Mundy
Mrs. Darlene Burcham
Mr. William M. Hackworth
Mr. Jesse A. Hall
Mr. Paul Workman (with
accounting details)
JESSE A. HALL
Director of Finance
email: j es se_hall~ci.roanoke.va.us
October ]7, 2005
CITY OF ROANOKE
DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 461
P.O. Box 1220
Roanoke, Virginia 24006-1220
Telephone: (540) 853-2821
Fax: (540) 853-6142
ANN H. SHAWVER
Deputy Director
email: ann shawver(~ci.roanoke.va us
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member
Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member
Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council:
Subject: School Board Appropriation Request
As a result of official School Board action at its meeting on October 11, the Board has
requested City Council to appropriate the following funds:
· $89,125 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. The funds can be used to purchase new scientific
and graphing calculators, repair non-functioning calculators, or to purchase calculator
batteries. This new program is one hundred percent reimbursed by federal funds.
· $412,636 for change orders for the Westside Elementary School renovation. Funding
is available from the Series 1999 Bonds and Capital Reserve Funds.
· $1,300,000 from undesignated fund balance to fund textbooks, instructional
technology requests, the replacement of school bus and maintenance vehicles, the
replacement of district-wide facility maintenance equipment, and for roof repairs.
We recommend that you concur with this report of the School Board and adopt the attached
budget ordinance to appropriate funding as outlined above.
Sincerely,
Jesse A. Hall
Director of Finance
C:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
Sherman M. Stovall, Director of Management and Budget
Marvin T. Thompson, Superintendent of City Schools
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
October 24, 2005
File #5-66
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on
Monday, October 17, 2005, Cou. ncil Member Lea requested information with
regard to composition ~of the Police Department's Disciplinary Review Committee.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, Xrxrginia 24011~ 1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk @ ci.roanoke.va.us
October 24, 2005
File #110-526
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
R. Brian Townsend, Director
Planning, Building and Economic Development
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S. W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Dear Mr. Townsend:
At a regular meeting of the Council of the City of Roanoke which was held on
Monday, October 17, 2005, you were appointed as a member of Virginia's First
Regional Industrial Facility Authority, to fill the unexpired term of Elizabeth Neu,
ending June 30, 2006.
Enclosed you will find a Certificate of Appointment and an Oath or Affirmation of
Office which may be administered by the Clerk of the Circuit Court of the City of
Roanoke, located on the third floor of the Roanoke City Courts Facility,
315 Church Avenue, S. W.
Please return one copy of the Oath of Office to Room 456 in the Noel C. Taylor
Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S. W., prior to serving in the capacity to
which you were appointed.
Pursuant to Sections 2.2-3114 and 2.2-3115, Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, I am required to furnish City of Roanoke representatives to Virginia's
First Regional Industrial Facility Authority with a Financial Disclosure Form. State
Code provisions require that all disclosures must be filed and maintained as a
matter of public record for a period of five years in the Office of the Clerk of the
governing body. Please complete and return the enclosed form to the undersigned
prior to assuming the duties of your office.
R. Brian Townsend
October 24, 2005
Page 2
Pursuant to Section 2.2-3702, Code of Virgin a (:[950), as amended, I am also
enclosing copy of the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
Enclosures
pc:
Shelia Smith, Project Manager, Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility
Authority, 6580 Valley Center Drive, Box 21, Radford, Virginia 24141
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC, Deputy City Clerk
COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA )
) To-wit:
CITY OF ROANOKE )
I, Mary F. Parker, City Clerk, and as such City Clerk of the City of Roanoke and
keeper of the records thereof, do hereby certify that at a regular meeting of Council which
was held on the seventeenth day of October, 2005, R. BRIAN TOWNSEND was appointed
as a member of Virginia's First Regional Industrial Facility Authority, to fill the unexpired
term of Elizabeth Neu, ending June 30, 2006.
Given under my hand and the Seal of the City of Roanoke this twenty-fourth day of
October, 2005.
City Clerk
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 37223-101705..
A RESOLUTION renaming the O. Winston Link Railwalk as the David R. and Susan S.
Goode Railwalk.
WHEREAS, David R. and Susan S. Goode have contributed significant energ/es to many
cultural and governmental organizations in the City, including service by David as president of the
Art Museum, and as a member of the H/story Museum board~ and service by Susan as a member and
chair of the City Planning Commission and as a member of the Architectural Review Board;
WHEREAS, in his capacities at various times as Chairman, President, Chief Executive
Officer, and Director of the Norfolk Southern Corporation, David Goode has been instrumental in
supporting the City, the Transportation Museum, and the O. Winston Link Museum, among other
local organizations; and
WHEREAS, Council wishes to honor David R. Goode upon his retirement fi.om the Norfolk
Southern Corporation after an outstanding career.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. The name of the O. Winston Link Railwalk is hereby changed to the David R. and
Susan S. Goode Railwalk.
2. The City Manager is requested to cause this renaming to be noted with the installation
of appropriate signs to indicate the change in the name of the O. Winston Link Railwalk to the David
R. and Susan F. Goode Railwalk.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
1N THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 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 1996.
WHEREAS, the members of Council learned with sorrow of the passing of Mr. Hubbell
on Monday, September 5, 2005;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hubbell was bom in Bridgeport, Connecticut, and graduated from
Dartmouth College in 1935;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hubbell moved to Roanoke in 1956 to work with General Electric,
where he worked as a financial manager before retiring in 1968;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hubbell served for 22 years as a trustee with the City's municipal
employees' pension fund, 21 of those as chairman, during which time he watched the fund grow
from $29 million to $260 million in a little over a decade;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hubbell spent more than 17 years with United Way of Roanoke Valley,
serving as a Board member, budget chairman, and president of the Board;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hubbell was active at St. John's Episcopal Church as a member, vestry
person, and treasurer; and also served in the Episcopal Diocese of Southwestern Virginia as
treasurer for 20 years;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hubbell was active in Big Brothers and Big Sisters of Roanoke Valley;
WHEREAS, was a Board member and treasurer of Habitat for Humanity in the Roanoke
Valley for 16 years, and was also active with endeavors for Greenvale Nursery and Help;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hubbell was an active member of Roanoke Country Club, and an avi~l
golfer and tennis player;
WHEREAS, Mr. Hubbell was voted Roanoke's Citizen of the Year for 1996;
WHEREAS, co-workers and relatives describe Mr. Hubbell as a generous, charismatic
and endlessly energetic person who had spent decades working to make Roanoke a better place.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. City Council adopts this resolution as a means of recording its deepest regret and
sorrow at the passing ofF. Wiley Hubbell and extends to his family its sincerest condolences.
2. The City Clerk is directed to transmit an attested copy of this resolution to Mr.
Hubbell's daughter, Cynthia Hubbell, and sons, Stewart Hubbell and Christopher Hubbell, all of
Roanoke.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
MARY F. PARKER, CMC
City Clerk
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 456
Roanoke, V'rrginia 24011-1536
Telephone: (540) 853-2541
Fax: (540) 853-1145
E-mail: clerk@ci.roanoke.va.us
October 21, 2005
STEPHANIE M. MOON, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SHEILA N. HARTMAN
Assistant City Clerk
FiFe #165
Richard A. Rife, Chair
and Members of the City Planning Commission
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Chairman Rife, Ms. Prince and Gentlemen:
I am enclosing copy of Ordinance No. 37224-101705, 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.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
SMM:ew
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Enclosure
pc:
Robert A. Clement, Jr., Neighborhood Services Coordinator, Neighborhood
Partnership
Robin Murphy-Kelso, Chair, Edgewood-Morwanda-Su m mit Hills
Neighborhood Organization, 4449 Summit Drive, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia
24017
Ken Bevins, Chair, Ridgewood Park Neighborhood League, 703 Hemlock
Road, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Ruth Lewis, Chair, Wilmont Neighborhood Partnership, 3732 Red Fox
Lane, N. W., Roanoke, Virginia 24017
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda R. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 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 bytitle.
WHEREAS, the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan (the "Plan") was presented to
the Planning Commission;
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on September 15, 2005,
and recommended adoption of the Plan and amending Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's
Comprehensive Plan (the "Comprehensive Plan"), to include such Plan; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the provisions of {}15.2-2204, Code of Virginia
(1950), as amended, a public hearing on the proposed Plan was held before this Council on
Monday, October 17, 2005, at which hearing all citizens so desiring were given an
opportunity to be heard and to present their views on such amendment.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke as follows:
1. That this Council hereby approves the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan
and amends Vision 2001- 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Peters Creek
South Neighborhood Plan as an element thereof.
2. That the City Clerk is directed to forthwith transmit attested copies of this
ordinance to the City Planning Commission.
3. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading
of this ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
PLANNING BUILDING AND DEVELOPMENT
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 166
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
Telephone: (540)853-1730 Fax: (540)853-1230
E-mail: planning @ ci.roanoke.va.us
Architectural Review Board
Board of Zoning Appeals
Planning Commission
October 17, 2005
The Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member
Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member
Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council:
Subject: Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan
Planning Commission Action:
Planning Commission public hearing was held on Thursday, September 15, 2005.
There was no one present in the audience in support of or in opposition to the
request. At the conclusion of staff presentation, the Planning Commission voted
6-0 (Ms. Prince absent) to recommend that City Council adopt the Peters Creek
South Neighborhood Plan as an element of the Vision 2001-2020, the City's
comprehensive plan.
Background:
Work on the Peters Creek South Plan began in September 2004. Staff sponsored
four workshops between September and July at Fairview Elementary School and
worked with the area's three neighborhood organizations to identify issues and
evaluate existing neighborhood conditions.
Once a draft plan was developed, staff sponsored two additional community
workshops to present the plan and give citizens an opportunity to review and
comment on the plan.
Consideration:
Vision 2001-2020 recommends that detailed neighborhood plans be developed
and adopted for each of Roanoke's neighborhoods.
The plan for Peters Creek South has been reviewed by the neighborhood, residents
and by City staff.
During the planning process, residents and staff identified the following major
issues facing the neighborhood:
Incompatible infill housing and encroachment of commercial uses
Lack of curb and gutter
Traffic safety
Code enforcement/property maintenance
Police presence
Street maintenance
The 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 the 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.
The plan also includes a future land use map to guide development and zoning
patterns in the neighborhood.
Recommendation:
The Planning Commission, by a vote of 6-0, recommends adoption of the Peters
Creek South Neighborhood Plan as a component of the Vision 2001-2020
Comprehensive plan.
Respectfully submitted,
Richard A. Rife, Chairman
City Planning Commission
CC:
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
IN THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
This 15th day of September, 2005.
A RESOLUTION recommending the adoption of the Peters Creek South
Neighborhood Plan as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan.
WHEREAS, a series of community workshops were held in the Peters Creeek
South area to gain input into the plan;
WHEREAS, the draft plan has been reviewed by the neighborhood, city staff, and
City of Roanoke Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan has been advertised in
accordance with Section 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, and
pursuant to that notice, a public hearing was held on September 15, 2005, at which all
persons having an interest in the matter were given a chance to be heard.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Roanoke that it
recommends to City Council that the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan, dated
September, 2005, be adopted as an element of the City's Comprehensive Plan, and
that by signature of its Chairman below, the Planning Commission hereby certifies the
attached copy of the area plan to City Council.
ATTEST:
Chairman
Peters Creek South
PLANNEIGHBORHOOD I
Roanoke Virginia
City Council Public Hearing Draft
September 15, 2005
vision ~0o~
2020
Introduction 2
Community Design 10
Residential Development 19
Economic Development 23
Infrastructure 27
Public Services 34
Quality of Life 38
Recommendations 41
Implementation 48
Acknowledgements 50
Roanoke Department of Planning Building & Economic Development
Peters Creek South
Introduction
Peters Creek South is a collection of five neighborhoods set within
the overall fabric of neighborhoods that makes up our city: Edgewood~
Morwanda-Summit Hills, Ridgewood, South Washington Heights,
Wilmont, and Cherry Hill. The Ridgewood Park, Wilmont, and Cherry Hill
neighborhoods developed during the 1950s and 1960s when farmland
gave way to apartment complexes and single-family brick ranch houses.
The City annexed these three neighborhoods from Roanoke County in
1949, using Peters Creek as its western boundary. The neighborhoods
also currently contain some of the extensive grounds associated with the
Veterans Administration Hospital, the Norfolk Southern Railway,
Shenandoah Avenue and several commercial establishments.
Peters Creek South is in the northwest quadrant of the city,
bounded on the north by Melrose Avenue, on the south by Norfolk &
Southern railroad tracks, on the east by the Shenandoah west and Hurt
Park neighborhood, and on the west by the City of Salem. Main thorough-
fares within the Peters Creek South neighborhood are Melrose Avenue,
Peters Creek Road, Salem Turnpike, and Shenandoah Avenue. The
suburban setting and four major arterials make for easy access to down-
town, Valley View Mall, and other neighborhoods and services. The
neighborhoods provide a variety of opportunities for living, from suburban-
style development to more traditional historic areas. As with many city
neighborhoods, continued revitalization and improvement are crucial to a
bright future and a continued high quality of life.
When adopted, this plan will become a component of Vision 2001-
2020, Roanoke's Comprehensiw PI Vision 2001-2020 recommends
Salem
2
Peters Creek South
Neighborhood Planning
that neighborhood organizations, civic groups, and businesses be involved
in the development of neighborhood plans. The Roanoke Department of
Planning Building and Development worked with neighborhood represen-
tatives, residents, property owners, and business owners to prepare this
neighborhood plan. Through work sessions, the community's issues,
opportunities, and areas of greatest need were discussed. This involve-
ment formed the basis for the plan's recommendations and assured that
community interests, as well as the overall concerns of the city, were
addressed. A group of interested community representatives consistently
attended work sessions. Their historical perspectives, thoughtful input,
and direct comments were invaluable to the development of this plan.
Discussion was organized around six key planning elements:
Community Design
Residential Development
Economic Development
Infrastructure
Public Services
Quality of Life
The Community Design element looks at physical design features
and land use patterns. Residential Development addresses existing and
new housing opportunities. Economic Development deals with commer-
cial and industrial development in the neighborhood. The Infrastructure
element evaluates transportation systems and utility systems such as
water, sewer, environmental issues, and storm drainage. The Public
Services element assesses Fire/EMS, police and other city services.
Finally, the Quality of Life element addresses recreational opportunities,
education, and community development. Each plan element contains
information about current conditions and issues.
3
Peters Creek South
Community
Values
Planning staff conducted a detailed study of current neighborhood
conditions, such as land use patterns and infrastructure. Residents were
heavily involved throughout the development of the plan through planning
workshops. Major issues identified through the process include:
Incompatible infill housing and encroachment of commercial
uses
Lack of curb and gutter
Traffic safety
Code enforcement/property maintenance
Police presence
Street maintenance
Brick Ranch homes in the Edgewood-
Morwanda- Summit Hills Neighborhood
Homes on 36th Street in the Wilmont Neighborhood
4
Peters Creek South
Strategic Initiatives
While this plan contains many recommended policies and actions,
there are five Strategic Initiatives on which implementation should be
focused:
Housing Development & Conservation: Promote rehabilitation, mainte-
nance, well-designed infill development, and increased resident owner-
ship. Zoning patterns should protect and maintain established residen-
tial 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's revitalization should collaborate to ensure open communica-
tion 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.
Homes in the Wilmont Neighborhood
Homes in the Ridgewood Neighborhood
5
Peters Creek South
About this Plan and Roanoke Vision 2001-2020
In 1985, Roanoke Vision, the City's comprehensive plan, declared
Roanoke a "City of Neighborhoods." A major recommendation of the plan
was to develop neighborhood plans for each neighborhood. Vision 2001-
2020 continues support for neighborhood-based planning for a livable and
sustainable city. Roanoke's neighborhoods will be more than just places
to live: they will be the nucleus for civic life. Their local village centers
serve as vibrant and accessible places for business, community services,
and activities, including higher density housing clusters. (Roanoke Vision
2001-2020).
The Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan establishes a shared
vision and desired future for the neighborhood. Area residents, govern-
ment officials, and city staff collaborated to develop this plan as a frame-
work for the future. Some of this plan's goals are short-term (within five
years). Others will take longer to accomplish. Many groups and organiza-
tions, including the Edgewood-Morwanda-Summit Hills Neighborhood
Organization, Ridgewood Park Neighborhood League, Wilmont Neighbor-
hood Organization, various departments within city government, and
individual residents and businesses must work together to achieve the
goals and help shape the future of the neighborhood.
Homes in the Wilmont Neighborhood
6
Peters Creek South
Development History of the
Peters Creek South Neighborhoods
The history of the Peters Creek South Neighborhoods began with
the Salem to Lynchburg Turnpike and Melrose Avenue/US Route 460, two
of the earliest roads that traversed the Roanoke Valley. These roads,
followed existing Indian and buffalo trails, which always took the easiest
grades. Both roads run in a east/west direction. Melrose Avenue began
as the Carvins New Road, originally leading to Cloverdale in the mid -
1700s. The Salem to Lynchburg Turnpike, originally called Neely's Road,
carried travelers from Salem to Big Lick, and eventually on to Lynchburg.
The Peters Creek area was originally part of Augusta County.
The earliest land grant in this vicinity was the Roanoke Grant in
1739, which encouraged many German and Scots-Irish to immigrate from
Pennsylvania and Maryland. For example, in 1748, Peter Kinder, whose
name Peters Creek bears, purchased a 150-acre tract at the junction of
the creek and the Roanoke River. In addition, in the same year,
Methusalem Griffith purchased 400-acres on the upper part of Peters
Creek.
Several later settlements also contributed to the early history of the
neighborhoods. A German settlement known as New Antrim, on the
Presbyterian Meeting House Tract, was established in 1769 alongside
Peters Creek near the current intersection of Peters Creek Road Exten-
sion and the Salem Turnpike. Adjacent to this tract, in 1791, Dr. John
Neely acquired the largest tract, 1,083 acres that featured the original
Neely's Road. Daniel Frantz purchased some of this land, built a house,
and transferred 640 acres to George Howbert in 1816.
The last remnant of the New Antrim community was the ca. 1800
Howbert House, a large, two-story log house with full-dovetailed notching
over a stone cellar. Frantz most likely built the original section, while
George and his wife Elizabeth added another log section ca. 1816, over-
looking Peters Creek. Their farmstead featured a stone-lined
springhouse, orchards, cornfields, and associated outbuildings. Over
time, the property changed hands several times and was later damaged
by fire and left vacant. Despite the best efforts of city and state officials,
and the Edgewood-Morwanda-Summit Hills Neighborhood Association,
the Howbert House was demolished in 1999. It was one of the oldest and
rarest recorded buildings in Roanoke.
7
Peters Creek South
During the 1850s and early 1860s, tracts of land transferred to new
residents with names like Trout and Miller, while some tracts stayed with
the descendants of Hubbert and Frantz. It appears that little development
occurred during this time, except for a scattering of farmsteads along
Salem Turnpike and Melrose Avenue.
Home in the South
Washington
Heights
Neighborhood
Although there was little development during the mid-19th Century,
three important cemeteries were established in what is now the South
Washington Heights neighborhood. In 1890, when the Roanoke City
Cemetery began to run out of land, business people purchased 52 acres
on the Salem Turnpike midway between
Salem and Roanoke to create Fairview
Cemetery. Although the current cem-
etery entrance faces Melrose Avenue,
people originally entered from the Salem
Turnpike under two stone pillars and an
iron arch that displayed "Fair View." St.
Andrews Catholic Cemetery, just west of
Fairview, was established the following
year, in 1891. Located directly north of
St. Andrews is the C.C. Williams Memo-
rial Park, established for the African-
American community. Christopher C. Williams, a native of Hampton,
Virginia, moved to Roanoke in 1911 and became a successful Iongtime
executive and community activist. He opened the C.C. Williams Funeral
Home at 126 Gilmer Avenue, N.W. in 1912, and the C.C. Williams Memo-
rial Park was named for him.
During the 1920s, smaller farmsteads and single-family homes
appeared along the Turnpike and Melrose Avenue, and the Washington
Heights Elementary School was built in 1921 to serve the community.
Subdivisions began to occur in the Morwanda-Edgewood-Summit Hills
and the South Washington Heights neighborhoods situated between
Melrose Avenue to the north and Salem Turnpike to the south. Summit
Hills still contains a gathering of farmhouses, bungalows, and what may
have been an old general store that is indicative of a small 1920s commu-
nity. These two neighborhoods were annexed by Roanoke in 1976.
8
Peters Creek South
Fairview Cemetery in the
South Washington Heights
Neighborhood
Saint Andrews Cemetery in
the South Washington
Heights Neighborhood
Williams Memorial
Cemetery in the South
Washington Heights
Neighborhood
9
Peters Creek South
Zoning and
Land Use
Patterns
Community Design
Peters Creek South is an area with a mix of traditional and subur-
ban neighborhoods. Zoning patterns are needed to reflect these diverse
development styles. The predominant land use in the Peters Creek South
area is single-family residential. Forty-four percent of the land area is
dedicated to single-family residential and 62 percent of the area is zoned
for single-family. Several apartment complexes are scattered throughout
the neighborhoods of South Washington Heights and Cherry Hill. They
are generally zoned RM-2, Residential Multifamily District. The predomi-
nant housing architectural style throughout the Peters Creek South neigh-
borhoods is the small suburban brick ranch style, most common in the
1950s - 1980s.
Zoning Land Use
Single Family Residential 62% 44%
Mixed Density Residential 20% 6%
Commercial 6% 10%
Industrial 13% 4%
Institutional (includes cemeteries) ..... 29%
Vacant ..... 7%
Total 100%
Most commemial uses are located along major thoroughfares. Six
commercial areas provide basic retail and services within close distance of
residents. Smaller commemial establishments are dispersed throughout
the neighborhood. Commercial uses accounts for ten pement of the
Peters Creek South property uses
Brick Ranch homes in the Ridgewood
Neighborhood
10
Peters Creek South
South Washington Heights
This neighborhood consists of mainly small ranch homes with
additional craft homes, apartments and bungalow homes. This area has a
mixture of retail, industrial, residential, and commercial. Only a small
number of streets were developed in a grid pattern. Most areas have no
curb or sidewalks, and street trees are sparse in this area. Three cem-
eteries occupy nearly 30% of the land area of the neighborhood.
Cherry Hill
Cherry Hill is a traditional suburban neighborhood that was devel-
oped in the mid 1900s. The neighborhood contains mostly single-family
homes. Older homes are clustered in northeast part of the neighborhood.
Much of the remaining homes in the area were built between 1970 and
1980 as ranch style homes. Two multifamily developments are within the
neighborhood.
Steep rolling terrain provides views of the valley and surrounding
areas. In addition, the Norfolk & Southern railroad tracks run east to west
along the southern edge of Cherry Hill. Commercial establishments are
located along Shenandoah Avenue. This plan identifies a small commer-
cial area along Westwood Avenue and Old Stevens Road as a potential
village center.
Noted development in the Cherry Hill neighborhood is the Roanoke
Electric Steel plant, zoned Heavy Manufacturing (HM), and built in 1949.
Before Steel Drive was built, trucks had to go through a residential area to
enter the plant; even today some workers of the plant use Westside Av-
enue to get to work.
Homes on Michigan Avenue,
South Washington Heights
Brick Ranches in the
Cherry Hill Neighborhood
11
Peters Creek South
Wilmont
Wilmont, a neighborhood with both traditional and suburban char-
acteristics, developed between 1920 and 1960. It contains areas of single-
family, detached homes on small lots, large multifamily apartment com-
plexes, and commercial/industrial areas. Noted land uses in the Wilmont
neighborhood include Fairview Elementary School, Greenvale Nursery
School, Strauss Park, located on Westside Boulevard, and an industrial
area on Shenandoah Avenue. The neighborhood has few street trees.
Topography is rolling. The neighborhood has a modified grid pattern with
large blocks and many dead-end streets.
Edgewood- Morwanda-Summit Hills
The Edgewood-Morwanda-Summit Hills neighborhood has mostly
suburban development patterns, characterized by large blocks, large lot
sizes, and multiple dead end streets.
Most of Edgewood-Morwanda-Summit Hills contains single-family
detached dwellings on medium to large lots. Housing styles vary but are
typically modern brick ranches.
Thero are no multifamily devel-
opments within the neighbor-
hood. A strip of commemial
uses is located along Melrose
Avenue. Most of the
neighborhood's single-family
homes were built in the 1950s
through 1960.
Homes in the Wilmont Neighborhood
Homes in the Edgewood-Morwanda-
Summit Hills Neighborhood
12
Peters Creek South
Commercial and Industrial
Most commercial land uses are located along Melrose Avenue.
Most businesses along this corridor are automobile-oriented. With the
exception of Melrose Avenue sidewalks are nearly non-existent, and
parking is typically located in the front.
Most industrial uses are located along Shenandoah Avenue and Salem
Turnpike. Parts of this industrially-zoned area are either undeveloped or
under developed.
1990 2000 % Change
Population 7,166 7,093 -1.0%
Black 3,035 3,536 +16%
White 4,038 3,216 -20%
Other Races & 93 189 +103%
Multiracial
Ages
0-17 1,974 1,894 -4%
18-34 1,951 1,580 -19%
34-65 2,362 2,532 +7%
65 and older 879 1,087 +24%
Roanoke Salem Plaza on Me/rose
Avenue on the border of South
Washington Heights Neighborhood
Commercial bus/ness on Melrose
Avenue on the border of South
Washington Heights Neighborhood
13
Peters Creek South
Population and Characteristics
Peters Creek South had a population of 7,093 in 2000, about seven
and one-half pement of the City's population. The Peters Creek South
population decreased by one percent between 1990 and 2000. During the
same period, Roanoke's population decreased by one and one-half per-
cent. Despite a small population loss between 1990 and 2000, there was
an increase in the number of housing units (1.5%).
Racial Composition: Peters Creek South saw dramatic shifts in its racial
makeup between 1990 and 2000. The black population increased by 16
percent while the white population decreased by 20 pement. It is difficult,
if not impossible, to determine the underlying cause of these patterns. On
the surface, it appears to simulate a "white flight" pattern common in the
1950s and 60s, or it could be that the black population is simply replacing
the white population and is not necessarily spurring an out-migration of
whites. Demographic information suggests that people from majority
black neighborhoods in the core areas of northwest have a tendency to
move outward, but stay within the same sector of the city.
The "other races and multiracial" category more than doubled
(+103%), but still only represents about five pement of the population. At
least some of this increase could be attributed to addition of the "multira-
cial'' category in the 2000 census.
Acje Distribution: The 35 to 64 year old population is by far the largest
age category. Peters Creek South's 65 and older population grew by
almost four percent, the largest increase among all age categories. De-
spite this dramatic increase, the percentage of persons in the 65+ cat-
egory is comparable to the citywide distribution. Also notable is the rela-
tive lack of people in the 0-17 age category, which is eight percentage
points below citywide. Westside Apartment, South
Washington Heights
Neighborhood
Westwood Village
Apartments in the
South Washington
Heights
Neighborhood
14
Peters Creek South
Population
Peters Creek South
Total
7,093
Roanoke
94,911
Black
White
Other
5O%
45%
5%
27%
69%
4%
Ages
0-17
18-34
35-64
65 and over
27%
22%
36%
15%
19%
27%
38%
16%
Households
2,893
42,003
Owners
Renters
55%
45%
56%
44%
15
Peters Creek South
Peters Creek South
Land Use
Land Uses
Single-family
~ Two-family
Commercial
~ro,uR Faci,lit¥ , ~.
School/Public Facility ~
Park
Religious Institution
Industrial
Unclassified
Vacant
16
Peters Creek South
Peters Creek South
Zoning
Zoning Districts
~ Residential Single-family
~ Residential Multifamily
~ Residential Multifamily
~ General Commercial
~ Light Indutrial
~] Industrial Planned Unit
~ Heavy Manufacturing
17
Peters Creek South
Peters Creek South
Future Land Use
Land Uses
Single-family
Multifamily
V, ill~gf~ (~epte[ ~
Commercial ~
Institutional
Park
Industrial
Industrial Planned District
18
Peters Creek South
Residential Development
The Peters Creek South area is stable in terms of the ratio of own-
ers to renters. Many of the larger rental properties are well maintained
and managed, but others are showing signs of age and neglect. While
there are not many large older homes in the area that can be divided into
apartments, many of the small affordable homes have become rental
properties. An existing supply of affordable rental housing is present with
four apartment complexes in South Washington Heights and two within
the Cherry Hill neighborhood. Multifamily properties tend to be clustered
in one part of each neighborhood separated from single-family residential
areas. Both Cherry Hill and South Washington Heights have several
multifamily complexes clustered in one area. A mixed environment of
homeowners and renters should be encouraged, and so should proper
maintenance of existing properties.
Households have increased 1.5 percent between 1990 and 2000.
The ratio of homeowners to renters remained virtually unchanged be-
tween 1990 an 2000. Homeownership for Peters Creek South is 55
percent, which is slightly lower than the homeownership rate for the city.
Since portions of Peters Creek South have aging housing and aging
population, future development should focus on diversity in housing sup-
ply and market. Residents consider the Peters Creek South area a good
value for housing for the Roanoke Valley.
Home on Morwanda Avenue in the Edgewood
Morwanda- Summit Hills Neighborhood
19
Peters Creek South
Because of its relatively newer housing stock, Peters Creek South
has not experienced many of the conditions found in some older city
neighborhoods. Maintenance and Code violation problems tend to be
related to outdoor storage, junk cars, and poor property maintenance.
Three apartment complexes and two private apartment buildings
are located within the South Washington Heights area. Caru Apartments
is the largest complex and is located off 35th Street. It has 20 residential
buildings, each three stories, containing 244 units. Westwood Village,
which is contiguous to Caru Apartments, has 16 two-stow buildings with
113 units. Panorama Heights is a three-stoW apartment building on Pan-
orama Avenue with a total of 12 units. On Fairview Road is also a three-
stow apartment building with 12 units. Both of these single buildings are
of brick and are within close proximity of each other. Salem View Apart-
ments are five, three-stow buildings located off Westside Boulevard con-
taining 60 units. Westside Apartments are also located on Westside
Boulevard next to Salem View. There are twelve, two-stoW buildings total-
ing 74 units.
Cherry Hill has two apartment complexes within its boundaries. Barberry
Avenue Apartments are three, two-stoW buildings equaling 18 units, posi-
tioned contiguous to each other on Barberry Street. These apartments
were built in 1973 and today show signs of wear. Westcreek Manor, built
in 1971, is the largest apartment complex within the Cherry Hill area. It
has consists of 25 three-stoW buildings, totaling 200 units and is set in line
along Westside Boulevard. West Creek Manor apartments in part have
been newly renovated in the last few years. However, one section of the
apartments complex across the street appears to be vacant and in need of
refurbishing.
West Creek Manor Apartments in
the Cherty Hill Neighborhood
Caru Apartments in the South
Washington Heights Neighborhood
2O
Peters Creek South
Vacant parcel in
the Wilmont
Neighborhood
Newer homes in
the Ridgewood
Neighborhood
Residential Development Opportunities
All the neighborhoods in the Peters Creek South area have some
land for potential development, but Ridgewood and Edgewood-Morwanda-
Summit Hills have large-scale vacant land with potential for development.
Some properties are large enough in terms of land area to support large-
scale subdivisions like the neighborhood experienced in the 1960s and
1970s. However, much of the property is located on steep grades, thus
limiting development potential. The scamity of developable land within the
city and the availability of infrastructure make this land very attractive to
developers. The amount of large vacant parcels in the area provides
excellent opportunities for new market-rate housing. More market-rate,
single-family residential development should be encouraged.
Since many of the vacant pamels in the Peters Creek South area
have development challenges, planned unit developments should be
considered as a development
option. This will increase the op-
tions available for density, develop-
ment standards such as setbacks,
street widths, and housing types.
Developers can include dedicated
open space, a much needed ame-
nity in the area, in return for in-
creased density and enable devel-
opment to avoid sensitive areas
such as steep slopes. In addition,
middle- and upper-income housing,
which is needed to help diversify Iow-to-moderate housing in the Peters
Creek South area, should be the focus. Integrating limited multifamily
housing in single-family development is preferred over a cluster develop-
ment of large apartment complexes within established neighborhoods.
Vision 2001-2020 recommends
higher density residential around
village centers as a neighborhood
model.
New subdivisions should connect to
the existing street network to main-
tain traffic circulation and incorporate
new development into the commu-
nity. The use of a cul-de-sac for
street endings should be avoided.
21
Peters Creek South
Peters Creek South
Developable Opportunities
Developable Land
Cherry Hill
Edgewood-Morwanda-Summit Hills
Ridgewood
South Washington Heights
22
Peters Creek South
Neighborhood
Business
Trends
Economic Development
Though the major employment center of the Roanoke Valley should
continue to be downtown, it is still important to provide quality job opportu-
nities throughout the city. Residents indicated that easy access to shop-
ping is one of the advantages to living in the area. Peters Creek South
has a diverse mix of commemial and industrial uses. Many businesses
are focused on Shenandoah Avenue, Melrose Avenue, and Salem Turn-
pike. Peters Creek South has few small commemial areas within walking
distance. Most residents of Peters Creek South neighborhoods have to
drive in order to reach commercial establishments.
Economic
Development
Opportunities
Most commemial development takes place as strip development
along major arterials. One goal of the comprehensive and neighborhood
plans is to focus commercial development into centers. While it is difficult
to completely reverse strip development patterns, zoning strategies can
work to focus commemial development into identifiable centers. This plan
identifies four such centers:
· Intersection of Melrose Avenue and Peters Creek Road
· Intersection of Peters Creek and Salem Turnpike
· Intersection of Peters Creek and Shenandoah Avenue
· Shenandoah between Peters Creek and Old Stevens Road
These centers could have a range of functions as commercial centers,
from a compact village center to a larger local commercial center. Current
scale and orientation of development in these centers will determine their
future scale and character. Infrastructure improvements should be fo-
cused in these centers and coordinated with development to improve
appearance and pedestrian access.
Small commercial area on Salem Turn-
pike, Edgewood-Morwanda- Summit Hills
Neighborhood
Vacant commercial
space in the
Wilmont
Neighborhood
23
Peters Creek South
Commercial area on Shenandoah Avenue (proposed Village
Center area) in the Wilmont Neighborhood
Zoning patterns should reinforce these centers. General commer-
cial zoning should be limited along corridors. Expanded use of neighbor-
hood commercial zoning should be used to encourage maximum develop-
ment of sites with many small-scale buildings containing diverse commer-
cial uses.
Vision 2001-2020 identifies the southeast corner of Melrose Av-
enue and Peters Creek as a future development opportunity area.
Roanoke Salem Plaza was originally developed in 1957 as an outdoor
plaza, it once contained several national chains as anchors. Today it is
used for warehouse space and outlet retail. Currently, it is zoned IPUD
(Industrial Planned Unit Development). This site should be considered for
redevelopment according to the development model illustrated in Vision
2001-2020 with new buildings developed at the street frontage. In addi-
tion, pedestrian connection should be provided to existing residential
areas.
Village Centers Few of the centers mentioned above, as they exist, resemble
identifiable village centers. These were formed around suburban neigh-
borhoods and built for the use by car. Shenandoah Avenue between
Westwood and Old Stevens Road is the closest setting to a village center
within the Peters Creek South area. This area is located on the southern
edge of the Wilmont neighborhood and the northern edge of the Cherry
Hill neighborhood. It is close to Fairview School and within walking dis-
tance to the neighborhoods; it contains retail establishments, entertain-
ment venues, restaurants, and office space. Future development should
include vehicular and safe pedestrian-bicycle connections. Thoughtful site
and building design should be encouraged for good relationships between
commercial and residential development. Transitional landscaping should
be used to reduce the visual impacts of larger parking lots.
24
Peters Creek South
At the corner of Peters Creek and Shenandoah is a small commer-
cial cluster with a major grocery chain (Food Lion) as its anchor. A small
commercial strip located across its parking lot, has a restaurant, cleaners,
and movie rentals. Vision 2001-2020 encourages a model that develops
the street frontage for retail use and larger stores in the rear.
On Salem Turnpike at its intersection with Peters Creek Road, is a
small commercial area that has a clothing shop, convenience store, and
small car lot. All of the small commercial buildings need refurbishing,
landscaping, and defining parking spaces would greatly improve the small
commercial area.
Industrial
Development
The Peters Creek South area contains significant industrial devel-
opment, located mainly in the Wilmont and Cherry Hill neighborhoods.
Thirteen percent of the land area is zoned industrial. The industrial dis-
trict on Shenandoah and Salem Turnpike has some small and large scale
industrial uses. Commercial uses such as restaurants or convenience
stores are scattered along the edges of the industrial areas. Some indus-
trial buildings appear to be vacant.
Roanoke Electric Steel is a large industrial operation located along
the southeastern edge of the Cherry Hill. Both operations are adjacent to
a residential area on Westside Boulevard. Before Steel Road was devel-
oped, employees and trucks used VVestside Boulevard to get to the plant.
Trucks now use Steel Road and Shenandoah Avenue for access. How-
ever, some employees continue to use Westside Boulevard to come to
work.
Industrial property on Salem Turnpike
in the Wilmont Neighborhood
Industrial site on Salem Turnpike,
Wilmont Neighborhood
25
Peters Creek South
Peters Creek South
Gateways, Commercial Centers
and Bus Routes
Transit Coverage
O Bus Route 1/4 Mile Radius
O Bus Route 1/4 Mile Radius
~ Bus Route 1/4 Mile Radius
Commercial Center
Potential Village Center
26
Peters Creek South
Transportation
Infrastructure
The Peters Creek South area has a strong framework of arterial
streets. Melrose Avenue, Shenandoah Avenue, and Salem Turnpike are
east-west arterials that radiate from the central core of Roanoke. Peters
Creek Road intersects all three and provides north-south access. Hem-
lock Road, Old Stevens Road, 36th Street, and Westside Boulevard are
neighborhood collector streets that provide access to smaller local streets.
Each neighborhood has a network of local streets providing access to
individual properties. The design of local streets ranges from a modified
grid to more suburban designs with sweeping curves and cul-de-sacs.
Peters Creek Road is the heaviest traveled street within the Peters
Creek South area. The Peters Creek Road extension, completed in 1996,
leads south and connects with Brandon Avenue to provide better access
between northwest and southwest. The extension has also increased the
amount of traffic that leads through Peters Creek South. The Annual
Average Daily Traffic (AADT) for Peters Creek Road extension, from US
11 to Aerial Way Drive is 16,000 trips per day (Virginia Department of
Transportation Daily Traffic Volume Estimates, Including Vehicle Classifi-
cation Estimates, Special Locality Report 128, City of Roanoke, 2003).
Shenandoah Avenue AADT trips from west city line to 24th Street is
13,000; Melrose Avenue from Peters Creek Road to 24th Street is 12,000;
and Salem Turnpike from the west city line to 36t~ Street is 7,300 trips.
Peters Creek Road,
Cherry Hill
Neighborhood
27
Peters Creek South
Sa~mTurnpike,
between Wilmont
and CherryHill
Neighborhoods
Melrose Avenue, South
Washington Heights
Neighborhood boundary
Transportation
Plans
In 2003, the Roanoke Valley Area Metropolitan Planning Organiza-
tion (RVAMPO) produced a draft of the Long-Range Transportation Plan
2025. Listed in its long-range plan are street improvements to Salem
Turnpike/Shenandoah Avenue Corridor from 36th Street to 24th Street,
including improvements of traffic lanes with bike lanes, with an estimated
cost for this project of $5.6 million. The Long Range Transportation Plan
serves two primary purposes: 1) it provides a list of projects which could
"graduate" to the more near term should unanticipated additional funding
become available; and 2) it provides a sense of direction for citizens to
ascertain how the regional transportation system would change if addi-
tional funding sources are available in the future. There are currently no
transportation improvement projects in the area that are funded in the
Virginia Department of Transportation (VDOT Six-Year Plan.
Moomaw Heights drainage issues are identified with the city Engi-
neering Division and currently have a storm drain project on hold until
funding for construction is available.
Each neighborhood cited needs to improve safety and traffic condi-
tions on arterial streets (Peters Creek, Shenandoah, and Salem Turn-
pike). However, the city should recognize the potential negative impacts
that could be created by adding more lanes. Four-lane options should not
be considered for Salem Turnpike or Shenandoah Avenue.
28
Peters Creek South
Alleys
Alleys are not common in Peters Creek South. South Washington
Heights has a few alleys, but most are unused and unimproved. The city
should improve and maintain alleys that are needed for access or service.
Unused unimproved alleys should be vacated and transferred to adjoining
property owners.
Sidewalks,
Curbs, Gutters
There are few sidewalks in the Peters Creek South area. Most
residential streets lack sidewalks because they were developed after
WWII, when land developers discontinued the once-customary practice of
installing sidewalks in neighborhoods as they developed. In planning
workshops, residents expressed that new sidewalks are a high priority in
improving the Peters Creek South area. However, the expectation of
having new sidewalks constructed on all neighborhood streets is unrealis-
tic. As with most suburban areas of Roanoke, cost would prohibit con-
struction of new sidewalks throughout the area. Priorities for new side-
walk construction should therefore be limited to arterial and collector
streets, where higher traffic volumes create the need for safe pedestrian
access. Likewise, new curb and gutter construction should be limited to
arterial and collector streets until a continuous system is complete.
Curbs are more common than sidewalks within the area. However,
in Edgewood-MonNanda-Summit Hills and South Washington Heights,
curbs are nearly non-existent. Residents in these neighborhoods indicate
they have been requesting curb and gutter for many years. Front yard
deterioration is evident where curb and gutter are absent. The absence of
sidewalks and curbs may cause a series of problems, including poor
drainage, parking in front yards, poor pedestrian circulation, and lack of
definition between public and private space.
New sidewalks, curb, and gutters are needed throughout parts of
the city as a whole, so it is unlikely that funding will be available to meet all
the needs in Peters Creek South. Whenever new streets are built, side-
walks and curbs should be provided to prevent the need to construct them
later. Based on recent changes to city policy, new subdivisions will be
required to include sidewalks and curbs to provide for pedestrian access
and prevent the City from having to bear the costs in the future.
29
Peters Creek South
Peters Creek South
Flood Zones
3O
Peters Creek South
Storm Drainage Peter Creek flows north to south through the area. Numerous
properties, especially those at Peters Creek Road and Melrose Avenue,
experienced flood damage in 1985 and 1989. In response, the City of
Roanoke undertook major flood control projects along the creek. Two
large detention basins were built upstream in Roanoke County and the
creek has been dredged to remove silt and debris that could cause in-
creased flooding. These projects reduced the number of properties in the
flood plain by nearly 20%. In addition, numerous properties have either
been acquired or have been flood-proofed.
The inability to address all of the storm drainage problems in the area is
part of a larger issue. The city currently has over $57 million in needed
storm drainage projects. Approximately $700,000 per year on average
has been spent in the last 15 years on storm drain improvements. There
is currently no scheduled recurring funding or bond funding for storm
drains. A long-term funding strategy should be developed to address the
city's storm drainage needs. The funding shortfall creates the need to set
priorities. Meanwhile, the Engineering Division ranks each project accord-
ing to criteria such as safety, damage caused, frequency of the problem,
number of people affected, and cost.
Westside Boulevard (next to Peters Creek) Cherry Hill Neighborhood
31
Peters Creek South
Transit Service
Public transportation is accessible, but could be improved. Less
than half of the area is within a quarter mile of transportation route. Public
transit stays mainly on arterial streets. No route serves the Salem Turn-
pike west of 36th Street. As a result, areas bordering the Salem Turnpike
are underserved and must travel more than a half-mile to get to a transit
route. Residents in the Peters Creek South neighborhoods voiced the
need for covered stops for protection from inclement weather. Most of the
bus stops in the neighborhood do not have benches; elderly residents who
ride the bus sometimes have problems standing for long periods waiting
for the bus. Valley Metro should explore the addition of bus stop shelters
in strategic locations.
Gateways
Vision 2001-2020 views gateways as important elements in defin-
ing different areas of the city and enhancing the neighborhood's image.
Peters Creek South does not have a welcome sign that denotes its bound-
aries, only Ridgewood has a neighborhood sign located at the corner of
Salem Turnpike and Westdale. Priority areas for neighborhood gateways
are identified as:
· Melrose Avenue at Pilot Street and Westside Boulevard
· Salem Turnpike at Westside Avenue and Old Stevens Road
· Shenandoah at Cherry Hill, 36th Street and Westside Boule-
vard
Each of these gateways should be enhanced by the addition of
landscaping and gateway signs. Residents expressed interest in beautifi-
cation of gateway areas to improve impressions when entering the neigh-
borhoods. Neighborhood organizations should take the lead and coordi-
nate with the city and each other for gateway enhancements.
Westside Boulevard and
Salem Turnpike entrance
to the Cherry Hill
Neighborhood
32
Peters Creek South
Utilities
The Peters Creek South neighborhood is fully served with public
water and sewer. Phone, electric, and cable lines are located above
ground. Natural gas is available within the neighborhoods. Street lighting
is good throughout most of Peters Creek South neighborhoods. However,
residents report that areas in Edgewood-Morwanda-Summit Hills have
inadequate lighting due to tree over growth. Streetlights are generally
located at intersections but additional lights at mid-block locations could
improve deficient areas.
Bicycle
Pedestrian
Connections
Peters Creek South lacks a network of sidewalks and bike routes.
Most children, other than ones living in the Wilmont neighborhood, cannot
walk or bike to school because there are no safe routes. The Regional
Bicycle Suitability Study (page 56) delineates that Shenandoah Avenue
from 30~h Street to Salem city line grades the BCI (Bicycle Compatibility
Index and the BLOS (Bicycle Level of Service) each with a D (meaning
moderately Iow). The focus for enhancing pedestrian and bike access
should be placed on arterial, where traffic volumes and speeds are higher.
Vision 2001-2020 indicates a future greenway-pedestrian/bicycle
pathway along Melrose Avenue from Peters Creek Road to Salem city
limits, in addition to a greenway-pedestrian/bicycle pathway along Salem
Turnpike from 24~h Street to Peters Creek Road. Moreover, Vision 2001-
2020 also delineates bikeways along Melrose Avenue, Salem Turnpike
and Peters Creek Road for the Peters Creek South area. These routes
for greenway-pedestrian/bicycle should be devleoped for safer connec-
tions.
Within the Wilmont neighborhood, Old Stevens Road and 36th
Street are heavily traveled by both pedestrians and cars. Both streets are
used as routes to reach either Salem Turnpike or Shenandoah Avenue.
Residents have complained that cars speed through these streets while
kids play and walk the street. Speed safety measures (i.e., bike lane,
sidewalks, yield signs, or signals) should be implemented concerning this
issue.
33
Peters Creek South
Public Services
Fire and EMS
Station 4 located on Peters Creek Road, Station 13 on Appleton
Avenue, Station 9 on 24th Street and Melrose Avenue, and Station 5 on
12th Street and Loudon Avenue provide fire and emergency medical
response to the Peters Creek South area neighborhoods. Ambulance
service is primarily from Stations 4 and 9. Current response times aver-
age four minutes (Roanoke City Fire/EMS statistics). The Fire/EMS Mas-
ter Plan proposes consolidating Stations 5 and 9 into a large station with
a multi-service facility located between Orange and Melrose Avenues at
20th Street. The majority of Peters Creek South is served by Fire Station
13 on Peters Creek Road. This is a fairly new station with a double com-
pany, which means it has an engine and a ladder truck. The median strip
in front of Station 13 was recently reconfigured to provide easier access,
subsequently reducing response time by 20 seconds.
Fire Station 4 on Peters Creek Road
34
Peters Creek South
Code
Enforcement
Code enforcement is a major issue for residents in the Peters
Creek South area. Inoperative cars, outdoor storage lots, and weeds are
recurring violations. Eyesores negatively affect surrounding property
values and quality of life in the neighborhood. Effective code enfomement
is essential for future revitalization efforts, and it must be aggressively
pursued in the South Washington Heights, Wilmont, and Edgewood-
Morwanda-Summit Hills neighborhoods. Residents chose code enfome-
ment as a topic of special concern. They noted that violations seem to be
in concentrated areas of the neighborhoods. These areas could be tar-
geted by proactive inspections and assisted by residents reporting viola-
tions.
Crime prevention remains a priority of residents. Most residents in
Peters Creek South value the safe environment their neighborhood pro-
vides. In February of 2000, City Council passed an ordinance advocated
by neighborhood watch groups that would allow city abatement of public
nuisances. This ordinance was seen as an important tool for enhancing
crime-fighting efforts.
Many residents feel that noise (loud car audio systems) is a particu-
lar problem in their neighborhood. The problem with enfomement of noise
pollution is it is difficult to catch the violators. In addition, residents in
South Washington Heights, Wilmont, and Cherry Hill neighborhoods
indicate that litter is an issue throughout the neighborhood. Residents can
address this problem by sponsoring regular neighborhood cleanups.
Neighborhoods throughout Roanoke regularly sponsor litter cleanups on
Clean Valley Day, but participation is usually Iow from residents in the
Peters Creek South neighborhoods. Greater participation of Clean Valley
Day via residents becoming involved with their neighborhood organiza-
tions would help reduce litter problems in the area.
Human
Services
Vision 2001-2020 recommends educational systems and human
services be linked to skill-based training programs and to state-of-the-art
health care to enhance and support a healthy and productive life. Peters
Creek South generally has adequate access to these services because of
its location in the city. Nevertheless, some services need to be provided
on a neighborhood level. Vision 2001-2020 recommends a community
based system that will bring human and health services to the neighbor-
hood.
35
Peters Creek South
Crime
Prevention
The City of Roanoke offers over 30 social service programs for
people with problems stemming from lack of nourishment to lack of proper
physical care. The city also offers program and grants to aid for home
purchase, business building, home renovation, and repair. Many residents
expressed concerns that they were not aware of such programs. Resi-
dents express that there is an apparent lack of communication concerning
information on public support programs.
Automated solid waste collection is provided on street. Residents
that attended planning workshops had few concerns about solid waste
collection. Recycling collection services are provided throughout the area.
Participation in the recycling program should be increased to encourage
overall awareness of the neighborhood's environment.
Public safety is of great concern and is crucial to improving any
neighborhood's future. Residents from the Peters Creek South area
expressed a pemeived increase in criminal activity. Residents feel they
need more police presence in the neighborhoods, by either bicycle or
patrol car.
In 2004, the Roanoke City Police department restructured patrol to
a geographic zone policing method. Funding for major infrastructure
projects is generally provided through the City's Capital Improvement
Program. Funding can come from a variety of soumes, including CDBG,
transportation funding, state, and federal funds, and general revenue.
The Capital Improvement Program is developed by identifying needed
projects and matching them with potential funding soumes. Each project
is reviewed and ranked in terms of priority.
The chart on the following page identifies major projects, their time
frame, the lead agency or department, and potential sources of funding.
The cost of most projects such as streetscape improvements cannot be
determined until more detailed planning is completed.
The department has divided Roanoke into four zones, Northwest,
Northeast, Southwest, and Southeast. Each zone has a Community
Resource Officer that oversees current happenings within their assigned
zone. The restructuring has brought positive reports on policing and
positive reports from citizens. Crime reports in the last three years show a
decrease in reports taken and a decrease in most catagories of crime.
36
Peters Creek South
Peters Creek South
Forestry Cover and Building Area
Building Area
Forestry Cover
Streets
37
Peters Creek South
Quality of Life
There are two parks (Strauss Park and Ridgewood Park) within the
Peters Creek South area. In August of 2004, the city opened Ridgewood
Park, located on Hemlock Street. The 1999 Parks and Recreation Master
Plan identified the need for park development in this neighborhood, and
funding was made for the first phase of the Parks and Recreation Capital
Improvement Projects. Amenities for the park include:
· Play structures
· Walking trail
· Picnic shelter
· Handicap accessible
· Future plans for this park includes a boardwalk and interpretive
signage.
Ridgewood Park in
the Ridgewood
Neighborhood
Strauss Park in the
Wilmont
Neighborhood
38
Peters Creek South
Strauss Park is located on Westside Boulevard in the Wilmont
Neighborhood. Built in the 1970s within a floodplain, this 11.4-acre park
serves the area neighborhood with amenities for picnics, basketball court,
tennis courts, and fields for play. There are no future plans for this park
except regular maintenance.
Residents expressed concerns that there was not a recreation
center within the Peters Creek South area and that the closest recreation
center was Norwich Recreation Center on Buford Avenue, S.W. The
Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan that was adopted by
City Council in September of 2000 delineates a balance of citizens' de-
sires for large-scale recreation facilities with the benefits of smaller scale
neighborhood parks and open space. At this time, there are no current
plans for recreation centers for this area.
In addition to Peters Creek South area parks, a segment from
Vision 2001-2020 proposes extension of the greenway and bikeways
along Melrose Avenue, Peters Creek, and along Salem Turnpike.
Ridgewood Park in
the Ridgewood
Neighborhood
39
Peters Creek South
Schools
Fairview Elementary School and Greenvale (Nursery) School are
located within the boundaries of Peters Creek South area. Youth within
the areas attend William Fleming High School, William Ruffner Middle
School, and Westside Elementary School for the Performing Arts and/or
Fairview Elementary School. William Ruffner Middle School and Westside
Elementary are both magnet schools, which provide a unique learning
opportunity to attract students from around the city. Youth in the
Ridgewood, Wilmont, and Cherry Hill neighborhoods attend Fairview,
Addison Magnet School, and Patrick Henry High School. Youth in South
Washington Heights attend Westside Elementary, Addison Magnet
School, and William Fleming High. Edgewood-Morwanda-Summit Hills'
youth attend Fairview Elementary, Addison Magnet, and William Fleming
High.
School in the
Wilrnont
Neighborhood
the Wilmont
Neighborhood
40
Peters Creek South
Recommendations
Recommendations are organized by the Plan Elements (community
design, residential development, etc.). Recommendations take the form
of policies or actions. Policies are principles or way of doing things that
guide future decisions. In general, policies are ongoing. Actions are
projects or tasks that can be completed and have a definite end.
The Future Land Use Plan is the most important recommendation
of this plan. It specifies how future development should take place. Zon-
lng is the principal tool that is used to implement the Future Land Use
Plan, so the plan recommends changes to zoning so that future develop-
merit will be consistent with the Future Land Use Plan.
41
Peters Creek South
Policies
Community Design
· Roanoke will encourage mixed-use neighborhoods with opportuni-
ties for housing, employment, and services for all ages, races, and
incomes.
· Neighborhoods should be well-connected to one another and to
other parts of the city. Streets should be designed with special
attention to mobility and safety for pedestrians and bicycles.
· Zoning patterns will be used to focus commercial development into
identified centers rather than in strip patterns along arterial streets.
Zoning patterns will support the neighborhood pattern as noted in
Vision 2001-2020, with identifiable centers with surrounding resi-
dential densities decreasing with distance from the center.
· Encourage collaboration of community groups to initiate beautifica-
tion projects with a priority on improving gateways.
· Support streetscape and beautification projects, particularly at
gateways where they can help to reinforce neighborhood identity.
Actions
· Adjust zoning patterns to create or reinforce the model of multiple
centers, with residential densities decreasing with distance from
each center.
· Reduce the intensity of strip commercial zoning in areas lying
outside of identified centers.
42
Peters Creek South
Policies
Actions
Residential Development
· Roanoke will support development of new neighborhoods, or ex-
pansion of existing neighborhood, in areas identified as future
Residential Development Opportunities. Zoning options such as
planned unit development (PUD) should be considered to provide
flexibility with respect to street design, lot sizes, setbacks, and
density. PUDs can be used to maintain project feasibility while
encouraging creation of usable open spaces and avoid develop-
merit in environmentally sensitive areas such as steep slopes and
riparian buffer areas.
Areas immediately surrounding commercial centers should be
considered for higher density housing. Higher density housing
should be developed in a traditional neighborhood pattern (i.e.,
buildings fronting on streets) rather than in isolated complexes.
· Newly-created streets should tie into the existing street system and
avoid creation of cul-de-sacs. Loop streets should be considered
as an alternative to cul-de-sacs. New neighborhoods should in-
clude urban amenities such as curb/gutter, sidewalks, and street
trees.
· New housing should focus in the mid-and upper-level markets to
encourage balance in the range of housing. Further concentration
of subsidized housing should be discouraged.
· Encourage better stewardship of multifamily and vacant properties
by working with residents, neighborhood organizations, and Depart-
merit of Housing and Neighborhood Services to increase vigilance
and reporting of violations.
· Evaluate the development potential of properties identified as
Residential Development Opportunities.
· Provide information sessions to residents to increase awareness of
zoning codes and land use development.
43
Peters Creek South
Policies
Economic Development
· Roanoke will encourage good relationships between commercial
and residential development through thoughtful site and building
design, landscaping, and transitional uses. New retail establish-
merits should have a strong orientation to their primary street front-
ages. Roanoke will promote a diverse mixture of uses in commer-
cial centers that are compatible with neighborhood character and
scale.
· The overall availability of vacant and underused commercial prop-
erty should be considered before permitted expansion of commer-
cial zoning districts.
· Support redevelopment of the Roanoke-Salem Plaza site.
Actions
· Implement zoning patterns and regulations, which focus commer-
cial development into centers and encourage buildings to be ori-
ented to the street frontage and have good relationships with adja-
cent land uses.
· Work with owners of Roanoke-Salem Plaza to develop a plan for
redevelopment of the property, especially along the perimeter of the
site.
· Consider placing public service facilities in village centers.
· Market the area village centers with emphasis on commercial uses
with minimal noise and lighting impacts.
44
Peters Creek South
Infrastructure
Policies
· Street system should provide high connectivity between neighbor-
hoods and other parts of the city. The street system should support
mobility by multiple modes of transportation. Streets should be
designed (or redesigned) with special attention to mobility and
safety for pedestrians and bicycles.
· Newly-created streets should tie into the existing street system and
avoid creation of cul-de-sacs. Loop streets should be considered
as an alternative to cul-de-sacs. New streets should include urban
amenities such as curb/gutter, sidewalks, and street trees.
· Priority of construction of curb/gutter and sidewalks will be placed
on arterial and collector streets.
· Streetlights should provide adequate illumination while avoiding
glare and light pollution.
Actions
· Assess arterial streets for needed improvements and rank accord-
lng to need.
· Identify priority areas for street lighting needs.
· Assess potential locations for bus stop shelters.
· Improve sight distance from streets along Salem Turnpike,
Shenandoah Avenue, and Westside Boulevard.
· Develop a streetscape safety improvement strategy for Old Stevens
Road and 36th Street.
· Develop bike accommodations bike lanes along east-west arterials
(Melrose Avenue, Salem Turnpike, and Shenandoah Avenue).
45
Peters Creek South
Public Service
Policies
· Roanoke will maintain high levels of Fire/EMS service to the area.
· Support collaboration between neighborhood groups, the Depart-
ment of Housing and Neighborhood Services, and Roanoke Neigh-
borhood Advocates.
· Solid Waste Management will work to increase resident participa-
tion in household recycling programs.
· The Police Department will emphasize crime prevention through its
geographic policing strategy, community-oriented policing, and
Crime Prevention Though Environmental Design (C.P.T.E.D). Im-
prove communication between residents and police to target places
and times where increased patrol would be most effective.
· Housing and Neighborhood Services will work with neighborhood
organizations to identify and respond to nuisance code violations
such as junk cars, weeds, and outdoor storage.
Actions
· Continue community-policing programs in partnership with commu-
nity groups to ensure clear objective, information flow, enforcement,
and community outreach. Coordinate National Night Out events
and ongoing crime preventions efforts.
· Work with neighborhood groups to distribute information about
code enforcement issues and to encourage participation in house-
hold recycling.
· Support neighborhood-based volunteer litter clean-up events.
46
Peters Creek South
Policies
Quality of' Life
· Improve neighborhood identity through beautification and gateway
projects.
· Support ongoing active neighborhood organizations and community
groups.
· Support creation of a network of high-quality parks and recreational
facilities.
· Increase recreational utilization and opportunities in the area.
· Seek opportunities to connect the area's network of commercial
centers and parks with greenways and/or on-street connections.
Actions
· Assess feasibility of establishing new small-scale neighborhood
parks in underserved areas. Work with neighborhood organizations
to identify specific locations that could be obtained and developed
as "neighborhood parks" with a focus on sites that are not feasible
to build because of flooding or other encumbrances.
· Assess additional amenities for existing parks (as requested by
residents):
· Recreation center for Peters Creek South area
· New trail around Strauss Park
· Water fountain at Strauss Park
· Senior activities
Coordinate periodic neighborhood cleanups by neighborhood
organizations.
47
Peters Creek South
Implementation
Funding for major infrastructure projects is generally provided
through the City's Capital Improvement Program. Funding can come from
a variety of sources, including CDBG, transportation funding, state, and
federal funds, and general revenue. The Capital Improvement Program is
developed by identifying needed projects and matching them with poten-
tial funding sources. Each project is reviewed and ranked in terms of
priority.
The chad on the following page identifies projects, their time frame,
the lead agency or department, and potential sources of funding. The
cost of most projects such as streetscape improvements cannot be deter-
mined until more detailed planning is completed.
How large projects are funded:
The Capital Improvement
Program
Funding Sources
Bonds
General revenues
State and Federal
CDBG
Project grants
Others
Needed Projects
Parks
Buildings
Economic Development
Streets, sidewalks and
bridges
Storm drains
Schools
5-year
Capital
Improvement Program
Priority projects &
their funding
sources identified
48
Peters Creek South
Community Design
Gateway Beautification
Vacant lot development
Comprehensive Rezoning
Residential Development
Implement home ownership programs
Evaluate for potential development of
opportunity properties
Economic Development
Develop Village Center between the
intersections of Westwood Avenue and
Old Stevens on Shenandoah Avenue.
Revitalize older shopping centers and
commercial buildings to improve
relationship with existing land uses
Infrastructure
Repair and complete sidewalk and curb
system
Address partnership with Valley Metro
and private property owners for bus
stop shelters.
Develop proposed greenways-
pedestrian/bicycle paths as proposed in
the Vision 2001-2020 Plan
Improve arterial streets with gateways
and streetscape beautification projects.
Address safety issues on Old Stevens
Road and 36th Street.
Identify priority areas for street lighting
needs
Public Services
Enact program for neighborhood crime
prevention and code enforcement
violations.
Continue education and advocacy of
household recycling
Quality of Life
Identify and develop small-scale
neighborhood parks
NG/HNS/PW
NG/HNS
PBD
NG/HNS/PBD
NG/HNS/PBD
ED/PBD
PBD/ED
PW
PO ! HNS ! VM
PR / EG / NG / PO
NG/EG/PW/HNS
PW!EN/TD
NG/HNS/AEP
PD! NG / CE
PW ! NG / HNS
PR/NG
5 years
5-10 years
I year
Ongoing
2 year
I - 4 years
Ongoing
5-10 years
2-3 years
2-5 years
Ongoing
1-3 years
1-2 years
Ongoing
2 - 5 years
Develop greenway and bike trails PR / NC/HNS/PD
HNS: Housing Neighborhood Services ~ PBD: Planning Building and Development ~CE:
Code Enforcement ~ NC: Neighborhood Groups ~ PD: Police Department ~ PR: Parks and
Recreation Department ~ ED: Economic Development ~ PW: Public Works - EN: Engi-
neering Department~ ST: Streets and Traffic -VM: Valley Metro -PO: Private Owners
49
Peters Creek South
Acknowledgments
City Council
Mayor C. Nelson Harris
Vice Mayor Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr.
M. Rupert Cutler
Alfred 'I'. Dowe, Jr.
Sherman P. Lea
Brenda L. McDaniel
Brian J. Wishneff
Planning Commission
Chairman Richard A. Rife
Vice Chairman Henry Scholz
Gilbert E. Butler, Jr.
D. Kent Chrisman
Robert B. Manetta
Paula Prince
Fredrick M. Williams
Planning Building & Economic Development
Brian Townsend, Director
Project Manager
Jacques Scott, City Planner
Thanks to the residents, businesses, and property owners who partici-
pated in the community workshops. Special thanks to the members of the
Edgewood-Morwanda-Summit Hill Neighborhood Organization,
Ridgewood Park Neighborhood League, Wilmont Neighborhood Organiza-
tion for their active involvement in development of the plan.
50
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
........................................ + .......................
MARY F. PARKER
CITY OF ROANOKE CLERK'S OFFICE
215 CHURCH AVE SW RM 456
NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BLDG.
ROANOKE VA 24011
REFERENCE: 32143302
08059800
NOTICEOFPUBLICHEARIN
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Vir~a. Sworn and subscribed before me this
~_~_day of October 2005. Witness my hand and
~f fic~l seal.
--~_~_'__~L~_~%~ Not ar y Public
PUBLISHED ON: 10/07
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
140.76
10/07/05
Signature :_ _
Billing Services Representative
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
Notice is hereby given pursuant to §15.2-2204, of the Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, that Vision 2001 - 2020, the City's Comprehensive Plan, is proposed to be
amended to include the Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan as an element of such
Comprehensive Plan.
A copy of the proposed Peters Creek South Neighborhood Plan to be considered by
City Council is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, Room 456, Noel C. Taylor Municipal
Building.
A public heating will be held before the Council of the City of Roanoke on Monday,
October 17, 2005, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the
Council Chambers, Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke,
Virginia, at which time citizens of the City shall be given an opportunity to appear and be
heard by Council on the subject of this proposed amendment.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this heating,
please contact the City Clerk's Office (853-2541), before 12:00 noon on Thursday,
October 13, 2005.
GIVEN under my hand this 3rd day of October
,2005.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
K:/NOTICES/N AMENDCOM3?REHENSIVEPLAN(PETERS CK SO )101705 DOC
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, September 23, 2005.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
October 21, 2005
File #28-458
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Ordinance No. 37225-101705 authorizing the donation
and conveyance of a 10 foot by 80 foot easement and a 40 foot by 80 foot
temporary easement on City-owned property, identified as 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 as more fully set
forth in a letter from the City Manager addressed to the Council under date of
October 17, 2005.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005, and is in full
force and effect upon its passage.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham
October 21, 2005
Page 2
pc:
John B. Williamson, III, President and CEO, Roanoke Gas Company,
519 Kimball Avenue, N. E., Roanoke, Virginia 24016
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sherman M. Stovall, Director, Office of Management and Budget
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Sarah E. Fitton, Engineering Coordinator
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 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.
WHEREAS, a public hear/ng was held on October 17, 2005, pursuant to §§ 15.2-1800(B) and
1813, Code of Virginia (1950), as amended, at which hearing all parties in interest and citizens were
afforded an opportunity to be heard on such conveyance.
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City Manager and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute and attest,
respectively, in form approved by the City Attorney, the necessary documents donating and
conveying 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 as more fully
described in a letter of the City Manager to City Council dated October 17, 2005.
2. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 12 of the City Charter, the second reading of this
ordinance by title is hereby dispensed with.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
l~ax: (540) 853-1138
City Web: www.roanokeva.gov
October 17, 2005
Honorable C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Honorable Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
Honorable M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Honorable Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Honorable Sherman P. Lea, Council Member
Honorable Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member
Honorable Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council:
Subject: Easement on City-Owned Property
for Roanoke Gas Company - TM
#1012103 (Commonwealth
Building)
Roanoke Gas Company has requested an approximate 10' x 80' easement across
city-owned property identified by Tax Map #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. See
Attachment #1 for proposed location of easement. Roanoke Gas Company has
agreed to enclose the regulators in a utility cabinet to improve the appearance. A
temporary 40' X 80' easement is also needed for construction, which will expire
upon completion of the work. See Attachment #2 for proposed Deed.
Recommended Action:
Following a public hearing, authorize the City Manager to execute the appropr,ate
documents granting a ~tility easement as described above to Roanoke Gas
Company, approved as to form by the City Attorney.
Respectfully syl~mitted,
Darlene L. B~/rcham
City Man ag~//t
DLB/SEF
Attachments
C:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Sarah E. Fitton, Engineering Coordinator
#CM05-00151
Attachment #1
TAX ~10121d3
~ PRO PEF;FI'Y Of
~_ THE CITY OF ROANOKE
1 0 Oas L~ne Easement~ i r~
80' x 443' Ternp,~rory D-& I
Con~l:ru ctJ'on Eo eemwnt--.k~
LOC~ A¥£~4UE
10' C_~ LINE EASE]dENT
NOTE: Palnt A I~ located on the LINE BEC, I~ING DI~'T,~J',I~
,~f 2G.5 feet HB"l,8'OT"W
eoutheaetern propprt, y
F-A
Ea~ment Plat for Roanoke O~s Corn p~ny
ROANOKE GAS COMP'~I Y I '='"~'"'~ o.,. ,-,.. ,,.,.- Ir'~' M"~' FK] ''0'2'.
Tax Map No. 1012103
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made this day of ., 2005,
by and between the CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA, hereinafter referred to as
"Grantor"; and ROANOKE GAS COMPANY, a Virginia corporation, hereinafter referred
to as "Grantee".
WITNESSETH
THAT, FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and
other good and valuable consideration, paid by Grantee to Grantor, the receipt and
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Grantor does hereby grant unto
Grantee, its successors and assigns, a temporary right of way and easement to
construct and install, together with the permanent right of way and easement to operate,
repair, and maintain a gas pipeline and regulator station (with appliances and
accessories useful and necessary in connection therewith) over, under, through and
across its land in the City of Roanoke, Commonwealth of Virginia, and being more
described as follows:
Roanoke
Gas
Company
P.O. Box
13007
Roanoke,
VA 24030
A 10~ wide permanent gas line easement across the
southeastern portion of the land acquired by the Grantor by
deed of record in the Clerk's Office of the Cimuit Court of
Roanoke City, Virginia, in Deed Book 1431, Page 1999, and
designated as Tax Map No. 1012103. The location of said
easement is shown and designated as "10' GAS LINE
EASEMENT" upon the plat entitled "Easement Plat for Roanoke
Gas Company" as prepared by Roanoke Gas Company and
dated October 3, 2005. A 40' x 80' temporary construction
easement is also identified on said plat. Said plat is attached
hereto and recorded herewith.
The Grantee agrees to enclose regulators in a utility cabinet acceptable to the
Grantor at its sole expense, and to restore and repair any damage to Grantor's property
which may be caused by the construction, operation, or maintenance of said easement.
The Grantor agrees that the Grantee will not be expected to restore the property to the
identical original condition, but rather as near thereto as practicable, and that the
Grantee will cooperate with the Grantee in effectuating such restoration.
In the event that the right of way easement herein granted interferes with the
future development of the lands of the Grantor, its successors or assigns, the Grantee,
shall at its sole cost and expense, relocate said gas pipeline and related appurtenances
to a suitable location on the premises of the Grantor as may be necessary to eliminate
such interference, and that the easement required for such relocation shall be furnished
without cost to the Grantee by the Grantor. The Grantee shall have reasonable time
after receipt of such request in writing, not to exceed 45 days, in which to complete
relocation of the gas line. The easement rights and privileges for the gas line and
related appurtenances in its former location will automatically extend to any relocated
course of such line without need for additional written right of way or other instrument.
Grantee will indemnify and save the Grantor harmless against any and all loss or
damage, accidents, or injuries, to persons or property, whether of the Grantor or of any
other persons or corporations arising in any manner from the negligence of Grantee in
the construction, operation, or maintenance, or failure to properly construct, operate, or
maintain its facilities installed upon the right of way granted by this deed of easement.
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, executes this
instrument on behalf of the City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia, to convey the
easement herein-above described pursuant to Ordinance No.
adopted by said Council on the . day of ,2005.
TO HAVE AND HOLD the same unto the Grantee, its successors and assigns
forever.
WITNESS the following signature and seals:
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
Approved as to form: OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA
City Attorney
Commonwealth of Virginia,
City of Roanoke, To-wit:
By:. (SEAL)
DARLENE L. BURCHAM
City Manager
City of Roanoke, Virginia
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this day of
,2005, by DARLENE L. BURCHAM, City Manager, on behalf of the
City Council of the City of Roanoke, Virginia.
My Commission expires:
Notary Public
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavit of Publication
The Roanoke Times
........................................... + .......................
MARY F. PARKER
CITY OF ROANOKE CLERK'S OFFICE
215 CHURCH AVE SW RM 456
NOEL C. TAYLOR MUNICIPAL BLDG.
ROANOKE VA 24011
REFERENCE: 32143302
08074304
NOTICEOFPUBLICHEARIN
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
I, {the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Virg,~ia. Sworn and subscribed before me this
__[~__day of October 2005. Witness my hand and
official seal.
PUBLISHED ON: 10/07
TOTAL COST:
FILED ON:
138.00
lO/O?/OS
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
Signature:_ _ lling Services Rep,resentative
03:
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:
The City of Roanoke proposes to grant a ten foot by eighty foot 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 ne~v
regulator station.
Pursuant to the requirements of{}{} 15.2-1800(B) and 1813, Code of Virginia (1950), as
amended, notice is hereby given that the City Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a
public hearing on the above matter at its regular meeting on Monday, October 17, 2005, at
7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard in the Council Chambers, Noel C.
Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, at which time
citizens of the City shall be given an opportunity to appear and be heard by Council on the
subject.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this hearing,
please contact the City Clerk's Office (853-2541), before 12:00 noon on Thursday,
October 13, 2005.
GIVEN under my hand this 5th day of October ,2005.
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk.
K:\NOTIC ES\N - R KEGASCOEAS EMENT(COMMON WEALTH BLDG) 101705 DOC
Notice to Publisher:
Publish in the Roanoke Times once on Friday, October 7, 2005.
Send bill and affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S. W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
OTY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
City Clerk
Deputy City Clerk
October 7, 2005
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
File #28-200
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of Council:
Pursuant to provisions of Resolution No. 25523 adopted by the Council of the City
of Roanoke on Monday, April 6, 1981, or other instructions by the Council, the
following matters have been advertised for public hearing on Monday, October 17,
2005, at 7:00 p.m., in the City Council Chamber:
(1)
Proposal of the City of Roanoke to amend Vision 2001-2020, the
City's Comprehensive Plan, to include the Peters Creek South
Neighborhood Plan.
(2)
Conveyance of an easement across City-owned property on Luck
Avenue, S. W., which is the site of the Commonwealth Building,
to Roanoke Gas Company for installation of a new regulator
station.
(3)
Consideration of previously received applications for Federal
funds made available through the Department of Transportation
for transportation enhancement projects in Fiscal Year 2005-
2006.
KSPublic Hearings~Public Hearings 2005~Oct 2005\October 17 Council Letter.doc
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Roanoke City Council
October 7, 2005
Page 2
I am enclosing copy of a report of the City Planning Commission in
connection with Public Hearing No. 1.
With kindest personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
MFP:ew
pc: Richard A. Rife, Chair, City Planning Commission, 1326 Grandin Road, S. W.,
Roanoke, Virginia 24015
Darlene L. Burcham, City Manager
Rolanda B. Russell, Assistant City Manager for Community Development
Susan S. Lower, Director, Real Estate Valuation
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney, transmitted electronically by e-mail
Steven J. Talevi, Assistant City Attorney
Philip C. Schirmer, City Engineer
Martha P. Franklin, Secretary, City Planning Commission
Sharon A. Mougin, Executive Secretary, City Manager's Office, transmitted
electronically by e-mail
KSPublic Hear/ngs~Public Heatings 2005\Oct 2005\October 17 Council Letter.doc
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
October 21, 2005
Shella N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
File #77-192--379
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 37226-:~01705 endorsing and request 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, as more fully set forth in a letter from the City Manager addressed
to the Council under date of October 17, 2005.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October 17, 2005,
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham
October 17, 2005
Page 2
pc:
Dana M. Martin, Board Member, Commonwealth Transportation Board,
Salem District, Al-Mart Training Consultants, LLC, 2018 Electric Road,
Suite 2:~6, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Kenneth H. King, Manager, Division of Transportation
Ms. Elizabeth Belcher, Roanoke Valley Greenway Coordinator,
P. O. Box 29800, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
Tile 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 37226-101705.
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.
WHEREAS, the City of Roanoke ("City") is requesting Transportation Enhancement funds in
the amount of $480,000.00 for a greenway connection from the Lick Run Greenway to the Roanoke
Civic Center, via Walker Avenue;
WHEREAS, a greenway link from the Lick Run Greenway to the Roanoke Civic Center, via
Walker Avenue, will provide for off road pedestrian and bicycle accommodation from the Hotel
Roanoke and Greater Downtown Roanoke to the Roanoke Civic Center;
WHEREAS, the Link Run Greenway provides an off road connection northerly to the Valley
View Mall and Roanoke Regional Airport area; and
WHEREAS, City Council and the Metropolitan Planning Organization must endorse an
application prior to submittal to the Virginia Department of Transportation ("the Department") by
the applicant by November 1, 2005.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
I. The City hereby endorses and requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
establish a project for a greenway connection from the Lick Run Greenway to the Roanoke Civic
Center, via Walker Avenue, such project being more particularly described in the City Manager's
letter dated October 17, 2005, to City Council.
2. Pursuant to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century, the City hereby agrees
to pay a rrfinimum of twenty percent (20%) of the total mount of costs associated for a greenway
connection from the Lick Run Greenway to the Roanoke Civic Center, via Walker Avenue, and that
if the City subsequently elects to cancel this project, the City hereby agrees to reimburse the
Department for the total amount of the costs expended by the Depa~hnent through the date the
Depa~hnent is notified of such cancellation.
3. The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to
execute and attest, respectively, all necessat~ and appropriate agreements with the Department
providing for the programming of such project, such agreements to be in such form as is approved by
the City Attorney, and such agreements requiring the City to be fully responsible for its matching
funds as well as other obligations undertaken by the City by virtue of such agreements.
4. The City Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the appropriate
officials at the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
ATTEST:
CITY OF ROANOKE
Office of the City Clerk
Mary F. Parker, CMC
City Clerk
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
Sheila N. Hartman
Assistant City Clerk
October 21, 2005
File #77-].92-379
Darlene L. Burcham
City Manager
Roanoke, Virginia
Dear Ms. Burcham:
I am attaching copy of Resolution No. 37227-101705 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, as more
fully set forth in a letter from the City Manager addressed to the Council under
date of October 17, 2005.
The abovereferenced measure was adopted by the Council of the City of Roanoke
at a regular meeting which was held on Monday, October :[7, 2005.
Sincerely,
Stephanie M. Moon, CMC
Deputy City Clerk
SMM:ew
Attachment
Darlene L. Burcham
October 21, 2005
Page 2
pc:
Dana M. Martin, Board Member, Commonwealth Transportation Board,
Salem District, Al-Mart Training Consultants, LLC, 2018 Electric Road,
Suite 216, Roanoke, Virginia 24018
Matt Johnson, Program Manager, Historical Society of Western Virginia,
One Market Square, S. W., Roanoke, Virginia 2401!
Kenneth H. King, Manager, Division of Transportation
IN THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROANOKE, VIRGINIA,
The 17th day of October, 2005.
No. 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.
WHEREAS, the Historical Society of Western Virginia ("Society") is requesting
Transportation Enhancement funds in the amount of$172,000.00 to develop and create a customized
display system, capable of safely storing more than 100 original photographs, for its newest
operating division, the O. Winston Link Museum;
WHEREAS, the open storage unit will provide the institution with the ability to appropriately
house and display the balance of the collection's 275 photographic works, all documenting the
waning days of the N & W steam locomotive program;
WHEREAS, the open storage unit will allow patrons interested in photography and in
regional and railway history to view all of the collection; and
WHEREAS, City Council and the Metropolitan Planning Organization must endorse an
application prior to submittal to the Virginia Department of Transportation ("the Department") by
the applicant by November 1, 2005.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Roanoke that:
1. The City hereby endorses and requests that the Commonwealth Transportation Board
establish a project for completion of an open storage system for the O. Winston Link Museum, such
project being more particularly described in the City Manager's letter dated October 17, 2005, to City
Council.
2. Pursuant to the Transportation Equity Act for the 21 st Century, the City hereby agrees
to pay a minimum of twenty percent (20%) of the total mount of costs associated with the
completion of an open storage system for the O. Winston Link Museum, and that if the City
subsequently elects to cancel this proj eot, the City hereby agrees to reimburse the Department for the
total mount of the costs expended by the Department through the date the Department is notified of
such cancellation.
3. The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to
execute and attest, respectively, all necessary and appropriate agreements with the Department
providing for the programming of such project, such agreements to be in such form as is approved by
the City Attorney, and such agreements requiring the City to be fully responsible for its matching
funds as well as other obligations undertaken by the City by virtue of such agreements.
4. The City Manager and the City Clerk are hereby authorized on behalf of the City to
execute and attest, respectively, a legally binding agreement with the project applicant, the Society,
subject to the application being approved by the Department, requiring the applicant to be fully
responsible for its matching funds as well as all other obligations undertaken by the City by virtue of
the City/State Agreement, such agreement to be in such form as is approved by the City Attorney.
5. The City Clerk is directed to forward a copy of this resolution to the appropriate
officials at the Commonwealth Transportation Board.
ATTEST:
City Clerk.
CITY OF ROANOKE
OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER
Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building
215 Church Avenue, S.W., Room 364
Roanoke, Virginia 24011-1591
Telephone: (540) 853-2333
Fax: (540) 853-1138
City Web: www.roanokeva.gov
October 17, 2005
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
Honorable
C. Nelson Harris, Mayor
Beverly T. Fitzpatrick, Jr., Vice Mayor
Dr. M. Rupert Cutler, Council Member
Alfred T. Dowe, Jr., Council Member
Sherman P. Lea, Council Member
Brenda L. McDaniel, Council Member
Brian J. Wishneff, Council Member
Dear Mayor Harris and Members of City Council:
Subject: Public Hearing on the Federal-Aid
Highway Transportation
Enhancement Projects
Background:
The Transportation Enhancement Program is intended to promote mobility,
protection of the human and natural environment, community preservation,
sustainability, and livability. Traditionally, this program has been funded
through a requirement that state departments of transportation set aside 10
percent of their Surface Transportation Program (STP) allocation each year for
transportation enhancement activities. These activities include such projects as
facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists (such as greenways) and rehabilitation
of historic transportation buildings. The Virginia Department of Transportation
(VDOT) advertised and held an applicant workshop on the TEA-21 enhancement
program in Bedford on August 23, 2005, at which citizens and public officials
were able to ask questions and learn more about this program.
Considerations:
Any group or individual may initiate enhancement projects; however, City
Council and the Metropolitan Planning Organization must endorse the
applications prior to submittal to VDOT by the applicant by November 1, 2005.
Two (2) enhancement project applications have been received and are
described in Attachments A and B. These two applications require Council and
MPO actions. In addition, two applicants are requesting additional funds on
existing projects. These 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 passed resolutions previously on these
Honorable Mayor and Members of City Council
October 17, 2005
Page 2
two applications. No further action is required. Summaries of these
applications are provided for information only in Attachments C and D.
City Council resolutions that would endorse these project applications also
require, according to VDOT, that the City of Roanoke agree to be liable for a
minimum of 20 percent of the total cost for planning and design, right-of-way
and construction of the project, and that, if the City subsequently elects to
cancel a project, the City agrees to
reimburse VDOT for the total amount of the costs expended by VDOT through
the date of cancellation of that project. A project funding summary, including
proposed sources for the local match, is included in Attachment E. An
agreement to be executed between the City and a project applicant will require
the applicant to be fully responsible for the matching funds as set forth in
Attachment E and, if the project is canceled, the agreement will also require the
applicant to reimburse the City for all amounts due VDOT.
Recommendation:
Endorse, by separate resolutions, the project applications which are
summarized in Attachments A and B, and agree to pay the respective
percentages of the total cost for each project (as described in Attachment E)
and that, 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
these projects through the date of cancellation notice. Also, authorize the City
Manager to execute, on behalf of the City, City/State Agreements for project
administration, subject to approval of project applications by VDOT, and
authorize the City Manager to execute, on behalf of the City, a legally binding
agreement with the project applicants subject to their application being
approved by VDOT, requiring the applicants to be fully responsible for its
matching funds (as described in Attachment E) as well as all other obligations
undertaken by the City by virtue of the City/State Agreement.
Respectfully submitted,
DLB/MDJ/gpe
Attachments
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
William M. Hackworth, City Attorney
Jesse A. Hall, Director of Finance
Kenneth H. King Jr., P.E., Manager, Division of Transportation
CM05-00152
Attachment A
Walker Avenue Gateway
Lick Run Greenway
Applicant: City of Roanoke
Objective:
The City of Roanoke is requesting Transportation Enhancement Funds in the
amount of $480,000 for the greenway connection from the Lick Run Greenway to
the Roanoke Civic Center, via Walker Avenue.
Overview:
The project provides a connection from the previously funded Lick Run
Greenway to the Roanoke Civic Center. This link will provide for off road
pedestrian and bicycle accomodation from the Hotel Roanoke and greater
Downtown Roanoke to the Roanoke Civic Center. Additionally, the Lick Run
Greenway provides an off road connection northerly to the Valley View Mall and
Roanoke Regional Airport area. The Roanoke Civic Center is owned and
operated by the City of Roanoke and has a 12,000 seat arena, and a performing
art theatre. The Civic Center has a $11.6 M expansion under construction that
will provide a 45,000 square foot exhibit hall.
Grant Criteria Met:
The Walker Avenue Gateway meets five of the twelve criteria under which the
project may qualify, including:
2.
3.
4.
5.
Bicycle and pedestrian facilities
Bicycle and pedestrian safety and education activities
Scenic easements and scennic or historic sites
Lanscaping and other scenic beautification, historic preservation
Mitigation of Pollution due to highway runoff and wildlife protection
Cost:
The application requests $480,000 to be matched with $210,000 in local funding
to fully fund the $690,000 project. The matching funds will be allocated from
existing greenway capital funding.
Attachment B
O. Winston Link Museum Open Storage Enhancement
Applicant - Historical Society of Western Virginia
Obiective:
The Historical Society of Western Virginia is requesting Transportation Enhancement
Funds in the amount of $215,000.00 for the completion of an open storage system for its
newest operating division, the O. Winston Link Museum.
Overview:
Transportation Enhancement funding will provide the O. Winston Link Museum with the
means to develop and create a customized display system, capable of safely storing
more than 100 original photographs. The open storage unit will provide the institution
with the ability to appropriately house and uniquely display the balance of the collection's
275 photographic works, all documenting the wanning days of the N&W steam
locomotive program, that would not be on immediate exhibition within the five galleries of
the Museum. This system will allow patrons interested in photography, regional, and
railway history, to view all of the collection, each time that they visit.
Grant Criteria Met:
The Historical Society's project meets three of the twelve categories under which a
project may qualify, including:
1. Historic Preservation
2. Rehabilitation of a Historic Transportation Building, Structure or Facility
3. Establish a Transportation Museum
Cost:
This application requests $172,000.00 to be matched by $43,000 in matching funds,
comprised of donations of cash, appreciated securities and/or other assets.
Attachment C
Dumas Center for Artistic and Cultural Development
Applicant - Total Action Against Poverty
Objective
Total Action Against Poverty is requesting Transportation Enhancements funds in the
amount of $875,000 for the completion of the Dumas Center for Artistic and Cultural
Development.
Overview
Requested grant funds will complete renovation of the Hotel Dumas, a historic
transportation facility in downtown Roanoke to create the Dumas Center for Artistic and
Cultural Development, a community arts and cultural center serving the City of Roanoke
and the entire southwestern Virginia region. The Hotel Dumas is eligible for listing in
the Virginia and National Historic Registers and is located in the Henry Street Historic
District. The project will rehabilitate and renovate the historic structure in compliance
with the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for
Rehabilitating Historic Buildings.
The Dumas Center will provide a cultural and entertainment venue in the Henry Street
Historic District in Roanoke that complements existing and planned historic,
educational, and culinary ventures within easy walking distance, resulting in the creation
of a high-quality cultural, historic, and educational tourism destination in the Henry
Street Historic District. The Center will provide new permanent headquarters for two
Roanoke performing arts organizations: Opera Roanoke and Downtown Music Lab.
The Dumas Center will also link the Henry Street Historic District to downtown Roanoke
via the Martin Luther King Memorial Bridge and will commemorate the history of the
Hotel Dumas as the only first-class lodging for African Americans traveling in Roanoke
during segregation.
Grant Criteria Met
The Dumas Center for Artistic and Cultural Development addresses two Transportation
Enhancements categories: (a) historic preservation and (b) rehabilitation and operation
of historic transportation building.
The Dumas Center for Artistic and Cultural Development serves the surface
transportation system as a tourism destination and as a thematic and functional part of
existing and planned tourism venues in and around the Henry Street Historic District.
Cost
The total development cost of the Dumas Center for Artistic and Cultural Development
is $3,746,478. To date, funds for this purpose in the amount of $2,872,020 have been
raised by TAP. Funds needed for completion of the project are $875,000 - the amount
being requested in this application for Transportation Enhancements funds.
Attachment D
Virginian Railway Passenger Station
Applicant - Roanoke Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society
Objective:
Under sponsorship of the Roanoke Redevelopment and Housing Authority, the Roanoke
Chapter of the National Railway Historical Society is requesting Transportation
Enhancement Funds in the amount of $182,000.00 for the acquisition and stabilization of
the Virginian Railway Station.
Overview
The rehabilitation of the Virginian Railway Passenger Station will provide many benefits
to the City of Roanoke, its citizens and visitors. The project preserves a piece of
Roanoke's railroad heritage and creates a home for the local chapter of the National
Railroad Historical Society. It will provide office and meeting space for the NRHS,
display pieces of railroad history related to the Virginian Railway, and make their archival
collection more accessible to the public. Greater access to the NRHS archives will
contribute to the establishment of Roanoke as a hub for railroad research by creating a
network of facilities; Virginia Museum of Transportation, O. Winston Link Museum,
NRHS Virginian Railway Passenger Station Museum, and the Virginia Tech N & W
archives.
The project will also provide a comfort station with public toilets, bike racks, and an
information kiosk for the Mill Mountain Greenway and serve as a gateway from
downtown to the. Riverside Center for Research and Technology. A portion of the space
will be leased to a commercial entity to provide services to this rapidly developing area.
The Virginian Passenger Station is a valuable piece of Roanoke's history and
contributes an architectural masterpiece to the rail heritage of the Roanoke Valley. The
station is eligible under Criterion A of the National Register of Historic Places in the area
of Transportation because of its contribution to the railroad industry and its facilitation of
passenger transport to and from Roanoke. It is also eligible under Criterion C of the
National Register of Historic Places in the area of Architecture for its unique visual
characteristics and methods of construction that were only used for a brief period of
time, and only by the railroad industry.
There is a tremendous amount of community-wide support for the rehabilitation and
utilization of this old station building. Following the fire in January 2001, a consortium of
local civic and cultural groups met to express concern over the future of the station. The
Roanoke Valley Preservation Foundation and the NRHS/Roanoke Chapter lead the
efforts to work with Norfolk Southern for the donation of the building to the NRHS.
There is an urgent need to revitalize the building because of its damage from fire and
subsequent exposure to the elements. The roof needs to be replaced and new windows
placed in the building to protect the structural integrity of the building. The station has
been sitting for three years with a major hole in its roof allowing water to pour into the
building and potentially damage the interior areas. The historical significance of the
station makes it mandatory that rehabilitation work be completed as soon as possible.
Attachment D
Grant Criteria Met:
The Virginian Railway Passenger Station meets seven of the twelve categories under
which a project may qualify, including:
1. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities;
2. Scenic easements and scenic or historic sites;
3. Landscaping and other scenic beautification;
4. Historic preservation;
5. Rehabilitation and operation of Historic transportation Building, Structure, of
Facilities;
6. Mitigation of pollution due to highway run- off and wildlife protection.
7. Establish a Transportation Museum.
In addition the Virginian Railway Passenger Station scores well under most of the
evaluation criteria, particularly relationship to education and historic benefits;
demonstrated need to stabilize this valuable resource; and project usefulness as it
provides a comfort station to the Mill Mountain Greenway and gateway to the Riverside
Center. Public support for this project includes local civic and cultural groups as well as
local citizens is strong.
Cost
The total project cost is approximately $2.2 million for the full renovation of the station
property. This application requests funding for the first (and most urgent) phase of the
project: acquisition and stabilization of the structure, including the repair of the roof, at
the estimated cost of $391,000 ($124,000 for acquisition and 267,000 for roof
stabilization). The 2005-2006 TEA-21 grant application requested $213,600.00 and
received $85,000 in the 2005 appropriations. We are currently asking for the balance of
$182,000 needed to complete Phase One of the project. Match to date is provided in
the value of the building ($124,000) as donated by Norfolk Southern Corporation. This
match equals 40.5% of the balance of the Phase One project cost.
UJ
The Roanoke Times
Roanoke, Virginia
Affidavi~ of Publication
The Roanoke Times
PUBLIC WORKS SERVICE CENTER
1802 COURTLAND RD
ROANOKE VA 24012
REFERENCE: 32166600
08086180
State of Virginia
City of Roanoke
Public Words Display
I, (the undersigned) an authorized representative
of the Times-World Corporation, which corporation
is publisher of the Roanoke Times, a daily
newspaper published in Roanoke, in the State of
Virginia, do certify that the annexed notice was
published in said newspapers on the following
dates:
City/County of Roanoke, Commonwealth/State of
Villa. Sworn and subscribed before me this
~_~Ljday of October 2005. Witness my hand and
~1 seal.
PUBLISHED ON: 10/10
TOTAL COST: 340.48
FILED ON: 10/10/05
................................................. + ......... ~ .........
ut or z. .
Si gnature:__~/_Q~_~_ I '~ Billing Services Representative
........... ....
. The Council of the City of Roanoke wiJI hold a public hl..'::¡ring on
Monda~'. October 17. at 7:00 p.m., or as soon then:atìer as the:
matter'may be heard, in the City Council Chambcr, fourth floor
of the Nod C. Taylor Munidpal Building, 215 Church AveßlIl....
S. W., RoallOkc, .Virginia, in order to consider pfCviously received
applications tor tt.'dcral funds made availabJe through lhe Virginia
. Departmcnt of Tr:mspof1:ation lor transponalion e~hélncl..'mcnt
projects in FY 2005-2006.
Applicants must submit their pr~ject applications to the Virginia
Department of Transportation hy November I, 2005, with formal
endorsement of the jurisdiction in whidl the projel't would be
constnlckd. .
More dt..,tails of the enhancemellt progmm arc avaibhlc.:: in ¡Iw
Transportation Di\'ision oflìcl..' at I S02 Courtlall:d Road, N.E.,
Roanoke, Virginia, phone Ilumber 853-2676.
If you are a person wilh a disability who nc::eds accûnunoc..lntions
for this puhlit.' hearing, COnlat't lhe City Clerk.'~ OlJìcc (~53-2541)
betore 12 Noon. Thursday, OClober 13.2005. .
.,
. Gillen undt.'r my hand Ihi.\" 61/1 (laJ' OfOl'llJher. JOt)S.
¡liar)' Par"·er'.f!...IJ:'_CJe.rk
-or: ,.
.\
\.
\"'
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing on Monday,
October 17, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City
Council Chamber, fourth floor of the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church
Avenue, S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, in order to consider previously received applications
for federal funds made available through the Virginia Department of Transportation for
transportation enhancement projects in FY 2005-2006.
Applicants must submit their project applications to the Virginia Department of
Transportation by November 1, 2005, with formal endorsement of the jurisdiction in
which the project would be constructed.
More details of the enhancement program are available in the Transportation
Division office at 1802 Courtland Road, N.E., Roanoke, Virginia, phone number 853-
2676.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations for this public
hearing, contact the City Clerk's Office (853-2541) before 12 Noon, Thursday,
October 13, 2005.
Given under my hand this 6th day of October, 2005.
Mary Parker, City Clerk
Notice to Publisher:
Please publish in the Virginia Section of The Roanoke Times on Monday, October 10,
2005, in block style, 2 col. x 4 inches.
Please send affidavit to:
Mary F. Parker, City Clerk
215 Church Avenue, S.W.
Roanoke, Virginia 24011
(540) 853-2541
Send bill to:
Kenneth H. King, Jr., P.E., Manager Division of Transportation
Public Works Service Center
1802 Courtland Road, N.E.
Roanoke, Virginia 24012
(540) 853-2676
The Council of the City of Roanoke will hold a public hearing on
Monday, October 17, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be heard, in the City Council Chamber, fourth floor
of the Noel C. Taylor Municipal Building, 215 Church Avenue,
S.W., Roanoke, Virginia, in order to consider previously received
applications for federal funds made available through the Virginia
Department of Transportation for transportation enhancement
projects in FY 2005-2006.
Applicants must submit their project applications to the Virginia
Department of Transportation by November l, 2005, with formal
endorsement of the jurisdiction in which the project would be
constructed.
More details of the enhancement program are available in the
Transportation Division office at 1802 Courtland Road, N.E.,
Roanoke, Virginia, phone number 853-2676.
If you are a person with a disability who needs accommodations
for this public hearing, contact the City Clerk's Office (853-2541)
before 12 Noon, Thursday, October 13, 2005.
Given under my hand this 6th day of October, 2005.
Mary Parker, City Clerk